LINGUIST List 15.2198

Tue Aug 3 2004

Review: Socioling/Lang Acquisition: Han (2004)

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomilinguistlist.org>


What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley Collberg at collberglinguistlist.org.

Directory

  1. Annamaria Cacchione, Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition

Message 1: Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 16:47:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Annamaria Cacchione <enfaticatin.it>
Subject: Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition

AUTHOR: Han, ZhaoHong
TITLE: Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition
SERIES: Second Language Acquisition 5
PUBLISHER: Multilingual Matters
YEAR: 2004
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-917.html


Annamaria Cacchione, University for Foreigners of Siena - Italy

SYNOPSIS

The FIRST CHAPTER is a general introduction to the main issues of the
topic. The author does not linger on fossilization definition, but
directly points out the deep theoretical gap between the concepts of
failure and fossilization, due, in her opinion, to the fact that
failure is not yet coherently understood, and, consequently, both the
constructs receive an idiosyncratic application by each author, and
this implies that the empirical phenomena designated as
fossilization/failure are widely disparate and the explanatory account
rather fragmented. On the other hand, some points are quite clear and
definite.

First of all, FLA - First Language Acquisition - and SLA - Second
Language Acquisition - differ because in FLA success dominates, while
in SLA there is a co-existance of success and failure, entwined in a
complicated relationship. In the second part of the chapter the author
introduces the conceptual framework she adopts in the book. The
framework is able to account both the facets of fossilization: general
failure and differential failure (or success). The two facets
correspond to two types of perspective: a macroscopic level of
analysis shows general failure, while a microscopic level of analysis
can show inter and intra- learner differential failure. Dividing the
general framework into the two perspectives can also serve to point
out the link between bio-cognitive constraints and ultimate
attainment. Under these kind of constraints, related first of all to
the Critical Period Hypotesys, it can be argued that ''adult learners
are preconditioned to fossilize, with asymptotic performance as the
characteristic behavioral reflex'' (pag. 9, italics in the
original). The same constraints are not useful to explain the
individual variations in competence in an L2 (inter-learner variation)
and the different kind and degree of failure and success in different
part of the interlanguage (intra-learner variation).

The SECOND CHAPTER provides a survey of definition of fossilization,
showing the evolution of the concept since the first definition by
Selinker (1972). As conceptualized by Selinker, fossilization
implicates a cognitive mechanism - a sort of psychological structure -
and a performance-based phenomenon. Other important properties of
fossilization are persistence (fossilized structure are persistent)
and resistance (to external influences). But, above all, the most
interesting characteristic of fossilization - the one that made this
concept so interesting for researchers - is the implication (reached
in the second period of Selinker research) that it is inevitable: in
Selinker words ''no adult can hope to ever speak a second language in
such a way that s/he is indistinguishable from native speakers''. The
author also treats other definitions, that are quite often extended
reformulation of Selinker's. As a new important factor, some
definitions imply that fossilization regards correct as well incorrect
(not target like) forms. At the survey end, the author proposes her
definition, meanwhile focusing the attention to two main questions: a.
is fossilization global or local? b. is it a product or a process?

According to Han, fossilization is more local then global, and it is a
process at a cognitive level, but is a product at the empirical level.
The two levels are strictly interrelated in a cause-effect
relationship (cognitive level causes the empirical one). Moreover,
fossilization is persistent over time, and resistant to environmental
influences (e.g. large exposure to Target Language and pedagogic
efforts).

CHAPTER THREE provides a wide examination of behavioural reflexes -
i.e. manifestations of failure - and causal variables of
fossilization. The author lingers over causal factors of
fossilization, gathering them in four main categories: environmental
(external), cognitive, neurobiological and socioaffective
(internal). Then she examines some causal factors of each categories
more in details. Among environmental variables, she treats the absence
of corrective feedback and the quality of input. Cognitive variables
are: knowledge representation (e.g. lack of access to Universal
Grammar and failure of parameter resetting in a generative framework,
learning inhibiting learning in a connectionist perspective),
knowledge processing (e.g. automatization of the FL system, lack of
understanding, lack of sensitivity to input) and psychological
categories (e.g. change in emotional state, tendency to focus on
content, avoidance). Other internal causal variables are
neurobiological (e.g. age, decrease of cerebral plasticity) and socio
affective (e.g. satisfaction of communicative needs and will to
maintain identity). But which are the most important factors to
determine fossilization for the author? According to Han,
fossilization is first of all caused by internal factors of
neurobiological type, but can also be affected (aggravated or
alleviated) by other external and internal factors.

CHAPTER FOUR and CHAPTER FIVE analyze two important issues - one of a
neurobiological kind, the other of a cognitive type - in a macroscopic
perspective: critical period effects and native language transfer,
both determining, according with the general framework, general
failure. The Critical Period Hypothesis - introduced in 1967 by
Lenneberg, a psycho- biologist - states that there is a special
(critical) period, from age 2 to 13, during which learning a (first)
language is successful and after which learning is quite
impossible. This period is strictly linked with a series of important
neurological processes, like lateralization, myelination, increasing
of neurotransmitters ect. Given that absolute importance in FLA, the
question is if it is the same in SLA. Main results in this research
tell us that, while CP effects are absolute in the acquisition of the
first language and it can be defined an all-or-nothing phenomenon, in
the acquisition af a second language it can be rather defined a
sensitive period, because at any age everyone can learn successfully
some aspects of another language (but, it seems, not all), but however
there is a period of higher sensitivity - until age of 7/10 - after
which attaining native-like proficiency is impossible: in other words,
it's necessary to vary the meaning of failure/success in the two cases
of FLA and SLA. Another important point is that in SLA the Sensitive
Period affects differently the different domains of language (it is
modular): it is deeper on phonology and morphosyntax, weaker on
lexicon and pragmatics.

The following chapter analyzes L1 transfer and its relationship with
CP effects, to explain the general lack of success in adult L2
learning, imposing bio-cognitive constraints on the learners
perception and sensitivity to L2 input, ''the outcome of which can
only be an incomplete mastery of the TL'' (p. 86). An example of this
phenomenon is the strong influence in phonological acquisition, in
which the pre- existent phonetic categories usually restrict the
perception of L2 phonetic input. The chapter also provides an overview
of the main kinds of tranfer: transfer ''to somewhere'' and ''to
nowhere'' (the principles learners use to decide what is
transferable), ''thinking for speaking'' - related to Sapir-Whorf
Theory - and L1 preprogramming (i.e. the L1 conceptual system guides
the adult L2 learning).

To explain inter and intra-learner differential failure, CHAPTER SIX
makes a survey of the major methodological approaches suitable to
analyze fossilization at a microscopic level, making an interesting
critical evaluation of some of them. According to the author, for
example, the pseudo-longitudinal approach (i.e. using advanced
learners as the major source of information on fossilization) can only
produce general data, but is not able to reveal anything about
individuality. Otherwise, making a diagnosis of fossilization using
corrective feedback (i.e. learners resistant to c.f. are fossilized)
does not account for how the pedagogic intervention is structured, and
for the possibility that the intervention itself can be
inadequate. Even the approaches linked to time factors - LOR: length
of residence and AOA: age of arrival - have a limited scope of
application, as they apply only to people who reside in TL area, but
they raise the fundamental question about how it takes to be sure that
time of acquiring SL is enough. Researchers often use 5 years as the
cut-off point, but it is too vague and arbitrary to effectively work:
it depends on which single feature is under analysis. At the end of
this survey, Han concludes that none of these methodologies can
function independently, but ''it seems necessary that a combination of
several metrics be used to jointly identify fossilization'' (p. 99).

The second main issue of the chapter is the modular nature of
fossilization and the MEP - Multiple Effects Principle - together
intended to make a plausible account for inter and intra learner
fossilization. The modularity of fossilization is shown by the fact
that there is no evidence of fossilization of a whole interlanguage
system, while lots of evidences are provided for the main four facets
of (modular) fossilization: f. affecting linguistic features within
the same linguistic domain; f. selectively affecting:
comprehension/production - competence/performance - some domains of an
IL. The main question is what renders a linguistic feature so highly
vulnerable to fossilization, a question strictly related to the notion
of difficulty and complexity of features. The best answer is that
understanding difficulty have to manage with (objective) linguistic
complexity (i.e. lacking function-form relationship forms, highly
arbitrary units, non productive rules), (subjective) psycholinguistic
complexity (i.e. infrequent, irregular, semantically non transparent
and perceptually non salient forms) and the interaction between the
two both. The MEP, introduced by Selinker and Lakshmanan (1992) and
recently validated by Han and Selinker (1999-2001), highlights the
importance of considering fossilization as a result of the cluster
effect of different co-factors, some dependent (i.e. transfer) and
some others independent of the L1.

Exploring the relationship between teaching and fossilization, CHAPTER
SEVEN makes a very interesting inquiry about the real effects
instruction can produce on learners, starting from the common
assumption, made by many teachers, that it prevents fossilization (an
attitude called by VanPatten ''fossilophobia''). Illustrating the
findings of several studies, Han shows that it is a problem hard to
solve, involving both theory and practise, and that the main question
- to what extent instruction aids acquisition? - has a complex answer,
as it is necessary to determine, time by time, for which forms, for
which students, at which point in the learning process it occurs. So,
while in certain cases formal and explicit instructions can really aid
learners to acquire special kinds of complex features, in other cases
it can be useless if not even detrimental (instruction provides a
limited learning experience, within which it can even happen a
particular negative phenomenon called ''transfer of training'').

EVALUATION

The book is written very systematically and clearly, with many
adequate and accurate examples of proving data and evidences (there is
only one exception that I, as an Italian native speaker, I cannot help
pointing out: at page 143, the first example of low communicative
value is made about inflections on adjectives in Italian, but the
adjective - 'blanca' in 'la casa blanca' - is Spanish! - in Italian it
is 'bianca').

The conceptual framework is also generally clear and easy to
understand, and this is one of the main characteristics that make the
book available both for students and researchers. There is however a
point that needs, in my opinion, more explanation and search. Since
the first chapter, Han insists on defining fossilization as a process
rather then a product - in her words it is ''an observable process,
with product only being inferable'' - . All over the book she often
refers to this definition, but without explaining it in details, so it
gives the reader the impression that something very important has been
left out.

Very appreciated is the effort made by the author to give the reader a
complete idea of how complex is the notion of fossilization, and how
useful is analyzing the different relationships between it and other
important related issues, as age, the influence of L1 etc. The notion
of fossilization, in fact, has evolved ''from a monolithic concept
[...] to a much more complex one, linked to multiple manifestations
of failure in learning''.

I think the most interesting parts of the book are the analysis of the
methodologies used in diagnosing fossilization (chapter six) and the
chapter seven, about the practical problems involved by the
application of the theoretic items.

They both deal with the relationships between theory and practice in
such a clear way that they succeed in emphasizing those aspects which
are usually not much or not at all examined though they are very
interesting (for example, the negative effect of explicit and formal
instruction and the ''transfer of training'' effect). Of particular
interest is also the definition of what the author calls ''zone of
capability'' - corresponding to what is really useful to teach to
effect real positive change in learners' mental representations and
behaviour - because, starting from concrete purposes of operative
definitions, it compels to deal with the (theoretic) notion of ''what
is difficult'', ''what is complex'', ''for whom (learner or
researcher?) something is difficult/complex, and why'', and so on.

Finally, I make some remarks that do not really affect my positive
global judgment. Some crucial issues strictly related to the topic are
left untreated, and only in the Summary and Conclusion the author
talks a little about it, as implications for further researches and
practice. It is essentially the problem of correctly defining what
target language is, and, correlatively, what ''native-like'' means. I
think these questions are too important to put them off till another
treatment since they can really change the terms of the whole
fossilization problem.

On this subject I dislike the author refers only to the studies of the
Anglo-Saxon area, while these problems, and in particular the last
mentioned ones, have been dealt in an enlightening way by several
Italian professors, like Giacalone-Ramat (1992, 2003) and Vedovelli
(1994).

REFERENCES

Giacalone Ramat, A. (ed.) (2003) Verso L'Italiano. Percorsi e
strategie di acquisizione. Roma, Carocci.

Giacalone Ramat, A. (1992) Grammaticalization process in the area of
temporal and modal relations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
14:297-32.

Selinker,L. (1972) Interlanguage. IRAL 10 (2), 209-31.

Selinker, L. and Lakshmanan, U. (1992) Language transfer and
fossilization: the multiple effects principle. In S. Gass and L.
Selinker (eds.) Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 197-216).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

VanPatten, B. (1988) How juries get hung: problems with the evidence
for a focus on form in teaching. Language Learning 38, 243-60.

Vedovelli, M. (1994) Fossilizzazione, cristallizazione e competenza
spontanea in italiano L2. In A. Giacalone Ramat e M. Vedovelli (eds.)
Italiano lingua seconda/lingua straniera. Atti del XXVI congresso SLI.
Roma, Bulzoni, 519- 547.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Annamaria Cacchione is a third year PhD student at the University for
Foreigners of Siena - Italy. Her research interests are in Second
Language Acquisition (in particular in the acquisition of reported
speech), Conversational Analysis, Pragmatics.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue