THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE OUT OF PRE-LANGUAGE. Talmy Givón and Bertram F. Malle (Eds.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2002. Pp. 394. $57.95 paper.

The notion that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has a long tradition, with the collection here being a recent and cogent revisit of the idea. Among the possibly relevant data are, as the back cover states, “aspects of language learning that may serve as models of evolutionary change.”

This chapter surveys recent work on language transfer and focuses on the intersection of second language acquisition (SLA) and linguistic relativity in what is often termed conceptual transfer. The two most famous exponents of relativity, Wilhelm von Humboldt and Benjamin Lee Whorf, developed their ideas largely from their study of Kawi and Hopi respectively, and both scholars viewed crosslinguistic influence as a manifestation of the “binding power” (to use Whorf's characterization) of language on thought. The views of von Humboldt and Whorf diverge in some ways, and the difference is relevant not only to issues in SLA such as ultimate attainment but also to theories of linguistic relativity. Indeed, some recent work on conceptual transfer indicates that even highly proficient learners may never free themselves entirely of the “binding power” of L1. The research reviewed also includes work with native speakers of different languages, suggesting real cognitive differences related to language in, for example, spatial concepts. The importance of distinguishing concepts from meanings is emphasized, as is the difference between meaning transfer and conceptual transfer. The chapter discusses in detail research on transfer involving spatial, temporal, and affective meanings, with some of the studies being interpreted as evidence of conceptual transfer.

CROSS-LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE IN THIRD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: PSYCHOLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES. Jasone Cenoz, Britta Hufeisen, and Ulrike Jessner (Eds.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2001. Pp. 197. $54.95 cloth.

Although linguists often employ “native-language influence” as a shorthand for language transfer, most are well aware that crosslinguistic influence can come not only from the first language (L1) but also from the second language (L2) in cases where the target language is the third language (L3). Even so, there remains the question of just how similar the acquisition of L3 (or L4, etc.) may be to what is, strictly speaking, L2 acquisition. This question naturally intersects with the complexities of crosslinguistic influence, and the study of transfer beyond L2 has received increasing attention in the past 10 years or so. It was high time for a single volume that would bring together many strands of research on the problem, and this one edited by Cenoz, Hufeisen, and Jessner will no doubt become a key resource. The collection has an introduction by the editors and 10 chapters with the following authors: Cenoz; Hammarberg; De Angelis and Selinker; Ringbom; Dewaele; Ecke; Herwig; Kellerman; Fouser; and Gibson, Hufeisen, and Libben.

This study clarifies issues related to the transferability of bound morphology and reports on an empirical investigation of morphological transfer in the spatial expressions of Finnish-speaking (n= 140) and Swedish-speaking (n= 70) adolescent learners of English. The results indicate that both the bound, agglutinative morphology of the L1 Finnish spatial system and the free, prepositional morphology of the L1 Swedish spatial system constrain the types of options that learners pursue in their L2 English spatial reference. Additionally, however, the structural and semantic differences between the two L1 systems result in different patterns of spatial reference in the L2. We characterize these differences in terms of semantic transfer and simplification, and go on to show how transfer and simplification interact in our data.