The relationship between prior knowledge of and interest in a topic is complex. Althoughknowledge and interest may often go hand in hand, they do not necessarily correlate. Thepurpose of this study was to separate the effects of prior knowledge and topic interest on secondlanguage reading comprehension. Participants in the study were 104 students of English as asecond language in an English-for-academic-purposes program at a large American university.On the basis of a prior-knowledge test and a topic-interest inventory, each student read passagesand took multiple-choice comprehension tests on topics for which they had all four possiblecombinations of high and low topic interest and high and low prior knowledge. Results on thereading comprehension measure for the two main effects of prior knowledge and topic interest,although in the expected direction, did not reach significance, possibly because of a significantinteraction between those two variables. There was also a significant effect for Englishproficiency level, as well as a significant interaction between interest and gender, with malesmore influenced by high topic interest than females. Our results are compared to those of otherfirst and second language studies that have explicitly investigated the interrelationships amongtopic interest, prior knowledge, and gender.

This paper presents results of aresponse-latency (RL) experiment with English-speaking learners of German that investigated towhat extent—if any—two different groups of second language (L2) learners permitraising of the thematic verb. The framework under which the study was conducted involvesvarying theoretical predictions derived from the native-language (NL) transfer view of Schwartzand Sprouse (1994, 1996), the gradual-development view of Vainikka and Young-Scholten(1994, 1996), the underspecification view of Eubank (1993/1994), and a local-impairmentview that presents a more parsimonious solution to the L2 developmental problem than standard“no access” views. The L2 results reported here show that learners respond indifferent ways to stimulus sentences with raised and unraised verbs depending on thesubjects' level of development. Surprisingly, it is the less advanced learners who exhibitan RL preference for apparently raised-verb experimental stimuli; the more advanced learners donot differentiate between raised-verb and unraised-verb stimuli. Analysis of these findingsreveals that the less advanced group may only project VPs, consistent with thegradual-development view of Vainikka and Young-Scholten. Crucially, however, the LocalImpairment Hypothesis is the only view that is consistent with the results from the moreadvanced learners, especially when they are seen in developmental context.

This paper investigates the various waysspeakers manage problems and overcome difficulties in L2 communication. FollowingDörnyei and Scott (1997), we distinguish four main sources of L2 communicationproblems: (a) resource deficits, (b) processing time pressure, (c) perceived deficiencies inone's own language output, and (d) perceived deficiencies in the interlocutor'sperformance. In order to provide a systematic description of the wide range of copingmechanisms associated with these problem areas (e.g., communication strategies, meaningnegotiation mechanisms, hesitation devices, repair mechanisms), we adopt a psycholinguisticapproach based on Levelt's (1989, 1993, 1995) model of speech production.Problem-solving devices, then, are analyzed and classified according to how they are related tothe different pre- and post-articulatory phases of speech processing, and we illustrate the variousmechanisms by examples and retrospective comments taken from L2 learners' data.

Second language acquisition theoryconventionally represents itself as having been invented ex nihilo in the last decadesof the twentieth century. This article investigates the nature of this largely unexamineddisciplinary self-concept and questions its validity. I dispute arguments that might be formulatedto support the notion that SLA theory has no relevant earlier history, enumerate some of theunfortunate consequences of maintaining this belief, and speculate about benefits to the field thatmight accrue from abandoning it. Instead of presenting SLA theory as having its origin in the last20 or 30 years, I suggest that we need to look for ways to identify, investigate, and eventuallyreconceptualize its true history.

In our reply to Margaret Thomas's article “Programmaticahistoricity in second language acquisition theory,” we first review pertinent literature,concluding that historical awareness is evident in SLA, though it is not as far-reaching asThomas would like it to be. We then argue that the attitude of most scholars in SLA toward thepast is reasonable given that no significant work in SLA from antiquity has beendiscovered—by Thomas or anyone else—and that if such work exists Thomas hasthe burden to bring it to light before declaring the field guilty of ahistoricity. We consider variousways to define the field of SLA, arguing that it should be defined theoretically first, andhistorically second. We claim that the point at which SLA separated itself from languageteaching is a logical point from which to date the beginnings of SLA as a true discipline. Weconsider and reject Thomas's comparison of SLA and its history to various other scientificdisciplines and their histories, arguing that these disciplines have true milestones to point to inthe distant past, whereas SLA does not. Although we agree with Thomas that a generalawareness of the history of philosophy and science is beneficial for scholars in all fields, wemake a sharp division between that history and the history of SLA proper. We conclude byarguing that respect for the field of SLA can come only through sound scientific progress, not byappeals to history.

Imagine a three-year longitudinal study of the acquisition of multiple target languagesbylearners of different language backgrounds. It may sound like an idealized examplefrom aresearch-methods lecture, but it is the actual design of the European ScienceFoundation inquiryinto adult second language acquisition and the latest report releasedby Benjamins, a substantialrevision of Volume 5 of the final report on temporality(Bhardwaj, Dietrich, & Noyau,1988). This volume reports on the acquisition of temporality in five target languages (English,German, Dutch, French, and Swedish) by 21learners of six source languages (Punjabi, Italian,Turkish, Arabic, Spanish, and Finnish)with learners from two source languages for each targetlanguage. The volume has eightchapters written by the main authors and cooperatingcontributors: “Introduction” (Dietrich & Perdue), “Frame ofAnalysis” (Klein), five chapters on the acquisition of temporality by targetlanguage—English (Klein), German (Dietrich), Dutch (Klein, Coenen, vanHelvert,& Hendricks), French (Noyau, Houdaïfa, Vasseur, & Véronique), andSwedish(Noyau, Dorriots, Sjöström, & Voionmaa)—and“Conclusions” (Klein, Dietrich, & Noyau).

This monograph is part of a series on second language research methodology edited byGassand Schachter. Their introduction to the text highlights the interdisciplinary nature of SLAresearch and the necessity for a fuller understanding of the wide variety ofresearchmethodologies in current use. Each monograph is devoted to a particular datacollection methodor instrument and provides an overview of (a) the theoretical andresearch background, (b) thecurrent uses of the instrument or method, (c) appropriateresearch questions, (d) underlyingassumptions, and (e) any problems associated withpractical use. Forthcoming texts will covercase studies, conversation analysis, elicitedimitation, data-driven modeling, and speechacts.

This volume is most welcome in the field of SLA, especially in the discipline of Spanish SLA. Although there are some important translations of SLA material intoSpanish—most notably Liceras (1992) and Larsen-Freeman and Long(1991/1994)—this volume is a step ahead because it provides an up-to-datediscussion of SLA and UG based on studies of Spanish SLA.

Eve Gregory's book fills a void in literacy education for bilingual students. This textprovides solid theory, useful resources, and practical teaching suggestions for literacydevelopment in a second language for young children. Describing the multilingual, multiculturalcomplexity of early schooling in Great Britain, Gregory provides a strong rationale for her viewsof early literacy training, both formal and informal, for “emergentbilinguals”—children who are “the first generation in their family to receiveformal schooling in the new country, who do not speak the language of the host country at home, and who are consequently at the early stages of second language learning” (p.8).

Handbook of Second Language Acquisition is what its title suggests, a verythoroughguide through the field of SLA. Indeed, the first chapter, an overview, is quiteextensivein summarizing the history of SLA and the current issues in SLA. In addition to the lengthy overview, the handbook is divided into seven major sections: I. Research andtheoreticalissues in second language acquisition, II. Issues of maturation and modularity in secondlanguage acquisition, III. Second language speech and the influence of thefirst language, IV.Research methodology and applications, V. Modality and the linguisticenvironment in secondlanguage acquisition, VI. The neuropsychology of second language acquisition and use, and VII.Language contact and its consequences. These sections are thorough, well researched, andaccessible. Section I includes one chapter byGregg, which sets the tone and bias of the text withhis claim that theoretical considerations that are central to SLA are those that address the issueof knowledge; that is, competence within the Chomskyan framework of Universal Grammar.Gregg makes it clearthat he is not suggesting that other theories of acculturation or variation areuninteresting but rather that what is central to developing a theory of SLA is a theory thatexplainscompetence as the work done within the principles and parameter framework, not, for example, one that explains communicative competence. Section II, the core of the text,consistsof six chapters on the various models, approaches, and frameworks of SLA.The first twochapters, by White and Flynn, support the principles and parametersframework for SLA and arefollowed by a well-reasoned challenge by Schachter.

The purpose of this book is to establish that language learning and teaching are the same asskill learning and teaching. In other words, a parallel exists between the learning and teaching oflinguistic behavior and nonlinguistic behavior. To this end, Johnson presents a variety oflinguistic theories and learning models, including Universal Grammar and informationprocessing. He states that the processes of proceduralization and declarativization of languageare the main ones in language learning and that these issues must be addressed in order toestablish an effective framework for teaching. In the final chapter, he examines howcommunicative language teaching and information-processing theory support each other.

Promoting autonomy and independence (A & I) has for years been an accepted goal of Western education in general and has more recently joined such aims as developing “communicative competence” or using “authentic materials” in thecanons of second language teaching and learning. As is the case with other pedagogicalbandwagons we have jumped aboard, too little attention has been paid to its underlyingtheoretical bases and assumptions, and too few calls for empirical evidence of learning outcomes have been made. Benson and Voller offer a thought-provoking collection of papers that, although strongly endorsing the A & I movement in general, bring several of its implicit assumptions and values to conscious scrutiny and explore both apparent paradoxes and issuesfor debate.

The domains of tense and aspect have received considerable attention in the past twodecades. Both the perceptual and linguistic meanings that are involved in expressing temporalityhave been focused on, and investigators have set out to discover the linguistic forms used toexpress these meanings. Tense and Aspect in Discourse aims at providing a betterunderstanding of the textual and contextual interplay between aspectual meanings, linguisticforms, and their discourse functions. It provides a variety of very useful discussions of pertinentissues in this area.

The purpose of this book is to provide language teachers with insights and tools for understanding some of the reasons why their adult students often encounter less-than-smoothsailing when trying to learn another language. The book explores a variety of case studies thatinvolve real students, thus bringing to life the human dimension of the learning difficultiespresented. Although some examples of ESL students are provided, the major focus is on foreignlanguage learners. Ehrman's felicitous writing style ensures that the book reads like anextended and intellectually stimulating conversation with the author.

“Hablamos los dos. We speak both (p. 1).” A statement offered by a9-year-old girl defines the principle assertion of this book: Bilinguals have available to them atleast two distinct repertoires of language that they are able to manipulate and mix to achieve theirunique discourse needs and to express their multicultural identities. This book explores thenetwork of relationships of 20 Puerto Rican families in a low-income neighborhood calledel bloque in New York City. Zentella, herself a Nuyorican (New YorkPuertoRican), has provided us a window on a world as only an insider can. She follows the families inand out of el bloque for 13 years, monitoring their bilingual behavior and thesociolinguistic factors that contribute to maintenance or loss of bilingual ability.

This book is a longitudinal study of negotiation of meaning in interactions among foreignlanguage learners (FLLs) of Spanish at a Dutch university, and interactions between thosestudents and native speakers (NSs) of Spanish.

Imagine my surprise when I received an SLA textbook by Rod Ellis to review, and it turnedout to be a paperback weighing only 7 ½ ounces! Something must be different, and indeedit is: This new volume is intended for the novice student (or for others without academicengagement in linguistics). For such an audience, the volume opens up a fresh niche for SLAclasses, one that is not all that common, at least at North American universities.

This book is an ethnographic study of literacy in the social, cultural, and political context ofthe Latino community in Carpinteria, California. Much of the book is written as a narrative aboutthe community, its history, and its struggles with the schools. The book is also filled with thevoices of the community members in Spanish (translated into English).

This volume contains edited versions of 13 of the papers presented at a 1994 University ofEdinburgh conference entitled, “Issues and Perspectives in Language Learning: Scottishand Wider Dimensions.” The general topics include: I. The typical pattern of studies inlanguage departments (four papers), II. The relationship of different parts of degree curricula(four papers), III. Languages in the working world; learners, their backgrounds and expectations(one paper), IV. Developments of new methods and using new technology (three papers), V. Theparticular place of language study in Scotland (one paper), and VI. A summary report of theRound Table discussions.

Many will question Bickerton's claim that only humans are capable of mentalengagement with anything but the immediate present. However, the heart of hisargument—that language did not evolve as a development from high intelligence but isinstead what allowed that intelligence to develop at all—is undeniably compelling. Underthis conception, the emergence of language, not just intelligence, was what allowed humans toconquer the world. In support, Bickerton notes that the appearance of modern civilization waspreceded by eons by cultural stasis during which hominid brains were nevertheless increasingvastly in size, which suggests that something besides mere brain power created modern man. Healso notes that if human-like intelligence allowed world domination, then at least some animalsshould by now have developed it, even without language. Instead, only humans can profoundlyalter their surroundings, which suggests that language, the trait most unequivocally unique tohumans, is indeed the key to our hegemony. Bickerton even equates language and thought,arguing that their foundation upon the same syntax leaves no motivation to separate them, andconsiders both to evidence a layer of abstract representation unique to humans. In turn, heproposes that this layer is able to “observe” the lower layer, thus creating“consciousness.” The uniqueness of consciousness to humans is thus explained byits roots in a layer of representation unique to humans.