No abstract

In our reply to Margaret Thomas's article “Programmatic ahistoricity in second language acquisition theory,” we first review pertinent literature, concluding that historical awareness is evident in SLA, though it is not as far-reaching as Thomas would like it to be. We then argue that the attitude of most scholars in SLA toward the past is reasonable given that no significant work in SLA from antiquity has been discovered—by Thomas or anyone else—and that if such work exists Thomas has the burden to bring it to light before declaring the field guilty of ahistoricity. We consider various ways to define the field of SLA, arguing that it should be defined theoretically first, and historically second. We claim that the point at which SLA separated itself from language teaching is a logical point from which to date the beginnings of SLA as a true discipline. We consider and reject Thomas's comparison of SLA and its history to various other scientific disciplines and their histories, arguing that these disciplines have true milestones to point to in the distant past, whereas SLA does not. Although we agree with Thomas that a general awareness of the history of philosophy and science is beneficial for scholars in all fields, we make a sharp division between that history and the history of SLA proper. We conclude by arguing that respect for the field of SLA can come only through sound scientific progress, not by appeals to history.

Although the lexicon has traditionally been regarded as one of the three essential elements of language learning, the other two being phonology and syntax, it has often been almost ignored, or perhaps more accurately, taken for granted, whereas phonology and especially syntax have received most of the attention of theorists and teachers alike. However, there is now a growing awareness that lexical knowledge is both more complex than it appears and also more fundamental to learners' overall knowledge of a given language than previously thought. The volume under review is a good introduction to the complexities of lexical learning and a valuable guide for those who are interested in doing empirical research in this area.

No abstract