This article presents an experimental study investigating the compounding parameter in the L2 Spanish interlanguage of English and French NSs in light of the Subset Principle and its predictions for the process of L2 development. The compounding parameter (Snyder, 1995, 2001) argues that languages permit complex predicate constructions like verb particles, resultatives, and double objects if and only if they can productively form N-N compounds. English exhibits the plus value of the parameter, allowing N-N compounds and the related constructions, whereas in Spanish and French these compounds and constructions are ungrammatical. Because English also allows periphrastic constructions of the same meaning, which are the only option in French and Spanish, English represents the superset parameter value to the Spanish and French subset value. At issue is whether L2 learners are able to acquire the subset value of the compounding parameter based on the naturalistic input they receive. In this case, the learning task involves realizing that some L1 constructions are unavailable in the L2. Results indicate that the learners initially transfer the L1 (superset) value and do not start with the subset value of the parameter. Findings also inform the debate on whether negative evidence can engage UG-related acquisition. Ten of the 26 advanced subjects were able to successfully reset the whole parameter based on negative data for only two of the four constructions in the cluster. This fact suggests that it is not impossible for negative evidence to be utilized in grammar reorganization.

This study investigates the potentially facilitative effects of internal and external attention-drawing devices—output and visual input enhancement—on the acquisition of English relativization by adult English as a second language (ESL) learners. Specifically, the study addresses: (a) whether the act of producing output promotes noticing of formal elements in the target language (TL) input and affects subsequent learning of the form; and (b) whether such output- induced noticing and learning, if any, would be the same as that effected by visual input enhancement designed to draw learners' attention to problematic form features in the input. These questions were examined in a controlled experimental study in which the requirements of output and exposure to enhanced input were systematically varied. A computer-assisted reconstruction and reading task was used as the vehicle of presentation of the target input materials. The major findings are: (a) Those engaged in output-input activities outperformed those exposed to the same input for the sole purpose of comprehension in learning gains; (b) those who received visual input enhancement failed to show measurable gains in learning, despite the documented positive impact of enhancement on the noticing of the target form items in the input; and (c) in view of the above, no support was found for the hypothesis that the effect of input enhancement was comparable to that of output. The subsequent discussion centers on reexamining the construct of noticing and argues for the need to consider levels and types of processing in order to account for how sensory detection can lead to learning.

This experimental study compares the acquisition of the English to- and for-dative alternation by L1 English, L1 Japanese, and L1 Korean children. It is well known that there are restrictions on the verbs that can enter into the dative alternation—for example, you can show the results to someone and show someone the results; and you can demonstrate the results to someone but you cannot *demonstrate someone the results. L1 children sometimes overextend the double-object variant to verbs that disallow it. One question we investigate is whether L2 children, like L1 children, overextend the double-object variant. A second question we probe is whether L2 children, like L2 adults, transfer properties of the L1 grammar. Japanese disallows all double-accusative constructions. Korean disallows them with analogues of to-dative verbs; but with analogues of for-dative verbs, Korean productively allows them—more broadly, in fact, than English—if the benefactive verbal morpheme cwu- is added. Results from an oral grammaticality judgment task show (a) that all groups allow illicit to-dative double-object forms and (b) that the Japanese—but not the Koreans—allow illicit for-dative double-object forms. This bifurcation, we argue, stems from the fact that Korean (but not Japanese) has an overt morphological licensor for double objects. We thus find evidence of both (a) overgeneralization, like in L1 acquisition, and (b) L1 influence, like in adult L2 acquisition, in this case from the (syntactic) argument-changing properties of overt morphology.

The mapping of lexical form to meaning is an important part of vocabulary acquisition in a second language (L2). This study examines the proposition that L2 lexical forms are often mapped to the existing semantic content of their first language (L1) translations rather than to new semantic specifications of their own. Native and nonnative English speakers were asked to perform two semantic judgment tasks in which they had to determine the degree of semantic relatedness of English word pairs (experiment 1) or to decide whether two English words were related in meaning (experiment 2). The nonnative speakers, but not the native speakers, were found to provide higher rating scores on or responded faster to L2 word pairs sharing the same L1 translations than to L2 word pairs that do not. The finding is interpreted as strong evidence in support of the presence of L1 semantic content in L2 lexical entries.

Following previous work in L1 acquisition, SLA has witnessed a veritable explosion of research activity in the domain of temporality since the mid 1980s. In the hefty book under review here, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, for several years one of the most active protagonists in the field, sets out to organize the dislocated array of findings, methods, and approaches to date.

This is the seventh volume in the highly acclaimed “Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities” series published by Gallaudet University Press. This volume is the first major attempt to document and analyze linguistic variation in American Sign Language (ASL). Based on seven years of research spread across the United States, including data collected from seven sites (Staunton, VA; Frederick, MD; Boston, MA; New Orleans, LA; Fremont, CA; Olathe, KS, and Kansas City, MO, together; and Bellingham, WA), Sociolinguistic variation in American Sign Language is a major contribution to the growing literature on the linguistics and sociolinguistics of ASL. It seeks to “provide a comprehensive description of the variables and constraints at work in sign language variation” (p. xv), building on the existing linguistic literature dealing with ASL. It succeeds admirably, if not in providing the final word on these complex issues, then by offering not only fascinating insights into sign language variation but also an empirical database that is unmatched in its depth and breadth in the field.

McNamara's book on language testing is part of a series that introduces various areas of language study to readers with little or no formal training in linguistics. Like the other books in the series, it provides a broad overview of trends and issues in the field rather than going into technical depth in any one narrow area. The intent of this approach is to make the material accessible to a wide audience and to provide a “bigger picture” perspective that would render deeper consideration of particular language testing issues more meaningful. McNamara succeeds in making his contribution to the series comprehensible, while at the same time making it challenging and provocative on both intellectual and social levels.

In the introduction to The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests, Elana Shohamy raises the following questions: What is the meaning of a test for test takers, parents, teachers, and school administrators? What are the short- and long-term consequences of tests on the lives of individuals? What are the motivating factors behind the administration of language tests? What are the politics of the tests? These kinds of questions logically arise when the examination of testing includes a concern with the use of tests by educational institutions, policy makers, and society at large. Focusing primarily on the misuse of tests, this volume chronicles both intended and unintended test consequences.

Lexical borrowing among languages is a commonplace in the study of linguistics. Still, the recognition of the bona fides of the various sign languages of the world is relatively recent. In this volume, Brentari offers a fascinating series of case studies of borrowing in five different sign languages.

In its 20 chapters, this edited book opens new paths for theory and research in the area of foreign and second language (L2) motivation. It will be particularly useful to researchers, graduate students, and others who want to see an array of approaches to the topic. Both qualitative and quantitative investigations are included along with a number of themes that have not yet received much research attention: learning strategies and motivation, teacher motivation and its effect on learner motivation, personal identity, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and beyond, unsuccessful learners' motivation, demotivation, and learning as “foraging.”

This volume is a fascinating, erudite, gripping, and well-researched work on a subject that many of us would expect to find dry, dull, and for academics only. John Man has succeeded, however, in taking and transforming the topic into a highly readable and very accessible book that reads like a whodunit from beginning to end. He traces the origins of the alphabet, from 4,000 years ago to modern times, taking us on captivating and exotic excursions along the way: how the Exodus might have come about; who the Phoenicians were and how they got their name; how Cyrillic came into being; how Times Roman has come to be one of the most popular and recognizable typefaces today.