Language and Lexicon




Romanian-Language Teaching: A Century of Pedagogical Materials Published Outside Romania
by Charles M. Carlton

As is to be expected in the case of languages of limited circulation — in particular those designated as "less commonly taught" or as being in the (American) national interest — availability of appropriate teaching and learning materials is perhaps always destined to remain problematic.[1] Still, possibly contrary to common belief, materials for the Romanian language cannot be considered exactly wanting, in number or in quality, either in the West or —these days especially — in Romania where ever greater numbers of foreign students go to take advantage of its educaţional facilities.

Examination of the most recent of the annual linguistics bibliographies by Dănăilă and Popa (5) reveals over two dozen such works, appearing from 1979 through 1981 in virtually every educaţional center of Romania —not just Bucharest, Cluj-Mapoca, and Jassy, but Bacău, Craiova, Piteşti, Timişoara as well —with every conceivable orientation, agronomy and medicine predominating, but including chemistry, economics, pedagogy, the social and the technical sciences.

While the emphasis of this article is on works published outside Romania for the purpose of the acquisition of the language by nonnatives, mention is made of a small number of Romanian works widely circulated in the West, mainly through Biblioteca Centrală Universitară of Bucharest. (I shall not be dealing with materials designed for Romania's minorities, the so-called "coinhabiting peoples.")

The most recent and comprehensive English-language survey of Romanian language-teaching materials appeared in 1976 by Johnson et al. (8) as an update of Blass et al. (3), both of which present uncritical summaries of materials variously categorized.[2] While the rubrics dictionaries and readers are mostly self-explanatory, "teaching materials" are typically courses with both audio-lingual and reading components, while the grammars are further qualified as "descriptive," "reference," and/or "pedagogical."[3]

In addition, several reviews of such texts have appeared since 1973, and the following is a synoptic evaluation of the views of Agard (1), Algeo (2), and Impey (7), thus:

Augerot & Popescu (36) and Cazacu et al. (44) are considered comparable as "courses," each having an audio-lingual orientation (both have recordings), and each lending itself to a reading approach as well. The Cazacu et al. work derives from the practicai experience of the University of Bucharest summer seminars long held for foreigners at Sinaia, later at Braşov. The Augerot & Popescu work is especially singled out by the reviewers for its utilization of the most current methods of language pedagogy and its adherence to a coherent linguistic theory which takes into account the native speaker's knowledge of his language, as in the use of underlying forms in -u. Both Augerot & Popescu and Cazacu et al. are rich in exercises, the former being additionally praised by Algeo (2, p. 370) for taking heed of the spoken language, following the norm of the "colloquial speech of educated Romanians."

Though lacking in exercises, Guillermou (23) is highly rated for the quality of its annotated texts. For reasons not made clear by Impey (7, p. 264), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54) is found to be unsuited to the "normal classroom." Seiver (57) and Nandris (25) are regarded by the reviewers as possibly adequate reference grammars, neither having particularly suitable exercises, while the Cartianu et al. works (42, 43) come in for perhaps the severest evaluation with respect to organization and the quality of the exercises.

With the exception of Augerot & Popescu (36), all are —or can be —faulted for an excessive emphasis on the written literary language. Algeo is especially vehement on this (2, pp. 370-71).

Additional works are given in the Blass et al. (3) and the Johnson et al. (8) surveys, whose findings may be summarized as follows: [4]

Features signaled as common to most of the works characterized as "teaching materials" — Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Defense Language Institute (45, 46), Delarăscruci (48), and Popescu (55) —include a dual emphasis, both on speaking and on reading skills, by means of dialogs, exercises of a variety of types, and to some extent structured conversations. For the most part, according to the surveys, grammar is presented in structural terms. Furthermore, phonetic transcriptions may be given, while Romanian-English lexicons always appear.

Apart from the fact the readers are intended for students who have been exposed to the fundamentals of Romanian, Chiacu (28) and Tappe (33) have little in common, the former consisting of a mix of original and published texts, the latter of three literary tales. Chiacu gives a Romanian-English vocabulary, Tappe a parallel translation. Boţoman et al. (27) represents a significant change in approach in its insistence on student reaction.

Both the Guţia (11) and Pop (15) grammars are characterized as "descriptive" and "tradiţional": the latter term is the more appropriate. Lombard (12) is of this set the most sophisticated and speaks especially to the linguist. Finally, Cristo-Loveanu's pedagogical grammar (20) is considered noteworthy for the quality of its readings.

To the foregoing works listed and evaluated either in surveys or reviews may be added the following, many of them from Western Europe, also the United States, the Soviet Union, also Romania, which have appeared since World War II: [5] ("teaching materials") Brâncuş et al. (38, 39, 40), Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), Defense Language Institute (47), Deletant (49), Lupi (53), Popinceanu (56), Silzer (58), US War Department (60); (reader) Munteanu (30); (grammars) Baciu (9), Repina (16); (pedagogical grammars) Guillermou (24), Rauta (26).

Finally, the listing is not complete without reference to earlier works of Romanian for foreigners of which the following is a reasonably comprehensive sampling: [6] ("teaching materials") Ackerley (34), Axelrad (37), Hughes (50), Lange-Kowal (51), Lovera & Jacob (52, including revised editions), Tagliavini (59); (readers) Gaster (29), Ortiz (31), Tagliavini (32); (grammars) Candrea-Hecht (10), Lovera (14), Tiktin (17), Torceanu (18), Weigand (19); and (pedagogical grammars) Durot (21), Gartner (22).

GENESIS

In approaching Romanian language texts, one cannot fail to be impressed — in particular in the case of post-World War II works — by the degree of personal commitment and involvement on the part of the authors, many of them professors. Such was the case with Pop (15) and Guţia (11), both teaching in Rome, with Rauta (26) in Salamanca, Nandriş (25) in London, Lombard (12, 13) in Lund, and, in the United States, Cristo-Loveanu (20) at Columbia, Agard (35) at Corneli, a tradition continued today by Augerot (36) at Washington, Boţoman (27) at Ohio State University, and in the case of the latest work, by Deletant (49) at the London School of Slavonie and East European Studies. Love of the language and a pride in extolling Romanian culture abroad also have to be assumed in the case of expatriates and others whose work appears outside Romania, e.g., Caragiu Marioţeanu (41), Munteanu (30), Popinceanu (56), Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti (54), among others just noted.

Collaborations. In common with a general trend elsewhere, but perhaps more pronounced in the Socialist countries, team efforts are virtually the rule in contemporary Romania, e.g., the Brâncuş et al. works (38, 39, 40), Cartianu et al. (42, 43), and Cazacu et al. (44), and the number of collaborative productions abroad is also noteworthy, especially in the context of internaţional exchanges like the Fulbright program, with involvement in the Augerot & Popescu work (36) by Mircea Borcilă and Sever Trifu from Cluj-Napoca, and Dan Grigorescu and Theodor Hristea from Bucharest (not to mention Popescu himself) and in the Boţoman et al. work (27) by Ioan Creţiu of Cluj-Napoca. Caragiu Marioţeanu (41) and Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti (54) are also interesting, not only for their work on such Romanian texts as Cazacu et al. (44) and Cartianu et al. (42, 43), but also as authors of works published outside, in West Germany and Great Britain, for example. [7]

Acknowledgments. In certain of the works we are witness to the continuity of an academic tradition, as within the discipline of Românce Linguistics Cristo-Loveanu (20), Pop (15), and Seiver (57) pay tribute to the inspiration and assistance of such eminent scholars as Mario Pei, Walther von Wartburg, and Leo Spitzer and E. B. Williams, while Guillermou (23, 24) acknowledges his debt to the Romanian linguist O. Nandriş, and Murrell and Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54) theirs to the British Romanian-literature specialist E. D. Tappe.

The Genre. What common elements, then, may we expect of the typical Romanian text-book —reader, grammar, "teaching materials"? Certain features have no unique connection with Romanian: they are a part of the complex of elements which comprise manuals whatever the language they purport to present. They are elements largely of form, and wishes and ex-pectations to the contrary, many of them pertain perhaps more to the author's and the publisher's views of what a text ought to contain than to what the student will likely find most immediately useful. The student (and no doubt many teachers) will first get to the heart of the lesson itself, a dialog or conversation or reading passage, notwithstanding a carefully conceived statement of purpose (a foreword or preface) and a neatly delineated plan (the table of contents), accompanied in some cases by an index, and possibly an expression of thanks and appreciation (the acknowledgments, see above). Bibliographies, and external accounts of the language in question, including surveys of its literature, are variables, as is externai information on the language itself, its history, its dialects, and so on.

Format. In terms of physical appearance, the work may be gargantuan — or minuscule (the War Department manual [60] could fit into a GI's pocket), with hard or soft covers, teeming with illustrations, maps, and photos —or limited to the art and skill of the typist and typesetter alone.

Overview. While most of the works examined here are provided with a table of contents (Cristo-Loveanu [20] with sixteen pages is particularly complete), analytical indexes are comparatively rare, ranging from a page or so of grammatical terminology in Baciu (9), Popinceanu (56), Seiver (57), and Silzer (58), to more or less complete reference guides to the grammar, as in Candrea-Hecht (10, pp. 319-51), Guillermou (23, pp. 234-57), and especially in the brief but ingeniously formulated outline in Murrell & Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti (54, pp. 425-28). The prefaces of Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35) and Augerot & Popescu (36) serve to present a pedagogical statement, e.g., the audio-lingual intensive language programs of World War II in the case of the former.

History and Culture. The history of the Romanians is treated in a fairly large number of sources, e.g., Brâncuş et al. (39), Deletant (49), Gartner (22), Ortiz (31), Pop (15), Tagliavini (32), and Tiktin (17) (the last-named, however, denying Romanian descendance from Trajan's Roman colonists, pp. 9-12). Culture with a "small c" (Vlad ŢePeş, "Nadia," etc.) is a principal preoccupation in Boţoman et al. (27).

The Audience. Certain of the texts are aimed at a specific audience, students in the case of Augerot & Popescu (36, in a cofetărie, at the faculty), Boţoman et al. (27), and all the Brâncuş et al. works (38, 39, 40, featuring "John Smith" from England and "Ali Kassir" from Syria), tourists and travelers (at the airport, going by streetcar) in Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), Deletant (49), Lange-Kowal (51), Popinceanu (56), and Silzer (58), also Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgănesţi (54) with its list of restaurant and food terms (pp. 420-22). Cartianu et al. (42) remains pretty much at the "Dick and Jane" level, but it must be recalled that this was a very early attempt at presenting the Romanian language to an English-speaking audience. Despite their audiences, the Defense Language Institute (45, 46, 47) and the War Department (60) materials place little emphasis on military matters.

Language and Its Externai Aspects. With regard to the history of the Romanian language, interest in etymology is apparent in Cristo-Loveanu (20, an analysis of Eminescu's "Somnoroase pasarele," p. 146) and in Ortiz (31, the lexicon by Nina Fagon). Insistence on the Latinity of Romanian flgures prominently in many of the sources, Augerot & Popescu (36, an extract by D. Macrea, pp. 203-09), Brâncuş et al. (38, lesson 22, and 39, pp. 221-22), Cazacu et al. (44, in the 1980 and 1981 editions, pp. 559-62 and 486-89, respectively, a piece by Puşcariu), Deletant (49, pp. 1-3), Guillermou (23, pp. 5-7), Lange-Kowal (51, pp. vii, 128-29), and Rauta (26, a prologue by Cesar Real de la Riva, p. 12). The dialects (Aromanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian) are also noted with some frequency, e.g., Axelrad (37, p. 5), Deletant (49, p. 2), Gartner (22, pp. 63-67), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54, pp. 1-2), Pop (15, pp. vi, 13, 63), Popinceanu (56, p. 103), Tagliavini (59, pp. vii-viii), Tiktin (17, pp. 5-6), and Torceanu (18, pp. 63-67), along with dialect texts in Rauta (26) and Tiktin (17). Surveys of literature appear in Agard & Petrescu-Dimi-triu (35, pp. 156-57, by the latter author), Cristo-Loveanu (20, pp. 304-7, by his son Miron), Ortiz (31, all of chapter III), and especially Tagliavini (32, pp. xvii-xcix).

Magnitude. In sheer volume, Cristo-Loveanu (20, 616 pages) is rivaled only by the Cazacu et al. English and French versions (44) which have grown progressively longer and longer (from 564 to 712 pages, and 532 to 637, respectively) through the addition of supplementary readings, though none of these approaches the multi-volume Defense Language Institute series (45, 46, 47) which range from 800 to over 2000 pages! At the other end of the scale we find Torceanu (18, 71 pages), Tappe (33, 100 pages), Baciu (9, 111 pages), Chiacu (28, 121 pages), Munteanu (30, 134 pages), Guillermou (24, 141 pages), Lange-Kowal (51, 144 pages), and so on.

The Academic Calendar. Given the usual school year of some twenty-six to thirty-two weeks, the following appear to have been planned with that in mind: Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35, thirty units, as in Austin), Augerot & Popescu (36, thirty-two), Brâncuş et al. (38, thirty-two, 39, thirty-eight), Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41, thirty), Cartianu et al. (43, thirty-two), Cazacu et al. (44, thirty), Deletant (49, twenty-five), Lange-Kowal (51, thirty), Lupi (53, twenty-nine), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54, thirty-two). The Boţoman et al. reader (27) with fîfteen units is intended as a supplement to other materials to be used first. At the other extreme, the Defense Language Institute materials (45) are predicated on four weeks per volume, for six hours a day, followed by home-work. [8]

Sequencing. Without exception the "teaching materials" works are programmatic and designed to be followed in sequence, while a tradiţional arrangement for the grammars and pedagogical grammars is by parts of speech, as in Candrea-Hecht (10), Durot (21), Guţia (11), Pop (15), Rauta (26), Torceanu (18), and Weigand (19), and Cristo-Loveanu (20), Guillermou (23), and Nandris (25), respectively. Though the Boţoman et al. (27) chapters can be taken up in any order (p. iii), the first three are described as easiest. If any one fault can be singled out in Murrell & Ştefănescu-Dragăneşti (54), it is with the inordinate concentration in one lesson (16) of morphology, including the oblique forms of the noun.

Esthetics. Covers run the gamut, from the unembellished plain paper of the Defense Language Institute series (45, 46, 47) to the exceptionally striking white on black geometric motif (inspired by Romanian carpets) of Cristo-Loveanu (20), which only Boţoman et al. (27) comes close to rivaling with a woodcut, also in black and white, of a cocoş. Other examples of good design are the Delarăscruci (48) and Popescu (55) works from Romania, and the Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin text (41) from West Germany, the latter showing a montage of photos of Sighişoara, of a peasant interior, and of a scene at a village well. A reflection of economics, many new works are printed from typescripts, although the older ones —also Cartianu et al. (42, 43), Cazacu et al. (44), Delarăscruci (48), Deletant (49), Guillermou (23, 24), Guţia (11), Lombard (12), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54), Nandris (25), Pop (15), Popescu (55), and Seiver (57) —are reproduced from type. The newer works tend to be rich in illustrations, especially in photographs, e.g., Augerot & Popescu (36), Boţoman et al. (27), Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), Cartianu et al. (42, 43), Cazacu et al. (44), Cristo-Loveanu (20), the Defense Language Institute series (45, 46, 47), Delarăscruci (48), and Popescu (55), while drawings and sketches abound in many of the same texts, e.g., Augerot & Popescu (36) and Boţoman et al. (27), with portraits of literary and historical figures, often for a pedagogical purpose, i.e., to set a scene, as in Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), and the Defense Language Institute works (45, 46, 47), to illustrate an object, as in Boţoman et al. (27), Cartianu et al. (42, 43), Murrell & Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti (54). Ortiz (31) further is invaluable for its reproductions of early manuscripts. Cartoons are made full use of in Boţoman et al. (27), the Defense Language Institute (45, 46, 47), and the War Department (60) materials, while paintings by classical artists (some in color) appear in the earlier Cazacu et al. (44) editions (e.g., a reproduction of Luchian's "Anemones"), Cristo-Loveanu (20, a Romanian shepherd by Grigorescu), Delarăscruci (48, Aman's "Hora"), etc. In every sense, the Cristo-Loveanu (20) work which everywhere bears witness to the artistic gifts of the author is the most handsome of the volumes examined here.

Maps and More. Maps are frequent, again more so in the newer works, e.g., outline maps in Boţoman et al. (27), and Delarăscruci (48), administrative or physical maps in Augerot & Popescu (36), Cazacu et al. (44), Popescu (55), and Silzer (58), plus special maps in the Defense Language Institute (45) work, showing where Romanian is spoken in the US and elsewhere in the world, and especially in Cristo-Loveanu (20) with a rich variety of maps on archeology, ethnography, linguistics, etc. In this respect, Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Brâncuş et al. (40), and Deletant (49) among the newer works are unusual in their lack of illustrations of any sort. Miscellaneous "packaging" touches include the ribbon place-markers in Cazacu et al. (44), and the blank pages for taking notes in the Boţoman et al. (27) and War Department (60) works.

Audio. Recorded materials are provided as follows: (cassettes) Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35, six dual-track), (records) Cazacu et al. (44), Delarăscruci (48), and Popescu (55), three and one record, respectively, Silzer (58, three records), and the War Department manual (60), (tapes) Augerot & Popescu (36), and the various Defense Language Institute series (45, 46, 47).

Workbooks and Tests. Instructor's manuals and student workbooks are not to my knowledge available for any of the works under review. Tests, which were an integral part of the Austin work, are not continued in Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35).

So much for points which are essentially matters of formal inventory. Let us now turn to questions of content and the presentation of modes — phonological, formal, lexical — the degree of assimilation of which will define how well the new language has been learned. Grant-ing differences in sequencing, the typical "teaching materials" unit may be expected to consist of a text (as a dialog or as a basis for conversation, or for reading comprehension), a grammatical explanation, drills and exercises of a variety of types, and an ordered (alphabetical, or by parts of speech, or by appearance) lexical summary. Supplementary work in the form of guided conversations, or readings in literature, and homework assignments are other options.

ORDERING

Sequencing is not only a matter of personal preference on the part of the author, but a function as well of differences in educaţional philosophy, not to mention the era in which a particular work appeared. Nonetheless, certain generalizations can be made from observing the totality of such texts over time. For example, when both audio-lingual and reading skills are presented, the latter always follows the fîrst. This is true when readings are incorporated into individual lessons, e.g., in Seiver (57), or when they are considered supplementary, e.g., Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), the Cazacu et al. (44) works, or when they appear in a text-book series, e.g., Delarăscruci (48) and Popescu (55), or in texts with two parts, e.g., Augerot & Popescu (36), and Cartianu et al. (42).

"New"vs. "Old. "The most striking difference between "modern" and "old-key" approaches lies in the presentation fîrst of the linguistic model, by induction and inference, through dialogs, including short phrases — as in Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Augerot & Popescu (36), Brâncuş et al. (38, 39, 40), Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), Cazacu et al. (44), Delarăscruci (48), Lange-Kowal (51), Popescu (55), and Silzer (58) —vs. an explicit exposition of the grammar—as in Axelrad (37), Deletant (49), Lovera & Jacob (52), Lupi (53), Seiver (57), Tagliavini (59), and Weigand (19) —or a listing of the vocabulary — as is the case with Cartianu et al. (42, 43), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54), and Popinceanu (56). In this sense, Lange-Kowal (51) can be considered to be ahead of its time, while such recent works as Deletant (49), Lupi (53), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54), and Popinceanu (56) are relatively speaking old-fashioned in their arrangement, with works earlier than 1958 belonging to another tradition. It goes without saying that exercises always follow something else, as do conversations, in Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Lovera & Jacob (52), and homework, as in Augerot & Popescu (36), Defense Language Institute (45), Popescu (55), and Tagliavini (59). [9]

Drilling. With the establishment of a basic corpus (dialogs for listening and speaking, texts for reading comprehension), drills and exercises serve both to illustrate and elucidate structures according to the particular feature being emphasized, and further pro vide the learner material on which to practice. Though seemingly of a great variety, such exercises are concerned with passive (listening, reading) and active (speaking, writing) skills, and may be further classifîed according to the degree to which they resemble some natural and common speech act (e.g., answering a question), and so on to include drills designed uniquely to make a point (e.g., the construction of a grammatical sentence from a collection of lexical items randomly arranged).

By far the most common techniques employed in the "teaching materials" and "pedagogical grammar" works are 1) questions and answers, and 2) translations. [10] In such modern works as Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Augerot & Popescu (36), Brâncuş et al. (38, 39, 40), Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), and Cazacu et al. (44), such exercises may constitute half or more of a given lesson. Cartianu et al. (43) is alone in the unhappy process of formulating sentences in "Romlish," Romanian sentences with the fill-ins designated in Eng-lish. Among the readers Boţoman et al. (27) is unique in its emphasis on exercises (matchings, "either-or" questions, etc). Exercise keys are not frequent, being found only in Delarăscruci (48), Deletant (49), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54), and Popescu (55).

Free Expression. On the assumption that the basic structures have now been assimilated sufficiently to permit the student a measure of self-expression, it is surprising that techniques for eliciting conversation and discussion should be limited to a very small number of works. Of these Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35) —follow-ing Austin —is perhaps the most explicit in its utilization of series of detailed instructions (given, however, in English) guiding the student as to how to act and react in a given situation, e.g., "You teii a friend that you want to write some letters but can't because you don't have any stamps or envelopes. ..." Some of the Defense Language Institute materials (e.g., 45, Romanian, IX, Physical and Economic Geography) suggest themes for free discussion ("Colectivizarea agriculturii," p. 83), while Boţoman et al. (27) gives ideas for debates ("Un rege poate să decidă moartea ori viaţa cuiva," p. 120), but by and large it would seem that much remains to be done in this most challenging area of text preparation. ("Conversations" in Lovera & Jacob [52, the 1923 edition] and Tagliavini [59] are in reality nothing more than a series of questions, as in Cristo-Loveanu [20], see note 10.)

Readings. It is a rare "teaching materials" text which does not offer reading selections as well, Brâncuş et al. (40), Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), and Murrell & Ştefănescu-Drăga-neşti (54) being excepţional in this respect, though other Brâncuş works (38, 39) place con-siderable emphasis on texts. Since the texts are usually drawn from classical Romanian prose and poetry collections, I shall refer only to other culturally significant types as the following: ballads ("Mioriţa") Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Cazacu et al. (44), Cristo-Loveanu (20), Guillermou (24), Munteanu (30), Nandris (25), Ortiz (31), Popinceanu (56), Tagliavini (32), Tiktin (17), ("Meşterul Manole") Cristo-Loveanu (20), Popescu (55), Tagliavini (32), ("Toma Alimoş") Cristo-Loveanu (20); proverbs and sayings, Ackerley (34), Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Augerot & Popescu (36), Cartianu et al. (42), Cazacu et al. (44), Cristo-Loveanu (20, over one hundred and fifty!), Durot (21), Nandris (25), Popinceanu (56, very numerous), and Rauta (26). Prayers and selections from the Bible appear in Ackerley (34), Nandris (25), Popinceanu (56), and Rauta (26, the 1973 version), along with extracts from the early literature in Cristo-Loveanu (20), Gaster (29), Mimteanu (30), Rauta (26), Tagliavini (32, 59), and Tiktin (17), while folksongs, doine, and strigaturi fîgure variously in Cristo-Loveanu (20), Miinteanu (30), Ortiz (31), Rauta (26), and Tagliavini (32). Even more unusual "texts" include riddles, excellent for testing an advanced knowledge of language, in Cartianu et al. (43), Munteanu (30), Nandris (25), and Rauta (26), also a recipe for bean soup in Boţoman et al. (27), and road signs ("Atenţie," "Sens Unic") in the War Department manual (60).

Lovera (14) and Lovera & Jacob (52, the 1923 edition) both provide numerous models of correspondence, familiar and commercial. It seems clear that certain works which do not quite meet the criteria for "teaching materials" have nonetheless an enormous value in the variety and quality of reading selections they present. Nandris (25) is partly thus redeemed, while Cristo-Loveanu (20) especially is a treasure house of inestimable value in this respect. [11]

Linguistic Structures. Arrangement by parts of speech is common in a number of works, as has been pointed out above, and though logical for a reference grammar it is unnatural in terms of the order in which language structures are acquired. Lombard (12) presents a modifîed arrangement based on linguistic principles, first in a General Part and then more elaborately in a Special Part, proceeding from an exposition of the noun phrase (nouns, adjectives, articles) to the personal pronoun and thence to the verb phrase. [12] Grammar explanations range from the very lengthy presentations in Guţia (11) and Tagliavini (59) to the conciseness of a Baciu (9). Among the "teaching materials" Garagiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), Popinceanu (56), and Silzer (58) are on the side of brevity, as is Augerot & Popescu (36), with, however, some occasional loss of accuracy (see below). In its use of the concepts and terminology of descriptive linguistics, Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35) is the most technical though a plain English explanation is always provided as well. In the Delarăscruci (48) and Popescu (55) series grammatical explanation is deferred to lesson 9 of the latter text. It is the merit of the Cartianu et al. works (42, 43) — vulnerable to criticism in other respects —to have furnished grammar summaries. Of the readers only the very old Gaster (29, voi. 1) provides a grammar survey, though Guillermou 24 is cross-referenced to Guillermou 23. The explanations in Deletant (49), the most recent of all the works examined, are models of brevity, clarity, and accuracy.

The Forms. When treated as a subject apart morphology occupies predominant portions of such works as Gristo-Loveanu (20, pp, 15-228), Gartner (22, pp. 149-90), Pop (15, pp. 111-332), Popescu (55, pp, 283-322), Rauta (26, chapters 2-15), Tagliavini (59, all of part two), Repina (16, pp. 23-128). Much such material is presented in tabular form, as in Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35, chapters 12, 18, 24), Augerot & Popescu (36, pp. 282-84), Baciu (9, passim), Brâncuş et al. (38, 39, 40), Cazacu et al. (44, pp. 461-90 in the 1969 edition), Popescu (55, passim), Tagliavini (59, passim), in addition to verb tables in Ackerley (34, pp. 24-36), Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35, p. 96), Augerot & Popescu (36, pp. 284-94), Gandrea-Hecht (10, pp. 162-64), Cazacu et al. (44, pp. 491-526 in the 1969 edition), Defense Language Institute (46, volume IV after lesson 55), Deletant (49, pp. 253-78), Durot (21, passim), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54, pp. 344-63), Ortiz (31, pp. 56-58), Repina (16, pp. 85-90, 100, 182-88), Seiver (57, pp. 177-95), Tagliavini (59, pp. 183-87), and Torceanu (18, passim). Word-formation receives special treatment in Ackerley (34, pp. 57-60), Augerot & Popescu (36, pp. 176-78), Brâncuş et al. (38, lessons 23-27), Brâncuş et al. (39, lessons 27, 29-32), Gandrea-Hecht (10, pp. 269-317, and passim), Gartianu et al. (42, pp. 243-44), Cristo-Loveanu (20, pp. 229-50, including an excellent treatment of diminutives, pp. 235-38), Gartner (22, pp. 141-49), Guţia (11, passim), Lupi (53, rich documentation, pp. 375-98), Nandris (25, all of part III), Popescu (55, passim), Rauta (26, chapter 16), Repina (16, pp. 29-32, 36-37), Tagliavini (59, passim), Tiktin (17, pp. 112-19), Axelrad (37) further gives an extraordinary listing of onomatopoeic interjections, including animal calls. Syntax receives relatively little space overall when given separately, though there are exceptions like Baciu (9, pp. 73-99), Brâncuş et al. (38, 39, passim), Durot (21, pp. 46ff), Lombard (12, pp. 83-99, 276-306), Lovera & Jacob (52, pp. 183ff in the 1912, and pp. 215-304 in the 1923 edition, respectively), Nandris (25, all of part IV), Pop (15, pp. 333-456), Rauta (26, chapter 17), Tiktin (17, chapter 3), and Torceanu (18, pp. 61-71).

Orthoëpy. In the case of the newer materials for teaching Romanian, mastery of its audio-lingual aspects is a given: note, for example, the introduction to Augerot & Popescu (36, p. vii), not to mention such self-deflning titles as the Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35) Spoken Romanian, and the Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41) Sprachkurs, also the various "courses" like Cartianu et al. (42, 43) and Cazacii et al. (44). The following are particularly noteworthy instances where, in addition to consonants, vowels, and glides, the suprasegmentals are given special consideration: (elision) Guţia (11), Murrell & Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti (54), Pop (15), Repina (16), and Seiver (57); (intonation) Augerot & Popescu (36), Brâncuş et al. (38, 39, and 40, volume I), Cazacu et al. (44), Defense Language Institute (47), Deletant (49), and Murrell & Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti (54); (juncture) Defense Language Institute (45); (pause) Defense Language Institute (47); (pitch) Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), and Defense Language Institute (47); (stress) Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Augerot & Popescu (36), Defense Language Institute (47), Lupi (53), Murrell & Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti (54), Nandris (25), and Rauta (26). [13]

Phonetics and Orthography. Particularly thorough treatments of the phonetics of Romanian are given — usually coupled with orthography — in Lombard (12, pp. 5-21) and Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35, part I, pp. 109ff), while the practical work in Cazacu et al. (44, the first six chapters, also pp. 457-60 in the 1969 edition), Delarăscruci (48, pp. 9-22 and passim), and Murrell & Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti (54, the first five lessons, also pp. 335-41, 344) is of excellent quality. On the values of the grapheme i (a bugaboo of students of Romanian), Deletant (49) is especially insistent (pp. 13-14, 15, 21, 23-26, 45, 68, 90, 134, 253).

Transcriptions. Systems used for transcription include the following: (the alphabet of the International Phonetic Association) Defense Language Institute (45), Lovera & Jacob (52, the 1923 edition), Seiver (57), Silzer (58), and Tagliavini (59); (modifîed IPA alphabet) Cazacu et al. (44), Defense Language Institute (47), Deletant (49), Murrell & Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti (54); (modifications of American descriptive linguistics systems) Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35) and Augerot & Popescu (36); and such other systems as the Toussaint-Langenscheidt in Lange-Kowal (51), and the idiosyncratic approximations of Nandris (25), e.g., [mee-o-ree-tsa] for Mioriţa, and the War Department manual (60), e.g., OO-noo for '1', PA-troo '4', etc. The dialogs of Cazacu et al. (44, the first six lessons), Defense Language Institute (47, lessons 1-15), and of Silzer (58) are provided with transcriptions, as are certain lexical items in Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35, as phonemes), Cristo-Loveanu (20), Lombard (12), and Murrell & Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti (54, also as phonemes). Intonation contours are noted in Augerot & Popescu (36, p. 5), Brâncuş et al. (40, volume I, pp. 33-35), and Deletant (49, pp. 8-9); in Defense Language Institute (47) they accompany the texts of lessons 1-15.

LINGUISTIC THEORY

Adherence to a particular school of linguistic thought is clear in the case of Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35) (structuralism) and Augerot & Popescu (36, generaţive-transformational is implied in the Algeo [2] review, see above). With respect to problems encountered and much debated in Romanian phonological theory, Brâncuş et al. (39, pp. 3, 7-8, 10) and Cartianu et al. (42, p. 23) espouse the now largely discarded thesis of soft or palatalized consonants. As for the phonetic value of oa Candrea-Hecht (10), Cartianu et al. (43), Lovera & Jacob (52), and Seiver (57) all associate it with waw, or something "almost identical" to it, Deletant (49, p. 34). The asyllabic "pseudo"-vowel [i] is given in Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35) as a member of the phoneme /y/. While Silzer (58) uses [*] for both the iniţial and final phones of ieri, Deletant (49) distinguishes them as /y/ and /ĭ/, respectively.[14]

Morphophonemics. Certainly one of the most marked characteristics of the Romanian linguistic system is to be found in its vowel and consonant alternations occurring across form-classes. Thus accented e before a becomes ea in the adjective des: deasa, and the verb aştept: aşteaptă, while t before i becomes / (pronounced ts), as in the adjective biet: bieţi, the noun balta: bălţi, and the verb bat: baţi, and so on. These and similar instances are examined in great detail in Candrea-Hecht (10, pp. 6-10, 24-26, 148-54, 199-200), Lombard (12, pp. 38-42, 307-23), and Pop (15, pp. 56-58, 265-70), and in passing in Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35, p. 33, etc), Augerot & Popescu (36, p. 53, etc), Brâncuş et al. (38, lessons 2, 5-7, 9, 24; 39, passim; 40, volume I, pp. 80-81, 103-5), Cartianu et al. (42, p. 44), Cazacu et al. (44, pp. 64, 108 in the 1969 edition), Cristo-Loveanu (20, pp. 6-11), Deletant (49, pp. 25, 90, 92), Guillermou (23, pp. 19-20), Guţia (11, pp. 58-61, 214ff), Lange-Kowal (51, p. 10), Lovera & Jacob (52, pp. 12-14 and passim in the 1923 edition), Lupi (53, pp. 17-22), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54, pp. 339-40), Popescu (55, pp. 35-36, 119), Popinceanu (56, p. 74), Repina (16, pp. 18-20), and Weigand(19, pp. 12-13, 15, 37, 95). Though it is possible I overestimate the diffîculties such alternations pose students of Romanian, it is my impression (based on personal experience) most could profit from even greater exposure to drills and exercises — including overt explanation of the linguistic mechanisms involved — than is given in most of the texts cited, though Candrea-Hecht (10) is excepţional in this respect (p. vii). [15]

The Lexicon. Textbooks for Romanian commonly have cumulative vocabularies arranged alphabetically, in addition to which the following patterns also occur: arrangement by sense group, in Ackerley (34, e.g., days, festivals, months), Lovera (14, the earth, universe, etc), the War Department manual (60, directions, location, etc); by order of appearance in a lesson, as in Popinceanu (56); or by parts of speech in the case of Lupi (53). Brâncuş et al. (38) presents the vocabulary within lessons by sense groups (e.g., the time in lesson 5, foods in lesson 7). Expressions and idioms may also be included, as in Ackerley (34), Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), Cazacu et al. (44), Cristo-Loveanu (20), Defense Language Institute (46), Delarăscruci (48), Lovera & Jacob (52, the 1923 edition), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54), and Nandris (25). Cross-references to where a given lexical item first appeared in the text are provided in Candrea-Hecht (10), Cristo-Loveanu (20), Defense Language Institute (45, 46), Deletant (49), Guillermou (23), and Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54). Cumulative vocabularies are not given in certain of the older works, i.e., Axelrad (37), Durot (21), Gartner (22), Torceanu (18); their absence is further felt in Lange-Kowal (51), Pop (15), Tagliavini (32), and especially in the more recent Baciu (9), Brâncuş et al. (38, 40), Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), Guţia (11), and Tappe (33). Guillermou (24) alone provides a list of function words.

The Scope of the Lexicon. The lexicons them-selves vary enormously in their range, from the outsized Rauta (26, c. 6480 items — a dictionary in its own right), Cristo-Loveanu (20, c 4000), Nandris (25, c 3325), Brâncuş et al. (39, c 3000), and so on all the way down to Ackerley (34) with its modest 600-odd. Reading selections added to the "pedagogica! grammars" help account for the differences. Among the recent readers, the Chiacu anthology (28) contains c 2900 items vis-ŕ-vis Munteanu (30, c 1520) and Boţoman et al. (27, c 1265). "Teaching materials" works which do not have reading selections range from Defense Language Institute (46, c 2064) to Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54, c. 1100), Delarăscruci (48, c. 1080), Silzer (58, c 900). On balance, some 1500 or so lexical items would seem to be sufficient, both for the purpose of practicai communication and for illustrating the main properties of the Romanian language. Deletant (49) alone provides two sorts of listings, one based on the vocabulary of the lessons (c 1100 items), the second a supplement (c 1670).

The Lexicon and Word Frequency. The least stable and at the same time most adaptable of linguistic components, the lexicon plays a particularly important role as a gauge of a language's capacity at a given time for expressing the needs and values of its speakers. The following shows the degree of correspondence the cumulative vocabularies in the texts have with a checklist of 1607 high-frequency lexical items compiled from a variety of studies. [16] A sam-pling of 356 items, or c. twenty-two percent of the corpus, beginning with the letters A, Ă, B, and C, is used. The correspondences, in descending order, are given in raw figures and in percentages: Rauta (26, 286 items, eighty percent), Brâncuş et al. (39, 267 items, seventy-seven percent), Nandris (25, 252 items, seventy-one percent), Seiver (57, 245 items, sixty-nine percent), Popinceanu (56, 232 items, sixty-five percent), Augerot & Popescu (36, 215 items, sixty percent), Cristo-Loveanu (20, 211 items, fifty-nine percent), Popescu (55, 210 items, fifty-nine percent), Cazacu et al. (44, 196 items and fifty-fîve percent in the 1969 edition), Ortiz (31, 196 items, fifty-five percent), Lombard (12, 189 items, fifty-three percent), Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35, 175 items and forty-nine percent in part 2), Tagliavini (59, 172 items, forty-eight percent), Deletant (49, 167 items and forty-seven percent in the case of the second list), Guillermou (23, 166 items, forty-seven percent), Defense Language Institute (46, 161 items, forty-five percent), Weigand (19, 146 items, forty-one percent), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54, 143 items, forty percent), Chiacu (28, 137 items, thirty-eight percent), Cartianu et al. (42, 136 items, thirty-eight percent), Boţoman et al. (27, 135 items, thirty-eight percent), Delarascruci (48, 134 items, thirty-eight percent), Silzer (58, 131 items, thirty-seven percent), Lovera & Jacob (52, 128 items and thirty-six percent in the 1912 edition), Repina (16, 127 items, thirty-six percent), Deletant (49, 126 items, thirty-fîve percent in the first list), Lupi (53, 117 items, thirty-three percent), Candrea-Hecht (10, 116 items, thirty-three percent), Ackerley (34, 115 items, thirty-two percent), Cartianu et al. (43, 65 items, eighteen percent), and Munteanu (30, 49 items, fourteen percent). [17]

In some cases the high correlation can be attributed purely to the size of the lexicon, as in Rauta (26), Brâncuş et al. (39), and Nandris (25). Among recent "teaching materials" Augerot & Popescu (36), Cazacu et al. (44), and Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35) all show a respectable correlation, the last-named all the more so as words of extremely high frequency are omitted (p. 175, part 2). Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54) and Lupi (53) would appear to be anomalies in view of their relatively low correlations. The Cartianu et al. works (42, 43), which were faulted on other grounds (see above), also show a low correlation here. Readers such as those of Boţoman et al. (27), Chiacu (28), and Munteanu (30) are special cases given their very different subject matter; still, it is curious that Boţoman et al. (27) and Chiacu (28) should share such close correlations. The nature of the audience in Delarascruci (48, children) and Popescu (55, adults) likely accounts for their wide divergence with respect to the vocabulary. Candrea-Hecht (10), Lovera & Jacob (52, the 1912 edition), and Ackerley (34), all of which have low correlations, are among the older texts.

REGISTERS

Unless otherwise specified, it must be assumed that the norm of most textbooks is that of Standard Literary Romanian; see, for example, Cazacu et al. (44, the 1969 edition) on "contemporary literary Romanian" (p. 15), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54) on limba română standard and limbă literară (pp. 2-3), also Lombard (12) in which the language of edu-cated Bucharest speakers is favored (pp. viii-ix). Nonetheless, variants do appear, overtly acknowledged in Augerot & Popescu (36) with a reference to "cultivated colloquial speech" (p. vii), Cazacu et al. (44, the 1980 edition, pp. 17-18), Deletant (49, by definition "colloquial"), as well as Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54) with such phrasing as "near-formal" and "conversaţional" (p. 3), and Lombard (12) and Pop (15), both of which provide regional and popular variants. Also to be included here are works containing popular literature — the ballads, doine, and strigături mentioned above. On the other hand, Nandris (25) which purportedly deals with the "colloquial" language is no more a guide to current spoken usage than most of the other texts. Even Brâncuş et al. (39) whose aim is the presentation of limba de conversaţie (p. 3) is in reality very conservative.

The Popular Language. The following provides some indication as to the willingness of the authors to inform the student about non-standard forms: (the demonstrative ăla for acela) Augerot & Popescu (36), Candrea-Hecht (10), Deletant (49), Lombard (12), Nandris (25), Popescu (55), and Seiver (57); {asta for acesta) Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Augerot & Popescu (36), Candrea-Hecht (10), Cazacu et al. (44), Cristo-Loveanu (20), Defense Language Institute (45, 46, 47), Deletant (49), Lombard (12), Lovera & Jacob (52, the 1923 edition), Nandris (25), Ortiz (31), Popescu (55), Repina (16), Seiver (57), and Weigand (19); (adverbs with the deictic partide -a, acuma) Deletant (49), Guillermou (23), Lombard (12), Ortiz (31), Popinceanu (56), and Repina (16); (atuncea) Popinceanu (56); (aicea) Deletant (49), Ortiz (31); (the o să future) Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Augerot & Popescu (36), Cartianu et al. (43), Cazacu et al. (44), Defense Language Institute (46), Deletant (49), Guţia (11), Lange-Kowal (51), Lombard (12), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54), Ortiz (31), and Pop (15); (the reduced forms of the "-ty" numerals) Augerot & Popescu (36, cinzeci '50'), Pop (15); (the "teen" numerals) Deletant (49), Guţia (11, cinsprezece '15' — however patrusprezece '14'), Lombard (12), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54), Nandris (25), and Seiver (57); (the loss of final -l in substantives) Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Candrea-Hecht (10), Lombard (12), and Seiver (57). It is of interest to note that with the exception of Deletant (49, pp. 223-24), none of the sources deals at any length with the popular dative {la plus noun) or genitive (de la, din, lui) constructions which Algeo (2, p. 370) referred to (see above), though sporadic examples are found, e.g., la to express dative in Lombard (12, p. 228), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54, p. 246), and Nandris (25, p. 182), de la for the genitive, as in Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54, p. 289, unul din restaurantele de la lacuri). It is the merit of Deletant (49) also to have pointed out not only such popular forms but also the use of such tenses as the Past Historic —necessary for reading Romanian (pp. 189ff) —and the sociolinguistic nuances found in such near-synonyms as a dori and a vrea "to deşire, want" (p. 91).

Lapses. Errors of a factual nature are occasionally to be observed, as in Ackerley (34) where the change of accented o to is given before -a (pp. 5-6) —the change takes place only before a and e; in Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), with credea for infinitive crede (p. 126); in Augerot & Popescu (36), where the explanation for the formation of the first person plural of a first conjugation verb is incomplete — *lucram instead of lucrăm would be the result (p. 26); in Boţoman et al. (27), where cea is given with mai bun (p. 152), it should be cross-referenced to cel; in Cartianu et al. (43), where ceai is termed a "triphthong" (p. 15); in Deletant (49), where the accent is misplaced on radio (p. 119); in Popinceanu (56), where ea and ia, as in deasă and piatră, are given the same phonetic value (p. 54); and in Seiver (57), where Densusianu is provided with a cedilla (p. xiii), and so on. [18]

EVALUATION

Approximately fifty works for the teaching of the Romanian language have been examined in four major classes; "teaching materials" (twenty-seven works), grammars (ten), "peda-gogical grammars" (seven), and readers (seven), according to two sets of criteria, the first in terms of physical arrangement, the second in terms of the linguistic presentation. Following a restricted set of criteria —admit-tedly in part a matter of personal choice —I shall suggest the following rankings for the "teaching materials": [19]

  1. Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35);
  2. Cazacu et al. (44);
  3. Augerot & Popescu (36);
  4. Deletant (49), Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti (54);
  5. Popescu (55);
  6. Brâncuş et al. (39), Defense Language Institute (45);
  7. Brâncuş et al. (38), Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), Defense Language Institute (46), Delarăscruci (48);
  8. Brâncuş et al. (40), Defense Language Institute (47), Seiver (57);
  9. Cartianu et al. (42), Lange-Kowal (51);
  10. Cartianu et al. (43), Lupi (53), Popinceanu (56);
  11. Silzer (58);
  12. Ackerley (34), Lovera & Jacob (52, the 1923 edition), Tagliavini (59), the War Department manual (60);
  13. Axelrad (37), and Lovera & Jacob (52, the 1912 edition).

Using a shorter list of criteria, grammars and "pedagogical grammars" are thus ranked respectively:

  1. Lombard (12);
  2. Candrea-Hecht (10);
  3. Guţia (11), Pop (15), Repina (16);
  4. Weigand (19);
  5. Baciu (9);
  6. Lovera (14), Tiktin (17), and Torceanu (18),

and

  1. Cristo-Loveanu (20);
  2. none;
  3. none;
  4. none;
  5. none;
  6. Nandris (25), Rauta (26);
  7. Guillermou (23);
  8. none;
  9. Guillermou (24);
  10. Durot (21), and Gartner (22).

Lastly, the readers are ranked according to an even shorter list of factors, thus: 1) Boţoman et al. (27); 2) Munteanu (30); 3) none; 4) Chiacu (28), Gaster (29), Ortiz (31), Tappe (33); and 5) Tagliavini (32).

CONCLUSIONS

The rankings given here accord largely with the evaluations of Agard (1), Algeo (2), and Impey (7) given above, with the exceptions of Guillermou (23) and Seiver (57) which come out somewhat lower here. Overall, the older works do not fare well, though Candrea-Hecht (10) is an exception. The category of readers is the least homogeneous, and Boţoman et al. (27) its most original representative. The most noticeable gap in the rankings is found in the "pedagogica! grammars" where Cristo-Loveanu (20) to all intents and purposes belongs to the "teaching materials" but for the lack of exercises and an audio component. If any one work examined here merits updating and revision it is Cristo-Loveanu (20). [20]

NOTES
  1. I am indebted to Martha Clark of the Center for Applied Linguistics for copies of the relevant pages of a 1982 Supplement (6) to the Johnson et al. Survey (8), describing two works from the United States, Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35) and Boţoman et al. (27), and of a report by John L. D. Clark and Dora E. Johnson (4) concerning textbooks currently used in the United States, i.e., Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), Augerot & Popescu (36), Cazacu et al. (44), Defense Language Institute (45), and Murrell & Ştefânescu-Draganeşti (54). I further wish to thank the following for their comments and suggestions, taking at the same time final responsibility for data and judgments presented here: F. B. Agard (Corneli), Dennis Deletant (London School of Slavonie & East European Studies), Kenneth Rogers (Univ. of Rhode Island), R. A. Hali, Jr. (Corneli), Virgil Nemoianu (Catholic Univ.), Glanville Price (Univ. of Wales), and Virgiliu Ştef^nescu-Draganeşti (Univ. of Bucharest).
  2. Whatever their merits I exclude works on the Blass et al. (3) and Johnson et al. (8) lists which were written for those with native-speaker competence in Romanian, including the Academy's grammar and its normative spelling and pro-nunciation guide, respectively Gramatica limbii române, 2 vols. (Bucharest: Editura ARSR, 1972), îndreptar ortografic, ortoepic şi de punctuaţie (Bucharest: Editura ARSR, 1965), also the reference grammars by Barbu Berceanu, Sistemul gramatical al limbii române (Reconsiderare) (Bucharest: Editura ştiinţifică, 1971), and V. Şerban, Sintaxa limbii române. Curs practic, 2nd ed. (Bucharest: Editura didactică şi pedagogică, 1970), as well as the collection of essays by G. Istrate, Limba româna. Fonetică— Vocabular— Gramatica (Bucharest: Minerva, 1956). Other works are overly specialized and lie outside the scope of this study, the Agard structural sketch, a masterpiece of descriptive linguistics, the Augerot collection, intended for advanced students, and the Sandfeld & Olsen studies of syntax, specifically F. B. Agard, Structural Sketch of Rumanian (Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America, 1958); James E. Augerot, ed., Romanian Grammar Pamphlets (Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1973); and Kristian Sandfeld & Hedvig Olsen, Syntaxe roumaine. Emploi des mots a flexion (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1960). Also omitted from the discussion here are the dictionaries listed in Blass et al. (3, p. 52) and Johnson et al. (8, pp. 2-3); with the exception of several Romanian to Romanian works and one based on frequency (Juilland et al., see note 16 below), those cited are interlingual (English-Romanian, Romanian-French, and so on), and constitute only one type among several (e.g., analogical, etymological, reverse, rhyming, etc.) available to the student of Romanian. Analysis of the whole range of such works would most legitimately constitute the basis of another study.

    Editions and reprints of works listed in the Bibliography but given in parentheses were not examined. References to Lombard are to the French (12), not the Swedish (13), version.

  3. The distinction between "teaching materials" and "pedagogical grammars" is, aceording to the way I have ap-proached this study, one of degree and emphasis, the latter being more than a reference grammar —whose purpose is as much affirming as it is informing —but which lack some element considered essential for teaching, e.g., exercises in the case of Cristo-Loveanu (20) and Guillermou (23). Typically, "teaching materials" works are "courses" cover-ing both speech and reading skills; the modern works are usually supplied with recordings.

    Whatever their differences, all language-teaching textbooks ("readers," "grammars," etc.) have as their fundamental purpose to provide students with models. Histori-cally speaking the origins of grammar books go back to one Dionysius and his Greek grammar; just as the spread of Greek culture may be in part attributed to the translation of the Odyssey into Latin, so in the early part of this era the relation of Latin to the vernacular was exemplified in bilingual textbooks (L. R. Buckley, "Textbooks," Encyclo-paedia Britannica, 19 [1967], p. 901). Refinements such as word counts and controlled vocabularies, and the use of graded materials are relatively modern developments.

  4. A checklist followed in the Johnson et al. survey (8, p. vi) stipulates that the textbooks, generally for the beginning level, are to be used 1) with an instructor; they are designed 2) for the adult speaker of English; standard 3) language and 4) orthography norms are observed; information on 5) pronunciation is noted, while 6) cumulative vocabularies are not specifically mentioned. That the guidelines are flexible is evident given the Murrell & Ştefănescu-Drăga-neşti work (54) from the Teach Yourself series —also note the Ackerley (34) and Lovera & Jacob (52) titles given here later, also the Deletant work (49) which is designed for self-study —plus the fact that the Delarăscruci work (48) is designed for children, furthermore that some of the materials are presented via the medium of another language, i.e., French in the case of Guillermou (23), Lombard (12), and Pop (15), Italian with Guţia (11). Accordingly, I subse-quently add works on Romanian written in French (seven in number), Italian (four), Spanish (one), Russian (one), and above all German (nine), plus Romanian (three). For a student with a command of Spanish a dual presentation in Romanian and in Spanish —as in Rauta (26) —could better illustrate differences and similarities in the two Românce languages than had the explanations been given in English. Indeed, the Augerot & Popescu work (36) is designed for the "advanced student" (pp. v, vii), not of Romanian but as someone who "is likely to have already done extensive work in another language and who should . . . have some linguistic sophistication" (p. vii). Spelling norms are dependent on one's willingness to adhere to the various official reforms in Romania; variants most fre-quently encountered are the apostrophe vs. the hyphen, â for î (and vice versa in forms like româneşte), the omission of i between vowels (i.e., any vowel plus e, as in batae for bătaie). The question of other norms is taken up later in the paper, as are pronunciation and vocabulary.

    For a twenty-five-item checklist for determining the quality of a text see Wilga M. Rivers, Teaching Foreign Language Skills (Chicago/London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 368-71.

  5. Viewed globally works for teaching Romanian appear (excepting those from Romania itself) in roughly comparable numbers in Western Europe and the United States, the latter owing, however, partly to volumes destined for the armed services. In terms of chronology, interest outside Romania seems to have been limited to a bare handful of works in the late nineteenth and in the flrst years of this century. Then follows an almost total absence of texts until the end of World War II, plus an occasional work in the 1950s. It takes the 1960s for a veritable mini-explosion of books to occur, a phenomenon which continues throughout the 1970s and up to the present.

    A work unsuitable for examination here is B. Ivan Jamset, Basic Rumanian; Containing: Grammar Summary, Word Vocabularies, Useful Phrases, Notes on Rumania and Its Language (London: Hirschfeld, 1950), 60 pp. I note in passing only the grammar outline in Gould & Obreanu (61).

  6. It is interesting to observe in such original linguistic monuments as the Samuel Micu & Gheorghe Şincai ver-sions of Elementa linguae daco-romanae sive valachicae, ed. Mircea Zdrenghea (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia, 1980), 245 pp., respectively from 1780 and 1805, the importance given the pedagogical aspects of the Romanian language in the form of rudimentary dialogs on the weather, the proper treat-ment of guests, and so on.
  7. The Defense Language Institute materials (45, 46), unattributed as to authorship, were largely written by Alexandru Parvu and Leon Vasu.

    Names of publishers with an apparent predilection for Romanian textbooks crop up with some frequency in Western Europe, e.g., Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and variants Routledge and Kegan Paul, also Trubner alone (Ackerley [34], Deletant [49], Nandris [25], and Torceanu [18] in England, Klincksieck (Guillermou [23, 24], and the Lombard [12] French version) in France, J. Groos (Hughes [50], Lovera & Jacob [52], Tagliavini [32, 59]) and Max Niemeyer (Gartner [22], Munteanu [30], and Popinceanu [56] in West Germany.

    In the United States, the Center for Applied Linguistics has played a criticai role, not only in terms of the reports and surveys alluded to above, but as sponsor of F. B. Agard in connection with the Romanian-English Contrastive Analysis Project in Bucharest in 1969-70. In addition to the Clark & Johnson survey (4) for the Department of Edu-cation (see note 1), the Augerot & Popescu (36) and Chiacu (28) works were written with Office of Education support.

  8. According to Nicholas Chiacu (in a telephone conversation) the FSI sequence, formerly of nine months dura-tion, has been reduced to five and one-half owing to the success of the program.

    The preliminary version of Augerot & Popescu (36) which I first studied from at the West Coast Slavic Institute held at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the summer of 1970 was covered in the main in c. one hundred and thirty hours (eight weeks, with three to three and one-half hours per day, five days a week).

  9. Sequencing of lessons is as follows in "teaching materials" texts, where C = conversation, D = dialog, E = exercises, G = grammar, H = homework, P = phrases, R = reading, and V = vocabulary (the works are in reverse chronological order): Deletant (49), GVRE, VPGDRE; Brâncuş et al. (38, 39, 40), DGE; Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), DGE; Lupi (53), GVE; Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), PDGEC and R; Delarăscruci (48), DVE; Popescu (55), DVGEHR; Murrell & Ştefanescu-Drâgăneşti (54), VPDGE; Augerot & Popescu (36); PDRGEH in part 1, RGE in part 2; Cazacu et al. (44), DVPGE and R; Silzer (58), DV, PGE; Cartianu et al. (43), VDGER; Cartianu et al. (42), VDRGE in part 1, RVE in part 2; Seiver (57), GVPER; Popinceanu (56), VEGE; Lange-Kowal (51), DVEG; Tagliavini (59), GVHRC in part 2, GHR in part 3; Lovera & Jacob (52), GVEC.

    In Defense Language Institute (45) the first segment is "New Material" (grammar or phonetic drills), plus DERGHV. In Defense Language Institute (46) grammar begins in lesson 11, followed by DERE. Order in Defense Language Institute (47) varies, one pattern being GDERE. There are no consistent patterns in the Ackerley (34) and War Department (60) works.

    Review lessons are an important and regular feature of Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35, every sixth unit, five in all), Brâncuş et al. (39, lessons 7, 13, 20, 28, 38), Brâncuş (40, volume I, lessons 7, 15, volume II, 21, 29, volume III, 35, 41), Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41, chapters 10, 20, 30), Cartianu et al. (42, part 1, chapters 5, 10, part 2, 10, 21, 32), Cazacu et al. (44, lessons 7, 13, 20, 25, 30), Delarăscruci (48, 1, 2, 13, 17, 23, 27, 36), occurring only occasionally however in Augerot & Popescu (36, lessons 17, 18), Axelrad (37, lesson 7), Deletant (49, 5, 15, 25), Murrell & Ştefânescu-Drăgăneşti (54, 11).

  10. Translation is virtually the only type of exercise in several of the works: (from Romanian to English and vice versa) Seiver (57), (German) Popinceanu (56), Weigand (19), (Italian) Lupi (53), Tagliavini (59). For all its rich-ness in other respects, Cristo-Loveanu (20) lacks exercises with the exception of so-called Conversaţiuni which are series of questions to be answered.

    Other drills and exercises (limited to one sample per work cited) include: (pattern practice) Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35), (build-ups of phrases by increments) Augerot & Popescu (36), (declining a noun) Axelrad (37), (build-ups of morphologically related numerals, e.g., 2—12 —20) Brâncuş et al. (40, volume I), (dictation) Brâncuşi et al. (38, 39), (transformations) Caragiu Marioţeanu & Savin (41), (composition) Cartianu et al. (42), (sentence comple-tions) Cartianu et al. (43), (fîll-ins) Cazacu et al. (44), (formulation of questions) Delarăscruci (48), (supplying verb forms) Deletant (49), (counting) Lange-Kowal (51), (reading passages aloud from a phonetic transcription) Lovera & Jacob (52, the 1912 edition), (copying a text) Murrell & Ştef&nescu-Drăgăneşti (54), (conjugating a verb) Silzer (58).

  11. Editors of readers are particularly at risk when dealing with contemporary events — witness the Seiver (57) piece on the sacking of General MacArthur by President Truman. Even Nadia Comaneci whose fame is extolled in Boţoman et al. (27) has probably already begun to slip from the public mind.

    It is interesting that little or no attempt has been made to adapt pictorial texts of contemporary Romanian life to the teaching situation. For example, In caz de nevoie spargeţi geamul, associated with fire extinguishers, illustrates very neatly an imperative plus two different aspects of the definite article use. Păstraţi curăţenia oraşului, found on refuse receptacles, is a perfect illustration of a genitive singular noun.

  12. Lombard (12) alone presents before all else a set of basic sentences which henceforth serve to illustrate structural prin-ciples. The practice is worthy of emulation.
  13. R. L. Rankin, "Romanian Intonation and Stress," Romanian Grammar Pamphlets II, ed. James E. Augerot (Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1973), pp. iii—28, further examines some of these features in depth.
  14. Underlying -u, important for the determination of a basic penultimate accent in Romanian (Augerot & Popescu, 36, p. 281), is also given in Austin (35, units 1-5, 5, 7, also in supplementary unit 17, 1).

    Minimal pairs, a technique common to descriptive linguistics, are used in Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35) to illustrate vowel (part 1, p. 112) and consonant (p. 113) differences, also in Brâncuş et al. (39, pp. 9-12) and Brâncuş et al. (40, volume I, pp. 20-28), Cazacu et al. (44, pp. 60-61 in the 1969 edition), and Deletant (49, pp. 14, 15, 34). In Guillermou (23, p. 19), sets like rara: sară: vară serve to show parallel surface forms which have various under-lying representations in the parts of speech involved, adjective, verb, noun.

  15. Such morphophonemic alternations produce in Romanian a proliferation of discrete, oftentimes linguisti-cally redundant forms, while a high incidence of homoph-ony can trigger potenţial ambiguity. For example, the plural nominative-accusative of the feminine noun carte 'book' is triply marked: in the vowel ending, in the ensuing consonantal change, and lastly in the change effected in the stressed vowel under the influence of the final vowel, giving cărţi. At the same time cărţi has two other functions, as the non-definitized singular or plural of the genitive-dative.

    There is no doubt that non-Romanian scholars of my acquaintance researching in Romania "communicate" remarkably effectively by stringing together whole series of base forms without regard to endings and internai changes. Still, it goes without saying that an understand-ing of and a familiarity with the polyvalent nature of Romanian forms are essential for those approaching the language from the outside and who wish to come to grips with the language on its terms.

  16. There are eight such word-frequency studies, given here with their word totals: G. Bolocan, "Unele caracteristici ale stilului publicistic a limbii romîne literare," Studii şi cercetări lingvistice, 12, i (1961), pp. 35-71, 660 items; A. Graur, încercare asupra fondului principal lexical al limbii romîne (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne, 1954), 1419 items; E. Iarovici & R. Mihailă-Cova et al., Lexicul de bază al limbii engleze. Dicţionar contrastiv (Bucharest: Editura ştiinţifică şi enciclopedică, 1979), pp. 612-22, 2757 items; M. Iliescu, Grundwortschatz Rumănisch-Deutsch-Englisch-Franz'âsisch (Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang, 1979), 3209 items; M. Iliescu et al., Vocabularul minimal al limbii române pentru studenţi străini (Bucharest: Editura didactică şi pedagogica, 1981), 3216 items; A. Juilland et al., Frequency Dictionary ofRumanian Words (The Hague: Mouton, 1965), 4843 items; V. Păltineanu, Dicţionar practic pentru studenţii străini (Cluj-Napoca: Universitatea "Babeş-Bolyai," Facultatea de filologie, 1980), 935 items; V. Şuteu, "Observaţii asupra frecvenţei cuvintelor în operele unor scriitori romîni," Studii şi cercetări lingvistice, 10, iii (1959), pp. 419-43, 522 items.
  17. Correlations for the other Defense Language Institute works (45, 47) are very low, ranging from fifty-four items per volume to only twenty-five. Curiously, in spiţe of their differences in approach, both series apparently share identical vocabularies.
  18. Misprints and typographical errors inevitably crop up, e.g., demnostratives and vocabualry in Agard & Petrescu-Dimitriu (35, part 2, p. 56); o/Tor o fi in Augerot & Popescu (36, p. xi); cafeau for cafeaua, and finiră {or firma in Boţoman et al. (27, pp. 13, 145); idicativ for indicativ in Brâncuş et al. (39, p. 200); u for n in Dumnezeu and pentru in Chiacu (28, p. 2), 14.2B for 14.2C in Deletant (49, p. 335); tutoror for tuturor in Murrell & Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti (54, p. 243); camandă for comandă in Popinceanu (56, p. 128); arata for arăta and viitioare for viitoare in Seiver (57, pp. 199 and 64); mumele for numele in Silzer (58, p. 16), and so on.
  19. The criteria followed are: the length of the work — is there sufficient material for the inculcation of the four skills (aural comprehension, speaking, reading, writing), preferably within the confines of a school year? îs there an audio (tapes, cassettes, etc.) component? Are the explanations accurate and adequate without being overly detailed? Are the drills and exercises of sufficient quality and variety? Is a key provided? What techniques, if any, are used to promote free expression? îs sufficient emphasis placed on the sound systern, including the suprasegmentals, and on the morphophonemic alternations? Is the lexicon of sufficient length, and does it correlate well with the high-frequency vocabulary of Romanian? îs the vocabulary cross-referenced? Are variants reflecting the spoken language provided? Some emphasis was also placed on tables of contents and indexes, also tabular summaries and illustrations.
  20. It is encouraging to note that Professor Boţoman is preparing yet another text on Romanian language, entitled Salut Romania, to be added one day to the arsenal of teaching materials.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SURVEYS AND REVIEWS

  1. Agard, Frederick B. "Some Romanian Determiners." Romanian Grammar Pamphlets, I. Ed. James E.Augerot. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1973, p. 34.
  2. Algeo, James A. George Seiver, Introduction to Romanian (New York: Hafner, 1953); Ana Carteanu [sic], Leon Leviţchi & Virgil Ştefanescu-Draganeşti, A Course in Modern Rumanian and An Advanced Course in Modern Rumanian (Bucharest: Publishing House for Scientiflc Books, 1958 and 1964); Grigore Nandris, Colloquial Rumanian (New York: Dover, 1966); Boris Cazacu, Clara Georgeta Chiosa, Matilda Caragiu Marioţeanu & Valeria Guţu Romalo, A Course in Contemporary Romanian (Bucharest: Editura didactica şi pedagogica, 1969); James E. Augerot & Florin D. Popescu, Modern Romanian (Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 1971). Review, Modern Language Journal, 57 (1973), pp. 368-71.
  3. Blass, Birgit A., Dora E. Johnson & William W. Gage. A Provisional Survey of Materials for the Study of Neglected Languages. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969, pp. 51-52.
  4. Clark, John L. D. & Dora E. Johnson. A Survey of Materials Development Needs in the Less Commonly Taught Languages in the United States. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1982.
  5. Danaila, Ion & Eleonora Popa. "Bibliografia româneasca de lingvistica." Limba româna, 31 (1982), 315-462.
  6. 6. Hatfield, Deborah H., Dora E. Johnson & William W. Gage. A Survey of Materials for the Study of the Uncommonly Taught Languages. Supplement, 1976-1981. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1982.
  7. Impey, Michael H. "The Present State of Romanian Studies in the United States and Canada." Modern Language Journal, 59 (1975), pp. 264-65.
  8. Johnson, Dora E., Birgit A. Blass, Stephen R. Cahir, William W. Gage, William F. Hanks, Elizabeth Kimmell & Dorothy Rapp. A Survey of Materials for the Study of the Uncommonly Taught Languages (Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics), 1976, 2. Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

GRAMMARS

  1. Baciu, Ioan. Precis de grammaire roumaine. Lyons: Editions l'Hermes, 1978. Pp. 111.
  2. Candrea-Hecht, J.-A. Cours complet de grammaire roumaine. Paris: Welter, 1900. Pp. viii + 364.
  3. Guţia, Ioan. Grammatica romena moderna. Rome: Bulzoni, 1967. Pp. 344.
  4. Lombard, Alf. La langue roumaine. Unepresentation. Bibliotheque francaise et romane, serie A: Manuels et etudes linguistiques, 29. Paris: Klincksieck, 1974. Pp. xv+ 396.
  5. ---------- Rumănsk Grammatik. Lund: Gleerup, 1973. Pp. vi+ 409.
  6. Lovera, Romeo. Grammatica della lingua romena coli' aggiunto di modelli di lettere, 4th ed. Milan: Hoepli, 1933. Pp. 211. {Grammatica della lingua romena: coWaggiunta d'un vocabolario delle voci piu usuali, 2nd ed. Milan: Hoepli, 1906. Pp. 183.)
  7. Pop, Sever. Grammaire roumaine. Bibliotheca Romanica. Series Prima. Manualiaet Commentationes, 4. Berne: Francke, 1948. Pp. x + 457.
  8. Repina, Tamara. RumynskijJazyk. Jazyki mira, Serija posobij, 5. Moscow: Univ. of Moscow, 1968. Pp. 190.
  9. Tiktin, Hariton. Rumănisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter, 1905. Pp. viii + 228.
  10. Torceanu, R. A Simplified Grammar of the Roumanian Language. London: Triibner, 1883. Pp. viii+ 71.
  11. Weigand, Gustav. Praktische Grammatik der Rumănischen Sprache. Leipzig: Barth, 1903. Pp. vi + 242; 2nd ed., 1918, pp. vii+ 248.

PEDAGOGICAL GRAMMARS

  1. Cristo-Loveanu, Elie. The Romanian Language. New York: published by the author, 1962. Pp. 490, 616 with additionals.
  2. Durot, Felix. Grammaire du roumain moderne a Vusage des Frangais et des etrangers, 2nd ed. Bucharest: Gobl, 1877. Pp. 84.
  3. Gartner, Theodor. Darstellung der Rumănischen Sprache. Sammlung kurzer Lehrbucher der romanischen Sprachen und Literaturen, 3. Halle: Niemeyer, 1904. Pp. x + 237.
  4. Guillermou, Alain. Manuel de langue roumaine. Grammaire. Textes d'etude commentes avec index grammatical et glos-saire. Les langues de l'Europe orientale, 5. Paris: Klincksieck, 1953. Pp. 285.
  5. ----------. Textes d'etudes en langue roumaine. Les langues de l'Europe orientale, 6. Paris: Klincksieck, 1960. Pp. 141.
  6. Nandris, Grigore. Colloquial Rumanian. Grammar, Exercises, Reader, Vocabulary. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; New York: Dover, 1966. Pp. xx + 352. (Rpt. of 2nd ed., 1953.)
  7. Rauta, Aurelio. Gramatica rumana. Tesis y Estudios Sal-mantinos, 4. Salamanca: CSIC, 1947. Pp. 489; 2nd ed., Madrid: CSIC, 1973. Pp. 555.

READERS

  1. Boţoman, Rodica, Donald E. Corbin & E. Garrison Walters. îmi place limba romana. A Romanian Reader. Columbus: Slavica, 1981. Pp. iii+199, and nine unnumbered.
  2. Chiacu, Nicholas V. Rumanian Reader. Washington: Foreign Service Institute, Department of State, 1964. Pp. 121.
  3. Gaster, Moses. Chrestomathie roumaine. Textes imprimes et manuscrits du XVT™ au XlX^siecle; specimens dialectales et de litterature populaire. Chrestomaţie română. Texte tipărite si manuscrise (sec. XVI-XIX), dialectale si populare, 1, (2). Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1891. Pp. cxlvi + 368.
  4. Munteanu, Romul. Rumănische Anthologie. Culegere de Texte din Literatura romînă. Halle: Niemeyer, 1962. Pp. 134.Romanian Language Teaching
  5. Ortiz, Ramiro. Manualetto rumeno. Bucharest: "Bucovina," 1936. Pp. 240 + xxxiv plates. (2nd ed., Modena, 1945.)
  6. Tagliavini, Karl [ = Carlo]. Rumănisches Lesebuch. Heidelberg: Groos, 1923. Pp. xcix + 302.
  7. Tappe, Eric D., ed. & trans. Fantastic Tales by Mircea Eliade and Mihai Niculescu. London: Dillon's, 1969. Pp. 100.

"teaching materials"

  1. Ackerley, Frederick G. A Rumanian Manual for Self-Tuition. 1917; rpt. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1940. Pp. 146.
  2. Agard, Frederick B. & Magdalena Petrescu-Dimitriu. Spoken Romanian, 1. Ithaca: Spoken Language Services, 1974. Pp. iv + 129; 2. 1976. Pp. one unnumbered + 186. (Based on William M. Austin, Spoken Romanian, unpublished, 194?)
  3. Augerot, James E. & Florin D. Popescu. Modern Romanian. Limba română, Seattle/London: Univ. of Washington Press, 1971. Pp. xiii + 329. Preliminary version, Seattle, 1969, 130+ 151 pp.
  4. Axelrad, P. The Elements of Roumanian. A Complete Roumanian Grammar with Exercises. New York: Biblioteca română, 1919. Pp. 108.
  5. Brâncuş, Grigore, Adriana Ionescu & Manuela Sara-mandu. Limba româna. Manual pentru studenţi străini. Anul pregătitor — semestrul I. Bucharest: Ministerul Educaţiei şi învăţămîntului, 1981. Pp. 279.
  6. ----------. Limba româna. Manual pentru studenţii străini. Anul pregătitor — semestrul I. Bucharest: Editura didactică şi pedagogică, 1982. Pp. 440.
  7. ----------. Limba română contemporană. Manual pentru studenţii străini, I. Bucharest: Universitatea din Bucureşti, 1978. Pp. 246. II: 1981, pp. 257; III: 1981, Pp. 269.
  8. Caragiu Marioţeanu, Matilda & Emilia Savin. Rumănischfur Sie. Ein moderner Sprachkursfur Erwachsene. Munich: Hueber, 1976. Pp. 244.
  9. Cartianu, Ana, Leon Leviţchi & Virgiliu Ştefanescu-Drăgăneşti. A Course in Modern Rumanian. Bucharest: Publishing House for Scientifîc Books, 1958. Pp. 359.
  10. ----------. An Advanced Course in Modern Rumanian, 2nd ed. Bucharest: Publishing House for Scientifîc Books, 1964. Pp. 365. (Ist ed., 1958.)
  11. Cazacu, Boris, Clara Georgeta Chiosa, Matilda Caragiu Marioţeanu & Valeria Guţu Romalo (A. Nicolescu & V. Ştefânescu-Draganeşti, transl.). A Course in Contemporary Romanian: An Introduction to the Study of Romanian. Bucharest: Editura didactică şi pedagogică, 1969. pp. 564; 2nd ed., 1980, pp. 712. (English versions of French texts by the same authors plus Sorina Bercescu, Cours de langue roumaine: introduction a l'etude du roumain a Vusage des etudiants etrangers. Bucharest: Editura didactică şi pedagogica, 1967, pp. 532; 2nd ed., 1973, pp. 570; 3rd ed., 1978; 4th ed., 1981, pp. 637.)
  12. Defense Language Institute. Romanian. Basic Course, I. Monterey, CA: 1970. Pp. xxii + 263. II: 1963, pp. iii+ 255; III: 1964, pp. iv + 260; IV: 1964, pp. vi + 283; V: 1966, pp. iii + 267; VI: 1964, pp. ii + 88; VII: 1974, pp. iv+161; VIII: 1966, pp. 216; IX: Romanian. Physical and Economic Geography of Romania, 1967, pp. 180. (X: History of Romania, 1968, pp. 218.)
  13. ----------. Romanian. Special Course. 12 Weeks, I. Monterey, CA: 1964, pp. 1-120; II: 1964, pp. 121-335; III: 1964, pp. 336-524; IV: 1964, pp. 525-710; V: 1966, rpt. 1978, pp. 711-818.
  14. ----------. Romanian. Basic Course, I. Washington, 1966. Pp. 197. II: 1963, pp. 255; III: 1964, pp. 260; IV: 1964, pp. 282; V: 1964, pp. 267; VI: (1957), rev. 1960, rpt. 1963, pp. 89; VII: 1966, pp. 161; VIII: 1966, pp. 216.
  15. Delarascruci, Oltea. Curs de limba româna (Course in Romanian), 1. Bucharest: Editura didactică şi pedagogică, 1971. Pp. 212. (Continued in Popescu, see 55.)
  16. Deletant, Dennis. ColloquialRomanian. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983. Pp. viii+ 335.
  17. Hughes, Annie. A Roumanian Conversation Grammar. Heidelberg: Groos, 1920. Pp. vii + 330. (English-lan-guage version of Lovera & Jacob, see 52.)
  18. Lange-Kowal, Ernst-Erwin. 30 Stunden Rumănischfur Anfănger, 2nd ed. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1941. Pp. xviii + 144.
  19. Lovera, Romeo & Adolphe Jacob. Grammaire roumaine. Heidelberg: Groos, 1912. Pp. vii + 302; 2nd ed., 1923, pp. vii + 340. (Rev., A. Storch & I. Slavici, Rumănische Konversations-Grammatik zum Schul-Privat- und Selbstunter-richt. Heidelberg: Groos, 1919, pp. viii+ 370.)
  20. Lupi, Gino. Grammatica della lingua romena. Rome: Signorelli, 1975. Pp. 482.
  21. Murrell, Martin & Virgiliu Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti. Romanian. Teach Yourself Books. London: English Universities Press, 1970. Pp. 428. 5th printing, New York: David McKay, 1980.
  22. Popescu, Ion. Curs de limba română (Course in Romanian), 2. Bucharest: Editura didactică şi pedagogică, 1971. Pp. 371.
  23. Popinceanu, Ion. Rumănische Elementargrammatik, mit Ubungstexten, 2nd ed. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1962. Pp. viii + 168.
  24. Seiver, George O. Introduction to Romanian. New York: Hafner, 1953. Pp. xv + 243.
  25. Silzer, Erwin. Wir lernen Rumănisch sprechen. Halle: Sprache und Literatur, 1962. Pp. 159.
  26. Tagliavini, Carlo. Grammatica della lingua rumena. Bologna/Heidelberg: Groos, 1923. Pp. xx + 410.
  27. US War Department. Rumanian. A Guide to the Spoken Language. Language Guide Introductory Series. Washington, 1943. Pp. 96.

RELATED MATERIALS

  1. Gould, Sydney Henry & P. E. Obreanu. Romanian-English Dictionary and Grammar for the Mathematical Sciences. Providence: American Mathematical Society, 1967. Pp. 51.

Source:

  • The Modern Language Journal, 68, iv (1984) 0026-7902/84/0004/354 $1.50/0 ® 1984 The Modern Language Journal.

Main Menu


This page compliments of Marisa Ciceran

Created: Monday, January 03, 2006; Last Update: Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Copyright © 1998 IstriaNet.org, USA