The relationship between prior knowledge of and interest in a topic is complex. Although knowledge and interest may often go hand in hand, they do not necessarily correlate. The purpose of this study was to separate the effects of prior knowledge and topic interest on second language reading comprehension. Participants in the study were 104 students of English as a second 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 passages and took multiple-choice comprehension tests on topics for which they had all four possible combinations of high and low topic interest and high and low prior knowledge. Results on the reading 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 significant interaction between those two variables. There was also a significant effect for English proficiency level, as well as a significant interaction between interest and gender, with males more influenced by high topic interest than females. Our results are compared to those of other first and second language studies that have explicitly investigated the interrelationships among topic interest, prior knowledge, and gender.

This paper presents results of a response-latency (RL) experiment with English-speaking learners of German that investigated to what extent—if any—two different groups of second language (L2) learners permit raising of the thematic verb. The framework under which the study was conducted involves varying theoretical predictions derived from the native-language (NL) transfer view of Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996), the gradual-development view of Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994, 1996), the underspecification view of Eubank (1993/1994), and a local-impairment view 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 in different ways to stimulus sentences with raised and unraised verbs depending on the subjects' level of development. Surprisingly, it is the less advanced learners who exhibit an RL preference for apparently raised-verb experimental stimuli; the more advanced learners do not differentiate between raised-verb and unraised-verb stimuli. Analysis of these findings reveals that the less advanced group may only project VPs, consistent with the gradual-development view of Vainikka and Young-Scholten. Crucially, however, the Local Impairment Hypothesis is the only view that is consistent with the results from the more advanced learners, especially when they are seen in developmental context.

This paper investigates the various ways speakers manage problems and overcome difficulties in L2 communication. Following Dörnyei and Scott (1997), we distinguish four main sources of L2 communication problems: (a) resource deficits, (b) processing time pressure, (c) perceived deficiencies in one's own language output, and (d) perceived deficiencies in the interlocutor's performance. In order to provide a systematic description of the wide range of coping mechanisms associated with these problem areas (e.g., communication strategies, meaning negotiation mechanisms, hesitation devices, repair mechanisms), we adopt a psycholinguistic approach 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 to the different pre- and post-articulatory phases of speech processing, and we illustrate the various mechanisms by examples and retrospective comments taken from L2 learners' data.

Second language acquisition theory conventionally represents itself as having been invented ex nihilo in the last decades of the twentieth century. This article investigates the nature of this largely unexamined disciplinary self-concept and questions its validity. I dispute arguments that might be formulated to support the notion that SLA theory has no relevant earlier history, enumerate some of the unfortunate consequences of maintaining this belief, and speculate about benefits to the field that might accrue from abandoning it. Instead of presenting SLA theory as having its origin in the last 20 or 30 years, I suggest that we need to look for ways to identify, investigate, and eventually reconceptualize its true history.

In our reply to Margaret Thomas's article “Programmatic ahistoricity 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 as Thomas would like it to be. We then argue that the attitude of most scholars in SLA toward the past is reasonable given that no significant work in SLA from antiquity has been discovered—by Thomas or anyone else—and that if such work exists Thomas has the burden to bring it to light before declaring the field guilty of ahistoricity. We consider various ways to define the field of SLA, arguing that it should be defined theoretically first, and historically second. We claim that the point at which SLA separated itself from language teaching is a logical point from which to date the beginnings of SLA as a true discipline. We consider and reject Thomas's comparison of SLA and its history to various other scientific disciplines and their histories, arguing that these disciplines have true milestones to point to in the distant past, whereas SLA does not. Although we agree with Thomas that a general awareness of the history of philosophy and science is beneficial for scholars in all fields, we make a sharp division between that history and the history of SLA proper. We conclude by arguing that respect for the field of SLA can come only through sound scientific progress, not by appeals to history.

Imagine a three-year longitudinal study of the acquisition of multiple target languages by learners of different language backgrounds. It may sound like an idealized example from a research-methods lecture, but it is the actual design of the European Science Foundation inquiry into adult second language acquisition and the latest report released by Benjamins, a substantial revision 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 21 learners of six source languages (Punjabi, Italian, Turkish, Arabic, Spanish, and Finnish) with learners from two source languages for each target language. The volume has eight chapters written by the main authors and cooperating contributors: “Introduction” (Dietrich & Perdue), “Frame of Analysis” (Klein), five chapters on the acquisition of temporality by target language—English (Klein), German (Dietrich), Dutch (Klein, Coenen, van Helvert, & Hendricks), French (Noyau, Houdaïfa, Vasseur, & Véronique), and Swedish (Noyau, Dorriots, Sjöström, & Voionmaa)—and “Conclusions” (Klein, Dietrich, & Noyau).

This monograph is part of a series on second language research methodology edited by Gass and Schachter. Their introduction to the text highlights the interdisciplinary nature of SLA research and the necessity for a fuller understanding of the wide variety of research methodologies in current use. Each monograph is devoted to a particular data collection method or instrument and provides an overview of (a) the theoretical and research background, (b) the current uses of the instrument or method, (c) appropriate research questions, (d) underlying assumptions, and (e) any problems associated with practical use. Forthcoming texts will cover case studies, conversation analysis, elicited imitation, data-driven modeling, and speech acts.

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 into Spanish—most notably Liceras (1992) and Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991/1994)—this volume is a step ahead because it provides an up-to-date discussion of SLA and UG based on studies of Spanish SLA.

Eve Gregory's book fills a void in literacy education for bilingual students. This text provides solid theory, useful resources, and practical teaching suggestions for literacy development in a second language for young children. Describing the multilingual, multicultural complexity of early schooling in Great Britain, Gregory provides a strong rationale for her views of early literacy training, both formal and informal, for “emergent bilinguals”—children who are “the first generation in their family to receive formal 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 very thorough guide through the field of SLA. Indeed, the first chapter, an overview, is quite extensive in 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 and theoretical issues in second language acquisition, II. Issues of maturation and modularity in second language acquisition, III. Second language speech and the influence of the first language, IV. Research methodology and applications, V. Modality and the linguistic environment in second language acquisition, VI. The neuropsychology of second language acquisition and use, and VII. Language contact and its consequences. These sections are thorough, well researched, and accessible. Section I includes one chapter by Gregg, which sets the tone and bias of the text with his claim that theoretical considerations that are central to SLA are those that address the issue of knowledge; that is, competence within the Chomskyan framework of Universal Grammar. Gregg makes it clear that he is not suggesting that other theories of acculturation or variation are uninteresting but rather that what is central to developing a theory of SLA is a theory that explains competence 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, consists of six chapters on the various models, approaches, and frameworks of SLA. The first two chapters, by White and Flynn, support the principles and parameters framework for SLA and are followed by a well-reasoned challenge by Schachter.

The purpose of this book is to establish that language learning and teaching are the same as skill learning and teaching. In other words, a parallel exists between the learning and teaching of linguistic behavior and nonlinguistic behavior. To this end, Johnson presents a variety of linguistic theories and learning models, including Universal Grammar and information processing. He states that the processes of proceduralization and declarativization of language are the main ones in language learning and that these issues must be addressed in order to establish an effective framework for teaching. In the final chapter, he examines how communicative 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 the canons of second language teaching and learning. As is the case with other pedagogical bandwagons we have jumped aboard, too little attention has been paid to its underlying theoretical 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 issues for debate.

The domains of tense and aspect have received considerable attention in the past two decades. Both the perceptual and linguistic meanings that are involved in expressing temporality have been focused on, and investigators have set out to discover the linguistic forms used to express these meanings. Tense and Aspect in Discourse aims at providing a better understanding of the textual and contextual interplay between aspectual meanings, linguistic forms, and their discourse functions. It provides a variety of very useful discussions of pertinent issues 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-smooth sailing when trying to learn another language. The book explores a variety of case studies that involve real students, thus bringing to life the human dimension of the learning difficulties presented. Although some examples of ESL students are provided, the major focus is on foreign language learners. Ehrman's felicitous writing style ensures that the book reads like an extended and intellectually stimulating conversation with the author.

“Hablamos los dos. We speak both (p. 1).” A statement offered by a 9-year-old girl defines the principle assertion of this book: Bilinguals have available to them at least two distinct repertoires of language that they are able to manipulate and mix to achieve their unique discourse needs and to express their multicultural identities. This book explores the network of relationships of 20 Puerto Rican families in a low-income neighborhood called el bloque in New York City. Zentella, herself a Nuyorican (New York Puerto Rican), has provided us a window on a world as only an insider can. She follows the families in and out of el bloque for 13 years, monitoring their bilingual behavior and the sociolinguistic factors that contribute to maintenance or loss of bilingual ability.

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

Imagine my surprise when I received an SLA textbook by Rod Ellis to review, and it turned out to be a paperback weighing only 7 ½ ounces! Something must be different, and indeed it is: This new volume is intended for the novice student (or for others without academic engagement in linguistics). For such an audience, the volume opens up a fresh niche for SLA classes, 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 of the Latino community in Carpinteria, California. Much of the book is written as a narrative about the community, its history, and its struggles with the schools. The book is also filled with the voices of the community members in Spanish (translated into English).

This volume contains edited versions of 13 of the papers presented at a 1994 University of Edinburgh conference entitled, “Issues and Perspectives in Language Learning: Scottish and Wider Dimensions.” The general topics include: I. The typical pattern of studies in language 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. The particular place of language study in Scotland (one paper), and VI. A summary report of the Round Table discussions.

Many will question Bickerton's claim that only humans are capable of mental engagement with anything but the immediate present. However, the heart of his argument—that language did not evolve as a development from high intelligence but is instead what allowed that intelligence to develop at all—is undeniably compelling. Under this conception, the emergence of language, not just intelligence, was what allowed humans to conquer the world. In support, Bickerton notes that the appearance of modern civilization was preceded by eons by cultural stasis during which hominid brains were nevertheless increasing vastly in size, which suggests that something besides mere brain power created modern man. He also notes that if human-like intelligence allowed world domination, then at least some animals should by now have developed it, even without language. Instead, only humans can profoundly alter their surroundings, which suggests that language, the trait most unequivocally unique to humans, 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, and considers both to evidence a layer of abstract representation unique to humans. In turn, he proposes that this layer is able to “observe” the lower layer, thus creating “consciousness.” The uniqueness of consciousness to humans is thus explained by its roots in a layer of representation unique to humans.