Review of “Slavic (Slavonic) Influences on the Romanian Language” • reelikklemind

Review of “Slavic (Slavonic) Influences on the Romanian Language” by Bianca Beloiu

Summary: Beloiu’s essay surveys how Slavic languages affected Romanian, focusing on (1) historical contact, (2) cultural-religious influence, and (3) linguistic borrowing academia.edu.

The author argues that acknowledging Slavic contributions which are often downplayed in Romania, are important for understanding Romanian’s development. She covers early Slavic settlement, Church Slavonic in liturgy and writing, lexical loanwords, phonological effects, and contemporary issues in Moldova. This review evaluates the paper’s arguments, evidence, and presentation. Beloiu, B. Slavic (Slavonic) Influences on the Romanian Language.

Original paper link here.

Strengths

Relevance of Topic: The paper addresses a well-established theme in Romance linguistics. Scholars note that “Slavic influence on Romanian is noticeable on all linguistic levels: lexis, phonetics, morphology and syntax” en.wikipedia.org. Beloiu’s focus on historical, cultural, and linguistic dimensions aligns with mainstream research that Romanic-Slavic contact was profound. For example, it is documented that roughly 20% of core Romanian vocabulary is of Slavic origin en.wikipedia.org, and Orthodox liturgical language was Old Church Slavonic from the Middle Ages en.wikipedia.org. By situating her essay in this context, Beloiu is asking a valid question about Romanian identity and language history.
Comprehensive Scope: The manuscript attempts to cover a broad chronological span and multiple domains. It rightly emphasizes early Slavic settlements north of the Danube and the adoption of Cyrillic in Romanian churches, which is consistent with historical accounts en.wikipedia.org. The paper also extends to the modern Republic of Moldova, where Slavic (especially Russian) influence has been politically contentious. Bringing in the Moldovan case adds interest, since it connects historical influence to contemporary sociolinguistics.
Use of Specific Examples: The author provides concrete linguistic examples (e.g. duhovnic from Russian duh “soul”, postelnic disappearing) and some Romanian sentences calqued on Russian. These examples illustrate the claims about loanwords and syntactic calques. Such examples can be persuasive if well-integrated. In particular, the discussion of prefixes (ne-, răs-) and suffixes (ac, nic, uș) of Slavic origin is useful - these affixes are indeed documented in the literature en.wikipedia.org. For instance, linguists note that Slavic-derived suffixes like ac, nic, uș remain productive in Romanian en.wikipedia.org.

Major Concerns

Factual Accuracy and Citations: Some factual statements are either unsupported or inaccurate. For example, the claim that “Bulgarian Slavs have the oldest influence on Romania” is asserted without evidence; historical linguistics actually shows early contact by various Slavic groups (and even debate exists about contacts as early as the 5th–6th century) en.wikipedia.org. Quantitative claims need careful sourcing. The paper states that Russian speakers in Moldova fell from 562,000 (1989) to 198,000 (2004). However, official data indicate ethnic Russians dropped from about 13% (≈562k) in 1989 to only ~4.1% by 2014 refworld.org refworld.org. The cited percentage drop (64.8%) and specific 2004 figure do not match these sources. Recommendation: All demographic and historical claims should be checked against reliable sources. For example, UNICEF or census reports confirm that by 2014 ethnic Russians were only 4.1% of Moldova’s population, with 14.5% reporting Russian as a language refworld.org. Similarly, well-known surveys and linguistic studies (e.g. Dyer 1999) should be cited for the language examples in Moldova rather than presented as authorial hearsay.
Use of Scholarly Literature: The bibliography mixes sources inconsistently, with many web links and secondary texts. Key assertions (like church terms or phonological changes) are often attributed only to unnamed “scholars” or claims (e.g., Firica, Ionela Ene) without full references. Romanian adopted Church Slavonic and only switched to a Latin script in the 19th century. This can, and should be, backed by authoritative sources en.wikipedia.org. For instance, Wikipedia notes: “Romanians adopted Old Church Slavonic as the language of liturgy” en.wikipedia.org, and later replaced Cyrillic with a Latin alphabet in the 19th century en.wikipedia.org. The author should cite such established studies (or primary documents) directly. Right now, many claims are unattributed or rely on a single quote block (from Brâncuş) that itself lacks context.
Balanced Perspective: The essay often takes a one-sided tone, presenting Slavic influence as almost entirely dominant. In reality, Romanian development involved multiple influences. For example, the author notes that Latin roots were “replaced” by Slavonic terms, but does not mention that 19th-century “re-Latinization” recovered many synonyms en.wikipedia.org. In syntax, the claim that Moldovan uses the Russian-style “to have” construction is interesting, but it should be clarified that such calques are colloquial or regional. Many linguists maintain that standard Moldovan Romanian is essentially identical to Romanian proper, as even Romanian Academy scholars have emphasized that “all the Moldovan words are also Romanian words” en.wikipedia.org. The paper could better acknowledge this consensus, rather than suggesting the two are fundamentally different languages. (Indeed, a 2003 language law in Moldova recognized Romanian/Moldovan as the same language en.wikipedia.org.) Recommendation: Situate the examples (e.g. Ion lucrează șofer) as informal spoken usages influenced by Russian, not normative grammar. Cite sources like Dyer (1999) or Ciscel (2008) directly for the syntax points, and mention that mainstream linguists consider Moldovan a dialect of Romanian en.wikipedia.org and en.wikipedia.org.
Organization and Cohesion: While the sections are logically labeled (History, Culture/Identity, Syntax), the paper sometimes jumps between topics. For example, “Culture and Identity” mixes historical facts (CIA ethnic data, Transnistria politics) with personal opinions (“Romanians do not even recognize the Russian part of Moldova”). These digressions weaken the academic tone. The transition to the syntax section is abrupt and its claims are mainly based on a few examples without broader evidence. Recommendation: Tighten the focus. Ensure each section stays on topic: e.g., the “History” section should concentrate on medieval Slavic contact and Church language; “Culture/Identity” should cover modern sociolinguistics with appropriate references (e.g., language law changes en.wikipedia.org); “Syntax” should be framed as preliminary observations in need of further study.

Minor Issues and Stylistic Points

Quotations and Language: The paper contains long block quotes (especially the Brâncuș excerpt) without smoothing or clear attribution. Large untranslated Romanian quotes in English text can confuse readers. For readability, such quotes should be paraphrased or significantly summarized, with key phrases translated and cited. For instance, the Brâncuș phonology passage could be condensed to list specific sound changes and cited from a published source.
Citations and Format: The bibliography mixes citation styles and incomplete entries. URLs to scribd or random sites are not sufficient for academic review. References should follow a consistent style (APA, MLA, etc.) and include publisher or DOI. For any in-text citation (e.g. Ene 2009, Firica 2010), full reference details and access information must be given. Missing page numbers (e.g. “Mitu 2005, 12”) should be completed. Also, the text sometimes has grammatical typos (e.g. “pronunciatioin”) and odd symbols (in the Roman alphabet quote). A careful copy-edit is needed to fix these.
Terminology Clarity: Terms like “Slavonic” vs. “Slavic” are explained early on, which is good. However, consistency is needed. In English scholarship, Old Church Slavonic is the usual term for the liturgical language en.wikipedia.org. The author’s use of “Paleoslavonic” might need a reference or note. Also clarify when discussing Moldova whether one means “Moldovan as spoken/written by Romanians in Moldova” versus the Soviet-defined language.

Recommendations

Incorporate More Scholarly Sources: Many key points have accessible sources. For example, general statements about Slavic loanword percentages can cite research summaries en.wikipedia.org, and the history of the alphabet can cite studies on Romanian orthography. Including works by specialists (e.g. scholars of Balkan linguistics) would strengthen the paper’s credibility. The author should consult additional current studies on Romanian-Slavic contact (e.g. those listed under Further Reading in Wikipedia or referenced by Dyer/Ciscel) and cite them appropriately.
Clarify Argument and Scope: The paper should clarify its goal early on (e.g., “This is a literature survey” or “This is a preliminary inquiry into overlooked influences”). Currently it reads like an overview; if that is intended, it should be stated. If original analysis is claimed (e.g. syntactic calques), then a more systematic methodology is needed (perhaps examples from interviews or texts, with analysis). In either case, avoid overgeneralizing from a few examples.
Balance and Nuance: To engage a scholarly audience, the essay must be balanced. It should acknowledge counter-evidence: for instance, that many Latin terms survived and were revived en.wikipedia.org, or that modern Romanian is still typologically Romance. Rather than framing all Slavic influence as “suffering,” it could discuss it neutrally as language contact.
Polish Writing: Finally, the prose should be formal and concise. Break up long paragraphs, define acronyms (e.g. RSS), and ensure terms (like “loans,” “calques,” “Romanians”) are clearly used. The conclusion is somewhat repetitive; it could more directly summarize findings.

Conclusion

Beloiu’s paper tackles an interesting and relevant topic, and it draws attention to important historical influences on Romanian. It shows awareness of linguistic borrowing and sociopolitical issues in Moldova. However, significant revisions are needed before publication. In its current form, the essay relies heavily on unverified claims, anecdotal examples, and an uneven use of sources. With more rigorous sourcing, clearer structure, and a balanced academic tone, the manuscript could become a valuable review article. I recommend major revision: the author should substantiate assertions with authoritative citations en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org refworld.org, refine the narrative, and correct stylistic issues.

Sources: Author’s introduction academia.edu; standard references on Slavic influence and Moldovan linguisticsen.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org refworld.org refworld.org en.wikipedia.org (cited for factual background and for context).

Citations

Beloiu, B. Slavic (Slavonic) Influences on the Romanian Language. Original paper link here.

Crepi il lupo! 🐺