This monograph seems to reverberate a classic message from the former contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH; Lado, Reference Lado1957): Interlingual similarities lead to ease of learning. In essence, however, the volume expounds a cognitive conception (hence different from what undergirds the CAH) of SLA, which considers (a) learning as similarity driven; (b) learning as two distinct types, namely learning for comprehension and learning for production; (c) item and system learning as characterizing different stages of development; and (d) related and unrelated languages as providing a differential point of departure for the learner. Most of the data that served as the empirical basis for this view came from studies conducted in Finland—in particular, studies comparing Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking learners of English.
The volume is composed of 13 chapters of varied length and density. Chapter 1 sets out assumptions and goals. Chapter 2 outlines different types of crosslinguistic similarities, positing, inter alia, three crosslinguistic similarity relations: (a) a similarity relation, (b) a contrast relation, and (c) a zero relation. Chapter 3 discusses comprehension and receptive learning. Chapter 4 examines the role of crosslinguistic similarities in comprehension and production, differentiating first between comprehension and production and then between perceived and assumed similarity. Chapter 5 describes the language scene in Finland, contrasting the two official languages, Swedish and Finnish, comparing them to English, and establishing Swedish and English as typologically close and Finnish and English as typologically distant. Chapter 6 presents test results—chiefly of the National Matriculation Examination and university entrance exams—from all levels of the Finnish educational system, illustrating the advantage bestowed upon Swedish-speaking learners of English by virtue of the typological proximity between the two languages. Chapter 7 conceptually sets up three levels of transfer: (a) item transfer, (b) procedural transfer, and (c) overall transfer. Chapter 8 delves into item transfer in production. Areas of research reviewed here include phonology, discourse and rhetoric, grammar, lexis, and interlanguage transfer. Chapter 9 makes a connection with concepts from skill theory. Links are drawn, for example, between crosslinguistic similarities and automatization of items and procedures. Chapter 10 offers a similarity-based account of the development of foreign language learning, chapter 11 spells out its implications for teaching in the Scandinavian context, and chapter 12 provides future research directions. The volume concludes in chapter 13 with a summary of its main theses.
In general, I find this work informative, enlightening, and educational. On a well-argued conceptual basis and by providing tangible evidence, it effectively redirects attention from the negative effects of crosslinguistic differences—an issue that has traditionally preoccupied transfer researchers—to similarities and their facilitating effects on learning—an area that remains far too assumed and underresearched. The volume, however, stops short of offering research strategies.
A few other issues are noteworthy as well. One issue concerns the nature of transfer. Throughout the volume, transfer is implicated largely as a conscious process—more specifically, a stop-gap strategy that learners consciously utilize to aid learning; however, there is hardly any mention of it as an unconscious process (Kellerman, Reference Kellerman1995). Clearly, a more comprehensive view of crosslinguistic influence would need to take account of both (for discussion, see Han, Reference Han2004). Another issue relates to the distinction between perceived and assumed similarity. Although Ringbom does hint at the possible existence of two perspectives—the researcher versus the learner—on what is similar or equivalent, he makes no comment on how to get at the learner's perspective. Yet, as many would agree, this is not a trivial issue and might in fact be the most challenging element of any attempt to validate the similarity-based theory of learning in question.
Indeed, the volume evokes an array of interesting issues for future research to investigate, some new and some perennial. One of the long-standing issues confronting both past and current transfer research has been why transfer, be it similarity- or difference-induced, occurs selectively. On this, Ringbom provides some evidence, but he does not delve into reasons. Like others, he calls for studies to examine the interaction of transfer with other SLA variables but provides no suggestions for where to begin.
Nonetheless, the volume makes an important addition to SLA literature. Among its merits, it is one of the few current books that make extensive reference to the work done by earlier SLA researchers. For that fact alone, it deserves the attention of anyone striving for a sound understanding not only of crosslinguistic influence but also of the history of SLA.
