2005 年12 月
第 28 卷　第6 期
中国英语教学
（双月刊）
CELEA Journal（Bim onthly）
Dec．2005
Vol
．28 No．6
PREVENTIONIS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN DE－
FOSSILIZATION
— ON POSSIBLE CAUSES FOR FOSSILIZED ERRORS
IN THEINDIVIDUALINTERLANGUAGE AND RELEVANCE
FOR EFL EDUCATION IN CHINA
Wei Wangdong
Sun Yat－
sen University
Huang Baitian
Zengcheng City Licheng No．
3 Middle School
Abstract
After introducing the serious linguistic pheno menon of fossilization ，clarifying terms and providing
reco m mendations ，
the author makes an atte m pt to expound the various potential causes for fossilized errors
fro m the biological ，
social－
affective ，
cultural ，
cognitive ，pedagogical and environ mental perspectives and ，
in
addition ，
suggests the relevance for EFL education in China and so me ways of preventing the occurrence of
fossilized errors．The paper is concerned with questions of etiology ，
rather than questions of ontology ，
so the
focus of the paper is on the causal factors for fossilized errors in the interlanguage ，
including learner－
specific
factors and non learner－
specific factors ，such as biological ，affective ，language transfer ，pedagogical ，social
and ideological culture ，and environ mental factors．It is proposed that prevention of fossilization is m ore
significant than de－
fossilization．
Key w ords
fossilization ；factors ；causes ；
interlanguage ，
；errors
1． Introduction
Ever since Selinker coined the term “interlanguage ”and reported the linguistic pheno m enon of
fossilization in 1972 ，in his article entitled “Interlanguage ”，fossilization has received considerable
attention ，appearing in m any of the m ajor w orks on foreign or second language acquisition and education．
One researcher even argues that“in constructing theories of SLA ，
fossilization re m ains a centralissue to
be confronted and explained”
（Han 2003）．In 1986 ，Mukkatesh proposed that certain error types are not
susceptible to de－
fossilization．He carried out a study of 80 Jordanian University students with an average
of 11 years of instruction and identified a nu m ber of persistent errors ，
for exa m ple ，deletion of the verb
to be ，use of past sim ple instead of present sim ple ，etc．，on w hich neither error correction nor explicit
gra m m atical explanation had any effect．Tanaka（2000 ）contends ，however ，that perhaps fossilization
can be re m edied if a consciousness－
raising approach is utilized ，and Brow n （1994 ：
217 ） argues that
fossilization could be reversed and should not be viewed as so m e sort of terminal illness．The author of
this article ，however ，
tends to doubt both of these positions ，because if correction is possible ，
the errors
cannot be term ed fossilized errors in the first place． Fossilization signifies its irreversibility． Han ＆
Selinker（1999）regard fossilization as a stabilized form that“has no chance of changing for any one of a
nu m ber of reasons”
．As early as 1992 ，Selinker and Laksha m anan state that fossilized structures will not
beco m e open to destabilization through consciousness－
raising strategies w hen m ultiple effects apply．
66
CELEA Journal 64
Therefore ，
it see ms very pessimistic to argue that de－
fossilization or destabilization is im possible． When
fossilized errors do not occur ，
there will be no need for de－
fossilization． What see ms to be im portant is
for language researchers to discover how to prevent the occurrence of fossilized errors in learners
individualinterlanguage．Johnson（2002 ：98）argues that“if we can find out w hy fossilization occurs not
only will we understand the processes of foreign language acquisition better ，but we m ay even be able to
do so m ething to prevent its occurrence”
．This im plies that one m ajor goal for fossilization studies is to
prevent fossilization．
Prevention entails identifying the possible causes of fossilization and then adopting appropriate
preventative m ethods．In this article the author atte m pts to estim ate the possible causes for fossilized
errors in EFL （English as a Foreign Language）learners individual interlanguage by exa mining relevant
literature and subsequently offering suggestions for prevention．In addition ，the author explores the
significance of such a discussion for EFL education in China． The author supports the idea that ，at
present ，we need a longitudinal study of fossilization ，as Selinker （1996 ），Selinker ＆ Han （2000 ），
Laksh m anan（2001 ） and Han （2004a ） have already indicated． However ，
“there m ust be a clear
understanding of causal factors”，as pointed out by Zhaohong Han （Selinker ＆ Han 1996 ）
． Kellerm an
rightly points out ，
“the question is not just w hy one person‘fossilizes”and another doesn’t — it’s w hat
causes the“fossilization”in the first place”
（cited in Han 2004a）．
2． Regarding the term fossilization
Different researchers m ake dissimilar use of the term fossilization in the field of language acquisition
and education．Interpreted as a process ，
a cognitive m echanism ，
and／
or as a result oflearning ，
it appears
to be a protean ，
catchallterm that fails to capture a unitary or even coherent construct（Birdsong 2004）
．
Indeed ，
the field of SLA research has always lacked a unified theory ，though so m e researchers such as
Selinker ，Kim ＆ Rao （2004 ）so m etim es do ask the question “is a ‘unified theory possible ？
”．It was
Selinker w ho introduced the archeological and paleontologicalterm of fossilization into our field in 1972 ，
explaining ：
“fossilizable linguistic pheno m ena are linguistic ite ms ，rules ，and subsyste ms w hich speakers
of a particular NL tend to keep in their IL relative to a particular TL ，no m atter w hat the age of the
learner or a m ount of explanation and instruction he receives in the TL ．
．．．Fossilizable structures tend to
re m ain as potential perform ance ，ree m erging in the productive perform ance of an IL even w hen
see mingly eradicated．
” As argued by Selinker ＆ Han （2000 ），and Han （2003 ），the second language
acquisition literature over the past 30 years has seen highly differentiated interpretation and application of
the term fossilization ，including backsliding ，low proficiency ，errors that are im pervious to negative
evidence ，and persistent non－
target like perform ance ，virtual halt ，plateau ，rigor m ortis ，fossilized
variations ，perm anent optionality ，and siesta．So m e scholars consider that in the stage of interlanguage
learning the term fossilization can refer to both correct and incorrect forms．Ellis（1985 ：
48 ）holds the
view that“fossilized structures can be realized as errors or as correcttargetlanguage forms．
fossilization
．．
of the correct form will occur．
．．the fossilization will m anifest itself as an error”．However Ellis（1994）
later considers that“the term fossilization has been used to label the process by w hich non－
target forms
beco m e fixed in interlanguage”
（p．353）and“In practice ，however ，fossilization has been used to refer to
‘persistent errors ”
（p．409）． On the official website of the UFG （ Universidad Francisco Gavidia ）
language departm ent（http ：
sv／
ufg／
ingles／
erroranalysis1．html ，date of access ：
2004－
10－
／／w w w ．ufg．edu．
6）we observe the following ：fossilization “is the perm anent incorporation of incorrect linguistic forms
into a person s second language co m petence．This‘learning of incorrect forms takes place through the
sa m e process as the learning of correct forms．So ，
acquiring incorrect forms perm anently is referred to as
fossilization and acquiring the correct formsis called learning”
．UFG s conceptualization of the term m ay
be borrowed fro m Brow n s （1994 ：217 ）illustration that “the relatively perm anent incorporation of
incorrect linguistic formsinto a person s second language co m petence has been referred to as fossilization”
and that“the internalization of correct forms”is referred to as learning．The author in this case assu m es
that fossilization in the field oflanguage acquisition and education m ay refer to foreign or second language
learners persistent and irre m ovable errors ，
so it follows that howeverim portantitis to so m e researchers ，
the study of the pheno m enon of fossilization in the individual learner language （interlanguage ）should
perhaps fallinto the subfield of error treatm ent such as error analysis and error correction．It is assu m ed
here that errors concerning all aspects of the learners interlanguage ，including the phonetic ，
67
Prevention Is More Significant Than De－
Fossilization．
．．　Wei Wangdong ＆Huang Baitian
phonological ，
gra m m atical ，
se m antic syste ms and even prag m atic aspects oflanguage develop m ent ，might
all have the possibility of being fossilized［As for the types of errors that m ay beco m e fossilized ，please
refer to Ranganayaki（1983－
1984 ）；for the syntactic fossilization ，refer to Lardiere （1998 ）and White
（2003）；for the fossilization of prag m atic ele m ents ，refer to Trillo（2002 ）
］．Selinker himself expanded
the scope of fossilization fro m “linguistic ite ms ，
rules and sub－
syste ms”
（1972 ）to“all levels of linguistic
structure and in all discourse do m ains”
（1978）．Further research is needed to determine w hich errors are
m ore likely to beco m e fossilized so that greater attention can be paid to this pheno m enon． Han（2004a）
reveals that so m e researchers have viewed fossilization as occurring across the entire interlanguage
syste m ；others have m aintained that fossilization can only happen locally in parts of the subdo m ains of the
interlanguage syste m ． However ，
this paper is concerned prim arily with questions of etiology rather than
questions of ontology．
3． Correct attitude towards errors
Sensible language learners know that errors and mistakes should not be a source of pessimism ，for
“hu m an learning is funda m entally a process thatinvolves the m aking of mistakes”and“inevitably learner
will m ake mistakes in the process of acquisition ，and indeed will even im pede that process if they do not
co m mit errors and then benefit in turn fro m various forms of feedback on those errors”，as stated by
Brow n （1994 ：
204－
205 ）
． Nunan （2001 ：241） argues that w hen taking part in tasks that require the
creative and relatively unpredictable use of language ，
learners are bound to m ake mistakes ，w hich should
be seen as a natural part of the learning process．One could hypothetically argue that no sentence is ever
divorced entirely fro m error ，
that this itself is a condition of language ，and thatlanguage derives its very
energy fro m thisinherentinstability（Gentzler 2004 ：
51）
．Failure is the m other of success．To erris to be
hu m an． We don t need to fear errors and mistakes ，but that doesn t m ean that we can ignore the m ，
particularly w hen they have the potential of beco ming habitual．In such a case ，
errors can beco m e hard to
correct ，
so we should try to raise learners consciousness of their errors w hen such errors show signs of
beco ming recurrent and before they reach the ultim ate stage of fossilization．To turn failure into success
we need to determine w hy and how we failed and analyze w hether and how the failure could have been
avoided．Rubin ＆Tho m pson（1983）suggest that one of the characteristics of the good language learner is
to m ake errors w ork．Errors are ，
in fact ，windows to a learner sinternalized understanding of the second
language ，providing language teachers so m ething observable to w hich to react（Brow n 2001 ：27）
． We
m ay assu m e that learners might build upon their successes in m astering the target language ，m aking
errors ，correcting errors ，and learning fro m such errors to prevent reoccurrence． During this process ，
language teachers need to offer appropriate assistance rather than leaving learners to rely only on their
ow n resources．
To help learners in the prevention of fossilized errors ，we need to discover and clarify w hy and how
these errors occur．In the following section ，the author analyzes various potential causes for fossilized
errors ，fro m biological ，social－
affective ，cognitive and environ m ental perspectives ，and suggests
relevance for EFL education in China． With the assu m ption that errors in all aspects of the learners
interlanguage ，for exa m ple ，phonetic ，phonological ，gra m m atical ，se m antic syste ms ，might have the
possibility of being fossilized ，we can conclude that the causes for fossilized errors are very co m plicated．
They m ay involve both learner－
specific factors such as biological ，affective ，language transfer ，and
perhaps even genetic factors and non learner－
specific factors such as the pedagogy ，
social and ideological
culture ，and learning environ m ent． Unable to cover the entire spectru m of reported explanatory
accounts ，
this paper will provide only a limited discussion of the causal factors．After all ，
“fossilization is
no longer a m onolithic concept as it was in its initial postulation ，but rather a co m plex construct
intricately tied up with varied m anifestations of failure”
（Han 2004a）．
4． Aspectru m of possible causes for fossilized errors and relevance for EFLeducation in China
4．1 Learner－
specific factors
4．1．1 Learner s biological factors
Studies provide evidence for a linear relationship between declining L2 proficiency and increasing age
（Kuo 2003 ）． Abundant research and anecdotal evidence indicate that older learners ，usually those
68
CELEA Journal 64
exposed to the L2 after puberty ，tend to be poorer language achievers than children（Todd 2003 ：62）
．
The term “critical period hypothesis”
（CPH ）has been drawing considerable attention ever since it was
coined by Lenneberg （1967 ）
． Although this concept is controversial ，it is undeniable that m any adult
learners of FL never change the accent of their NL ，
thus they speak an IL with a fossilized ，non－
native
accent and pronunciation．Scovel（1988）suggests that a learner s brain loses plasticity upon a critical age ，
and thus certain linguistic features cannot be m astered．For exa m ple ，pronunciation m ay have a critical
period because it involves certain neuro－m uscular skills．In contrast ，Klein （1986 ）only considers the
influence of physiological factors to be im portant for very m ature learners w hose auditory and
neuro m uscular deterioration is m ore advanced． Nevertheless ，Scovel s argu m ent is disputable in that a
series of provocative experim ents in the 1980s and 1990s showed that the adult brain has flexibility or
plasticity ，
that is ，a capacity to change as a result of usage and experience（Kassin 2004 ）
．In one of the
m ore recent papers to challenge CPH Abu－
Rabia and Kehat（2004）chronicle the successful acquisition of
a second language sound syste m （phonology）by ten late starters．They conclude that“there is roo m for
im prove m ent in one s level of pronunciation proficiency”，w hich see ms to im ply that fossilization of non－
native accent and pronunciation m ay not be associated necessarily with m ature ages．
If we accept the CPH theory ，to prevent the fossilization of non－
native accent and pronunciations ，
we m ust begin our EFL education only in kindergarten or in prim ary school ，an idea w hich is unrealistic
and not readily feasible in China． China is still an underdeveloped country ；alm ost all kindergarten
w orkers are native speakers of Chinese with little or no English educational background． Dong （2003 ）
conducted a survey of prim ary school English education in Guangdong Province ，
concluding that“we are
in serious lack of qualified English teachers and so m any prim ary schools are not actually ready for an
early startin FLlearning ；parents expectations and attitudes do notjustify an early startin FLlearning”
．
If we accept the concept of CPH ，
it is logical to conclude that prevention of this type of fossilization is
virtually im possible in China．Preventing develop m ent of a non－
native accent and pronunciation w ould
see m to require a very early startto FLlearning．However ，
a credible challenge to CPH could change this
assu m ption．
4．1．2 The learner s affective factor
According to the acculturation theory of the applied linguist John Schu m ann （1978 ），a very
significant factor in FLlearning success is the learner s outlook on the L1 speakers and their society ，and
her aspirations for joining that group（how m uch she wants to be like the FLspeakers or to be a m e m ber
of the FLsociety）
． We m ay assu m e that the absence of such an acculturation desire m ay lead to a greater
potential of fossilization in the individual learner s language． While such a causal factor has close
association with the social and ideological culture ，
the learner s desire certainly pertains to the affective
do m ain．Learners affective states have a very co m plex ，dyna mic and volatile nature ，but they “are
obviously of crucialim portance in accounting for individual differencesin learning outco m es”
（Ellis 1994 ：
479－
483）
．
Learners w ho affectively want to integrate in so m e way with the speakers of FL ，
such as those w ho
want perhaps to be seen as“urbane ，a well－
traveled person－
of－
the－
w orld”or“as at ho m e ordering food in
English as in her native language”
99），have a m otivation to learn and m aster the language
（Johnson 2002 ：
and thus fossilized errors is less likely than a m ong those w ho don t have any integrative m otivation．
Language teachers readily acknowledge the im portance of a learner s m otivation and SLAresearchers also
view m otivation as key factor in L2 learning （Ellis 1994 ：508 ）
． Researchers such as Zhaohong Han ＆
Selinker regard the m otivation criterion as im portant in determining the presence of fossilization（Han ＆
Selinker 1999）
．In accordance with Gardner and La m bert（1972 ），m otivation can be divided into tw o
types ：
integrative and instru m ental． A nu m ber of studies have investigated the relationships between
m otivation ，persistence ，and achieve m ent ，w hich show that integrative m otivation is strongly related to
L2 achieve m ent and co m bines with instru m ental m otivation to serve as a powerful predictor of success in
form al contexts（Ellis 1994 ：
512－
513）
．Smith（1972）argues thatlanguage serves three general functions ，
one being co m m unicative and another integrative（cited in Johnson 2002 ：
99）
． We can im agine that those
wanting to learn the language only for its co m m unicative function are m ore likely to have fossilized errors
in their interlanguage syste m ． When it suffices the learner to m ake himself understood ，
even in erroneous
forms ，
there is little incentive for the learner to m ake any m ore efforts to refine his interlanguage and
69
Prevention Is More Significant Than De－
Fossilization．
．．　Wei Wangdong ＆Huang Baitian
proceed towards fluency in the standard target language．
One particular affective factor ，anxiety ，holds an im portant position in SLA research．Referring to
MacIntyre ＆ Gardner （1991 ），Ellis points out that poor perform ance and continued bad learning
experiences result in increased anxiety ，that in turn leads to continued poor perform ance （Ellis 1994 ：
483）
．Such a pheno m enon w ould appear to be a precursor of fossilization．Selinker（1974 ：36）observes
that errors w hich have been thought to have been erased can re－
appear ，particularly w hen the speaker is
focused upon new and difficult intellectual subject m atter or w hen the speaker is in a state of anxiety or
excite m ent ，or strangely enough ，w hen the speaker is in a state of extre m e relaxation． Selinker s
observation see ms to suggest a linkage between learners affective states and fossilization．
Consequently we m ay understand w hy those w ho ad mire the“western”style of life and society often
speak English m uch better than those w ho show indifference or dislike． Co m paratively speaking ，the
possibility of fossilized errors in the interlanguage of the latter should be greater than in that of the
form er．The author knows a w o m an in China w ho socializes with Am erican teachers w henever possible
and often drea ms of beco ming a m e m ber of their society．One w ould predict that she w ould have a very
high proficiency in the English language．Such a prediction turns out to be correct ：that is ，w hen she
speaks English everybody gets the im pression that she m ust have been raised in Am erica．She does have an
Am erican husband and at present has perm anent residence in the USA ． On the contrary ，the author
knows another middle－
aged w o m an w ho ，
in spite of her five－
year residence in the USA ，
can only speak a
few English w ords．In conversing with her the author learned that she disliked Am erica and often kept a
substantial social distance fro m Am erican society by living in Chinatow n． Her profile indicated negative
affective states towards the Am erican culture and society ，a very high enclosure and a very low cultural
congruence ；
she was also of well－
advanced age． These tw o stories are related not for the purpose of
advising Chinese people to lose their Chinese identities or conversely ，
to show hostility towards the target
language and culture ，but to show the effects of positive and negative affective states． We can easily see
here that the affective causal factor doesn t produce its effect separately ，but in co m bination with other
causal factors such as the environ m ent ，
the social and ideological culture ，etc．
With regard to EFL education in China ，the appropriate develop m ent of students proper affective
states towards the target language and culture not only involves pedagogical strategy but also see ms to
involve politicalideology ，
and as such m ay re m ain a sensitive m atter．The author certainly doesn t suggest
that teachers propagandize“western”social and ideological culture ，but that teachers encourage students
to m aster the English language for the purpose of assisting our nation in spreading Chinese culture abroad
and boosting the internationalstatus of China．The students positive affective state in learning English as
a foreign language should receive m ore attention fro m language teachers and researchers．As an English
teacher ，
the author has observed a direct relationship between a student s reluctance to study English and
their poor perform ance in the language．
We argue in the above that the learner w ho lacks a desire to acculturate into the society and culture
of the target language will have greater potential for fossilized errors in their interlanguages ，but it
doesn t follow that the learners with a desire for acculturation w ould be im m une fro m fossilized errors in
their interlanguage． Selinker ＆ La m endella （1978 ：187） state that learners with “positive ability ，
opportunity ，and m otivation to learn and acculturate into target society ”can still have “a perm anent
cessation of ILlearning before the learner has attained TL norms”
． A very good exa m ple is the w orld－
renow ned physicist ，Chien－
Shiung Wu（1912 —1997），w hose story was published in The Guardian ，May
13 ，1997 and cited by Han （2004a ）
． She was never able to overco m e so m e of her easily observed
difficulties with the English language ，despite her staying in USA for over 50 years as a professor and
consequent extensive exposure to English． One can certainly conclude in her case that there is a
co m pelling positive affective factor for the learning of English．More research clearly needs to be pursued
to determine the exact generative and induce m ent m echanisms for fossilization．
4．1．3 The specific learner s language transfer
Though he realizes the significance of language transfer has always been controversial ，Odlin（2001）
regards transfer as an extre m ely im portant factor in SLA ，for he claims to have been convinced by
70
CELEA Journal 64
sufficient available evidence． After clarifying that it is neither a consequence of habit form ation ，nor
interference ，nor a falling back on the native language ，nor always native language influence ，Odlin
27 ）defines transfer as an influence resulting fro m similarities and differences between the
（2001 ：25－
target language and any other language that has been previously （and perhaps im perfectly ）acquired．
So m e researchers such as Han ＆Selinker（1999）regard language transfer as the principal SLA factor that
has stabilizing effects．Selinker ＆Laksh m anan（1992）s Multiple Effects Principle（ MEP）is the strongest
effort so far to link transfer and fossilization．In this case language transfer is claim ed to w ork in tande m
with other SLAfactors to generate a greater possibility of stabilization of those interlanguage formslikely
to lead to fossilization．
The relationship of language transfer and EFL education in China can be very co m plex．The author
can only m ention one exa m ple in this article．Many syntactic structures in the Chinese language naturally
differ significantly fro m those in the English language． For exa m ple ，the syntactic pattern to express
cause and effectin Chinese is to be built on the tw o Chinese w ords m eaning“because”and“so”
．Aliteral
translation w ould be ungra m m atical in the English language． EFL learners in China often m ake the
see mingly fossilized mistake“because ．
．．so．．．”．EFLteachersin China m ust explain such differences to
the learners during their early stages of learning the language so that negative language transfer can be
avoided as early as possible．Such practices m ay help prevent fossilized errors．
4．2 Non learner－
specific factors
4．2．1 The pedagogical factor
Since the early 1970s ， with linguists searching ever m ore intently to discover the nature of
co m m unication and co m m unicative co m petence and to explain the interactive process of language ，the
language teaching profession has suggested m ethods that concentrate on the co m m unicative process in
language learning（Brow n 1994 ：15）
189 ）argued in the 1970s that“language teaching
．Bru mfit（2000 ：
needs to concentrate far m ore on the concept of‘fluency ”
．Such an argu m ent has beco m e a re m arkable
feature of co m m unicative language teaching（CLT ）
．In defining CLT ，Brow n offers four characteristics ，
one being that“at tim es fluency m ay have to take on m ore im portance than accuracy in order to keep
learners m eaningfully engaged in language use”
（1994 ：245）．CLTsee ms to have been widely accepted as
the best way to teach foreign languages．However ，
like any other pedagogy ，CLTcannot avoid criticism ．
Teachers strong e m phasis on fluent co m m unication m ay increase the occurrence of students speaking
fluent but error－
ridden language ，
as reported by Valette（1991）
．Vigil ＆Oller（1976）bla m ed fossilization
on CLT ．On the one hand ，
fossilization m ay result fro m a language teacher s positive cognitive feedback ，
such as “I understand you ”，w hen the student speaks incorrectly． On the other hand ，the teacher s
negative feedback ，
such as“Idon t understand you”，could help avoid fossilization．However this needs
further confirm ation ，for even corrective feedback m ay actually pro m ote fossilization （ Han 2004b ）
．
“Fossilization m ay be the result of too m any green lights w hen there should have been so m e yellow or red
lights”
corrective feedback that says“Iunderstand your
（Brow n 2001 ：262）．A green light sy m bolizes non－
m essage”
（ibid）．A red light sy m bolizes corrective feedback that takes on a m yriad of possible forms and
causes the learner to m ake so m e kind of alteration in production（ibid）
．A yellow light causes the learner
to adjust ，
to alter ，
to recycle back ，
and to try again in so m e way（ibid）
．Such criticism see ms to conform
with the behaviorist idea that errors should be avoided by all m eans ，because practice m akes perm anent ，
suggesting that if errors are left uncorrected they will always be present（Johnson 2002 ：97）
．In the
1990s ，Valette （1991 ）held a similar view ，that is ，that fossilization m ay result fro m reinforce m ent
derived fro m successful co m m unication and lack of correction ，either fro m native speakers and／
or
learners the mselves． He suggested that phonological fossilization m ay very well originate fro m the
acceptance of inaccurate speech production by a teacher．In contrast ，Lightbow n ＆ Spada （1999 ）
provided a different view of the relationship between CLT and fossilization． They suggested that a
co m m unicative approach might help prevent rather than cause early fossilization errors．Researchers have
yet to reach consensus ；
their studies reflect different views about error correction in language teaching．
It s virtually always appropriate to reco m m end thatlanguage teachers should give serious considerations to
the feedback they give to students．In the field of SLA ，researchers usually hold a positive view of the
role of external influences upon the nature and speed of foreign language develop m ent．Skehan （2002 ：
71
Prevention Is More Significant Than De－
Fossilization．
．．　Wei Wangdong ＆Huang Baitian
85 ）points out that “even within the constraints that individual factors have great im portance ，it is
nonetheless accepted that ．
．．types of feedback on learner production can have so m e im pact”．Further
research is needed to clarify the role of language teachers in helping to avoid the occurrence of fossilized
errors or in influencing their occurrence． Han ＆Selinker （1999 ）suggested that fossilization might be
prevented or delayed by certain pedagogical strategies ，the elaboration of w hich can be provided by
m aking use of a MEP－
inspired analysis of m ultiple factors． They conclude that acquisition can be
facilitated by a language teacher s fine－
tuned ，
form －
focused intervention．
4．2．2 Social and ideological culture factor
Fro m the perspective of anthropology ，culture is co m m only divided into three broad categories ：
m aterial ，
social ，and ideological ，with social culture pertaining to people s forms of social organization ，
that is ，how people interact and organize the mselves in groups ，with ideological culture relating to w hat
people think ，value ，believe ，and hold as ideals ，and with m aterial culture including products of hu m an
m anufacture ，
such as technology（Bodley 2004 ；also cited in Wei 2004）
． Obviously ，the cultural factor
cannot produce an effect on fossilization alone．Its effect on the occurrence of fossilized errors in the
individualinterlanguage m ay be produced through the affective factor as discussed in 4．1．2． The best－
know n and m ost frequently cited explanation of the relationship between culture and fossilization m ay be
Schu m ann s Acculturation Theory （1978 ）
． This theory claims that the sense of social and econo mic
do minance in the learner s culture m ay im pede the learner s progress in the target language ，for in the
absence of a m otive for integrating within that“poorer”culture ，pidgin－
like forms of the target language
fossilize early ，as they suffice for the learner．Schu m ann s key point is that fossilization depends on the
extent of the learner s aspiration to acculturate to the FL language and society． One supporter of
Schu m ann is Brow n（1980 ） w ho ，
in his“Optim al Distance Model”，explains interlanguage fossilization
through the scope of the sociocultural do m ain． He argues that if learners pass through the stages of
acculturation with incorrect forms of language ，
they will not m aster the target language ，
since they have
m anaged to acco m m odate the mselves to the new surroundings with inaccurate or pidgin forms of that
language．Schu m ann s Acculturation Theory（1978 ）as an explanation for fossilization ，however ，
is far
fro m widely accepted．For exa m ple ，
the theory is challenged by Ushioda（1993）w ho ，
after m aking“case
studies of tw o native Japanese speakers with long experience living in an English－
speaking environ m ent”，
co m es to the conclusion that acculturation theory does not account for fossilization and that“a broader
approach is needed”
．
4．2．3 The environ mental factor
Learning environ m ent and learning outco m e are undoubtedly tightly connected． Lizzio ，Wilson ＆
Sim ons（2002 ） conducted a large－
scale investigation of undergraduate students and concluded that
“perceptions of teaching environ m ents influence learning outco m es both directly and indirectly ”，that
“changes in teaching environ m ents m ay have an im pact on students learning outco m es”．In the case of
second or foreign language learning ，the learning environ m ent plays a m ore im portant role． As Ellis
26）argues ，
evidentthat L2 acquisition can only take place w hen the learner has access to
（1994 ：
“itis self－
input in the L2”
．Such input undoubtedly pertains to the learning environ m ent． Muhlhauser（1986 ：265）
conducted a study of the develop m ental stages of pidgin languages on a large scale and observed that
“activation of certain linguistic develop m ents is dependent on the presence of specific environ m ental
factors”
driven analysis of discourse m arkers ，Trillo（2002）concluded that the non－
．Based on a corpus－
natural teaching environ m ent ，w here non－
native speakerslearn the L2 ，
fails to pro m ote co m petent use of
the prag m atic function needed in casual conversation ，w hich consequently causes prag m atic fossilization．
In an EFLlearning environ m ent like that of China ，
the scarcity of exposure to authentic input（real
contact with native speakers of English）m ay beco m e one of the m ajor causes of fossilized errors in EFL
interlanguage．However ，with China beco ming m ore open to the outside w orld and with better access to
the Internet ，Chinese EFL learners can have a greater exposure to authentic input of the English
language．This should help prevent so m e fossilized errors．In teaching English in China ，
teachers need to
turn the classroo m into a place w here co m prehensible input of authentic linguistic m aterials are m ade
available to the learners．In addition ，
teachers should constantly adjust the input to m eet the progress of
the learners and closely m onitor output to provide tim ely and appropriate correction．Furtherm ore ，
they
72
CELEA Journal 64
should resort to m ultim edia technology and m ake good use of the recorded standard speech of native
speakers ，in an effort to prevent fossilized errors in the phonological syste m of the learner s
interlanguage ，
for as Valette（1991）argued ，
learners phonological fossilization m ay very well originate
fro m the acceptance of inaccurate speech production ，both fro m their peer groups and their teachers．If
such a learning environ m entis available to the learners ，
fossilized errors should be lesslikely in their EFL
interlanguage． However ，further research is certainly needed to corroborate the positive relationship
between authentic linguistic input and the prevention of fossilization．
Many individuals hold the view that by im migrating to the English－
speaking w orld they can have
access to rich sources of authentic linguistic input． However ，Dicker reports（2003 ：79－
94 ）that m any
im migrants find that English－
speaking Am ericans tend to be im patient and unfriendly w hen the
im migrants do try to co m m unicate with the m ；minority－
language speakers w ho live and w ork with
English－
speaking Am ericans m ay have m ore exposure to co m prehensible input ，but in m any situations ，
they do not get the kind of English input they require ，for the English－
speakers around the m m ay speak
the mselves a non－
standard variety of English．Often ，
the English these learners acquire is very sim plified
and telegraphic ，understandable but stilllacking the finer gra m m atical nuances such as verb tense（
“he go
yesterday”
），verb agree m ent（“she like ice crea m ”），and plurality（“I have tw o dollar”）（ibid）．Such
constructions m ay beco m e fossilized errors in their interlanguage．Furtherm ore ，
learner s residence in a
target language environ m ent doesn t necessarily m ean that he or she will have sufficient exposure to TL ，
for“there are co m m unities or individuals w hose contact with the target language is minim al”（ Han
2004）
．To determine the environ m ental effect on interlanguage fossilization ，
“concerted efforts should be
m ade at the outset of research to determine the nature of the social and linguistic environ m ent within
w hich learners have developed their L2 ”（ibid ）
． Attention should be focused on the duration of the
learner s residence in the specific environ m ent and the types and the intensity of the learners
interactions．
4．3 Other variants
Besides the above－m entioned learner－
specific and non learner－
specific causal factors for fossilization ，
there m ay be other variants．For exa m ple ，Klein （1995 ）approaches this issue fro m the perspective of
Universal Gra m m ar（ UG ），with the argu m ent that evidence indicates fossilization of a wild gra m m ar
pheno m enon ，w hich points to a lack of UGin the L2 process．
5． Conclusion
In the above discussion ，the author analyzes various potential causal factors for fossilized errors ，
including the biological ，social－
affective ，cognitive and environ m ental perspectives ，and also suggests
relevance for EFL education in China． Causal factors include biological ，affective ，language transfer ，
pedagogical ，
social and ideological culture ，and environ m ental．They rarely produce their effects upon
fossilization separately． They co m bine with one another to generate fossilization． As a consequence ，
language teachers should give serious consideration to the co m binations of causal factors that m ay cause
fossilization ，so that fossilization can be prevented before it is too late． Our prim ary goal should be to
prevent fossilization occurrence rather than to de－
fossilize existing fossilized errors．
Acknowledge ments
We w ould like to express our deepest gratitude to Professor Welsch for his advice and revision and to
the Journal s reviewers ，especially the final reviewer for their advice and revision．
References
Abu－
Rabia ，S．＆S．Kehat 2004． The critical period for second language pronunciation ：
Is there such a thing ？
Ten case studies of late starters w ho attained a native－
like Hebrew accent． Educational Psychology 24／
1：
77－
99
Birdsong ，D ．2004．Second language acquisition and ultimate attain ment［to appear in Handbook of Applied
Linguistics Alan Davies and Catherine Elder ，Eds．Black well］．Retrieved Sept．24 ，
2004 fro m ：
ccwf．
cc．
utexas．
edu／
birdsong／publications／
hal－
ultim －
attain－
short．
pdf
Bodley ，
J． H ．2004． Anthropology ，study of hu man culture．In Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2004
73
Prevention Is More Significant Than De－
Fossilization．
．．　Wei Wangdong ＆Huang Baitian
（ CD ）． Microsoft Corporation．
Bro w n ，H ．D ．1980．The optimal distance m odel of second language acquisition． TESOL Quarterly 14 ：
157－
64．
Bro w n ，H ．D ．1994． Principles of Language Learning and Teaching（3rd Edition）
． New Jersey ：Prentice Hall
Regents
Bro w n ，H ．D ．2001． Teaching by Principles ：An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy．Beijing ：Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press．
Bru mfit ，C．2000．“Co m m unicative”Language teaching ：an educational perspective．In C ．
J．Bru mfit ＆K ．
Johnson．
（eds）． The Com municative Approach to Language Teaching．Shanghai ：Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press．
Dicker ，S．J．2003． Languagesin America ：A Pluralist View ．Clevedon ，GBR ：Multilingual Matters Limited．
Dong ，Yanping．2003． Are we ready for an early start in foreign language learning ？— Asurvey of primary
school English education in Guangdong Province． Modern Foreign Languages（ Quarterly）26／
1 ：39－
47．
Ellis ，R ．1985． Understanding Second Language Acquisition．Oxford University Press．
Ellis ，R ．1994． The Study of Second Language Acquisition．Oxford ：Oxford University Press．
Gardner ，R ．C ．＆ W ．
E ．Lam bert．1972． Attitudes and Motivation ：Second Language Learning．Ro wley ，MA ：
New bury House．
Gentzler ，E ．2004． Contemporary Translation Theories．Shanghai ：
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press．
Han ，Zhaohong． 2003． Fossilization ：Fro m sim plicity to co m plexity． International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 6／
2：
95－
128．
Han ，Zhaohong．2004a．Fossilization ：five central issues． International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14／
2：
212－
242．
Han ，Zhaohong．2004b． Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition． Multilingual Matters（Clevedon）
．
Han ，Zhaohong ＆L．Selinker．1999． Error resistance ：to wards an e m pirical pedagogy． Language Teaching
Research 3／
3：
248－
275．
Johnson ，K ．2001． An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching． Beijing ：Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press．
Kassin ，S．
2004． Psychology． Microsoft Encarta Reference Library．
Klein ，E．1995．Evidence for a“wild”L2 gram mar ：When pps reartheir e m pty heads． Applied Linguistics 16 ：
87－
117．
Klein ，W ．1986． Second Language Acquisition．Cam bridge ：Cam bridge University Press．
Kuo ，Huang Ru．2003． The nature and causes of interlanguage fossilization． The Source 4／
1．
Laksh manan ，U ．2001． Analysing interlanguage ：Ho w do we kno w w hat learners kno w ？Second Language
Research 17／
4：
393－
420．
Lardiere ，D ．1998． Case and tense in the“fossilized”steady state． Second Language Research 14／
1 ：1－
26．
Lenneberg ，E．H ．1967． Biological Foundations of Language．New York ：
John Wiley．
Lightbo w n ，P． M ．＆N ．Spada．1999． How Languages Are Learned（2nd edition）
．Oxford University Press．
Lizzio ，
A ．，K ．Wilson ＆R ．Sim ons．2002． University students perceptions of the learning environ ment and
acade mic outco mes ：
Im plications for theory and practice． Studiesin Higher Education 27／
1 ：2002．
Muhlhauser ，P．1986． Pidgin and Creole Linguistics．Oxford ：Basil Black well．
Mukkatesh ，L．1986． Persistence in fossilisation．International Review of Applied Linguistics 24 ：
187－
203．
Nunan ，D ．2001a． Second Language Teaching and Learning．Beijing ：Foreign Language Teaching and Research
Press．
Odlin ，T ．2001． Language Transfer ： Cross Linguistic Influence in Language Learning．Shanghai ：Shanghai
Foreign Languages Press．
Ranganayaki．1983－
1984． A Study Of the Syntactic Errors Co m mitted by Gujarati Learners of English in
Standard Ix to Investigate into Interlanguage and Sources with Suggested Re medial Measures． A
Dissertation Sub mitted To SARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY VALLABH VIDYANGAR In Partial
Fulfillment Of The Require ments For The Degree Of Master Of Education（English）
．
Rubin ，
J．＆I．Tho m pson．1983． How to Be a More Successful Language Learner．Boston ：Heinle ＆Heinle．
Schu mann ，
J．H ．1978．The acculturation m odel for second language acquisition．In R ．C ．Gingras（eds．
）．
Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching （pp．27－
50 ）
． Arlington ，VA ：Center for
Applied Linguistics．
Scovel ，T ．1988． A Time to Speak ： A Psycholinguistic Inquiry into the Critical Period for Human Speech．
74
CELEA Journal 64
Ro wley ，MA ：New bury House．
Selinker ，L．1972．Interlanguage．International Review of Applied Linguistics 10 ：209－
231．
Selinker ，L．1974．Interlanguage．In J．Schu mann ＆ N ．Stenson （eds．
）． New Frontiers in Second Language
Learning．Ro wley ，MA ：New bury House．
Selinker ，L．＆ Han ，Zhaohong．1996． Fossilization ：What We Think We Kno w Eurosla Oral Version．
Nijmegen ，
30 May．
Selinker ，L．＆Han ，Zhaohong．2000．Fossilization ：Moving the conceptinto e m piricallongitudinalstudy．In
E．Elder（ed．
）． Studies in Language Testing／Experimenting with Uncertainty ：Essays in Honor of Alan
Davies．Cam bridge ，UK ：UCLES．
Selinker ，L．，Dae－
Eun Kim ＆S． B． Rao．2004． Linguistic structure with processing in second language
research ：
Is a“Unified Theory”Possible ？Second Language Research 20／
1：
77－
94．
Selinker ，L．
＆U ．Lakshamanan．1992． Language transfer and fossilization ：The m ultiple effects principle．In
S．Gass ＆L．Selinker（eds．
216）
）
． Language Transfer in Language Learning（pp．197－
．Amsterdam ：John
Benjamins．
Selinker L．＆J．Lamendella．1978．Tw o perspectives on fossilization in interlanguage learning．Interlanguage
Studies Bulletin 3／
2：
143－
91．
（cited in Han ，2004）
Skehan ，P． 2002． Theorising and updating aptitude．In P．Robinson （eds．
）． Individual Differences and
Instructed Language Learning．Philadelphia ，PA ，USA ：
John Benjamins Publishing Co m pany ，p xcvii．
Tanaka ，P．B ．2000． Fossilization ：A chronic condition or is consciousness－
raising the cure ？A Dissertation
Sub mitted To The Faculty of Arts of the University of Birmingham for the degree of Master of Arts in
Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language（TEFL／TESL）
．
Todd ，Stefka H ． Marinova．2003． Kno w your gram mar ：What the kno wledge of syntax and m orphology in
an L2 reveals aboutthe critical period for second／
foreign language acquisition．In Garcia Mayo ，Maria del
Pilar（eds．
）． Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language． Clevedon ，GBR ：Multilingual
Matters Limited．
Trillo ，Jesu s Ro mero．2002． The prag matic fossilization of discourse markers in non－
native speakers of
English．Journal of Pragmatics 34 ：769－
784．
Ushioda ，E ． 1993． Acculturation theory and linguistic Fossilization ：A co m parative case study． CLCS
Occasional Paper No．
37．
Valette ，R ． M ．1991 ：Proficiency and the prevention of fossilization — An editorial． The Modern Language
Journal 75 ：325－
28．
Vigil ，N ．A ．＆J．W ．Oller．1976 ：Rule fossilization ：Atentative m odel． Language Learning 26 ：
281－
95．
Wei ，Wangdong．2004． Factors affecting learner autono m y in ELT ：A starting point for its pro m otion．
CELEAJournal（Journal of China English Language Education Association）27／
4 ：102－
108．
White ，L．2003． Fossilization in steady state L2 gram mars ：Persistent proble ms with inflectional m orphology．
Bilingualism ：Language ＆ Cognition 6／
2：
129－
142．
75