538

REVIEWS

Bill VanPatten, Jessica Williams, Susanne Rott, and

Mark Overstreet: FORM-MEANING CONNECTIONS IN SLA.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004.
This volume, resulting from the 2002 Chicago conference on form-meaning
connections (FMCs), contains an introduction, ten content chapters and
a summarizing chapter.
In the introduction, FMCs in SLA, VanPatten, Williams, Rott, and
Overstreet argue for the most important elements affecting FMCs: learner
factors and the nature of the input. In Chapter 2, Input and output in
establishing FMCs, VanPatten argues for the centrality of input and the role
of output as only a facilitating factor. The third chapter by Ellis, The
processes of SLA, perceives language as a community of constructions in
which frequency and probability are crucial factors. Chapter 4, Context and
SLA, by Gass, focuses on context in SLA, linking psycholinguistic processes
thereto. Chapter 5: A multiple-factor account of FMCs in the acquisition of
tenseaspect morphology by Shirai reviews empirical support for the aspect
hypothesis and argues that FMCs are affected by frequency of input, learning
environment, L1 influence, and learner traits. In Chapter 6, The emergence
of grammaticalized future expression in longitudinal production data,
Bardovi-Harlig explores the acquisition of the tenseaspect system.
In Chapter 7, Cognitive linguistics and SLA: motion events in a typological
framework, Cadierno and Lund argue for the overriding influence of the L1
in causing syntactic errors in spite of the accurate acquisition of the FMCs
involved. Chapter 8, Beyond syntax: Performance factors in L2 behavior by
Klein, demonstrates how input becomes part of the restructured system and
discusses the possibility that the traits of interlanguage may be confused with
performance factors. Chapter 9, Effects of instruction on learning a second
language: A critique of instructed SLA research by Doughty, provides a
critical view of effect-of-instruction research suggesting that the findings in
favour of such instruction have been overstated. Chapter 10, Implicit
learning of FMCs by Williams, describes findings which suggest that implicit
learning does not result in the accurate acquisition of FMCs and that L1
influence may prevent it. Chapter 11, Theoretical and methodological issues
in research on semantic and structural elaboration in lexical acquisition by
Barcroft, presents findings which demonstrate that as semantic elaboration
does not affect performance, it is not an appropriate intervention. Finally,
Chapter 12, Reflections on FMCs in SLA by Larsen-Freeman, provides a
concluding commentary.
Most chapters in this volume illustrate how a set of assumptions has come
to be accepted as undeniable truths about SLA as a natural cognitive process.
As the associated mindset pervades this volume, it is important to understand
its central features. First, although the classroom application of Krashens

REVIEWS

539

input hypothesis has not demonstrated its effectiveness, the mindset still
perceives input as being fundamental. However, to compensate for the
failure of input to trigger accurate acquisition, applied linguists have
developed the notions of noticing, awareness, attention, interaction,
and implicit learning as in a focus on form as important factors in
developing strategies for classroom application. Thus, input is combined with
techniques to maximize attention in order to promote noticing and
subsequent awareness of grammatical features without actually approaching
the problem explicitly, as in a focus on forms. Furthermore, crosslinguistic influence is afforded little importance, although there are notable
exceptions.
This is all well and good, providing it works when applied to the classroom.
Unfortunately, published findings have so far failed to demonstrate that
it does so. Thus, comparative studies have consistently demonstrated
exponents of a focus on forms to be the most effective (see Sheen 2005
for a review). This surely begs the following question: Why continue to
pursue an elusive theory of SLA based on the underlying principles of the
mindset, when its application to classroom SLA has not proven to be the
most effective option and whilst largely ignoring the one which has?
Researchers prepared to ignore this issue and convinced of the legitimacy
of the mindset will find much in the volume to stimulate further research on
FMCs, provided their aim is to contribute to some theory of SLA but not
necessarily to one underlying more effective classroom learning. However,
the fact that this mindset is seldom subjected to critical scrutiny (see Swan
(2005) for a welcome exception) has apparently resulted in the surprising
assumption by some contributors that one can adequately conduct research
on FMCs without considering the role of explicit learning and L1 influence,
and this, in spite of the fact that the editors accept the importance of
the effects of instruction (p. 5), L1 influence (p. 11), and the probability
of there being multiple theories of SLA (p. 20). These unfortunate
omissions not only diminish the value of this book in terms of classroom
SLA, they also risk being accepted as normal in future research thus
encouraging further similar omissions. This said, however, some of the
chapters are excellent in providing findings which, if heeded, would
demonstrate such omissions to be misguided. Thus, Chapters 5, 7, and
10 implicitly demonstrate the folly of ignoring the influence of the L1 in
SLA whilst Chapter 10 provides a timely warning against reliance on the
putative effectiveness of implicit learning.
As length restrictions prevent detailed reviews of each chapter, the
following comments are limited to highlighting features which, whilst
manifesting the mindset, ignore the available empirical evidence.
The mindset is most explicit in Doughtys chapter. In fact, it is not clear
why it is included in this volume as it does not address FMCs. This said,
however, the recommendations are worthy of attention apart from a desire
to outlaw research incompatible with the mindset. For example, much

540

REVIEWS

productive method comparison research is dismissed (p. 185), when the

author states that: two methods of instruction were pitted against
each other and the findings were always the same: no difference between the
two (see e.g., Smith, 1970). The problem is that Smith (1970) is not
representative of the general findings and should not be cited as such. Von
Elek and Oskarsson (1973) describe numerous comparative studies most of
which produced such significant differences that they concluded that typical
components of traditional deductive methods should be integral parts of
instruction (p. 201), a finding reflected in more recent comparative studies
(see Sheen 2005). Doughty (p. 198) further claims that This overview of
the empirical research on instructed SLA has furthered the understanding
of the nature of instructional effects in the domains of rate, route and
ultimate attainment in SLA. No author can justify such a claim when she
misrepresents the comparative method research findings and bases much of
her argument on the flawed Norris and Ortega (2000) without addressing
published criticism thereof.
The volume contains other claims without referential support or with
support of doubtful validity. VanPattens observation (p. 38) that there are
no cases of successful learners who have not been exposed to lots of input
may be one of those unfalsifiable claims. However, it is of note that
Obler (1989: 1468) describes successful learners some of whom could not
have been exposed to lots of input. Similarly, Elliss claim that acquisition
takes tens of thousands of hours of practice (p. 67) can be shown to be
untrue by a simple calculation. Students in enriched programmes in
Quebec spent about three hours a week for eight years in classabout a
thousand hours in all. Interviews conducted with graduating students
demonstrated, however, an ability to carry on native-like conversations
(Sheen 2005).
VanPatten (p. 37), continuing in similar vein, states that [it] is a given
among researchers of vocabulary acquisition that the bulk L2 words (sic)
known by a learner come from interaction with input. He provides
Coady and Huckin (1997) as support, but with no page references added.
However, no such over-arching claim is made. Furthermore, in the final
summarizing chapter (pp. 27390), Coady emphasizes the role of explicit
learning in vocabulary acquisition as do Laufer and Nation in their work.
In fact, without explicit learning, many misleading cognates (not false
cognates as inaccurately described on p. 12) will fossilize despite frequent
correct input.
A notable internal contradiction arises from the fact that although L1
influence is accepted as an important factor in FMCs (see, for instance,
p. 11), seven of the chapters in the volume either ignore it or afford it
insignificant attention. Its omission from Chapter 6 is the most noteworthy.
It provides a study of learners ability to express futurity in the use of
the simple future (I will play) and the prospective future (Im going to play).
Given that the six Arab students (of a total of 16) overwhelmingly used

REVIEWS

541

the simple future, it is astounding that Bardovi-Harlig fails to investigate

the influence of Arabic which has an equivalent of the simple future but
no prospective futurein other words, the one-for-two principle, the
underlying cause of many L1-related errors. What renders the omission
particularly striking is the authors apparent unawareness of this potential
for cross-linguistic influence and of the fact that most teachers in the
Arab world often display this same preference and thus provide an
incorrect model. Because these two factors produce a tendency to fossilize
incorrect uses, many Arabic students continue to misuse the two forms
into adulthood. Any attempt then to account for Arabophones acquisition
of the two future forms which ignores L1-influence is doomed to be
inadequate.
Part of the problem with this volume lies in a tendency to refer only
to the literature which supports the mindset, ignoring work from a different
viewpoint. Two examples of many must suffice here. While the supporters
of the Canadian Immersion programmes were trumpeting its success,
others warned of the many serious production errors in the late 1970s
(e.g., Spilka 1976). Yet, when such problems are discussed, it is not such
work which is given credit for identifying them. Instead, Swain (1985) is
credited, even though she failed to bring the seriousness of the problem to
light in praising the programmes in the early 1980s. Surely, in all fairness,
one should give credit to those who first brought the problem to light and
not to those who belatedly did so. Unfortunately, this syndrome is evident in
most publications emanating from the mindset but is glaringly so in
Doughtys chapter which simply ignores the vast majority of comparative
studies which have demonstrated the mindset to be without empirical
support.
Given previous positions taken by Larsen-Freeman, one might have
expected her to, at least, hint at related weaknesses in the volume in her
summarizing chapter. Unfortunately, the conclusion offered is one of
unqualified praise and a proposal that the future should entail more of the
same of the mindset approach which has produced no identifiable
improvement in classroom learning. The last 25 years have produced a
wealth of publications, often stimulated by volumes such as this one, with
a particular mindset untouched by critical comment. Unless the critical
comments in this review and elsewhere are addressed, the future
publications stimulated by this volume will do little to enable the field of
applied linguistics to honour one of its implicit mandates: improvement in
classroom learning.
Final version received April 2006
Reviewed by Ron Sheen
University of Quebec, Trois Rivieres
doi:10.1093/applin/aml024

542

REVIEWS

REFERENCES
Coady, J. and T. Huckin. (eds) 1997. Second
Language Vocabulary Acquisition, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Norris, J. M. and L. Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness
of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis, Language Learning
50: 417528.
Obler, L. 1989. Exceptional second language
learners in S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston,
and L. Selinker (eds): Variation in SLA, vol. 11,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 1468.
Sheen, R. 2005. Focus on FormS as a means
of improving accurate oral production in
A. Housen and M. Picard (eds): Investigations in
Instructed Second Language Learning, Studies on
Language Acquisition (SOLA), Mouton De
Gruyter, p. 286.
Smith, P. D. Jr. 1970. A comparison of
the cognitive and audio-lingual approaches

to
foreign
language
instruction,
The
Pennsylvania Foreign Language Project.
Philadelphia: The Center for Curriculum
Development.
Spilka, I. 1976. Assessment of second
language
performance
in
immersion
programs, Canadian Modern Language Review 32:
54361.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence:
some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In
S. M. Gass and C. Madden (eds) Input in Second
Language Acquisition. Rowley MA: Newbury
House, pp. 23553.
Swan, M. 2005. Legislation by hypothesis: The
case of task-based instruction Applied Linguistics
26/3: 376401.
Von Elek, T. and M. Oskarsson. 1973. Teaching
Foreign Language Grammar to Adults: A comparative
study. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.

Tony McEnery: SWEARING IN ENGLISH. BAD LANGUAGE, PURITY

AND POWER FROM 1586 TO THE PRESENT. Routledge, 2005.
The title of this work in combination with its inclusion in a corpus linguistics
series seems to promise not only the chance to see actual swear words in
print, but a whole lot of them as well. Reader beware. While Tony McEnerys
Swearing in English ultimately does deliver to those readers who expect all
sorts of four-letter words, a more substantial part of the text is devoted to the
topics listed in the secondary title, that is bad language, purity, and power,
with swearing as the point of departure for and nucleus of a corpus-driven,
mostly diachronic study of the discourse of bad language. Indeed, the
respective frequencies of different swear words can only fascinate to a certain
point, and so after a look at swear word usage in a particular corpus,
McEnery increases the scope from swearing to talking about swearing,
turning to additional corpora to investigate attitudes towards the use of bad
language. No leaf is left unturned, as McEnery employs a variety of
methodologies, which result in a dynamic investigation of swearing that is
part corpus linguistics, part historical linguistics and part social commentary.
The first chapter, Bad language, bad manners, consists of brief
explanations of the role of social and political history, sociological theory
and corpus linguistics in the analysis, as well as more detailed descriptions
of the methodologies, corpora, analysis tools and techniques, and literary