c3109550 LING6030 Essay S1, 2014 Fossilization

1

Fossilization is a contradictory phenomenon that attempts to explain the end state of second
language acquisition, while acknowledging that interlanguage is a dynamic and ongoing
process that has no clear end state. It is at best a flawed concept that attempts to standardise
and measure the relative success or failure of a learners attempt to learn a second language
by measuring a second language learners individual attainment of a language against native
proficiency, through debatable levels and parameters. Native proficiency itself, however, is
also a problematic concept and can be defined by a number of parameters and variables. For
example; English, as a language, is so dynamic in its current existence that native proficiency
would be extremely difficult to define. As a concept, then, fossilization is one that continues
to be highly problematic for Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research, for it defies easy
definition, description and explanation. (Larsen-Freeman, 2006, p. 189) This makes it an
elusive concept that is very difficult to assess and research. Additionally, there are very vague
borders between fossilization and other numerous related concepts such as critical period,
maturational constraints, and stabilization. Despite this, certain research continues to argue
both its validity and value to the field of SLA, but even this research acknowledges that the
concept is flawed and needs both urgent revision and clearer parameters; this has resulted in
the formulation of the recent Selective Fossilization Hypothesis. (Han, 2009, 2013a) The
current unclear and varied interpretations of what the concept means have led to equally
varied results from research; research itself that has been claimed as inadequate. (Long, 2003)
It can be contended, then, that both the current reconstructions of the concept of fossilization,
(Han, 2013a; Selinker, 2014) and the criticisms of the research to date (Larsen-Freeman,
2006; Long, 2003) are attempting to revive a concept that has always had problematic
implications for SLA theory and will continue to.


One of the main problematic features of fossilization as a concept is its vagueness, or
lack of a clear definition. (Fidler, 2006) This can be attributed to the fact that when the term
was first introduced (Selinker, 1972) it was in conjunction with the newly developed idea of
interlanguage; and while interlanguage developed into a solid concept referring to the unique
grammar second language learners produce, (Ellis, 1994) the concept of fossilization remains
incomplete, without a unified definition or comprehensive research method (Rong, 2005).
Since this conception in 1972, however, fossilization has been assumed to exist and
c3109550 LING6030 Essay S1, 2014 Fossilization
2

interpreted various ways by researching academics. This has resulted in the modern existence
of fossilization as one where the parameters of its definition are constantly debated. As a
result, researchers continue to conduct research on their individual assumptions of what
constitutes fossilization. Basic assumptions that fossilization is determined by a learners
length of residence in the target language country and amount of exposure to the target
language have underpinned entire studies of the concept that variably classify it as a process,
or state (Jiang, 2000) of second language acquisition. The problems that arise from such
varied definitions are that they have led to inconclusive research that cannot be empirically
validated or compared. Each researcher who has conducted a study into fossilization as
worked with their own definition of fossilization, and as a result, their own assumptions of
what the state or process of fossilization is, and what learners classify as fossilized. The end
result of this is that in recent years a number of prominent positions conflicted over the
validity of fossilization as a concept have been realised. They can be loosely categorised into
those for and against fossilization, or rather, those who emphasise the problems with the
current concept of fossilization, and those who emphasise how the concept must be revised
and updated with more contemporary understandings of second language acquisition theories
and research. What both positions recognise is that fossilization is a complicated construct
with no clear definition, and this has historically presented problems and continues to have
problematic implications for SLA theory.

Michael Long, who claims that fossilization has been beset with definitional and
methodological ambiguities from the outset (2003, p. 518) systematically critiques the
findings of such existing studies of fossilization as problematic on the grounds that they
assume, and not demonstrate fossilization; select inappropriate learners; base findings on
insufficient data; and use inadequate analyses (Long, 2003) The common problematic
qualities of these studies is their assumption that fossilization exists and has already occurred
or has not occurred in their study subjects. It is on these assumptions that their language use
is categorised as behaviours of non-fossilised learners and fossilized learners. (Lennon,
1991; Washburn, 1992) The fact that these studies are based on an assumed understanding of
fossilization is particularly problematic when no single definition of the concept exists; as
such these problems that Long identifies with the existing research into fossilization serve to
highlight that it is a highly flawed concept, and this is not only acknowledged by Long,
(2003) but also Ellis, who recognises that fossilization is problematic because of how it is
c3109550 LING6030 Essay S1, 2014 Fossilization
3

perfectly possible for a learner to be fossilized in some aspects of the L2 but to continue to
develop in others. (1994, p. 28) He also stresses the problems with the target emphasis on
native-like proficiency. Language systems, including that of the native speaker, are
constantly changing and thus it does not make sense to measure a learners competence
against some static notion of a native-speaker target. (1994, pp. 29-30) This notion that there
is no static target of the native speaker in itself undermines the concept of fossilization. The
entire concept rests on the idea that fossilization is the halting, or interruption of a process
with a clear end state. It is also dependent on the idea that fossilization is a permanent state,
and yet, all studies to date have made their own assumptions of how many years constitute
permanence and simply made conclusions based on these assumptions, which vary from
Selinkers suggested minimum period of two to five years, (1972) to sixteen years, (Long,
1997) and longer. These perspectives confirm that fossilization is a flawed concept with a
multiplicity of interpretations leading to inconclusive research; this is the stronger argument
but it is also the more recent and still less acknowledged view. There is substantial argument
that fossilization is a valid component of second language acquisition; these arguments will
also be examined for the support they lend to the idea that the nature of fossilization is a
problematic one.

Rather than assume that Long and Larson-Freeman are accurate in their views that
fossilization is invalid, it is important to also examine the strengths of academic arguments
that posit that fossilization is a measurable and valid area of second language acquisition
research, as both positions still contend with fossilization and prove it, at best, flawed and
difficult to measure. Most prominent in the school of thought that advocates fossilization is
Zhao Hong Han, who has contributed numerous studies, books and articles to the ongoing
survival and revival of the concept (2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2008, 2009, 2013a, 2013b; Han &
Odlin, 2006) Hans work defines fossilization as an interlanguage-unique phenomenon in
which a semi-developed linguistic construction shows permanent resistance to environmental
influence and thus fails to progress towards the target. (2013a, p. 133) The key words in this
definition that have already been identified as problematic are permanent and target; both of
these aspects remain essential components of Hans understanding of fossilization, and yet
her revised Selective Fossilization Hypothesis (SFH) does not measure either. Instead it
delineates an acquisition zone and a fossilization zone (Han, 2013a) and presents
fossilization as more of a continuum-based, non-static state of second language acquisition.
c3109550 LING6030 Essay S1, 2014 Fossilization
4

In this new hypothesis, fossilization has been rebranded as a function; specifically a function
of the interaction of an unmarked usage in L1 and a piece of non-robust input providing weak
evidence for some TL usage. (Han, 2013a, p. 145) This new definition can be understood
only by acknowledging that Han sees use of the first language (L1) as quintessential to the
identification of fossilization; equally significant is the quality of the input that the leaner
receives of the target language (TL.) The model Han provides (Figure 1) uses the terms
markedness and robustness to measure how these are variables to fossilization.
Markedness refers to how frequent and variable the learners use of their first language is,
and robustness refers to how frequent and variable their use of the target language is
(L2/TL) Compared, these variable serve as indicators of whether the learner is within the
acquisition zone, or the fossilization zone.

Although Hans studies and theories emphasise that fossilization has concrete effects on a
learners interlanguage development and acquisition of a second language, her reconstruction
of the concept has acknowledged that is a vague and changeable concept in how it has moved
away from other interpretations of fossilization as a fixed state for either a learner, their
interlanguage or a part thereof, into an interpretation of fossilization as a zone or function in
which there are various possible positions. In particular, her interpretation of fossilization
focuses on discreet areas of the interlanguage linguistic constructions rather than an
attempt to argue that the interlanguage, or the learner, as a whole fossilizes. This is one of the
many reinterpretations of Selinkers original Fossilization Hypothesis, (1972) and Han admits
c3109550 LING6030 Essay S1, 2014 Fossilization
5

that it is yet to be empirically validated. (2013a, p. 146) It must be acknowledged that it is
difficult to draw conclusions on Hans research without comprehensive assessment of her
large body work; a criticism of her position in favour of fossilization as an impossibility is
not the purpose here. Rather, Hans research has been highly influential on the development
of fossilization as a concept and any interpretation of the contemporary state of fossilization
must recognise her contribution to the study of the concept. In essence, even her current
position supports the conclusion that fossilization continues, as best to be a problematic
phenomenon for the SLA field of research and theory.

The implications, therefore of fossilization for SLA theory in this light appear
destined to remain unclear. Recent critiques of the research into the concept call for either its
complete reconstruction, (Larsen-Freeman, 2006) or abandonment in favour of stabilization
(Long, 2003) which is argued as a more measurable concept in that it does not claim
permanence and does not explicitly rely on a target to be achieved. Han recently
acknowledged (in Gass & Mackey, 2013) Larsen-Freemans position that future fossilisation
research must recognise that interlanguage is firstly a language, and this means it is a
dynamic system that the fixed view of fossilization contradicts. (Larsen-Freeman, 2006) She
acknowledged that this aspect of language has failed to be recognised by fossilizations
target-centric nature, and the only way for fossilization to continue to be relevant would be
for future research to take into account the fact that the target language as state the learner
aims to achieve is not monolithic and is always moving. (Larsen-Freeman, 2006, p. 195)
Han did not, however, endorse the practice of researchers to treat fossilization and
stabilization as interchangeable, or a single concept, on the grounds that it would mask
second language learning complexity and lump together disparate phenomena. (Han, in Gass
& Mackey, 2013) The purposes of this argument does not warrant a more thorough
description of the proposed and also highly contested distinction between stabilisation and
fossilization; suffice to say that this relationship is yet another feature of fossilization that has
been interpreted from a range of varying perspectives. It adds weight to the complexity and
problematic nature of defining and distinguishing fossilization as a distinct phenomenon in
SLA theory and research.


c3109550 LING6030 Essay S1, 2014 Fossilization
6

This paper did not attempt to thoroughly investigate all of the many existing varied
arguments surrounding fossilization. Indeed, the discussion is ongoing in SLA theoretical
research, with scholars continually presenting evidence that dispels previous definitions and
interpretations of the concept by providing alternative approaches, arguments and studies; for
example see Han, 2013b. Rather, this paper has attempted to acknowledge just how
problematic fossilization has been and will continue to be for SLA theory and subsequently
instructional pedagogy in second languages. By reviewing the arguments for and against
fossilization, we see that by its very unclear nature, there can be no clear or conclusive
answer as to whether the concept does or does not provide valid data for SLA theory or
research. When it comes to fossilization, it really depends on who is read and how
convincingly they present their argument.

References
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition: Oxford University Press.
Fidler, A. (2006). Reconceptualizing fossilization in second language acquisition: a review.
Second Language Research, 22(3), 398-411.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2013). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition.
Hoboken: Routledge.
Han, Z. (2003). Fossilisation: From Simplicity to Complexity. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(2), 95-128. doi:
10.1080/13670050308667775
Han, Z. (2004a). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition (Vol. 5): Multilingual
Matters.
Han, Z. (2004b). Fossilization: five central issues. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 14(2), 212-242.
Han, Z. (2008). Demystifying fossilization for foreign language teaching and learning.
Han, Z. (2009). Interlanguage and fossilization: Towards an analytic model. Contemporary
applied linguistics, 1, 137-162.
Han, Z. (2013a). Forty years later: Updating the Fossilization Hypothesis. Language
teaching, 46(02), 133-171.
Han, Z. (2013b). FossilizationA classic concern of SLA research. The Routledge
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 476.
Han, Z., & Odlin, T. (2006). Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (Vol. 14):
Multilingual Matters.
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied
linguistics, 21(1), 47-77. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.1.47
c3109550 LING6030 Essay S1, 2014 Fossilization
7

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Second language acquisition and the issue of fossilization: There
is no end, and there is no state. In T. Odlin & Z. Han (Eds.), Studies of Fossilization in
Second Language Acquisition (pp. 189-200). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lennon, P. (1991). Error and the very advanced learner. IRAL-International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 29(1), 31-44.
Long, M. H. (2003). Stabilization and Fossilization in Interlanguage Development. In C. M.
Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
487-536). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Rong, H. (2005). Interlanguage Fossilization: Definition, Explanation, and Research Method
[J]. Foreign Language Education, 3, 009.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 10(1-4), 209-232.
Selinker, L. (2014). Interlanguage 40 years on Interlanguage: Forty years later (Vol. 39, pp.
136).
Washburn, G. (1992). Fossilization in second language acquisition. Ph. D. Dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania.