Stabilization is an extended period of no apparent progress in interlanguage development for a particular linguistic feature. It shares surface characteristics with fossilization, where the learner appears stuck, but differs fundamentally in that stabilization is potentially reversible.
Michael Long (2003) argued that much of what researchers call "fossilization" is more accurately described as stabilization. His critique was both conceptual and methodological:
Long noted that "fossilization" had become a catch-all label for any non-target-like ultimate attainment, losing its technical precision: "a broad-brush method of characterizing what a learner did not do, not a competence issue, a matter of what he or she could not do" (Long, 2003, p. 513). He recommended that researchers focus on the well-attested phenomenon of stabilization rather than making unfalsifiable claims about permanent cessation.
| Factor | Mechanism |
|---|---|
| Communicative sufficiency | The error does not impede communication: no pressure to develop further |
| Reduced input quality | Exposure to other L2 speakers reinforces non-target norms |
| Lack of feedback | Without corrective feedback, the learner has no signal to restructure |
| Automatisation of non-target forms | Incorrect forms become fluent through repeated use; see Automaticity |
| Motivational plateau | External or internal motivation to improve diminishes |
Unlike fossilization, stabilization can be overcome through:
The practical problem is that the two look identical at any single point in time. Only longitudinal observation can distinguish them, and Long argued that the evidence required to claim fossilization (truly permanent cessation) is virtually impossible to obtain, since it requires demonstrating that no future change is possible.