Age has often been considered a major, if not the primary, factor determining success in learning a second or foreign language. Children are generally considered capable of acquiring a new language rapidly and with little effort, whereas adults are believed to be doomed to failure. Although older learners are indeed less likely than young children to master an L2, a close examination of studies relating age to language acquisition reveals that age differences reflect differences in the situation of learning rather than in capacity to learn. They do not demonstrate any constraint on the possibility that adults can become highly proficient, even nativelike, speakers of L2s. Researchers, in other words, have often committed the same blunders as members of the general public: misinterpretation of the facts relating to speed of acquisition, misattribution of age differences in language abilities to neurobiological factors, and, most notably, a misemphasis on poor adult learners and an underemphasis on adults who master L2s to nativelike levels. By clarifying these misconceptions, we hope this article will lead to a better understanding of L2 learning and, in turn, better approaches to L2 teaching.

I Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson express a number of criticisms of our article. We deal here with their major critiques rather than with every detail they raise. We begin, though, by noting the several areas of agreement with our position that they express. They agree that younger learners are, generally, slower than older learners in the early stages of L2 learning; that rate differences are not central to arguments for the critical period hypothesis (CPH), although they ignore the fact that they are often cited in support of the critical period (CP); and that the fascinating work of neuroscientists has not yet been brought into direct connection with work assessing language proficiency. Most importantly, they agree with our conclusion that quality of L2 exposure is more important than age of initial exposure in determining outcomes and thus that a focus on age as a key factor in introducing foreign languages is a red herring.We deal, then, with the critiques not in the order of their presentation but in the order of their importance.

Judith Rosenthal has brought together a wide variety of articles on second language (L2) teaching and learning that will surely interest foreign language (FL) educators in U.S. universities who are struggling to increase or maintain enrollment in their courses or who are seeking new ideas to meet the needs and demands of an increasingly diverse student population. Rather than encourage individual language departments to continue their separate battles for survival, Rosenthal hopes to enhance the “integration” of FL programs in order “to better promote proficiency in more than one language” (p. 353). This volume clearly illustrates how teachers of various languages can collaborate and share experiences in order to find solutions to what are often very similar problems.

MLJ Review PolicyThe MLJ reviews books, monographs, computer software, and materials that (a) present results of research in-and methods of-foreign and second language teaching and learning; (b) are devoted to matters of general interest to members of the profession; (c) are intended primarily for use as textbooks or instructional aids in classrooms where foreign and second languages, literatures, and cultures are taught; (d) convey information from other disciplines that relates directly to foreign and second language teaching and learning. Reviews not solicited by the MLJ can neither be accepted nor returned. Books and materials that are not reviewed in the MLJ cannot be returned to the publisher. Responses should be typed with double spacing and submitted electronically online at our new Manuscript Central address: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/mlj THEORY AND PRACTICEThis volume is an outstanding contribution to the field of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP). The 13 chapters span five main themes: research methodologies and calls for new directions for inquiry, developmental studies, speech act studies, conversation analytic (CA) framework studies, and the teaching of pragmatics. Many chapters cross into multiple areas, lending a cohesiveness to the volume. In addition, a variety of languages are represented: English as a foreign and second language (EFL/ESL), Spanish, German, Japanese, and Kiswahili. Clear prose and a thick description of research design combine to produce a volume that is a rich addition to the library of any applied linguist.Calls for new directions for inquiry, which include a reconceptualization of approach to data analysis in the field, are provided by Bardovi-Harlig and Kasper. Bardovi-Harlig's chapter opens the work with a review of research on a much neglected area of pragmatic inquiry, that of formula use. In her chapter she clarifies the term formula, a muddy concept due to its use in a variety of fields, and provides a taxonomy of the use of formulas in second language (L2) acquisition. She calls for longitudinal studies of individual learners in order to uncover developmental tendencies in pragmatics.Kasper examines speech act theory-based research, stating that interlanguage pragmatics research has tended to criticize methodology at the expense of theory. She argues for the application of CA theory to speech act realizations. She compares the theoretical grounding of speech act theory and its roots in rationalist theory against CA in terms of action, meaning, and context. She ends by noting that CA helps us uncover "actions that are part of members' interactional competence but not of their metapragmatic awareness" (p. 305).Two chapters investigate interaction using a conversation analytic framework: Houck and Fuji's and Ishida's. Houck and Fuji examine the use of delay in interaction as a way to communicate pragmatic information. Participants compared opinions about an article assigned to them as homework. Delay was found to be a resource employed by both native speakers (NSs) an...

When discussing the use of technology with foreign language instructors who do not use Internet technologies in their teaching, two questions are often asked-"why'' and "how'~. Some are not certain why the web should be used at all. Others are interested in taking advantage of the Internet, but have not had the time or funds to learn how ..