Does early speaking lead to fossilized mistakes?

[DaveBee]

These two characteristics may be explained by BG functions and procedural memory. The first characteristic of fossilized second language speakers, natural fluidity, occurs because they have already acquired the target language procedurally, thus, they have obtained automaticity. By repetitive use of the target language, the speakers may have formed procedural memory of (incorrect) linguistic rules of the target language through the basal ganglia circuits. When one acquires a procedural memory of a motor or a cognitive skill, one can execute it automatically…

The other characteristic of the speakers, rigidity of errors, can also be explained with reference to the BG and procedural memory… Procedural memory is formed more slowly than declarative memory. The other side of the coin is that procedural memory is more robust so that, once formed, it is better preserved, and it is also inflexible, and therefore difficult to change. This is why it is so difficult to correct bad habits… If a fossilized second language speaker has already automatized the linguistic skills through basal ganglia circuits, the automatized skils are naturally resistant to correction and change.

An outstanding question is whether fossilized language can be defossilized… First, defossilization perhaps is possible.. .
From experience, we all know that automatizing declarative knowledge or altering a habitual procedure is difficult and time-consuming."

Habits can be changed though.

[Cainntear]

Finally, a concrete example that demonstrates how all this high-level theoretical discussion works. It seems here that our French speaker learning English will realize the voiced TH of "that" as "dat" and the unvoiced TH of "thin" as "tin". French speakers have a problem with the two sounds of the English TH because they do not exist in French. It is actually very interesting to note that European French speakers will approximate these sounds with "z" and "s" rather than "d" and "t". The latter sounds are more common in the English of speakers of Canadian French.

What we have to keep in mind is that these speakers actually hear the real "TH" sounds.

Do they?

When they attempt to reproduce these sounds,

Do they?

the approximate or rather incorrect variants come out. We see something similar when an English speaker learning French tries to say "la rue" and it sounds like "la roue".

Actually, most French speakers can't hear the sounds except in a physical sense -- that is how phonemes work.

When a sound hits your ear, it isn't processed as raw data -- it is processed into phonemes. Your brain will map every received speech sound to a phoneme that it has in its acquired phoneme map. If you haven't acquired the phoneme, it's not part of your map, so you won't hear it.

Many people point at success in close listening as proof that this is not the case, but there is a marked difference between listening for something consciously and being able to recognise it unconsciously.

I don't understand this idea that fixing a pronunciation mistake will break something else.

Probably because you haven't made any effort to understand my argument.

My observation is that when a sound is corrected it will quickly and automatically spread to all the contexts

That is precisely the problem -- the correction of the pronunciation of "the sound" spreads to all contexts, but the core error is that the learner has a wrong notion of what "the sound" is. Even though they are consciously aware that they're talking about two sounds, their internal, unconscious model of the language still sees them as a single phoneme. A "correction" to that phoneme will affect all words using that phoneme.

Until the learner's internal model recognises that /t/ and /θ/ are different phonemes, the problem is uncorrectable. But you cannot just open up your brain, take all the words with that incorrect phoneme and split them into two. This is why it's an extremely difficult

especially since the spelling will be often helpful.

Unfortunately the spelling is of no immediate relevance to the learner's model of the language, which is why so many spelling mistakes reflect problems with the learner's pronunciation -- for example, learners of French who don't pronounce a difference between E, È and É generally end up forgetting which one goes where. This also holds for native speakers -- for example South American Spanish speakers commonly make mistakes with S and Z in writing because they make no distinction in speaking.

The student has to be first shown how to articulate the sound. Then a bunch of exercises to practice with. A tongue twister like "Is this the thing? - Yes, this is the thing." can be useful. Then away you go. Correcting pronunciation articulation takes time of course but that's the nature of the beast.

...if articulation was the problem.

But this brings us back to the core of the thread topic, because if we talk about early speaking, articulation is the problem and/or the solution.

People who speak early without proper guidance start to reinforce patterns using a faulty phoneme map, but if early instruction is given on articulation, it forces them to build up a serviceable phoneme map that can be refined later.

Some people claim that not speaking (i.e. listening only) will give them the opportunity to build up a phoneme map, but as I explained above, that's contrary to what we know about how the brain processes language. In fact, I'd say it's so counter-scientific that I'd describe it as a faith position.

What causes fossilised pronunciation problems is not speaking, or the lack of it -- it's a failure to teach/learn phonemics at an early stage.

The key is correction. These mistakes come from the interaction with the native language. If these pronunciations go uncorrected, the learner will probably keep making the same mistakes forever. And the student has to of course apply these corrections.

{Citation needed} There are uncountable numbers of papers out there showing the limited power of correction at a later stage.

But the main point here is that whether we call these fossilizations or bad habits, in my opinion, they are all the same thing. Bad habits are of course hard to change. If you've been speaking a certain way for 40 years, you're not going to change overnight. The way the term fossilization is used by some people, it seems that it's game over.

Again, I'll say if you don't believe in fossilisation, say you don't believe in fossilisation. A fossilised error is an uncorrectable (or nearly uncorrectable) error -- if you do not believe there is such a thing, say it; don't just keep abusing the word.

It's a heck of a lot like saying that unicorns exist, and you've got one living down the road... just that it's a myth that unicorns have horns.
No, that's a horse, and unicorns don't exist.

[s_allard]

One of the reasons I dislike discussions based on endless academic citations is that they tend to turn into wild-goose chases and red herrings. I'm certainly not against scientific research but I hate wasting my time chasing down stuff that turns out to be largely irrelevant to the debate at hand. I much prefer to debate the actual topic of the thread and use specific examples.

Let's assume that we agree that what is called fossilized mistakes are those mistakes or performance imperfections that seem permanent or impervious to change. These are not to be confused with unfossilized or temporary mistakes that are part of the learning process.

I think we can also assume that given the nature of this blog we are talking about adult language learning and particularly independent learners. We are not talking about children in language classrooms.

One issue I raised is whether a foreign accent qualifies as an example of fossilization. Why, after all these years of practicing, do I not sound like a Spanish native, and never will? Has my pronunciation fossilized at a certain state impervious to change? It seems to be the case.

What we do notice of course that good pronunciation and fluency usually come with starting at a young age and in an immersion setting. I don't expect anyone here, even my worst detractors, believes that picking up Spanish at age 40 will lead to the same pronunciation and fluency that would come from moving to Mexico at age 12 and attending school with Mexican children.

Coming back to the thread here, is speaking Spanish too soon the cause of my accent fossilization? Was I trying to speak above my level of competence? If I had spent six months just listening before opening my mouth would my Spanish accent be much better? What is the key to developing a native accent after the age of 40?

If we look at areas of grammar and phonology the concept of early speaking and fossilization is on much more solid ground. Given the dominant presence of L1, mistakes are inevitable in the learning process especially in adults. If these mistakes are not corrected, they will become permanent. I agree totally. This is of course the big challenge for people who are learning on their own. The problem is the lack of early correction to prevent the mistakes becoming engrained.

The big complication is the fact that learning a language is not solely a process of correcting mistakes; it's much more about acquiring a profound native-like understanding of how the various structures and subsystems work in order to avoid making mistakes that derive from improper learning.

A student recently made an incorrect liaison in "les-z-hautes montagnes". When I corrected him he expressed surprise to learn that there was a distinction between le h muet and le h aspiré. He had never learned this.

An older student persistently used "la monnaie" instead of "l'argent" when talking about money. It was pretty easy to see what had happened here. On the one hand the student latched on to the resemblance of money and monnaie and the fact that in certain contexts monnaie is the appropriate equivalent for money. But the student never properly learned how the semantic subsystem of l'argent, la monnaie and other terms related to money and currency works in French.

This means that ad hoc corrections really don't work very well. I correct la monnaie and two minutes later the person makes the same mistake. This person will tend to make the same mistake until the underlying problem is corrected. This is the fundamental goal of the learning process.

A typical and actually good speaking strategy is to avoid areas that one does not master. I tell my students for example to avoid certain areas like the subjunctive in French until they know how to use them properly. People always notice your mistakes. So, think before you open your mouth and stick to what you know well.

So-called fossilized mistakes arise because of a combination of lack of error correction and imperfect learning. Early or late speaking is irrelevant.

[Cainntear]

One of the reasons I dislike discussions based on endless academic citations is that they tend to turn into wild-goose chases and red herrings. I'm certainly not against scientific research but I hate wasting my time chasing down stuff that turns out to be largely irrelevant to the debate at hand. I much prefer to debate the actual topic of the thread and use specific examples.

No, the reason you like discussion based on academic citations is that the academics rarely agree with you. And you don't actually debate. Debate involves countering other peoples arguments, rather than ignoring their arguments and telling them they're wrong and you're right. This is a discussion forum, not a pulpit. Either discuss or don't -- stop trying to preach your personal true faith.

[aaleks]

The big complication is the fact that learning a language is not solely a process of correcting mistakes; it's much more about acquiring a profound native-like understanding of how the various structures and subsystems work in order to avoid making mistakes that derive from improper learning.

We can have fossilized mistakes in our native languages too.

[Random Review]

I believe what Reineke is trying to point out is simply that you (and Random Review) are misusing the term "fossilisation".

Perhaps. I was applying the term as I understand it. Can you please explain in simple terms exactly what I have misunderstood about it. Genuine question, I genuinely want to judge whether you are right or not about that.

[reineke]

The first characteristic of fossilized second language speakers, natural fluidity, occurs because they have already acquired the target language procedurally, thus, they have obtained automaticity. By repetitive use of the target language, the speakers may have formed procedural memory of (incorrect) linguistic rules of the target language...

The other characteristic of the speakers, rigidity of errors, can also be explained with reference to the BG and procedural memory… Procedural memory is formed more slowly than declarative memory. The other side of the coin is that procedural memory is more robust so that, once formed, it is better preserved, and it is also inflexible, and therefore difficult to change. This is why it is so difficult to correct bad habits… If a fossilized second language speaker has already automatized the linguistic skills through basal ganglia circuits, the automatized skils are naturally resistant to correction and change.

An outstanding question is whether fossilized language can be defossilized… First, defossilization perhaps is possible.. .
From experience, we all know that automatizing declarative knowledge or altering a habitual procedure is difficult and time-consuming."

Habits can be changed though.

Yes. Let us first define the problem According to the author of what's been referred to as turgid prose, "over the years, the term fossilization has come to be associated with a wide range of variables, exhibiting divergent interpretations of the construct. The lack of uniformity in the conceptualization and application of the notion, while creating confusion, points to, among other things, the fact that fossilization is no longer a monolithic concept as it was in its initial postulation, but rather a complex construct intricately tied up with varied manifestations of failure."

Even if you follow a narrow definition, a single error may be a manifestation of a bigger problem. How many bad habits are we trying to fix? Teachers and other professionals recommend creating fossilization "portfolios"- a record of these errors.

Some interesting stuff

Language Magazine
Arresting Fossilization

" Susanne Gardner offers solutions to the case of an incarcerated adult second language learner whose progress has halted
Language fossilization is a broad term used to describe many forms of arrested progress in second language (L2) acquisition. This arrested progress can occur in one or more specific features of the target language, and many teachers and researchers consider fossilization an unavoidable process. Even so, it remains the scourge of language instructors who see test scores plateau and decrease. How does this fossilization develop and how can teachers address the needs of their fossilized students? There are many different theories on how and why fossilization occurs in some students but not in others. These theories include, but are not limited to: first language (L1) interference; illiteracy in the L1; no emotional, psychological, or social attachment to the L2 environment or culture; age of arrival in the L2 community; existence and manner of corrective feedback, and insufficient comprehensible input of, and lack of opportunity, to use the new target language. These factors are all important and interlinked, and they all contribute to the success of language learning.
There is a lot of current research on the definition(s) of fossilization and the causes thereof. This article, however, is written from a practitioner’s point of view: a study of an adult fossilized learner and what teaching methodologies have been successful for him."

http://languagemagazine.com/arresting-fossilization/

I am big on implicit learning and diving into raw incomprehensible language. YET, I love Conti's blog.

Five pronunciation and decoding issues in French-as -a-foreign-language instruction that seriously affect grammar learning and should be targeted as early on as possible

"As I explained in several previous blogs, our students’ ability to decode the target language sounds can seriously impact acquisition. And I am not simply talking of their ability to acquire vocabulary and pronunciation. I am also alluding to the learners potential to notice and internalize grammar. Why? Because receptive decoding, i.e. the way the human brain ‘deciphers’ the sounds we hear, can cue us to certain grammatical features of words (i.e. endings) we process aurally that lead us to noticing and making assumptions about their gender and/or number (for nouns and adjectives), person, conjugation and tenses (for verbs) and other ‘anomalies’ (e.g. ‘l’’ before nouns, the pronoun ‘y’ before a verb)."

Plenty of actual examples.

https://gianfrancoconti.wordpress.com/2 ... -possible/

[reineke]

One year ago my English pronunciation was just terrible but after solid non-regional pronunciation training it became much better and I'm still working on it using the L-R method and I can observe quite regular improvements. Also a couple months ago I tended to make many grammatical mistakes but now I see how huge improvement I've done and whereby I'm way more motivated to continue studying the language.

I'm 33 y.o. now and I started studying English when I was 10 y.o. and studied it at school for 4 years. And after that I didn't do so for 17 years. But, despite of that huge break, I've always been keen to learn the language because I love its sounds since my childhood when I watched "Muzzy" passionately wth my little brother. We used to speak a bit the language because it was like acting in conspiration since nobody at home understood it. That was a great fun.

Muzzy strikes again.

[s_allard]

The big complication is the fact that learning a language is not solely a process of correcting mistakes; it's much more about acquiring a profound native-like understanding of how the various structures and subsystems work in order to avoid making mistakes that derive from improper learning.

We can have fossilized mistakes in our native languages too.

This is a very good point that I wanted to bring up. In our native languages many people make mistakes that would probably qualify as fossilized errors although I've never heard the term used in this context. What we see is something like "Common mistakes in English Usage". And the French have a long tradition of books on "Les difficultés de la langue française".

In the case of English the majority of these mistakes are words that are confused because they sound alike.

[Speakeasy]

... We can have fossilized mistakes in our native languages too ... In the case of English the majority of these mistakes are words that are confused because they sound alike.

Or the mistakes are of the "non-standard usage" type ... oops, another debate on descriptive versus prescriptive usage!