Growing migration and mobility have led to an increased demand for linguistic research over the past few decades, initiating the rapid growth of most subdisci' plines in the field, especially sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and psycholinguistics. There is particularly intense research activity in the interdiscipline of second language acquisition, which occupies a position at the crossroads of linguistics, psychology, anthropology, and sociology (see Kramsch and McConnell-Ginet, "Knowledge"; Freed; Larsen-Freeman and Long; Klein). Despite the significant progress made in research, many postsecondary institutions that offer foreign language instruction or teacher training have responded rather slowly, if at all, to that progress (see Stern). Foreign language and literature departments have only recently begun, after years of erosion (declining enrollment, lost positions), to venture into area studies, offering courses in business language and occasionally appointing specially trained coordinators. With only a few exceptions, language and literature departments housed at institutions that take pride in leading research and development in other disciplines have not even attempted to assume a similar role in second language acquisition. Even worse, they have often failed to acknowledge research and development in this field done elsewhere, and they have regarded as of little importance research done by their own members. In many departments, teaching methods of the fifties still dominate, with perhaps a rudimentary understanding of the approaches of the seventies, and almost everywhere the methodologically most challenging classes—namely, those for beginners—are still being taught by untrained teaching assistants or unqualified native speakers. This practice illustrates the prevailing lack of sensitivity to the complexity of the issues involved. A number of historical and administrative reasons are given for the outmoded pedagogy. One is that the development of language study appears so recent; another is that the current reward structure does not take into account the importance of language learning or research. Such explanations of antiquated practices and structures in departments, however, overlook the overwhelming evidence of successful initiatives taken both at particular institutions and in the field at large. The training of teachers affects education at all levels. A n unprofessional approach to language study and language didactics at the university will not enhance the quality of language instruction in elementary and secondary schools. A n often asked question is the following: "In what other discipline are trainees allowed to teach introductory courses?" If foreign language instruction in North America is to grow and improve, professionalization on all levels is required.