As literacy has emerged to become a major issue in the 1980s, and will continue to do so in the 1990s, the only sure claim to be made is that the notion of literacy is extremely complex and fraught with generally accepted “myths,” hidden assumptions, over-generalizations, and simple all-inclusive responses to the challenges presented. This scenario is no less appropriate to the second language learning context than it is to the first language learning context. Thus, any examination of second language literacy requires discussion of both first language and second perspectives. It is naive to assume that the difficulties, complexities, contradictions, and debates in first language literacy do not apply equally to the large majority of second language learning contexts. Accordingly, second language literacy will be discussed in light of first language perspectives on literacy, reading, and writing, expanding these perspectives into second language contexts. (It should be noted that two excellent reviews of reading and writing in a second language appeared in ARAL IX (Carrell 1989a, Hudelson 1989a). This review should be seen as complementary to these two earlier articles.)

In this survey, the demographic and linguistic consequences of recent processes of migration and minorization in Western Europe are reviewed, and a case study of the Netherlands is presented to illustrate and detail the effects of these processes on an individual European Union country. After a discussion of demographic data and criteria in a European context, linguistic issues are addressed in terms of L1 and L2 studies on immigrant and ethnic minority groups. Major demographic trends in Dutch society and education derived from these cross-national perspectives is then outlined. Specific attention is given to research and policy in the domains of Dutch as a second language and ethnic minority languages within the context of primary education.

Researchers in second language acquisition (SLA) have long debated the nature of human cognition and how it affects second language learning (L2L). On the one hand, and largely dominating the field of SLA, is the cognitive approach, which focuses on the brain as the unit for cognitive analysis. On the other hand, sociocultural theory holds that human cognition is mediated by cultural artifacts. These perspectives present significantly different views on interaction, understanding it as either auxiliary or instrumental in the learning process, or “fundamentally constitutive” of learning (Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004, p. 502). Increasingly concerned with the role of technology in language learning, current computer-assisted language learning (CALL) research demands theoretical frameworks that account for the ecological relationship between learners, the tools they use, and the environments they inhabit. This article raises the issue of how anthropocentric perspectives on technology have permeated the field of CALL until now, inhibiting its development. I suggest the need for CALL to adopt a less instrumental, more determinist (Carr, 2010) view of the role that technology plays in language learning, by engaging in sociocognitive research (Atkinson, 2010) that embraces the transformative power that technology has over cognition.

In Physical terms, the Net—a term used generically—is a global system of computer linked by optical cable, telephone connections, microwave, and satellites. It comprises a number of individual networks, from LANs (Local Area Networks in individual institutions) to the largest, the Internet. (See Appendix Glossary for terminology explanations.) In January 1993, the Matrix News estimated that the Net comprised 2,152,000 host computers and 18,150,000 users. Now, in mid-1995, these figures are 3,500,000 host computers and 55 million users world-wide. From its beginnings in the U.S. military establishment, it now reaches into education, research, business and commerce, government, and private use. France is connecting its entire education system to the Internet. And the U.S.A. is leading the way not only in numbers of connections to the Internet, but also in providing access for non-university education fields. The Net is arguably the most dramatic new communications technology of the latter part of the 20th century.

Quite contrary to the presuppositions of the editors of this review, I approached the production of this chapter without the feeling of being au fait, having spent the past year on a small-is-beautiful campus with limited access to the literature, with this period having been preceded by three years in the Middle East, which is surely not a hotbed of applied microsociolinguistic research or dissemination. Additionally disabled with a shattered writing hand, I resorted to sending off thirty mimeographed requests for assitance in turning up seminal items for 1979 to sociolinguists the world over. This salvo netted thirteen replies (43% response-rate) with the following variation in content: one person telephoned from Washington, D.C. for clarification and then promptly mailed me some references; three others––one in Nigeria and two on opposite coasts of the USA––wrote back to ask what I meant by microsociolinguistics; three––one each from Israel, Jordan, and the USA––replied with friendly notes that neither mentioned my request nor responded to it; three others––from England, Tunisia, and the USA respectively––wrote to say that they had seen nothing that I would not have seen myself; and only three––one each from Guyana, Poland, and the southwest USA––provided references at first shy! Of the items mentioned by this last group, the Guyana reference fit the section in this volume on Pidginization and Creolization, and those from the southwest USA fit the section on Second-Language Acquisition/Learning, leaving my Polish correspondent as the sole collaborator––pending translation, his language being one of those more uncommonly taught abroad. I was clearly as handicapped as when I had begun, but was there really nothing to report about microsociolinguistics?

The field of language policy and planning is clearly a sub-field within applied linguistics. It generally does not draw heavily on formal linguistics, except for aspects of corpus and status planning. However, it does draw extensively from a range of disciplines in order to plan, implement, and evaluate language policies that respond to the needs of stake holders of various types. Despite continuous development of the field, aspects of language policy and planning need to be developed further. One of the key areas where policy can be enhanced considerably is in the area of policy and planning evaluation. This direction of inquiry is also relevant to a number of other areas within applied linguistics.

Various facets of the general topic of multilingualism, including language contact, have been dealt with in previous ARAL volumes (e.g., under separate entries in volumes 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, and 15) and as a major substantive focus in volumes 6, 14 and 17. Nonetheless, it does not seem at all surprising that we return to the specific topic of language contact and change in volume 23 given the worldwide incidence of the phenomenon and the attention, and often controversy, which various aspects of language contact, language change or language loss arouses. Thus, I find it interesting that, within the past 12 months, issues related to language contact and derivative implications have surfaced as important factors in public discussions in such disparate settings as the November 2002 elections in several of the states in the United States, the admission of new members to the European Union, and immigration to Australia. Clearly, the topics of language contact and language change are salient and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

The recent events promoting European integration have far-reaching consequences for language management. Such management may form an explicit part of policy, though often it is reflected implicitly in interventions dealing with other aspects of social and political organization. This article will highlight both explicit and implicit language planning issues at the European level, the latter being more the result of policy interventions rather than deliberate attempts to manipulate language usage. Given constraints on space, it is impossible to handle more specific language planning issues at national or regional levels except as illustrations.

The 1980 Census of the Philippines (National Census and Statistics Office 1983) shows a multi-ethnic population speaking various Austronesian languages of the West Indonesian branch, which are not mutally intelligible but are clearly related to each other under various sub-groupings. The clearest divisions are the Northern Group and the Central Group, with the Northern Group situated in Northern and Central Luzon, and the Central Group located in Central and Southern Luzon, the Visayas, and parts of Mindanao (Zorc 1984). Smaller groups may be found in Eastern Mindanao (Eastern Mindanao Group), Southern Mindanao and Sulu (Sama-Bajaw Group), the area around Lake Lanao (Danao language group), Central Mindanao (the Manobo Group), and the islands of Palawan (the Palawanese Group) (cf., Pallesen 1985).

There is a variety of ways to explore recent approaches to the language and politics connection, and each problematic suggested vjuld encourage a discussion of different issues and different literatures. The boundary strategies represented by this essay are encouraged by my vocation as a social scientist in general and a political scientist in particular. With respect to the first, I shall be focusing on the implications for social inquiry of different construals of language and meaning. With respect to the second, I shall be “reading” the problem of language within a politically oriented code.

In the past two decades bilingual education has become an educational movement and a field of academic inquiry of remarkable growth throughout the world. At first glance this appears to be the outcome of the increasingly hegemonic role of a few languages like English in the western world and countries economically affiliated to it, Russian in the multilingual republics of the Soviet Union, and Putonghua in the People's Republic of China. But a closer look at the first of these areas—the one better known to us—shows how complex the dynamics of language spread and language change are in diverse sociopolitical contexts.

In an cited essay, Hairston (1982) asserts that a revolution is taking place in the teaching of compostition, a revolution she characterizes as involving a basic shift in paradigms with regard to the act of composition. Hairston describes the prevailing view of writing, a view that had its orgins in traditional theories of rhetoric, as one that considers writing a linear process in which writers know what they want to say before they begin to write. The major task of the attends to editing concerns in order to perfect the manuscript. Thus the focus of composition instruction in this paradigm is the product that the writer produces.

Dual language bilingual education (DLBE) teachers, depending on the modality of the program, teach content areas (i.e., language arts, science, math, social studies) in a language other than English (LOTE) and English. DLBE teachers, who teach in Spanish, should be supported by school districts in meaningful ways. These districts should be equipped to provide the necessary academic and professional development for the DLBE teachers. This paper explores the increasing need to support DLBE teachers’ metalinguistic awareness as well as pedagogical language knowledge (see Bunch, 2013) in Spanish. Guided by Charmaz’ (2006) constructivist grounded theory, this paper analyzed ten transcribed audio interviews with a single DLBE teacher. Interview data included video-taped classroom observations (i.e., preplanning and postlesson implementation), robust field memos, and student artifacts. Data analysis suggested the need for further clarification as far as the teacher's own pedagogical language knowledge (PLK; Bunch, 2013) in Spanish. However, data also indicated that this particular educator was able to negotiate the linguistic and content demands of teaching language arts in Spanish by seeking multifaceted resources and using the full extent of her linguistic repertoire.

High-quality replication studies are widely understood to be critical to the growth and credibility of our discipline, as shown in commentaries and discussion since the 1970s, at least. Nevertheless, misunderstandings and limitations in the aims, designs, and reporting of replication research remain, thus reducing the usefulness and impact of replications. To address this issue and improve the rigor, quality, and conduct of replication studies in applied linguistics, a new standard for reporting replication studies that captures several critical features of replication research not discussed in current reporting guidelines is proposed. Importantly, this standard applies basic expectations in replication reporting so that outcomes can be better understood and evaluated. By applying this standard, replication studies will better meet their aims to confirm, consolidate, and advance knowledge and understanding within applied linguistics and second language research. In addition, readers will more easily understand how the replication study was carried out and be able to better evaluate the claims being made.

Language contact and change occur continuously, whether or not they are noted, recorded, or analyzed. The intensity and frequency vary, and can vary dramatically according to geographic and historic circumstances. Contributions to this volume revisit some of the topics last discussed in the 1997 Annual Review of Applied Linguistics on multilingualism (Grabe, 1997), update them with connections to the ever-increasing bibliography for these subjects, and extend them into some new directions. Many of these topics, and some of the new directions, testify to the vision of Charles A. Ferguson. His comprehensive grasp of the multiple points of intersection between language and society, prominent in the academic literature of the last forty years and epitomized by the selections in Huebner (1996), fully merits the special dedication of this volume.

In the political divisions within South Asia there has traditionally been no organized effort for language policies.1 Language was essentially related to one's caste, village, district, and state. Beyond this, one identified with languages associated with religion (Sanskrit or Arabic), or learned and literary texts (mainly Sanskrit and Persian). At the time of Indian independence (1947), one task of the new government was to unravel the status and position of almost 560 sovereign states which were ruled by an array of mahārājās, nawābs, and lesser luminaries, depending on the size and the revenue of each state and subdivision. Each state state was a kindgom unto itself, and such political divisions did not foster a national language policy. In India, the largest country in South Asia, four languages were used for wider communication as bazār languages or languages of literature and intranational communication: Hindi (and its varieties, Hindustani and Urdu), Sanskrit, Persian, and later, English (cf., for Sanskrit, Kachru and Sridhar 1978; Sharma 1976; for English, Kachru 1969; 1982a). The Hindus tended to send their children to a pāṭhśālā (traditional Hindu school mainly for scriptural education) for the study of the scriptures and some basic knowledge of the śāastras (Sanskrit instructional texts, treatise), and the Muslims tended to send their children to a maktab (traditional school for Koranic instruction). The denominational schools (vidyāZaya) provided liberal arts instruction in Sanskrit, Persian, Hindi, Arabic, or in the regional languages.

The inventions of writing and printing constitute the first two revolutions in information recording and transmission. The current development of electronic management of text, somewhat prefigured by Remington and the typewriter, consitutes a third revolution. This article deals with the current state of play in text production and consumption in the specific context of electronic text production and comsumption.

The study of the relationship between bilingualism and cognitive development has struggled with the dual definitional problems of the key component concepts. Bilingualism has been defined at various levels of functional definition. These include linguistic, cognitive, and social-psychological characteristics of individuals, as well as societal characteristics such as ethnicity and other sociodemographic variables. Failure to distinguish between these various definitions of bilingualism has led to confusion in deciphering the relationship of this elusive concept with cognitive development.

In the area of Eastern Africa, the question of language teaching and literacy has not fully discussed as part of one cogent theme. Such works as have appeared on these subjects have been concerned with specific problems, such as literacy and development (e.g., Government of the Republic of Zambia 1975; Kassam 1978; Lamba 1973; Mwanakatwe and Nyirenda 1972; Nyerere 1976); the problems associated with teaching specific languages (Bagunywa 1970; Gorman 1974; ohannessian and Kashoki 1978; Sifuna 1975), or general educational policy with passing references to languages in education (Africa 1980; Fawcett 1970; Gorman 1970; 1971a; 1974; Mutua 1975; Stabler 1969).

As a neurodevelopmental disorder, autism is characterized by impairments and differences at the levels of both brain and behavior. Communicative impairments in autism are a core feature of the disorder, and a rapidly expanding literature is exploring language in autism using the tools of cognitive neuroscience, particularly electroencephalography and brain imaging. Recent research indicates consistent differences in the degree to which language-specific processes are lateralized in the brain, and it also suggests that language impairments are linked to differences in brain structure that may lead to inefficient coordination of activity between different neural assemblies to achieve a complex cognitive task, defined as functional connectivity. We review findings from current work and suggest that neurobiological data are critical in our ability to understand the mechanisms underlying behavioral differences in communicative skills. Going beyond simple dichotomies between delayed versus deviant development, we can use such data to ask whether behavior reflects processes that are merely inefficient or, instead, whether impairments at the behavioral level reflect fundamental differences in brain organization and the networks involved in various tasks.