Portuguese for Spanish Speakers: Teaching and Acquisition (review)

The book, a compilation of articles, by well-known scholars of Applied Linguistics (AL) from different countries, comes out at an appropriate time. As the editors, Wiedemann and Scaramucci, observe there has been a growing interest in foreign languages worldwide. Also, as pointed out by Cowles, this interest includes Portuguese, a language of wider communication. The three make the case for Portuguese as a Foreign Language in the world's linguistic scenario, and, consequently, for the book itself. The foreword, in Portuguese and English, provides an overview of the selected papers, all on Portuguese as a second or third language, for Spanish speakers, the only exceptions being Lowther's and Allegro and Madureira's. Nevertheless, both studies (discussed below) may appeal to foreign language teachers in general.

All but one paper corroborate the notion of language proximity as a learning aid. Some of them should be highlighted here, particularly on account of writing style and methodology. Lowther, who analyzes code-switching from English and Spanish to Portuguese (in Foreign Languages classrooms), validates a prevailing point of view: the Spanish-teacher tends to resort less to Portuguese than the English-teacher. Co-authors Santos and Silva, who analyze a semi-formal interactional context among Portuguese native-speakers and Portuguese Foreign Language learners from different Spanish-speaking countries, question the widespread assumption that speakers of different varieties of Spanish constitute a homogeneous group. Allegro and Madureira's study (on speech production/reception) constitutes an important contribution in this area primarily because Portuguese and Spanish have seldom been contrasted in the speech-sound acquisition literature. The following papers stand out also as far as object of study (Portuguese as an L3) and results accuracy: Koike and Gualda's, on pragmatic transfer from Spanish (L2) to Portuguese (L3) and Jensen's, on contrastive prosody. The former uses statistical analysis to investigate the effects of explicit and implicit instruction on L3 learning. The results vary according to a number of factors, including the learner's language background. As for the latter, two assets (one methodological and one analytic) should be underscored: use of instrumental measurement of syllable timing (in milli-seconds), giving more reliable results; virtual non-existence of interference effects in timing, contrary to the perception of rhythm by researchers and teachers of English as a Foreign Language, dating back to Pike (1945).

For different reasons, some authors address the limitations of their studies and point to the importance of further research. After a thorough analysis of the social acceptance of some Spanish speakers' interlanguage, Carvalho concludes that the statistical analysis should be refined in later studies so as to provide more accurate results. Scaramucci's work presents exploratory results of a broad project (financed by CNPq, Brazilian National Research Council), which will include class observation in a later version. Cowles and Pires' data, consisting of learners' essays on their own acquisition process, raise questions that need to be addressed in future studies. Similarly, Milleret's paper poses several questions (yet to be answered) on needs analysis and program evaluation. However, the inconclusiveness of the results may get readers' attention to upcoming publications.

Three studies, two of which also support the notion of typological proximity, trigger significant inference questions. Silva analyzes pragmatic transfer in cross-cultural communicative events. The data compile the participants' use of greetings and farewells in virtual chat-rooms; yet, the concepts of formality and informality have not been addressed. Akerberg draws a comprehensive comparison between two verb-tenses in Portuguese and Spanish. The cross-linguistic analysis involves different groups of learners at different levels. However, the distinction between acquisition (mentioned in the title) and learning has not been considered. Rodea is the only one who questions the notion of language proximity (from the perspective of interactional sociolinguistics). Such a controversial claim invites further investigation, which should include speakers of other languages (for comparison). Nevertheless, it must be mentioned in passing that the contributors' contrasting theoretical perspectives certainly broadens the book's scope.

All...