|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RECENTLY there has been considerable interest in the question of heritage learners in the foreign language classroom, and there is a growing body of literature on the topic. Despite the specific language(s) under consideration, the problems addressed in such works are remarkably similar, as others have noted (Gutiérrez 33) and I will attempt to demonstrate here. Moreover, research on American immigrants has long shown that diverse groups have much in common, both linguistically and socioculturally, in their assimilation to the new society and in matters of language maintenance and language shift.1 While these remarks are therefore predicated on the Russian heritage learner and Russian linguistic material, they are immediately intelligible to any experienced language teacher.
The Russian heritage learner is a compelling example of the larger problem, however. While Russian-language pedagogy has always struggled with difficulties shared by other less commonly taught languages (LCTLs), the challenges it faces in the post-Soviet era are particularly acute.2 Since the end of the cold war, enrollments at institutions across North America have dropped dramatically. Many programs have suffered losses in funding and faculty positions, and several have been eliminated entirely. Threatened departments have included not only those that were small or marginal to begin with but also even major graduate programs in Slavistics that have so far been spared only by means of intense lobbying efforts on many different fronts (see Cooper; Diment). As various people in the field have noted, it is sadly ironic that the current demand and concomitant opportunities for competent speakers of Russian are increasing, while the public perception is that Russian has become less useful (see Brecht, Caemmerer, and Walton, esp. pt. 1).
Heritage learners, however, are already convinced of the utility and desirability of studying a particular language. As described by Elizabeth H. D. Mazzocco, their initial motivation is usually not academic but sociocultural; in her words, they are seeking "a socially validating experience, [. . .] the key to a body of ethnic literature that is part of their cultural background, [or] the link with a living culture that has thus far eluded them" (21). Given the public perception of the diminished need for Russian, heritage learners are therefore certain to become an increasingly important constituency in the Russian-language classroom.3 As also pointed out in the literature, however, they will not remain there or attract others like them if their needs are not addressed sensitively and effectively (Gutiérrez; Roca; Benjamin).
Before proceeding further, I should clarify that I am using the term heritage learner rather broadly. I include in this population a whole gamut of students, from individuals born in the United States and raised in Russian-speaking households to those born and partially educated in the former Soviet Union. This spectrum admittedly covers a wide range of language proficiency, from minimal skills to near-native fluency. I certainly recognize the need to distinguish gradations of linguistic competence, a problem frequently addressed by others (Teschner; Roca; Benjamin 45). In the LCTLs, native versus nonnative tracking, as described by Richard Teschner, is virtually impossible to implement, and textbooks designed specifically for bilingual students, like Guadalupe Valdés and Teschner's Español escrito, are still unavailable for Russian. Usually the best solution we can offer is a considered opinion about whether a heritage learner should enroll in a first-year course or begin at a more advanced level. For students with significant oral and aural skills, a compromise is sometimes possible: complete first-year Russian to master Cyrillic and basic grammar and then jump to an advanced course. While I am well aware of this thorny issue, my focus here is a different one. The subsequent remarks apply, at least in some measure, to heritage learners of all sorts.
In the remainder of this essay I review the pedagogical implications of linguistic research on émigré Russian and on language contact in general. I hope that this is an instance where linguistics can truly inform language teaching and vice versa. The sociolinguistic question of standard versus nonstandard speech forms is the most easily transferable to this discussion and serves as a frame of reference throughout. As an initial statement of principle, I strongly advocate close adherence to standard Russian in the classroom, particularly for students raised in Russian-speaking families but for whom English is now dominant. Heritage learners should become aware that not only their own language but also even that of their parents may differ considerably from the standard. Furthermore, they need to understand that these nonstandard features may negatively affect their interaction with people in the motherland--especially in a language like Russian, where the standard enjoys great prestige and is used by the vast majority of educated speakers. The teacher must remain as objective as possible, however, for heritage learners will be ill-served by any implication that their nonstandard language is a shortcoming on their part.4 On the contrary, there are definite reasons for it, and it will be both psychologically helpful and linguistically useful if they become consciously aware of those reasons.
Intonational changes in émigré Russian are a more subtle matter than the use of loan words and neologisms but are no less important to the overall character of the language. Elsewhere, I treated this issue on the basis of an experimental analysis of American-inspired intonational interference in émigré speech ("American Intonational Interference"). I noted three major instances of interference, quite generalized in the Russian of young adult émigrés but also occurring at least sporadically among Soviet-educated subjects. The most prevalent was the loss of the so-called Intonation Construction 1 (IC-1), a simple falling contour, in unmarked declarative utterances.5 IC-1 differs from the corresponding contour in American English, where a slight rise or step-up precedes the fall. In contrast to Russian, a simple fall in American English marks nonneutral declaratives with connotations of disapproval, abruptness, or boredom. The young adult émigrés, for whom English was an equipollent or dominant language, had apparently internalized this perception and therefore avoided the simple fall of standard Russian.
The second major instance of interference occurred in yes-no questions. Standard Russian uses IC-3, a sharp rise on the tonic syllable followed by an equally abrupt fall on any posttonic material. The young adult émigrés often substituted a posttonic gradual rise, characteristic of American English. The third instance also involved the attrition of IC-3 but in another syntactic environment. In nonfinal intonational segments, standard Russian favors IC-3 as a marker of connection to material that is to follow (see Schallert). The young adult émigrés, however, and even many of the Soviet-educated subjects, completely replaced it with a fall-rise, the most frequent marker of connection in American English.
The broader significance of this phenomenon involves details specific to Russian, but teachers of other languages will undoubtedly find parallels to their own fields. Although the three instances of interference I have described rarely impede communication outright, intonation does bear directly on the perception of a language or dialect as one's own.6 Speakers of standard Russian instantly note something peculiar in this Americanized intonation, even when it occurs among older adults for whom it is not as pervasive. More important, the features described here are associated in the former Soviet Union with a stereotypical Odessa accent, which has colorful or comical overtones for many standard speakers.7 The Americanized intonation of the younger émigrés may therefore be met with good-natured derision or silent amusement. Furthermore, the use of rise-falls in declaratives and fall-rises in nonfinal segments is tied to diphthongization of vowels, which is also marked for standard speakers. For instance, it typifies the plantive speech of children.
Almost all heritage learners will exhibit some degree of intonational interference, and they will usually be completely unaware of it. Ideally, of course, all students should be properly trained in intonation. However, it is one thing for a student from a non-Russian background to exhibit these features and work on correcting them; it is quite another for someone who regards the language as his or her own. Moreover, the parents of heritage learners often fail to hear this Americanized intonation, or they simply accept it as just another facet of their children's Russian. In any case, they react differently from monolingual speakers in the former Soviet Union, especially since they themselves often display a milder version of it (see also Visson 185-86; Polinsky 22-23).
More overt than intonational changes are the lexical borrowings and neologistic coinages that characterize most immigrant languages.8 However, teachers of heritage learners must understand that these phenomena are also not simple matters, even if the goal is to combat them. Traditional work on language contact distinguishes at least four distinct types of lexical interference: outright borrowings used to denote new material objects and concepts; semantic extension, in which the meaning of a native word is expanded under the influence of the other language (typical examples in émigré Russian are blok as in a city block, forma for form, departament for department in a variety of contexts, kredit for credit in the academic sense, and fil'm for photographic film); loan translations, related to the previous type but involving the calquing of an entire word-phrase from one language to the other, such as brat'avtobus 'to take a bus' and imet'klass 'to have a class'; and hybrid compounds, in which a native affix is joined to a foreign root, as in the émigré verbs drajvit' or drajvat' 'to drive,' 
'to shop,' and tutorstvovat' 'to tutor.'9
The Russian language has many mechanisms for the incorporation of borrowings in an assimilated form, and the heritage learner may therefore be unaware that certain words or expressions are used only in émigré speech. Most new nouns conform to one of the three declensional patterns, like the majority of earlier borrowings into the standard language. Semantic extension is even more difficult for the heritage learner to detect. Since these are already bona fide Russian words that students have both heard and read, it is even more difficult for the students to remember that their use in a particular meaning or context may have resulted from contact with English. The same holds true for loan translations, which will seem perfectly acceptable if they otherwise conform to Russian morphology and syntax. Even outright neologisms like and tutorstvovat' are not all that strange, in the light of similar formations with a foreign root plus a native verbal suffix in standard Russian--for example, organizovat' 'to organize' and argumentirovat' 'to argue' (an opinion).
Adults educated in the motherland know which usages are anglicisms and which are not, but their children--our heritage learners--often have no idea whatsoever. Even among the older group, many forms have become so ingrained that they are used spontaneously by almost everyone. Polinsky offers a list of borrowings that she says are obligatory, or else the speaker will be subject to correction by other émigrés: paund 'pound' (a unit of weight), karpit 'carpet,' londri 'laundry, Laundromat,' èrija 'area' (of a city), 
'insurance,' and xaspital 'hospital' and verbal neologisms that are nearly as universal: drajvat' 'to drive,' 'to shop,' 
'to insure,' 
'to cash,' afordit' 'to afford,' and rentovat' 'to rent.' But a list like this usually elicits laughter in an audience of Russian teachers and sometimes outright derision or hostility from language purists. While I do not suggest that we encourage such forms in the classroom, I also contend that ridicule or condemnation is the wrong way to combat them.
There is an obvious need for immigrants to depict American realia, and very often a word is adopted along with a new material object or concept. Why speak, for instance, of a dvuxbedrumnaja or dvuxbedrennaja (English-inspired hybrid compounds)10 kvartira 'two-bedroom apartment'? Categorizing apartments by the number of bedrooms, not by the number of rooms as in the former Soviet Union, is a new way of looking at the world. Or consider an overt borrowing like ril'-èstèjt 'real estate.' It does have a standard equivalent, 
or 
, but few adult émigrés had occasion to use it in the Soviet Union, nor was it an important concept there at the time of their departure. Even the replacement of very high frequency words has a sociocultural explanation. For instance, the use of lajsens 'driver's license' by many speakers, instead of the standard (voditel'skie) prava, signals the exaggerated importance of the automobile in American society.11
The cultural divide between Russia and the West is not as pronounced today as during the cold war, but many émigrés of the so-called third wave (i.e., the migration of the 1970s and early 1980s) had to reconcile the legacy of a Soviet upbringing with the actualities of an American adulthood.12 In sociolinguistic work (Andrews, "American-Immigrant Russian" and Sociocultural Perspectives), I have centered on the unique position of the third wave among American immigrants--the only group raised wholly under Soviet socialism and obliged to adapt to life in what had always been portrayed as its polar opposite, American capitalism. The widespread adoption of such lexical innovation was, in part, also a means of affirming mastery of and attachment to the new society, even if only on a subconscious level. Therefore, borrowings and neologisms not only play a semantic role but also function as a badge of assimilation, another reason that certain forms have become regularized for many speakers.
We must therefore consider some rather delicate sensibilities when addressing the use of anglicisms by the heritage learner. As explained previously, it is far from certain that he or she will even be consciously aware of them. Regardless of this, however, students react negatively to blanket condemnation--not only because their parents "say it that way" but also for the underlying sociological reasons outlined above. It is difficult enough for young people to straddle two cultures and not choose the often easier path of complete assimilation. The use of anglicisms is no sign of disrespect for the Russian language. On the contrary, as Einar Haugen maintains (70-72), it is often the very families most insistent on language maintenance who have made the sociocultural compromise of incorporating anglicisms into their native speech.
Moreover, in other work I have argued that the matter of émigré anglicisms goes beyond these important social considerations and into the realm of psycholinguistic categorization--that is, into the very relation between language and thought ("Russian Color Categories"; "Cognitive-Semantic Approach"). While a full discussion is impossible here, I will touch on a few examples pertinent to English-dominant bilinguals in the Russian-language classroom. I first examined a topic from this perspective in an experimental analysis of the color terms sinij 'dark blue' and goluboj 'light blue' ("Russian Color Categories"). In sum, I discovered that for adult émigrés both words had remained so-called basic, or first-tier, color terms, as they are for monolingual native speakers.13 Among the English-dominant bilinguals in the study, however, the two terms were no longer prototypical color words, the result of English interference based on the more encompassing category blue. For these speakers either goluboj and sinij had become interchangeable or else sinij had become the basic category and goluboj a subordinate term within it.
The above example is only of marginal importance from a communicative perspective. It does, however, illustrate an important characteristic of category restructuring. Although there had been a definite semantic shift for the young adult émigrés, both terms remained semantically salient to some degree; it was their range and application that differed from the usage of standard speakers. This fact is of major importance in categories that do play more of a communicative role. For instance, many English-dominant bilinguals undergo a breakdown in the categorization of motion verbs, an important subset of the Russian aspectual system.14 In short, Russian maintains a distinction not only between movement under one's own power and conveyance by any other means but also between unidirectional and multidirectional motion. For instance, the English past-tense form went corresponds to four completely different Russian verbs, depending on whether the person in question went by foot or by vehicle and on whether that person made a round trip or is presumably still at his or her destination. As arcane as these distinctions may sound to someone unfamiliar with the language, they are very important for standard speakers.
Among English-dominant heritage learners, the most prevalent problem is the generalization of idti and pojti 'to go under one's own power, unidirectional' to all situations in which English uses to go. Of course, this mistake is also the most common one made by English-speaking students of non-Russian background, but there is a major difference between learning about linguistic categories for the first time and readjusting those that have always been familiar on some level. For the heritage learner the various standard terms have often become ingrained as subordinate categories, even if only passively. Such speakers have no problem understanding the terms in others' speech or writing, and they may occasionally use them in free variation with idi and pojti without realizing it.
By way of concrete example, I had a heritage learner in a first-year course who consistently used 
(past tense of the above-mentioned pojti) for all usages corresponding to the English went. She typically used in utterances like 
'I went to the library last night' instead of using the multidirectional xodila for indicating a round trip in the past or said 
'I went to Russia last year' instead of using the multidirectional ezdila. The second example is actually a "double" mistake in its failure to account not only for the round trip but also for motion by vehicle and is therefore dually problematic for a standard speaker. Getting this individual to use the necessary forms was even more difficult than it is with typical American students, because she was so unused to thinking about them on a conscious level. During an oral exam, for instance, I wanted her to talk about the trip to Russia that she had frequently brought up in class. Aware of her problems with motion verbs, I purposely prompted her with the desired form: Na zanjatijax vy govorili, 
ezdili v Rossiju, da? 'In class you've been saying that you went to Russia last year, right?' She replied instantly with the same twofold mistake as in the second example above: Da, ja 
tuda na dve nedeli, letom. 'Yes, I went there for two weeks in the summer.'
Other instances of interference are even more difficult to combat. Elsewhere, I argued that the coinage of expressions with brat' 'to take,' based on idiomatic usages of the English verb, is more than just the simple influence of one language on another ("Cognitive-Semantic Approach").15 If we consider such combinations as to take a course, to take a test, to take action, to take heart, to take pride, to take account of, to take a liking to, to take a risk, to take one's chances, to take the lead, and to take it easy, the verb at first seems clearly polysemous, yet there must be some unifying factor that has given rise to all these usages. I argue that to take in English has become a prototypical means of expressing the concept "to cause oneself to have or to experience the use or effect of something." A Russian émigré in an English-speaking environment is bombarded by this means of expressing almost every human activity imaginable and therefore cannot help extending some of them into his or her Russian. Most important, it is not only English-dominant bilinguals who adopt them. Nonstandard collocations like brat' avtobus 'to take a bus' and brat' kurs 'to take a course' are used frequently even by Soviet-educated émigrés, although their children incorporate many more--for example, brat' risk 'to take a risk' or brat' svoi sansy 'to take one's chances.' If there is a bona fide cognitive reason that even Russian-dominant bilinguals use such expressions, then their greater occurrence among English-dominant heritage learners is all the more understandable.
There are many other examples of both the sociocultural and the cognitive implications language contact for the heritage learner. I have attempted to present a random sampling of the topic from several different perspectives and to persuade foreign-language teachers of its direct applicability to our craft. In conclusion, I strongly support Gutiérrez's assertion that instructors of bilingual students "should learn basic notions of sociolinguistics" (35-36). It is especially important that they become acquainted with the principles of language contact and with the sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic characteristics of the particular speech community they serve. A measure of familiarity with various aspects of immigrant languages--not only how they differ from the corresponding standard languages but also why they do so--will greatly enhance our teaching of heritage learners. We will then be able to address their needs with greater competence and understanding, and more of them will come to realize that there is indeed something to be gained from our classrooms.
The author is Associate Professor of Slavic Languages at Georgetown University.
This article is a revised and expanded version of a presentation I made at an annual convention of the American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages (AATSEEL), on a panel devoted entirely to the Russian heritage learner. I am indebted to Sarah Heyer of Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, for organizing and chairing this panel, inviting my participation, and suggesting several sources on non-Russian heritage learners.
1See especially the "classics" in these areas, such as Weinreich's Languages in Contact, Haugen's The Norwegian Language in America, and Fishman et al.'s Language Loyalty in the United States.
2According to Chaput these traditional difficulties include "limited time, limited choices in textbooks and other materials, limited or nonexistent computer and video resources, [and] limited resources in general" (29).
3Brecht, Caemmerer, and Walton report that "family heritage" was cited as one reason for beginning the study of Russian by 14.7% of undergraduate respondents, already a substantial number (76).
4Again, the need for sensitivity in this matter is widely addressed in the literature (Mazzocco 22; Gutiérrez; Roca 42; Benjamin 44). Gutiérrez especially argues that instructors must recognize the implications of American bilingualism--of belonging simultaneously to both an English and a non-English speech community.
5The system of ICs, devised by Bryzgunova ("Intonacija" and Zvuki), is the conventional treatment of Russian intonation.
6Consider, for instance, the intonational differences between British and American English, as noted by Leed in his article on contrastive Russian and English intonation (62-63). Although he predates Bryzgunova, Leed offers an excellent survey of intonational interference and its communicative disadvantages.
7Odessa, a freewheeling, multicultural port city, has long enjoyed a picturesque reputation. The accent probably originated among the Odessa Jews, the result of a Yiddish substrate, but it is not limited to any one ethnic or religious group there.
8See especially Benson ("American Influence," "American-Russian Speech"), Olmsted, Andrews ("How and Why," "Semantic Categorization," "American-Immigrant Russian," Sociocultural Perspectives), and Polinsky, all of whom comment on both the social and the structural dimensions of borrowings in émigré Russian.
9See the works by Weinreich and Haugen, who established this typology. While the two differ slightly in terminology, the salience of these categories is widely recognized.
10In the adjectives dvuxbedrumnaja and dvuxbedrennaja both a native prefix and a native suffix have been added to a phonetically Russified form of the English word bedroom.
11See also Olmsted's analysis of the motivations for lexical borrowing (esp. 92-93).
12It is traditional to describe the major migrations of Russian-speaking immigrants to the West as the three "waves": the first precipitated by the Revolution of 1917, the second by World War II and its aftermath, the third by the policy of Soviet-American détente.
13The notion of basic color terms was established in Berlin and Kay's seminal work and has many ramifications in psychology, anthropology, and linguistics.
14Weinreich mentions the confusion of motion verb categories in American Yiddish (54); Andrews ("How and Why" 31 and Sociocultural Perspectives 35-36, 82, 87, 89) and Polinsky (36, 41, 53) have noted it in third-wave émigré Russian.
15The widespread adoption of such idioms is reported by virtually every investigator of émigré Russian (see the list of works in note 8). In future work I hope to expand on the cognitive aspects of language contact outlined here; my analysis of brat' was inspired especially by discussions of metaphorical extension and polysemy in Lakoff and Johnson and in Johnson.
Andrews, David R. "American-Immigrant Russian: Sociocultural Perspectives on Borrowings from English in the Language of the Third Wave." Language Quarterly 31.3-4 (1993): 153-76.
------. "American Intonational Interference in Émigré Russian: A Comparative Analysis of Elicited Speech Samples." Slavic and East European Journal 37.2 (1993): 162-77.
------. "A Cognitive-Semantic Approach to Problems of Language Contact in Émigré Russian." Semantics Panel. Amer. Assn. of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages convention. Chicago. 28 Dec. 1995.
------. "The How and Why of Some Borrowings from Third-Wave Émigré Russian." Diss. U of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1988.
------. "The Russian Color Categories Sinij and Goluboj: An Experimental Analysis of Their Interpretation in the Standard and Émigré Languages." Journal of Slavic Languages 2.1 (1994): 9-28.
------. "A Semantic Categorization of Some Borrowings from English in Third-Wave Émigré Russian." Topics in Colloquial Russian. Ed. Margaret H. Mills. New York: Lang, 1990. 157-73.
------. Sociocultural Perspectives on Language Change in Diaspora: Soviet Immigrants in the United States. Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1999.
Benjamin, Rebecca. "What Do Our Students Want? Some Reflections on Teaching Spanish as an Academic Subject to Bilingual Students." ADFL Bulletin 29.1 (1997): 44-47. [Show Article]
Benson, Morton. "American Influence on the Immigrant Russian Press." American Speech 32.4 (1957): 257-63.
------. "American-Russian Speech." American Speech 35.3 (1960): 163-74.
Berlin, Brent, and Paul Kay. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.
Brecht, Richard D., with John Caemmerer and A. Ronald Walton. Russian in the United States: A Case Study of America's Needs and Capacities. Washington: Natl. Foreign Lang. Center, 1995.
Bryzgunova, E. A. "Intonacija." Russkaja Grammatika. Vol. 1. Ed. N. Ju. 
. Moskva: Nauka, 1980. 96-122.
------. Zvuki i intonacija russkoj 
. Moskva: Russkij jazyk, 1977.
Chaput, Patricia R. "Difficult Choices: Planning and Prioritizing in a Language Program." ADFL Bulletin 28.1 (1996): 29-34. [Show Article]
Cooper, Henry R., Jr. "The Tense Situation of Slavic: Past, Present, Future." ADFL Bulletin 29.2 (1998): 25-27. [Show Article]
Diment, Gayla. "Trying to Stay Alive in the Age of Eliminations and Reductions." ADFL Bulletin 29.2 (1998): 28-31. [Show Article]
Fishman, Joshua A., et al. Language Loyalty in the United States: The Maintenance and Perpetuation of Non-English Mother Tongues by American Ethnic and Religious Groups. The Hague: Mouton, 1966.
Gutiérrez, John R. "Teaching Spanish as a Heritage Language: A Case for Language Awareness." ADFL Bulletin 29.1 (1997): 33-36. [Show Article]
Haugen, Einar. The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1969.
Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.
Leed, Richard L. "A Contrastive Analysis of Russian and English Intonation Contours." Slavic and East European Journal 9.1 (1965): 62-75.
Mazzocco, Elizabeth H. D. "The Heritage versus the Nonheritage Language Learner: The Five College Self-Instructional Language Program's Solutions to the Problem of Separation or Unification." ADFL Bulletin 28.1 (1996): 20-23. [Show Article]
Olmsted, Hugh M. "American Interference in the Russian Language of the Third-Wave Emigration: Preliminary Notes." Folia Slavica 8.1 (1986): 91-127.
Polinsky, Maria. "Russian in the U.S.: An Endangered Language." Russian in Contact with Other Languages. Unpublished ms. 1994.
Roca, Ana. "Retrospectives, Advances, and Current Needs in the Teaching of Spanish to United States Hispanic Bilingual Students." ADFL Bulletin 29.1 (1997): 37-43. [Show Article]
Schallert, Jan Eame. "Intonation beyond the Utterance: A Distributional Analysis of Rising and Falling Contours." Topics in Colloquial Russian. Ed. Margaret H. Mills. New York: Lang, 1990. 51-65.
Teschner, Richard V. "Spanish Placement for Native Speakers, Nonnative Speakers, and Others." ADFL Bulletin 14.3 (1983): 37-42. [Show Article]
------. "Spanish Speakers Semi- and Residually Native: After the Placement Test Is Over." Hispania 73.3 (1990): 816-22.
Valdés, Guadalupe, and Richard V. Teschner. "Español escrito. Curso para hispanohablantes bilingües. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1993.
Visson, Lynn. "Russian in America: Notes on the Russian Spoken by Émigrés." Russian Language Journal 43.145-46 (1989): 185-91.
Weinreich, Uriel. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton, 1979.
© 2000 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
