In Finegan et al.’s (seventh edition) he explains how in the acquisition of a second language, the student is faced with the task not simply of learning new information, which is part of his own culture but rather of acquiring symbolic elements of a different ethnolinguistic community. The new words are not simply new words for old concepts, the new grammar is not simply a new way of ordering words, the new renunciation are not merely different ways of saying things. They are characteristics of another ethnolinguistic community. Furthermore, the student is not being asked to learn about them; he is being asked to acquire them, to make them part of their own language reservoir. This involves imposing elements of another culture into one’s own
…show more content…
An interlanguage is that form of the target language that a learner has internalized, and the interlanguage grammar underlies the spontaneous utterances of a learner in the target language. The grammar of an interlanguage can differ from the grammar of the target language by containing rules borrowed from the native language, by containing overgeneralizations, by lacking certain sounds of the target language. For various reasons, often related to the kind of motivation a learner has, the language learning process typically slows down or ceases at some point and the existing interlanguage stabilizes, with negligible further acquisition except in vocabulary. when that occurs, the interlanguage may contain rules or other features that differ from those of the target language. Many second language learners fossilize at a stage of acquisition. Then is a root of a foreign …show more content…
These conceptual differences found in the literature, it has become increasingly clear, create confusion rather than offering clarification, thereby obstructing a coherent understanding of the theoretical notion as well as empirical research findings. This article addresses the conceptual differences by raising and discussing five central issues: (1) Is fossilization global or local? (2) Is L2 ultimate attainment isomorphic with fossilization? (3) Is fossilization a product or a process? (4) Is stabilization synonymous with fossilization? (5) Should empirical studies of fossilization span five years or more? In Valette et al.’s (1991) summary article in the Proficiency and the Prevention of Fossilization explains that is a case made for preventing the fossilization of proficiency levels for second-language students through the development of better instructional models, decreased acceptance and increased correction of inaccurate speech production, increased development of instructors as native speakers, and more research into the fossilization problem and its
An interlanguage is that form of the target language that a learner has internalized, and the interlanguage grammar underlies the spontaneous utterances of a learner in the target language. The grammar of an interlanguage can differ from the grammar of the target language by containing rules borrowed from the native language, by containing overgeneralizations, by lacking certain sounds of the target language. For various reasons, often related to the kind of motivation a learner has, the language learning process typically slows down or ceases at some point and the existing interlanguage stabilizes, with negligible further acquisition except in vocabulary. when that occurs, the interlanguage may contain rules or other features that differ from those of the target language. Many second language learners fossilize at a stage of acquisition. Then is a root of a foreign …show more content…
These conceptual differences found in the literature, it has become increasingly clear, create confusion rather than offering clarification, thereby obstructing a coherent understanding of the theoretical notion as well as empirical research findings. This article addresses the conceptual differences by raising and discussing five central issues: (1) Is fossilization global or local? (2) Is L2 ultimate attainment isomorphic with fossilization? (3) Is fossilization a product or a process? (4) Is stabilization synonymous with fossilization? (5) Should empirical studies of fossilization span five years or more? In Valette et al.’s (1991) summary article in the Proficiency and the Prevention of Fossilization explains that is a case made for preventing the fossilization of proficiency levels for second-language students through the development of better instructional models, decreased acceptance and increased correction of inaccurate speech production, increased development of instructors as native speakers, and more research into the fossilization problem and its