It is argued that there is a paradigm gap that has prevented research on second-language acquisition (SLA) theory and indigenized varieties of English (IVEs) from making substantive contributions to each other. While it is true that studies of IVEs and their acquisition have been impressionistic (non-empirical) and often atheoretical, the lack of rapprochement is also due to SLA theory's excessive reliance for its models on acquisition in native-speaker environments and ignorance of the dynamics of language use in multilingual settings. This has resulted in the neglect and misunderstanding of IVEs. It is shown that IVEs represent a number of significant sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic variables, the investigation of which will put SLA theory on firmer theoretical ground and give it greater explanatory power.

This is a study of the phenomenon of code switching between Hindi and English among urban Englisheducated native speakers of Hindi. The subjects chosen for the study were all female-I2 students and six faculty members from a college in Delhi. The data were recorded in an interview type situation in which the subjects were asked to, for example, narrate stories, air their views on topics of current interest, and give a recipe. Pandit uses the data to study the syntax of intrasentential Hindi-English code switching. She then describes the status of Mixed Hindi English (hereafter MHE) and makes an attempt towards writing a grammar of this variety.The book is divided into five chapters: 'Methodology' (pp. 30-35), 'Some aspects of the syntax of Hindi-English code switching' (pp. 36-50), 'The rationale of Hindi-English code switching' (pp. 51-68), 'Mixed Hindi-English' (pp. 69-85), and Towards a grammar of MHE' (pp. 86-109). In addition, there is a foreword (pp. 9-12), a preface (pp. 13-20), an introduction (pp. 21-29), a bibliography (pp. 110-1 IS), and an index (pp. 116-1 17).The study, a modified version of Pandit's M.A. dissertation, contains some very interesting observations. However, some of the conclusions reached need further substantiation. For instance, the author maintains that MHE is a separate code in the verbal repertoire of urban educate speakers of Hindi and is functionally on par with Hindi and English. Thus, according to Pandit, social meaning is carried not by the switches within MHE, but by the switches between MHE, Hindi and English. This conclusion is a significant one but cannot be reached on the basis of a study limited to the verbal repertoire of 18 subjects.The author does not define her use of 'code' but states that the MHE code has no native speakers. Yet, if, as she maintains, MHE is used in all informal situations, surely there is a generation of children now growing up with MHE as their first language.A more serious problem arises from the fact that the writer does not distinguish between code 'mixing' and code 'switching' and though this is done consciously I think that it is a step in the wrong direction. Recent studies (Kachru, 1983;Marasigan, 1985;Sridhar and Sridhar, 1980) have shown this to be an important distinction and more insightful results regarding constraints and the use of MHE could have been obtained had this distinction been maintained. Kachru, Braj B. (1983) On mixing. In The Indianization of English: The English Language in India. REFERENCESNew Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 193-207. Marasigan, E. (1985) Codeswitching and codemixing in multilingual societies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Singapore. SEAMEO Regional

s Writing about psychiatry, Harvard's Kleinman (1988) notes that the non-Western population constitutes so huge a portion of humanity yet so small a presence in the theory. We might ask an analogous question. Why do models of second language acquisition (SLA) developed in the U.S. and western Europe treat the vast majority of L2 learners, those that learn and use an L2 in nonnative contexts, as marginal? The inescapable answer seems to be that current theories are powerfully constrained by Western cultural premises. If we seek a universal, culturally authentic theory of SLA, we must ask, with Gould (1987), "What are we missing because we must place all we see into slots of our usual taxonomy?" (p. 24).In evaluating SLA theories, the following reality check may be in order.1. Typically, the L2 is used along with, not in place of the first language.The relevant model of bilingualism is an additive one, not replacive. 2. More SLA takes place in nonnative contexts, where the L2 is not spoken as the primary native language, than in native contexts, for example, English in the U.S. 3. A great deal of successful SLA takes place through formal instruction; acquisition through informal exposure is not the only way. 4. More learners learn an L2 for instrumental reasons than for integrative reasons. 5. Although English is currently by far the most widely learned L2, there is a long history of the acquisition and use of second languages in traditionally multilingual countries. 6. Increasingly, "much of the world's verbal communication takes place by means of languages which are not the users' 'mother tongue,' but their second, third, or nth language" (Ferguson, 1992, p. 13).Given that the aim of SLA is bilingualism, one would expect SLA theories to build on theories of bilingualism and use the natural laboratory of bilingual communities worldwide. With rare exceptions, the dominant models of SLA scarcely refer to this resource. Instead, we find universalization of culturally specific premises, uncritical adoption 800 TESOL QUARTERLY

No abstract