Second language learning: Data analysis. 2nd edn. By Susan Gass, Antonella Sorace, and Larry Selinker (review)

216 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 76, NUMBER 1 (2000) covers many written varieties' (75). What a linguist normally means by the term 'colloquial Arabic' is an Arabic vernacular dialect, some of which (e.g. Nigerian Arabic) have no autochthonous graphemic tradition. Let us now delve into the intricate and all-encompassing question concerning the term 'dialect' in general , on which D proclaims: (1) ? language is an aggregate of related dialects', and (2) ? language is the aggregate of these dialects which are mutually intelligible' (25). However, then we read that neither definition works since we apparently have languages like Chinese, which consist of a number of mutually unintelligible dialects (26). This kind of argument has always seemed circular to me. Just because Chinese has commonly been considered a single language (by speakers and by linguists alike) does not necessarily make it so. I think it makes much better sense to think of Chinese as a conglomeration of both dialects and separate, distinct languages with a uniform written tradition. As with the case of Arabic or Ethiopian Gurage, we are talking about both a language and a dialect cluster. The problem is that there is no neat line demarcating a language from a dialect, as is well known. This also applies diachronically . For example when did the Romance languages become separate languages, since they all were at one time dialects of Vulgar Latin? A look through D's bibliography should convince anyone that he is widely read within the field (467-90). On the plus side for the volume, one notes that more emphasis is placed on the work of J. R. Firth and M. A. K. Halliday than on most of the competition. However, a major shortcoming is the complete lack of attention to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis . There are, in fact, only two articles by Sapir in the references and none at all by Whorf, nor does either name occur in the index. Despite the aforementioned reservation, I can still recommend this work for what it does contain. [Alan S. Kaye, California State University, Fullerton.] Second language learning: Data analysis . 2nd edn. By Susan Gass, Antonella Sorace, and Larry Selinker. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999. Pp. x, 126. This workbook is designed to give applied linguistics students practice in analyzing foreign language data, since the authors make the case that experience with second and foreign language material is prerequisite to tackling the processes involved in second language learning: 'by working through exemplars of the kinds of interlanguages that learners do and do not create, a clearer understanding of the principles underlying these interlanguages comes about' (ix). The problems are divided into seven sections: research methodology, lexicon, syntax and semantics, phonology, variation, oral language, and communication strategies. They come from the published literature , unpublished manuscripts, and unpublished research materials. So that the student can jump right into problem solving, there is a glossary of terminology at the end of the book (125-26). However, one wonders about the level of student for whom the book is intended since among the terms included are those encountered in an introductory course in linguistics (e.g. alveolar, approximant, lateral, retroflex, interlanguage , near-native). It seems to me that a third edition of this workbook could pitch it at higher levels by making a basic linguistics course a prerequisite , thus increasing the student's grasp of the material. Problem 1 .2 (8-12) is typical of the utilitarian nature of this work. It describes the relative clauses actually produced by advanced ESL learners from Iran, Japan, Portugal, and Thailand, giving the theoretical background on the subject based on Ed Keenan and Bernard Comrie, 'Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar', Linguistic Inquiry 8.63-99, 1977. I can confirm, based on years of teaching Iranian students, that the following type of sentences are common: ? saw the girl whom the boy gave her the book' (9). Problem 2.2 is precious in that it contains metaphors and aphonsms in the target language (English) by speakers from around the world (22-23): 'When you are in Rome, you must do what Romans do' (Japanese); 'We must give the benefit of our doubt' (Romanian); or 'We won't take it to...