This nineteenth volume of ARAL returns to a general overview of Applied Linguistics. While a wide range of topics could be covered in an overview volume, three major topics are addressed in some depth: second language acquisition, language use in professional contexts, and language assessment. These chapters complement and extend the chapters that appeared in ARAL 15, which used a similar organizing framework.

In a brief article published some years ago (Foster-Cohen 1993), I suggested that fruitful collaboration between the fields of first and second language acquisition was underexploited. I also suggested that second language researchers were, in general, better at keeping themselves informed of developments in first language studies than first language researchers were at paying attention to second language issues. I think it fair to say that there are some signs this is changing. One is the now established existence of the journal Language Acquisition (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), started in 1990, which publishes work in both first and second language acquisition with a view to understanding the nature of language acquisition in general. Its preference for papers that address issues in formal linguistic theory complements well Applied Psycholinguistics (Cambridge University Press), which has always published material relevant to both fields, but which also goes well beyond acquisition issues in its brief. A second factor seems to be a gentle but insistent re-examination of issues in bilingualism and a growing awareness that bilingual studies, second language studies, and first language studies overlap in important ways in the study of the bilingual individual. One key indicator of this shift is the appearance of a new journal Bilingualism: Language and Cognition (Cambridge University Press).

Getting to know a second language is an act of cognition par excellence. Yet 'Cognitive Approaches to SLA' implies something more than the general research enterprise of SLA. It highlights the goals of cognitive psychologists who search for explanations of second language cognition in terms of mental representations and information processing. It places SLA within the broader remit of cognitive scientists, who—influenced by Marr (1982) to seek understanding at all three levels of function, algorithm, and hardware—work in collaborations involving cognitive psychology, linguistics, epistemology, computer science, artificial intelligence, connectionism, and the neurosciences. It implies the empiricism of cognitive psychology, searching for truths about the world through observation and experimentation and, at times, the rationalism of cognitive scientists who theorize through the construction of formal systems such as those in mathematics, logic, or computational simulation. Much of the research is purely theoretical, but, as in applied cognitive psychology, pure theory can often spin off into important applications, and applied research using longitudinal or training designs in field situations can often advance theory.

These are exciting times for research into the psychological processes underlying second language acquisition (SLA). In the 1970s, SLA emerged as a field of inquiry in its own right (Brown 1980), and in the 1980s, a number of different approaches to central questions in the field began to develop in parallel and in relative isolation (McLaughlin and Harrington 1990). In the 1990s, however, these different approaches began to confront one another directly. Now we are entering a period reminiscent, in many ways, of the intellectually turbulent times following the Chomskyan revolution (Chomsky 1957; 1965). Now, as then, researchers are debating basic premises of a science of mind, language, and learning. Some might complain, not entirely without reason, that we are still debating the same issues after 30–40 years. However, there are now new conceptual and research tools available to test hypotheses in ways previously thought impossible. Because of this, many psychologists believe there will soon be significant advancement on some SLA issues that have resisted closure for decades. We outline some of these developments and explore where the field may be heading. More than ever, it appears possible that psychological theory and SLA theory are converging on solutions to common issues.

There is now a substantial body of research that has investigated the role of form-focused instruction in assisting learners to learn the grammar of a second language (L2). Recent comprehensive surveys of this research have been provided by N. Ellis (1995), R. Ellis (1990; 1994; 1997), Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), Long (1988), Spada (1997), and Williams (1995a). However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to draw clear conclusions given the sheer amount of research now available, the problems of comparing results across studies, and the interactivity of the variables involved. Spada, for example, identifies seven questions that the research has addressed but acknowledges that “we do not yet have clear answers to any of these questions” (p. 74). One way of achieving a clearer understanding of how form-focused instruction contributes to acquisition might be to examine in detail studies that have investigated the effect of specific instructional options. This article will follow such an approach by examining one particular option–input–based grammar teaching.

Pragmatics has two roles in SLA: It acts as a constraint on linguistic forms and their acquisition, and it represents a type of communicative knowledge and object of L2 learning in its own right. The first role of pragmatics is evident in functionalist (Tomlin 1990) and interactionist (Long 1996) views of SLA. The second role puts pragmatics on a par with morphosyntax, lexis, and phonology in that inquiry focuses on learners' knowledge, use, and acquisition of L2 pragmatics. It is the latter sense of “pragmatics and SLA” that is the focus of this paper. In analogy with other areas of specialization within SLA—interlanguage syntax, interlanguage lexis, and so forth—the study of nonnative speakers' use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge is referred to as interlanguage pragmatics.

The study of second language acquisition involves understanding what bilinguals know about their second language and how they acquire and use it. Because acquisition and use occur in a social context, it is important for second–language acquisition researchers to understand the ways in which social context and the acquisition and use of a second language are related. In recent years, our understanding of language as a social phenomenon has increased greatly. In a recent survey of sociolinguistics and language teaching, McKay and Hornberger (1996) divide the field into four related areas: 1) studies of language and society–how large–scale social and political issues affect language use in a particular society, 2) studies of language variation—how the “same” language varies from speaker to speaker, from place to place, and from situation to situation, 3) studies of language and interaction—how language is used in face–to–face communication, and 4) studies of language and culture—how particular cultures privilege some kinds of language over others.

In a review of this length, it is impossible to do justice to the many ways in which language is used in and about education. This article therefore presents only a personal view of some of the key issues. Chief among these, in my opinion, is the lack of a concensual view about the role that language plays in education and, in particular, about the importance of dialogue in learning and teaching. This state of affairs is hampering the many efforts that are being made to reform public education so that it can provide an equitable and effective induction of students into the ways of knowing and acting necessary for life in the post-industrial “information age”; it is also confusing, to say the least, for the teachers who have the responsibility for engaging students in the processes of knowledge construction. As will become apparent, I do not adopt an impartial stance, for I am convinced that students' interests are best served when they are actively involved in a dialogue in which their voices contribute, along with those of teachers and recognized “authorities,” to the continuing attempt to make sense of the human predicament and our relationship with our physical and social environment. The key question, then, is: How can this dialogue be extended?

Law is language. It is not solely language, since it is a social institution manifested also in non-linguistic ways, but it is a profoundly linguistic institution. Laws are coded in language, and the processes of the law are mediated through language. The legal system puts into action a society's beliefs and values, and it permeates many areas of life, from a teacher's responsibilities to a credit card agreement. The language of the law is therefore of genuine importance, particularly for people concerned with addressing language issues and problems in the real world—that is, Applied Linguists.

Research on the forms and functions of language in medical practice and training has expanded rapidly during the past two decades, a development marked by diversity in theoretical perspectives and methods brought to bear on a variety of problems. Although we label the area as “language and medicine,” it includes other health professionals and nonclinical settings. Our discussion is organized under four headings that we believe represent primary topics and domains of interest among investigators as well as the variability within the field: speaking to patients, speaking with patients, speaking about patients, and speaking by patients. A few exemplar studies will be cited in each section and the contributions and limitations of approaches in each topic area will be noted.

In looking back at the last review of research on the language-science connection to appear in ARAL (van Naerssen and Kaplan 1987), one is struck by the great changes in this relationship that have taken place over the past dozen or so years. On a general level, such changes are perhaps inevitable given the youthfulness of this area as a research domain, but more specifically, they can be traced in large part to two related trends: 1) a shift away from research with direct pedagogical aims and motivations, and 2) the powerful influence of the interdisciplinary field known as social studies of science. Both trends will be recurrent themes of this review.

This is an exciting time to be surveying the interrelationship between language and politics, both for political and linguistic reasons. The past decade, as everyone knows, has been witness to dramatic changes in the political map of the world, reflected most noticeably in the west in the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, but also, more quietly in some cases, more violently in others, in countries physically and politically as far apart as South Africa and China. Moves toward democracy in many areas of the world coincided with or followed on the end of the Cold War. These moves came about due to a return to democracy of postcolonial states that had become totalitarian and the granting of independence to most of the few remaining colonies. Through such changes we have come to see that “the language of democracy was mobilised against regimes that, in however perverted a way, were speaking the language of Marxism and socialism” (Schwarzmantel 1998:183), colonialism, and other totalitarianisms. Between 1989 and 1994, although later in some countries, the vast majority of newly (re)democratized peoples experienced for the first time in their lives the opportunity to express freely their political voice in democratic general elections, reflecting a move from bullets to ballots that appeared to be a “virtual miracle” (Joseph 1998:3). Since 1994, in many places, the optimism has faded as the “illusory nature of [the new regimes'] democratic institutions and practices” has become evident (Joseph 1998:3). Even in the long–established democracies, a disturbing rise in hate speech leading to violence has served to emphasize that speech can, and often does, provoke action (Owen 1998), while in certain particularly troubled areas, discourse, especially media discourse, has even been linked to genocide (e.g., Lemarchand 1994).

In an earlier review for the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Douglas (1995) wrote, “the year 1990 represented a watershed in language testing” (p. 167). This decade, though by no means over, has taken the field even further in terms of theoretical and practical developments. A few examples should illustrate this point: For test theoreticians and researchers, models of communicative language ability have challenged the traditional skills–and–components models (Bachman 1990, Bachman and Palmer 1996); applications of Messick's (1989) expanded view of validation have balanced arguments previously made solely by measurement experts (Kunnan 1998a); discussions of policy and social considerations (McNamara 1998), fairness (Kunnan 1996; in press), critical language testing (Shohamy 1997a) and ethics and professionalism (Davies 1997a; 1997b) have added new beveled angles for debates; structural equation modeling has successfully asserted its role as useful quantitative methodology (Kunnan 1995; 1998b); and verbal protocol analysis has proved to be a viable qualitative methodology (Green 1997).

All previous papers on language assessment in the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics make explicit reference to validity. These reviews, like other work on language testing, use the term to refer to the quality or acceptability of a test. Beneath the apparent stability and clarity of the term, however, its meaning and scope have shifted over the past years. Given the significance of changes in the conception of validity, the time is ideal to probe its meaning for language assessment.

The widespread accessibility to large, networked computer labs at educational sites and commercial testing centers, coupled with fast-paced advances in both computer technology and measurement theory, along with the availability of off-the-shelf software for test delivery, all help to make the computerized assessment of individuals more efficient and accurate than assessment using traditional paper-and-pencil (P&P) tests. Computer adaptive testing (CAT) is a form of computerized assessment that has achieved a strong foothold in licensure and certification testing and is finding greater application in many other areas as well, including education. A CAT differs from a straightforward, linear test in that an item(s) is selected for each test taker based on his/her performance on previous items. As such, assessment is tailored online to accommodate the test taker's estimated ability and confront the examinee with items that best measure that ability.