Interlanguage Theory: Emergent Fossilization
As a being characteristic of second language learning,
syntactic, morphological and semantic features could be overgeneralized and
fossilized by learners of a second language. Noting the following a stance from
my teacher diary that occurred recurrently; S: Teacher, “I putted my study page
in my English file”, T: Oh, you mean “I put my study page in my English file.” S:
No, Miss Dinc, “I putted them all in English file.” Outlying from
empirical study, this scenario could be an example of fossilization in English
Language. More specifically, I could define that fossilization is the
often-observed loss of progress in the acquisition of second language in spite
of interaction with L2 and motivation.
Reflected upon the articles by Brian MacWhinney
“Emergent Fossilization” and Ashley Fidler “Reconceptualizing fossilization in
second language acquisition: a review, the term “fossilization” has not been
defined on the grounds that empirical studies efficiently because of
longitudinal research needs. As Selinker characterized, “Fossilization, a
mechanism … underlies surface linguistic material which speakers will tend to
keep in their IL productive performance, no matter what the age of the learner
or the amount of instruction he receives in the TL.” (Selinker 1972: 229) This
is directly related with “interlanguage theory” which is developed by second
language learner who overgeneralizes the rules of target language or transfer
any features of first language.
In Fidler’s article review, it has been introduced Han
(2004) and Odlin’s (2005) conceptual framework to dig into fossilization
research. In order to diagnose fossilization, it needs to be observed by its
former symptoms such as backsliding. More specifically, I encounter this
backslide almost each class I have. After having presentation, practice and
product phase concisely, some kids in class still have trouble internalizing
the “third person” –s inflectional morpheme” and produce “ She go- He go” even though they did right in their quiz
papers or study pages. Contrary, once they practice it in writing or speaking
activities, they could forget the use –s ending. It indicates that they are not
in the right phase of production automatically. In addition, there are some
various factors effecting fossilization as framed Han’s microscopic analysis.
Social, environmental, cognitive and psychological factors could be enumerated
the constraints of second language acquisition. (as cited in Fidler, 2006
p.404) another instance for the term “backsliding”, I have an ESL parent from
my current class student who insists on speaking English with his son all the
time and wants to support his son in English learning process. This causes a
recession in his learning phase and increases tension by putting too much
pressure to child’s English speaking. Then it results in frustration and lack
of progress in spite of individual support courses and practices.
One another stance for linguistic features associated
fossilization is about namely parental involvement as an environmental factor
in homework or project activities. My student who studies English with her
father at home by interacting and practicing language together, she does good
job in homework assignments as well as quizzes. Assumingly, she hears from her
father saying “We went to gym yesterday” correctly and uses it as she has
heard. Once she realized the past tense –ed formation to the verb, she
overgeneralized this inflectional past morpheme in all verbs. Refining the rule
takes time but I believe that it is a sign of progress in learning English. As
it is analyzed Han’s microscopic analysis of fossilization examines specific
behavioral reflexes of fossilization by exploring inter-learner and
intra-learner. Language acquisition is multi-faced because of the factors play
role in process of acquisition. Hence, there is no single behavioral approach
to explain why fossilization occurs in that process. There might be social,
cognitive, psychological factors and idiosyncratic features of both target and domain
language in sense.
Shortly, our
English learners’ common language fossilization is based on numerous reasons
behind. As a stance, a nine-year old kid from my class who transferred to our
class from a public school, she is not confident in English classes and she has
fear of failure due to lack of exposure to target language. As a treatment, I
have begun to study with her both creating a linguistic framework and
motivational support. I ponder that it is a longitudinal study with her and it
will take time to deal with her stuck in that certain level as an internal process
forming and making utterances as well. These aforementioned factors might cause
the cessation of L2 learning and affect learner’s motivation and performance as
a result of internal processes such as code-switching and backsliding.
Furthermore, there is another affecting factor in
fossilization that has been foregoing discussion by researchers past decades. I
have a judgment that classroom language instruction has both positive and
negative impact on learning English. Input from teaching materials, teacher
talk and teaching strategies and so forth could inhibit fossilization. It is
hard to control fossilizable use of language. Consequently, for example, I had
an English Instructor in my senior year at the university after accomplishment
of some courses in USA; I could get a chance to compare language in use and in
practical use. My instructor had a form of interlanguage who pronounced a word
incorrectly concerning the stress, so some of my peers in that class had most
likely to same problem pronouncing the verb “Prepare” as [Per-peir] instead of
[pre-pair] as a result a little chance to correct it in advance. Still, I
remember myself correcting her by myself deep inside in each of her utterance.
I could conclude that to some extent, “YES”, it is true that language
instruction could inhibit fossilization.
From theoretical point of view, a learner’s L1 play in
L2 acquisition and fossilization. Particularly, an interference error Turkish
to English, such occurred in my classes, “Teacher,
I am loving you” as a misuse instance for present continuous tense. In
direct translation, student might confuse on getting semantic text. Moreover,
learner exposes that language by means of sociocultural input from the ads “McDonald: I’m lovin”. The plateau in
the L1 has crucial role in development of L2 by means of pragmatics. For
instance, inflectional morpheme plural –s is got involved with irregular plural
nouns; sheep, fish as a result of occurrences; fishes or sheeps. Then, I could sort out the problem why my
students have a tendency to overgeneralize the rules of plural –s in terms of
Turkish morpheme –ler/-lar within his/her interlanguage framework.
On the other hand, as it is clearly evaluated in MacWhinney’s
article, there is age-related factors behind the emergent fossilization in
addition to other ten hypothesis referred in his article. For example, as an
entrenchment of a form “went or thought”
serves common block overgeneralizations such as “goed or thinked” especially in young learners as an outcome of
irregular morphological forms. (MacWhinney, n.d. ) We could name it as an
overgeneralization but it needs to have longitudinal research to have a
reliable and valid data to define the problem and find a treatment as well. In
both articles of this week have common perspectives to fossilization by means
of ongoing hypothesis and methodologies. It is an inevitable state in and it
needs more empirical data from the real classroom environment or from street
learners’ language in use focusing on all aspects of English Language.
Therefore, general directions for the further
researches ought to be based on new methodological perspectives of teaching
styles in that digital era and the way one acquire a language in the frame of
globalization by providing sufficient and optimal input in early ages to
decrease fossilization among the learners.
References
Fidler,
A. (2006). Reconceptualizing fossilization in second language acquisition: a
review. Sage
Publications. 22(3), 398-411.
doi:10.1191/0267658306sr273ra
MacWhinney,
B. (2009). Emergent fossilization. Retrieved from
Comments
Post a Comment