Based on correlational and factorial analysis of data collected from 384 middle and high school students in South Korea, Al–Hoorie et al. (2024) claimed the existence of a discriminant validity crisis within the L2 motivational self-system research tradition and advocated for abandoning research in this area. In this response, we critically examined the evidence presented, re-analyzed their data, and argued that their findings actually support the discriminant validity of the target scales. We also discussed issues related to the design and implementation of their study and refuted their assertion regarding a discriminant validity crisis in this field. Finally, we emphasized the necessity of prioritizing definitional validity in the ongoing methodological reforms of L2 motivation research.

Following Sandra Savignon's pioneering study (1972), the attainment of communicative ability has become a highly valued goal in foreign language (FL) instruction. Savignon recognized that a pedagogical approach aimed at developing rudimentary communicative ability required considerable changes in instructional environment (for example, higher proportion of classtime devoted to communicative activities, the use of games and simulation techniques, the reinterpretation of the role of the teacher). But few advocates of the inclusion of communicative ability among the basic FL skills seem to have recognized the need for extensive concomitant modifications, particularly in the areas of syllabus design and the preparation of teaching materials. They have been content to pair communicative activities with grammar-oriented syllabuses and instructional materials that stress cognitive and analytical control. The scope and sequence of these traditional FL materials are based on discrete phonological, morphosyntactic, or lexical features. The number of features selected far exceeds the capacity of learners to internalize, let alone “cognize” them. Even materials that adopt a situational format subordinate pragmatic aspects to structural features; for instance, dialogs are used as vehicles for the “seeding” of pre-selected structures (Rivers 1975:22).

This study presents a conceptual replication of Birulés et al.’s (2020, Experiment 2) investigation of native and nonnative listeners’ selective attention to a talker’s mouth with the goal of better understanding the potentially modulating role of proficiency in listeners’ reliance on audiovisual speech cues. Listeners’ eye gaze was recorded while watching two short videos. Findings from one of the videos replicated results from the original study, showing greater attention to the talker’s mouth among L2 than L1 listeners. In both videos, L2 proficiency modulated attention, with more fixations on the mouth among lower proficiency listeners, an effect predicted but not observed in the original study. Collectively, these laboratory-based findings highlight the role of visual speech cues in L2 listening and present evidence that listeners with more limited proficiency may be especially reliant on such cues. These observations warrant future investigations of the benefits of visual speech cues in instructional and assessment contexts.

Following previous work in L1 acquisition, SLA has witnessed a veritable explosion of research activity in the domain of temporality since the mid 1980s. In the hefty book under review here, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, for several years one of the most active protagonists in the field, sets out to organize the dislocated array of findings, methods, and approaches to date.

SIGN LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC UNIVERSALS.Wendy Sandler and Diane Lillo-Martin. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. xxi + 547. $45.00 paper.

Sandler and Lillo-Martin's volume is an incredibly important, powerful, and timely work. That the sign languages used by deaf people around the world are real human languages in every meaningful sense of the term has become a given among linguists over the past 30 years; as Sandler and Lillo-Martin point out, “In sum, the way sign language is acquired and the ease and speed of its transmission strongly support the view that a single cognitive system underlies language in both [spoken and signed] modalities” (pp. 3−4). Furthermore, apart from the psycholinguistic perspective, it is clear that