As in most other countries, the interest in communicative language teaching has been considerable in Canada. This interest has influenced curriculum development, materials production, experimental teaching, and approaches to language testing; and a good deal of experience has been reported. As everywhere else, there is in Canada today a need to clarify what is meant by communicative language teaching (CLT). In paper appearing in the proceedings of the 1978 AILA Congress in Montreal, the present author has attempted to distinguish between the psychopedagogic and the sociolinguistic concepts under which CLT has been understood (Stern, 1978). As will be seen, the distinction underlies this discussion.

This study was an approximate replication of Rothman (2011),examining the determiner phrase syntax of a large sample (n = 211) of L3 learners of Portuguese who spoke English and Spanish. Rothman (2011) investigated whether L3 Italian or Brazilian Portuguese speakers are differently impacted by another known Romance Language, if it was their L1 or L2. The original study concluded that groups did not perform differently on experimental tasks on the basis of a null effect, and that the typological similarity of Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian predicts transfer in the initial stages of L3 acquisition. The present replication recreated all materials, which were unavailable, and examined the same population and questions. However, rather than examining L3 Italian and L3 Brazilian Portuguese, the present work maintained a constant L3 Portuguese. Learners were divided into two groups in a mirror-image design (n = 96 L1 English-L2 Spanish, n = 115 L1 Spanish-L2 English), and data were collected online. Like the original study, there was no main effect of group in any of the two-way analyses of variance. However, results show that it should not be assumed that experimental groups behave equivalently based on a null effect: Of the four total post hoc tests of equivalence, only two were significant when the equivalence bounds were set at a small effect size (d = $ \pm $ .4). Ultimately, it is argued that determining the smallest effect size of interest and subsequent equivalence testing are necessary to answer key questions in the field of L3 acquisition.

Universals—everybody wants them! After all, explanation is superior to description in science, or so they say, and something called universals stands a good chance of providing a principled explanation for observable linguistic phenomena, whether cross-linguistically valid generalizations about properties of language, about linguistic performance, or about first or second language acquisition. For some time, generative theoreticians have had a de facto patent on universals as they apply to language and its use and acquisition, with Greenbergian linguistic typologists as well as functionalists and psycholinguists of various persuasions in close competition. A special issue on universals and second language acquisition must pay serious attention to the case for universals as they might apply to second language acquisition (SLA) within each of these traditions. It is for this reason that this issue includes as many different representative perspectives as is possible, given the limitations of space.

Vivian Zamel and Ruth Spack have collected papers spanning 19 years of discussion on teaching academic literacy, offering an illuminating journey through the issues. In a postmodern spirit, the editors emphasize the multiplicity of literacies and the value of students' own ways of knowing. The question arises, though, why this should be specifically taught by applying a particular pedagogical model, because it appears to be a normal part of any intellectual process to fall back on previous knowledge and experience when faced with a new task. Indeed, weeding it out would seem a bigger problem, should anyone want to accomplish that. The recognition and appreciation of students' previous experiences and earlier knowledge is nevertheless welcome, and there are a few well-chosen papers narrating personal experiences of struggle between different cultural identities and logics. Yet many of the papers in this volume, particularly in its first half, tacitly seem to assume that English is the language of the world and that the North American context equals universal. Much of the discussion is dominated by a controversy between discipline-specific (genre-based or disciplinary community-based) and expressive writing, or, perhaps, rather a crusade against genre-based teaching, given that proponents of this orientation have not been given voice. From a North European perspective, this bifurcation into two opposing camps seems hard to comprehend—many of us have happily combined genre analysis, analysis of cultural differences in rhetoric, and critical discourse analysis with a view of writing as process and discovery.

This book is a compilation of informative chapters containing selected papers (1988–1995) that first appeared in the English Language Teaching Journal, edited by Hedge and Whitney. The chapters have been reorganized “to provide a useful resource for teachers, trainee teachers, teacher educators, students, and researchers” (p. 1).

Neuro-neophytes need not be deterred by “ . . . in the somatosensory cortex of rats, the critical period for the reorganization of the barrel cells in response to haptic stimulation from the vibrissae is essentially coterminous with the period when LTP can be induced in those cells” (p. 70). The content of this volume more than compensates for any difficult passages, raising enough issues to generate discussion as well as fuel further research by those who know their ERPs from their ECPs.

In this commentary, we summarize the findings of the seven included studies that examined implicit language aptitude from various perspectives and highlight issues to be resolved in the validation of this new construct in second language research. We start by providing an overview of the contributions of the studies. We then identify the lack of convergent validity of the measures of implicit aptitude reported in the included studies and problematize the equally varied nature of the measurement of implicit knowledge—the outcome variable of aptitude research—and related concepts. In particular, by drawing on empirical evidence and theoretical claims, we attempt to clarify the relationships between implicit and explicit knowledge, implicit and explicit learning, and implicit and explicit instruction. Next, we draw attention to the interactions reported by the included studies between aptitude and outcome measures and between aptitude and instruction type, emphasizing the value and importance of interactional research. We conclude by making recommendations for future research.