1Introduction

“The heated battles over the media, through the media, with the media, and by the media affected and were affected by the judicial system, the professional and general culture, the political system and its players, the quasi-free market economy and the rush by individuals to enrich themselves” (Coman/Gross 2006, 33).

In this quotation, Coman and Gross describe the immense significance which factors of the civil society, the general culture, and the economy had for the development of the media scene in Romania. As this article intends to show, these developments are reflected in linguistic changes. Here it must be remembered that Romanian is spoken in more than one country. It is the official language and the mother tongue of the majority population not only in Romania (ca. 90%), but also in the Republic of Moldova (ca. 78%), whereby, in this context, the glottonym Moldovian has also established itself (cf. Bochmann 2012; Erfurt 2012; Lozovanu 2012; Ciscel 2007). In addition, there are autochthonous Romanian-speaking populations in the neighboring countries (Ukraine, Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia) that form compact and stable communities (cf. ELR 22005, 563). Finally, recent migration waves have resulted in a large Romanian diaspora which is spread around the world, whereby the largest groups of speakers can be observed in Italy, Spain and France as well as in the USA and Canada (cf. Lozovanu 2012, 570).

The following presentation, however, will be confined to the two main countries, Romania and the Republic of Moldova. Both countries show impressively how medial and social changes are closely interwoven. In 1989, the so-called “Tele-Revolution” in Romania triggered the downfall of the communist regime (cf. Amelunxen/Ujica 1990) and in 2009, twenty years later, the so-called “Twitter Revolution” in the Republic of Moldova speedily gathered protesters who demonstrated against the results of the parliamentary elections – which ultimately led to new elections (cf. Mungiu-Pippidi/Munteanu 2009). First, the article will provide an overview of the Romanian-speaking media scene, before it will focus on the changes of language usage within the media and by the media. Special attention will be paid to the issue of Anglicisms, to the influence of orality and to the relationship between prescriptive norm and descriptive norms.

2Mass Media and New Media

In the wake of the political upheaval in Romania, the unrestricted freedom of opinion and the abolition of any form of censorship – which used to be dominant and omnipresent during the totalitarian system – led to a mushrooming of press products. Thus, during the first post-communist decade, the number of daily newspapers tripled from 39 (1989) to 118 (1999), and by 1990, the big transregional daily papers Adevărul and România liberă had a circulation of 2 million copies (cf. Vasilescu 2008, 543). Along with the success of the tabloid newspaper Evenimentul Zilei (established in 1992), the yellow press entailed not only new formats, genres and text types, “the tabloid manner of press making [. . .] became a sort of amorphous plasma ubiquitous in all types of media and all manners of journalistic discourse” and has entered the stage “through amalgamating styles, genres, and formats” (Coman/Gross 2006, 52).119 The domestic media concentration, triggered by privatization, and the assertion of market-based interests of western media conglomerates (Ringier, WAZ, Burda, Hachette, Russmedia120) led to a homogenization and a lack of profile of the print media – quite apart from a reduction of the political and, especially, the government-critical coverage. Thanks to their high commitment, the weeklies Revista 22 (journal for the social dialogue), Dilema (veche) and the central cultural journals Observatorul cultural and România Literară have been able to hold their ground on the market. For many years, the latter journal has regularly featured the column “Păcatale limbii” (‘linguistic sins’) written by the linguist Rodica Zafiu, where she has commented on current phenomena with regard to language usage.

The differentiation of the media scene has led to a cutthroat competition in Romania, too. Whereas, before the upheaval, two TV stations existed with a program that was limited to a few hours, Romania has since developed into a TV community with the hesitant introduction of private broadcasting stations which gained momentum after 1993. Apart from the five TV stations with a nationwide coverage (TVR 1, TVR 2, TVR 3, TVR Internaţional, TVR Cultural) and five regional TV stations under public law, there were, as early as 2004, more than 100 private broadcasting stations out of which Pro TV and Antena 1 have continued to dominate the market with movies, sitcoms, music and entertainment shows (cf. Coman/Gross 2006, 90). In 1999, the TV station Acasă TV was launched, which mainly revolves around domestic soap operas, South American telenovelas and US-American entertainment serials. High audience ratings are also achieved by the private station OTV, a tabloid TV station whose most successful program is a one-hour talk show which mainly focuses on scandals. Stations specializing in news coverage include the niche station Realitatea TV as well as Antena 3 and Naţional 24 (cf. Stegherr/Liesem 2010, 183).

Owing to the country’s political situation and its more differentiated multiethnic composition, the media scene in the Republic of Moldova offers a slightly different picture. The total of ca. 240 newspapers and journals which have a different share in the Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian, Gagauz and Bulgarian languages, are partially subsidized by the state and/or financed by political parties, NGOs and private enterprises (cf. Dumbrava 2012, 537). Out of the 35 central newspapers, 20 are published in Romanian and 15 in Russian – a fact which is also reflected by the choice of subjects covered. Whereas, during the 1990s, the choice of subjects focused either on pro-Romanian or pro-Russian issues, since the 2000s the Russian-speaking and Romanian-speaking newspapers have distinguished themselves more obviously in their political relationship to the government and to the opposition (cf. Stegherr/Liesem 2010, 189; Dumbrava 2012, 538s.). The most important Romanian-speaking newspapers include the daily papers Timpul and Jurnal de Chişinău as well as the weekly journals Săptămâna and Flux. According to Dumbrava (2012, 539), the most widely read newspaper in Moldova is the Russian Komsomol’skaja Pravda with a local supplement; this is due to the fact that the traditional readership of the urban population is Russian-speaking. With regard to the broadcast media (44 radio stations and ca. 200 TV stations), the market is largely dominated by Russian stations (67%), whereas the shares of the Romanian and state-owned stations amount to 10% or 9%, respectively. Apart from the four radio and TV stations under public law (Radio Moldova 1, Radio Gagauzia, Moldova 1 and TV Gagauzia), private providers began to establish themselves up from 2005. They include the TV station NIT which broadcasts 30% of the programs in Romanian, and Pro TV Chişinău, a national branch of the Romanian station Pro TV which, however, also produces local news coverage and talk shows in and for Moldova (cf. Dumbrava 2012, 530s.).

The number of Internet users121 in both countries has increased steadily. Whereas, in 2001, only 5% of the Romanian population had access to the Internet (cf. Mocan/Badescu/Cosmin 2003, 171), their number increased to 51.4% in 2014 (48.8% in the Republic of Moldova).122 In 2010, 500,000 websites were registered under the domain .ro (cf. Trandabăţ et al. 2012, 55), with Trafic.ro as the most important provider (cf. Holotescu et al. 2011, 38). In addition, two analogous developments can be observed. On the one hand, the democratization of the media through the Internet has enabled journalists, who are not dependent on politics or economics, to articulate themselves, so that, in 2000, the Internet journal hotnews.ro was established. On the other hand, in the wake of the economic crisis of 2009, many print media had to stop publication or to shift it to the online sector. Thus, the transregional daily newspapers Gardianul, Cotidianul, Ziua only appear in digital form now. Around 19% of Internet users inform themselves regularly via the websites of the national dailies, and the favorite topics of online discussions and searches are entertainment, sports, shopping, health, education and jobs (cf. Petcu 2014, 9; Holotescu et al. 2011, 38). In 2009, the most frequented social network was Hi5 with 36% followed by Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. In the meantime, Facebook registers 5.3 million Romanian users (as per 2014 Internet World Stats).

3The Language in the Media

Along with the number of press products, there has also been an increase of journalists in Romania. Whereas in 1989, 2,060 journalists were accredited, their estimated number for the year 2000 was about 20,000 (cf. Coman/Gross 2006, 110). Apart from the journalists from the old days, a large group of new journalists began to establish themselves very quickly who could not have been more different in terms of their social background, education, profession and political conviction. Many of them were amateurs considering themselves not so much as impartial reporters with a commitment to detailed investigation, but seeing themselves in a double role as observers and actors who could influence and change events. What stood out most was the large percentage of young people who, despite the lack of journalistic training and experience, quickly occupied important positions in the media scene (cf. Coman/Gross 2006, 52). Consequently, the newly achieved freedom of opinion, combined with a lack of journalistic professionalism, has frequently erupted in subjective and polemical comments with a minimum of informational substance.

The transformation of the political discourse is reflected in the diversification of the types of media discourse. During the communist system, the political discourse in the press, on the radio and on TV was dominated by the monotony of a “wooden language”, which was characterized by a neutral and impersonal style in the form of passive structures (se vor face ‘it will be done’, se vor lua măsuri ‘measures will be taken’), nominalizations (urgentarea implementării hotărârii de reabilitare a infrastructurii ‘the acceleration of the implementation of the decision to redevelop the infrastructure’) and lexical stereotypes.123 Such a dry officialese is now confronted with a stylistic diversity; the formation of lexical clichés is replaced by lexical creativity, e. g., in the form of metaphors, like cosmetizarea realităţii ‘the whitewashing of reality’, metastaza corupţiei ‘the metastasis of corruption’, carnaval parlamentar ‘the parliamentary carnival’ (Stoichiţoiu-Ichim 2001, 53ss.), loanwords from English and French, like a agrea (< en. to agree), injecţie (< fr. injection ‘apport massif de capitaux’), linie (< fr. ligne ‘série de produits’) and new word formation patterns, like derivations with the names of politicians, e. g., the adjectivization or even verbalization of Băsescu (produs băsesc, modelul băsescian, cuvântul care băseschivează) or the formation of compounds like iliescosfera (< Iliescu) (Milică 2011, 154). In addition, there is a massive invasion of structures of the oral language, of popular and argot elements as well as of foreign words (cf. Zafiu 2001). Whereas the adoption of numerous elements of the oral language may contribute to establishing identities, its excessive use (especially when disconnected from any text types) has provoked highly critical reactions in the Romanian printed and audiovisual media which find fault with “coarse language”, “unlettered expressions” (Mitu 2009, 186) and a violation of norms.

The democratization of the media has resulted in the appearance of usage norms which do not always correspond with the prescriptive norm.124 In comparison with other Romance languages, the standardization of the Romanian language began relatively late (19th century). Most of the Romanian linguists identify the Standard Language with the limba literară, whereby some emphasize the element of uniformity, others the element of “trimness” (cultural refinement, cf. Gheţie 2006, 1945). At the time of the totalitarian system and its doctrine of a homogeneous society, a uniform standardized system became the dominant criterion. Under the primacy of the written language, the prescriptive norm, installed by the Academy, oriented itself by the language of politics and administration as well as by the language of science as the most prestigious expression.125 With the help of language cultivation measures, the so-called cultivarea limbii, the cultivated and correct usage of the Romanian language was publicly propagated with great zeal (cf. Munteanu/Şuteu 2006, 1440). In the process of spreading the prescriptive norm, the printed and audiovisual media played a significant role since their language usage was regularly commented upon by wellknown linguists, e. g., in a series of articles called “Limba noastră la radio” [‘Our language on the radio’] (cf. Frisch 1988, 178). Censorship and full control of public communication proved to guarantee the presence of a norm based on the written language, thus conveying to the speakers the impression of a unified and perfect language (cf. Zafiu 2010, 57). After 1989, the media continued to be associated with their educational role for a correct language usage. “Românii cred, în general, în autoritatea cuvântului scris/auzit la radio/TV, în ziar”126 (Gruiţă 2006, 9). Under the impression of a norm, fixed once and for all, the changing language usage in the press, on the radio, and on TV, particularly the frequent appearance of oral elements within domains hitherto reserved for the standard variety limba literară/limba cultă, was considered something negative by many Romanian speakers. Summing up the Romanian speakers’ awareness with regard to norms, Zafiu, in her column, makes the following assessment: “Mentalitatea culturală românească este încă obsedată de monumental şi etern”127 (Zafiu 2005).

The impact of orality on the evolution of the Romanian language cannot be separated from the influence of new communication technologies and – considering the effect of globalization – the influence of English. The massive presence of English words can be assigned to certain domains: politics, economics and technology, the world of fashion, design and entertainment. Words like job, cash, look, cool, shopping, trend, brand, funny, which are widely spread through radio and TV, have been adopted by a growing number of Romanians in their everyday speech (cf. Pioariu 2011, 41).

However, the greatest impact on the general vocabulary originates from the language of IT (cf. Zafiu 2001). An extensive set of English loanwords very rapidly undergoes a process of morphological adaptation. Verbs follow the cultivated conjugation pattern with the infinitive ending in -a and the inflected suffix -ez (ro. a formata – formatez < en. to format, ro. a posta, a downloada, a scana, a seta) as well as the informal-colloquial one with the infinitive ending in -(u)i and the inflected suffix -esc (ro. a cetui – cetuiesc < en. to chat), or both variants are used (like a bloga, a blogui < en. to blog). The very recent word to google circulates in different graphical and morphological variants such as gugăli/gugali, googla and gugla, where the users show a preference for the standard morphemic structure (infinitive ending in -a) a gugla, but adapted to the Romanian orthography (cf. Pacea 2009, 95). Likewise, nouns are integrated into the typical paradigm (with the plural endings -i for masculine nouns and -e or -uri for neuter nouns): sg. hacker – pl. hackeri, sg. internaut – pl. internauţi, sg. server – pl. servere, sg. laptop – pl. laptopuri. But here, too, different variants circulate at the beginning of the integration process, most of all in the case of the graphic realization – with or without hyphen – to mark the plural and to enclize the definite article: for en. site evidence can be found with a hyphen (site-uri and siteul), as well as without a hyphen (pl. siteuri ‘sites’ and sg. + definite article siteul ‘the site’) also the (possibly playful) variant in phonemic orthography sait, with and without a hyphen saituri, sait-ul and the adaptation to the Romanian word sit [sit] (< fr./en. site ‘landscape’) with both forms situri, sit-uri. Given the tendency to retain the English pronunciation and the original graph, the “Dicţionarul ortografic, ortoepic şi morfologic” standardizes the forms site [sajt], site-uri [sajturj] site-ul [sajtul], based on the rule that, in the case of loanwords whose original graph does not end with a consonant or with a vowel typical of the Romanian graph, the plural and the enclitic article are added with a hyphen.

A special case of graphical and morphological variation, but also (owing to its extensive word formation productivity) evidence of the quick integration of Anglicisms is the English noun blog > ro. blog with the plural marker in -uri > bloguri and -e (with an ironical note) > bloage and its English derivate blogger > ro. blogăr (also without a diacritical mark: blogar), bloger, blogher, blogger (also the pleonasm bloggerist, linking the agent noun suffix -ist to the existing suffix -er) and the feminine variants bloggeriţă, blogheriţă, blogeriţă, blogăriţă as well as blogist/blogistă, bloghist/bloghistă. Further derivations of blog are nouns with the agent noun suffix -angiu (with a pejorative connotation) > blogangiu, the suffix -ism > bloghism, blogism, bloggerism, the popular Romanian suffixes -ime, -eală, -ărie > blogărime, blogăreală, blogărie, the diminutive suffixes > bloguţ, bloguşor, blogărel (diminutives are richly represented in colloquial Romanian with affectionate or ironic-depreciative connotations) and the adjectives > blogist, blogistic, bloggeristic, blogheristic as well as the verbs a bloga, a blogui, a blogări with their long infinitive form blogare, bloguire and the supine blogat and bloguit (cf. Zafiu 2007a; Zafiu 2007b; Pacea 2009, 92s.). Such a variant can be found in the spreading of loan translations like cyber cetăţean, cetăţean virtual, cetăţean al Web-ului (< en. cybercitizen); cyber-ucigaşi, cyber-infractori, ciber-criminali, ciber-spaţiu, ciber-iubit(ă), ciber haiduc (cf. Pacea 2009, 97s.). Features of language of proximity, such as spontaneity, but also the colloquial style which exists in the numerous formats of Internet communication, result, on the one hand, in the replacement of Anglicisms by Romanian words by means of semantic loans:128 a downloada – a descărca, a uploada – a încărca, both, however, in strong competition with expressions from colloquial language a da jos and a urca (pe net) (cf. Zafiu 2012). On the other hand, Pacea (2009, 100) states “a refreshing approach to traditional word formation processes” owing to the widespread tendency towards language ludism.

There are different reactions to the influence of the English language. The literary critic George Pruteanu whose series on correct language usage gained certain popularity during the 1990s warned against a mixed language “romgleză” (cf. Munteanu/Şuteu 2006, 1444). Analogous to the Loi Bas-Lauriol and the Loi Toubon, which were decreed by the French government, he initiated a bill for the protection of the Romanian language which was adopted by the Romanian parliament in 2004 with strong modifications (without the sanctions envisaged by Pruteanu). According to Niculescu-Gorpin (2014), two tendencies can be observed in the Romanian Academy with regard to the influence of English. On the one hand, there are the purists and, on the other hand, there are those scientists who are facing the alleged “Anglicization” of the Romanian language without much anxiety, such as Mioara Avram who stated as early as 1997:

“The influence of the English language is not a negative phenomenon in itself and is no more dangerous than other foreign influences that have had an impact on our language […]. Considering the great hospitality of Romanian, doubled by its ability to assimilate and integrate borrowings […] it is logical to assume that Romanian will be able to get over Anglicisation […] as it has got over Slavonification, Hellenisation, Russification, Italianisation and Frenchification, to only mention a few of the linguistic influences that have affected Romanian over time” (quoted acc. to Niculescu-Gorpin 2014, 92, translation and italics in N.-G.).

The interest of these scientists is rather to investigate the appearance of Anglicisms in terms of a descriptive and a normative approach, to observe whether they are necessary or whether they merely follow a fashion, and possibly to suggest any solutions for their integration into the Romanian language.

Such tendencies, both with regard to Anglicisms and with regard to the influence of oral language, were taken into account in the new edition of “Dicţionarul ortografic, ortoepic şi morfologic” (DOOM[2] 22005) which caused a great deal of public controversy. Strong criticism (cf. Boerescu 2005) was directed against the introduction of morphological forms of words which were regarded as incorrect and not belonging to the limba literară (e. g., pl. Conclavuri or cireşi ‘cherries’ and nivele in addition to cireşe and niveluri) as well as the return to former graphs and morphological forms of words (e. g., filosof, pl. foarfeci ‘scissors’), which the first edition of DOOM[1] of 1982 had not accepted. The latter also applies, in large numbers, to the graphical, phonetical, and morphological adaptation of loan words, particularly the Anglicisms. According to the authors of DOOM[2], empirical studies on language usage show that, with regard to the graph, the etymological principle has priority over the phonetical principle (cf. Vintilă-Rădulescu 2005, 95). Obviously, speakers judge the graphical “Romanization” as a sign of “incultură” (cf. Zafiu 2005). According to these tendencies in the language development, the adaptation of Anglicisms to the Romanian graph (as recommended originally in DOOM[1]) has now been replaced by the original graph: looping, knockdown, knockout, motto, parking, skating instead of luping, cnocdaun, cnocaut, moto, parching, scheting. If, in the case of some particular words, a statistical tendency is not yet visible, two alternative graphs are listed: derby/derbi (with a graphically different realization of the plural marker and the enclisis of the definite article: derby-uri/derbiuri and derby-ul/derbiul), clearing/cliring, penalty/penalti, pocher/poker, ghem/game. Some inconsistencies remain with regard to the morphological adaptation like superman – pl. supermeni, yesman – pl. yesmeni with a redundant plural marker (en. men plus ro. -i) in contrast to sg. self-made-man – pl. self-made-men – inconsistencies that the authors are well aware of. Ultimately, criticism is particularly directed against the intention of DOOM[2] to register usage norms and to show, in some cases at least, a parallel of prescriptive norm and descriptive norms (cf. Vintilă-Rădulescu 2005, 87).

Beginning in 2007, the Institutul de Lingvistică “Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti” of the Romanian Academy has carried out regular monitorings of public-law and private TV and radio stations (ca. 300 hours). The stations were selected according to viewing figures, national range and their share of information programs and debates; the programs recorded were news and debates at peak viewing times. The survey intends to analyze the (speech) contributions as well as the running texts (crawls) under the responsibility of the editors and staff of the relevant broadcasting stations. In the Republic of Moldova, too, the Academia de Ştiinţe a Moldovei monitored Romanian-speaking TV stations in 2011 and 2012 (140 hours) as well as radio stations in 2013 (120 hours), where news programs and talk shows, early morning entertainment programs as well as synchronized and subtitled films were also included. On the one hand, the studies pursue a didactic objective in that, with reference to the normative reference works of the Academy, the deviations from the norm (orthography, orthoepy, morphology as well as syntax, lexicology, semantics, stylistics and pragmatics) are registered. The results were published on the website of the Consiliu Naţional al Audiovizualului (<www.cna.ro>) under the link “Limba română la TV/Radio” and in Moldova on the website of the Consiliu coordinator al audiovizualului (<www.cca.md>). In addition, individual documentation with regard to individual stations has been compiled which show a grade between the individual stations (Romania) and between the news and entertainment programs (Moldova). On the other hand, the material serves to assess and describe trends of development in the Romanian language (cf. Pană Dindelegan 2009). Not all the deviations from the norm are regarded as coequal; some are unanimously regarded as severe, others are discussed controversially in Romanian linguistics. Furthermore, linguistic phenomena are registered which indicate a divergent development between norm and usage. Here, we talk about the conservation of older or popular forms which have eliminated the norm (in some cases only recently) or, vice versa, about cases where the linguistic change has been completed, but the norm has remained conservative, or about fluctuations where the norm does not express itself clearly (cf. Croitor et al. 2009, 494). Here are some examples from the above-mentioned reports (2007–2012 for Romania and 2011–2013 for Moldova):

4Conclusions

As illustrated by the individual examples given above, the language usage in the Romanian media, especially in the broadcast media, represents a conflictual field where prescriptive and descriptive norms compete with each other. This article has made a particular attempt to focus on the general impact of orality and anglicisms on the Romanian language. As future developments can be expected to spread via the social networks, an exciting field of linguistic research awaits further examination. What remains to be investigated, for example, is the kind of effect that language usage will have on the Romanian language outside the media.

5References

Amelunxen, Hubertus von/Ujica, Andrei (edd.) (1990), Television/Revolution. Das Ultimatum des Bildes, Marburg, Jonas Verlag.

Avram, Mioara (1997), Anglicismele în limba română actuală, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei.

Bochmann, Klaus (2012), Die Staatssprache – “Moldauisch” oder “Rumänisch”?, in: Klaus Bochmann et al. (edd.), Die Republik Moldau/Republica Moldova. Ein Handbuch, Leipzig, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 609–616.

Bochmann, Klaus/Stiehler, Heinrich (2010), Einführung in die rumänische Sprach- und Literaturgeschichte, Bonn, Romanistischer Verlag.

Boerescu, Pârvu (2005), Cum scriem: O nouă (mini)reformă ortografică, România Literară 29, <http://www.romlit.ro/o_nou_minireform_ortografic> (28.11.2016).

Boţan, Mădălina (2009), Blogosfera ca discurs de vizibilitate publică, Sfera Politicii 135, 13–18.

Ciscel, Matthew H. (2007), The language of the Moldovans. Romania, Russia, and Identity in an ex-Soviet Republic, Lanham, Lexington Books.

Coman, Mihai/Gross, Peter (2006), Media and Journalism in Romania, Berlin, Vistas.

Creţu, Cristina (2010), Noua “limbă de lemn” a discursului politic, Philologia Jassyensia 1:11, 27–35.

Croitor, Blanca, et al. (2009), Tendinţe morfosintactice ale limbii române actuale manifestate în massmedia audiovizuală, in: Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (coord.), Dinamica limbii române actuale. Aspecte gramaticale şi discursive, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române, 493–512.

Dascălu Jinga, Laurenţia (2009), Structuri clişeizate în româna actuală, in: Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (coord.), Dinamica limbii române actuale. Aspecte gramaticale şi discursive, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române, 431–458.

DOOM[1] (1982) = Avram, Mioara, Dicţionarul ortografic, ortoepic şi morfologic al limbii române, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.

DOOM[2] (22005) = Academia Română, Dicţionarul ortografic, ortoepic şi morfologic al limbii române, Bucureşti, Univers Enciclopedic.

Dumbrava, Marina (2012), Medienlandschaft, in: Klaus Bochmann et al. (edd.), Die Republik Moldau/Republica Moldova. Ein Handbuch, Leipzig, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 530–539.

ELR (22005) = Sala, Marius (coord.), Enciclopedia limbii române, Bucureşti, Univers Enciclopedic.

Erfurt, Jürgen (2012), Sprachen und Sprachpolitik, in: Klaus Bochmann et al. (edd.), Die Republik Moldau/Republica Moldova. Ein Handbuch, Leipzig, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 617–628.

Frisch, Helmut (1988), Rumänisch: Sprache und Massenmedien, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, vol. III: Rumänisch, Dalmatisch/Istroromanisch, Friaulisch, Ladinisch, Bündnerromanisch, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 176–184.

Gheţie, Ion (2006), Histoire de la langue littéraire standard: roumain, in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (edd.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol. II, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 1944–1957.

Gruiţă, Gligor (2006), Moda lingvistică 2007. Norma, uzul şi abuzul, Piteşti, Paralela 45.

Guţu Romalo, Valeria (32008), Corectitudine şi greşeală. Limba română de azi, Bucureşti, Humanitas.

Heller, Wilfried (22008), Demographie, Migration und räumliche Entwicklung, in: Thede Kahl/Michael Metzeltin/Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu (edd.), Rumänien: Raum und Bevölkerung, Geschichte und Geschichtsbilder, Kultur, Gesellschaft und Politik heute, Wirtschaft, Recht und Verfassung, historische Regionen, Wien/Berlin, LIT, 40–62.

Holotescu, Carmen/Manafu, Cristian (2007), O analiza a blogosferei romanesti bazata pe RoBloggers-Survey2007, <http://www.timsoft.ro/ejournal/analiza_ro_blogosfera2007.html> (28.11.2016).

Holotescu, Carmen, et al. (2011), Microblogging meets politics. The influence of communication in 140 characters on Romanian presidential elections in 2009, Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations 13:1, 37–47.

Iliescu, Maria/Popovici, Victoria (2013), Rumänische Grammatik, Hamburg, Buske.

Internet World Stats (n.d.), Internet Usage in Europe, <http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm> (28.11.2016).

Lozovanu, Dorin (2012), Romanian-Speaking Communities Outside Romania: Linguistic Identities, International Journal of Science and Humanity 2:6, 569–572.

Milică, Adriana (2011), Inovaţii lingvistice în discursul publicistic actual, Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Philologica 12, 151–160.

Mitu, Bianca (2009), Limba română în mass-media, Analele Universităţii Spiru Haret, Seria Jurnalism 10, 186–191.

Mocan, Rodica/Badescu, Gabriel/Cosmin, Marian (2003), The democratising potential of the Internet and political parties in Romania, in: Rachel Gibson/Paul Nixon/Stephen Ward (edd.), Political Parties and the Internet. Net gain?, London/New York, Routledge, 161–174.

Mocanu, Maria/Aldea, Adina/Rawal, Rajash (2013), “Why fix it when it’s not broken?” Continuity and adaptation in Romanian presidential e-campaigning, in: Paul Nixon/Rajash Rawal/Dan Mercea (edd.), Politics and the Internet in Comparative Context, London/New York, Routledge, 95–117.

Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina/Munteanu, Igor (2009), Moldova’s “Twitter-Revolution”, Journal of Democracy 20:3, 136–142.

Munteanu, Eugen/Şuteu, Flora (2006), Sprachplanung und -pflege: Rumänisch, in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (edd.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol. II, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 1429–1445.

Niculescu-Gorpin, Anabella-Gloria (2014), Use and abuse of borrowings in the Romanian print media, Revue roumaine de linguistique 59:1, 91–102.

Pacea, Otilia (2009), New Worlds, New Words: On Language Change and Word Formation in Internet English and Romanian, Analele Universităţii Ovidius din Constanţa, Seria Filologie 20, 87–102.

Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (2004) (coord.), Tradiţie şi inovaţie în Studiul limbii române, Bucureşti, Editura Universităţii.

Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (2009) (coord.), Dinamica limbii române actuale. Aspecte gramaticale şi discursive, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române.

Petcu, Marian (2014), Mass Media and the Internet Challenges – Romanian Experience, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 163, 7–11.

Pioariu, Rodica (2011), The Romanian language under the impact of globalization, Journal of Humanistics and Social Studies 2:2, 39–47.

Rusu-Păsărin, Valeria (2010), Limbajul audiovizual şi tentaţia hipertextului, Analele Universităţii din Craiova, Seria Ştiinţe Filologice, Lingvistică 1–2, 358–363.

Semeniuc, Sorin-Cristean (2011a), Particularităţi ale clişeului în politica şi presa românească de după 1989, Sfera Politicii 155, 41–47.

Semeniuc, Sorin-Cristean (2011b), Violenţa de limbaj în discursul totalitar din România (1945–1989), Sfera Politicii 164, 70–76.

Sinner, Carsten (2014), Varietätenlinguistik. Eine Einführung, Tübingen, Narr.

Stegherr, Marc/Liesem, Kerstin (2010), Die Medien in Osteuropa. Mediensysteme im Transformationsprozess, Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Stoichiţoiu-Ichim, Adriana (2001), Vocabularul limbii române actuale. Dinamică, influenţe, creativitate, Bucureşti, all Educational.

Trandabăţ, Diana, et al. (edd.) (2012), The Romanian language in the digital age. Limbă română în era digitală, Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer.

Vasilescu, Mircea (22008), Massenmedien und Demokratisierung, in: Thede Kahl/Michael Metzeltin/Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu (edd.), Rumänien: Raum und Bevölkerung, Geschichte und Geschichtsbilder, Kultur, Gesellschaft und Politik heute, Wirtschaft, Recht und Verfassung, historische Regionen, Wien/Berlin, LIT, 543–551.

Vintilă-Rădulescu, Ioana (2005), Normă şi norme în tradiţia filologică românească, Philologica Jassyensia 1–2, 87–98.

Winter, Esme (2005), Zum Verhältnis sprachkontaktinduzierter Innovationen lexikalischer Entlehnungen und fremder Wörter – zugleich ein Beitrag zu “Lehnschöpfung” und “Scheinentlehnung”, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 56, 31–63.

Zafiu, Rodica (2001), Diversitate stilistică în româna actuală, <http://ebooks.unibuc.ro/filologie/Zafiu/introducere.htm> (28.11.2016).

Zafiu, Rodica (2005), Păcatele Limbii: Împrumuturile în DOOM-2, România Literară 24, <http://www.romlit.ro/mprumuturile_n_doom-2> (28.11.2016).

Zafiu, Rodica (2006), Păcatele Limbii: Vroiam..., România Literară 43, <http://web.archive.org/web/20150919174808/http://www.romlit.ro/vroiam...> (28.11.2016).

Zafiu, Rodica (2007a), Păcatele Limbii: Blog, România Literară 9, <http://www.romlit.ro/blog> (28.11.2016).

Zafiu, Rodica (2007b), Păcatele Limbii: Bloguire, România Literară 10, <http://www.romlit.ro/bloguire> (28.11.2016).

Zafiu, Rodica (2007c), Păcatele Limbii: “care” şi “pe care”, România Literară 31, <http://www.romlit.ro/care_i_pe_care> (28.11.2016).

Zafiu, Rodica (2008), Les variétés diastratiques et diaphasiques du point de vue historique: roumain, in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (edd.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol. III, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 2319–2334.

Zafiu, Rodica (2010), Present-Day Tendencies in the Romanian Language, Journal of Humanistic and Social Studies 2:2, 55–66.

Zafiu, Rodica (2011), 101 cuvinte argotice, Bucureşti, Humanitas.

Zafiu, Rodica (2012), Păcatele Limbii: Urcatul pe net, România Literară 17, <http://www.romlit.ro/urcatul_pe_net> (28.11.2016).