论文部分内容阅读
Abstract:： Interlanguage fossilization is a popular issue of second language acquisition ( SLA) research, and has not been sufficiently explored on both theoretical and empirical levels in the literature. This paper details the classification and the causes of fossilization. On the basis of the insightful understanding of interlanguage (IL) fossilization, this paper makes an attempt at discussing some pedagogical implications for the prevention and treatment for this phenomenon.
Key words: interlanguage; fossilization; implications; college English teaching
Introduction
Fossilization in second language learning is the phenomenon that second language learners fail to reach target language (TL) competence. In recent few decades, this phenomenon has drawn the attention of many linguists and teachers and has become one focus of SLA and foreign language teaching (FLT) research abroad. The Chinese learners’ IL fossilization has also been observed or touched on by several Chinese researchers. However, this SLA characteristic has not been sufficiently explored both at home and at abroad. This paper is dedicated to synthesizing theoretical explanations for fossilization so far. Based on this, an attempt is made to study the implications for college non-English teaching in China.
ⅠThe notion of fossilization
In the linguistic field, the phenomenon of consistent use of recognizably erroneous forms is regarded as fossilization, which is recognized as a widespread phenomenon in SLA. The most frequently applied definition of fossilization is presented by Selinker (1972). He considers that “fossilizable linguistic phenomena are linguistic items, rules and subsystems which speakers of a particular native language will tend to keep in their IL relative to a particular target language, no matter what the age of the learner or what amount of explanation and instruction he receives in the target language” (Selinker, 1972: 36). In the definition, Selinker suggests that certain items, rules or subsystems that are not fully congruent with the TL can become a permanent part of the learner’s IL, denying further instruction or explanation.
Despite all the different opinions existing regarding the exact nature of fossilization, such as Selinker (1972), Lakshamanan (1992), Sims (1989), and Tollefson & Firn (1983). In general, based on the characteristics of fossilization, it can be classified into temporary and permanent fossilization. While in terms of the formation of fossilization, it can be divided into individual and group fossilization.
ⅡThe possible causes of fossilization
2.1 Social and cultural explanations
From the social and cultural perspective, fossilization is caused by social distance and cultural shock. The wider the social distance between the L2 learning group and the TL group, the less amount of contact L2 learners have with TL speakers, thus the less acquisition takes place and the more difficult it is for members of the L2 learning group to acquire the language of the TL group.
It is widely believed that an individual’s identity is closely linked with the way he speaks. When learning another language, the learner may be anxious about losing one’s own identity. This anxiety affects the SLA most, because they hold up the learner’s acculturation to the TL. Therefore, at the end of acquisition, fossilization occurs.
2.2 Cognitive explanations
Learners’ lack of automated process in the brain for L2 knowledge and their high control of cognitive processing is another reason for fossilization. Learning a L2 is a cognitive process. It involves internalization and automation. Unlike learners’ L1 that needs less attention as it has already gained automation through repeated practice since childhood, the learners’ L2 has not yet become automated in the brain, which requires more attention. Adult L2 learners focus only on communicatively salient features when processing language input for meaning. Features which are usually local will be harder to learn and as a result easy to fossilize (Selinker, 1972).
2.3 Psychological explanations
Language learning is skill learning. According t o psychological theory (Zhu Manshu & Liao Xiaochun, 1990), any skill learning involves a plateau. When the learner’s skill reaches certain point, s/he will not go upward; instead the skill remains on a plateau. This plateau theory applies to L2 fossilization. In the early period of L2 learning, the learner progresses steadily in pronunciation, grammar, semantics, etc. then a climax of competence is reached. After that, a stabilization period emerges. If stabilization lasts for some time, about five years, fossilization follows (Selinker, 1992). In L2 teaching, it is important for teachers and learners recognize the existence of plateau in time to find the right countermeasures to overcome plateau.
2.4 Learners’ learning strategies
The strategies of language learning are attempt to develop competence in the TL and may include such procedures as the use of formal rules, rote memorization, deliberate rehearsal repetition, contextual guessing, looking for recurring patterns, imitating formulaic routines, seeking opportunities to obtain comprehensible input, appealing for assistance from native speakers or teachers, and the like (Omaggio, 1986). These strategies prove effective to many EFL learners. However, some learning strategies such as overgeneralization, simplification are the causes of intralingua errors. Selinker (1972) stated that fossilization resulting from learning strategies in universal. Tarone (1980) points out that language learning strategies are different from language use strategies. A learner wants to learn as much of the language as possible while the language user wants to use it as efficiently and clearly as possible. If learners tend to quote unthinkingly what they remember from the learning materials regardless of the context. If they are stuck in this state, they fossilize.
Ⅲ Implications of the study of fossilization for college English teaching
3.1 Establishing realistic teaching goal
With the society developing, the sole linguistic goal has grown out of date in L2 learning. And the communicative goal is in. However, some foreign language learners aspire after native-speaker competence. For most foreign language learners, this is hard to achieve, esp. in foreign language setting, so communicative competence for L2 learners does not often mean the communicative competence of native-speakers. For most adult learners, native-like competence is undesirable. The practical goal for the Chinese college learners is sufficient accuracy and communicative fluency.
The designation of the communicative competence means reconsideration of the relative importance of accuracy and fluency, language forms and meaningful use. This principle means overt attention to language systems or grammatical explanations occupy a place in the communicative competence classroom, but the students should not be overwhelmed with grammar, because thinking too much about language forms tends to impede learners’ graduation to automation and block pathways to fluency.
3.2 Guaranteeing the quality of classroom input
Providing sufficient optimal input from very beginning is suggested by Krashen (1985) as the way to prevent fossilization. So in college English teaching, to guarantee the quality of classroom input is very important. Classroom input comes from two main sources: one is the course book; another is the teacher talk.
3.2.1 Choosing the right course book
Good teaching materials should meet at least the following three criteria: authentic; up-to-date; and of the right degree of complexity. Under the influence of the Chinese native-language textbooks, our English textbooks used at college tend to be “classical” and demanding instead of being up-to-date and manageable. This kind of book raises affective filter in learners and may turn off the learners. What we often see in the classroom is that the teacher and students end up devoting most of the class time making sense of the texts and its heaps of vocabulary. So we suggest that a relatively easier textbook be more preferable to a tough one, at least it is true for our college so that the learners’ amount of take-in can be greatly increased and more acquisition be achieved.
3.2.2 Guaranteeing the quality of teacher talk
Another important source of classroom input is teacher talk. In EFL contexts like in China, the teacher may be the only person they have chance to speak English. So teacher talk usually makes deeper impression and has a greater influence on the students. For language teachers, language is the tool of the trade. Their use of L2 often becomes the model for the students. High-quality teacher talk pushes the development of learners’ IL forward. So unlike teachers of other subjects, language teacher’s “how to say” is as important as “what to say”.
3.3 Correcting errors appropriately
3.3.1 Taking positive attitude toward errors
“For a long time, it was a tenet of language teaching that, if a learner’s production in the second language was allowed to contain errors or mistakes, then there would be some negative effect on the learner’s progress” (Elaine T. and George Y., 1989:146). More recently, however, there has been a fundamental change of attitude toward the errors in the language learning process. According to the post-structuralists, errors are positive indications of the acquisition process at work and are eventually replaced by correct forms as the learning progresses, so errors are inevitable. With the development of SLA research, the positive attitude toward errors are gaining wider acceptance.
So as a foreign language teacher, we should take positive attitude toward learners’ errors and take errors as something natural and do not take all errors as signs of failure to learn and attempt to correct every error in learners’ oral and written work all the time.
3.3.2 Treating different errors in different ways
From the perspective of fossilization, we mention the following guidelines for error correction:
(1) Focus on persistent incorrect forms. For the Chinese college student non-English majors, their persistent errors are not permanently fossilized. With appropriate feedback the errors can gradually be eradicated. If not treated in time, these errors may become permanently fossilized.
(2) Making learners’ self-noticing and self-correcting a priority. Never do for learners what they can do for themselves. If they are really going to overcome their problems, learners must discover for themselves what is wrong and right.
(3)Negative feedback on students’ linguistic output should be built on ample positive affective feedback; administration of punitive reinforcement should be avoided at all costs (Brown, 1994). When providing feedback on learner errors, it is important for the teacher to have “good timing” and to consider the specific learner’s personality, or what is intended as a positive stimulus is taken by the learner as an insult.
To prevent fossilization, a teacher should be aware of what may be the exact reasons for his learners’ fossilization and try to create an optimal learning environment, in which the learners are affectively cared for, cognitively challenged, linguistically benefited and both sides are actively involved. Besides, changes in policy making nationwide play a key role in enhancing the effectiveness of ELT at tertiary level in China.
Conclusion
The study of IL fossilization has great practical significance for L2 instruction. For the L2 practitioners, understanding fossilization deepens their understanding of learner errors, learner language, and many other aspects involved in L2 teaching and their relationships, on the basis of which they can reflect on their teaching and learners’ learning and make sensible pedagogical decisions. What’s more, by researching the context-related fossilization of their own learners, the teacher can understand the particular problems in their teaching and hope to take the right precautions against fossilization if possible. This in turn, adds valuable insights into fossilization.
References:
[1]Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An Interactive Approach to the Pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
[2] Krashen,S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
[3]Selinker,L.(1992).Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman.
[4]Tarone,E. (1980). Communicative Strategies, Foreign Talk, and Repair in Interlanguage. Language Learning. 30:417-431.
[5]陈慧媛. (1999). 关于语言僵化现象起因的理论探讨. 《外语教学与研究》，（3）： 34-37.
[6]牛强. (2000). 过渡语的石化现象及其教学启示.《外语与外语教学》，（5）：28-30.
[7] 唐承贤. (1997). 差错分析综述.《外语教学与研究》，（2）： 46-50.
Key words: interlanguage; fossilization; implications; college English teaching
Introduction
Fossilization in second language learning is the phenomenon that second language learners fail to reach target language (TL) competence. In recent few decades, this phenomenon has drawn the attention of many linguists and teachers and has become one focus of SLA and foreign language teaching (FLT) research abroad. The Chinese learners’ IL fossilization has also been observed or touched on by several Chinese researchers. However, this SLA characteristic has not been sufficiently explored both at home and at abroad. This paper is dedicated to synthesizing theoretical explanations for fossilization so far. Based on this, an attempt is made to study the implications for college non-English teaching in China.
ⅠThe notion of fossilization
In the linguistic field, the phenomenon of consistent use of recognizably erroneous forms is regarded as fossilization, which is recognized as a widespread phenomenon in SLA. The most frequently applied definition of fossilization is presented by Selinker (1972). He considers that “fossilizable linguistic phenomena are linguistic items, rules and subsystems which speakers of a particular native language will tend to keep in their IL relative to a particular target language, no matter what the age of the learner or what amount of explanation and instruction he receives in the target language” (Selinker, 1972: 36). In the definition, Selinker suggests that certain items, rules or subsystems that are not fully congruent with the TL can become a permanent part of the learner’s IL, denying further instruction or explanation.
Despite all the different opinions existing regarding the exact nature of fossilization, such as Selinker (1972), Lakshamanan (1992), Sims (1989), and Tollefson & Firn (1983). In general, based on the characteristics of fossilization, it can be classified into temporary and permanent fossilization. While in terms of the formation of fossilization, it can be divided into individual and group fossilization.
ⅡThe possible causes of fossilization
2.1 Social and cultural explanations
From the social and cultural perspective, fossilization is caused by social distance and cultural shock. The wider the social distance between the L2 learning group and the TL group, the less amount of contact L2 learners have with TL speakers, thus the less acquisition takes place and the more difficult it is for members of the L2 learning group to acquire the language of the TL group.
It is widely believed that an individual’s identity is closely linked with the way he speaks. When learning another language, the learner may be anxious about losing one’s own identity. This anxiety affects the SLA most, because they hold up the learner’s acculturation to the TL. Therefore, at the end of acquisition, fossilization occurs.
2.2 Cognitive explanations
Learners’ lack of automated process in the brain for L2 knowledge and their high control of cognitive processing is another reason for fossilization. Learning a L2 is a cognitive process. It involves internalization and automation. Unlike learners’ L1 that needs less attention as it has already gained automation through repeated practice since childhood, the learners’ L2 has not yet become automated in the brain, which requires more attention. Adult L2 learners focus only on communicatively salient features when processing language input for meaning. Features which are usually local will be harder to learn and as a result easy to fossilize (Selinker, 1972).
2.3 Psychological explanations
Language learning is skill learning. According t o psychological theory (Zhu Manshu & Liao Xiaochun, 1990), any skill learning involves a plateau. When the learner’s skill reaches certain point, s/he will not go upward; instead the skill remains on a plateau. This plateau theory applies to L2 fossilization. In the early period of L2 learning, the learner progresses steadily in pronunciation, grammar, semantics, etc. then a climax of competence is reached. After that, a stabilization period emerges. If stabilization lasts for some time, about five years, fossilization follows (Selinker, 1992). In L2 teaching, it is important for teachers and learners recognize the existence of plateau in time to find the right countermeasures to overcome plateau.
2.4 Learners’ learning strategies
The strategies of language learning are attempt to develop competence in the TL and may include such procedures as the use of formal rules, rote memorization, deliberate rehearsal repetition, contextual guessing, looking for recurring patterns, imitating formulaic routines, seeking opportunities to obtain comprehensible input, appealing for assistance from native speakers or teachers, and the like (Omaggio, 1986). These strategies prove effective to many EFL learners. However, some learning strategies such as overgeneralization, simplification are the causes of intralingua errors. Selinker (1972) stated that fossilization resulting from learning strategies in universal. Tarone (1980) points out that language learning strategies are different from language use strategies. A learner wants to learn as much of the language as possible while the language user wants to use it as efficiently and clearly as possible. If learners tend to quote unthinkingly what they remember from the learning materials regardless of the context. If they are stuck in this state, they fossilize.
Ⅲ Implications of the study of fossilization for college English teaching
3.1 Establishing realistic teaching goal
With the society developing, the sole linguistic goal has grown out of date in L2 learning. And the communicative goal is in. However, some foreign language learners aspire after native-speaker competence. For most foreign language learners, this is hard to achieve, esp. in foreign language setting, so communicative competence for L2 learners does not often mean the communicative competence of native-speakers. For most adult learners, native-like competence is undesirable. The practical goal for the Chinese college learners is sufficient accuracy and communicative fluency.
The designation of the communicative competence means reconsideration of the relative importance of accuracy and fluency, language forms and meaningful use. This principle means overt attention to language systems or grammatical explanations occupy a place in the communicative competence classroom, but the students should not be overwhelmed with grammar, because thinking too much about language forms tends to impede learners’ graduation to automation and block pathways to fluency.
3.2 Guaranteeing the quality of classroom input
Providing sufficient optimal input from very beginning is suggested by Krashen (1985) as the way to prevent fossilization. So in college English teaching, to guarantee the quality of classroom input is very important. Classroom input comes from two main sources: one is the course book; another is the teacher talk.
3.2.1 Choosing the right course book
Good teaching materials should meet at least the following three criteria: authentic; up-to-date; and of the right degree of complexity. Under the influence of the Chinese native-language textbooks, our English textbooks used at college tend to be “classical” and demanding instead of being up-to-date and manageable. This kind of book raises affective filter in learners and may turn off the learners. What we often see in the classroom is that the teacher and students end up devoting most of the class time making sense of the texts and its heaps of vocabulary. So we suggest that a relatively easier textbook be more preferable to a tough one, at least it is true for our college so that the learners’ amount of take-in can be greatly increased and more acquisition be achieved.
3.2.2 Guaranteeing the quality of teacher talk
Another important source of classroom input is teacher talk. In EFL contexts like in China, the teacher may be the only person they have chance to speak English. So teacher talk usually makes deeper impression and has a greater influence on the students. For language teachers, language is the tool of the trade. Their use of L2 often becomes the model for the students. High-quality teacher talk pushes the development of learners’ IL forward. So unlike teachers of other subjects, language teacher’s “how to say” is as important as “what to say”.
3.3 Correcting errors appropriately
3.3.1 Taking positive attitude toward errors
“For a long time, it was a tenet of language teaching that, if a learner’s production in the second language was allowed to contain errors or mistakes, then there would be some negative effect on the learner’s progress” (Elaine T. and George Y., 1989:146). More recently, however, there has been a fundamental change of attitude toward the errors in the language learning process. According to the post-structuralists, errors are positive indications of the acquisition process at work and are eventually replaced by correct forms as the learning progresses, so errors are inevitable. With the development of SLA research, the positive attitude toward errors are gaining wider acceptance.
So as a foreign language teacher, we should take positive attitude toward learners’ errors and take errors as something natural and do not take all errors as signs of failure to learn and attempt to correct every error in learners’ oral and written work all the time.
3.3.2 Treating different errors in different ways
From the perspective of fossilization, we mention the following guidelines for error correction:
(1) Focus on persistent incorrect forms. For the Chinese college student non-English majors, their persistent errors are not permanently fossilized. With appropriate feedback the errors can gradually be eradicated. If not treated in time, these errors may become permanently fossilized.
(2) Making learners’ self-noticing and self-correcting a priority. Never do for learners what they can do for themselves. If they are really going to overcome their problems, learners must discover for themselves what is wrong and right.
(3)Negative feedback on students’ linguistic output should be built on ample positive affective feedback; administration of punitive reinforcement should be avoided at all costs (Brown, 1994). When providing feedback on learner errors, it is important for the teacher to have “good timing” and to consider the specific learner’s personality, or what is intended as a positive stimulus is taken by the learner as an insult.
To prevent fossilization, a teacher should be aware of what may be the exact reasons for his learners’ fossilization and try to create an optimal learning environment, in which the learners are affectively cared for, cognitively challenged, linguistically benefited and both sides are actively involved. Besides, changes in policy making nationwide play a key role in enhancing the effectiveness of ELT at tertiary level in China.
Conclusion
The study of IL fossilization has great practical significance for L2 instruction. For the L2 practitioners, understanding fossilization deepens their understanding of learner errors, learner language, and many other aspects involved in L2 teaching and their relationships, on the basis of which they can reflect on their teaching and learners’ learning and make sensible pedagogical decisions. What’s more, by researching the context-related fossilization of their own learners, the teacher can understand the particular problems in their teaching and hope to take the right precautions against fossilization if possible. This in turn, adds valuable insights into fossilization.
References:
[1]Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An Interactive Approach to the Pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
[2] Krashen,S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
[3]Selinker,L.(1992).Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman.
[4]Tarone,E. (1980). Communicative Strategies, Foreign Talk, and Repair in Interlanguage. Language Learning. 30:417-431.
[5]陈慧媛. (1999). 关于语言僵化现象起因的理论探讨. 《外语教学与研究》，（3）： 34-37.
[6]牛强. (2000). 过渡语的石化现象及其教学启示.《外语与外语教学》，（5）：28-30.
[7] 唐承贤. (1997). 差错分析综述.《外语教学与研究》，（2）： 46-50.