The text under review is Volume 16 in the "Language as Social Action" series published by Peter Lang. It is dedicated to Cynthia Gallois, an important contributor to the field over the past 30 years. It would serve as a useful tool for a general education course in worldwide attitudes toward linguistic variation, with attitude information for eight regions of the world.The book includes an introductory chapter on "Language Ideologies and Language Attitudes," followed by a series of chapters on language attitudes in the Americas, Western Europe, the Nordic countries, North Africa, southern Africa, China, South Asia, Australia, and New Zealand, with a concluding chapter by the honoree herself. There is much material here to interest sociolinguists, social psychologists, and a general reader; at the same time, with a vast array of studies available for each region, inevitably only a very broad brush can be used to sketch a situation in the space permitted. This review will first summarize the highlights of the chapters in this volume, emphasizing the types of information which appear to be of mutual interest to both the social psychology and sociolinguistic communities; then a discussion section will evaluate its use for future research.Chapter 1, by Marko Dragojevic, Howard Giles, and Bernadette Watson, provides a well-articulated framework within which the later chapters provide detailed studies of specific attitudinal situations around the world. The chapter provides a figure of two dimensions affecting language attitudes: Linguistic Standardization and Linguistic Vitality. The authors place the languages/dialects that will be discussed in later chapters on a two-dimensional grid of these dimensions. Unfortunately, it is not immediately obvious how one would conclude that [say] Quichua or the Mayan languages are positioned as having very low "vitality," but as being above the mean on the standardization parameter; or how Indian English or colloquial Arabic are placed as very high vitality, but as less standardized than African American English (AAE), or how Te Reo or Guarani are as low vitality as Quichua or Mayan languages but are claimed to be much less standardized. This figure is intended as a key unifying element of the collection and is of obvious importance for providing a uniform perspective, but the explanations given in the introductory chapter itself are not always intuitively clear.