Book reviews / System 40 (2012) 161e174 167

complementary linguistic and gestural metaphors can work together to convey different yet coherent perspectives on
the topic being discussed.
Chapters 12e15 draw together the various threads of the book and provide a summary of ‘good practice’ in
metaphor research as well providing two case studies of metaphor research. In Chapter 12, Low and Todd provide
a comprehensive list of ‘issues to consider’ when conducting metaphor research which should serve as a starting point
for anyone conducting metaphor research. In Chapter 13, Rivers demonstrates a number of the approaches and issues
that have been discussed in the book in her description of her doctoral study, which focuses on the metaphorical
content of online learning discussions. In Chapter 14, Cameron does the same through her case study on the role of
metaphor in examining public perceptions of terrorism. In Chapter 15, Cameron and Maslen close the book with
a forward-looking conclusion, inciting researchers to attend more, in future, to the multimodal nature of metaphor.
All in all, this volume provides an excellent introduction for novice metaphor researchers (including researchers
who may have come from disciplines outside those conventionally associated with metaphor), on how to conduct
metaphor research. Extensive data sets are provided in the appendices that allow the reader to try out some of the forms
of metaphor analysis for themselves. All of the studies referred to have a practical focus as well as making theoretical
contributions to the field of metaphor studies. The two case studies at the end of the book provide practical exem-
plifications of many of the methodologies that have been introduced. I would recommend this book as an excellent
starting point to anyone embarking upon an academic career in metaphor studies.

Jeannette Littlemore
Centre for English Language Studies,
School of English, Drama, American and Canadian Studies,
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
E-mail address: j.m.littlemore@bham.ac.uk

doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.12.002

Gender Perspectives on Vocabulary in Foreign and Second Languages, Rosa Marı́a Jiménez Catalán (Ed.). Palgrave
Macmillan, Basingstoke (2010). xix þ 269 pp.

As a timely gap-filling collection of articles concerning the perspective of gender and language education, or more
particularly the acquisition, development, production, and teaching of vocabulary, mainly from Spanish context,
Gender Perspectives on Vocabulary in Foreign and Second Languages reflects how researchers value vocabulary in
language learning and, thus, investigate it from various perspectives across the globe.
Jane Sunderland, in Introduction, ‘Theorizing gender perspectives in foreign and second language learning,’ traces
gender and language education to modern women’s movement (Schmitz, 1975), dividing it into three broad areas: (a)
the subject matter, second or foreign language in question with possible gender variation, (b) learning and teaching
processes, e.g. attitude, style, strategies, beliefs, and so on, and (c) classroom materials; gender representation in
different roles, like social and discourse.
For Sunderland, gender is an issue in SLA and, particularly in vocabulary acquisition, while in contrast to such
variables as age, motivation, learning style, and attitude it is neglected in the field. In the research on gender and
vocabulary acquisition, gender is understood as ‘sex’ and studied with varied results, but not theorized further.
Sunderland then tries to conceptualize the studies in this collection.
The studies are presented in two parts. Part 1 with six chapters concerns ‘Gender tendencies in lexical acquisition,
development, and use’. Cindy Brantmeier in ‘More than words: Inferential and incorrect units recalled’ reconsiders,
with richer discussion, a series of her earlier scholarly studies, mainly Brantmeier (2003). She finds that the variables
gender and passage content affected the literal idea units recalled of the texts, but not the correct inferential ideas
drawn. These variables never affected the incorrect ideas recalled from the texts. Brantmeier’s meticulous study is
more related to gender and L2 reading comprehension, but not to vocabulary.
168 Book reviews / System 40 (2012) 161e174

‘Gender and L1 influence on EFL learners’ lexicon’ by Mercedes Dı́ez Prados investigates the composition corpus
produced by university student subpopulations (Spanish, French or Italian versus German, Dutch or Swedish) and
contrasts the results with that of English native speakers of equivalent sociolinguistic characteristics. Generally, the
findings on lexical variation, lexical density, and certainty and doubt adverbs favored the gender variable (female
versus male) more than the language variable (Romance versus Germanic languages) or being a native speaker versus
a learner of English.
Focusing on productive use of vocabulary within the context of error analysis in ‘Exploring the role of gender in
lexical creations’, Marı́a Pilar Agustı́n Llach shows that, in compositions written by Spanish intermediate (secondary)
EFL learners, there is a gender similarity regarding the quantity and type of lexical items invented: foreignizing, literal
translation, word coinage, and ambiguous lexical inventions. These similar mechanisms are accounted for based on
social or psychosocial factors, not cognitive processes.
Studying second-grade secondary school Spanish EFL learners (139 boys and 111 girls), Almudena Fernández
Fontecha in ‘Gender and motivation in EFL vocabulary production’ shows female advantage both in EFL vocabulary
production and motivation toward EFL. Both males and females showed extrinsic motivation more than intrinsic
motivation, with the latter being statistically significant only for females. Thus, intrinsic motivation predicts more EFL
vocabulary achievement. However, it is acknowledged that, in such studies, biological, cognitive, and sociocultural
factors, task type, status of the language within community, and so on might affect the outcomes.
Chapter 5 ‘Gender tendencies in EFL across vocabulary tests’ by the editor, Jiménez Catalán, tries to determine
whether variation is observed in the performance of Spanish EFL learners (males and females) across different tests,
i.e. multiple-choice tests including the 1000 Word Test (WT) and the 2000 word frequency band from Vocabulary
Levels Test (VLT), cue word test, and composition test. Their performance varies across tests but it is equal on the two
receptive multiple-choice tests. As for the productive vocabulary tests, there are significant differential patterns in
vocabulary performance on a composition and a cue word test. There is also a positive correlation among the four tests
under study. Results are interpreted cautiously “since the means obtained for each test cannot be compared on equal
terms (p. 128)”.
Following Jiménez who assumes a task effect on girls’ and boys’ vocabulary performance, Soraya Moreno
Espinosa describes and analyses ‘Boys’ and girls’ L2 word associations’ in Chapter 6. Studying the characteristics of
the productive lexical profile of 225 Spanish EFL learners of primary education (4th, 5th, and 6th grades) who
answered Lex30 (Meara and Fitzpatrick, 2000), she reports that, in general, there are no significant differences
between males and females regarding the number of types and tokens as well on the basis of Lex30 scores throughout
the three-year period.
While Part 1 considers relationships between gender and some aspect of vocabulary education, Part 2 with four
chapters deals with ‘Gendered words: Representation and identities’. Gender is thus “conceptualized as an idea, often
shown through representation” (p. 14). Allyson Jule in Chapter 7, ‘A case study of Mrs Smith’s words and her quiet
girls,’ explores how the words of a female language teacher might impact on a consistent silence among nine girls in
a mixed ESL classroom and accounts for this lack of linguistic space used by the girls through examining the recurrent
discourse patterns; mostly ignoring, interacting through correction, and dismissing girls, among others. Nonetheless,
Jule’s valuable study might fall beyond the scope of this volume.
‘Gender identity in words for professional titles in textbooks’ by Mercedes Bengoechea and José Simón tackles
how ELE (Spanish as a Foreign Language) materials have approached gender and occupations in the last decade and
how teachers’ textbooks depict this debate, i.e. lexicon concerning gender professional identities. With a corpus of 60
ELE books, the authors find that, despite non-sexist linguistic policies within the last decade and due to the influence
of the Spanish Academy, (a) male jobs normally precede female jobs in number, priority, and visibility, and (b) the
debate is utterly ignored, with the publishers and authors keeping the existing sociolinguistic discourses absent.
Longitudinally studying 204 Spanish EFL students who complete the same EFL composition task with an interval
of three years, Julieta Ojeda Alba, in ‘Humour, vocabulary and individuality in an EFL task,’ demonstrates that
primary students, aged 10, lightly use humor, as represented in their lexical use. However, at the age of around 13 (the
first year of secondary school), the same students implement humor more widely to accomplish various purposes and
functions. Males use far more humor than females, with males’ humorous endeavors being comparable in both cases.
The researcher “assumes that gender is the variable accountable for the differences found” (p. 230) in the corpus and
argues that humor has implications for EFL classroom.
 Book reviews / System 40 (2012) 161e174 169

Finally, in ‘Lexical encoding of gender relations and identities’, Antonio Garcı́a Gómez explores how trainee
primary English teachers’ discursive construction of gender relations and identities is sustained by particular uses of
the lexicon, when creating advertisements for boys’, girls’, and unisex toys. Through appraisal analysis (to cite just
Martin and White, 2005) conducted, we understand that these Spanish undergraduates’ lexical choices in creating toy
advertisements present negative and distorted images of gender roles. Furthermore, gender-biased attitudes, revealed
in the participants’ vocabulary, are still in their minds at the beginning of the 21st century. Garcı́a Gómez, like some
other like-minded researchers, attributes this inequality mainly to traditional discourses and dominant patriarchal
society, and hardly to any other possible factor at work, despite the complexity of gender equality. Apparently, many
researchers are enthusiastic in transforming patriarchal society to gender equality. However, this enthusiasm might
inadvertently lead them to come to gender-biased conclusions in their research as well. Garcı́a Gómez’ conclusion in
this chapter, and probably that of many others, might suggest it.
The volume does not seem to picture gender and vocabulary coherently and systematically. However, as a pio-
neering attempt, it gives a clear and neat structure to the less-organized studies done in the field. Furthermore, despite
having a clear and thoughtful lead-in as the introductory chapter, the volume would have served its readers more had it
contained a concluding chapter wherein the editor would sum up the 10 contributions of the volume for the readers (a)
to further consolidate the ideas presented, (b) to evaluate the studies, (c) to indicate some possible threads running
through them, (d) to outline the direction in which the contemporary researchers are generally moving, and (e) to
suggest possible avenues for further research from her own perspective.
Finally, the book needs another round of editing and proofreading to further facilitate the easy processing of
information by the readers without stumbling. Nevertheless, the comments above, intended to add to the richness of
the contents, should not devalue the innovation of the volume in this area, care and rigor in methodology and academic
work in conducting any individual work presented, and the brave and pioneering work of the editor. The writing
throughout was reader-friendly, clear, easy to follow, and fluid.
As concluding remarks, Gender Perspectives on Vocabulary in Foreign and Second Languages truly attempts to
deal with a gap and can thus be seen as a pioneering collection of scholarly articles with possible implications for
language learning in general and vocabulary studies in particular. Therefore, we can recommend it to the graduate
students in SLA, the interested researchers in language learning as well as gender-related studies, and responsible
teachers striving to teach their students and serve their society in an informed and fair manner.

References

Brantmeier, C., 2003. Does gender make a difference? Passage content and comprehension in second language reading. Reading in a Foreign
Language 15, 1e27.
Martin, J.R., White, P.R.R., 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan, London and New York.
Meara, P., Fitzpatrick, T., 2000. Lex30: an improved method of assessing productive vocabulary in an L2. System 28, 19e30.
Schmitz, B., 1975. Sexism in French language textbooks. In: Robert, C., Lafayette (Eds.), The Cultural Revolution in Foreign Language Teaching.
National Textbooks Co, Skokie, IL.

Is’haaq Akbarian
University of Qom, Department of English Language and Literature, Old Isfahan Road, Qom, Iran
E-mail addresses: ishaaq.akbarian@gmail.com, i-akbarian@qom.ac.ir

doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.12.001

The Multiliteracies Classroom, Kathy Ann Mills, Multilingual Matters, Bristol (2010). xv þ 152 pp.

As Kathy Mills explains in the introduction to The Multiliteracies Classroom, the term “multiliteracies” was first
used by the group of literacy experts known as the New London Group (1996, 2000), whose approach to literacy aims
at broadening the pedagogical focus from linguistics to include other aspects present in current societies. Their work is