FOSSILIZATION IN IMMERSION CONTEXT

Errors of commission, omission

and the influence of L1 on the acquisition of the Spanish clitic se

---

A RESEARCH STUDY DESIGN

Presented to
Professor Dr. Carmen Pérez Vidal
MA in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics
at the University of Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

---

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course
Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism

---

by
Veronika Richtarcikova
February 22, 2013
 Abstract

Learning a foreign language is notoriously difficult for adults and few ever
achieve native like competence. It has been claimed that fossilization – cessation
of learning in some aspect of interlanguage - is inevitable, permanent and
partially caused by L1 transfer. By building on previous research by Franceschina
(2005) and Zyzik (2006), this study is designed to investigate the fossilization of a
morphosyntactic construct of the Spanish clitic se present in the causative-
inchoative alternation of certain verbs. Through a series of grammaticality
judgment and oral production tasks in Spanish, performance of L1 English
speakers, immersed in L2 Spanish environment is compared to a control group of
speakers of an L1 where a comparable clitic is present. It is expected that the
findings would prove the hypothesis that a native language with no clitic feature
is the main predictor of fossilization. Secondary hypotheses are that errors of
omission are the most enduring, and that lack of formal instruction is a significant
contributing factor to fossilization. The study is relevant to the issue of L1 transfer
and ultimate attainment in L2 morphosyntax competence that adult learners in
immersion context can reach.
 Table of contents

0. Introduction..........................................................................................................1
0.1. Structure of the paper.................................................................................1
1. Literature Review: Fossilization..........................................................................2
1.1. Conceptualizations, characteristics and causal variables of fossilization.....2
1.2. Notable empirical findings..........................................................…...........2
2. Present study........................................................................................................4
2.1. Spanish clitic se.........................................................................................4
3. Methodology........................................................................................................6
3.1. Experimental design..................................................................................6
3.2. Research questions and hypotheses...........................................................7
3.3. Subjects......................................................................................................8
3.4. Data collection, instruments and analysis..................................................9
3.5. Expected results and discussion.................................................................9
4. Conclusion.........................................................................................................10
5. References..........................................................................................................11
6. Appendices.........................................................................................................12
0. Introduction
Vast majority of adult second language (L2) learners never achieve native-
like proficiency in one or more linguistic aspects of the target language (TL)
despite strong motivation, effort and otherwise favorable conditions. Why does
everyone, under normal circumstances, reach full competence in their native
language but the same seems impossible even for the most talented L2 learners?
Understanding of this non-trivial limitation to second language acquisition (SLA)
is relevant both to educators and researchers alike. Identifying what is not
learnable/not teachable has implications on pedagogical strategies and curriculum
development. From the theoretical point of view, on the other hand, study of the
failure to reach the target L2 performance directly contributes to a resolution of
one of the controversial questions in SLA - whether fossilization is a valid
explanation of the phenomenon. Selinker first introduced the term fossilization in
his seminal paper in 1972 and later explicitly defined it as “the process whereby
the learner creates a cessation of interlanguage (IL) learning, thus stopping the IL
from developing, it is hypothesized, in a permanent way...The argument is that no
adult can hope to ever speak a second language in such a way that s/he is
indistinguishable from native speakers of that language.” (Selinker, 1996).
Important strides that have been made in the research of fossilization in the past
four decades will be briefly discussed in the ensuing subsections.

0.1. Structure of the paper

Section 1 offers a brief overview of the varied conceptualizations,
characteristics, and causal variables of fossilization that have been proposed in the
SLA literature over the past four decades, as well as highlights notable empirical
findings on the issue. Section 2 will provide basic background on Spanish
reflexive se, the proposed phenomenon under investigation in the present research
design. Section 3 will detail the main elements of the experimental design and
finally, hypothetical results and their implications will be considered.

1
1. Literature Review: Fossilization
1.1. Conceptualizations, characteristics and causal variables of fossilization
The definitions and alleged scope of fossilization vary greatly across SLA
literature (see Han, 2004, for an in-depth analysis). Multiple angles on the
construct include “backsliding” (R. Ellis, 1985), temporary “plateauing” (Flynn
and O'Neil, 1988), permanent “cessation of learning” (Odlin, 1993), equating
fossilization with “ultimate attainment” (Towell and Hawkins, 1994), etc.
Fossilization is believed to be “local”, affecting only certain subsets of IL, or
“global”, affecting all aspects of the learner's IL.

The characteristics that emerge as common to most accounts are that

fossilized deviant structures are persistent, they are resistant to external
influences, and they affect both child and adult L2 learners alike. Several causal
variables of fossilization, operating alone or in tandem, have been suggested
across the rich spectrum of explanatory accounts. They include, but are not
limited to, lack of instruction and absence of corrective feedback, maturational
constraints of age, lack of correct input, false automatization, variety of social-
psychological factors such as failure to acculturate and satisfaction of
communicative needs with a simplified system, end of sensitivity to language
data, lack of access to UG learning principles, and finally, idiosyncrasies of L1
transfer (Han, 2004 and Long, 2005).

1.2. Notable empirical findings

One of the problems for providing conclusive evidence of fossilization is
the elusive notion of what constitutes “permanence”. Selinker (1989) proposed
that persistence of non-target forms for at least two to five years qualifies as
fossilization, however, only a handful of studies lasted that long due to efficacy
difficulties that go hand in hand with the longitudinal research strategy. The best
examples of this approach are Han's (1998) study of two Chinese informants, F
and G; Lardiere's (1998) observation of a Chinese L1 speaker Patty; and Long's
(1997) data from a Japanese immigrant to Hawaii, Ayoko. All three studies
focused on the length of residence in conjunction with the age of arrival in the TL

2
environment and are of great interest for the light they throw on the non-target
nature of the end-state grammatical L2 knowledge in immersion conditions.
Many researchers, however, employ a working definition of IL
“stabilization” and instead of following a population of L2 learners longitudinally,
they use a cross-sectional design. Such studies also provide useful insights, but
arguably generalize to a certain language community (e.g. through an analysis of
typical persistent errors of advanced speakers of a uniform L1) and cannot capture
what is happening to individual learners. One example of this type of study is
Mukkatash (1986) whose methodological approach included a “defossilization”
treatment. In his study, corrective-feedback provided to 80 Jordanian learners with
an average of 11 years of prior English instruction failed to improve their
grammatical performance. Fossilization was proposed as an explanation.
A puzzling question in the fossilization research is why some grammatical
structures are affected and seem to be unlearnable for adult L2 learners but not
others. Long (2005) suggests that this can be explained by the interaction of a
feature's perceptual salience characteristics, such as frequency, communicative
value and semantic weight with the input sensitivity of some individual learners.
If such a proposal is correct, it would predict which classes of linguistic elements
are more likely to fossilize (or stabilize) than others. Long cites Todeva (1992) in
the discussion of three high-risk categories (HRCs) of features that are especially
prone to fossilization: (i) categories lacking a straightforward form-function
relationship (e.g articles); (ii) semi-productive rules with a high number of
exceptions (e.g. English stress shift in verb-to-adjective formations); and (iii) units
of a highly arbitrary nature (e.g. gender assignment). Franceschina (2005) looked
specifically at one such HRC feature, grammatical gender, and hypothesized that
the absence of this grammar feature in L1 plays a large role in the subjects' non-
target performance. The methodology involved oral interviews combined with a
series of elicitation tasks with the aim of tapping the relevant grammar feature
through different measures. 68 subjects were divided into two groups: -gen group
(speakers of English where the feature is not observed), and +gen group (speakers
of a number of languages, French, Arabic, etc. where this feature is observed). By

3
comparing the results and observing that -gen group (81.33% accuracy) was
systematically less target-like than +gen (92.4%), Franceschina provided evidence
that the absence of the gender feature is the determining factor that accounts for
the differences in performance between these two groups.
In light of the research findings to date and lack of definite evidence of
whether IL grammars fossilize, further research is warranted. One such design
proposal will be delineated in the ensuing subsections.

2. Present Study
In line with Franceschina's (2005) interest in HRC grammatical features that
differ in L1 and L2 and present a learnability problem because of their
exceedingly complex distribution and form-function mapping, the present
research study will focus on a Spanish morphosyntactic clitic se. To my
knowledge, there has not been a previous study on English native speakers,
linguistically and culturally immersed in the country of the TL for a substantial
period of time, and their acquisition of the clitic se in the inchoative-causative
verb alternation in Spanish.

2.1. Spanish clitic se

The morphosyntactic feature of the Spanish clitic se is has many functions
(see Table 1) as is explained in depth by Eve Zyzik (2006).

Table 1. Functions of se (Zyzik, 2006)

4
 For the purposes of the present study only the decausative function will be
considered. As illustrated by the following examples, the same state of events can
be expressed from two perspectives, depending on whether they occur with an
influence of an external agent or cause. In syntax this is referred to as a causative-
inchoative alternation and is morphologically coded in Spanish but not in English.

(1) a. El cocinero quemó el flan.

´The cook burned the flan.´
b. El flan se quemó.
´The flan burned.´
c. *El flan quemó.

Zyzik (2006) tested English native speaking subjects' performance on this type of
alternating verbs. Her hypothesis that English-speaking learners would produce
zero morphology on intransitive verbs that depict inchoative events, i.e. commit
the error of omission, was confirmed by the results (see Table 2).

Table 2: Percentage of correct responses (Zyzik, 2006)

The advanced learners' grammar failed to converge with that of NSs, in fact,
errors of omission were more enduring and only 50% of correct answers in
transitive→intransitive alternation is seen by Zyzik as evidence for the lasting
influence of one's L1 (zero-derivation in this case) on the SLA process. The
advanced subjects in Zyzik's study were college students enrolled in an advanced
Spanish course at an American university, with less then one academic year spent
abroad and English reported as being the only language spoken in their household.
The current proposal, as delineated in the following section, builds on this
research by looking at subjects in an immersion context where, as opposed to
Zyzik's advanced subject group, fossilization might be reasonably expected.

5
3. Methodology
3.1 Experimental Design
The study will compare grammatical judgment and oral production data collected
from high-proficiency speakers of L2 Spanish, both male and female, living in
Spain (TL environment) for a substantial period of time (approximately 10 years).
The participants in the study are screened for, among other factors, their level of
acculturation and linguistic immersion through a self-assessment questionnaire
and tested on their proficiency through a standardized test. Thus, the individual
differences are controlled to the highest ability of the researcher. The subjects are
divided into two groups of distinct linguistic backgrounds: one group of English
native speakers (-clitic experimental group) and one group of speakers of a
language where a comparable clitic is present in the L1 grammar (+clitic control
group). A group of native Spanish speakers will provide the baseline data. L1
being the independent variable, with secondary independent variable being the
amount of formal instruction, the focus of the study is to measure the dependent
variable of amount of errors of commission (overgeneralization) and omission
(avoidance). The data is collected one time, through administering of
grammaticality judgment and oral production tasks. If the -clitic group performs
significantly worse than the +clitic group, this will serve as supporting evidence
that L1 transfer is a crucial factor in the fossilization of certain grammatical
features in adult SLA.
Figure 1 below graphically represents the experimental design.

baseline

Figure 1: Conceptual representation of the experimental design

6
3.2. Research Questions and Hypotheses
Adopting a working definition of fossilization as a stabilized non-target
like IL state despite a number of years in the TL environment and plentiful
linguistic input, and assuming enduring L1 transfer even for advanced learners,
the following research questions guided the design of the current study proposal:
1. Does L1-L2 distinction in morphological coding of causative-inchoative
alternation in the two languages lead to a general failure by English NSs to
fully acquire the Spanish clitic se in an immersion context?
2. Is fossilization of avoidance of a structure different from fossilization of
overgeneralization, as measured by a quantitative difference in the amount
of errors of omission vs. errors of commission?
3. Considering the various suggestions for causes of fossilization in the
literature (as mentioned in Section 1) and given the interesting expatriate
situation of my subjects, what other factors reflected in their lives will
affect the tendency to fossilize in this aspect of Spanish morphosyntax?

The following hypotheses can be formulated with respect to each research

question:
1. It is hypothesized that the -clitic group will perform significantly worse in
the tasks than the +clitic group.
2. It is hypothesized that a perfectly native-like performance in the transitive-
intransitive alternation is unachievable for -clitic group.
3. It is expected that lack of formal instruction could be a key indicator of
non-native like performance.

3.3. Subjects
Following the design of Franceschina's (2005) study, in which she compared
two groups, +gen and -gen, this study also compares two groups of participants,
one where the grammatical feature of a clitic is observed and one where it is not.
The experimental, -clitic group consists of 30 native speakers of English of mixed
gender. These participants would be selected from among adult expatriates who

7
have lived in Spain (Spanish speaking regions, e.g. Madrid) for a substantial
amount of time (>10 years) and have the intention to stay indefinitely. Even
learners who reside in a TL environment for an equal period of time can vary in
their ability, motivation and opportunity to learn during that time (it is not
uncommon for such individuals to spend considerable proportions of their lives in
L1 “linguistic ghettos”). Therefore, such factors as the quality and quantity of
language input, assessed by a questionnaire (see Appendix 1), will be controlled.
The ideal subjects are highly-immersed (e.g. use Spanish to communicate with
their spouse or in their place of employment), of similar age, socioeconomic and
linguistic (speakers of only L1 and Spanish) background. The experimental group
will be divided further into two subgroups: those subjects that have received some
formal instruction, and those who have received none or a negligible amount.
The control +clitic group consists of 30 expatriates with an L1 that has a clitic
construction similar to Spanish, for example Slovak, similarly screened and
comparable to the experimental group in their high immersion scores. Both
+clitic and -clitic will be homogeneously highly proficient in Spanish, measured
by using a standardized test without regard to the particular grammatical construct
of clitic se. Because not even NSs perform at a perfect ceiling-level, 10 Spanish
NSs will set the target-performance norm to which the other results will be
compared, The subjects will be compensated for their participation.

3.4. Data Collection, Instruments and Analysis

The first step in the experiment is screening (see Appendix 1 for the self-
assessment questionnaire) and selection of subjects that meet the conditions
detailed in the Section 3.3. During the data collection step, a one time test
(Appendix 2), of an approximate length of 1 hour, is administered both
experimental groups as well as NSs to provide baseline data. The test consists of a
series of grammaticality judgment and oral production tasks, adapted in part from
previous studies (Franceschina, 2005 and Zyzik, 2006), The tasks were designed
to investigate L2 learners’ ability to verbalize transitive and intransitive event
scenes with a relatively simple choice: whether to include se marking on the verb.

8
The error data collected will be quantifiable in respect to the error type (omitting
se in the transitive-intransitive alternation - type 1, overgeneralizing in the
opposite direction - type 2).
The data analysis step of the experiment naturally begins with scoring the
participants' responses. In order to compare the experimental group to the control
groups, the statistical tool SPSS will be employed. The independent variables in
the calculations are the participant's L1 and the amount of formal instruction they
have received. The dependent variables are the amount and type of errors.
Because of the complexity of the data, a mixed model analysis of variance
(MANOVA), using the Tukey-Kramer post hoc test, is appropriate to reveal
potential patterns and to show whether the differences between the other two
groups are significant. The interpretation of results and comparison to the
previous empirical data in the literature is the final step in this process.

3.5. Expected results and discussion

Table 3 below is a sample of data from the study by Franceschina (2005)
and serves as a hypothetical example of what results might be expected.

Table 3: Accuracy rates (Franceschina, 2005)

In a study on acquisition of gender, the group with L1 where the feature is not
present, consistently performed much worse. Similar results are expected, with
some differences: each task would yield percentages for two types of errors: errors
of overgeneralizing, and errors of omitting the clitic se. Because L1 transfer is
assumed to be the crucial factor contributing to fossilization, the -clitic group
would show a significantly higher number of omission errors than commission
errors. Furthermore, the +clitic group is expected to be nearly identical in their
performance to the NS baseline data, due to the fact that +clitic subjects are not
expected to have a difficulty acquiring this feature in Spanish to a native-like

9
level. In addition, if the t-test statistical tool reveals significant correlation
between the amount of previous formal instruction and the percentage of errors,
the stated hypotheses 3 would be confirmed. Such hypothetical results would
build upon the existing literature and further contribute to the current
understanding of which “local” morphosyntactic areas of IL do or do not fossilize
and the causes of why that is. The opposite results would possibly serve as
counter-evidence to fossilization and L1 transfer being its qualifying factor.

4. Conclusion
SLA research over the past forty years has ushered in a myriad of
explanations for fossilization. The current study proposal does not claim to be able
to provide definite and decisive conclusion on the permanence of IL fossilization
for every individual English speaker, but aims to draw generalizations over L1
English population. Furthermore, ”permanence”, if interpreted literally, is
impossibly difficult to document and prove empirically. To do so, it would be
necessary to demonstrate that the fossilized item in question – correct use of the
Spanish clitic se - has completely ceased developing and a learner would not
make progress regardless of any additional time spent in Spain or personalized
corrective feedback. However, this would require that a researcher reanalyzes the
learners performance repeatedly, ideally until the learner’s death. This
methodology is admittedly unrealistic. In SLA research, we must remain
cognizant of inter-speaker and intra-speaker variability as well as the ever elusive
character of the issue under question – fossilization.

10
 5. References

Birdsong, D. 2004. Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment. In A.

Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 82-105).
London: Blackwell.

Franceschina, F. 2005: Fossilized second language grammars: the acquisition of

grammatical gender. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. In the series Language
acquisition and language disorders, edited by Harald Clahsen and Lydia
White, Volume 38.

Han, ZhaoHong. 2004. Fossilization: five central issues. International Journal of

Applied Linguistics Vol. 14, No. 2, Blackwell Publishing.

Long, Michael H. 2005. Stabilization and Fossilization in Interlanguage

Development. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Doughty,
Catherine J. and Michael H. Long (eds). Blackwell Publishing, (pp.371-405)

Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL 10.2: (pp. 209–31).

1996. On the notion of ‘IL competence’ in early SLA research: an aid
to understanding some baffling current issues. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer
and J. Williams (eds.), Performance and competence in SLA. Cambridge
University Press. (pp. 92–113).

Zyzik, Eve. 2006. Transitivity Alternations and Sequence Learning: Insights from
L2 Spanish Production Data. In SSLA, Vol. 28 (pp. 449-485). Cambridge
Unviersity Press.

11
 6. Appendices
Appendix 1 – Screening questionnaire
(Thank you for your participation in this research study.
The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential.)

1. Personal Data
Name: ___________________ Age: _______ Sex: M / F
Country of birth: ___________ Marital status: _____________
Telephone number or e-mail:_______________________________________
1. What is your highest level of education completed? (tick one):
□ some high school □ high school □ some college □ college graduate

2. Language Background
2. Country of origin: ____________ 3. Age of arrival to Spain: ______
4. What language did your caregivers speak before you were 5? _______
5. At what age did you first begin to learn Spanish? ______ tick one:
Mainly through: □ classroom instruction □ interacting with people □ mixture of both
6. How would you characterize your level of Spanish at the time you moved to Spain? (circle one)
□ none □ very basic □ conversational □ very good □ advanced
7. How would you characterize your level of Spanish at the moment? (circle one)
□ none □ very basic □ conversational □ very good □ advanced
8. Have you attended a Spanish language course? If yes, answer following:
Start year: ______ End year: _______ Average number of hours per week: __________
7. What languages other than Spanish and your native language do you speak? _____________
8. If you are married, what language do you speak with your spouse? _____________

3. Your Immersion Experience

Please answer the following questions about your experience in Spain, using this scale: 1 =
completely disagree, 5 = completely agree
Question: 1 2 3 4 5
8. I feel strain from the effort to adapt to the Spanish culture
9. I feel generally accepted by the locals.
10. Most people I interact with daily are locals/native Spanish speakers
11. I feel confident that I am understood when I interact wtih locals
12. I hope Spain will be my home for long term future

13. In general, what language do you currently prefer to use? □ my native language □ Spanish
14. In general, what language do you currently use at home? □ my native language □ Spanish
15. In general, what language do you currently use at work? □ my native language □ Spanish
16. In general, what language do you currently use with the friends you see most often?
□ my native language □ Spanish
17. In general, what language do you currently use at work? □ my native language □ Spanish
18. Would you like to improve your Spanish language skills? □ Yes □ No
Why? ______________________________________________________________________
What specifically would you like to improve?_______________________________________
What, if anything do you do to improve your Spanish language skills? ___________________
______________________________________________________________________

12
 Appendix 2 – Sample of the tasks
1. acceptability judgment test – sample questions
Test item with alternating verb: non-alternating verb:

La puerta se abrió. La carta se escribió.

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Correct sentence: __________________________ Correct sentence: _____________________

2. oral production task – sample questions

The structured elicitation procedure, adopted from Zyzik (2006), is as follows:

Researcher: Este hombre se pesa. ¿Y qué sucede en este dibujo? (The man is weighing himself and
in this picture?)
Participant: e.g. El hombre pesa unas manzanas. (He’s weighing some apples.)

By providing the source input, the researcher primes the target lexical item and the participant
does not have to guess which verb to manipulate. This is done in order to avoid a wide range of
appropriate but off-target responses. The following pictures represent these verbs: 1. pesar-se, 2.
secar-se, 3. mirar-se, 4. acostar-se.

1. 2.

3. 4.

13