Search

For the past few decades, one of the most persistent criticisms against second language acquisition (SLA) research has been the derivative nature of its origin in establishing its theoretical and methodological foundation. That being the case, the phenomenon of fossilization, i.e., the cessation of learning in a second language (L2), has been a central interest of study unique to the field of SLA, to which most, if not all, hypotheses and research on adult L2 learning are ultimately linked. In this connection, the Selective Fossilization Hypothesis (SFH) proposed by Han (2009) demonstrates its potential to account for a wide spectrum of issues related to fossilization, thus deepening our understanding of SLA in general and fossilization in particular. Simply put, the SFH is promising in that it not only accounts for the previous research findings a posteriori, but also predicts selectively fossilizable features a priori on the basis of the interaction of first language (L1) markedness and L2 input robustness.

While a considerable amount of second language acquisition (SLA) research has focused on the acquisition process itself, another strand of research has specialized in investigating the fossilization of specific linguistic features. Han’s (2009) Selective Fossilization Hypothesis (SFH), an analytic model that seeks to account for both the acquisitional and fossilizable potential of linguistic features, is a unique attempt to make sense of fossilizable forms by probing into factors purportedly promoting fossilization in the acquisition process.

A defining characteristic of second language learning, fossilization has been referred to as one the most enduring and fascinating problems confronting researchers of second language acquisition (SLA) (Han, 2004a). Indeed, not only SLA researchers, but also researchers from fields as varied as theoretical linguistics, cognitive psychology, and neurolinguistics, have sought to explain the general failure of adult learners to master a second language (L2) “despite continuous exposure to the target language (TL) input, adequate motivation to improve, and sufficient opportunity for practice” (Han, 2004b, p. 4). Within the field of SLA, numerous perspectives of fossilization have emerged over the past thirty-five years – some contradictory, others complementary – all adding to our understanding of the phenomenon. However, in the three and a half decades since Selinker’s (1972) notion of fossilization “spur[red] the field of Second Language Acquisition … into existence (Han, 2009, p.137), none has offered an analytic model with the predictive and explanatory potential of Han’s Selective Fossilization Hypothesis (SFH). Han’s (2009) paper titled Interlanguage and fossilization: Towards an analytic model introduces the Selective Fossilization Hypothesis. Citing empirical evidence from the L2 initial state to the L2 endstate, Han “draws primarily on the UG-L21 perspective to elucidate the issue of selective fossilization” (p.139, emphasis added), which she defines as “lack of precision and accuracy … in some, rather than all, subsystems of the interlanguage” (p.138). With the SFH, Han explores the interaction of first language (L1) markedness and L2 input robustness as a determinant of selective fossilization. In Han’s model, a horizontal axis represents the continuum of L1 markedness, with its left end being marked (i.e., denoting a form that is infrequent and variable in its L1 counterpart, if existent), and its right end being unmarked(i.e., indicating a form that is frequent and invariable in the L1 counterpart, if existent). Alternately, a vertical axis represents the continuum of L2 input robustness, its low end being robust (i.e., denoting a form that is frequent and invariable in the L2 input), and its high end, non-robust (i.e., indicating a form that is infrequent and variable in the L2 input). The intersection of these two axes creates four broad zones, each indicative of a possible prognosis of L2 acquisition or fossilization (p. 144). Han further proposes a numerical model, which she hopes will serve as “a springboard for future research” (p.157). While still in the preliminary stages of development, the SFH holds great promise for SLA theory and practice. From a pedagogical perspective, the benefits of the SFH are obvious: knowing which features of the L2 are likely to fossilize and which are more amenable to instruction can lead ESL instructors to set more realistic goals for instruction, to develop more focused curricula, to fine-tune input to be provided to the learner, and to respond to learner output in a more effective manner. Further, from a theoretical perspective, the SFH offers the scientific means to move fossilization research “beyond its hitherto primarily argumentative basis” and towards “a more tangible and precise understanding” (Han, 2009, pp.157-158). This edition of the Forum features 10 commentaries on the Selective Fossilization Hypothesis (SFH) by members of Dr. ZhaoHong Han’s Fall 2009 Doctoral Seminar in TESOL at Teachers College, Columbia University. The contributors explore the SFH from a variety of perspectives, from its conceptual underpinnings and possible validation issues, to its potential applications for empirical research and instructed SLA. In the first commentary, Rosette Bambino Finneran contextualizes the construct of L1 markedness with a view toward minimizing potential misconceptions of its role in the SFH. Hiromi Noguchi then examines its fundamental assumptions regarding the role of L1 semantic / conceptual influence in L2 acquisition; Jookyoung Jung echoes the focus on L1 conceptual transfer, but looks specifically into its relationship with L2 grammatical morphemes. The putative role of consciousness in the SFH comprises the topic of Ji-Yung Jung’s commentary. Hye Won Shin, moving beyond a conceptual analysis, appraises selected issues involved in validating the SFH. Looking ahead to the potential applications of the SFH in domains other than L2 morphosyntax, Timothy Hall probes the fossilization-formula interface, and Chen-ling Alice Chen, the possibility of applying the SFH within the context of L2 vocabulary acquisition. The pedagogical implications based on the predictive potential of the SFH are explored in both Shaoyan Qi’s piece on teaching Chinese as an L2 and Charles Combs’ look at “focus on form” intervention. Finally, Adrienne Wai Man Lew highlights the SFH’s form-meaning-function mapping approach to conceptualizing L2 acquisition as a common thread that puts issues of learnability across linguistic domains in perspective.

Since Selinker (1972) coined the term fossilization to characterize the phenomenon in which second language (L2) learners cease to progress in the acquisition process, much effort (e.g., Bates & MacWhinney, 1981; Krashen, 1981, cited in Han & Odlin, 2006) has been made to research instances of such premature stabilization of deviant L2 forms both within and across learners. Nonetheless, as Birdsong (2003, cited in Han & Odlin, 2006) aptly points out, the term has been (mis)used by many simply as a “catch-all” term, i.e., a handy metaphor for describing any lack of progress in L2 learning, regardless of its nature. It is therefore not surprising that little has been achieved as far as the development of a comprehensive analytic model throughout almost forty years of fossilization research. Against this background, Han (2009) proposes the Selective Fossilization Hypothesis (SFH), seeking to account for the fossilizability of target L2 structures through establishing: (1) empirically operationalizable variables (i.e., first language (L1) markedness and L2 input robustness) and subvariables (i.e., frequency and variability); (2) a first-of-its-kind analytiical model of fossilization, whose “boundary conditions” still require further investigation.

Issues of learnability and teachability of linguistic features have long been a core interest in instructed second language acquisition (SLA) research. Following Lyster and Ranta (1998), a great deal of empirical work has approached second language (L2) teachability by investigating the efficacy of all types of corrective feedback (e.g., oral recasts, elicitation, repetition) vis-à-vis the acquisition of L2 English structures such as third-person singular -s, past tense ending -ed, and the use of first mention a/an. That said, the choice of these linguistic targets appears to be quite arbitrary. In other words, they were chosen because they were “thought” to be somewhat unlearnable, often without further explanation as to how the estimated level of learnability was determined. In this light, Han’s (2009) Selective Fossilization Hypothesis (SFH) seems promising in informing L2 teaching practices, as it approaches the learnability issue – generally believed to be the flipside of the phenomenon of fossilization – both a priori and a posteriori.