LINGUIST List 5.281

Wed 09 Mar 1994

Sum: Intro to Language Texts, Ro/umanian

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. David Silva, SUM: Intro to Language Texts
2. Martin Haase, SUM: Ro/umanian

Last month I asked about textbooks/readers for an introductory course in
language (as opposed to linguistics). I received suggestions from about a
dozen folks.

Here's some of what people had to say. Note that texts are not listed in any
particular order.

 ===========================================================================

-- Fromkin & Rodman, Fifth Edition.
** Comments:
... there are practically no formalisms and the coverage is really quite
broad.

-- Clark, Escholz & Rosa. This is a reader, with artcles from a variety of
areas of interest to the student of language. From what I can tell, it has
gone by a couple of different titles and editions; what was once called
_Language: Introductory Readings_ seems to have bee retitled _Language
Awareness_, 6th edition. By the way, the order of the authors seems also to
have changed during the history of this book. (St. Martin's Press)
** Comments:
It has articles on all the major areas of linguistics as well as minor
ones...One thing I discovered, however, was that lower-level undergrads do not
know how to read artciles. Especially because it was in book form, they read
it like a textbook... I gave them a handout on how to approach this kind of
material.

... many good, nontechnical contributions.

-- W. Roberts and G. Turgeon, _About Language_ (Houghton Mifflin, 1992).
** Comments:
... some useful papers, but also some less useful material (depending on the
slant of the course) which focusses on composition and writing.

** Other Suggestions **

-- Bolinger's _Language: The Loaded Weapon_
-- D. Tannen, anything published
-- D. Graddol, J. Cheshire, J. Swann, _Describing Langauge_ (Open University
Press, 1987)
-- D. Freeborn, P. French, D. Langford, _Varieties of English: An
introduction to the study of language_ (Macmillan 1986)

A couple of folks also mentioned a new offering from St. Martin's Press
entitled _Language_. Unfortunately, I've no other info to share (such as an
author or editor).

Thanks to all those who responded. I'm sure to enjoy checking out these
options during spring break.

--David J. Silva, Univ of TX at Arlington
 (davidling.uta.edu)

My question whether to write Romanian or Rumanian caused quite a number
of reactions, some of them very passionate. I'm sorry that I cannot
answer all of them personally. Here is the result:

Roumanian: is considered a traditional though obsolete spelling.

Rumanian: is the form sometimes favored by traditional Romance linguists,
in order to distinguish between Rumania (the country) and Romania (the
Romance speech community, a technical term in Romance studies).

Romanian: is the official spelling, as Romania is the official name of
the country in English. All Romanians that replied, strongly advocated
for this spelling, some found the spelling _Rumanian_ offensive.

Martin Haase