21, no. 2 (Winter 1990): 12-19 To the Editor Search

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

Works Cited

IN THE following pages, I review some statistics on the status of minorities in higher education, focusing on foreign languages wherever possible. The figures indicate that, with the exception of Hispanics, little progress has been made in incorporating minorities into foreign language programs since the late 1970s. Not only has the minority presence remained woefully small among faculty members, but the percentage of minorities among bachelor's- and doctoral-degree recipients has barely increased. The 1990s will provide an opportunity to hire large numbers of minority faculty members, because many retiring faculty members will need to be replaced. Taking advantage of this opportunity will not be feasible, however, unless immediate steps are taken to significantly enlarge the pool of minorities with language degrees. There are numerous strategies for doing so, including mentoring programs, transfer programs for junior college students, summer seminars for promising high school students, bridge programs, and supplementary honors workshops. Each is briefly described in the concluding section of this paper.

Faculty Composition in the 1980s

In the fall of 1985, the most recent year for which I could find figures, minorities accounted for 10% of all college and university faculty members in the United States. As the bottom row of table 1 indicates, Asians and blacks are the most numerous, while Hispanics and, especially, American Indians are the least. ¹ It is important to note that there are considerably more minority faculty members at two-year-colleges than at four-year institutions (Maguire 27). Table 1 presents the percentage of various racial or ethnic groups at each academic rank. By and large, whites are more likely than minorities to be associate or full professors, while minorities are more likely to be assistant professors or instructors and lecturers. These differences are most pronounced when one compares blacks and whites and least evident when one compares Asians and whites. The significance of these differences should not be exaggerated, however, because, in large part, they may be due to the younger professional age of minority faculty members.

Table 2 presents the percentages of the same groups with tenure in 1975 and 1985. The figures at the bottom of the table are percent-change figures that indicate the degree to which the size of the racial and ethnic groups increased or decreased during the given period between 1975 and 1985. It is important to bear in mind that percent-change figures for minority groups in this table and in subsequent ones are based on small numbers. Consequently, even a small numerical gain may appear large when converted into a percentage. Thus, for example, the number of American Indians with tenure grew by more than 100% between 1975 and 1985, but this growth represents an increase of only 453 (from 413 to 886).

The bottom row of table 2 indicates that between 1975 and 1985 the number of faculty members with tenure-track positions grew substantially among Asians and American Indians, moderately among Hispanics, and very little among blacks. Overall, the number of minorities with tenure-track positions increased by 31%, compared with a 1.5% decline for whites. The percent increase in faculty members with tenure was substantial in each minority group. For all, the number grew by 58% between 1975 and 1985, while the number of whites with tenure grew by only 9%. Unfortunately, similar gains were not registered at the junior level. The number of minority faculty members with assistant professorships and other junior-level tenure-track positions grew by less than 2% between 1975 and 1985, with blacks and Hispanics registering numerical declines (table 13 in ACE, 1988). This means that the small number of minorities eligible for tenure has remained fairly constant during the past decade. With such small numbers, there is little prospect of significantly increasing minority representation among tenured professors during the early 1990s.

Despite limited growth in the size of the junior faculty group, minority representation grew somewhat- from 11% to 13%-largely because the number of whites in untenured tenure-track positions declined by 20%. Minorities' numerical gains among tenured faculty members between 1975 and 1985 translated into considerable gains in percentage representation. In 1975, 65% of all white tenure-track faculty members had tenure, compared with 52% of all minorities. By 1985, the figures were 72% and 63%. Thus, minorities went from being 6% of all tenured professors in 1975 to being 9% in 1985. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that minority academics, although few in number, are advancing through the ranks and achieving tenure.

Statistics on the percentage of humanities faculty members who are minorities are not available, so we must make do with the next best thing: figures on all humanities PhDs, nearly 80% of whom taught at colleges and universities during the first half of the 1980s (as did a similar percentage of PhDs in English and foreign languages in this period). Since the figures in table 3 include both United States and foreign nationals, the numbers for Asians, and to a lesser extent for Hispanics and blacks, are inflated. ² The inclusion of foreign citizens is a special problem for the evaluation of foreign language figures because during the first half of the 1980s approximately 8% of all foreign language PhDs were foreign nationals, compared with 3% of all humanities PhDs (table 2.3 in NRC, 1980; table 2 in NRC, 1989). The inclusion of statistics on foreign citizens in summary figures hampers the accurate assessment of the status of minorities who are United States citizens and obscures the need for affirmative action to increase the representation of minorities educated in the United States.

The figures at the bottom of table 3 indicate that the pool of humanities PhDs grew substantially between 1979 and 1987, increasing by close to 50%, presumably because more scholars entered the field than retired. The PhD pool in foreign languages grew less but increased by 39% overall. With the exception of American Indians, minority groups increased in size substantially more than this average, an expansion in keeping with their above-average growth among all humanities PhDs. But because the numbers involved are small and the size of the whole PhD pool increased, this growth led to limited gains in minority representation between 1979 and 1987. Among all humanities PhDs, the percentage of minorities went from 5.8% of the total to 6.4%, while in foreign languages their representation increased from 11.6% to 14.7% (the comparable figures for English are 3.2% and 3.7%).

Most of the growth in the minority segment of the foreign language PhD pool is due to a substantial increase in the percentage of Hispanics. This is not an entirely positive development, however, because it means that Hispanic humanities PhDs have become even more concentrated in foreign languages than they had been. In 1979, of all humanities PhDs held by Hispanics, 61% were in foreign languages. By 1987, the figures had risen to 65%, while the percentage of foreign language specialists among all humanities PhDs had declined from 18.4% to 17.5%. Asians are also disproportionately clustered in foreign languages, but this concentration became less pronounced during the first half of the 1980s. In 1979, 25% of all Asians with humanities doctorates were in foreign languages, compared with 22.5% in 1987. Figures for new PhDs suggest that the concentration of Hispanics in foreign languages also will lessen in the years ahead. Of the doctorates granted to Hispanics, 6% were in foreign languages in 1984–85, compared with 10% in 1978–79. A similar decline is evident for Asians; of all Asians receiving doctorates in 1984–85, 0.5% were specialists in foreign languages, compared with 1.1% in 1978–79. The percentage of all 1984–85 doctorates that went to specialists in foreign languages also decreased during this period, but by less (the figures are 2% in 1978–79 and 1.3% in 1984–85). ³ Given these trends, it appears likely that in the years ahead the representation of Hispanics among PhDs on foreign language faculties will decline.

The 1990s: Opportunity to Increase Faculty Diversity

With the exception of Hispanics, minorities earn relatively few foreign language doctorates and have made small gains since 1980. To a large extent, this lack of progress may be due to a stagnant academic job market in which the supply of doctorate recipients outstripped the demand. But this situation is beginning to reverse itself, and by the mid-1990s the market may well be supply- rather than demand-driven. This projected change is due to two factors: renewed growth in college enrollments and a rise in the retirement rate among faculty members.

Most projections indicate that college enrollments will reach their lowest level in 1995–96. Thereafter, enrollments will begin to increase once again and continue to do so until the 2005–10 period (Bowen and Schuster). Such expectations rest on the rise in the number of live births after 1975, from 3.1 million in that year to 3.7 million in 1982. These increasing numbers will translate into larger high school classes by the end of the century. Thus, the number of high school graduates, which serves as the basis for projections of college enrollments, is expected to rise from 2.3 million in 1992 to 2.7 million by the year 2000 (McConnell and Kaufman). Such an increase in the 18- to 24-year-old group will not automatically lead to significantly larger college enrollments, however, because the proportion of high school graduates attending college may decline as the number increases. (Enrollments did not decline during the 1980s partly because a higher proportion of high school graduates attended college in that decade than in the 1960s.) In addition, older, nontraditional students, who swelled college ranks during the 1980s, may decline in number during the 1990s, thereby reducing the overall size of college classes. ⁴ Nonetheless, it seems clear that maintaining enrollment levels will no longer be a problem after the mid-1990s.

At the same time that the number of high school graduates is projected to begin increasing again, the academic retirement rate is expected to rise sharply. After the mid-1990s, some institutions will lose half their faculties in a five-year period (Hodgkinson 15). Given this simultaneous increase in student numbers and faculty retirements, an average of 14,000–26,000 new faculty members may have to be appointed each year between 1995 and 2010 (Bowen and Schuster). Even during the first five years of the 1990s, when college enrollments are expected to be at their low point, at least 30,000, and perhaps as many as 100,000, new faculty members will be hired nationwide, according to estimates developed by Bowen and Schuster. There appears to be little question that academic employment opportunities will begin to expand rapidly by the mid-1990s, if not several years earlier.

The Faculty of Tomorrow: Graduate and Undergraduate Students

The 1990s, therefore, will provide an opportunity to diversify college and university faculties by hiring substantial numbers of minorities, provided that there are sufficiently large pools of minority bachelor's- and doctoral-degree recipients. The two right-hand columns of table 4 indicate a slight increase in the overall representation of minorities among college and university students during the first half of the 1980s. Among undergraduate students, minority representation increased from 17.7% to 18.4%, while among graduate students it remained unchanged at 11%. These are hardly impressive gains, especially since the percentage of blacks actually decreased between 1980 and 1984, as did their numbers (see percent-change figures). Moreover, the percentage of full-time undergraduates who are black peaked in 1978 at 10.6% and has declined steadily since then (Wharton 4). During the early 1980s, the loss in black enrollment was counterbalanced by small gains among Hispanics, primarily at the undergraduate level, and a substantial gain by Asians.

The first numerical column of table 4 shows the representation of major racial and ethnic groups among elementary and secondary school students. Minority representation is substantially higher at this level than at the postsecondary level-almost 30%, versus 11% among graduate students and 18% among undergraduate students in 1984-and is expected to increase in the years ahead (Hodgkinson). At present, minorities account for 14% of all adults and 20% of all children in the United States population. By the year 2000, one-third of all school-age children will be members of minority groups (Rosenberg 44). And in some Western states, such as California and Texas, minority children will be a substantial majority.

In some sense, the elementary and secondary school enrollment figures presented in table 4 are not comparable with the figures for undergraduate and graduate enrollments, because there are fewer minorities in older student groups. The elementary and secondary school figures do provide a goal for postsecondary institutions, however. Thus, if blacks were 16% of the elementary and secondary school population in 1984, they should represent 16% of the postsecondary population by the early or mid-1990s. Achieving this goal would mean increasing blacks' 1984 representation among undergraduates by more than 50% and tripling their representation among graduate students.

Inclusion in the student body does not automatically translate into degrees granted, however. Of those blacks who graduated from high school in 1980 and entered college within the next two years, 71% left college by 1986 without receiving a degree. The equivalent figure for Hispanics is 66%, and for American Indians 65%. Among white 1980 high school graduates, in contrast, 55% left college by 1986 without getting a degree, as did 47% of the Asian high school graduates (ACE, 1988, 9). Even though minorities accounted for 18% of all undergraduate students in 1984, they received only 12% of the bachelor's degrees granted in 1984–85, according to figures presented in the first column of table 5. Including minorities in the student body is only half of the challenge; the other half is retaining them in graduate and undergraduate programs until they receive degrees.

Table 5 presents degree figures for 1978–79 and 1984–85, along with percent-change figures. ⁵ These figures are a good deal more useful for present purposes than those presented in table 3 because table 5 excludes degrees granted to nonresident aliens. Degrees received by permanent residents of foreign birth are included, however. The figures for Asians, Hispanics, and blacks, therefore, may still be inflated and should be interpreted with some caution.

The percent-change figures in table 5 reveal that there was some growth in the total number of bachelor's degrees granted during the first half of the 1980s, but that the number of BAs granted in letters and foreign languages declined by almost one-fifth. The number of BAs granted in foreign languages declined among whites, blacks, and Hispanics but remained fairly constant among Asians and American Indians. The pattern among all bachelor's-degree recipients is somewhat different, with most minority groups showing above-average gains; blacks are the only group to show losses during the early 1980s. Thus, both Asians and Hispanics gained more ground among all bachelor's-degree recipients than they did among those in foreign languages, while blacks experienced consistent losses.

The percentage of bachelor's-degree recipients in 1984–85 who were minorities, whether letters, foreign languages, or all fields are considered, was virtually the same as in 1978–79. The aggregate figures mask the diminishing representation of blacks and the better representation of Asians and Hispanics among all bachelor's-degree recipients and the diminishing representation of Hispanics and the better representation of Asians and blacks among foreign language BA recipients. Hispanic losses and black gains among those receiving bachelor's degrees in foreign languages are thus atypical. Nonetheless, compared with their groups' representation among bachelor's-degree recipients in all fields, Hispanics remain overrepresented in foreign languages and blacks underrepresented.

At the graduate level, the patterns are much the same as at the undergraduate level. Although the total number of doctorates granted declined during the early 1980s, the decline was considerably more pronounced for letters and foreign languages. In foreign languages, all minorities experienced losses in numbers of doctorates granted, but since the losses were below the average loss for all groups, they represent a relative gain. For all fields, in contrast, among minorities only blacks experienced above-average losses in number of doctorates granted; other minority groups experienced gains. These changes translated into small gains in overall minority representation among all doctorate recipients, as well as among recipients of doctorates in foreign languages. In 1978–79, 11.3% of all PhDs granted in foreign languages went to minorities, compared with 16% in 1984–85. Most of this increase was due to gains by Hispanics, although blacks also enjoyed greater representation among doctorate recipients in foreign languages. This improvement contrasts with all PhDs granted, where blacks experienced a small loss. Nonetheless, compared with all PhD recipients, blacks remain underrepresented among those receiving doctorates in foreign languages during 1984–85. In short, the figures on degrees granted suggest that, with the exception of Hispanics, minorities still receive a very small percentage of the PhDs granted in foreign languages and have made only limited gains since 1980.

The Challenge: Recruiting and Retaining Minority Scholars

Table 6 presents some of the figures included in preceding tables in a manner that allows us to compare the representation of minorities at different educational levels. The elementary and secondary school enrollment figures presented in the first numerical column are the same for all fields and for foreign languages; this column is presented as a benchmark, the representation to strive for at all levels of higher education. Comparing these figures with those for the pool of humanities doctorate holders indicates that minorities are poorly represented on today's college and university faculties. With the exception of Hispanics, minorities are equally poorly represented among all doctorate holders in foreign languages. Individual groups tend to be better represented among recent bachelor's- and doctoral-degree recipients, though there is a significant exception. Hispanics are less well represented among BA recipients in foreign languages than they are among all doctorate holders and among all elementary and secondary students. Unless the BA and PhD pools of other minorities are enlarged substantially in the near future, it will prove difficult, if not impossible, to diversify foreign language faculties during the 1990s.

According to some observers, minorities have made little progress in humanities disciplines in recent years because they have abandoned these fields in favor of more lucrative careers in business and the professions. If this were so, one would expect that foreign language degrees would be a smaller percentage of all degrees granted minorities in 1985 than in 1979. This appears to be the case at the doctoral level, where 1.9% of all degrees granted to minorities in 1985 were granted in foreign languages, compared with 2.4% in 1979. But, while this represents a decline of 21%, which was confined to Asians and Hispanics, the decline is considerably less than the 35% decline in foreign language doctorates granted to all racial and ethnic groups (the percentage of all doctorates granted in foreign languages was 1.3% in 1984–85 and 2% in 1979). At the bachelor's-degree level, there is also no real evidence of decreasing minority interest in foreign languages. In 1984–85, 1.2% of all bachelor's degrees granted to minorities were in foreign languages, compared with 1.7% in 1978–79. During the same period, the percentage of all degrees granted in foreign languages decreased from 1.3% to 1%, which represents a decrease of 30%; the percent decrease among minorities is virtually identical (29%). It appears, therefore, that minorities, especially blacks, remain as interested in foreign languages as ever.

In any attempt to increase the representation of minorities among students and faculty members in foreign languages, particular attention should be paid to recruiting and retaining black students, because they are more severely underrepresented than are other minority groups and because, in contrast to blacks in other fields, blacks in foreign languages appear to have made gains during the 1980s. ⁶ A first step might be a program designed to encourage black foreign language majors to seek advanced training. The figures presented in table 6 suggest that such efforts might bear fruit, since, in contrast to most other minority groups, blacks are substantially better represented among BA recipients in foreign languages than in the pool of all foreign language doctorate holders.

There are a number of other mechanisms that are effective for recruiting and retaining minorities. Addressing this concern at the faculty level, a group of minority academics, known as the Policy/Action Group, recently issued a report stressing the importance of legitimating new topics of inquiry and unconventional styles of scholarship that are of particular interest to minorities but are currently undervalued or ignored in the academy. In the language area, this effort might involve greater attention to the languages and literatures of non-European groups. In addition, the Policy/Action Group notes that junior faculty members, as well as graduate students, need mentors. The panel recommends that faculty members who are adept at advising junior colleagues and students should receive credit for such work during tenure and promotion reviews. Other incentives, such as paid leave or released time from teaching, might also be provided.

At the student level, a simple mechanism for significantly enlarging the percentage of minorities is available to many four-year institutions. Minorities constitute a higher percentage of students at two-year colleges than at four-year colleges-22% versus 15% in 1986 (ACE, 1988, 24)-and are more likely than whites to attend two-year institutions. In 1986, 46% of all minorities attending college were enrolled in two-year institutions, compared with 36% of whites (ACE, 1988, 8). Clearly defined transfer programs, therefore, could substantially enlarge the number of minority students at four-year institutions since, at present, the rate of transfer from two- to four-year colleges is less than 15% (Daniels). To succeed, such programs require concrete articulation agreements that guarantee admission to four-year institutions for students who successfully complete specific courses offered at their junior colleges (Cage). The transfer process can be considerably facilitated if the faculty members teaching at the affected two- and four-year institutions meet regularly to discuss issues and topics of importance to their disciplines and institutions (Maguire 36). In fact, the Ford Foundation and the American Council on Education recently set up a grants program designed to foster just such collaboration (Daniels).

Some of the natural sciences have taken the lead by trying to make their disciplines appealing to minorities, and humanists can learn from these efforts. A key factor in successful outreach is beginning during the high school years. One model that has proved effective is a summer seminar for high school juniors that focuses on developing general skills and enhancing minority students' confidence in their ability to do college-level work. During the seminar period, students are assigned faculty mentors, whom they ideally retain when they enter college (Cordes). In addition to intervention at the high school level, “bridge programs” are essential. Offered just before classes start in the fall, these give new students an opportunity to adjust to campus life and to sharpen their study skills. Such programs typically focus on entering college students but can be equally effective and important for incoming graduate students (Cordes; Maguire; Policy/Action Group).

Once minority students enter graduate or undergraduate programs, they, like other students, need continuing support if they are to succeed. One insurmountable hurdle for many students is the introductory course that must be completed before advanced study in a field is possible. Experience with such courses in mathematics suggests that challenging minority students to excel by giving them advanced work can be more effective than remediation. Philip Uri Treisman, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has developed a widely copied supplementary “honors” workshop for first-year students taking the introductory calculus course. Meeting several times a week, students in the workshop collaborate in small groups to solve calculus problems more challenging than those set in the introductory course. The students are aided by a teaching assistant, who provides helpful advice but no solutions. Because the workshop format helps students overcome their isolation and learn from one another, it may help minority students in particular, who often feel like outsiders. The insights gained in the workshop help students perform better in the introductory calculus course (Watkins). A similar approach, geared to foreign languages, might involve intensive language-learning experiences in conjunction with the usual first-year course. The support that will help minority students succeed in graduate and undergraduate programs can take many other forms: role models, either faculty members or older students; study groups; assistance in covering educational expenses, often vital for students from impoverished circumstances or with family responsibilities; and collaborative research with faculty members (Cordes; Policy/Action Group). The importance of the last for graduate students is widely recognized, but it may be equally important for undergraduates. There is some evidence that involving college students in faculty research may influence them to seek graduate training and eventually academic careers (Mangan).

In short, there are numerous strategies for incorporating minority students into postsecondary programs and institutions. And the more progress made now in enlarging the percentage of minorities among undergraduate and graduate students, the easier it will be to diversify faculty ranks during the 1990s. ⁷

The author is Director of Research at the Modern Language Association. This article is based on a paper presented at ADFL Seminar West, 15–17 June1989, in Northridge, California.

Notes

¹ Throughout this paper, I use shortened labels to refer to major racial and ethnic groups. Thus, the category American Indians includes Alaskan natives as well, while the Asian group includes Pacific Islanders. Both the white and black groups are restricted to non-Hispanics. Because of rounding errors, the percentages presented in table 1 and elsewhere may not add up to 100%. Further, students, faculty members, and degree recipients whose race or ethnicity is unknown were eliminated from all tables.

² The inclusion of statistics on foreign nationals has a different effect for each racial or ethnic group. Of all 1986–87 doctorate recipients who were Asians, 13% were United States citizens, as were 63% of all black doctorate recipients, and 59% of all Hispanic doctorate recipients-the last figure drops to 50% if Puerto Ricans are excluded. In contrast, 90% of all whites receiving doctorates in 1986–87 were United States citizens, as were 100% of the American Indian doctorate recipients. (The figures for these percentages are taken from table 5 in appendix A, NRC, 1989.)

³ The percentage of foreign language doctorates granted to Hispanics fell by 40% during the first five years of the 1980s, compared with 35% for doctorates granted to all racial and ethnic groups.

⁴ During the 1970s and 1980s, large numbers of women returned to college after taking time out to raise families. At the same time, young women became more likely to complete college right after high school. Thus it seems likely that there will be fewer returning women students in the years ahead.

⁵ Figures for English are not available. Consequently, for the purposes of comparison, I present figures for recipients of degrees in letters. The fields included in this category are listed at the bottom of table 5.

⁶ At the PhD level, the number of degrees granted to blacks is small. If, therefore, the number granted in 1984–85 is unusually high, the increase during the early 1980s may be more apparent than real. It does seem safe to conclude, however, that the percentage of blacks receiving PhDs in foreign languages has held steady during the 1980s. In most other fields this percentage has declined.

⁷ Thanks are due to Denise Bourassa Knight for her helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Works Cited

American Council on Education (ACE). Office of Minority Concerns. Minorities in Higher Education. Fifth annual status report. Washington: Amer. Council on Educ., 1986.

———. Minorities in Higher Education. Seventh annual status report. Washington; Amer. Council on Educ, 1988.

Bowen, Howard R., and Jack H. Schuster. American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled. New York: Oxford UP, 1986.

Cage, M. C. “More Minority Programs Now Emphasizing Efforts to Keep Students Enrolled in College.” Chronicle of Higher Education 12 Apr. 1989: A1+.

Cordes, C. “Colleges Try to Attract Women and Minority Students to the Sciences.” Chronicle of Higher Education 16 Nov. 1988: A33 +.

Daniels, L. A. “New Project to Help Students Transfer to Four-Year Schools.” New York Times 31 May 1989: B6.

Hodgkinson, Harold L. Guess Who's Coming to College: Your Students in 1990 . Washington: Nat. Inst. of Independent Colleges and Universities, 1983.

McConnell, William R., and Norman Kaufman. High School Graduates: Projections for the Fifty States (1982–2000). Boulder: Western Interstate Comm. for Higher Educ., 1984.

Maguire, J. “Reversing the Recent Decline in Minority Participation in Higher Education.” Minorities in Public Higher Education: At a Turning Point. Washington: AASCU, 1988. 21–44.

Mangan, K.S. “Colleges Introduce Undergraduates to Research with Eye to Building Future Pool of Professors.” Chronicle of Higher Education 24 May 1989: A29+.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Digest of Education Statistics 1982. Washington: GPO, 1982.

———. Digest of Education Statistics 1985–86. Washington: GPO, 1986.

———. Digest of Education Statistics 1988. Washington: GPO, 1988.

National Research Council (NRC). Science, Engineering and Humanities Doctorates in the United States: 1979 Profile. Washington: Nat. Acad., 1980.

———. Humanities Doctorates in the United States: 1987 Profile. Washington: Nat. Acad, 1989.

———. Summary Report 1987: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities. Washington: Nat. Acad., 1989.

The Policy/Action Group. Meeting the National Need for Minority Scholars and Scholarship : Policies and Actions. New York: Dept. of Graphic Support Services, State U of New York, Stony Brook, 1989.

Rosenberg, L. E. “A Battle Far from Won.” Yale Alumni Magazine Nov. 1988: 44–47.

Watkins, B. T “Many Campuses Now Challenging Minority Students to Excel in Math and Science.” Chronicle of Higher Education 14 June 1989: A13+.

Wharton, C. R., Jr. “Public Higher Education and Black Americans: Today's Crisis, Tomorrow's Disaster.” Minorities in Public Higher Education: At a Turning Point. Washington: AASCU, 1988. 3–20.

© 1990 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.

ADFL Bulletin 21, no. 2 (Winter 1990): 12-19

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

Works Cited