REVIEWS453 Despite these problems with individual studies, the collection as a whole presents a nice picture of how frame theory can be applied to discourse processes. The book is well edited, and will be useful to anyone interested in exploring this new direction in discourse processing. REFERENCES Chafe, Wallace. 1977a. The recall and verbalization of past experience. Current issues in linguistic theory, ed. by Roger W. Cole, 215-46. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ------. 1977b. Creativity in verbalization and its implications for the nature of stored knowledge. Discourse production and comprehension, ed. by Roy O. Freedle, 41-55. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Charniak, Eugene. 1973. Context and the reference problem. Natural language processing, ed. by Randall Rustin, 311-29. New York: Algorithmics Press. Duranti, Alessandro, and Elinor Ochs. 1979. Left-dislocation in Italian conversation . Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax, ed. by Talmy Givón, 89-113. New York: Academic Press. Grimes, Joseph E. 1975. The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton. Hallida?, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Kintsch, Walter, and Janice M. Keenan. 1973. Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology 5.257-74. ------, and Teun A. Van Dijk. 1976. Comment on se rappelle et on résume des histoires. Langages 40.98-116. McKoon, Gail. 1977. Organization of information in text memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16.247-60. Mandler, J. M., and N. S. Johnson. 1977. Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology 9.111-51. Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. The psychology of computer vision, ed. by Patrick H. Winston, 21 1-77. New York : McGraw-Hill. Rumelhart, David E. 1975. Notes on a schema for stories. Representation and understanding : Studies in cognitive science, ed. by Daniel Bobrow & A. Collins, 211-36. New York: Academic Press.¦—-—. 1977. Toward an interactive model of reading. Attention and performance VI, ed. by Stanislav Dornic, 571-603. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ------, and A. Ortony. 1977. The representation of knowledge in memory. Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge, ed. by Richard Anderson & R. Spiro, 99-135. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum. Thorndyke, Perry W. 1977. Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology 9.77-110. [Received 19 July 1979.] The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. By John Schumann. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1978, Pp. ix, 190. Reviewed by William Washabaugh and Fred Eckman, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Analogies, in any intellectual discipline, are constructed so as to illuminate a murky issue by borrowing some light from a transparent one. The analogy at hand in this book is constructed in hopes of illuminating the process of second-language 454LANGUAGE, VOLUME 56, NUMBER 2 (1980) acquisition by borrowing light from the process ofpidginization. But the keys to the success of any analogy are that the two issues involved be indisputably similar, and that the issue from which light is to be borrowed be itselfuncontestably illuminated. We cannot find either key feature in the analogy presented here. Schumann's book describes the results of his longitudinal investigation of untutored adult second-language acquisition: as such, it reiterates much of the description and discussion in Schumann 1974a,b, 1975a,b, 1976a,b. The investigation charts the progress of seven Spanish speakers, both children and adults, in learning English. The data consist of elicited sentences—and, most importantly, of conversations with each subject recorded biweekly over the period of a year. The analysis of the recorded corpus (Chap. 2) shows that six of the seven subjects passed through similar stages in their successful acquisition of three morphological markers in English; the negative, interrogative, and auxiliary verb. A seventh subject, Alberto, was stalled at the first stage. The bulk of the remaining report is focused on A's delayed learning of English. That delay is additionally documented, first, by a description of A's acquisition of four additional markers in English— possessive, past tense, plural, and progressive (Chap. 3)—and, second, by an analysis of A's learning of English auxiliary verbs calculated by a more stringent criterion (Chap. 4). All these data are intended to justify...