364 REVIEWS

did answer our questions. It even answered questions we hadn’t thought to ask”), states aims and methods clearly (“In this chapter, you will learn. . .“) and presents all newspaper extracts in the same, highly readable type-face.

Chapter 6, entitled “Reading a Story Critically,” has as its ambitious aim to “show you how to judge whether you can believe what you read.” This skill depends heavily on the readers’ knowledge of current affairs and socio-political practices, gained by past reading. Not only could the interrogative techniques of this &page chapter be developed and elaborated in a future edition, but the authors might also reconsider their suggestion that “straight news stories and features seldom give you the opinion of the writer” (p. 88). The fact is, that separation of fact from comment, of report from opinion, has become a far harder task for foreign and native readers of newspapers since, say, the breaking of the Watergate scandal in 1973. In the words of the Daily Telegraph (7 February 1986), “news columns increasingly mingle fact and comment; an interpretation is often the main point of a reporter’s story instead of the facts he reports.” English by Newspaper very capably takes learners to the brink of these matters, but no further.

A recent textbook by B. Duff and R. Shindler--Language and Style in the Press (Collins, 1984)-which takes British newspapers as its subject, offers a useful comparison with English by Newspaper. Duff and Shindler’s larger format, wider range of exercise types and concern with stylistic varieties in the press throw into sharp relief Frederickson and Weldel’s chosen rigorous method of progressive multiple-choice questioning and systematic lexical build- up. My impression is that English by Newspaper will be particularly attractive to methodical adult learners willing and able to profit from new vocabulary delivered at a fairly high frequency.

Gesamthochschule Kassel Fachbereich 08 Anglistik/Romanistik Heinrich-Plett-Strafle 40 D-3500 Kassel Federal Republic of Germany

Barry Baddock

Andersen, Roger W. (ed.), Pidginization and Creoiization as Language Acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House, 1983, 337 pp.

Among the scholars who first brought together the fields of pidgin and creole studies and language acquisition (LA) were Bickerton and Schumann. Andersen then developed his Nativization Model, including such concepts as nativization, i.e. the development of a learner’s interlanguage resulting from restricted input, and denativization in the case of adequate input which leads to an approximation of the target language (TL). Andersen’s model incorporates pidginization and creolization into an LA framework.

REVIEWS 365

The present volume results from a symposium on the “Relationship between Pidginization and Creolization and Language Acquisition” that was held at the 1979 LSA Winter meeting to look for common issues which might eventually lead to a unified interpretation of all types of LA. After a long overview by Andersen drawing on his own model as well as related research, the book is organized into four parts, relating to four major areas of inquiry: simplification of the input to pidginization and second language acquisition (SLA), simplification in interlanguage, creolization and LA, and decreolization and LA. Each part is centered around a position paper, preceded by a synthezing introduction by the editor and followed by three or four comments from authors asked by Andersen to contribute as discussants.

In the first lead article Hatch discusses the origins of foreigner talk (FT), i.e. simplified input by native speakers, suggesting three major sources: regression to some earlier stage of Ll acquisition, matching (i.e. the native speaker’s imitation of non-native TL production), and negotiation, i.e. the process of conversational work characterized by the constant repair and re-run of messages. Hatch considers negotiation to be of primary importance. As basic functions of FT she proposes promotion of communication, establishment of affectional bonds, and the role of FT as an implicit teaching model.

The three discussants explicitly relate Hatch’s categories to pidginization, suggesting some modifications and shifts of emphasis. Larsen-Freeman adds the non-native speaker’s general knowledge about how a language is learned as a source of FT. In this view, simplification is also achieved by the non-native speaker in selectively processing native speaker input. On the other hand, Larsen-Freeman questions the role of simplified input in facilitating the SLA process. Naro goes even further than Hatch in placing the origin of FT entirely in the native speaker, at the same time stressing the teaching function of FT, while the contribution of the non-native speaker lies simply in the spreading of FT. One wonders, however, about the non-native speaker’s interactional role considering Naro’s claim that pidgins do not develop from brief and superficial contacts but presuppose a more stable interaction. Fox also strongly supports Hatch in viewing negotiation as a fundamental process in the development of FT, but he also stresses the importance of matching and regression as complementary strategies.

In Part 2, Meisel takes up the perspective of the learner’sinon-native speaker’s strategies of simplification, the function simplification has for the learner and the learner’s motivation German used by foreign workers) Meisel differentiates between the structural properties of simplification, the function simplification has for the learner, and the learner’s motivation to simplify. In focussing on simplification as a set of strategies placed within a larger developmental framework, Meisel emphasizes the cognitive complexity of LA, further differentiating between elaborative simplification (seen as an aid to further learning) and restrictive simplification, which has primarily communicative functions. Meisel extends his model by incorporating social-psychological factors; thus he relates a learner’s motivation to simplify to his or her tendency towards segregation or integration.

In talking about interlanguage, the role of Ll transfer/interference has long been a controversial issue. Meisel rejects interference (relexification in the case of pidginization) as an important factor in shaping the learner’s interlanguage, emphasizing rather the effects

366 REVIEWS

of universal strategies. Meisel’s position is supported by Dorian in her paper on the linguistic changes that a variety of Gaelic is undergoing as it loses native speakers. On the other hand, Gilbert in his comment insists that transfer is a fundamental strategy in SLA, thus supporting Bickerton who had earlier attributed a major role to Ll interference in pidginization. Saltarelli and Gonzo add further arguments against Meisel’s position on interference from their work on the loss of emigrant languages. They claim that interference in terms of the temporary co-existence of Ll and L2 cannot be dismissed as a basic principle for a theory of language change.

In the lead article to Part 3, Valdman takes up Andersen’s concept of nativization in an attempt to link creolization and SLA, probably the most problematic relationship to be established in this volume. Both types of LA involve the operation of what he calls cognitive and linguistic universals which in turn guide the acquisition processes along a developmental axis, i.e. nativization. Creolization then differs from SLA primarily in that the former involves the development of native languages (vernacularization in Valdman’s terms) whereas the latter does not. Valdman provides illustrative material from French creoles using categories as developed by Miihlhguser (such as redundancy, morphological naturalness, derivational depth).

Bickerton in his comment rejects practically all of Valdman’s paper. After showing that Valdman presents a rather traditional account of creolization in a very complicated terminology (including the dichotomy between a developmental and a restructuring axis of LA/language change) Bickerton points towards the fundamental differences between creolization and SLA which in his view make all attempts at a comprehensive theory quite pointless. While Sankoff in her reply to Valdman does not call such enterprises “an aberration of the field” (Bickerton), she also criticizes Valdman’s terminology and in particular questions the usefulness of the terms pidginization and creolization as general LA concepts. Pidgins evolve from the interaction of unique historical circumstances but the linguistic processes involved (such as convergence, simplification or interference) are not rnique at all. Thus, if pidginization is used to characterize the first stages of all SLA, which in most cases will simply not result in a pidgin, the use of the term is at least unsatisfactory. Further, a pidgin may take many routes; and the emergence of a creole must also be described as a specific and not very frequent historical event. As in pidginization the linguistic processes involved in creolization are by no means unique--they occur in other types of language change as well. Sankoff therefore suggests the concept of reanalysis (of periphrastic or lexical material as part of the grammar) as the common basis for both creolization and SLA.

Finally, Slobin discusses the developmental axis in more detail. He also rejects nativization as a misleading term and proposes a continuum ranging from a stage where emergent linguistic forms are only influenced by LA mechanisms (linguistic universals and general cognitive and processing strategies) through stages of increasing degrees of accommodation to external norms (denativization in Andersen’s/Valdman’s terms). Illustrating his position from child language material, Slobin suggests a common core of highly salient, prototypical meanings that will most likely receive grammatical expression. Categories drawn from this core (such as tense and aspect) will emerge wherever the gap between communicative intent and expressive means must be bridged (i.e. in pidginization and creolization and SLA alike).

REVIEWS 367

Part 4 centers around Schumann and Stauble’s elaboration of an analogy drawn earlier by Bickerton and others between depidginization, decreolization and SLA, the common factor being the gradual incorporation of TL features into the learner’s interlanguage. Each process produces a continuum of developmental stages that all learners will pass through. Variation (e.g. variable acquisition speeds, various TL norms, various acquistion paths) are explained by social and psychological factors. The authors illustrate their claims with material from Guyanese Creole and Hawaiian Pidgin English. While their model tends more towards uniformity and unidirectionality of the three LA processes, the authors seem to be open to alternative explanations such as suggested by multidimensional models (Meisel or Washabaugh). ,

Eckman and Washabaugh do not directly comment on Schumann and Stauble but discuss an earlier version of Schumann’s Acculturation Model. They make a number of claims about this model, e.g. that it is universalistic, that it equates first and second LA, that is involves progressive acquisition in an invariant order, etc. They criticize all these concepts and in particular reject the model’s alleged nativistic implications. By nativist Eckman and Washabaugh mean that universalism (i.e. the postulation of a fixed set of principles underlying diverse linguistic behavior) is a function of an innate, i.e. non-linguistic program. To illustrate their alternative explanation of variation as due to freely varying properties of language they provide material from Spanish-English and Mandarin-English interlanguages.

Schumann and Stauble in turn reject this criticism on every point raised. They accuse Eckman and Washabaugh of distorting and grossly overstating some aspects while neglecting others. Thus, the debate on the Acculturation Model seems far from settled, much as some aspects of the Nativization Model.

Finally, Rickford in his comment on Schumann and Stauble points to the gap between our knowledge of what is theoretically possible and what actually happens in a speech community and/or individual. In particular, he calls for empirical studies on individual decreolization to match available material from longitudinal studies in SLA. On the basis of his own research on the Guyanese continuum, and specifically taking negation as an example for linguistic changes, Rickford supports Schumann and Stauble’s claim that there are persuasive parallels between SLA and decreolization in terms of central developments. But he also focusses on the major difference between the two types of change: while SLA starts out from a first approximation to TL with the individual successively replacing one interlanguage variety by another closer to TL, the decreolizing individual begins from a lower lect and extends his or her linguistic repertoire by adding neighbouring higher lects, while retaining competence in the original Ll.

Andersen’s book must be considered a major contribution to the fields of both pidgin and creole studies and SLA research. It reflects the highly elaborate theoretical state of the art and succeeds in demonstrating the plausibility of a unified approach. This is most apparent in Parts 1, 2 and 4, while Part 3, which examines the relationship between creolization and SLA, remains less convincing since it focusses on SLA rather than the more fruitful perspective of first LA. This is partly due to the fact that the book’s title is somewhat misleading-LA is in most cases interpreted as SLA. The book presents a

368 REVIEWS

valuable account of the ongoing debate of a number of controversial issues, especially the question of innate programs, the nature of developmental LA stages, the role of Ll interference and the role of social and psychological factors. These issues as well as the question of whether some modification of the Nativization Model can be developed into a comprehensive theory will only be settjed on the basis of much more empirical evidence than is available at the present time.

Englisches Seminar Universitat Hannover Welfengarten 1 D-3000 Hannover 1 Federal Republic of Germany

Marlis Hellinger