Although it does not directly target the field of SLA, this volume provides invaluable information, related to various language practices in the world, that would enrich SLA researchers' knowledge. In language policy, making the distinction between corpus and status planning is one way to differentiate decisions relating to language use and language choice (Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2004; Wright, 2004). In this volume, Fishman, however, notes that the two types of language planning are not as fundamentally separate as has traditionally been assumed to be the case; rather, they are linked in a variety of ways. According to Fishman, the nature and direction of corpus planning reflects and is guided by the status-planning environment.

The volume consists of 10 chapters that deal with language planning in general and corpus planning in particular. Chapter 1 includes an introduction to language planning, focusing specifically on status and corpus planning. Chapter 2 begins by problematizing the overly simplistic view that distinguishes corpus from status planning, with examples from some European languages. Fishman acknowledges the complexity of language planning, which is dependent on the political, economic, and cultural contexts in which language develops. Chapter 3 discusses the directions of corpus planning with regard to globalization.

Chapters 4–7, building on Fishman's earlier work (Fishman, 2000), introduce four bipolar dimensions based on eight poles in corpus planning for written language: purity versus vernacularity, uniqueness versus westernization, classicization versus panification, and ausbau versus einbau. Chapter 4 compares language purity with vernacularity. For English in particular, Fishman mentions that there is no possibility of a serious and widespread purity movement and that, for more speakers of American English, folksiness (vernacularity) stands higher than purity. Chapter 5 deals with the second bipolar dimension: uniqueness versus westernization. Uniqueness opposes any borrowing and is a much more extreme and difficult goal to attain than purity. Fishman highlights efforts to keep the uniqueness of a language based on factors like history and politics and provides examples of various corpus planning occasions for uniqueness (e.g., Basque, Estonian) and westernization (e.g., Russian). Chapter 6 introduces the third bipolar dimension: classicization versus panification. Classicization pertains to corpus planning desired for the vernacular of an already united and recognized entity (e.g., Hindi or Israeli). “Pan-” languages are intended to unite several political entities that presumably have common interests via the adoption of a single language or superlanguage for political and cultural unification; one example would be Illyrian. Fishman then discusses the fourth bipolar dimension (ausbau vs. einbau) in Chapter 7. The effort to decrease the similarity with other languages is called ausbau (as in Croatian vs. Serbian), whereas the effort to foster the similarities between languages is called einbau (as in written Flemish vs. Dutch). Fishman notes that ausbau and einbau are sequentially linked, revealing an important trait of human nature and of socially sensitive language planning.

Chapter 8 argues that, because languages foster sociocultural interaction within and between cultures, they both satisfy and express acts of independence and interdependence. In chapter 9, Fishman explains, in terms of what are to be understood as real incommensurables and opposites, how corpus planning reflects the political culture that inevitably dominates it. In the final chapter, he acknowledges that his analysis has pointed to various orthogonal and parsimonious sociolinguistic dimensions and clusters of dimensions that make the corpus-planning topic both more understandable and more generalizable by relating its emphases to other major aspects of various cultures.

Overall, this volume is a major contribution to the study of corpus planning in various countries. It is appropriate for university students and scholars who are interested in language planning and policy, especially with regard to continuous human intervention in language change. Fishman provides useful teaching materials in the texts and appendixes, including class discussion questions and written assignments. He also offers readers a familiarity with a wide range of language cases and, at the same time, gives them the theoretical tools and analyses to see how they interrelate. SLA researchers will benefit from Fishman's discussion of ongoing language change. Although readers of this book might encounter a few difficulties understanding new terminology and the idea of the four bipolar dimensions in corpus planning, Fishman's humorous comments and extensive examples from all over the world will make its reading pleasant and enlightening.