special issue: a century of language teaching and research: looking back and looking ahead, part 2...

Reviewing the Reviews: A Modest History of Policies and PracticesAuthor(s): Judith E. Liskin-GasparroSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 85, No. 1, Special Issue: A Century of LanguageTeaching and Research: Looking Back and Looking Ahead, Part 2 (Spring, 2001), pp. 77-91Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/330377 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 07:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.77 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:31:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/stable/330377?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Reviewing the Reviews: A Modest History of Policies and Practices

JUDITH E. LISKIN-GASPARRO Department of Spanish and Portuguese 111 Phillips Hall

University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242-1409 Email: judith-liskin-gasparro@uiowa. edu

This essay traces the history of MLJ editorial policies and practices as seen in the reviews section, traced mainly through the voices of the MLJ editors. These editorial messages reveal the role of the editor in shaping the function of the reviews and also provide a window on the issues and events that each generation of editors deemed important enough to merit public exposure. As shown in graphic displays, the reviews section reflects the history of the foreign language teaching and learning field in the 20th century in the distribution of the reviews across languages and topics, as well as trends over time. The essay concludes by considering the current issues and challenges for the reviews section and also possible future directions for this part of the MLJ.

THE FIRST 83 VOLUMES (1916-1998) OF THE Modern Language Journal take up more than five full shelves in the University of Iowa library: From the dull colors and stiff bindings of the early years to the shiny 83rd volume, recently arrived back from the bindery, these tomes to a great degree chronicle our history as a profession. What are the roles of the reviews in that history? How different (or similar) are the current reviews to their early antecedents? This essay traces the history of editorial policies and practices as seen in the "MLJReviews,"' viewed mainly through the voices of the MLJ editors. The intention is two-fold: to give readers a sense of the role of the editor in shaping the function of the reviews and to chronicle the issues and events that each generation of editors deemed important enough to merit public exposure.

In the sections below, editorial policy is discussed in what might, in the chronology of foreign language (FL) teaching generally, be considered broadly as eras: the early years of the MLJ (1916-1921); the period between World War I and World War II (1922-1943), characterized by an emphasis on reading; the post-World War II

The Modern Language Journal, 85, i, (2001) 0026-7902/01/77-91 $1.50/0 ?2001 The Modern Language Journal

period (1943-1970), which saw a shift of attention from reading to oral skills; and the period that followed audiolingualism (1971-present), which has seen a marked expansion in the number of books related to all areas of language learning and language teaching. In each section, the issues raised by the editors are presented and discussed and are illustrated with examples from reviews of the period. Following these sections, the history of the reviews is summarized, particularly as it reflects both the range of publications in the FL field and the coverage policies of the MLJ editors. The concluding section considers current issues and possible future directions that the reviews section might take.

THE EARLYYEARS (1916-1922): INAUGURATING THE REVIEWS

The early years of the reviews section coincide, naturally enough, with the inauguration of the MLJ itself. In a paper announcing the estab- lishment of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and its publication, to be entitled The Modern Language Journal, C. F. Kayser (1916) observed that no journal was currently "devoting itself exclusively to the teaching of modern languages in schools and colleges" (p. 7). Without announcement, book reviews ap-



78

peared for the first time in the second issue of Volume 1 and have occupied a discrete section of

virtually every issue since that time. The selection of books reviewed in Volume 1

confirms and supports the need for a journal devoted to language teaching and also gives to-

day's readers a sense of the types of materials that were in vogue during the World War I era. The

languages represented in these first reviews were German, French, and Spanish, with German pre- dominating. Graded readers, grammars, and textbooks were heavily represented, accompanied by a lesser number of student and scholarly editions of literary works and other specialized teaching materials, such as Elementary German Syntax (Boysen, 1917) and Spanish Commercial Correspon- dence (Cool, 1917). The reviews themselves vary considerably in length (all but one fall between 300 and 700 words), and the number of reviews

per issue was quite variable as well. In Volume 1, the second issue had six book reviews; the sixth issue had only three. In the last issue of Volume 1, five books were reviewed, among them a 277-

page edition of Goethe's poetry that merited a review of more than 1,000 words (Coleman, 1917). This variability in number and length of reviews is perhaps understandable in a new enter-

prise; the wide range of materials reviewed can be

interpreted as a likely reflection of the professional interests and responsibilities of the reader-

ship. The editor's comments in the "Notes and News" sections of these early issues reflect the

heavy administrative burden that launching a national journal entailed: late mailings; incomplete or inaccurate address lists; insufficient copies to meet subscriber demand; article solicitations,

particularly from high school teachers; and so on. Nowhere in these early issues is there a statement of policy on book reviews or procedures for sub-

mitting them. In all likelihood, none had yet been devised.

Under the editorship of Algernon Coleman

(1919-1922), the editorial board was reorganized to include, among other positions, associate editors in charge of reviews of books in the com-

monly taught languages (French, German, and

Spanish). These individuals were responsible for

soliciting reviews and wrote a good many of the reviews themselves. It was not until almost 2 decades later, in Volume 17, that the names, institu- tional affiliations, and language assignments of the associate editors were regularly printed on the inside front cover of each issue. In light of

today's insistence on immediate access to information, it is not easy to accept the time-consum-

ing process that correspondence with an associ-

The Modern Language Journal 85 (2001)

ate editor for the reviews section must have entailed. We may speculate that communication and transportation difficulties, together with the desire to publish reviews in a timely fashion, ac- counted for the fact that the reviews editors themselves served as frequent reviewers. Most reviews

appeared within 1 or 2 years of the books' publication dates.

In this early era, the range of languages strayed very little from French, German, and Spanish; occasionally an Italian reader or a Russian textbook was reviewed. It was not until 1926 that a review of a textbook in another language was

published: A Portuguese Grammar (1925) pur- ported to be "the first grammar available for the

teaching of the Portuguese language according to modern principles" (Williams, 1926, p. 382).

The impact of war with Germany on the teach-

ing of German and, consequently, on the publication of German teaching materials, was reflected almost immediately in the reviews section. By Vol- ume 5 (1919-1920), only 4 books for German were reviewed: 2 readers, 1 textbook, and a work of literary criticism. This number contrasts with the 15 books on French and 13 on Spanish reviewed in that volume. Spanish was coming to be viewed at that time as a language of commercial

promise, as trade with Latin America was ex-

pected to expand rapidly. This quick account of the types and numbers

of books reviewed tells only part of the early story of the reviews section. The first statement on editorial goals and policy for the section can be found in Coleman's "Editorial Comment" in Vol- ume 4 (1919). Coleman's statement was motivated by the unauthorized appearance in a publisher's marketing materials of a highly (and

favorably) edited version of a MLJ review of one of the company's new books. This event moved Coleman to state for the record the "nature and function of a review" (p. 133). After a discussion on the shortsightedness or bias of some reviewers, which led them to treat only one aspect of a book, he offered two examples of such deficient reviews. The first type of deficiency, he said, occurs when the writer of the review is "evidently so much pleased to find well applied in the book certain favorite principles of method that these come in for detailed comment, whereas certain obvious and serious defects were disposed of, cor-

rectly, but [very] briefly" (p. 133). The second

type of flawed review was just the opposite: "the writer quite ignores the evident merits of the volume in method of presentation, and arraigns vig- orously the linguistic inaccuracies and oversights



Judith E. Liskin-Gasparro

in the text" (p. 133). In summary, Coleman characterized the type of review that the MLJsought:

Not many teachers .. . are in a position to examine a new book critically and objectively, to test it by certain fairly definitive standards applied to its main features, and thus to reach a well considered judgment. This our reviewers are expected to do, and not to be led to excessive blame or praise by some one feature of the volume before them. .... One aim in composing a review might ... be ... to weave commendation in with objection . . . [to] make the review represent adequately the book under examination in its com- bined strength and weakness; and this is the function of a review. (pp. 133-134)

The nature and function of a review is a topic that occupied the attention of later editors as well, as their admonitions and instructions below attest.

BETWEEN THE WORLD WARS (1922-1943): NEW VENUES FOR REVIEWS AND THE POLITICS OF CIVILITY

The period between the two world wars was marked by enrollment declines, particularly in German but affecting other languages as well. Throughout the 1920s and into the 1930s, various states reported on their enrollments in the MLJon a regular basis. The several editors who directed the MLJduring this period created new sections in the Journal where readers could receive information about new books and other materials, and even offer their opinions as well. We also see during this period reviews that range from the unre- servedly laudatory to the scathingly negative. Sar- casm and negativity were apparently enough of an issue throughout the Journal that Henry Grattan Doyle referred to it in at least two editorials (1934, 1938b) while discussing appropriate procedures for writing and submitting reviews.

The reviews section during this period was still far from uniform, from issue to issue, in terms of the number and length of reviews, as well as in the types of books reviewed. Each editor could change directions, add new sections, and refine procedures. J. P. Wickersham Crawford (1922- 1926), for example, expanded the coverage of the reviews section. Whereas Coleman, his immediate predecessor, had urged, in his appeals to potential contributors and in his statements of editorial policy, that the reviews section be con- cerned exclusively with language teaching issues, such as methodology and pedagogical grammar, Crawford included literature, pedagogy, scholarship, and creative production in the reviews.

Crawford also established two extensions of, or

79

additions to, the reviews section. First, he included a bibliographical article in every issue that summarized "recent publications in French, Ger- man, and Spanish linguistics and literature, and also a survey of the most important works in creative literature that have appeared during the year in those countries" ("Notes and News," MLJ, 7, 1922, p. 43). This regular feature summarized journal articles primarily but also included books and pamphlets, thus giving it a role complemen- tary to that of the reviews section. Next, he established a "Books Received" section, appended to the reviews. It included books received from publishers and not (or not yet) reviewed, "in order that the attention of our readers may be called to these new books" (p. 43). The associate editors' criteria for reviewing a book at length, as opposed to summarizing it briefly in this section, were not stated.

The regular inclusion of a list of books received, in addition to the reviews themselves, was inaugurated with Volume 5. This list appears to include all books received-those that were even- tually reviewed, as well as those that were not. The timing of listings is infelicitous in places: Some- times a review was published in the same issue as the appearance of the book in the "Books Re- ceived" list. In other cases there was a lag of up to several issues between the first mention of a book and the publication of a review of it. Occasionally, a book was even reviewed more than once by different reviewers. Evidently, the division of la- bor among review editors led to duplication of effort and caused some unintended overlap between the books assigned to each review editor.

Curiously, Crawford occasionally used a paragraph of the "Notes and News" section to recom- mend a new book that he personally found interesting. In Volume 7 (1923), for example, he drew readers' attention to Stachey's Books and Charac- ters, which he characterized as 'just as fascinating as his 'Eminent Victorians' and 'Queen Victoria"' (p. 243). He dedicated another paragraph in the same "Notes and News" section to Nitze and Dar- jon's A History of French Literature. It is difficult at this distance in time to interpret these remarks as anything other than editorial privilege, a practice that would not go unchallenged if it occurred today.

Under the editorships of Bayard Quincy Mor- gan (1926-1930) and Charles Homer Holzwarth (1930-1934), a "Correspondence" section was established. Among other functions, it served as an asynchronous discussion forum of book reviews. It is not uncommon to see in this section a reaction to a review, either by the book's author or by



80

a reader who took issue with the reviewer's evaluation. Responses to the reactions were printed in

subsequent issues. To give just one example of the reaction that a

review might evoke, the case of C. L. Esborn's bilingual edition of Wilhelm Hauff's Die Karawane is notable. Published in 1936, it received a brief (180-word) but acerbic review the following year by Edwin H. Zeydel (1937), who would be named editor of the MLJ shortly afterwards. Zeydel took issue with the validity of a bilingual edition, com-

menting bluntly that converting "what used to be frowned upon as a 'pony' or 'trot'... into a 'bilin-

gual' edition" was a disturbing practice that dem- onstrated the "present precarious position of modern foreign language instruction" (p. 370). He concluded with a pointed barb: "In the humble

opinion of this reviewer, at least, German will have to be a dead language before it can be subjected to such pedagogical (or shall we say unpedagogical) treatment" (p. 371). Two responses to the review were published in the "Correspondence" section several issues later (MLJ, 21, 1937, 617-618), one from a German instructor who intended to use the book and the other from C. L. Esborn, the author of the bilingual edition. The user admonished

Zeydel for his "reverse enthusiasm" (p. 618) and

pointed out that graduate students in German-for-

Reading courses could profit from bilingual editions of literary works. Esborn responded by out-

lining an approach to teaching with a bilingual text. The techniques he suggested-vocabulary tests, translation activities with the facing pages (with the English text) folded back out of students' sight-were designed to ensure that students use the English version as a resource, not as a substitute for thorough preparation. He ended his response by parrying Zeydel's concluding jab with one of his own: "Is not any language 'liv-

ing'-i.e., to us-when we are able to read it? And is not any language, ancient or modern, 'dead'- to us-until we can read it?" (p. 617).

A significant problem of professional mud-

slinging seems to have developed in the

post-World War I period. The MLJ was not a

bystander in the acrimony, as seen in the ex-

change above. In addition, we read in Doyle's (1934) editorial in his inaugural issue that the

"expression of honest difference of opinion . .. [must be] courteously expressed . . . [without]

acrimony, personalities, or attempts at withering sarcasm" (p. 34). The reviews were not excepted from this editorial admonition:

The same policy will be followed, we hope, by our reviewers. If a book is poorly done, we want them to


say so-indeed, we expect them to say so; but they will be expected to say why they think so, and in language that preserves the amenities that ought to prevail among colleagues. (p. 34)

Perusal of Volume 17 (1932-1933), which pre- ceded Doyle's editorial, reveals three reviews written with "withering sarcasm" of the type to which Doyle must have been referring. Alexander G. Fite's (1933) review of H. Stanley Schwarz's student edition of Le Cure de Tours by Balzac is a case in point. The first few lines give a sense of the tone of the review as a whole:

We have another edition of Le Cure de Tours! With so

many new (and old) publishing houses plunging into the field of modern language texts in the last few

years, it is inevitable that many time-worn stories should be endlessly reduplicated in spite of the fact that so much inspired new material is available. And Balzac still plods on! (p. 554)

The review by Rena C. Dumas (1932) of the

Syllabus of Minima in Modern Foreign Languages, produced in 1931 by the Board of Education of the City of New York, is no less acerbic in tone. It

practically drips with sarcasm:

Having heard that this syllabus was a radical depar- ture, we opened it with eager anticipation. Our first reaction was a gasp as we read the opening sentence: "The chief aim shall be to develop to the point of

enjoyment the ability to read the foreign language." Since in spite of the implication in the use of "chief aim," this is the only aim set up, we exclaimed: "Oh, oh, New York has definitely embraced the reading aim." But what is this we find in the next paragraph? (p. 145)

The review continues in a similar vein, quoting from the syllabus and picking apart every paragraph to make a mockery of it. If these are reviews that the editor approved for publication, we can only imagine the acrimonious tone of those that were rejected or revised before being published.

Documentation of policy related to reviews appeared only sporadically in the pages of the MLJ during the post-World War I period, either indi-

rectly, as in the case of how the assistant editors for reviews were appointed by a particular managing editor, or explicitly, as in the editors' response to a problem or crisis. From indirect evidence, it

appears that the MLJ editor alone appointed the associate editors in charge of reviews for the various languages. In his introduction of Edwin H.

Zeydel as editor, outgoing editor Henry Grattan

Doyle (1938a) mentioned in passing the process by which the language-specific reviews editors were appointed:




Professor Zeydel has served the Journal as assistant managing editor in charge of reviews of German textbooks for most of the past four years. . . . Before

appointing him, the present managing editor made a rather extensive canvass among friends and former members of the staff of theJournal in order to get the services of the best man possible. The fine things said about Professor Zeydel have been borne out in his work for the Journal. (p. 294)

Readers of these remarks may be interested to note that editor Doyle's use of "man" appears to have been a stylistic choice, not a policy statement; of the four assistant managing editors in charge of reviews at that time, one was female-Michele Cantarella of Smith College, who was in charge of reviews for Italian. In addition, Doyle had named Grace P. Young of Indiana University the associate

managing editor in charge of bibliography. This period also saw the first expansion of the

reviews section into nonprint media. Doyle (1934-1938) appointed an associate editor for film, who wrote all of the reviews himself, about one per issue. Zeydel (1938-1943) had associate editors for methodology, radio, and film, in addition to the ones for the various languages.

The year 1937 marked the first appearance of audio materials in the reviews section, in the form of phonograph records. One set of records, Six Phonetics Phonograph Records by Jeanne Vidon

Varney that were reviewed by Nicolette Pernod (1938), whose review was written in French, took students through a progressive program of exercises from isolated sounds to words, short phrases and, finally, brief passages. The students' role was to listen, repeat, and replay. The reviewer was short on practical details: Did the teacher play the record over and over? Could students work on the exercises individually? Surely there were not

enough copies for students to take them home to work on their pronunciation outside of class. Nonetheless, the reviewer's praise for this new

technology was unqualified. But despite the enthusiasm expressed in this and other reviews of nonprint materials, reviews of such media were occasional, rather than systematic. Indeed, the same could be said about the fate of new multimedia technology products in recent times and even in the present.

A problem that arose during Doyle's editorship occasioned his printing, in a 1938 editorial entitled "How Modern LanguageJournal Reviews Are Handled," excerpts from the "Instructions to Re- viewers" (p. 380) that he had devised at the beginning of his tenure but had never disseminated to the readership via the Journal. The editorial was written in response to several occasions when "vol-

81

unteer reviewers," characterized by Doyle as "loyal friends" of an author, had requested review copies directly from the publisher in the name of the

MLJ, but without authorization to do so. These individuals had then submitted their uncritical, laudatory, and unsolicited reviews to the MLJedi- tor. So frequent or blatant (it is not clear which) had the practice become that Doyle felt called

upon to state for the record the goals of the reviews section and its manner of operation. The

procedures were as follows: Publishers sent review

copies of new books only to the managing editor who, in turn, logged them in as "Books Received" and distributed them among the language-specific assistant managing editors, who then sent the books to reviewers of their choice. Completed reviews were edited twice-first by the assistant man-

aging editor and then by the managing editor.2

Excerpted from the "Instructions to Reviewers" were guidelines for the function, form, and

length of a review. Reviewers were to evaluate books from a pedagogical perspective; they were to critique books in a "fair, just, and courteous manner" (Doyle, 1938b, p. 380); avoid self-ag- grandizement; and limit themselves to about 300 words. Reviews were to be written only in English, in order to avoid additional typesetting costs, and were to be completed in a timely fashion.

In several places in this editorial, Doyle mentioned "textbooks," "textbook-editing," and

"teaching standpoint." He was clear in his position that the MLJ reviews section should review books intended for language teaching. He ac-

knowledged the relevance, albeit secondary, of books on education that did not have immediate

application to FL teaching; such books would be listed in "Books Received," but not reviewed.

It is interesting to note that this issue-the

types of publications included in the reviews section-is one that occupied the attentions of several editors over the history of the MLJ. In particular, it is featured prominently in discussions of the place of books of and about literature in the reviews section. This topic comes to the fore with the growth of second language acquisition (SLA) as a discipline and the corresponding changes in the readership of the MIJ.

THE CHANGING GOALS OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDY: 1943-1970

As one reads reviews of the period that begins during the World War II years and includes the rise and fall of audiolingual methods and materials, it becomes evident that the FL teaching profession actively undertook the process of distin-



82

guishing itself from literary scholarship and from

language teaching understood primarily as the

development of skills needed to read literary texts. Although an explicit editorial voice was

largely absent from the pages of the MLJ during these years (of the five managing editors who served during this period, only Robert Roeming, 1963-1970, regularly wrote an editorial column), the few contributions are telling. Most of Roem-

ing's columns dealt with major issues of the day in FL education. The role of FL education in

larger issues of national policy, including educational policy, was clearly on his agenda. Although few of his columns dealt with MLJ policy per se, on one occasion he made explicit the role he believed the MLJshould play in serving the needs and goals of FL teachers at the secondary level.

In a 1964 editorial entitled "The Role of a Pro- fessional Pedagogical Journal," Roeming argued for a more prominent role for research on FL

teaching in improving student learning, and he outlined the function of the MLJin disseminating the results of such research. He included the reviews section in this discussion, highlighting its

responsibility to keep FL teachers up to date on the application of research findings to materials intended for classroom use. In this context, Roem-

ing laid a heavy professional burden on reviewers:

A professional pedagogical journal has too the obli-

gation to keep the members of the profession intel-

lectually aware of the best professional books being published and to do this at a time when the material is new and current. For this reason reviewers of books should bring their best critical insights to bear on the books to be reviewed and to do their work with dis-

patch.... Ajournal which aspires to the qualification "learned" must insist on objectivity in its reviews. This often raises difficulties since reviewers are not in- clined to attack their colleagues or the publishing houses. One must look to the future. But it must be

recognized that [not] all books are . . . good and when they do not meet expected standards it should be so reported. (pp. 494-495)

As Roeming continued his charge to reviewers to critique books fairly and against a high stan-

dard of excellence, his words took on a tone of considerable urgency, as though the future of the FL teaching profession lay on the reviewers' shoulders, both individually and collectively:

It is apparent in my experience that at times a forth-

right dedication to the truth as each one is given to see it is tempered by concern for professional rela- tions and the protection of reputations.... [But] it is

only from objective appraisal of our own work and that of our colleagues that progress in our profession can ensue. (p. 495)


Roeming ended his discussion of reviewers and the reviews section with a comment about the

"teaching materials and equipment" produced by "contemporary technology" and the need for the

profession to develop adequate and appropriate norms for judging the technical and pedagogical quality of these products. That comment remains as true today as it was in 1964.

The changes in the bases and tools of FL teach-

ing during Roeming's editorship are reflected in the reviews published during this period. Reviews of pedagogical works appeared in astounding numbers, especially when we consider their rarity in prior decades. A quick scan of the section

during Roeming's editorship finds reviews of, among others, Nelson Brooks's Language and

Language Learning: Theory and Practice (Pei, 1962), John B. Carroll's Language and Thought (Fodor, 1965), Robert Lado's Language Teaching: A Scien-

tific Approach (Kirch, 1964) and Language Testing: The Construction and Use of Foreign Language Tests (Heiser, 1970), and Wilga M. Rivers's The Psycholo- gist and the Foreign-Language Teacher (Walter, 1965) and Teaching Foreign-Language Skills (Frey, 1969). Although there are moments of the unbridled enthusiasm or criticism that were common in earlier decades, the reviews of these books are, by and large, carefully argued and well documented. For example, Mary Margaret Heiser criticizes Lado's testing models in her review of his Lan-

guage Testing by pointing to the gap between the construct of linguistic competence and Lado's

approach to testing it:

In the final analysis . . . Lado does recognize that

language is a means of communication (pp. 1-6), and he implies that... we want to assess a student's

ability to use the goal language satisfactorily in situ- ations where he is already adept in his native lan-

guage. In practice, what Lado does is test isolated items in language.... Undoubtedly it is possible to

analyze and describe each such item in isolation, but the whole of language does not equal the sum of its

parts. (p. 44)

The characterization of the teaching and learn-

ing of languages as "linguistic science" appeared repeatedly in these reviews, undoubtedly a reflection of controversies within the profession. Mario Pei praised Brooks's Language and Language Learning for its clear statement, "without involve- ments or unexplained and undefined terminol-

ogy, without doctrinaire overtones or insulting assumptions of superiority, what are the true les- sons of linguistic science in connection with the

teaching and learning of languages" (p. 283). Similarly, in his review of Lado's Language Teach-




ing, a Scientific Approach, Max S. Kirch gave "dra- matic advances in linguistic science" (p. 176) as Lado's first factor responsible for the recent ex-

pansion of FL education. In a lengthy review, Jerry A. Fodor harshly criticized Carroll's Lan-

guage and Thought for Carroll's failure to engage deeply enough with the "hard problems" (p. 385) of learning theory and linguistic theory. We can see clearly in these reviews many of the same discussions that occupy the reviewers of today.

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION: 1971-2000

Shifts in editorial policy related to reviews in the MLfs recent past have focused on three areas: the number of reviews per issue and per volume, the range of languages and topics covered, and the centralization of responsibility for the reviews section. As in previous eras, new em- phases in the FL profession motivated these editorial changes. The maturing of SLA as a field of intellectual inquiry, the recognition of language program direction as a legitimate professorial role, and the overall increase in the number of

languages taught and students served have all contributed to the editorial decisions that shaped the reviews section.

Although none of the MLJ editors of this period has explicitly said so, the three areas of number, coverage, and administrative oversight of the reviews section were connected: The more numerous and diverse the reviews became, the larger the cadre of associate editors; and the more individuals engaged in soliciting, receiving, editing, and transmitting reviews, the greater the likelihood of inconsistencies, as well as of overlap or gaps in coverage. Hence there arose the need for a single individual to oversee the section.

Coverage: Literature and the Reviews

Under the editorships of Charles L. King (1971-1979) and David P. Benseler (1979-1993), the number of issues per year was reduced: in 1972 (Volume 56), from eight to six issues; and then, 8 years later, in 1980 (Volume 64) from six to four. With these changes, the number of reviews per issue, naturally, increased. In addition, the total number of reviews per year rose significantly during King's editorship, from 174 reviews in 1971 to 213 reviews in 1979, for a yearly aver- age of just over 203.

During Benseler's editorship, the number of reviews per issue stabilized at about 200 per year, and their length was standardized at about 500 words.

83

In the "Information about The Modern Language Journa'l that Benseler inaugurated in Volume 64 and then included regularly, the number of reviews per year was estimated at 150 to 200. In recent years, the number of reviews has dropped to approximately 140 per year and their length has increased. Given the complexity of current textbook programs, with numerous ancillaries and multimedia components, 500-word reviews are not sufficient to describe such materials adequately, let alone provide a thoughtful evaluation of them. In addition, short reviews have proven inadequate to represent well the theoretically grounded and pedagogically relevant edited collections on broad topics in SLA, language program direction, and language teaching that are

appearing on the scene with increasing frequency. During King's editorship, when a concerted ef-

fort was made to increase the number of reviews in each issue, scholarly books of literary criticism, literary biographies, and literary history were am- ply represented in the reviews section. This policy was not an innovation of King's making, but rather one that he had inherited from his prede- cessors. For example, the list of materials reviewed for Spanish in an issue of the MLJ, selected at random (Volume 58, number 1-2, 1974), demon- strates the prominence of literary studies in the reviews, as well as the growing range of topics and

genres represented. Of the 12 reviews for Spanish in that issue, 2 are reviews of textbooks-a review grammar and an intermediate-level reader. There are 3 reviews of texts intended for undergraduate literature courses-2 student editions of literary works and 1 volume on the history of Spanish literature. Also reviewed are 1 film and, oddly, a directory of suppliers of textbooks and related educational materials of interest to Spanish teachers. The remaining 5 reviews treat publications intended for scholars, not for students. Indeed, the reviews of these works make no reference to pedagogical uses, or even to the potential for such use.

Readers whose familiarity with the MLJ does not predate David Benseler's editorship may be surprised at the prominence of literary studies in the reviews in an era not so far removed from the present. The inclusion of reviews of literary studies, despite the original mission of the MIJ to serve language teachers, stems from at least three sources. First, the history of FL teaching is one in which literature, particularly the literary classics of a culture, holds a privileged position. We should perhaps not be surprised that that this privilege was carried over into the MLJ. Second, language teaching and the reading and interpre-



84

tation of literature have long been tightly inter- woven. By the early decades of the 20th century, the "reading method" of modern language teach-

ing was well established, based on the goal of

preparing students to read literary works in the

original. In the more recent past, the editorial decision to include reviews of literary works and

literary criticism in the MLJmay have been made for professional solidarity, as well as for reasons of tradition. Finally, as Roeming (1964) explained, by reviewing scholarly editions of literary works and other scholarly contributions to literary stud-

ies, the Journal could help to "enrich the cultural

backgrounds of teachers" (p. 495). In a similar vein, King (1979) explained in his

farewell column his purpose in retaining reviews of books related to literature:

It is perhaps in its review sections that the Journals continuing purpose to represent not part, but all

languages and areas of interest becomes most visible; it is in that section, for example that the interests of teachers of foreign literatures are best reflected. Oc-

casionally a colleague has argued for elimination of reviews of significant works of literature and literary criticism from the MLJ: in effect such colleagues are

arguing for a narrowing of the Journals steadfast policy: to serve ... all foreign language teachers. (p. 468)

Under Benseler's leadership, reviews of literary works were nonetheless discontinued. Given the increase in specialists in applied linguistics and

SLA, it was no longer the case that readers of the

MLJ were in all likelihood teachers of both lan-

guage and literature. In addition, the expansion of knowledge in areas most directly connected

with language teaching and learning was accom-

panied by a rapid increase in the number of publications devoted to SLA, FL teaching, and various areas of applied linguistics. An editorial

policy on reviews that focused attention on,

among other things, works that "are intended

primarily for use as textbooks or instructional aids in classrooms where second languages, litera-

tures, and cultures are taught" (Benseler, 1980, p. 4), announced the change of focus. This editorial

policy, virtually unchanged, has been printed at

the beginning of each reviews section since 1982.3

Reflecting on the changes in the MLJ since he

stepped down as editor, and referring specifically to the place of literary studies in the reviews, King recently commented:

My successors discontinued the reviewing of works of literature and literary criticism. Given the Journals greater focus on its primary task, the improvement of

language teaching and learning, I applaud the

change. After all, foreign language professors and


teachers whose primary interest is in teaching foreign literatures tend to look to other specialized journals, and especially to the Modern Language Association whose major publication, PMLA, focuses its attention on literary, not pedagogical, topics. (personal communication to Sally Magnan, December 9, 1998)

Centralization of the Direction of the Reviews Section

Benseler also simplified and centralized re-

sponsibility for the reviews section by replacing the board of associate editors for reviews with a

single associate editor, Diane W. Birckbichler. In his first editorial column, Benseler (1980) announced this change. During Birckbichler's 19-

year tenure in the position, the range of lan-

guages and topics represented in the reviews section expanded once again, particularly in the area of the less commonly taught languages. This

expansion led to changes in format. Volume 65, number 3 (1981) saw the introduction of content-area headings for the reviews section into the table of contents, which facilitated scanning the section itself for reviews of interest. In Volume 80, number 2 (1996), Magnan began the current

practice of also including internal headings within the reviews section, as well as listing in the table of contents the titles and authors of all of the materials reviewed. These additions have en- abled readers to find immediately a specific re-

view, or to skim the entire list of reviews for each issue.

A comparison of the range of topics and lan-

guages in the reviews sections of two issues chosen at random from Birckbichler's tenure gives a

quick snapshot of the expansion of languages and topics. Volume 66, number 3 (1982) featured reviews for Classics (i.e., modern Greek was also included here), French, German, Italian, Portu-

guese, Russian, Spanish, and ESL. The professional topics covered by reviews in this issue were

classified under the headings "Pedagogy" and

"Linguistics." Twelve years later, in Volume 78, number 3 (1994), there were reviews for materials in the following languages: Albanian, ESL, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, Lat-

vian, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish. The professional topics served by reviews in this issue were

"Theory and Practice" (including both pedagogy and applied linguistics), "Culture," "Linguistics," "Testing," and "Translation." Overall, Birck- bichler acquired new books and other materials, located qualified reviewers, and edited reviews for 50 languages ("Tribute," 1999).

Reviews of materials for such rarely taught lan-

guages as Albanian, Latvian, and Turkish do not




appear frequently, of course. But one of Birckbichler's goals was to serve the needs of instructors of these languages (personal communication, October 7, 1999), who otherwise have few opportunities either to review pedagogical materials or to see reviews of them. In addition, through seeing reviews of materials for com-

monly taught and uncommonly taught languages in proximity to each other, readers can get a sense of how the pedagogical priorities and perspectives across languages may differ.

Benseler's decision to consolidate responsibility for the reviews section and the concomitant commitment to expand the coverage of the section created a need for additional reviewers. In his opening editorial, Benseler (1980) mentioned specifically Birckbichler's "extensive file of reviewers" (p. 5). It is not surprising, however, that the need for experts in so many fields neces- sitated appeals to the readership for new reviewers; such calls appeared for reviewers in the less

commonly taught languages and ESL ("An- nouncement," MLJ, 68, 1984, p. 148), and for reviewers of instructional software ("An- nouncement," MLJ, 67, 1983, p. 423). As the FL

teaching field continues to grow, the search for experts in new and emerging areas of endeavor will surely continue as well.

The scope, prominence, and quality of the reviews section increased markedly during Birckbichler's tenure as associate editor. On two occasions-a 75th anniversary column and in his farewell editorial upon his retirement as editor, Benseler (1991, 1993) highlighted the most im-

portant advances in the reviews section during his

editorship: a commitment to a critical approach in reviews, timeliness in publishing reviews of new books, coverage of as many languages as possible, inclusion of a range of topics of interest to language teachers, and attention to the new products of instructional technology. All told, Birckbichler solicited, received, and edited the staggering number of 3,341 reviews in her tenure as associate editor ("Tribute,"1999).

Other Innovations

During his editorship, King introduced new features into the reviews sections. Beginning in 1977, an associate editor for Classical languages was appointed; rather than integrate reviews of materials for the Classical languages into the reviews section, they were grouped under a new one-page section, "Classical Impressions," which appeared intermittently for 2 years and then was discontinued as a separate entity. Pedagogical

85

materials for Classical languages were integrated into the other reviews, a practice that continues

today. Also instituted by King was a "Review Essay"

feature, which appeared in several issues during the period 1976-1979. These were reviews of approximately 1,500 words in length (compared to the 500 to 600 words of most of the reviews dur-

ing that time) of books considered to be of major significance. Books reviewed in this section included Carroll's The Teaching of French as a Foreign Language in Eight Countries (Jorstad, 1977), Lohnes and Nollendorfs's edited volume entitled German Studies in the United States: Assessment and Outlook (Alter, 1977), and Maley and Duff's Drama Techniques in Language Learning (Stevick, 1979). Despite their length, most of these review essays were largely descriptive, with very little evaluative

commentary. One exception was Ernst Pulgram's (1971) 5,500-word critical analysis of Chomsky's Language and the Mind. In this technically argued treatise, Pulgram objected to what he termed the

"speculative" nature of the transformational project and claimed that the principles of universal grammar had been posited in such a way that they were unfalsifiable.

SUMMARIZING THE PAST

To summarize the foregoing historical over- view, it may be helpful to lay out in one place the types of books and other materials that have been reviewed in the MLJ. Table 1, taken from A Com- prehensive Index to The Modern Language Journal (1916-1996), compiled and edited by Suzanne S. Moore and David P. Benseler (2000), presents the total number of reviews published in each cate- gory4 during the first 80 years of the MLfs history.

Several items in Table 1 are worthy of comment. In compiling the index, Moore and Bense- ler grouped together in each language category all types of materials that referred specifically to that language. This means, for example, that included in the French category are such diverse items as language textbooks, graded readers for beginning and intermediate students, student editions of literary texts, textbooks for undergraduate civilization courses, software, scholarly editions of literary texts, and works of literary criticism. Combining materials for each language in this way gives readers a snapshot of FL publication during the 20th century. It is interesting to note, for example, that Italian publications are substantially represented over the history of the MIJ reviews as a whole and that books for Portu-




TABLE 1 Reviews Published (1916-1996)

Language, Language Group, or Topic

Theory & Practice of FL Learning and Teaching (includes all fields of linguistics)

Commonly Taught Languages French Germanic languages Spanish

Less Commonly Taught Languages Asian Languages Classical Languages + Modern Greek Italian Portuguese Semitic Languages Slavic Languages

Uncommonly Taught Languages African Languages Malay-Polynesian Languages Romanian

Rarely Taught Languagesa English (includes EFL, ESL, TESOL, literary studies) Comparative Studies (literary)

Number of Reviews

1257

2910 1652 1973

161 91

443 157 77

398

14 19 15 34

580 211

aSee note 4.

guese and for Asian languages are virtually iden- tical in number, despite the wide disparity in enrollments between them today.

Although it was necessary to limit the number of categories in an index of this scope, the use of omnibus categories obscures information of interest to today's MLJ readers, who may not even be aware that literary criticism, literary biographies, and scholarly editions of literary works in

English, along with other languages, were once

heavily represented in the reviews. Nor does Ta- ble 1 give information on changes in the distribution over time of languages or the types of materials reviewed in each language. To take a closer look at these matters, the whole corpus of MLJ reviews has been sampled by creating finer-

grained categories to analyze the contents of the reviews of one volume per decade. The volumes were chosen according to the following criteria: (a) one volume per decade, to look at chrono-

logical development of the profession; (b) volumes about 10 years apart (even though change does not take place on a regular schedule!); and

(c) volumes that represent the latter part of an editor's term, on the assumption that the editor would have had time to formulate and imple- ment policies for the reviews section.

The reviews for specific languages in these volumes can be seen in the Appendix. With the

language textbooks, readers designed for under-

graduate students, and scholarly works intended

for specialists in the field listed separately, we can see reflections of both the profession's pedagogical priorities and the changes in the mission of the reviews over time. Readers prepared for use in elementary, intermediate, and upper-level un-

dergraduate courses were reviewed more fre-

quently than textbooks until the 1950s; this distribution is most likely a reflection of the publishing activity in the field. Included in this category are

graded readers for beginning learners; student editions of literary works; anthologies with glossa- ries, notes, and exercises; and textbooks for civilization and survey of literature courses. The de-

clining number of reviews in this category surely reflects several factors, all of which have nega- tively affected the market for new books: de- creased enrollments in upper-level courses; less interest on the part of students in literature and

literary studies; and reliance on the Internet and other electronic media, rather than books, for advanced courses on culture and civilization.

The reviews of scholarly publications represent the greatest percentage of the total number of reviews of language-specific materials in Volumes 51 and 60. The substantial presence of reviews of

literary scholarship on English literature and

comparative studies is striking from our vantage point of more than 2 decades later. The increas-

ing disciplinary specialization in our field is such that no MIJ reader would now expect to find reviews of literary works in the Journal.

86



TABLE 2 Reviews in All Areas of Teaching and Linguistics

Other Areas of Theoretical Theory & Applied & Descriptive

Year Practice Linguistics Linguistics Software Total

1919-20 (Vol. 5) 1 0 0 0 1 1925-26 (Vol. 10) 0 0 0 0 0 1936-37 (Vol. 21) 2 0 1 0 3 1947 (Vol. 31) 2 0 0 0 2 1956 (Vol. 40) 5 0 1 0 6 1967 (Vol. 51) 4 3 9 0 16 1976 (Vol. 60) 14 0 14 0 28 1986 (Vol. 70) 49 7 4 16 76 1996 (Vol. 80) 49 22 6 4 81

Many readers of the MLJ today probably turn first to the reviews grouped under "Theory & Practice." The number of reviews in this category has increased dramatically over the years, as can be seen in Table 2.

In Table 2, the category "Theory & Practice" was used for books on SLA theory, methodology, and other areas of FL teaching and learning, such as teacher training, curriculum development, and testing. Reviews of books on bilingualism, language policy, study abroad, sociolinguistics, and multiculturalism were put into the "Other Areas of Applied Linguistics" category. The number of reviews in all areas of linguistics has grown dramatically in the last 3 decades. Evi- dently, this trend reflects changes both in the profession and in the priorities of the editorial staff. Particularly in the 1990s, there was increased interest among members of the FL teaching profession in research studies that subjected to empirical scrutiny hypotheses connecting first language and second language acquisition pro- cesses, as well as in those that continued to ex- plore the implications of theory for instruction. In Volume 51 (1967), linguistics reviews represent only 8% of the total; by Volume 60 (1976), that figure had almost doubled to 15%. But in Volume 70 (1986), 40% of the reviews were of linguistics materials; and in Volume 80 (1996), more than half of the reviews (57%) dealt with materials in this category. If the distribution of books reviewed in the 1980s and 1990s is an accu- rate indication of books published, then this would mean that both the number and the influ- ence of edited collections on SLA and language teaching, methods texts, and theory-based pedagogical volumes have increased at a rapid pace.

During her tenure as reviews editor, Birckbichler set a high priority on expanding the

"Theory & Practice" section to reflect the increased emphasis in the profession on research on FL pedagogy and SLA and its practical implications. This change of orientation is a logical extension of the Benseler's editorial decision in 1980 to focus the reviews section on materials related directly to research on and methods of second language teaching and learning (D. W. Birckbichler, personal communication, October 7, 1999). In addition, Birckbichler sought to bring to the attention of MLJreaders books from disciplines (e.g., sociolinguistics, sociopragmat- ics, and first-language literacy) related to areas of interest to FL researchers.

REFLECTION AND A LOOK TO THE FUTURE

Reading MLJ reviews written over a period of more than 80 years has been a humbling experience. From our perspective at the beginning of a new millennium, surrounded as we are by access to new knowledge in cognitive science, psycholin- guistics, neurobiology, and learning theory, it is all too easy to fall prey to the conceit that those before us did not know very much at all. After all, the field of SLA did not even come into being until the second half of the 20th century, and research on language learning has only recently adopted a wider range of investigative paradigms. We can easily imagine the past as a pedagogical wasteland populated only by proponents of grammar-translation or "drill-and-kill" methodologies. I am happy to report that my reading of MIJ reviews that were published over an 85-year period reveals that this is not the case.

Limitations of space do not permit even a brief survey of reviewers' perspectives on the theory and practice of language teaching. But one exam-

87 Judith E. Liskin-Gasparro



88

pie, drawn from the earliest era of MLJ reviews, may serve to illustrate that the attempt to apply to

language teaching the findings of research in lan-

guage processing and SLA is a project of long standing in the FL field. As early as 1917, H. E. Palmer asserted in both The Scientific Study and

Teaching of Languages (Nitze, 1919) and The Prin-

ciples of Language Study (Bagster-Collins, 1922) the need to apply to teaching current knowledge about language and about child first language acquisition. The reviewers of both books took a

largely descriptive approach to the works, focus-

ing more on explicating Palmer's theories and how they might to be applied in the classroom than on critiquing them. But Bagster-Collins sounded a note of caution on the topic of "ergo- nic construction" (p. 472; known in later par- lance as pattern drills). In his earlier book, Bag- ster-Collins said, Palmer had expounded convincingly that "standard exercises in harmony with [his] principles already form [ed] an integral part of nearly all modern languages text-books"

(p. 472). Despite the apparently widespread ac-

ceptance of Palmer's ideas, the reviewer forth-

rightly expressed his concern that these exercises

might become "so mechanical in character that

they defeat their own ends" (p. 472); or, alterna-

tively, that the sheer number of possible transfor- mations to a simple sentence might cause form to overwhelm meaning. It is noteworthy that today's textbook writers, as well as the reviewers of these textbooks, must still stake out a position on the same issues of attention to form versus attention to meaning.

To conclude, let us return to the questions posed at the beginning of this essay: What are the roles of the reviews section in the history of the

MLJ, and how is today's reviews section different from (or similar to) its antecedents? To these

questions, I would add a third: What is the future of the reviews section? In what ways can it capital- ize on the growth in the fields of SLA and FL

pedagogy to best serve the MLJ readership? From my perspective as the current associate

editor for reviews, it is evident that the reviews section continues to do what it has always done, that is, to bring to its readership information, presented thoughtfully and critically, on the new- est books and other materials in the field. The

responsibility of the editor to exhort reviewers to balance description with analysis, to react criti-

cally but fairly, and to express themselves suc-

cinctly continues to be as important today as it has been in past generations. Although changes in the reviews themselves have been numerous and significant-the types of materials reviewed,


the length and tone of reviews, the number of reviews per issue-these changes themselves sig- nify a faithfulness to the ongoing mission of the section to present in its pages new professional materials of high interest to MLJreaders.

The consolidation of direction of the reviews section presents to the associate editor the ongoing challenge of finding, soliciting, and selecting for review books and other materials on many languages and topics, most of which are distant from any one individual's own areas of expertise. Guidance in the selection of materials for review is not abundant; a survey conducted in 1994 by Sally Sieloff Magnan when she assumed the edi-

torship of the MLJ provides the most recent picture of readers' preferences. The respondents in- dicated greatest interest in reading, in about even numbers, reviews of language textbooks, video and computer assisted instruction materials, and books on the theory and practice of language teaching. The directive to include more reviews of nonprint materials is not surprising; this is an area of uneven coverage at best. In addition, well over half of the respondents would like to have at least occasional reviews that are longer than aver-

age. The picture that emerges from the recent

trends in professional publications, editorial priorities, and this reader survey is one of increased critical attention to the theory and practice of

language teaching and learning. Longer reviews, or a return to a version of the critical review essay of King's editorship, might naturally give rise to readers' responses. With today's technology, an

asynchronous electronic readers' forum is well within the realm of possibility. Birckbichler has

imagined a scenario in which a review would be

initially published simultaneously in both print and electronic form. It might then be followed by responses from one or more of the following con- stituencies: authors or publishers, or both; additional reviewers, at the request of the MLJ; and readers. Print versions of readers' forums are slow

enough that it is only the rare reader who still remembers the review and the issues it may have raised by the time a response is printed. An online forum, in contrast, especially with careful

monitoring, could provide a lively, interactive version of the reviews section. (D. W. Birckbichler, personal communication, July 10, 2000).

Perhaps my biggest challenge as the associate editor for reviews at a time of such growth in the FL teaching and learning field is the dual one of identification and selection: first, locating likely sources of new books and other materials, acquiring them, and selecting among them; second,




identifying a large database of reviewers and se-

lecting the best possible reviewer for each item. The number of relevant books and other materials published each year is far greater than the reviews section can accommodate, even if I were successful in acquiring the publications. The 1994

survey answered some questions about reader

preferences, but many remain unanswered. Do readers want to see reviews of books on linguistic theory not directly related to SLA? Do they desire reviews of books on language planning, intercul- tural communication, and qualitative research methods? Are new editions of language textbooks of interest, if the previous edition has already been reviewed? Do readers rely on the MLJ for reviews of language textbooks published outside the United States? What kinds of ESL and EFL materials should be reviewed? How much and what types of nonprint material should we include? Updating and increasing the database of reviewers is the companion challenge, along with

having enough information about each reviewer to make appropriate matches between potential reviewers and materials for review. Might the best

response to the challenges of the information ex-

plosion be found in yet more information? An online survey, along with an online suggestion box, could provide a continuing opportunity for readers to make their views known.

An additional and, for the purposes of this

essay, final challenge for the current and future editors of the reviews section is internationaliza- tion. The reviews have long treated materials published inside and outside the United States, and it would enrich the perspectives represented in the section to have more reviewers from other countries as well. Concern for timeliness and

budget have impeded a systematic effort to include a significantly larger number of interna- tional reviewers. But with the increase in interna- tional marketing, not to mention the possibility of electronic publishing, what seem today like obstacles may soon no longer present any diffi-

culty at all.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Diane W. Birckbichler for her encouragement and extensive comments on earlier versions of this article. I also extend my thanks to Sally Sieloff Magnan for directing my attention to relevant sections of early issues of the

MLJ, and to David P. Benseler for help with fac- tual details on the recent history of the reviews section.

89

NOTES

1 The title of the section has been known at various

periods in its history as "Reviews," "Book Reviews" or, most recently, "MLJ Reviews." The terms "reviews" and "reviews section" are used in this essay.

2 The practice of writing unsolicited reviews was not limited to that time. Many years later, reviews editor Diane W. Birkbichler (1980-1999) devised a similar policy for the same reason. The policy, printed at the beginning of the section in every issue, has reduced but has not stopped the receipt of such reviews.

3 David P. Benseler has recently commented (personal communication, September 15, 2000) that the 2

years it took to formulate the policy was evidence of the

major shift that was underway in the shape of the profession and in the responsibility of the MLJreviews section to reflect that shift.

4 Languages or language groups in which 10 or fewer reviews were published are grouped together as "Rarely Taught Languages." Languages included in this cate-

gory are Albanian (4), Armenian (1), Celtic languages (10), Hindi (2), Hungarian (9), Papago (1), Persian (3), and Turkish (4).

REFERENCES

Alter, M. P. (1977). Review essay. [Review of the book German studies in the United States: Assessment and outlook]. MLJ, 61, 279-281.

Bagster-Collins, E. W. (1922). [Review of the book The

principles of language study]. MLJ, 6, 470-473. Benseler, D. P. (1980). From the editor: The 64th year.

MLJ, 64, 3-4. Benseler, D. P. (1991). On scholarship and professional

service: The Modern LanguageJournal turns seventy- five. MLJ, 75, 1-2.

Benseler, D. P. (1993). Editing The Modern Language Journal: Parting reflections. MLJ, 77, 413-415.

Boysen, J. L. (1917). [Review of the book Elementary German syntax]. MLJ, 1, 319-320.

Coleman, A. (1917). [Review of the book Goethe's poems]. MLJ, 1, 185-187.

Coleman, A. (1919). Editorial comment. MLJ, 4, 132-137.

Cool, C. D. (1917). [Review of the book Spanish commercial correspondence]. MLJ, 1, 320-322.

Doyle, H. G. (1934). Editorial. MLJ, 19, 34-35.

Doyle, H. G. (1938a). Our new editor and business man-

ager. MLJ, 22, 294. Doyle, H. G. (1938b). How Modern Language Journal

reviews are handled. MLJ, 22, 379-380. Dumas, R. C. (1932). [Review of the book Syllabus of

minima in modern foreign languages]. MLJ, 17, 145-146.

Fite, A. G. (1933). [Review of the book Le Cure de Tours

by Balzac]. MLJ, 17, 554-555. Fodor, J. A. (1965). [Review of the book Language and

thought]. MLJ, 49, 384-386.



90

Frey, H.J. (1969). [Review of the book Teachingforeign- language skills]. MLJ, 53, 443-446.

Heiser, M. M. (1970). [Review of the book Language testing: The construction and use of foreign lan-

guage tests]. MLJ, 54, 43-44. Jorstad, H. L. (1977). Review essay. [A review of the

book The teaching of French as a foreign language in

eight countries]. MLJ, 61, 196-199.

Kayser, C. F. (1916). The Federation and the proposed Modern Language Journal. MLJ, 1, 1-9.

King, C. L. (1979). One last word, please. MLJ, 63, 468. Kirch, M. S. (1964). [A review of the book Language

teaching: A scientific approach]. MLJ, 48, 176. Moore, S. S., & Benseler, D. P. (Eds.). (2000). A compre-

hensive index to The Modern Language Journal (1916-1996). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Nitze, W. A. (1919). [A review of the book The scientific study and teaching of languages]. MLJ, 3, 185-188.

Pei, M. A. (1962). [A review of the book Language and

language learning: Theory and practice]. MLJ, 46, 283-284.


Pernot, N. (1938). [Review of the phonograph set, Six

phonetics phonograph records by J. V. Varney]. MLJ, 22, 391-392.

Pulgram, E. (1971). Review essay. [A review of the book

Language and mind]. MLJ, 55, 474-480.

Roeming, R. F. (1964). The role of a professional pedagogical journal-An editorial. MLJ, 48, 494496.

Stevick, E. W. (1979). Review essay. [A review of the book Drama techniques in language learning: A resource book of communication activities for language teachers]. MIJ, 63, 201-204.

Tribute to Diane Birckbichler. MLJ, 83, 1999, 127-130. Walter, M. (1965). [A review of the book The psychologist

and the foreign-language teacher]. MIJ, 49, 341-342. Williams, E. B. (1926). [A review of the book A Portu-

guese grammar]. MLJ, 10, 382-384.

Zeydel, E. H. (1937). [A review of the book Die Karawane]. MLJ, 21, 370-371.

APPENDIX Reviews of Language-Specific Publications

Eng. &

Comp. Year Type Frn. Ger. Span. Ital. Slavic Asian Port. Stud. Total

6 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 11 5 2 9 1 0 0 0 0 17 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 7

10 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 15 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 27 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6

7 13 9 1 1 0 0 0 31 35 28 10 2 0 0 0 0 75

1 0 5 2 0 0 0 2 10

9 5 6 1 1 0 0 0 22 6 5 11 0 0 0 1 0 23 6 1 2 1 2 0 0 2 14

5 8 9 1 0 0 0 0 23 9 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 19 4 3 1 1 2 0 0 3 14

8 6 11 5 0 2 4 1 37 14 8 14 6 0 0 1 1 44 20 9 10 7 0 0 6 29 81

1919-20 (vol. 5)

1925-26 (vol. 10)

1936-37 (vol. 21)

1947 (vol. 31)

1956 (vol. 40)

1967 (vol. 51)

Textbooks Readers

Scholarly

Textbooks Readers

Scholarly

Textbooks Readers

Scholarly

Textbooks Readers

Scholarly

Textbooks Readers

Scholarly

Textbooks Readers Scholarly



Eng. & Comp.

Year Type Frn. Ger. Span. Ital. Slavic Asian Port. Stud. Total

1976 (vol. 60) Textbooks 11 7 9 3 0 4 0 2 36

Readers 9 3 5 3 0 0 0 1 21 Scholarly 35 29 14 3 1 1 3 7 93

1986 (vol. 70) Textbooks 18 10 16 3 3 6 1 15 72


1996 (vol. 80) Textbooks 2 5 10 7 9 11 1 1 46


Call for Papers: The Teaching of German, New Directions

The editorial board of the 2002 AATG publication tentatively entitled The Teaching of German: New Directions requests original manuscripts dealing with the teaching of German in America today. Essays may deal with significant developments in German pedagogy and methodology over the past 30 years or present effective, new models for the teaching of German at all levels of the U.S. educational system. The volume seeks to reflect the profound changes that have taken place in the profession and to offer practical advice on how to teach German effectively in the future. Possible topics include:

SLA theories and their impact on DaF in the United States Development of the profession including societal, educational, and political changes Language changes and changes in viewing language The contents of the German curriculum and approaches to teaching German for special purposes and teaching German to diverse populations Testing and evaluation

Technology in the teaching of German, including distance learning Teacher education Textbook and materials development.

Submissions must be no more than 30 pages, double spaced (including works cited) and adhere to the publication guidelines published in Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German. All submissions will be subject to outside review. Deadline for submission: September 1, 2001. The editorial board also welcomes suggestions of seminal articles published during the past 30 years. Authors of selected articles will be invited either to revise their contributions or to supply commentary.

George F. Peters Department of Linguistics and Languages Wells Hall A-615, Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1027 [email protected]; 517-353-4860

Judith E. Liskin-Gasparro 91



special issue: a century of language teaching and research: looking back and looking ahead, part 2...

Documents