Selinker and Lamendella (1978) defined fossilization as a permanent cessation of IL learning before the learner has attained TL norms at all levels of linguistic structure and in all discourse domains in spite of the learner’s positive ability, opportunity, and motivation to learn and acculturate into target society.

____

From Second Language Research (publication); Reconceptualizing fossilization in second language acquisition: a review, by Ashley Fidler, Georgetown University, 2006.

Fossilization lacks a unified definition and has not been adequately described empirically.

Selinker introduced the term “fossilization” in 1972.

Global fossilization affects entire interlanguage. Local fossilization affects just one subsystem e.g. past-tense marking.

Fossilization as a product = something that can be observed directly: a state of permanently frozen development despite continuous exposure to adequate input

Fossilization as a process = cognitive process that can be observed only indirectly; tendency toward cessation of development.

One thing fossilization explores is why children learn languages more effectively than adults. For example, what are “maturational constraints” (i.e. critical period effects) and language transfer artifacts? (That’s macro-level factors, occurring across learners = inter-learner

Micro level = intralearner: which linguistic features fossilize within a certain individual.

Both types of analysis are necessary.

Han, the author being reviewed in this article, believes fossilization is local (not global) and is a process (not a product).

They discuss a theory that “L2 learners are universally preconditioned to fossilization, both biological (i.e. critical period effects) and cognitive (i.e. native language transfer)… Age of arrival into the target language is highlighted as the strongest predictor of ultimate attainment… studies [Johnson & Newport, 1989] provide evidence for age-related decline in syntactic competence starting around age 7…

Affective variables modulate ultimate levels of proficiency. [That’s true of me!!]

Additional factors have influence on fossilization: environmental, social, cognitive and psychological [where does biological fit; it was mentioned elsewhere in this context]

Multiple Effects Principle (MEP): a way to understand the combination of micro-level [individual] factors in fossilization.

Five main approaches to fossilization research: longitudinal, typical-error, advanced-learner, corrective-feedback, and length-of-residence)

A book by Han (2004) has a chapter on teaching and fossilization.

Every interlanguage encompasses both success and failure.

Larsen-Freeman: “What if we acknowledge, instead, that there is no end state because, first of all, there is no end?

Language itself is ever changing, so “Conclusive evidence of non-development may never be found because the target itself is not stable.”

Tarone writes about this dynamic interlanguage and the importance of language play as a force of creativity that’s essential to the process of language acquisition and change. I should check out this book. Interesting topic to me: language play. Language play may serve to destabilize rules or lexical items that may otherwise fossilize (even if they were correct to begin with): e.g. someone making up a word that’s similar to a real word in the target language.

Conclusion: Article expresses a preference for a local approach to fossilization. F does not entail an invariable frozen product nor a causal mechanism.