The Study of Fossilization and Method to Solve语言石化现象研究及解决办法

《The Study of Fossilization and Method to Solve语言石化现象研究及解决办法》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《The Study of Fossilization and Method to Solve语言石化现象研究及解决办法（25页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、The Study of Fossilization and Method to Solve语言石化现象研究及解决办法Contents1. Introduction12. The Definition of Fossilization22.1 What is Fossilization22.2 The Classification of Fossilization42.3 The Stabilization and Fossilization52.4 Is Fossilization Global or Local?63. Behavioral Reflexes and Causal Vari

2、ables113.1 Lack of Access to Universal Grammar113.2 Quality of Input113.3 Lack of Sensitivity to Input123.4Absence of Corrective Feedback123.5The Emotional State133.6Critical Period Hypothesis143.6.1Critical Period Effects on Language Learning154. Second Language Instruction and Fossilization164.1Ho

3、w Dose Instruction Aid Acquisition164.2How Dose Instruction Promote Fossilization175. Summary and Conclusion17Works Cited18 The Study of Fossilization and Method to Solve摘 要语言石化现象已经成为二语学习者进一步提高语言能力的巨大问题，而对于中国学生来说更是如此，外语学习到一定程度后，就总是处于一种似乎停滞不前的状态，至少看不到明显的进步，自己的外语听起来永远是外语，无法像本族语者那样运用自如，甚至有的学习者达到高级学习阶段时

4、，整体外语水平与能力反不如从前。作者也遇到了这个问题，认为许多学生和老师也会遇到这样的问题，因此作者在这篇论文中探讨了语言石化。鉴于国内外大量的研究，语言石化有很多不同的定义和阐释，根据以前的研究，语言石化可以分为不同的类别。那就是语音石化，词素石化，句法石化，语篇石化，语义和语用石化。根据石化的程度可以分为暂时性石化和永久性石化。如何区分暂时性石化和永久性石化，引起石化的原因是什么，在语言教学和学习过程中如何避免石化，这是写这篇论文的目的。因为作者的能力有限，解决石化的方法很多是引用前人的研究，将来还需要很多进一步的实证研究。关键词：语言石化；石化分类；石化原因；解决办法AbstractIt

5、s universally acknowledged that language fossilization has become a big problem for L2 learners to be very successful in their language learning or acquisition.It is very easy to distinguish L2 learner from native speaker by their accent,word choice and grammatical features.Despite of their continuo

6、us exposure to language input and consistent efforts,they become caught up somewhere in the learning process and find themselves unable to progess toward the target language(TL);even some advanced learners have backslid in their language competence.The author also meet the problem and think that a l

7、ot of students and teachers have the problem.So the author has tried to probe into fossilization.In the light of the efficiency in the previous studies abroad and home:there are many definitions and adequate descriptions about fossilization.According to previous study, fossilization can be divided i

8、nto different groups.That is，phonetic ,morphological, syntactic, discourse,semantic and pragmatic.Further,some people generalize the major categories and manifestations of fossilization at different levels.For instances,in phonology,Chinese students tend to make wrong stress and to speak in the fore

9、ign accent.From the degree of fossilization,the fossilization can be classified into temporary fossilization and permanent fossilization.How to divided temporary fossilization and permanent fossilization?What cause the language fossilization?How to reduce fossilization in language instruction and le

10、arning?This is the objective of the paper. Because of the authors competence,the method to solve fossilization is referenced from others.Further empirical studies need to be conducted in future.Key words: fossilization; type of fossilization; fossilization causes; the method to solveThe Study of Fos

11、silization and Method to Solve1. Introduction Background of the study.Most L2 learners and lecturer find that after they reached a certain stage of development,they cant achieve L2 proficiency further.American linguistic,Selinker noted that many L2 learners(perhaps as many as 95 percent) fail to rea

12、ch target language competence.They stop learning when their interlanguage contains at least some rules different from those of target language system.An important characteristic that can be observed in the study of the interlanguage,second and foreign language learners is that some language features

13、 are differ from the correct or more adequate target language form while do not seem to follow any kind of proficiency in the target language but quite the opposite.These interlanguage forms seem to be used by language learners in spite of their theoretical capacity(both lingustic and intellectual)

14、to include the right target language form in their interlanguage repertoire.This phenomenon of certain lingustic features becoming fixed in some or most learners interlanguage has been referred in literature ,after Selinker as fossilization.The phenomenon mentioned above leads us to consider why maj

15、ority of L2 learners (advanced learners included)stop progressing in their acquisition of target language and why some kinds of errors tend to persist in their interlanguage and what are the traces of their fossilization progressing.The phenomenon also exist among language teachers in colleges thoug

16、h they are considered advanced English learners and theachers. As we all know childrens learn their mother tongue quickly and proficiency.Chomsky contributes it to LAD.Does the fossilization occur among L2 learners because of lacking LAD or others reasons?Because this issue is still being studied,ma

17、ny theories still have arguements and many aspects are not clear,the writer just quotes the experts study trying to find the method to solve fossilization.2. The Definition of FossilizationFor more than three decades now,the construct of fossilization has been subjected to theoretical and empirical

18、queries under a range of different terms,not only under its by now traditional name of fossilization(Selinker,1972;passim the SLA literature),but also as virtual halt(e.g.,Lowther,1983;Perdue,1984),lingustrosities(Hammerly,1983),plateau(e.g.Flynn&ONeil,1988),rigormortis(Long,1988,1997),stopping shor

19、t(Towell&Hawkins,1994),fossilizaed variation(Schachter,1996a),permanent-optionality(Sorace,1996),siesta(Sharwood Smith,1997,SLART-L on-line communication),endstate(Lardiere,1998a),and so forth.2.1 What is FossilizationThe notion of fossilizationdates back to scholars such as Weinreich(1953)and Nemse

20、r(1971).Weinreich,for example,talked about permanent grammatical influence(cited in Selinker,1992;41)and Nemser about permanent intermediate systems and subsystems(p.174)Both researchers not only recognized the phenomenon but also intergated it into their theoretical perspectives(For an accessible d

21、iscussion of the earliest thoughts on fossilization,see Selinker,1992)The term fossilization was introduced to the field of SLA by Selinker in1972 on the basic of his observation that vast majority of second language learners fail to achieve native-speaker competence.Fossilization,as then conceptual

22、ized,implicated both a cognitive mechanism know as structural phenomenon.As a cognitive mechanism,it was thought to be a constituent of a talent psychological structure that dictates a learnersacquisition of a second language.As a performance-related structural notion,it denoted specificallythe regu

23、lar reapparance in second-language performance of linguistic phenomena which were thought to be eradicated in the performance of learner(p.211).The two functions were conceived to be interrelated:Fossilization,a mechanism.underlies surface linguistic material which speakers will tend to keep in thei

24、r IL productive performance,no matter what the age of the learner or the amount of instruction he receives in the TL.(Selinker,1972:229)Further,as a performance-based structural notion, fossilization was indirectly,rather than directly,defined in terms of putative fossilizable structures: Fossilizab

25、le linguistic phenomena are linguistic items,rules,and subsystems which speakers of a particular L1 tend to keep in their IL relative to a particular TL,no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation and instruction he receives in the TL.(Selinker,1972:215)This earliest conception su

26、ggests,inter alia,several properties of fossilization.First,fossilizable structures are persistent;second,they are resistant to external influences;and third,fossilization affects both child and adult L2 learners alike.Behind these,it is important to note,is the implication that L2 learners lack the

27、 ability to attain native-like competence.And precisely it is this view that accords the construct of fossilization its intrinsic interest;it is what has drawn the attention of many second language researchers and practitioners. Since1972,the notion of fossilization has been a gradual abstraction an

28、d an expansion in scope.In 1978,Selinker and Lamendella explicitly defined it in terms of:.a permanent cessation of IL learning before the learner has attained TL norms at all levels of lingustic structure and in all discourse domains in spite of the learners positive ability,opportunity,and motivat

29、ion to learn and acculturate into target society.(1978:187)Fossilization,in the view expressed above,is coterminous with permanent cessation of learning ,thereby going beyond the backslidingof linguistic structures that were thought to be eradicated.The scope of fossilizable structures was also exte

30、nded fromlinguistic items,rules and subsystems to all levels of linguistic structure and in all discourse domains.The role played by the learners positive ability,opportunity,and motivationwas minimized,thereby suggesting the inevitability of fossilization and thus its innateness. In Selinker and La

31、kshmanan(1992),fossilization is defined structurally in terms of persistent non-target-like structures,thus incorporating long-term persistence as a defining feature of empirical discovering of fossilization. Fossilization in the sense of a general cessation of learning would, in Selinkers view,culm

32、inate in ultimate fossilized competence(Selinker,1996a,b): Fossilization is the process whereby the learner creates a cessation of interlanguage learning,thus stopping the interlanguage from developing,it is hypothesized,in a permanent way.The argument is that no adult can hope to speak a second lan

33、guage in such a way thats/he is indistinguishable from native speakers of that language.(Selinker,1996b)On this view,then,the ultimate attainment of adult L2 acquisition is a fossilized interlanguage;fossilization is inevitable;and no adult L2 learner would ever be able to pass for native in all con

34、texts,In sum,since1972,Selinker has broadened the referential scope of fossilization:frombacksliding tocessation of learningand to ultimate attainment,gradually moving away from the5% estimate that he made initially concerning the hypothesized successful population of SLA to the claim that no adult

35、L2 learner can hope to achieve native-like competence in all discourse domains(Selinker,1996b).Accompanying this change in conception is also an expansion of the linguistic scope of fossilization,from fossilizable structures(i.e.,local fossilization) to a fossilized interlanguage(i.e.,global fossili

36、zation). Meanwhile,the dual functions of fossilization,namely,its being both a cognitive mechanism and a structural-behavioral phenomenon, which were explicit in the earliest postulation,tend to be less clear-cut in his later definitions(Selinnker&Douglas,1985). Beyond Selinkers definitions, the SLA

37、 literature over the past three decades has seen numerous interpretations of fossilization.Many are in essence extended interpretations of the notion as originally proposed by Selinker in 1972.Lowther(1983:127),for example,has the following interpretation of fossilization: Fossilization,as presented

38、 in much of the literature,is understood to be the inability of a person to attain nativelike ability in the target language.(emphasis added)This is reminiscent of Selinkers view of fossilization as fundamentally a cognitive mechanism.Most SLA researchers,however,have followed and built on the perfo

39、rmance dimension of Selinkers(1972) dual definition.R.Ellis(1985:48),for instance, offers the following view: Fossilized structures can be realized as errors or as correct target language forms.If,when fossilization occurs,the learner has reached a stage of development in which feature x in his inte

40、rlanguage has assumed the same form as in the target language,then fossilization of the correct form will occur.If,however,the learner has reached a stage in which feature y still dose not have the same form as the target language,the fossilization will manifest itself as error.Thus,R.Ellis has sugg

41、ested,among other things,that as part of the interlanguage process,fossilization happens at a certain point in interlanguage development,and as a result,there are fossilized errors as well as fossilized target-like forms. The origin of this view,namely that fossilization applies to both incorrect an

42、d correct forms,can be traced back to Vigil and Oller(1976:282): An adequate explanation must account for the incorporation of rules into developing grammars in relatively permanent form regardless of whether those rules conform or do not conform to the norms of the language which is being learned.I

43、t is not only the fossilization of socalled errors that must be explained,but also the fossilization of correct forms that conform to the target language norms.Here,viewing fossilization as the relatively permanent incorporation of grammatical rules in the interlanguage grammar,Vigil and Oller argue

44、 that the presence of fossilization should be felt not only in incorrect forms but in correct forms also. This opinion, however, is not widely endorsed.Most researchers are, instead,of the view that fossilization should be reserved exclusively for non-target-like forms. While fossilization has so fa

45、r been largely construed as an IL product,some researchers see it as a process-a process whereby repeated practice and exposure to the language dose not lead to any further development(Sharwood Smith,1994a:37).Further,there is also the conception that fossilization is a stage in the interlanguage pr

46、ocess.Fossilization is thus taken to be permanent stabilization,and as such, an ultimate stage in the interlanguage process. In sum,what is fossilization,then? To date,there is no uniform answer.However,from the miscellaneous conceptions,two broad and(by now) uncontroversial features are deducible,n

47、amely:(1) that fossilization involves premature cessation of development in defiance of optimal learning conditions;and(2)that fossilizable structures are persistent over time,against any environmental influences,including consistent natural exposure to the target language and pedagogic intervention

48、s.In addition, several issues are identifiable as lying at the heart of the conceptual difference, and we discussed two:(1)whether fossilization should be seen as global or local,and (2)whether it should be viewed as a product or a process.I have argued that fossilization occurs locally rather than

49、globally,and that it is an observable process, with the product only being inferable.2.2 The Classification of Fossilization2.3 The Stabilization and Fossilization2.4 Is Fossilization Global or Local?Some researchers have viewed fossilization as occuring globally to the entire interlanguage system,y

50、et others have maintained that fossilization could only happen locally in parts of the interlanguage system.It may be recalled that Selinker himself has shifted his perception from local to global.Mirroring this difference, the SLA literature sees the use of fossilized error,on the one hand,suggesti

51、ng local fossilization,but fossilized competence and fossilized learner,on the other hand,suggesting global fossilization.By way of illustration,Tarone et al.(1976;see also Selinker,1992) argue that two types of learners can be distinguished:fossilized learners(referred to as Type 1 learners)and non

52、-fossilized learners(referred to as Type 2 learners).According to the researchers,a Type1 learners interlanguage is characterized by cessation of learning or stability due to his or her inability to change the IL system.In contrast, a Type2 learners interlanguage is dynamic in that it changes over t

53、ime,thereby suggesting continnuation of learning.Apparently, such a bifurcation of L2 learners is conceptually flawed.For one thing, it essentially relies only on learners output to determmine whether learning is occurring or not,and inasmuch as it ignores the underlying cognitive processes,it refle

54、cts a simplistic and behavioristic view of learning. As of yet, it is crucial to note,evidence of global fossilization remains entirely impressionistic(cf.VanPatten,1988).More precisely, global fossilization is assumed as opposed to established.Rather,the preponderance of the available empirical evi

55、dence has been pointing to local fossilization;that is,fossilization only hits certain linguistic features in certain subsystems of the interlanguages of individual learners while other lingustic features in the same subsystems are successfully acquired or continue to evolve.It is worth mentioning t

56、hat the empirical results are largely in line with the general conceptual framework established in before context.3. Behavioral Reflexes and Causal VariablesWe have seen that fossilization as a theoretical construct has been interpreted in a variety of different ways.The lack of uniformity in the ge

57、neral understanding of the notion,as a consequence,has led researchers,over the years,to apply the term to a wide array of learner behaviors.According to Hans Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition,several reasons are talked about.Below is a list of what researchers have recognized as be

58、havioral reflexes of fossilization(cf.Selinker&Han,2001;Han,2003):l Backsliding(e.g.,R.Ellis,1985;Schachter,1988;Selinker;1972).l Stabilized errors(e.g.,Schumann,1978a).l Presistent non-target-like performance(e.g.,Mukattash,1986).l Learning plateau(e.g.,Flynn&ONeil,1988).l Typical error(Kellerman,1

59、989).l Low proficiency(e.g.Thep-Ackrapong,1990).l De-acceleration of the learning process(e.g.,Washburn,1991).l Ingrained errors(Valette,1991).l Systematic use of erroneous forms(Allwight&Bailey,1991).l Variable outcomes(Perdue,1993).l Cessation of learning(e.g.,Odlin,1993).l Structural persistence(

60、e.g.,Schouten,1996).l Errors that are impervious to negative evidence(Lin&Hedgocock,1996).As the above list indicates, over the years the term fossilization has come to be associated with a wide array of learner behaviors.The lack of uniformity in the application of the notion,while creating confusi

61、on,nevertheless points to the fact that fossilization is no longer a monolithic concept as it was in its initial postulation,but rather a complex construct intricately tied up with a myriad of manifestations of failure, some of which are local, and some of which are global.The proliferation of uses

62、of the termfossilization is matched in excess by explanatory accounts exhibiting a rich spectrum with almost every existent perspective on SLA represented.Just as each idiosyncratic application of the term adds a new empirical property to the discovery of fossilization, each explanatory account reve

63、als a new underlying factor,and together they weave a large and delicate picture of fossilization.In the SLA literature,explicit and implicit explanations of fossilization abound.Some of them are based on empirical studies,and some are sheer speculations without any empirical basis.Fossilization,in

64、association with the above list of behavioral reflexes,has been found to be explained in terms of the following variables,among others(see also Selinker &Han,2001;Han,2003):l Absence of corrective feedback(Higgs&Clifford,1982;Lightbown&Spada,1999).l Satisfaction of communicative needs(Corder,1978,19

65、83;R.Ellis,1985).l Lack of acculturation(e.g.,Preston,1989).l Lack of input(Schumann,1978a,b).l Cnanges in the neural structure of the human brain(e.g.,Pulvermuller&Schumann,1994).l L1 influence(e.g.,Andersen,1983;Han,2000).l Lack of attention(e.g.,Schmidt,1983).l Lack of opportunity to use the target language(Swain,1985,1995).l Lack of access to universal grammar(e.g.,Hale,1988;S