UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA
FACULDADE DE LETRAS
DEPARTAMENTO DE ESTUDOS ANGLÍSTICOS
ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA IN RUSSIA:
A SOCIOLINGUISTIC PROFILE OF
THREE GENERATIONS OF ENGLISH USERS
Olesya Lazaretnaya
DOUTORAMENTO EM LINGUÍSTICA
Especialidade em Linguística Inglesa
2012
UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA
FACULDADE DE LETRAS
DEPARTAMENTO DE ESTUDOS ANGLÍSTICOS
ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA IN RUSSIA:
A SOCIOLINGUISTIC PROFILE OF
THREE GENERATIONS OF ENGLISH USERS
Olesya Lazaretnaya
Tese orientada pela
Professora Doutora Maria Luísa Fernandes Azuaga
DOUTORAMENTO EM LINGUÍSTICA
Especialidade em Linguística Inglesa
2012
… as English becomes more widely used as a
global language, it will become expected that
speakers will signal their nationality, and other
aspects of their identity, through English.
David Graddol
Acknowledgements
I want to thank all the people who have contributed to this dissertation in various
ways.
I am also bound to the Faculty of Letters of the University of Lisbon for accepting me
as a PhD student and giving the opportunity to start this research.
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Luísa Azuaga
who took up this challenge to guide my research and allowed me to find my own line of work.
Her experience and invaluable feedback especially in the final phase substantially improved
this study. I would also like to thank her for helping to integrate into the Centre for English
Studies at the University of Lisbon and also for offering me opportunities to work on diverse
projects. It was precious experience for me.
I thank all my colleagues from the Research Group: Linguistics: Language, Culture
and Society (RG5) for their generous encouragement in difficult times. Their enthusiasm,
interest, motivation and zeal in carrying out various research projects always served as an
example.
I am especially grateful to Susana Clemente for her help in processing questionnaire
data and later on for her feedback on the questionnaire analysis.
I have furthermore to thank Alexander I. Lysikov, the head of the Moscow Regional
Pedagogical College, situated in the Moscow region, Serpukhov, for allowing me to carry out
the survey of student population, making up one of the focus groups of the empirical study of
this research.
I would like to thank all the researchers who gave me food for inspiration and helped
me to clarify my own understanding of issues under discussion. During my investigation, I
have largely benefited from Barbara Seidlhofer, David Graddol, Elizabeth Erling, Jennifer
Jenkins, Marko Modiano, and many other researchers.
I am also grateful to the group of Russian scholars and educators who contributed for
the visibility of Russian studies into the English language by sharing their experience in
volume 24 of World Englishes. Particularly, I am indebted to Zoya G. Proshina and Irina P.
Ustinova who served as a source of inspiration.
My thanks go to Liudmila Iabs and António Mendonça for their help at different
stages of this research.
Last but not least, I would like to give special thanks to my family whose love and
encouragement made this research possible.
iv
Resumo
Há muito que a língua inglesa ultrapassou as fronteiras das comunidades dos seus
falantes nativos, sendo a sua expansão pelo mundo um fenómeno único e sem paralelo,
intimamente associada ao seu reconhecimento como língua franca global. Este estatuto da
língua inglesa como recurso universal e meio de comunicação internacional e intercultural
justifica o crescente número de pessoas que usa esta língua: de facto, há, hoje em dia, mais
gente a recorrer ao inglês como segunda língua e/ou como língua estrangeira do que há
falantes nativos. Assim, a língua inglesa é actualmente um bem partilhado por milhões de
indivíduos e comunidades, independentemente da sua identidade nacional ou geográfica.
Neste quadro, considerando o caso particular da Rússia, verifica-se que o inglês, neste
país, surge num vasto leque de domínios como a educação, o trabalho, os media, a
publicidade e muitos outros, sendo esta sua utilização frequentemente atribuída ao prestígio
de que gozam os falantes de inglês nas esferas social, cultural e económica.
Sublinhe-se que, presentemente, a comunidade dos falantes de inglês na Rússia é
maioritariamente composta por indivíduos para quem o inglês é uma língua estrangeira, no
entanto, em função da proficiência e da situação envolvida, a língua inglesa aparece
relacionada com realidades linguísticas diversas, incluindo variedades locais de inglês russo
como o Runglish e o Ruslish. Porém, a penetração da língua inglesa na sociedade russa não é
tão profunda como noutros países, dependendo as particularidades da situação do inglês no
contexto nacional da política linguística que é, em grande medida, produto de estratégias
políticas dentro e fora do país.
Como a compreensão do corrente estatuto do inglês neste país será impossível sem
uma descrição retrospetiva da forma como a língua se desenvolveu historicamente no
contexto nacional russo, tendo em mente certos fatores condicionantes, a difusão do inglês na
Rússia é apresentada neste trabalho numa perspectiva simultaneamente diacrónica e
sincrónica, baseada em três períodos fundamentais da história russa moderna: a Guerra Fria
(1947-1991), o período pós-Perestroika (1992-1999) e a Nova Rússia (a partir de 2000).
O quadro teórico em que se desenvolve a investigação baseia-se numa
conceptualização inovadora do inglês como língua internacional, ou língua franca,
ultimamente considerado em largo uso nos países com comunidades de falantes não nativos
de inglês. Este termo, vem sendo aplicável à língua, quando se verefica que o inglês passou a
ser usado como meio de comunicação por um elevado número de indivíduos, para quem este,
v
não sendo língua mãe, não pode ser visto como uma língua estrangeira, pois faz parte da sua
vida quotidiana, ou é a língua utilizada em diversas situações.
Esta dissertação revisita também abordagens anteriores desta questão, de um ponto de
vista de uma nova ordem linguística, tendo em conta contextos emergentes de aquisição da
língua, o seu presente uso e utilizadores, e novas funções e instâncias de interação. O cerne da
reflexão, porém, é a maioria dos falantes da língua, que são predominantemente falantes não
nativos. Sublinha ainda o facto de que os usos internacionais do inglês em novos contextos
geográficos, históricos, comportamentais, linguísticos e sociolinguísticos acaba por resultar
numa diminuição das diferenças entre falantes nativos e não-nativos.
Uma vez que os processos de globalização e internalização têm implicações distintas
para diferentes comunidades, dependendo largamente da história, politica, cultura e política
linguística de cada país, o presente trabalho examina a presença do inglês num contexto
nacional particular. Procura assim esclarecer o estatuto do inglês na Rússia e o modo como os
russos são afetados pela sua presença, bem como a forma como a língua é adaptada ao
contexto local, e como os indivíduos reagem ao seu uso.
Devido à sua situação histórica peculiar e aos anos em que a Cortina de Ferro dominou
a vida europeia, o desenvolvimento das relações anglo-russas viveu períodos de altos e
baixos. Vale a pena mencionar que a Rússia procurou resistir à influência da língua inglesa na
língua e na cultura russas durante a maior parte da sua história. Antes de 1985, não existiam
praticamente contactos entre a União Soviética e o Ocidente; esta situação alterou-se com as
reformas da Perestroika, trazendo uma abertura ao Ocidente na política externa, na economia
e nos modos de vida. No entanto, mesmo hoje, quando o país parece ter finalmente
completado a transição para uma ordem democrática numa perspetiva globalizada, a
resistência politica, económica, cultural, social e linguística à influencia do inglês permanece
forte. Esta característica da paisagem linguística russa deve-se a uma politica governamental
orientada para a proteção da identidade nacional e cultural pelo reforço da posição da língua
russa. A maior contradição, porém, é que, na Rússia atual, o inglês é reconhecido como língua
franca universal, sendo a mais popular das línguas estrangeiras, aprendida em todos os níveis
do sistema educativo.
O trabalho inclui também uma pesquisa empírica focada em três gerações de falantes
russos da língua inglesa que evidencia as atitudes perante a presença do inglês na Rússia, os
seus usos, modelos e variações, bem como as suas perspetivas no contexto nacional. O
levantamento pretende mostrar como as transformações na política linguística e na
vi
aprendizagem das línguas influenciaram as atitudes em relação ao inglês e ao seu
desenvolvimento em ambientes específicos.
Os resultados desta pesquisa revelam que a aprendizagem da língua tem efeitos
significativos nas atitudes e perceções dos indivíduos face à língua inglesa, à sua aquisição e
aos padrões de ensino. A maioria dos falantes de inglês na Rússia ainda se confronta com
perceções estereotipadas, impostas por tradições pedagógicas; em consequência, avaliam a
sua proficiência pela proximidade com os falantes nativos - na sua maioria, demonstrando a
sua preferência pelo inglês britânico e proficiência equivalente à nativa.
Defendendo o princípio de uma nova abordagem do inglês no quadro do seu ensino,
acentua-se que, hoje em dia, o largo leque de domínios de uso do inglês torna problemático
avaliar o lugar da Rússia no conjunto de países onde o inglês é ensinado e aprendido
exclusivamente como língua estrangeira. A esta luz, um passo importante é a tentativa de
estabelecer novos modelos e estratégias de ensino da língua inglesa, questionando os modelos
tradicionais dos falantes nativos e as normas exonormativas do inglês como língua nativa, em
favor da competência e eficiência comunicativa em contextos internacionais alargados.
Os resultados desta pesquisa sugerem a necessidade de reajustamentos significativos
na pesquisa teórica, em linguística aplicada e no ensino do inglês. Tais mudanças incluem
uma reavaliação em termos de falantes de inglês, da dicotomia nativo versus não-nativo, das
noções de padrão e de variação, e dos domínios do uso linguístico. Estudos recentes também
sustentam uma reorientação do ensino do inglês como língua franca, envolvendo o estudo do
inglês em vários contextos, a consciência pedagógica e a aceitação de variantes linguísticas
para lado do padrão, a mudança de uma abordagem monolingue para pluricêntrica no ensino
da língua, e a enfase na aquisição de aptidões comunicativas.
Com este estudo, esperamos que as considerações e implicações teóricas aqui
assinaladas para a linguística aplicada e o ensino da língua possam servir de base para
pesquisas posteriores nestes campos e nos seus usos, no contexto específico da Rússia.
Pesquisas mais abrangentes sobre o estudo da política e da ideologia linguísticas são também
necessárias.
Palavras-chaves:
Inglês como língua estrangeira, inglês como língua franca, variação, inglês russo, ensino de
inglês.
vii
Abstract
The current spread of English is closely associated with the acknowledgement of the
language as a world lingua franca, having the processes of globalization and internatialization
different implications for various communities, largely depending on the specific history,
politics, culture, and language policy of the country.
In Russia, such unprecedented spread, most frequently attributed to the status ensured
to speakers of English in social, cultural, and economic spheres, manifests itself in a range of
domains such as education, workplace, media, entertainment, advertising, creative and
identity domains.
In use both as a foreign language and, more widely, as a lingua franca, English in
Russia builds links to the international community, and serves as a language of expression of
national and cultural identity, being related to many Englishes, including such local varieties
as Russian English, Runglish and/or Ruslish, depending on the level of proficiency of its users
and the situation involved.
This dissertation examines the presence of English in the particular national context of
Russia by focusing on three generations of Russian users of English. The findings of the
empirical research bring to the surface the attitudes towards the presence of English, its
usages, models, variation, as well as its prospects in the national context.
This survey suggests the need for significant readjustments in theoretical research,
applied linguistics, and English teaching. Such changes include the reappraisal of the native
versus non-native dichotomy, the notions of “standard” and “variation”, and domains of
language use. In English language teaching, the reorientation involves the study of English in
various contexts, teaching awareness and acceptance of other varieties besides standard ones,
the shift from the monolingual to the pluricentric approach in language instruction, and the
emphasis on the acquisition and development of communicative abilities.
Key-words:
English as a foreign language, English as a lingua franca, variation, Russian English, English
language teaching.
viii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
iv
Resumo
v
Abstract
viii
List of Abbreviations
xii
List of Figures
xiv
List of Tables
xv
Introduction
1
1. English in Russia: Historical Development and Current Status
6
1.1. English-Russian relations: a general historical overview
7
1.1.1. The period of the Cold War
7
1.1.2. The post-perestroika period
13
1.1.3. The New Russia epoch
16
1.2. Today’s English presence in Russia
16
1.2.1. Tourism
17
1.2.2. Employability
20
1.2.3. Internet communication
21
1.3. Languages and Russian society
22
1.3.1. Attitudes towards English
23
1.3.2. Incentives taken to protect the Russian language
25
1.3.3. Multilingualism as a plus factor
27
1.4. Summary
30
2. New Approaches to English: Russian Contributions and Other Theoretical
32
Insights
2.1. English studies: Russia’s catching up with the West
33
2.2. Rethinking English: approaches and models
36
2.3. Overview of recent developments in the research
44
2.3.1. Towards EIL / ELF
45
ix
2.3.2. ELF: clarifying comparisons and misconceptions
49
2.3.3. ELF: an English variety or English varieties
55
2.4. Summary
59
3. Russian English: Forms, Interferences and Domains
61
3.1. Positioning Russia among other English-speaking countries
62
3.2. Russian English: variety and variation
63
3.2.1. The many names of English: Russian Englishes
3.3. English influencing Russian
65
72
3.3.1. Major periods of borrowing
72
3.3.2. Lexical transfers and loan words: adaptation processes
74
3.3.3. Code switching
77
3.4. Domains of English in Russia
78
3.4.1. Domains of ELF
81
3.4.2. Domains of expression
83
3.5. Summary
95
4. English in Formal Education and Approaches in ELT
97
4.1. English in the Russian educational system
98
4.1.1. English in the structure of secondary education
98
4.1.2. Tertiary education
101
4.1.3. Private tuition
103
4.1.4. English in academic research
103
4.2. Standard language ideology
105
4.3. Challenging the traditional ELT models
107
4.3.1. ELF and EFL in ELT
110
4.3.2. Towards the Lingua Franca Core
114
4.3.3. ELF: form or function
123
4.3.4. ELF: fears and apprehensions
125
4.4. Summary
130
5. A Sociolinguistic Study of Three Generations of Russian Users of English
132
5.1. Rationale and methodology for the present survey
133
x
5.1.1. Questionnaire composition
135
5.2. Questionnaire analysis
137
5.2.1. Section A: Personal information
137
5.2.2. Section B: Languages learning background
146
5.2.3. Section C: Competence, types of English and motivation
154
5.2.4. Section D: Language acquisition and preference for an English variety
160
5.2.5. Section E: Attitudes towards the use of English in everyday life
167
5.2.6. Section F: The future of English
175
5.3. Conclusion
181
Conclusion
186
References
194
Appendix I
204
Appendix II
212
xi
List of Abbreviations
AmE
American English
BBC
British Broadcasting Corporation
BES
Bilingual English Speaker
BrE
British English
CIS
The Commonwealth of Independent States
CNN
Cable News Network
EF
English First
EFL
English as a Foreign Language
EIIL
English as an International Auxiliary Language
EIL
English as an International Language
ELF
English as a Lingua Franca
ELO
The English Language Office (Moscow)
ELT
English Language Teaching
ENL
English as a Native Language
ESL
English as a Second Language
ESOL
English for Speakers of Other Languages
ESP
English for Special (Specific) Purposes
EU
European Union
FCE
First Certificate in English (Cambridge)
FEELTA
Far Eastern English Language Teachers’ Association
FID
International Federation for Information and Documentation
FU
Freie Universität (Berlin)
GA
General American
HEI
Higher Education Institution
IATEFL
International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign
Language
IAWE
International Association for World Englishes
IELTS
International English Language Testing System
IL
Interlanguage
ILEC
International Legal English Certificate
L1
First Language
L2
Second Language
xii
LATEUM
Linguistic Association of the Teachers of English at the University
of Moscow
LSP
Language for Special Purposes
MA
Master of Arts
MES
Monolingual English Speaker
MTV
Music Television
NATE
National Association of Teachers of English (in Russia)
NBES
Non-bilingual English Speaker
NS(s)
Native Speaker(s)
NNS(s)
Non-native Speaker(s)
NTV
National TV Broadcasting (in Russia)
OECD
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
ORT
‘Public Russian Television’
PhD
Doctor Doctor of Philosophy
RP
Received Pronunciation (of British English)
SAT
empty acronym, stands for a standardized test for college
admissions in the United States
SPELTA
St. Petersburg Language Teachers’ Association
SPSS
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
TESOL
Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages
TOEFL
Test of English as a Foreign Language
WE(s)
World English(es)
WS(S)E
World Standard (Spoken) English
UK
United Kingdom
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
USA / US
United States of America
USE
Unified State Examination
USSR
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
VOICE
Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English
vs.
versus
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1.
Kachru’s concentric circles of WEs
38
Figure 2.2.
Graddol’s overlapping circles of English
40
Figure 2.3.
Modiano’s centripetal circles of English
41
Figure 2.4.
The circle of English conceived according to speakers’ language
42
proficiency
Figure 2.5.
Kachru’s three-circle model as modified by Yano
43
Figure 2.6.
Modiano’s circles of EIL speakers
47
Figure 2.7.
Prodromou’s circles of WEs
48
Figure 2.8.
McArthur’s circle of WE
52
Figure 4.1.
Language acquisition targets for learners of EFL
112
Figure 5.1.
Levels of education by subjects from group II and group III
141
Figure 5.2.
Amount of travelling
142
Figure 5.3.
Language(s) used abroad to communicate
144
Figure 5.4.
English-speaking countries visited by respondents
145
Figure 5.5.
Language skills assessment
147
Figure 5.6.
Knowledge of English and other foreign languages
149
Figure 5.7.
English Plus
150
Figure 5.8.
Group I: Language proficiency assessment
154
Figure 5.9.
Group II: Language proficiency assessment
155
Figure 5.10.
Group III: Language proficiency assessment
156
Figure 5.11.
Respondents’ self-identification with the type of English they speak
157
Figure 5.12.
Motivation to know English
159
Figure 5.13.
The need to know English
160
Figure 5.14.
Effective language acquisition means learning English…
161
Figure 5.15.
Respondents’ opinion about the model variety to be taught at school
163
Figure 5.16.
Respondents’ opinions about Standard English and English varieties
166
Figure 5.17.
Respondents’ preference for a native-like variety
167
Figure 5.18.
Respondents’ contacts with English
170
Figure 5.19.
Respondents’ attitudes towards the use of English on TV and in films
171
Figure 5.20.
Respondents’ opinions about the use of English in their speech
172
Figure 5.21.
Respondents’ opinions about the presence of English in daily life
173
Figure 5.22.
Respondents’ opinions about the future of English
179
xiv
List of Tables
Table 1.1.
Top holiday destinations, in 2011
18
Table 2.1.
Conceptual differences between EFL and ELF
55
Table 3.1.
Survey carried out by the Heavy Metal portal
87
Table 4.1.
Some distinctive features of ESOL vs. EIIL
113
Table 5.1.
Age statistics, irrespective of focus groups
138
Table 5.2.
Age group division
138
Table 5.3.
Sex distribution
138
Table 5.4.
Place of residence
139
Table 5.5.
Occupation by level of education
140
Table 5.6.
Top 10 holiday destinations
142
Table 5.7.
Top holiday destinations by groups
143
Table 5.8.
English-speaking countries visited by groups
145
Table 5.9.
First foreign language
146
Table 5.10.
Group I: Language skills assessment
147
Table 5.11.
Group II: Language skills assessment
148
Table 5.12.
Group III: Language skills assessment
148
Table 5.13.
Foreign languages by their popularity among respondents in
152
descending order
Table 5.14.
Top three popular foreign languages by their popularity
152
Table 5.15.
English educational background
153
Table 5.16.
Respondents’ opinion about a native English teacher and a non-native
162
Russian teacher of English
Table 5.17.
Respondents’ preference for British English and American English
165
Table 5.18.
Respondents’ opinions about Standard English and English varieties
166
Table 5.19.
Group I: Frequency of using English
168
Table 5.20.
Group II: Frequency of using English
168
Table 5.21.
Group III: Frequency of using English
169
Table 5.22.
Respondents’ opinions about the use of English in speech by groups
172
Table 5.23.
Opinions about English in Denmark, Germany and Russia
174
Table 5.24.
Respondents’ opinions about the presence of English in daily life by
175
groups
Table 5.25.
Global influence of major languages
xv
176
Table 5.26.
Importance of world languages among respondents
177
Table 5.27.
Importance of world languages by groups
178
Table 5.28.
Respondents’ opinions about the future of English by groups
180
xvi
Introduction.
The spread of English is unprecedented and unparallel. No other language is so
dispersed all over the world in myriads of its forms and uses in so many domains of everyday
life as English. It is now universally acknowledged as a predominant world language whose
status so far remains unrivaled by other world languages. “In the early 21st century, English is
not only an international language, but the international language” (Seidlhofer, 2011: 2).
So, in the framework of this research, the linguistic phenomenon under discussion is
addressed as International English or English as a lingua franca which has come to mean “a
language common to, or shared by, many cultures and communities at any or all social and
educational levels, and used as an international tool” (McArthur, 2003b: 2).
In fact, there are more people using English as their second or international language
than there are native speakers of it, and this unique situation the English language finds itself
in nowadays makes it a possession of every individual or community, regardless of their
national or geographical identity.
In a broad sense, this dissertation is focused on English and on the manifestation of its
global spread, and in a narrower perspective, it studies a specific manifestation of English as a
means of international and intercultural communication.
As Crystal notes, “A language achieves a genuinely global status when it develops a
special role that is recognized in every country” (Crystal, 2003b: 3). In this meaning, “global”
is interchangeable with “world”, in the sense that it “covers every kind of usage and use”
(McArthur, 2003a: 2), and “international”, including all the communities where the label
“English” is applied to many forms of the language: from native varieties to English used as a
foreign language.
Furthermore, this research emphasizes the influence of English on the national
discourse, and underlines how the English language is appropriated in national contexts,
1
taking into account the specific history, culture and politics to evaluate different outcomes.
Therefore, it examines the spread of English in a particular national environment, giving
insights into its presence in Russia.
This dissertation concentrates roughly on three major strands in theoretical research:
1. English as viewed from the global perspective (e.g. Crystal, 2003a and 2003b;
Graddol, 1997 and 2006).
2. World Englishes paradigm, which approaches English from the viewpoint of its
dissemination into different varieties of the language (e.g. Kachru, 1990 and 1992;
McArthur, 1998 and 2003a; Melchers and Shaw, 2003), and the language in local
contexts (e.g. Fonzari, 1999; Preisler, 1999).
English in the particular context of Russia is presented by Proshina, 2007, Ustinova,
2011, and a collection of papers, contributed by Russian scholars and educators to
volume 24 of World Englishes.
Notice that, when a quotation from an original source written in Russian is included in
this thesis (to be verified in the references list), its translation into English is by the
author of this research.
3. The main body of research speaks in favor of approaches to English from a new
perspective of English as a lingua franca, including research works by Breiteneder,
Erling, Jenkins, Modiano, and Seidlhofer, among others.
For the convenience of this study, the research is divided into five chapters.
Chapter 1 provides with a detailed account of the spread and development of the
English language in the specific national context of Russia from both a diachronic and
synchronic perspective.
In the historical dimension, the development of English it related to the changes in
political and economic strategy, largely affecting the language policy of the country. It may
be noted as well that, in countries with communist regimes and centralized political systems,
foreign language instruction is frequently availed of as a tool of political and ideological
maneuvering.
For this reason, the account of the spread of English in Russia rests on three major
periods of contemporary Russian history: the Cold War, the post-perestroika period and the
New Russia epoch. It is largely through the close examination of the environment in which
the English language operates and develops that the status of English, its spread and uses, as
well as its implementation in teaching pedagogy are best understood.
2
In the contemporary dimension, chapter 1 highlights the presence of English in such
contexts as tourism, employability and Internet communication in which the use of English is
most frequently involved as a link to the international community. It also touches upon the
issues of language protectionism and multilingualism, as being construed in the national
context.
Chapter 2 is primarily concerned with the changing discourse about the English
language. It is thus called “to close a conceptual gap”, – for, so far, the discourse about
English has been concentrated predominantly on native speaker prescriptive norms and the
acquisition of standard varieties.
This chapter first underlines the contribution of Russian linguists into English studies
and points out those areas of research which are of particular interest to Russian scholarly
community, still largely with the focus on standard varieties, although not exclusively, as the
research has also shifted to countries in which English functions as a second official or
dominant language.
Globally, however, already since the late 90s, a considerable bulk of research has been
focused on English that emerges as the language of communication across linguistic and
cultural boundaries, increasingly among people who may not have English as their mother
tongue.
This new linguistic world order entails the reappraisal of the status of English speaker
and language competence, and consequently of the type of English applied in new instances
of intercultural exchange, themes which have come to be central to Russian researchers only
in recent years.
Because of the ambiguity which may rise in the discourse about English, chapter 2 is
also dedicated to explore current conceptions of the English language, and to establish
consensus within the discipline and in the interdisciplinary discourse.
First, it reviews models and approaches that account for the spread of English
primarily in terms of its speakers, and further validates the status of English as an
international language or lingua franca, considering controversies and debates regarding this
concept. Searching the way to better understand this new status of English, it is opposed to
other terms for a comprehensive definition of the type of language used primarily among its
non-native speakers.
Chapter 3 comes closer to the description of the English language from a synchronic
perspective, including manifestations of different forms and uses of the language in the local
3
context. It also seeks to define the place of Russia among other English-speaking
communities worldwide, grounding on the model of Kachru’s concentric circles of English.
Although in Russia the discourse about the English language is still bound to the
traditional perceptions, in terms of its users and the type of English spoken in non-native
communities, the English language used in the local contexts, as well as domains of its use
allow referring the Russian community of English speakers to those countries, in which
English functions as a lingua franca.
A description of the types and forms of English points out to the fact that, although
within the national sociolinguistic and cultural contexts, the local variety of English is not
recognized as an independent English variety, English in Russia has been diversified in a
variety of forms that, nonetheless, have cultural and linguistic affinities to the native language
of the people who use it.
In chapter 3, it is also argued that the extent in which the English language penetrates
different domains of everyday Russian life establishes its status as a lingua franca in Russia.
Thus the domains of its use has long ago surpassed the restricted contexts of tourism
employability and Internet communication, increasingly expanding into different realms of
everyday life, including intranational domains, in which English is used as a language of
expression of cultural and national identity. As such, the domains of English in Russia are
described within two major strands: domains, in which English is used as a lingua franca, and
domains of expression.
To complete the description of the linguistic Russian landscape, as far as English is
concerned, a general overview of the way the English language is implemented in Russian
education system is given in chapter 4. It includes language acquisition at all stages of formal
education, from kindergarten until the end of tertiary education, and further in university
academe.
This chapter challenges “standard language ideology” as the traditional approach in
English language teaching. It argues that conformity to Standard English varieties may be
inefficient and counter-productive for those learners of English who need to operate in
broader international settings.
As, nowadays, actual uses of English are increasingly those of a lingua franca,
teaching targets for the majority of English learners cannot remain the same. It is thus
attempted to provide grounds for introducing new teaching strategies in the classroom, with
focus on intelligibility and communicative competence, rather than on the adoption of native
4
speaker norms and models, by promoting proposals of how this type of English should be
taught, particularly with focus on Russian learners of English.
To test the awareness of new functions the English language fulfils in Russian society,
as well as the possibility of introduction of new teaching strategies and models in ELT, it was
considered to be relevant to examine various aspects of the English language in Russia,
including attitudes towards the presence of English, its uses, forms and functions, as well as
its prospects in the national context.
Chapter 5 of this survey is grounded on a qualitative research of three generations of
Russian users of English. The instrument of the empirical study includes a questionnaire,
completed by one hundred and thirty respondents, in 2010.
The findings of the research are related to the changes in the language policy and
English language instruction, implemented at different periods of contemporary Russian
history. It is thus hypothesized that respondents coming from different age groups diverge in
their language proficiency, as well as in their attitudes and experience in the use of the
language. The same outcome is believed to be observed by respondents with greater
experience in international communication. Moreover, the younger participants are assumed
to reveal better language proficiency and broader perceptions of different aspects of the
English language in terms of its uses, variation and teaching models.
Having undertaken this study, it is hoped that the sociolinguistic survey of a
heterogeneous community of English users in Russia will be helpful in, first, understanding
the role of English in a particular national context and, second, in designing new practices for
English language teaching for Russian users of English.
It must also be noted that the spread of English in Russia is similar to other postcommunist countries of the former Soviet bloc. As a relatively young member of the global
community, Russia is not as affected by the processes of globalization and internationalization
as many other countries. Besides, feeling themselves as a part of a rich cultural heritage,
Russians will always demonstrate the national unity in what concerns the protection of their
identity, language and culture, and, as a consequence, will put up greater resistance towards
foreign invasion.
Finally, as a last remark to be made, this dissertation is not a complete study but rather
a foreword, setting up theoretical and empirical implications for further research. It offers
room for new research perspectives and a testing of recent theories especially for English
language teaching. Further investigations are needed in theoretical research, applied
linguistics, and other interdisciplinary research areas.
5
1. English in Russia: Historical Development and Current Status.
Nowadays, English in Russia manifests itself in various contexts such as education,
business, and tourism, being its unprecedented spread most frequently attributed to the
privileged position ensured to the speakers of English in social, professional, cultural, and
individual spheres. This linguistic situation is common to many other countries where English
is learnt as a foreign language, and is used as a means of access to the international
community.
However, the spread of English in Russia is different from most other regions of the
world. In fact, it is believed that the understanding of the current status of English in Russia
would be impossible without a retrospective account discussing chiefly two aspects:
1. what range of factors has pre-conditioned the spread of English in the national
settings, and
2. how the English language has been implemented in teaching practices throughout
different periods of contemporary Russian history.
Bearing in mind a great variety of conditioning factors of the presence of English in
Russia nowadays, to present a general overview of this language, from a diachronic and a
synchronic perspective, and reflect on attitudes towards English and Russian, as well as on
growing multilingual processes worldwide, this chapter is divided into three subchapters.
The first subchapter gives insights into the English-Russian relations from the Cold
War to the New Russia epoch, outlining three major periods, each with its impact on the role,
spread and uses of English, as well as on English teaching pedagogy in the national contexts.
The second subchapter brings to the fore the presence of English in modern Russia,
manifesting more prominently in such contexts as tourism, employability and Internet
6
communication, in which exchanges between Russia and the international community are
substantially higher than in other realms of everyday life.
Finally, the last subchapter points out that, despite the extensive use of English as a
vehicle of communication with the international community, recently the Russian authorities
have made considerable efforts to protect the national language. The incentives taken in this
direction, nonetheless, do not prevent Russians from growing aware that nowadays English
proficiency is one of the fundamental conditions for being efficient in international settings.
Knowledge of other world languages, however, is perceived as a plus factor.
1.1. English-Russian relations: a general historical overview.
The historical development of Russian-English contacts, contributing to the changes in
foreign-language instruction from the post-war period up to nowadays, and pre-conditioning
the spread of English in the national settings, may be divided into three major periods which
coincide with the key moments of contemporary Russian history:
1. The Cold War: 1947-1991.
2. Post-perestroika: 19921-1999.
3. The New Russia epoch: from 2000 onwards.
Such broad demarcation, however, allows further subdivisions, reflecting different
degrees of intensity in Russian-English language and culture contacts, especially during the
period of the Cold War between the Soviet Union (USSR) and the Western world.
1.1.1. The period of the Cold War.
The period of the Cold War (1947-1991), which lasted through most part of the second
half of the last century, experienced a remarkable setback in relations between Russia and
English-speaking countries. However, the tension between the Soviet Union and the West was
interrupted by a phase of temporary revival of Russian-English relations during the period of
the “thaw” (1953-1964) and the beginning of gradual enhancement in the perestroika time
(1985-1991). These political aspects are closely linked to the way learning and teaching
English in the USSR was implemented.
1
Although 1992 is taken as a beginning of the post-perestroika period, the USSR was formally dissolved on
December 25, 1991.
7
The beginning of the Cold War: Deterioration of relations with the West (1947-1952).
In the mid 1940s, relations between the USSR and the Western countries became
rather strained. The ideological struggle between the United States of America (USA) and
their allies reached its peak in 1947 and marked the beginning of the Cold War, giving way to
hostile and negative attitudes on either side of the Iron Curtain. As it is noted, “the Iron
Curtain had been working two way – not letting stuff and information in and not letting
anyone out” (English Russia, 2009). The Soviet government effectively isolated its citizens
from any contact with English-speaking countries. Soviet readers could not have access to
periodicals in English without special permission. Likewise abroad traveling to the hostile
capitalistic countries such as the USA and England existed “only for the best of the best
comrades” (English Russia, 2009), but not for the rest of 99.99% of the Soviet people.
The isolation from the West largely contributed to the fact that “foreign language
learning was entirely a homegrown affair: made in the USSR” (McCaughey, 2005: 456). At
that time, English became a formal school subject as most pupils understood that they might
never come in contact with a native English speaker. To those enrolled in the Faculties of
Foreign Languages, teaching was likely to become their only line of work.
The thaw: “Breaking the ice” in Russian-English relations (1953-Oct. 1964).2
The “thaw” is known as a temporary break in the icy tension between the USSR and
the USA. An attempt to achieve peaceful coexistence and reduce hostility between the two
superpowers was proved by opening the doors to international visitors from all over the
world. This defrosting in the Soviet-Western relationship became possible for the first time
during the 6th World Festival of Youth and Students, held in the Soviet Union on July 28,
1957.
The festival attending foreign members brought with them their way of life, and such
foreign trends as jeans, trainers and rock-n-roll, so characteristic of occidental youth culture.
By then the song “Rock around the clock” became a music hit.
Trying to overcome the isolation from the West, on May 27, 1961, the Council of
Ministers of the USSR adopted the decree “On the Improvement of Foreign Languages
Teaching”. The intention was to create 700 specialized language schools and elaborate new
teaching material (Litovskaya, 2008). However, despite this beginning in the 1960s, all
English textbooks studied at school and university levels were published under careful control
2
This period, also known as Khrushchev’s Thaw, coincides with the years of Nikita S. Khrushchev’s
government as First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1953 until Oct. 1964.
8
of the Ministry of Education which continued to impose the doctrines of the Soviet ideology
through the teaching process.
“Stagnation”: Back to tensity in relations with the West (Oct. 1964-1984).3
From 1964 to 1984, the Soviet authoritarian policy was partially restored, bringing
back tension in the relations with the West. The greater part of this period is known as
“stagnation”, characterized by a relatively stable policy and impossibility for real change.
Little progress was achieved in the contacts with the occidental world. The tensity
was aggravated by the arms race and the position assumed by the Soviet Union in the
Vietnam War. The Soviet invasion in Afghanistan in 1979 became the main reason for the
United States to boycotte the 1980 Summer Olympics, held in the USSR.
In view of such downtime, not much can be said about foreign language instruction
which followed the same teaching methods, within the frame of existing ideology.
Perestroika reforms: Looking up to the West (1985-1991).
In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev was elected General Secretary by the Politburo. When
Gorbachev came to power, his primary goal was to revive the Soviet economy, after years of
stagnation,
introducing
demokratizatsiya
glasnost’
(“democratization”),
(“openness”),
perestroyka
and
(“acceleration”
uskorenie
(“restructuring”),
of
economic
development). Perestroika reforms marked the end of the Cold War and the subsequent
reconstruction of the Soviet political and economic system which opened the Soviet Union to
the rest of the world.
The new wave of industrialization based upon information technology had left the
Soviet Union desperate for technology and information sharing with the West. The economic
reforms gave a new impetus to Russian-English relations and allowed conducting foreign
trade and establishing joint ventures with foreign investors.4
3
The period of “stagnation” starts with the beginning of Leonid I. Brezhnev’s government as First Secretary of
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Oct. 1964 and lasts until Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s election in 1985.
4
Symbolically, the first successful Western business to take advantage of perestroika reforms was McDonalds,
which opened in Moscow, on January 31, 1990.
9
Nevertheless, while Gorbachev’s political initiatives were positive for freedom and
democracy in the Soviet Union and were largely hailed in the West,5 his economic reforms
gradually brought the country to collapse.
In consequence of perestroika reforms, towards the end of 1980s, a lot of English
words penetrated into the Russian language. They were to name new realities that did not
exist in the Soviet Union, as it is further detailed in chapter 3.
Meanwhile, the traditional teaching practices, which failed to suit English learners
looking up to the West, started being replaced by methods, prioritizing the development of
communication skills.
Teaching English: Made in the USSR.
During the Cold War period, the use of English in Russia was basically limited to
educational domains, not coming outside the school or university classroom. Children were
generally introduced to English, when entering the secondary school, at the age 10 or 11.
In the long of the Soviet history, foreign language teaching in the USSR was, as it has
been already stated,6 “entirely a homegrown affair” (McCaughey, 2005: 456). Intended to
define the values of the country’s leading ideology, it was developing by its own rules, in
isolation from English-speaking communities. It sought to establish a correct perspective on
the foreign way of life, and protect the Soviet learner from influence and temptations of
consumer society. In other words, the main objective of English teaching in the USSR was the
development of a “proper” Soviet citizen rather than the acquaintance with a foreign language
and culture.
Propaganda of the Soviet way of life was especially common in textbooks for senior
pupils, where Soviet reality was introduced into English texts by means of politicized clichés,
words and phrases, such as communist society, Komsomol members, five-year-plan periods,
ideals of Marxism-Leninism, proletarian unity, etc.
The great majority of teaching material was edited, for the most part, by Soviet authors
who had never lived in English-speaking countries. Nash (1971), while characterizing
materials used in class, points out the political image they helped to create:
5
Gorbachev’s reorientation of the Soviet policy contributed to the end of the Cold War, and led to the
dissolution of the Soviet Union. For these efforts, he was awarded Otto Hahn Peace Medal in Gold, in 1989, and
the Nobel Peace Prize, in 1990.
6
For the full quotation see p. 8.
10
[By and large] teaching material identif[ied] the political friends and
enemies of the Soviet Union, and creat[ed] a favourable image of its
people, its way of life, its accomplishments, and its position of
leadership in scientific and cultural affairs.
(Nash, 1971: 5)
For instance, in Starkov and Dixon (1984), the pupil’s book Ninth Form English and
Tenth Form English, 20 out of 45 texts, and 49 out of 59 articles, to a greater or smaller
extent, include propaganda of the Soviet way of life. Thus, while the West is described as torn
by various political and social problems such as strikes, demonstrations, unemployment,
expensive medical care and rising living costs, the Soviet Union boosts industrial and
technological development, better living conditions, growth of industrial output, free medical
care and increasing labor demand – all this is secured by “a government of the people for
people”.
On the elementary school levels, active propaganda was substituted by the description
of daily routine of people deprived of national identity. In this imaginary unpoliticized world,
people get up, have breakfast, go to school or work, read or watch TV. Consequently, the
United Kingdom (UK) was replaced by the USSR, London by Moscow, Trafalgar Square by
the Red Square, and the London underground by the Moscow underground. This all meant
that “our” way of life, “our” people, and “our” cities, etc. are not at all different from “theirs”
and are, by no means, worse.
Despite the introduction of new methods of teaching English in the 1960s, described at
great length in Ermakov (n.d.), the traditional Soviet methodology involved in the teaching
process had very limited scope of objectives and, with some exceptions, could be defined as
the Grammar Translation Method. It required competence mostly in terms of reading, writing,
grammar, vocabulary, and translation skills.
In whole, the teaching practices were focused on memorization of grammar patterns
and numerous rules, and their application to new examples. Eventually the learner got
involved into doing exercises based on repetitions of one and the same constructions, with
only some insignificant variations, mostly in terms of vocabulary, e.g. Say what you like to
do in summer; Say what you learn to do in winter; Say what you want to do at school.
The stress was laid on translating sentences, and even whole texts, into the mother
tongue. Not one lesson missed the task Read and Translate.
As a result of teaching practices, students had little motivation to go beyond grammar
rules. They were not called upon to speak the language in any communicative situations, and
11
were constantly involved in role-playing of artificial dialogues, based on the repetition of the
same grammatical patterns and constructions, such as:
A: What are you going to do after school?
B: I’m going to read a book.
A: And what are you going to do?
B: I’m going to watch TV, etc.
The traditional method shaped an “attitude to the language as a system of grammatical
constructions filled up with diverse lexical content” (Litovskaya, 2008) – what in itself could
not result in any communicative proficiency. As a result, the whole process was uninspiring,
overwhelmingly tedious and boring. “In general, the neglect of the individual [and his needs
and problems in teaching process] was a pivot of Soviet ideology” (Ter-Minasova, 2005:
448).
Probably the only authentic material which was available to the Soviet learner during
and after the period of the “thaw” was represented by texts of British less often American
writers. Hardly a textbook missed an excerpt from Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K. Jerome.
Texts of W. Shakespeare, J. London, M. Twain, O’Henry, and E. Hemingway were also
widespread. The Foreign Languages Publishing House produced not only books but also
newspapers and periodicals available for readers inside the country – The Moscow News, New
Times, Soviet Russia, Sports in the USSR, Soviet Literature, and Soviet Inventions, among
others. For many people studying English, these texts and publications became the only
source of the language itself.
For decades English in the Soviet Union was taught as a dead language like Latin or
Ancient Greek, because “the world of its users did not exist [and] the goals and techniques of
dead language studies were applied to living ones” (Ter-Minasova, 2005: 447). In this light,
only a small handful of scholars, academicians, diplomats, and foreign language specialists
knew English well; the rest of English learners suffered from the so-called “English
dumbness” and could not adequately express themselves at the basic level, unless in writing,
and only with the use of a dictionary, after 6 years of study at school, and 2-4 years at a higher
institution.
Nash, already in 1971, stresses this lack of contact with English speaking countries
during this period:
12
English teaching in the Soviet Union suffers from the same malaise as
society in general – lack of contact with English-speaking countries. It
is tribute of Soviet educators that they have accomplished so much in
the absence of such contact.
(Nash, 1971: 12)
In 2005, Ter-Minasova, when referring to English teaching in the Soviet Union,
underlies the absence of proper equipment, authentic English learning, and teaching materials:
For decades, under such circumstances, generations of teachers, who
never set their eyes – or ears! – on a native speaker of a foreign
language, taught generations of students without any proper
equipment, without authentic English Language Learning and
Teaching (ELLT) materials, developing chalkboard theories and poorbut-honest, necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention techniques, and they
did it brilliantly.
(Ter-Minasova, 2005: 446)
Nonetheless, as Nash (1971: 1) notes “the strangest contradiction” of all was that
“English [was] given top priority over all foreign languages by official government policy”.
English was especially emphasized at school levels. Its knowledge was also mandatory for
getting into university.
1.1.2. The post-perestroika period.
In 1991, the new glasnost and perestroika reforms brought the Soviet system to
collapse. In fact, the dissolution of the Soviet Union into independent nations began as early
as in 1985, providing an impetus for political and economic reforms, and cultivating warmer
relations and trade with the West.
Despite the gradual enhancement of the Russian-English relations, the post-perestroika
period was a contradictory time for the Russian history. The intension to transform Russia’s
socialist command economy into free-market economy by implementing economic shock
therapy7 led to disastrous effects and economic downturn, enormous political and social
problems that affected Russia and the former republics of the USSR. In foreign policy Russia
7
The first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin turned to the advice of Western economists, and Western
institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the U.S. Treasury Department, which
had developed a standard policy recipe for transition economies, in the late 1980s. This policy recipe came to be
known as the “Washington Consensus” or “shock therapy”, a combination of measures intended to liberalize
prices and stabilize the state’s budget.
13
was searching for a new identity, being torn between the East and the West, as close relations
with the West were still considered a danger for its national security.
After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the linguistic situation in Russia drastically changed,
mainly due to the growth of international contacts and opportunities for free travel. As such,
Russia joined the global community where English served as the major tool uniting people
from different national and cultural backgrounds. Strains to overcome the years of linguistic
isolation caused what Proshina and Ettkin (2005: 443) define as “an English language boom
in Russia”.
A great number of English words started to sporadically penetrate into the Russian
language. The domains of the use of English rapidly expanded into media, advertising and
professional spheres. However, English was seen not only as a tool of access to any culture in
the global village, it also became a way of manifesting one’s own culture and identity through
the language. In other words, “the English language serve[d] as a means for spreading
Russian culture throughout the world” (Proshina and Ettkin, 2005: 443).
In a short period of time after the perestroika, a growing perception that English
proficiency would provide access to better job opportunities and contacts with Englishspeaking countries, through information and technology sharing, created a considerable
market of English teaching, including teaching materials, language courses, and private
tutoring.8
In the 1990s, English learning and contacts with British and American cultures were
fostered by the emergence of non-governmental organizations, foreign aid agencies, and
cultural associations such as the British Council, the English Language Office (ELO), and the
Soros Open Society, among many others (Ustinova, 2005b: 245-7). In 1992, the British
Council opened in Moscow its first information centre. The English Language Office,
supported by the US Department of State, was founded in Moscow, in 1993. The Soros Fund
has been active in Russia since 1988. After the perestroika, its grants helped thousands of
scholars, professors, teachers, and students to survive.
8
In the 90s, a Russian-English audio-course for express method by Ilona Davydova was considered a real
breakthrough in teaching English. By that time, the name of the course was known virtually to everyone, due to
the massive TV advertising campaign. After listening to the course, the learner was supposed to be able to
communicate in Basic English in such circumstances as work, doctor’s office, shop, among friends, etc. All the
learner had to do was to repeat a lesson 1-2 times a day, for one week. After repeating semantic clusters of
words, phrases and suggestions several times, it was believed he would remember them at the level of
automaticity. This method was considered to make English learning easy and fast.
14
However, despite a considerable breakthrough in Russian-English relations, the 1990s
were the critical time for English language teaching, characterized by the absence of control
from the state and rapidly declining educational standards.
The changes were enormous, as the period of the Soviet Union in which learners were
confronted with limited teaching materials available was followed by the time when the
increase in number of language teaching sources, coming from different parts of the Englishspeaking world, was nothing but “frustrating” (McCaughey, 2005: 457).
Under such circumstances the majority of English language teachers preferred to apply
the same teaching methods and materials which had been adopted in the time of the Soviet
Union. Thus, their students continued to learn English from such Soviet products for English
learning as N.A. Bonk, V.D. Arakin, A.P. Starkov, K.V. Zhuravchenko, and V.S. ShakhNazarova.9 Other teachers, on their part, started to enthusiastically experiment with new
teaching sources and methods not always comprehensible to Russian learners.
Meanwhile, Russians increasingly began identifying English language proficiency as
an important step to secure footholds in international trade, technology and information
sharing. This led to the demand for English language instruction and teaching materials.
Recognizing its advantages for education and career opportunities, more students started to
choose English as their first foreign language.
According to the findings of the Russia-wide poll carried out by the Public Opinion
Foundation on November 6, 1999, designated to find out whether Russians spoke English,
70% of respondents did not speak English at all, 23% said their language skills were poor, 6%
characterized their skills as good, and just 1% of those surveyed said their English was fluent.
Near half of those surveyed in Moscow and Saint Petersburg spoke some English
(16% defined their English as well or fluent; 30% as poor). It was also observed that,
according to the poll results, the percentage of English speakers was increasing, from the
older generation to the younger generation. In fact, only every eleventh among respondents
over 60, spoke some English, while 50% of those under 35 had, at least, some knowledge of
English.
9
These are famous Russian linguists and educators, developers of teaching materials, well-known to every
learner in the USSR and in post-Soviet Russia. The following textbooks have been re-edited more than once and
are still used in teaching practices in Russia: N.A. Bonk, eds., Textbook of the English Language, Step by Step;
K.V. Zhuravchenko and V.S. Shakh-Nazarova, English for You; V.D. Arakin Practical Course of English, for
college and university students; A.P. Starkov, eds., English textbooks for comprehensive secondary school
pupils.
15
1.1.3. The New Russia epoch.
In 2000, after a surprise announcement of Yeltsin’s resignation, the power in the
country passed to the young Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. His government marked the
beginning of the New Russia epoch, leading to qualitative changes in the Russian policy and
the recognition of the country on the global arena.
Since Russia has bounced back from the critical post-perestroika period, the demand
for English is still increasing. In the second decade of the 21st century, English is spoken
virtually in every part of the country, being primarily claimed as a means of international
communications, and, thus, helping to build links across national and cultural borders all over
the world. The excessive influx of foreign words Russia faced in the 90s has also stabilized
and subsided and is no longer seen as a threat to Russian national identity.
As to the number of English speakers, no reliable figures can be obtained, since the
level of proficiency greatly varies from native fluency to limited command of the English
language. According to the survey carried out by Career magazine, 3.2% of all Russian
population speak English fluently, 4.8% of English speakers “can read and make themselves
understood” in English, and 28.9% “read in English and translate from English with a
dictionary” (Galkin, 2006). The State Statistics Service estimates even a smaller percentage of
fluent English speakers – only 1% of Russian population (Eremeeva, 2008).10
1.2. Today’s English presence in Russia.
As previously pointed out, the presence of English in Russia started to be particularly
felt with the perestroika reforms, introduced in 1985. However, it was only after the fall of the
Iron Curtain that it became even more prominent, mainly due to the growth of free travel,
economic contacts with other countries, and the emergence of the Internet.
The thirst for learning English in Russia continues unquenched as Russians travel
more, use English on the world-wide web, seek international business partners or simply wish
to increase their career opportunities. Kalashnikova (2009) stresses these aspects, relating
them to prosperous or difficult times:
10
To compare with, “38% of European Union citizens state that they have sufficient skills in English to have a
conversation” (Special Eurobarometer, 2006).
16
When the country is prospering, people study languages in order to
travel, as such knowledge gives them the opportunity to get the most
enjoyment out of fulfilling this dream (…) In difficult times, they
continue their education with the aim of moving abroad or looking for
a job at a Western company.
(Kalashnikova, 2009)
Likewise, the motivation to study English is closely associated with new information
technology such as the Internet, computer games, and software. More and more people need
English to use different services on the web, share information and come in contact with
people internationally.
As nowadays Russians come in touch with English in varied national and international
settings, today’s Russia may be defined as an international country with several venues of
English use, particularly in such contexts as tourism, employability, and Internet
communication.
1.2.1. Tourism.
Tourism in Russia has seen rapid growth since the late Soviet times. Short after Russia
opened its borders to its citizens and to the rest of the world, and the turbulent time after the
post-perestroika period had been finally overcome, millions of Russians rushed in different
directions to explore what had been under a ban not long ago.
“In Soviet times there was the myth of ‘abroad,’ wonderful countries
that everyone dreamed of going to,” said Stanislav Chernyshov,
director of Extra Class Language Center. “Ever since then, intelligent,
educated Russians have strived to achieve that aim.”
(Kalashnikova, 2009)
According to the Russia Federal Agency for Tourism statistics, more than 14.5 million
Russians went abroad as tourists in 2011 (Russia Federal Agency for Tourism, 2012b). This is
six times more than the number of foreign tourists (Russia Federal Agency for Tourism,
2012a) who visited Russia during the same period.
Outbound tourism.
In fact, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, travel abroad has become very
popular among Russians. Quoting again the same source mentioned above, the Russia Federal
Agency for Tourism (2012b), the most popular destinations in 2011 (see table 1.1) remain
17
such countries as Turkey and Egypt for their relative cheapness, good quality service and the
absence of language barrier. Finland and China are frequently chosen for its geographical
proximity.
Country
Mln11
1. Turkey
2,7
2. China
1,5
3. Egypt
1,5
4. Finland
0,9
5. Thailand
0,8
6. Germany
0,7
7. Spain
0,6
8. Greece
0,6
9. Italy
0,6
10. UAE
0,4
17. UK
0,2
20. USA
0,1
Table 1.1.
Top holiday destinations according to
the Russia Federal Agency for Tourism,
2011 (2012b).
By the number of visits, the UK occupies the 17th place, and the US is on the 20th
position with the less number of visits.
Although the majority of Russians recognize the advantages of speaking English for
international traveling, the language barrier still remains one of the major factors that prevent
Russians from exploring a lot of destinations individually. Group tours with Russian-speaking
guides are still preferred to traveling independently from tour operators.
Inbound tourism.
In 2010, Russia was attended by around 2.3 million foreign tourists (Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS) countries not included) with the majority of visitors coming from
11
Million people.
18
China, Finland, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, and USA (Russia Federal Agency for Tourism,
2012a).
Rich cultural heritage and great natural variety place Russia among the most attractive
tourist destinations in the world. However, although inbound tourism has huge potential for
growth, in recent years, foreign tourism to Russia has considerably dropped. The country,
which contains 23 UNESCO World Heritage Sites and offers a lot more places to visit, still
remains a relatively unknown destination for foreign visitors. 90% of tourists never go outside
of Moscow and Saint Petersburg.
To add, for foreign visitors, Russia is a country with high prices, poor accommodation
facilities, low quality services, and lack of information in other languages, besides Russian.12
Recently, several attempts have been taken in order to make Russia an attractive
tourist destination. These attempts include commercial and non-commercial online guides in
English that give the country an opportunity to improve its visibility for the outside world
(e.g. Saint Petersburg; Travel Guide; VisitRussia).
In 2008, in order to help visitors find their way in the city, the Moscow authorities
promised that the majority of street signs and indicator boards in Moscow would be
duplicated in English. Accordingly, the latest initiative was taken by the head of the Moscow
underground, Ivan Besedin, who also assured that, within a not yet defined period of time, all
underground signs would be translated into English (Rian News, 2011).
The capacity of Russia to receive a large number of foreign visitors will be tested
during the Olympic Games 2014, in Sochi. Curiously, the target-program of the campaign
“Sochi – a hospitable city” includes learning English as an obligatory precondition for city
residents and employees, so that now every interested person in Sochi can learn English free
of charge.
Although free opportunity to learn English is certainly welcome, the declaration made
by the Sochi mayor raised some polemics, as English proficiency was presented with an
ultimatum. In an interview, Anatoliy Pakhomov declared “If you don’t learn English – you
won’t have a job (…) Illiteracy in English of the Sochi residents who will welcome the
Olympic Games is humiliating” (Silaev, 2010).
Whether the target-program yields its results will be seen by 2014. So far, the official
supplier to the XXII Olympic and XI Paralympic Winter Games in Sochi in the category of
12
Most of the Russians will not be helpful when addressed in English for the fear not to be understood.
19
“Language Training Services” has been appointed Education First. This educational company
will offer its services for almost 70,000 participants (Shearer, 2011).
Remarkably, all the attempts taken to promote Russia as a tourist friendly destination
for foreign visitors invariably involve the use of English as the default language of
communication.
1.2.2. Employability.
In Russia, it is not surprising anymore to find advertisements for jobs in which
knowledge of English is a requirement for a job applicant. Mastery of English is an obligatory
requirement for work in joint ventures with foreign capital and companies operating in
international markets. In 80 out of 100 vacancies for the position of a secretary or a personal
assistant, knowledge of English is a must (Poletaeva, 2008).
Christina Shklyar, director of the St. Petersburg-based Best Teach language center,
notes that now “a job seeker’s resume in the business sector faces a high risk of being dumped
in the dustbin if it lacks a foreign language. In the eyes of an employer, a job seeker who
speaks at least one foreign language, especially English, is better than two who speak none”
(Nassor, 2008).
Sherman, owner of an English-language school in Saint Petersburg, believes most
clients study English to improve their quality of life: “My feeling is that most people work
hard for their money and they’re spending it to learn another language as a way of increasing
their job prospects and earn a better living” (Weiner, 2006).
Knowledge of English may raise the salary by 20-30%; however, this does not depend
on whether English is spoken fluently or not. In the majority of cases, the level of English
required is pre-intermediate or intermediate. “Basic English” is also rather common for
Russian job adds.
Many people consider that to know English is a way of increasing career prospects and
improving their life conditions. However, even if some basic knowledge of English is proved,
and an applicant is accepted for a position, his job does not often involve subsequent mastery
of English in the long of his career. In practice, this requirement does not always signify that
the language will be actively used in the workplace. It may often be just a matter of prestige
for a company to have an English-speaking employee at hand. According to Poletaeva (2008),
the top positions requiring knowledge of English are as follows:
20
1. secretary, office manager, personal assistant;
2. lawyers;
3. auditor;
4. accountant.
1.2.3. Internet communication.
The Internet World Usage and Population Statistics estimates that, in 2011, there were
61.5 million Internet users in Russia (Internet World Stats, 2011). This represents only 12.3%
of all Internet users in Europe, and approximately 44.3% of all Russian population.13 It is
estimated that, from 2000 to 2010, the number of Russian speaking Internet users has grown
by 1,825.8 %.
The decade of Internet development in Russia has gone through three major stages: the
initial (pre-Internet) stage, the stage of Internet spread in the capital cities (Moscow and Saint
Petersburg), and the stage when the Internet started penetrating Russian regions (Rosich,
2000). Taking into consideration the fact that, in the early 90s, the country had no permanent
access to the Internet and no market of potential users, the growth of Internet users in Russia
is really impressive. Moscow and Saint Petersburg still have the broadest Internet coverage
and are considerably more advanced in terms of Internet services, in spite of the gradual shift
from the two capitals to other large cities.
Curiously, English dominance on the Internet has been decreasing fast; Graddol (2006:
44) notices that this was already pointed out in 1998, when Geoff Nunberg and Schulze stated
that around 85% of web pages online were in English, whereas a study by ExciteHome found
that the content in English had dropped to 72% in 1999, and in 2000 a survey by the Catalan
ISP VilaWeb estimated a further drop to 68%. Nonetheless, the majority of web content is
still available only in the English language, which is frequently described as the lingua franca
of the Internet and computing.
As to the use of English by Russians on the Internet, no reliable data can be obtained
on account of the permanent growth of Internet users. According to the Public Opinion
Foundation, in 2002, the most popular websites visited in English are dedicated to
information technology and online shopping, sports, radio and television, and culture and
education, and more than a half of Internet users (52%) in Russia visited not less than one
13
According to the International World Usage Statistics (Internet World Stats, 2011), the population of Russia
in 2011 was 138.7 million.
21
English site. 7% of Internet users estimated their English language proficiency as “excellent”,
23% as “good”, 38% as “satisfactory”, and only 6% reported that they did not know English
at all.
It is noticeable that many users see the Internet as a source of instruction. It also
concerns learning English. English on the Internet can be learnt in different ways. A lot of
sites offer English online lessons in exercises, video or mp3, or even learning English on
Skype. A good and relatively new way of practicing English is social networking sites (Cleek,
2007). Vkontakte, a Russian online social networking site, similar to Facebook, is now
making it easier to practice the English language. Among conversational groups registered
online are such groups as “I Speak English” for “those who want to be able to converse
fluently in English with foreigners”, “English Teachers — get together!”, and “English
Speakers”.
As it can be observed, English on the Internet is seen as a way of joining the global
community and obtaining easy access to information and language instruction.
1.3. Languages and Russian society.
For the most part of its history, Russia has put up resistance to the influence of English
on the Russian language and culture. Only after the fall of the Iron Curtain the contacts
between Russia and the West became more extensive and active, though not as prominent as
in many other countries where English is spread as a foreign language. The peculiarities of the
English language situation in the national context have several explanations, some of which
have already been explained from the viewpoint of English teaching and use.
Moreover, considering from the Russian language perspective, it is well known that
during the Soviet era, Russian itself played a role of “fraternal” means of communication
between the Soviet republics constituting the communist bloc (Ustinova, 2005b: 240). The
dominance of Russian was supported by the leading ideology sometimes at the expense of
national identities and cultures of peoples living in the Soviet Union. That is why, after the
dissolution of the USSR, many countries abandoned Russian for English which became
associated with the language of freedom and self-liberation from the communist regime and
economy in the broad sense of freedom of trading and communicating (Fonzari, 1999: 40),
taking a weak form of linguistic opportunism in these countries (Ciscel, 2002: 406). English
was thus perceived as a main tool for integration into the European Union (EU), providing a
22
neutral medium of communication with the European countries and even increasingly with
Russia.
Although in the countries of the former socialist bloc Russian ceded its dominance to
the English language, its position is still strong within the Russian Federation. So, within the
country itself, the Russian language is the only official language, coexisting with over 100
minority languages spoken in Russia today. It still serves as a link language for intraethnic
communication for up to 185 ethnic groups, registered in Russia. For Tatars, Bashkirs,
Chechens, Chuvashes, and Armenians, Russian is a language that links people of different
nationalities.
Finally, the reason why the Russian society is not overtly influenced by the AngloAmerican language and culture, and is not that willing to implicitly welcome the spread of
English in Russia, is that, feeling itself as part of a great cultural legacy, it still strongly
depends on cultural values, transmitted through and by means of the Russian language and
literature (Ustinova, 2011: 69). For the majority of Russians, abuse of English in their speech
is associated with the loss of national belonging, and is opposed by individuals who have
pride in their national language.
Unlike many European societies, in which much anxiety is expressed about the spread
of English, undermining local languages and national set of values, the apprehension about
deterioration of the Russian language is, so far, misplaced and exaggerated (Blomfield, 2007).
The Russian language in Russia appears to be a symbol of national unity, and there is a strong
link between the notions of nation, language and culture. However, many linguists and even
lay people continue to express their concern about the destiny of the Russian language.
1.3.1. Attitudes towards English.
In fact, the spread and presence of English in Russia is not always seen as a
benevolent process. It is believed to be extremely difficult to combat with foreignism that
become part and parcel in informal speech in limited circles of educated elite, popular
culture, media, and teenage slang. The fear is voiced that Russian can be inundated with
unnecessary borrowings. Many linguists and even lay people in Russia express their
apprehension about the destiny of the Russian language.
Valentin Nepomnyashchiy, a well known Russian scholar, conveys his concern
connected with ongoing Anglicization of the language in the following words:
23
The Russian speech has always been smooth, but nowadays it is
chopped, rhythmically and intonationally anglicized; it is running
somewhere feverishly, its structure is losing both thought and feeling.
I see the greatest menace in the change of its inner rhythm, the
transition to accelerated turns: to think the shortest, to feel the least,
the chief thing is information.
(Leontovich, 2005: 526)
Russian linguist Ilya Radchenko (2008), Candidate of Philological Sciences, considers
that the overuse of borrowings in speech14 is the result of people’s idleness as they find it
easier to use an English word instead of looking for an equivalent in their native language:
The source of such mass Anglicization (Americanization) is not our
lack of education, but idleness. It is much easier to take the already
existing word and place it into the fertile soil of the Russian language,
than to think a little of a new one. As you know the resources of the
Russian language are very rich.
(Radchenko, 2008)
The greatest Russian writer of political essays, critic, and philosopher V.G. Belinskiy
(Aphorisms, 2012) also expresses the same negative feelings towards foreign influence and
borrowed words: “To use a foreign word when there is an equal Russian word means to insult
common sense and common taste”.
However, the excessive use of borrowings in speech is most frequently seen as a
scourge of young generation. “To the horror of elder generation, Russia’s ‘Koka-Kola’
generation has developed a vocabulary that has more to do with MTV than Pushkin”
(Blomfield, 2007). In the Russian analogue of British “Britain’s Got Talent”, “Minute of
Fame”, on the national TV channel ORT, the fashion to adopt English/American names by
younger performers and their teams has been criticized by elder members of the jury. “We
don’t need anything American. Show us something Slavic,” said Edita Pyekha, Russian
singer, after the performance with robots, imitating a scene from American movies (ORT, 11
Dec. 2009).
Nonetheless, this tendency should not be considered as a long-standing trend as young
people easily adopt new ways of communication. Yuriy Prokhorov, the head of the Pushkin
State Institute of Foreign Languages, says the fear of English is misplaced,
14
See chapter 3, pp. 72-7, where borrowing is dealt in more detail, and from a descriptive perspective.
24
Young people always develop fashionable ways of communicating…
It is Russian words used incorrectly that damages the purity of the
language not the introduction of foreign words.
(Blomfield, 2007)
Famous Russian linguist Vitaliy Kostomarov in all his interviews holds the opinion
that every change is a natural process of the language development. From his point of view,
the Russian language has been developing through many centuries. Being the result of
Russian contacts with the outside world, in the modern globalized society it is due to rapid
changes. The only means to change its development is to get isolated from the rest of the
world (Vaynshteyn, 2002).
Besides, as it can be observed, the influence of the English language is diminishing
and getting stabilized. The majority of English borrowings is being gradually russified and
nativized in the Russian context; the rest drop out of general usage.
It is still important to note that most Russian linguists are not against foreign
borrowings. They come out against incorrect and inexact usage, and against abuse of foreign
words in speech. Therefore, borrowings still remain one of the main sources of language
enrichment, and are considered indispensable in such fields as science and technology.
1.3.2. Incentives taken to protect the Russian language.
Nowadays, the modern history and development of the Russian language is designated
by three major factors. Firstly, it is the diminishing importance of the Russian language
worldwide. Such rapid decline in popularity of the Russian language is primarily caused by
the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Even in the former socialist republics, in which Russian
served as a language, uniting people of different nationalities, the Russian language is being
gradually substituted by English. Secondly, it is the decline in the number of Russian native
speakers. It is foreseen that, by 2025, the overall number of Russian speakers will be reduced
by half. In 2005, for example, the overall number of the Russian population decreased by
680,000 people. Thus, it is believed that, in ten years, Russian will be left behind such
languages as French, Hindi and Arab, and, in 15 years, it will be outpaced by Portuguese – as
such losing its status of a world language (Pechko, 2006). Thirdly, it is the influx of foreign
words and expressions threatening the Russian language, culture and ways of thinking. In
fact, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it is estimated the intrusion of approximately
10,000 English words (Ustinova, 2005b: 240).
25
Recently, attempts to protect national and cultural identity have resulted in measures
taken by the Russian government to strengthen the position of the Russian language, inside
and outside the country. Language planning and policy directed towards the language
protectionism on the national level have been especially supported in public and
governmental domains which give preference exclusively to Russian use for official matters
in the national settings.
These attempts are especially evident in actions taken by the Parliament, in 2005, and
by the presidency, in 2006, and 2008. In 2005, the Russian Parliament adopted the law “On
the state language of the Russian Federation”, which was approved by the Federal Council.
According to it, Russian is the only language used for official matters. It is used in civil,
criminal and administrative proceedings, and in diplomatic correspondence. Being essential
for the work of public bodies and regions of the Federation, it is employed during election
campaigns and referendums, for publications of laws and regulations, in advertising, TV and
radio broadcasting, when writing the names of geographical objects, and for road signs.
Pointing out this exclusivity, Paragraph 6 of the law runs:
When using the Russian language as the official language of the
Russian Federation it is not allowed to use words and expressions that
do not correspond to the norms of the modern Russian literary
language, except for foreign words that have no equivalents in
Russian.
(Russkaya Gazeta, 2005)
On December 29, 2006, Vladimir Putin, concerned with the growing influence of
English, signed a decree declaring 2007 the year of the Russian Language (Gramota.ru, 2006).
Its major aim was to draw the interest of the world community to the learning of the Russian
language, Russian literature and culture, and promote a positive image of Russia, abroad and
inside the country.
In June, 2008, as part of a Kremlin drive to promote Russian as a global language, the
ex-president and the now prime-minister Dmitriy Medvedev called for the country to be
assigned an Internet domain name in the Cyrillic script.15 The Russian national Cyrillic
domain .рф (.rf) was officially registered on May 12, 2010.
15
Medvedev emphasized that 300 million people worldwide used Russian media, and that a Cyrillic domain
name would be a key part to raise the importance of the language. “We must do everything we can to make sure
that we achieve in the future a Cyrillic Internet domain name — it is a pretty serious thing. It is a symbol of the
importance of the Russian language and Cyrillic. (…) And I think we have a rather high chance of achieving
such a decision” (The St. Petersburg Times, 2008).
26
Abroad, language policy and planning is directed to the restoration of the positive
image of Russia and the Russian language. Lately, the Russian language and culture have also
been promoted due to the so-called “cross years”, held annually between Russia and other
countries. For instance, 2010 was declared the year of the Russian language and culture in
France, and of the French language and culture, in Russia; 2011 was the year of RussianSpanish cultural and humanitarian cooperation, and 2012 is the year of Russia in Germany.
Internationally, the Russian language is supported through the activity of such
organizations as Rossotrudnichestvo and Russian embassies. These missions are responsible
for implementations of the federal target program “Russian Language” in 2011-2015
approved
by the
Government
of
the
Russian
Federation
on
June
20,
2011
(Rossotrudnichestvo, 2012). This program’s objectives are directed at supporting the Russian
language as the basis for the development of integration processes in the CIS: organization of
research and teaching, educational and cultural events aimed at popularizing the Russian
language around the world; support for foreign teachers of Russian language and literature,
providing educational institutions of foreign countries with educational, methodological, and
scientific materials on the Russian language; establishing quotas for foreign students for
studying in the Russian Federation.
Although the measures taken by the Russian government are not as regularized and
straightforward as in France where the purity of the language is protected by a state-controlled
regulatory authority for the language, the Academie Francaise, it is believed that these
initiatives are decisive for the enhancement of the prestige and vogue of the national
language, at the same time protecting the language from outside intrusions.
1.3.3. Multilingualism as a plus factor.
The recognition of English as a global language does not diminish the fact that people
need to master their proficiency in other foreign languages. The linguistic situation worldwide
shows that even though English is in the top position as a tool of international
communication, the demand for other languages is growing, with such languages as German,
French, Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, Portuguese, Malay, Russian, Urdu, and Bengali,
featuring prominently in the ranking (Graddol, 1997: 59).
Linguistic diversity now is a fact of life and a part of the European landscape. It unites
23 EU official languages, all functioning on equal footing, some 60 regional and minority
languages, and hundreds of migrant languages. In this light, the European Commission has
adopted a new strategy on multilingualism. This strategy emphasizes that languages are a tool
27
for social cohesion and for dialogue between different cultures. That is why the European
heads of State and government decided in Barcelona, in 2002, that every European should
learn at least two foreign languages.16
What regards linguistic diversity in other parts of the world, multilingualism must be a
plus factor, not just for European citizens, partly because monolinguals are increasingly
becoming excluded from international contexts. Indeed, knowledge of other languages is
believed to open up new horizons for personal and professional development. It makes
individuals more employable, mobile, competitive and better equipped for seizing
opportunities on the global market. Besides, it is individually enriching and is a window to
better understanding other cultures, values, beliefs and behaviors, helping individuals feel
they belong to a wider community. Emphasizing this growth of multilingualism worldwide,
Dalby (2001) specifies in particular a disadvantage of being an English monolingual speaker:
It is much more likely that the world will see a steady growth in
bilingualism and multilingualism during the coming decades, as
people everywhere seek to participate in an expanding world economy
by using English or other major languages. In view of the educational
and intellectual advantages acquired in mastering more than one
means of communication, monolingual speakers of English may find
themselves at a disadvantage in a largely bilingual or multilingual
world.
(Dalby, 2001: 23)
The multilingual order is not new for the Russian linguistic landscape and diverse
ethnic background. Although, as it has been already noticed, the Russian language is the only
official language, there exist over 100 minority languages spoken all over the territory of the
Russian Federation. However, such local diversity does not yet guarantee competitiveness of
Russia on international markets.
As such, the language policy in Russia needs to be directed at promoting advantages of
studying more than one foreign language and consequently provide its citizens with all the
necessary conditions on the levels of formal education and individual learning.17
Most Russian schools offer the subject “foreign language” beginning from grade 5.
Some schools offer two or more foreign languages. In this case, the first language appears in
16
According to the surveys, 40% of 15-24 year-old Europeans know at least two languages on top of their
mother tongue. This is double the rate for those over 55 (Orban, 2007).
17
According to the All-Russia Population Census 2002 (2002b) the most spread foreign languages in Russia are
English, German, French, Spanish and Italian (in descending order).
28
the school time-table in grade 2, and then starting from grade 5 pupils can take the second
foreign language at their choice.
It is estimated that in the Russian Federation 60% of secondary students take English,
25% German, and 15% French (Graddol, 1997: 44). Particular schools, usually specializing in
foreign languages, offer unique languages such as Polish, Turkish, Hebrew, Spanish, and
Italian. Recently the popularity of Asian languages such as Chinese and Japanese has rapidly
increased.
The popularity of particular foreign languages is accounted for the history of
international relations of Russia with other countries. The popularity of German is explained
by the fact that Germany is viewed by Russia as its leading European partner. As a foreign
language, German keeps its firm second place after English. Close to German is French, a
language of the nobility in the 18th-19th centuries, is still popular among Russians. It is
regarded as a means of access to French literature and progressive thought. The popularity of
Asian languages such as Chinese and Japanese is accounted for geographic proximity,
economic importance and technological development of these countries. The development of
trade relations with Spanish-speaking countries makes the knowledge of Spanish an
advantage in the modern world. Long friendly political, economic and cultural relations of
Russia with Italy maintain the interest in Italian. The development of trade relation with
Turkey has recently raised the popularity of Turkish. The geographical proximity to the
Scandinavian countries makes people more and more interested in Scandinavian languages,
especially Finnish. Other popular languages include Arabic and Portuguese, fast growing
world languages, challenging the dominance of the English language.
Generally speaking, multilingualism is well compatible to the Russian reality. It
becomes more and more demanded in such fields as business contacts, information sharing,
educational and cultural exchange. The promotion of multilingual ideology is believed to
build intercultural dialogues and facilitate sharing and better understanding of cultural values,
beliefs, and behaviors between nations.
Henceforth, the support of the emergence of multilingualism should not be viewed as
threatening national languages. Quite on the contrary, its promotion helps avoiding
marginalization of minority languages in local contexts and exclusion of regional and less
popular national languages from the global communication and information sharing. At the
same time, the multilingual policy does not devalue the importance of sharing a common
global language.
29
1.4. Summary.
The role the English language plays in Russia has changed substantially over the last
70 years.
In chapter 1, it has been observed that the reasons for the spread of a particular
language as a foreign language depends largely on historical developments, political strategy,
and the desire for commercial, cultural and technological contact. Similarly, the presence of
English can vary greatly, depending on the extent to which governmental authorities give
support to language planning or, on the contrary, hinder the spread of a particular language in
intranational contexts (Crystal, 2003a: 106).
Three major historical periods of the English-Russian relations which influenced the
status of English, domains of its use, and the ways the English language has been
implemented in the teaching practices in Russia were identified and briefly described.
1. The Cold War (1947-1991) or the period of isolation from the Western countries,
characterized by the breakdown in the Russian-English contacts: political, economic,
cultural, social, and linguistic resistance towards foreign influence, and limited access
to research and English-teaching material. During this period the English language
was mainly used in educational domains as a school discipline.
2. The post-perestroika period (1992-2000) or the period of admiration of everything the
Western world was offering to the half-baked Soviet society, finding itself at the
transitional stage from socialist to democratic, from collective to individual, and from
local to global. This period was marked by the hectic influx of foreign words, ideas,
and ways of life, penetrating all domains of every-day life. It was the time when
Russia tried feverishly to catch up with the West in its political, economic and social
development.
3. The period of New Russia (2000 up to nowadays) is defined by partnership relations
with the Western countries. Today’s Russia, unanimously acknowledged as a world
superpower, dictates its own rules on the international arena. Nowadays, the English
language in Russia is used in a range of intranational contexts, but primarily for
communication with the international community.
Historically the starting point for the improvement of the English-Russian relations is
considered 1985 – the year which marks the beginning of perestroika. At that time, new
30
political, economic and social reforms gave impetus to the reorientation in foreign policy and,
consequently, to the spread of English in Russia. This year, nonetheless, is not taken as a time
limit to neither the first nor the second period, demarcated in this survey, since it was only
during the post-perestroika time that the constructive changes in foreign language policy and
English language instruction became more tangible.
Nowadays, the use of English in Russia is essential in contexts such as inbound and
outbound tourism, workplace, Internet use and communication. It is a major vehicle of
communication for people sharing information in international settings. In the intranational
contexts knowledge of English is frequently indispensable for job applicants and those who
seek to increase their career perspectives. Such internationalization, however, is a complex
and contradictory process. On the one hand, it may be perceived as a threat to the status of the
national language; on the other hand, however, it supports an emerging need for bilingualism
and multilingualism as the access to the international community.
In the national settings the presence of English arouses both negative and positive
reactions. Negative reactions to English are primarily associated with the language
protectionism and the incentives taken to protect the Russian language and culture; the
positive opportunities are connected with the growing perception that English serves as a link
to international communities, thus, offering new directions in economic, professional, and
personal spheres.
However, the usage of English in today’s Russia is not perceived as the only link to
the global society. Contradictory as it might be, the increasing use of English creates premises
for Russians to study other foreign languages, increasingly striving to become bilingual or
even multilingual, and thus, more active and efficient in their connection and exchange with
international communities worldwide.
In the following chapter, the status of English in Russia is further discussed, as
compared to the rest of the world, where this language is recognized as a means of
international communication. New Russian studies about the English language are included,
as well as new approaches to the language, connected to emerging contexts of English
acquisition and use, new functions and instances of interaction.
31
2. New Approaches to English: Russian Contributions and Other Theoretical Insights.
Prior to 1985, the use of English in the USSR had been primarily restricted to
educational domains and thereafter, almost up to the beginning of the 21 st century, research
focusing on the status of English in Russia was only available to a limited group of Russian
scholars and linguists; however, now with Russia joining the global community, this language
is fully recognized as a means of international communication, and the center of novel
perspectives.
Chapter 2, divided into three subchapters, is devised to explore conceptions about the
current status of the English language worldwide, for nowadays, as a consequence of
globalization and the new linguistic world order, much debate arises about the definition of
English as a tool of international communication for people from different linguistic and
cultural backgrounds, and the characterization of an English speaker in this context. In other
words, this part of the survey seeks to answer two major questions about who the majority of
English speakers are, and what language they speak.
The first subchapter discusses the English studies approach in Russia, whose
development had for a long time been hindered due to the isolation of the scholarly society
from the Western knowledge and research material. After the unstable post-perestroika
period, however, Russian studies about the English language fully regained its pace with the
contemporary research, allowing Russian linguists and educators contribute to English studies
equally with their foreign colleagues.
The second subchapter sets forth models and approaches to the description of the
current linguistic order, with consequent redefinition of the concept of English speaker,
revealing the desire to distance from the traditional dichotomies which bring constraints about
the status of English users worldwide. It revisits the English studies approach from the point
of view of the majority of its speakers who are now predominantly non-native speakers of
32
English. It also highlights the fact that international uses of English in new geographical,
historical, attitudinal, linguistic, and sociolinguistic contexts eventually diminish any
difference between native and non-native speakers of the language.
The last subchapter brings the survey into an absolutely new dimension. The
theoretical frame of subchapter 2 is based on an attempt to bring clarity around the concepts
of English as an International language (EIL) and/or English as a lingua franca (ELF), lately
in broad use across the countries with non-native English-speaking communities. This
linguistic phenomenon clearly points out the need to take into account emerging contexts of
English acquisition, its current use and users, new functions and instances of interaction.
2.1. English studies: Russia’s catching up with the West.
Two international scholarly conferences which took place in 1978 became a landmark
for the English studies theoretical research in the second half of the 20th century: one at the
East-West Center in Hawaii (1-15 April), and the other at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (30 June-2 July). Their results became summarized in two publications: English
for Cross-cultural Communication, edited by Larry E. Smith in 1981, and The Other Tongue:
English across Cultures, edited by Braj B. Kachru in 1982.
These publications marked the beginning of several debates taking place around the
emerging concept of World Englishes (WEs) and new perspectives in the development of
English in the global contexts. The models introduced during this period raised such issues as
a) the spread of English;
b) the use of English in former British colonies;
c) the processes of nativization and acculturation;
d) the emergence of English varieties;
e) bilingual creativity;
f) the problems of standardization and codification;
g) new implications for English language teaching (ELT) worldwide.
They also served as an impetus for further research in a range of subdisciplines,
including applied linguistics, descriptive linguistics, critical linguistics, discourse analysis,
and pedagogy. After the new approach to English in the global context had gained its
recognition, and been discussed at different conferences all over the world, the issue of WEs
became the central concern of such organizations as the International Association for World
33
Englishes (IAWE) and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). It is
still one of the major themes of well known journals, World Englishes, English World-Wide,
and English Today.
In Russia, this period coincided with the turning point of its history, perestroika, when
the English-Russian relations opened up, and the contacts between the two languages started
to be more active and diverse. Nonetheless, while during the 1980s the linguists all over the
world were feverishly engaged in disputes about the fate of English, the emergence of WEs,
and the maintenance of standard language and language standards, Russian linguists, although
unwillingly, assumed the position of outside observers. Moreover, rather few Russian
researches and educators were aware of ongoing disputes in the scholarly society. Proshina
(2007) presents several reasons to explain this state of affairs, connecting them with
problematic issues created by the particular way of life during perestroika:
(…) on the one hand, this period almost coincided with the turning
point in the history of Russia (perestroika) when scholars and teachers
had to solve survival problems; on the other hand, shortage and even
in many places lack of sources resulted in the fact that this paradigm
has not received adequate attention from Russian linguists and is even
less known to students of English in Russia.
(Proshina, 2007: 10-1)
The years of isolation had an adverse impact on Russian view of the spread of English,
and its perceptions in the global contexts. Such unintentional backwardness, however, could
not prevent Russia’s growing awareness of the rearrangement of linguistic world order.
Although in the late 80s the theoretical implications were still hindered by political, social and
economic changes in Russian society, the practical need for reconsideration of traditional
paradigms was more than evident. With the perestroika reforms, Russia had to establish
political and economic relations with other countries, and this could hardly be possible
without the English language which, by that time, had been unanimously acknowledged as a
global language uniting people all over the world.
It would be wrong though to say that, until the beginning of the perestroika period, in
1985, not much had been done for English studies in Russia. On the contrary, the contribution
of Russian linguists had been valuable, but it still remains unrenowned abroad, as the access
to Russian studies of English is seriously impaired by the fact that the majority of scholarly
research is published in Russian.
34
Traditionally, Soviet linguistics was chiefly focused on the countries, where English is
spoken as a native language (Proshina, 2007: 11). The studies were thus carried out on such
varieties as British English, American English, Canadian English, Australian English, and
New Zealand English. Until recently only a few works have been dedicated to other English
varieties, functioning as second official or dominant languages.18
In general, according to Proshina and Lawrick (2009: 1-29), from 1949 up to 2009,
major published works on English in Russia list 302 titles on different subjects, including
sociolinguistic profiles, comparative studies, Anglicization of the Russian language,
Russianization of the English language, language contacts and varieties of English.
Remarkably, the majority of these surveys have been published from the beginning of 2000
onward, when Russia had finally recovered from the post-perestroika political, social and
economic instability, and could face the challenges brought up by the new linguistic order.
A real breakthrough for Russian linguistics turned out to be the international
conference Global English for Global Understanding, held in May 2001, in Moscow State
University. The conference, which gathered more than 400 English educators and researches
from all over the world, outlined such important issues as WEs, interaction of cultures and
global understanding, course and syllabus design in intercultural communication, raising
cross-cultural awareness, cultural aspects of the language, and many others.
Since then, a special interest in Russian researches has been laid on the issue of Asian
Englishes and intercultural intelligibility in the region, focusing on the concept of Far Eastern
Englishes, substantiated in MA and PhD theses on Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese,
and Singapore Englishes, and considering the use of English in the Asian settings, the role of
English in communication between East Asian and Russian people, Asian accents in English,
and the history of Asian borrowed words in English. Proshina (2008: 127) explains that the
interaction of Asian languages and English is of such a great interest for Russian researches
primarily because of the geographical proximity between these countries and economic ties
that traditionally link Russia with the East Asian economies, contributing to closer
interactions in this region.
18
Proshina (2007: 11-2) lists some of these studies; one of the first significant works – English in Developing
Countries: Problems of Sociocultural Varying – was a Doctoral dissertation by O. Semenets defended in Kiev in
1985 (Semenets, 1985). Recent studies include Candidate dissertations on South African Englishes by E.
Krainyuchenko (Krainyuchenko, 2002) and on Ghanaian English by N. Siaka (Siaka, 2004). In 1998, the
disciples of Professor O. Akhmanova, supported by David Crystal, published a collection of articles on Word
Englishes.
35
Eventually, the visibility of Russian studies of English has been given through the
activity of such national organizations as the National Association of Teachers of English in
Russia (NATE Russia),19 founded on the basis of the former TESOL-Russia association in
1997, the Far Eastern English Language Teachers’ Association (FEELTA), the St. Petersburg
English Language Teachers’ Association (SPELTA), and the Linguistic Association of the
Teachers of English at the University of Moscow (LATEUM).20
In general, it took Russian linguists almost a decade before they could be considered
full-fledged participants in disputes about the new concepts arising in the English language
studies. Since the turbulent post-perestroika time had been overcome, nothing could prevent
the Russian scholarly society from voicing their views and perceptions about the global
influence of English. Conscious of new realities and finally ready to face the challenges the
new linguistic order is suggesting, Russian linguists and educators have to make just a little
effort to catch up with the West.
2.2. Rethinking English: approaches and models.
In recent years, the focus of English studies has shifted from the traditional description
of English “standards” at large, and its users, in particular. It challenges the significance and
relevance of native speakers’ “ownership of English” (Widdowson, 1993), and centers on the
majority of its users – those who primarily use the language for communication with other
non-native speakers of English.
As the number of English users who speak the language to a certain degree of
competence has, most probably, already reached 2 billion worldwide (Crystal, 2008: 3), it
may be assumed that for every one native speaker (NS) there are now three or four non-native
speakers (NNSs), the number of which is continuously growing. Beneke (1991), quoted by
Seidlfofer (2003: 7), writes that “it has been estimated that about 80 per cent of verbal
exchanges in which English is used as a second or foreign language do not involve native
speakers of English”.
19
In 1997, TESOL-Russia, which started its work in 1990, was registered under the name of the National
Association of Teachers of English in Russia (NATE).
20
All these organizations work in close cooperation with the International Association of Teachers of English as
a Foreign Language (IATEFL) and TESOL. Their mission is to strengthen the teaching and learning of English
in the Russian Federation, to promote the professional development of teachers, to support networking with
colleagues all over the world, and to give access to the latest teaching resources.
36
According to the latest estimates, the total number of speakers for whom English is the
mother tongue or native language (L1) may vary from about 320 to 380 million. This number
of speakers is based on the population of such countries as Britain, the US, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, and South Africa. The approximate number of speakers for whom English is
the second language (L2) is from 300 to 500 million. This figure has been arrived at by
estimating English-speaking population of the former colonized communities. The estimates
for speakers of English as a foreign language (EFL) may vary from 500 million to as high as
one billion (Crystal, 2003a: 107). Nonetheless, the real estimates for EFL speakers may be
much higher than it might be supposed as ever-increasing numbers of people worldwide start
learning English.
By analyzing these figures, the ration between NSs and NNSs comes to the fore. It is
quite clear that, lately, the balance of power has shifted to the majority of those for whom
English is not their mother tongue. “Not only is English still spreading, but it is even being
spread by non-English mother-tongue interests” (Fishman, 1992: 19).
So, nowadays the spread of English is fostered by NNS interests, and the concept of
English speaker becomes more obviously unrelated to nationality, driving away from NS
dominance. This new world order invariably implies the rethinking of the traditional
terminology applied to name and describe English speakers, the type and functions of English
used by the majority of its users worldwide, and the reappraisal of its consequences for ELT,
and teacher training.
To understand this new rethinking in the analysis of English spread and
characterization, there follows a review of the most prominent moments in this change.
Kachru (1985)’s three concentric circles model.
To categorize English-speaking societies, Kachru proposed a model which serves as a
framework for observing the role assumed by English across the different nations, languages
and cultures, and in a variety of sociolinguistic situations (Kachru, 1992d: 356). The model
consists of three concentric circles, including the Inner, the Outer and the Expanding circle
(see figure 2.1). Each circle illustrates English not only in terms of the types of spread and the
types of variation, but also in terms of acquisition, functional domains, and types of users.
This tripartite model was adopted by many professionals and is still frequently referred to in
modern research.
37
Expanding circle
Outer circle
Inner circle
e.g. USA, UK
320-380 million
e.g. India, Singapore
300-500 million
e.g. China, Russia
500-1000 million
Figure 2.1. Kachru’s concentric circles of WEs
(Crystal, 2003a: 107).
According to Kachru’s three concentric circles, the Inner circle is referred to the
English-speaking countries where English is the native or L1 of the majority of population.
This core is composed by such countries as Britain, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
and South Africa. In these countries English is the only official language used in public
discourse. Furthermore, these societies are considered to set models of the standard usage for
English language teaching to the rest of English-speaking countries and thus are defined as
“norm-providing”.
The Outer circle countries have English as an official or one of the dominant
languages, acquired as L2. The Outer circle comprises the countries colonized by English
native-speaking diaspora. This group includes such countries as India, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana,
Zambia, Tanzania, Singapore, Malaysia, and others. In these countries, English is extensively
used in administration, education, media, popular culture, and literary creativity. The societies
of the Outer circle have developed their own indigenous varieties of English (e.g. Indian
38
English, Nigerian English, and Singaporean English). The varieties of English spoken by
these nations are referred to as “norm-developing”, as they are in the process of being
recognized as standardized varieties to be taught.
The Expanding circle comprises countries where English is studied as a foreign
language and used for more specific purposes, mainly, although not exclusively, as a means of
communication with the international community. Its functional range is restricted to such
contexts like business, education and tourism. The countries of the Expanding circle include
China, Korea, Japan, Iran, the former USSR republics, and Portugal, among others. The
language used in EFL countries is referred to as “norm-dependent” in the sense that it follows
standard British English (usually in the form of Received Pronunciation (RP)) or standard
American English (in the form of General American English (GA)) norms.
Graddol (1997)’s model.
More than a decade ago, being reluctant to locate NSs at the center of the global use of
English, as in Kachru’s model of concentric circles, Graddol (1997) presented the three circles
of English as overlapping (see figure 2.2), making it easier to see how the “centre of gravity”
will shift towards L2 speakers and eventually those who speak it as a foreign language at the
start of the 21st century,21 stating that, “Native speakers may feel the language ‘belongs’ to
them, but it will be those who speak English as a second or foreign language who will
determine its world future” (Graddol, 1997: 10).
Correspondingly, Graddol (1997: 10) differentiates between three types of English
speakers, keeping to the traditional tripartite model of English users:
1. L1 speakers are those for whom English is a native language. They belong to the socalled “diaspora of native speakers”, living in the UK, the US, Canada, South Africa,
Australia, and New Zealand.
21
The ongoing shifts in the status of English can be already observed in many countries. Such L2 countries as
India and Nigeria, for instance, can be regarded as shifting towards NS communities. At the same time many
EFL countries claim English for intranational communication, especially in professional and educational
domains. Countries in transition from EFL to L2 status are Argentina, Belgium, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia,
Finland, Honduras, Lebanon, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Somalia,
Sudan, Surinam, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Arab Emirates (Graddol, 1997: 11).
39
2. L2 speakers are those who use English as a second or additional language. These
speakers belong to the countries with local varieties of English, but may also be fluent
in international varieties.
3. The third group are speakers of EFL.
750 million
EFL speakers
375 million
L2 speakers
375 million
L1 speakers
Figure 2.2. Graddol’s overlapping circles of English
(Graddol, 1997: 10).
Nonetheless, at the beginning of the 21st century, relating English speakers to the
three-way categorization model is perceived as being inadequate for describing the linguistic
situation, for it is getting increasingly difficult to refer to speakers of English as belonging to
one of the three groups.
Modiano (1999)’s model.
Calling into question the relevance of the traditional terminology, Modiano (1999a:
25) declines the distinction between English users being defined as English as a native
language (ENL), English as a second language (ESL) and EFL speakers, in favor of their
communicative ability. In his model of centripetal circles (see figure 2.3), he challenges the
Eurocentric frame where ENL speakers assume the position of superiority and impose the
notions of correctness on the rest of English-speaking community.
40
It is noted that language proficiency does not necessarily entail native-like control of
the language. On the contrary, the emphasis is laid on the linguistic repertoire, functional and
efficient for linguistic interaction within particular contexts.
Learners
Native and
foreign
language
proficiency
Proficient
speakers
People who
do not know
English
Figure 2.3. Modiano’s centripetal circles of English
(Modiano, 1999a: 25).
Correspondingly, Modiano (2000: 28) proposes “that individuals who speak English
which is comprehensible in an international context occupy a central position” and thus
assume responsibility for defining and developing English as a tool of cross-cultural
communication. He (Modiano, 1999a: 26) argues that “native speakers who speak regional
dialects or have strong accents, non-native speakers who speak internationally
incomprehensible indigenized varieties, and speakers of Creole varieties” be excluded from
the central position, unless they are not capable of switching into an internationally
comprehensible variety. The second circle includes speakers of varying degrees of
proficiency, those who require code switching to achieve international comprehensibility, and
the third circle is reserved for learners acquiring proficiency, either in standard varieties or in
a regional accent.
As these circles are primarily determined by the level of communicative ability, those
speakers who achieve better comprehensibility in international contexts gradually move
towards the center, expanding the group of proficient speakers of English.
Kachru himself has recently proposed that the “‘Inner Circle’ is now better conceived
of as the group of highly proficient speakers of English (see figure 2.4) – those who have
41
‘functional nativeness’, regardless of how they learned or use the language” (Graddol, 2006:
110).
INNER
500
High proficiency
Low proficiency
Figure 2.4. The circle of English conceived according to speakers’ language proficiency
(Graddol, 2006: 110).
Yano (2001)’s model.
Grounding on Kachru’s three-circle model, Yano (2001: 122) envisages the future of
English speakers from a three-dimensional sociolinguistic perspective (see figure 2.5). He,
thus, distinguishes between three groups of English speakers:
1. genetically native speakers, those referred to Kachru’s Inner circle countries;
2. functionally native speakers, those with the native speaker’s intuition, who can
infinitely generate grammatical and appropriate linguistic forms in a given situation
(ESL speakers from the outer circle);
3. NNSs, those who speak EFL.
42
Inner circle
(genetic ENL)
Outer circle
(functional ENL)
Expanding circle
(EFL)
Figure 2.5. Kachru’s three-circle model as modified by Yano
(2001: 123).
In his model, Yano (2001: 123) removes the idea of the NS centeredness and proposes
that genetically native speakers, functionally native speakers, and NNSs will be on a parallel
with each other. He explains it by the fact that within this century, ESL speakers will establish
their varieties firmly enough not to seek for models in Inner circle varieties spoken by
genetically native speakers. This will allow them feel and identify themselves as NSs. He
adds that some EFL speakers can also become functionally native or semi-native speakers
through the extensive exposure and uses of English, bringing to the fore the case of the EU
where English is widely used as a means of intranational communication along with several
mother tongues.
Jenkin’s alternatives.
Seeking to avoid negative connotations implied by the traditional terminology, Jenkins
(2000: 9-10) finds her own solution for the definition of expert and less expert speakers of
English. Thus, she suggests the following alternatives:
“Monolingual English speaker” (MES) – speaker of English who speaks no other
language fluently. MES is used to substitute the term “native speaker”.
“Bilingual English speaker” (BES) – “non-native speaker” who speaks English
fluently.
43
“Non-bilingual English speaker” (NBES) – bilingual speaker who is not fluent in
English.
Although the suggested terminology is not without its problems, it removes the
negative distinction between the terms NSs and NNSs. Jenkins (2000) herself notes,
... it has two great advantages. Firstly, the term MES is less favourable
than BES, reflecting the fact that monolingualism is not the world
norm or the preferable condition. Secondly, BES removes the artificial
distinction (in an international context) between speakers of L1
varieties of English and proficient speakers of L2 varieties.
(Jenkins, 2000: 9-10)
The cross-cultural approach which displaces NSs from the position of superiority in
favor of individual communicative abilities is certainly welcome. In fact, in some instances of
communication, NNSs may be more intelligible than NSs. However, it is argued that such
liberal views may arise much controversy to the point that they “fail to give further insight
into what kind of speakers are considered competent to establish educational standards and
models for the kind of English that may be comprehensible to the majority of English
speakers” (Erling, 2004: 41).
2.3. Overview of recent developments in the research.
Since the spread of English has been presented by two broader groups of speakers,
those who use English as their mother tongue, and those who acquire English as an additional
language, their L2 or foreign language, there emerges the need to define the type of language
that would bridge the English-speaking population, be they NSs or NNSs.
Already in the introduction to the second edition of The Other Tongue, Kachru (1992a:
2) voices his concern about the possibility of creating “an artificial or constructed language as
an international language (that) would function as an extralinguisting tool, ideally speaking,
with no cultural or linguistic connotations; consequently, no ethnocentrism would arise”. This
idea, however, was first presented as merely linguistic esoterica – an idealised vision of “a
code of communication that would cut across cultures” (Kachru, 1992a: 2).
Further, making the distinction between two types of motivation to learn a language,
the integrative and the instrumental, Kachru (1992c) comes closer to the definition of the
type of language that may eventually function as a tool of communication cutting across
44
cultures, pointing out that if “a language is acquired for instrumental reasons as a linguistic
tool, but not as a means for cultural integration”, such terms as “library language, auxiliary
language, link language, or language for special purposes (LSP)” are applicable. In this sense,
the language is acquired as a restricted code for a specific goal. In such contexts, acquiring a
second culture is not the main motivation for learning the language (Kachru, 1992c: 54-5).
Taking into consideration the spread of English in local contexts, Strevens (1992) on
his side, speaks about the emergence of non-ethnocentric uses of English, and defines those as
English as an international language. Namely, he points out the emergence of an “‘Educated
European English’, used by business people, professional administrators from France,
Germany, Holland, Italy, etc., to communicate together, and in which they recognize each
other as Europeans, by performing in English with common features, but each with his/her
common accent” (1992: 35).
These considerations, which might be defined at that time as utopist ideas about the
appearance of a link language that would cross between linguistic and cultural boundaries
were reconsidered and formulated more precisely, changing from idealized to realistic,
already at the turn of the century. As such, on a global scale, “the only viable condition for the
ease of communication” between speakers of different L1 backgrounds was considered the
use of a variety comprehensible to larger numbers of people (Modiano, 1999a: 23).
2.3.1. Towards EIL / ELF.
As ever-increasing numbers of people claim English as a tool of communication, this
language is no more the same in the sense that it is no longer perceived as a foreign language
restricted by the ethnocentric frame, where NS varieties assume the position of superiority
and impose notions of correctness and prescriptivism on the rest of the English-speaking
community. Instead, in modern linguistic contexts, English is frequently seen as “an
international lingua franca that is not geographically or historically restricted”. In this light,
the acquisition of English is assumed as “a gateway to greater cooperation and understanding
between peoples from divergent cultural backgrounds” (Modiano, 1999a: 26).
Since the early 90s, it has been increasingly common to find communities of EFL
users referred to as speakers of English as an International Language or, most recently, as
speakers of English as a Lingua Franca. Correspondingly, the recent developments concerning
the use of English have been addressed to as EIL or its shorthand “International English”, and
ELF.
45
Despite a considerable space of confusion between them, the two terms are currently
in use, and are frequently found in similar contexts; as it is noted, both terms are used to refer
to “English as a means of international communication across national and linguistic
boundaries” (Jenkins, 2006: 160).
Nonetheless, if still juxtaposed to each other, the term EIL is the more general term of
the two, as it encompasses at least two possible interpretations. McKay gives the following
definition of EIL:
International English is used by native speakers of English and
bilingual users of English for cross-cultural communication.
International English can be used both in a local sense between
speakers of diverse cultures and languages within one country and in a
global sense between speakers from different countries.
(Seidlhofer, 2003: 8)
Hence, firstly EIL is connected to the global spread of English. As Smith (1992: 41)
puts it, “it is the widespread use of English which makes it an international language”. In this
first broader sense, EIL corresponds to such terms as English as a global language and
English as a world language or world English (Jenkins, 2006: 160). It includes speakers from
Kachru’s circles – speakers of ENL and its dialects (Kachru’s Inner circle), speakers of Wes /
New Englishes / indigenized / institutionalized / localized or postcolonial Englishes / ESL,
and speakers of EFL.
In its second narrower meaning, EIL is defined as a means of cross-cultural
communication primarily, but not exclusively, across the Expanding circle. In this sense, EIL
is used more or less interchangeably with the term ELF (Jenkins, 2006: 160). Accordingly,
ELF is classified as
(…) an additionally acquired language system that serves as a means
of communication between speakers of different first languages, or a
language by means of which the members of different speech
communities can communicate with each other but which is not the
native language of either – a language which has no native speakers.
(Seidlhofer, 2001: 146)
Yet, in its “purest form”, ELF is defined as “a contact language used only among nonmother tongue speakers’” (Jenkins, 2006: 160), excluding from its definition any form of
interaction with NSs, be they from ENL countries or ESL countries (Kachru’s Outer circle).
46
Nonetheless, the recent definition of ELF, formulated in VOICE,22 broadens the
concept of ELF to the extent that allows considering speakers of different first-language
backgrounds, including native English speakers, as equal participants in international
communication (see figure 2.6).
The most wide-spread contemporary use of English throughout the
world is that of English as a lingua franca (ELF), i.e. English used as a
common means of communication among speakers from different
first-language backgrounds.
(VOICE)
NNS speakers
NS speakers
EIL speakers
(NS and NNS)
Figure 2.6. Modiano’s circles of EIL speakers
(adapted from Modiano, 1999a: 25).
In what concerns the understanding of the nature of ELF, Prodromou (2008) designs
his own model of WEs (see figure 2.7) to suggest that, in its essence,
22
VOICE, the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English, is a structured collection of language data,
capturing spoken ELF interactions.
47
ELF is not a separate entity but the outcome of all circles interacting.
It is neither one L2-user talking to another L2-user nor L1 users
imposing their norms on everybody else. ELF is, by definition, the
result of global uses of English by members of the original three
circles: the Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles.
(Prodromou, 2008: xiv)
Expanding
circle
ELF
Outer
circle
Inner
circle
Figure 2.7. Prodromou’s circles of WEs
(2008: xiv).
The greatest advantage of ELF is thus that it does away with the controversial
dichotomy between NSs and NNSs of English; Jenkins (2000) considers this dichotomy to be
absolutely inadequate
[It] cannot be acceptable or appropriate for a language that has passed
into world ownership (…) [It] is entirely inappropriate, indeed
offensive, to label as ‘non-native speakers’ those who have learnt
English as a second or foreign language and achieved bilingual status
as fluent, proficient users.
(Jenkins, 2000: 9)
Although the dichotomy “native” versus “non-native” may arise a precisely similar
conflict as the division into three groups of ENL, ESL and EFL, it is a very difficult issue to
avoid. Not to arise much confusion about terminology, when still applied in this survey, the
48
emphasis will be laid on L1 or L2 acquisition, rather than on the attempt to prioritize one
group over the other.
2.3.2. ELF: clarifying comparisons and misconceptions.
As it has been noted in different surveys, the term ELF has certain advantages over
other terms, when used to describe the contexts where English functions as an international
means of communication.
ELF, interlanguage and register.
ELF is frequently opposed to such concepts as interlanguage (IL), and register or
English for special purposes (ESP).
Although the concept of IL and the description of IL theory are considered to be of
great significance for the understanding of the Expanding circle varieties (Jenkins, 2006:
167), they are not considered as having much relevance for the description of goals set up by
the participants of international communication.
According to IL theory, a L2 speaker’s competence lies on an interlanguage
continuum, at some point between the native language and the target language. It follows that,
any difference between their output and the target, be it British English or American English,
results in errors caused primarily by L1 interference. The point at which these errors become
regularized and fixed within the learner’s repertoire is referred to as fossilization, i.e. “regular
reappearance or reemergence in IL productive performance of linguistic structures which
were thought to be eradicted” (Sridhar and Sridhar, 1992: 98).
However, as Jenkins (2006: 167) notes “the main arguments presented against IL
theory are that outer circle English speakers are not attempting to identify with inner circle
speakers or to produce the norms of an exonormative variety of English grounded in an inner
circle experience”. It is further pointed out that this theory focuses more on individual
acquisition rather than on acquisition by an entire speech community.
It is argued, thus, that international uses of English should be regarded as neither
deficient nor fossilized, but a legitimate use of English on its own right. Quite on the contrary,
when used in national, and what is more important, in international contexts, the type of
English involved reflects the sociolinguistic and sociocultural reality of the country, and the
national identity of its speakers.
Likewise, ELF is often described as possessing characteristics of a register. For
example, referring to ELF, Breiteneder (2009: 34) points out that the term register
49
“emphasises communication rather than identity and tends to be determined by its function
rather than its use”. In other words, it is implied in particular settings for specific purposes,
and is primarily governed by the need for communication, rather than by the desire to express
one’s cultural or national identity. Breiteneder (2009: 34) further concludes that a register is a
variety of language served for specific purposes, communication for specific information,
rather than for intra-national or inter-national exchange.
With its emphasis on terminology and limited grammar structures, ESP is learned by
specialists in various fields, such as physicians, computer programmers, mathematicians,
biologists, and so forth. Widdowson (1993), in particular, refers to the professional
communities, namely that of businessmen, and the community of researches and scholars in
science and technology, and other disciplines.
However, nowadays, more and more often English speakers of diverse L1
backgrounds come into contact outside academic, technical or scientific settings. As such,
communication between individuals is regulated not only by specific purposes, but also by the
desire to identify themselves with a particular nation and culture through and by means of the
language that they consider their own.
So, neither IL nor ESP may be considered as fully relevant to be applied to the current
situation of English uses because
a) first, they do not precisely define the participants of international communication
and their goals for language acquisition, and
b) second, these terms do not clearly distinguish the settings in which the instances of
international exchanges take place.
ELF and World Standard (Spoken) English (WS(S)E).
One of the misconceptions connected with the ELF approach is that it is frequently
perceived as not much divergent from ENL exonormative models based on American or
British norms. Thus, some scholars argue that ELF, as a matter of fact, is an attempt to replace
one monolithic standard for English speakers worldwide with another.
What did not convince us about the ELF approach was, crucially, that
it seemed to want to replace one model with another. If a British or
American ENL model was deemed exonormative for most learners of
English around the world, so would be, we suspected, any other model
that was intended to be suitable for users of English around the globe,
from Argentina to Vietnam, passing through Vienna, Cairo and
Beijing. We saw ELF as an attempt to describe a one-size-fits-all
50
model of English and it was in this sense that, to us at least, ELF did
not seem, in the substance, very different from Quirk’s idea of
International English.
(Saraceni, 2008: 22)
In the same vein, Alan Davies (1999) finds International English a further
development of Standard English.
The [second] situation brought about by the spread of English is that
of International English. It seems to me that the most useful way of
looking at International English is to see it as one more development
in the standardisation process; from this point of view international
English is a further development of the Standard Englishes that we
now have. To what extent this makes it different in any serious way
from existing Standard Englishes is difficult to disentangle.
(Davies, 1999: 180-1)
Likewise, ELF is frequently compared to such terms as World Standard (Spoken)
English (WS(S)S), suggested by McArthur (1998: 95) and Crystal (2003a: 111). This type of
English is placed in the center of WE (see figure 2.8) as a variety that can emerge as a world
standard for speakers of regional or national standards, and for users of a whole fringe of
subvarieties which are spoken around the world. It is conceived as a “common core” that
would be based on those aspects of English which are most useful for international purposes.
It is chiefly conceived of features of Standard English varieties of the Inner circle, such as
American English, British English, or Australian English.
However, as it is noted by Crystal, WS(S)E “as a totally uniform, regionally neutral,
and unarguably prestigious variety does not yet exist worldwide” (Crystal, 2003a: 111).
Furthermore, this author believes that the development of such uniform variety will be most
probably influenced by American English, which “seems to have made considerable progress
in this direction” (Crystal, 2003a: 113).
51
Figure 2.8. McArthur’s circle of WE
(McArthur, 1998: 97).
To do with this misconception, Jenkins (2006: 160) notes that ELF is very far from the
concept of WS(S)S, which is primarily influenced by ENL models. It bears descriptive rather
than prescriptive character. She also points out that “far from prioritizing inner circle norms,
ELF researchers specifically exclude mother tongue speakers from their data collection”.
Here, it must be specified Jenkins does not mean those NSs who chose to follow models
comprehensible to other speakers of English, when communication in international settings
takes place.
The common core for speakers of EIL is, thus, defined as constituted by those
“features of the English language which are used and are comprehensible to the majority of
native and competent non-native speakers of English” (Modiano, 1999b: 11). The main
criterion for these features is intelligibility rather than its identification with a particular
speech community.
Jenkins (2006) points out that ELF does not discourage speakers from learning and
using their local variety, but, in line with Modiano (1999b), speaks about the necessity to
establish a set of features that would be intelligible to English speakers across different first
language backgrounds rather than creating a single ELF variety.
52
[Secondly,] it is not the case that ELF research, like WS(S)E, is
proposing the concept of a monolithic English for the entire world.
Although ELF researchers seek to identify frequently and
systematically used forms that differ from inner circle forms without
causing communication problems and override first language
groupings, their purpose is not to describe and codify a single ELF
variety. The existence of ELF is not intended to imply that learner
should aim for an English that is identical in all respects. ELF
researchers do not believe any such monolithic variety of English does
or ever will exist. Rather, they believe that anyone participating in
international communication needs to be familiar with, and have in
their linguistic repertoire for use, as and when appropriate, certain
forms (phonological, lexicogrammatical, etc.) that are widely used and
widely intelligible across groups of English speakers from different
first language backgrounds.
(Jenkins, 2006: 161)
The two concepts W(S)SE and ELF, however divergent they may be in their essence,
point out the evidence of the growing awareness of the existence of a specific form of English
used among English speakers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This new
form of English, whatever it may be defined, bridges English-speaking communities
worldwide and is primarily used in international communication.
ELF versus EFL.
The parallels are more often drawn between ELF and EFL. That is why it is believed
to be crucial to differentiate between the two notions.
Traditionally, across the countries of the expanding circle, the everincreasing numbers of people learn English as a foreign language still
with the focus remaining on the acquisition of native-like command of
the language by prioritizing not only native speakers’ grammatically
correct norms and but also native speakers’ culture and what are
considered situationally appropriate and typical ways of behavior, the
knowledge of which acts as “membership devices” for integration into
the native society.
(Seidlhofer, 2011: 17)
For EFL, the motivation for learning English is “integrative”, meaning that learners’
desire is “to identify with the members of the other linguistic cultural group and be willing to
take on very subtle aspects of their language or even their style of speech” (Kachru, 1992c:
54).
53
The associations with EFL are closely bound with the ancestral homeland of the
language and, consequently, with its native speakers. Accordingly, the attainment of nearnative proficiency becomes a prior target for those who want to join the English NS
community. In light of recent developments, the EFL approach, however, has been criticized
for marginalization of speakers of English as L2 or foreign language, for “EFL approaches,
like all foreign languages teaching, positions the learner as an outsider, as a foreigner; one
who struggles to attain acceptance by the target community” (Graddol, 2006: 82).
Hence, the status of a foreign language speaker and user is frequently associated with
deficient language proficiency, and the absence of efficient communicative competence. This
status in itself highlights the supremacy of NS models as the only acceptable targets for
language use and learning for all non-native users of the language.
The ELF approach to language acquisition is, in its turn, regulated by communicative
goals. In this case, everything that may be defined as correct or appropriate is primarily linked
with what is efficient for communication. In these instances, communication may be called
productive since the communicative goal is achieved without following ENL linguacultural
norms. For instance, at international business meeting or research conferences, interactions
that take place between participants do not necessarily imply the presence of NSs, if any at
all.
In such ELF interactions, participants are typically focused coconstructing a viable modus operandi to achieve a communicative
goal… In such situations it would be internationally counterproductive, even patently absurd in most cases, for speakers to (strive
to) adhere to ENL linguacultural norms when no ENL speakers may
be even present.
(Seidlhofer, 2011: 18)
To add, as it has been already noted before, recently the distinction between ENL,
ESL and EFL speakers has been reconsidered as being irrelevant if taken into consideration
high levels of language proficiency that can be equally demonstrated by NNSs of English, and
the changing targets of English learners. In fact, today many speakers try to achieve the scope
of internationally effective proficiency, being “able to use communication strategies and a
linguistic variety that is comprehensible to interlocutors from a wide range of national or
cultural backgrounds” (Melchers and Shaw, 2003: 39).
54
To conclude, focusing on the concepts of EFL and ELF, Jenkins brings out the
following differences, presented in table 2.1, in terms of linguacultural norms, objectives, and
processes:
Foreign language (EFL)
Lingua franca (ELF)
Linguacultural norms
pre-existing, re-affirmed
Objectives
integration, membership in NS intelligibility, communication
community
in a NNS or mixed NNS-NS
interaction
imitation, adoption
accommodation, adaptation
Processes
ad hoc, negotiated
Table 2.1. Conceptual differences between EFL and ELF
(Seidlhofer, 2011: 18).
As it has been already referred to, EFL as a target of language acquisition is oriented
towards the acquisition of standard NS models that serve as a means of integration into the
NS community, whereas ELF, in its essence, is highly negotiable, taken into consideration
linguacultural norms, but at the same time it is quite straightforward concerning the targets
that prioritize comprehensibility and efficiency over the acquisition of distant NS models.
Curiously, being both concepts in currency of English studies, there is still more
research material into what is EFL rather than ELF. The latter remains, so far, a source of
much debate and discussion steadily gaining its recognition in face of the infallible evidence
that nowadays the majority of English users are NNSs of English who use English to
communicate with other NNSs in international settings.
2.3.3. ELF: an English variety or English varieties.
Also related to the phenomenon of ELF is the idea that, in its essence, it is not a single
variety, but a set of English varieties, springing across English-speaking communities of the
Expanding circle. First, however, many linguists would argue that the concept of ELF in itself
can be defined as an English variety in its own right. A deep rooted notion that a language
belongs to a particular geographical area and speech community invariably biases the
assumption that a lingua franca cannot function as an independent variety of English.
Recent research into ELF, however, frees the concept of a language variety from a
particular territory or group, underlining the fact that ELF is a language resource for all
speakers of English, whoever those may be, - be they ENL, ESL, or EFL users. Indeed,
55
Seidlhofer (2011: 76) insists that questioning the status of ELF as a separate variety is
“anachronistic and irrelevant discussions” as “academics in various branches of English
studies have been socialized into thinking about English as manifested in different varieties
located in space and time, social strata and domains of use, with the concomitant belief that
recognizing ‘more varieties’ as independent entities amounts to progress in that it
acknowledges and values diversity rather than ignoring or suppressing it”. The author further
states that
In its alternative sense, then, that I understand English as a lingua
franca: as a means of intercultural communication not tied up to
particular countries and ethnitcities, a linguistic resource that is not
contained in, or constrained by, traditional (and notoriously
tendentious) ideas of what constitutes ‘a language’.
(Seidlhofer, 2011: 81)
Attempting to comprehend the complex nature of ELF as being related to a particular
English variety or to many varieties of English, Saraceni (2008: 24) refers to Jenkins’
monograph English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity (2007: 21-2) where she first
speaks of ELF as a variety co-existing with other WE varieties, “an emerging English that
exists in its own right and which is being described in its own terms rather than by
comparison with ENL”. Later on, however, Jenkins (2007) raises the idea of a pluricentric
character of ELF, observing that
(…) it is entirely for learners to decide what kind of English they want
to learn, be it EFL (…) an ESL (outer circle) variety, or an ELF
variety for international communication (for example, China English,
Spanish English, Japanese English, etc.).
(Jenkins, 2007: 21-2)
Indeed, the above observations suggest that ELF is not a homogeneous English
variety, but many Englishes or rather many “hybrid ways of speaking” (Seidlhofer, 2011: 4),
as contemporary ELF, with the majority of its speakers coming from different L1
backgrounds, is particularly hybrid due to the large numbers of its users. It is not surprising
nowadays to find English defined by such modifiers as “Japanese”, “China”, “Russian”, and
“Portuguese”, etc. Such concepts like Euro-English, Asian English, German English, and
Italian English, among many others, have emerged to suit the concept of ELF varieties for
speakers of different L1 backgrounds.
56
It is further noted that such approach is not far from that of Outer circle varieties that
have been described as possessing their own distinctive linguistic features (Saraceni, 2008:
24). So far, for instance, due to the growing role and massive spread of English across the EU,
greater attention has been drawn to the rise of a European noninstitutionalized variety of ELF,
defined as “Euro-English”. The new concept has been recognized and investigated by such
scholars as McArthur (2003b: 57-8), Modiano (2003, 2006), Jenkins et al. (2001), and others.
Since increasing numbers of Europeans use English for cross-cultural communication
with other NNSs from mainland Europe, Euro-English is seen as a variety indicative of “an
emerging [mainland] European identity” and “an integral component of European cultural
integration”. Euro-English comprises mix features from both American English and British
English as well as features from European languages considered most suitable for effective
communication among NNSs. One of the indications of the development of Euro-English into
a separate variety is the recognition of Eurospeak or Eurojargon within EU institutions.
We are witnessing the emergence of an endonormative model of
lingua franca English which will increasingly derive its norms of
correctness and appropriacy from its own usage rather than that of the
UK or the US, or any other ‘native speaker’ country.
(Jenkins et al., 2001: 15)
So, if Euro-English finally establishes itself as a distinct variety, it is believed to allow
Europeans represent their own cultural and social identities through the use of NNS accents,
lexis, discourse strategies, and the like.
If ‘Euro-English’ is indeed an emerging variety as a European lingua
franca, then it should be possible to describe it systematically, and
eventually also to provide a codification which would allow it to be
captured in dictionaries and grammars and to be taught, with
appropriate teaching materials to support this teaching.
(Jenkins et al., 2001: 14)
As such, taking into consideration the complex character of ELF, Saraceni (2008: 25)
suggests his own reading of the corresponding notion, in terms of a variety or varieties of
English.
57

ELF refers to local varieties of English emerging in Expanding circle settings,
such as China, Japan, Europe, Latin America, etc.

ELF refers to a variety of English, with its own phonological and lexicogrammatical features, stemming out of the types interactions involving primarily
NNSs.

ELF refers to a distinct variety of English used internationally as a lingua franca
in a particular region of the world.
Whether ELF refers to a single international variety or to many local Englishes across
the countries of the Expanding circle, it is of fundamental importance, not only for the
understanding of the nature of ELF, but also for possible implications for teaching English as
an international variety.
Another reason of special concern is primarily connected with the pluricentric
character of ELF; in fact, being pluricentric in its essence, ELF may eventually change into
different mutually incomprehensible varieties, contradicting to the initial idea of ELF as a
unifying language for people who come from different L1 backgrounds.
Anyhow, though there are many advantages in the concept of ELF, there is also much
ambiguity surrounding its approach. This raises several issues and discussions about its
recognition; so, up to now, the ELF approach to English in Russia has been considered very
cautiously:
The term ELF of Russian culture (…) emphasizes the role of language
as a tool for communication between both native and non-native
speakers and among its non-native speakers. The main obstacle to
effective communication in this sphere is ideology; the Soviet
ideology has influenced human mentality very strongly and it is still
revealed today. As practice shows, using English as regional variety
(Russian English) has not made it completely ‘‘regional.’’ It does
acquire some changes to serve better the demands of regional
communication but these changes are revealed only within British or
American culture. To be a true lingua franca Russian English should
be a variety that reveals Russian culture by means of the English
language, making the latter change but not necessarily lose completely
its own ‘‘ethnic’’ background.
(Yuzefovich, 2005: 509)
In Russia, as everywhere else, one feels the need for further research.
58
2.4. Summary.
In chapter 2, it is noticed that the traditional models used to describe English speakers
worldwide make little sense, on the one hand, mostly because of the fact that NNSs of English
have already surpassed numerically its NSs worldwide, and, on the other hand, because the
majority of instances of communication in English now take place between NNSs of English.
In this light, as it has been observed, the recent models and approaches, proposed to illustrate
the dispersal of English in terms of its users, eliminate any distinction between NSs and NNSs
and, consequently, between speakers of English as ENL, ESL and EFL.
It is thus assumed that any English speaker who speaks the language comprehensibly
and efficiently in international contexts is placed in the central position as a legitimate user of
English since his communicative ability fully satisfies the aim of communication. More than
that, he has the right to contribute to the development of the English language as equally as its
NSs.
This new status of English speaker makes it possible to approach English from an
absolutely new viewpoint. The present phase in the history of the language involves a novel
perspective to English being used as an international language or ELF. It refers to English as a
part of everyday life for a large number of people, neither of whom have English as their
mother tongue.
This recent concept of English is contrasted with other concepts, such as IL, register,
WS(S)E, and EFL to further underline and better understand its characteristics.
The greatest advantage of ELF approaches as such is that it discards the exceptional
superiority and privileged position of NSs in defining the models of language usage in
broader international contexts. Indeed, for a long time, being identified as a native speaker of
English has been associated with ownership, and native proficiency of the language, while
those considered speakers of English as L2 or foreign language suffered from the negative
experience of being labeled as English users with deficit or handicapped language
competence.
However, though one may find many advantages in the ELF approach, the concept of
ELF remains a very contradictory one, causing much debate and discussion, as it is still not
quite clear what it actually means, and whether it is an independent concept or it overlaps, in
its essence, with already existing concepts of English.
59
In fact, much ambiguity arises when the concept of ELF is opposed to the status of
English, its functions and uses, particularly across the Expanding circle, where English is
acquired as a foreign language, as it is in Russia.
What follows next in chapter 3 is devised to shed light on the present status of English
in Russia, as compared to the rest of English-speaking communities worldwide. It discusses
many types and forms of English, existing in Russia, and how the English language is adapted
in Russian. It also gives an explanation of how the concept of ELF is applied to Russia,
mainly through intranational domains of its uses.
60
3. Russian English: Forms, Interferences and Domains.
Since Russia has joined the global community, English is recognized as a major tool
that links the country to the outside world. Nowadays, it performs multiple functions,
henceforth, increasingly becoming diversified in the national contexts. It is thus getting
especially crucial to identify the place of Russia among other English-speaking communities
worldwide and types of English, operating in various domains of its use.
Chapter 3 of this survey is divided into 4 subchapters. It first seeks to define the role of
English in Russia as compared to the rest of English-speaking communities in the world,
grounding on the model of Kachru’s concentric circles of English, and on what he identifies
as the learner’s motivation to acquire a foreign language.
It further highlights the contradictory attitudes towards the existence of a nativized
variety of English and proposes a distinction between the types of English, functioning in
Russian society, to suit the needs of different groups of English users, in a great number of
situations.
It, then, analyses briefly to what extent English has penetrated into the Russian
language and is being used and appropriated in the national contexts, underlining the fact that
the penetration of English into the Russian language is not a recent trend, but the result of
many years of exchanges taken place between the two languages.
Finally, it is argued that it is now an extent to which English penetrates intranational
domains that establishes a new status of English as a lingua franca in Russia. By examining
various uses of English, the last subchapter pictures an increasing number of domains that are
being affected by the processes of globalization and internationalization in this particular
linguacultural environment.
61
3.1. Positioning Russia among other English-speaking countries.
In contemporary research, for instance in Grushko and Petrosyan (2008), Lovtsevich
(2005: 461), Proshina (2005a: 517), or Rivlina (2005: 478), Russia is most frequently
included in Kachru’s Expanding circle, hence, joining the most numerous group of countries
where English is learnt as EFL. So, according to Ustinova (2005b),
English in Russia falls under the category of the Expanding Circle
countries (Kachru, 1992), where English does not have official status,
neither is it developed to the stage of an institutionalized variety, nor is
it used as a means of communication internal to the community.
English in Russia is learned as a foreign language, has restricted users,
and is employed in international commerce, tourism, study abroad, and
science.
(Ustinova, 2005b: 239)
Regarding the goals set by Russian speakers of English, their motivation for learning
English may be described as integrative (Kachru, 1992b: 55-6). As opposed to instrumental,
integrative motivation is considered ideal for language acquisition; its target is the
achievement of NS model of the language, and identification with NS linguistic and cultural
group, in all its aspects as closely as possible.
Proshina (Proshina, 2007: 115) states that, following the integrative acquisition of the
language, in educational domains, the English language is still orientated towards NS models,
represented by two standard varieties, British English (in the European part) and American
English (primarily in the Asian part of Russia), being both recognized as the only legitimate
and authentic “material” taken for granted by both teachers and learners.
Traditionally, however, ELT practices for Russian learners of English involve standard
British English with RP as the goal of instruction.23 Just as in many other countries, the nearnative British English proficiency has been promoted and practiced in Russia for many years
before the fall of the Iron Curtain and after it. British English is ingrained in the minds of the
majority of English learners as the only “correct”, “proper”, “universally intelligible”, and
socially desirable variety of English which historically and culturally belongs to the privileged
group of native speakers – the so-called gatekeepers of the language (Widdowson, 1993).
Long-standing values in literature also strengthen its position as the prestige variety.
23
See further in chapter 4 a detailed description of ELT practices in Russia.
62
Unlike British English, American English was for a long time considered “substandard”, “incorrect” and “affected”. However, since the fall of the Iron Curtain the situation
has changed. The ongoing Americanization of English made it difficult to consider British
English as the only standard variety. Nowadays, the dwellers of smaller cities such as
Yekaterinburg, Nizhniy Novgorod, or Novosibirsk still favor the British English variety, but
the residents of big cities like Moscow and Saint Petersburg most frequently choose to follow
the American English model, whose influence is greatly extended by means of American
popular culture, in particular through American films and music. Proshina (2007: 120)
observes that predominance of American English over British English is also typical of the
Far East, geographically distant from the European part of Russia.
Recently, traditional practices used in ELT have come under attack. As mentioned in
chapter 2, the hegemony of British English and American English standards has been severely
criticized for promoting systems of exclusion and marginalization (Modiano, 2001: 169).24
3.2. Russian English: variety and variation.
The question of Russian English as a variety of world Englishes had not been raised
until 1987 when V.V. Kabakchi defended his PhD dissertation, The English Language for
Intercultural Communication, in Saint Petersburg (Proshina, 2007: 13). In his dissertation,
and later in his books, Prof. Kabakchi argues that translating Russian culture into English is a
serious field of linguistics and foreign language pedagogy which should be specially studied
and investigated.
Although at that time an attempt to single out Russian English as a separate English
variety was overshadowed by the subsequent changes in the development of contemporary
Russian history, in 2005, a group of scholars and educators contributed with their papers to
the issue of the journal World Englishes under the general title “Russian Englishes”.
This collection of papers in World Englishes 2005 gave an impetus towards the
recognition of Russian English as an English variety. The issue included articles with a
variety of perspectives, revealing a wide sphere of sociolinguistic, linguistic, and pedagogical
problems related to the English language functioning in Russia. In the introduction to the
issue, Proshina (2005b) notes that
24
This state of things is mostly true for the Outer circle countries where the nativized varieties of English are
juxtaposed to the varieties of the Inner circle. The situation is still reverse for the countries of the Expanding
circle, which lack nativized models to follow and are primarily oriented towards the Inner circle norms.
63
This attempt signifies Russia’s joining the communion with world
Englishes (…) And though English in Russia is primarily AngloBritish or Anglo-American oriented and the awareness of Russian
English as a regional variety of the global language is yet to be raised
in Russia, we believe, this issue of World Englishes is a timely
initiative in this direction. Russian linguists and educators now realize
that English serves as a means for international communication not
only with native speakers but also – and mostly – with those who
speak English as an additional language. This makes us more and
more appreciative of other (“non-native” speaker) varieties of English.
(Proshina, 2005b: 437)
According to Kachru (1992c: 55), English in Russia falls under the category of a
performance variety used in highly restricted contexts,25 like those of tourism, commerce,
employability, and Internet communication, requiring from the speaker the functional
command of the language. The characteristics of a performance variety do not indicate its
institutionalized status in the local context.
However, despite the performance characteristics of the type of English spoken in
Russia, many scholars would argue that Russian English can be singled out as a language
variety on its own right, mainly for two major reasons. First of all, English in Russia is not
used for intraethnic communication, and does not have the linguistic environment in which to
develop as a new variety. Second, it derives its norms from two standard varieties, British
English and American English. It all means that English in Russia depends on exo-normative
standards, and its typical features are most frequently perceived as errors and not as regular
features characteristic of a separate variety.
So, today for a wide range of reasons, the status of Russian English has been fossilized
at the stage of non-recognition (Kachru, 1992c: 56), ceding its position to the native varieties
which are considered politically, economically and socially more advantageous than the local
ones. Bearing this in mind, Kachru calls for an “attitudinal readjustment” towards regional
English varieties, including not only the Outer circle varieties, but also those of the Expanding
circle countries:
25
See chapter 1, pp. 16-22, where the three most prominent contexts of the presence of English in Russia are
discussed.
64
The problem is that even when the non-native models of English are
linguistically identifiable, geographically definable, and functionally
valuable, they are still not necessarily attitudinally acceptable. (…)
The acceptance of a model depends on its users: the users must
demonstrate a solidarity, identity, and loyalty toward a language
variety.
(Kachru, 1992c: 66-7)
Indeed, Russian English, an English variety used in Russia, is either not accepted at
all, or discussed rather cautiously.
To ultimately gain the status of a separate variety, Russian English must be
unanimously accepted by all its speakers. Besides, the awareness of the existence of Russian
English variety must be raised by language professionals on all levels of formal education,
which inevitably demands the reevaluation of traditional methodology, and may take time to
be implemented in practice.
3.2.1. The many names of English: Russian Englishes.
Though Russian English is referred to as a performance variety, it is neither
homogeneous nor uniform. Quite on the contrary, the term implies a broader range of forms
and types of language, each of which having its functional purpose in contexts such as
science, technology, media, and communication.
The new non-native uses of English for Russian intranational purposes may be related
to the type of English spoken among language professionals and educators, English used
among teenagers, or for communication between scientists and business managers.
Since English has come to perform multiple functions in the modern Russian society,
there emerges a proliferation of different names for the forms and types of English used there.
More formal names such as Russianized English or Russian English are first of all indicative
of geographical or national performance characteristics. Prior to perestroika, Russian English
had been the only English variety spoken in the USSR.
Such informal coinages as Rus(s)lish and Ru(n)glish26 emerged as English started
penetrating into different spheres of everyday life in the post-perestroika Russia. These
coinages, being a blend of two words Russian and English, belong to the group of similar
neologisms such as Japlish, Japalish, Janglish; Gerlish, Engleutsch, Deutlisch; Italglish,
Itangliano, etc. The functions performed by these varieties in Russia are believed to be
limited to narrow contexts of use.
26
Further on in the text, the variants Ruslish and Runglish will be used. In citations, original versions will be
preserved.
65
Measuring these varieties on the basis of “the cline of bilingualism” (Kachru, 1990:
36), the attitudinal characterization of Ruslish and Runglish is considerably low, if compared
to Russianized English or Russian English. Although both formal and less formal names
applied to the type of English spoken in Russia are frequently perceived as humorous and
often dismissive, these may be treated as virtually linguistic terms, depending on the level of
proficiency, social factors and setting.
The following overview of English varieties used in Russia is an attempt to
differentiate between the many names that have been coined to denote different interferences
of Russian and English languages. The present classification is grounded on the adapted
version of Bell’s functional typology of the English language (Bell, 1976: 152–7) which was
applied to the modern linguistic situation in Russia by Ustinova (2005b: 241-4) and Safonova
(n. d.), and, to a greater extent, on the typology suggested by Ivleva (2005).
Russian English.
Ustinova (2005b: 242) points out that “Standard English in a ‘pure’ form does
not exist in Russia, because English lacks a mother tongue community there”.
The variety of English spoken in Russia is traditionally called Russian English. This
variety all aspire to approximate is seen as socially prestigious and internationally intelligible.
Being commonly taught in educational institutions throughout Russia, Russian English is
modeled, as previously stated, primarily on British English with some distinctive features in
pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and discourse, transferred from the Russian language,
and shaped by the local culture and traditions.
Before the Iron Curtain demolition, this variety of English was known as good Russian
English – an artificial communicative code which, however, presented a rather elaborated
linguistic system, characterized by a wide range of lexical, grammatical and syntactic
constructions. In particular, Safonova (n. d.) refers to the term Complex Object which may
disturb English language professionals, but which is frequently mentioned in English
grammar books published in Russia.
Nowadays, knowledge of Russian English guarantees a better social position and
career perspectives. The command of Russian English may differ. It greatly depends on the
social group that claims English as a means of communication. The proficient level of
Russian English is especially observed among translators, interpreters, journalists, political
figures, economists, solicitors, brokers, realtors, and managers. It is mainly used in big cities
with governmental offices, international organizations and universities.
66
Runglish or Ruslish: Is there any difference? and Does it matter?
It is not easy to trace the origin of the coinages which have come to denote different
interferences of Russian and English. To complicate the matter, there is no general agreement
as to the use of these terms which frequently appear to be interchangeable in different
contexts. According to Ivleva (2005), the major distinction is made between the following
varieties:
a) Overseas Runglish;
b) Russian Ruglish;
c) Ruslish.
However hard it may seem to trace the origin of these coinages, it is considered that
the word “Ruglish” came into use in the mid 90s to transliterate Russian words and texts
using the Latin alphabet (Ivleva, 2005). The practice was common among first mobile phone
users or people who for various reasons had no access to Cyrillic keyboards. Alongside with
transliteration, messages in Runglish used some English words, and very soon the word
started to mean the weird mixture of Russian and English.
The name “Russlish” first appeared in Arthur C. Clarke’s novel 2010 Odyssey Two
(1997), published in 1982. In this novel, the Russian-American crew of a spaceship is kept
amused with a series of bulletins with the theme “Stamp Out Russlish!” where one of the
members of the crew lists horrid mixtures of both languages he claims to have overheard
(Clarke, 146). As the story proceeds the bilingual members of the crew catch themselves
switching from one language to another, or simply speaking the other language without being
aware of it. In the excerpt below, taken form a bulletin of one Russian member of the crew,
Comrade Kovalev, the words in italics illustrate the use of this linguistic variety:
RUSSLISH BULLETIN #8
Subject: Tovarishch (tovarish)
To our American guests:
Frankly, pals, I can’t remember when I was last addressed by this
term. To any twenty-first century Russian, it’s way back there with the
battleship Potemkin – a reminder of cloth caps and red flags and
Vladimir Ilich haranguing the workers from the steps of railway
carriages.
Ever since I was a kid it’s been bratets or druzhok – take your choice.
You’re welcome.
Comrade Kovalev
(Clarke, 1997: 151)
67
It’s worth mentioning that the fictional story somehow came true on board the
International Space Station. Already before the flight, during their training the members of the
Russian-American crew, all well-versed both in English and Russian, refused to accept each
other’s language as the only official language in space. A consensus was found when the crew
agreed to use a mix of two languages to communicate on board the ship. This mix, which had
vocabulary and syntax structures of both Russian and English, was called Runglish.
In October, 2000, Sergey Krikalev, a veteran Russian astronaut, said in an interview:
“We say jokingly that we communicate in Runglish (…) so that when we are short of words
in one language we can use the other” (Leary, 2000).
Overseas Runglish.
Overseas Runglish is spoken in a number of English-Russian communities in the US,
the UK, Canada, Australia, and other English-speaking countries. However, originally it is
associated with the Russian-speaking community of Brighton Beach in Brooklyn (Feuer,
2005).
Overseas Runglish is characterized by the frequent use of English words in Russian
speech. Its form depends on the extent of integration of immigrants into a new linguistic
environment, being mostly characteristic of middle-aged speakers who have Russian as their
native language, but who actively use English in their social and professional life.
In immigrant societies, Runglish frequently becomes one of the means that people use
to distinguish themselves from the majority group.
In terms of lexis, borrowings in overseas Runglish preserve their phonetic and
grammatical features. According to Ivleva (2005), these can be divided into two groups:
a) The first group comprises realities and notions that exist in English-speaking
communities abroad but have no equivalents in Russian, or seem more appropriate and
precise than Russian words. These are such words like mortgage, engagement, volunteer,
appointment, fat-reduced, fitness, exclusive, etc.
У меня appointment с врачом.
U menya appointment s vrachyom.
‘I have an appointment with the doctor’.
(Ivleva, 2005)
b) The second group includes names for every-day objects, foods or items of
clothing such as potato, ice cream, turkey, cheese, T-shirt, etc. Ivleva (2005) explains this
68
tendency to replace the simplest analogous Russian words by the fact that these are the first
words in English to be learned and to be used in communication to get across to English
speakers.
Overseas Runglish is also abundant in syntactic calques. The largest group of calques
is made up of phrases where the first component is expressed by the verbs “have” or “take”,
e.g. take your time, have fun, take an exit, take decisions, etc. In such phrases, the second
component (words like “fun” or “exit”) may not be translated at all.
An interesting example of Overseas Runglish is found on YouTube. The video is a
fragment of an interview with the owner of a newly opened fashion boutique who has been
living in an English-speaking country, presumably Canada, for 20 years. Being interviewed in
Russian, the interviewee constantly switches to English for what is believed “proper” words
and expressions. The result is a language which may raise mixed emotions in a native Russian
speaker, from mysterious and funny to simply awful.
I on ochen’ horoshiy chelovek! On velikolepniy! On sam as a human
being is more than life itself. I on makes a wonderful designer. On
ochen’ affordable. Mozhet zayti zhenshina odet’sja from jeans to
sweat shorts, to evening gown. Business woman mozhet zayti odet’sya
v business suit. Eto ochen’ important dlya segodnyashnego economy.
Especially, sho (chto) u nego prices are very-very reasonable…
‘And he is a very good person! He is wonderful! He himself as a
human being is more than life itself. And he makes a wonderful
designer. He is very affordable. Here a woman may come and buy
clothes from jeans to sweat shorts, to evening gown. A business
woman may come and buy a business suit. This is very important for
the present economy. Especially, that his prices are very-very
reasonable…’.
(Non-Fic-Tion, 2009)
Russian Runglish.
Russian Runglish is a socially marked spoken manner which, unlike Russian English,
is mostly reduced to the extensive use of borrowings and loanwords produced with British or
more often American accent in the speech of western-oriented educated people in Russia.
Characterizing its group of users, Ivleva (2005) affirms they are mainly city-dwellers (from
large cities), active Internet users and travellers, involved in cross-cultural exchanges of
various nature, who use their knowledge of English as a status symbol.
69
First of all, it needs to be said that it [Russian Ruglish] is a socially
marked sublanguage spoken by educated young people with westernoriented self-identification. (...) This characteristic of the social group
suggests rather high social and educational status and, of course,
substantial knowledge of English. (...) we cannot find in it [Russian
Ruglish] English words denoting every-day objects or realities of
English-speaking countries. On the contrary, it uses English words
instead of Russian ones when it comes to abstract notions, human
relations, feelings, esteems.
(Ivleva, 2005)
To a greater extent, the lexical choice of speakers of Russian Runglish depends on the
social factors that influence intergroup communication, namely age, topic of conversation,
setting and status.
Thus, Russian Runglish has many subvarieties such as for example,
a) professional Runglish of businessmen, politicians, brokers, bankers, programmers,
etc.27
Здесь мы break-even.
Zdes’ my break-even.
‘Here we are break-even’.
Теперь срочно срежьте cost–ы.
Teper’ srochno srezh’te cost–y.
‘Cut off the costs quickly now’.
Такой прайс только за лейбл что ли?
Takoy prays tol’ko za leybl chto li?
‘Perhaps such price is for the label?’
b) teenager Runglish, according to Blomfield (2007), “…the English-laced argot of
‘kool’ (kul’niy) young Russians, who by mobile phone text message or on the internet, (…)
invite their ‘friend(y)’ for a ‘drrink’ at the ‘Pab’. And if you don’t understand what they are
talking about, you are clearly a ‘loozer’”.
Following there are three examples quoted by Safonova (n. d.):
У нас не какие-нибудь там “A ну-ка парни!” У нас суперэкшн.
U nas ne kakie-nibud’ tam “A nu-ka parni!” U nas superekshn.
‘We haven’t got a sort of “Come-on-boys-show!” We’ve got a superaction’.
27
The first two examples are taken from Bovarskaja (2005), and the third one from Safonova (n. d.).
70
Она девушка с характером,… возможно, она посылает ему мессидж.
Ona devushka s kharakterom,… vozmozhno, ona posylaet emu messidzh.
‘She is a girl of character,… perhaps, she is sending him a message’.
Ну дал он ей ‘лифт’, или, по-нашему, подкинул.
Nu dal on ey “lift”, ili, po-nashemu, podkinul.
‘Well, he gave her a lift, or, the way we say it, “podkinul”’.
Ruslish.
Although there is a certain degree of interchangeability between the terms Runglish
and Ruslish, the difference between the two is explained by Ivleva (2005) in the following
way: “Ruslish can be defined as the Russian language ‘contaminated’ with simplest and most
frequently used English words”.
Ivleva (2005) also presents a humorous definition of the two terms, quoting one
Internet user: “Those who know more than 30 English words speak Ruglish, the others speak
Ruslish”. Humorous as it is, it still draws the line between Runglish used by more intelligent
and educated individuals and Ruslish which contains the simplest and most widespread
English words and phrases, and, as a rule, implies only passive familiarity with the language.
Other Russian Englishes.
Out of other Russian Englishes, one can distinguish the following varieties:
a) Reduced English referring to different varieties of English, such as Basic English,
survival English and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) (Ustinova, 2005b: 243).
Basic English is being taught in many Russian secondary schools. The main goal of
Basic English learning is to improve students’ ability to read and translate from English into
Russian, but not to provide them with communicative skills.
Survival English for communicative needs is being taught at private English language
schools. It provides students with a limited vocabulary and range of topics, such as, “getting
acquainted”, “shopping”, “traveling”, and so forth.
ESP, with its emphasis on terminology and limited grammar structures, is learned by
specialists in various fields, such as physicians, computer programmers, mathematicians,
biologists, and so forth.
b) Market Runglish is a trade jargon used in markets as a means of communication
between people who do not share a common language. This simplified hybrid language
consists of a small vocabulary of words for trade and communication drawn from English,
and is arranged according to Russian grammar and syntax (eliminating complex morphology,
71
such as tense, inflections, etc.). It has a simplified sound system and, as used in short-term
contact situations, depending on the context and the paralanguage involved (gesture, facial
expressions, etc.) for interpretation.
This subtype first emerged among the so-called “underground” traders and “black”
marketers, called “fartsovshchiki”. It became widely used in the 90s when the first “shuttles”,
wholesale traders, started to buy goods in China, Turkey and Greece and sell them in Russia.
Market Runglish can be compared with other trade jargons and pidgins used for trade
communication in many parts of the world, as the following excerpt in Tod (1982) illustrates:
Come see; fine goods; you want?; O.K., pay; I sell good price; how much you
give/want/pay?; this fine dress; it suit you; it fit you; pay it.
(Tod, 1982: 285-6)
c) Fractured English or Near-English is related to misuse of English. As McArthur
(1998: 18) defines it, that is “English as she is spoke”. It can also be found in various places,
on a Moscow hotel room door, for instance as “If this is your first visit to the USSR you are
welcome to it” (McArthur, 1998: 19).
3.3. English influencing Russian.
Despite the ups and downs in the Russian-English relations, the impact of English on
the Russian language was never so low as to diminish its role as a “source for significant
linguistic borrowing”.
At the high tides of cross-cultural contact, linguistic borrowing has
occurred in every imaginable field, from literature and finance to
science and pop culture. The low tides have never been so low as to
completely eradicate the influence of English on the Russian language.
(Proshina and Ettkin, 2005: 439)
3.3.1. Major periods of borrowing.
Since the beginning of the Cold War to the present time the exchanges between the
Russian language and English have gone roughly through four major periods.28
28
The first two periods are defined according to Proshina and Ettkin (2005: 443). The other ones are defined by
the author of this research.
72
1. Late 1945–early 1960s: Decrease of contacts; the emergence of politicized Russian
English clichés.
2.
Mid-1960s–1980s:
Developing ideological
Russian
English
phraseology.
Intensifying English-Russian bilingualism in Russia. Language contacts are mostly of
written form.
3. 1990s: English language boom. Flow of loans, especially in information technology,
advertising, and mass media. Loans are also spread by professionals (computers,
business, and sports). Oral and written forms of language contacts.
4. 2000 onwards. The influx of borrowings is subsided and stabilized. The majority of
borrowings have undergone the process of nativization; the rest have gone out of
general use. Varied contexts of English use.
As it may be noticed, the peak of English borrowings fell on the post-perestroika
period, when the Russian language became inundated with English words penetrating various
domains of English use. Nonetheless, the hectic influx has been subsided, already at the
beginning of the 21st century, as Rivlina (2005: 480) quotes “the present stage in EnglishRussian interaction can be seen as the stage of adjustment which follows the initial
‘honeymoon’ or ‘culture clash’ reactions”.
So, active borrowing from the English language into Russian is especially
characteristic for the mid 90s, being gradually stabilized at the beginning of the 21st century.
Nowadays, the influences from the English language are most of all felt in
professional usage, and youth slang. In various contexts and domains of everyday life,
English frequently mixes with Russian, being more frequently associated with fashion and
prestige.
Curiously enough, it is noteworthy that, even in the written form of the language, no
major difficulties are apparent.
Cyrillic vs. Latin alphabet.
In fact, although Russian uses the Cyrillic alphabet, and English the Roman script, it is
believed that these “trans-alphabetical boundaries” are no obstacle to the penetration of
English into Russia (Ustinova, 2005b: 4).
73
Cyrillic script is used in advertisements, in fiction, in the names of companies and in
computer technology. Hybrids used in Russian are frequently composed of letters from the
Cyrillic and Latin alphabet as in
VIP зона
WEB страницы
VIP zona
WEB-stranitsy
VIP area,
Web-pages.
3.3.2. Lexical transfers and loan words: adaptation processes.
Obviously, besides orthographic transformations, when used in Russian, most
borrowings undergo some phonological, morphological, and semantic changes to be adapted
to the speaker’s mother tongue.
Nouns.
Nouns form the largest group of borrowings.
As stated in Safonova (n. d.), they can be divided into two groups, according to
whether or not they refer to new concepts, inventions and realities in the Russian way of life:
1. Borrowings naming concepts and realities absent in Russia:
a) terminology from fast-developing domains such as
- business, law and finance: outsourcing, billing, insider, leasing, merchandising,
promotion, startup, offshore, holding, briefing, monitoring;
- names of agents: broker, sponsor, distributor, manager, dealer, realtor,
merchandiser, franchiser;
- computer technology and web: site, file, provider, mail, server, laptop, desktop, click,
banner, blog, online, login, software, plug-in, spam, screenshot;
b) borrowings to name new things: notebook, poster, cheeseburger, hot dog, fast-food;
c) borrowings of new music trends: rap, grunge, techno, DJ, VJ,29 mix, rave;
d) borrowings of sports terminology: pit-stop, softball, windsurfing, dribbling, kite
surfing, kick boxing, base jumping, drag racing;
e) borrowings connected with entertainment: show, show business, showman, casting,
hit, remake, soundtrack;
f) borrowings from teenage culture: piercing, looser, outsider;
29
DJ (disc jockey); VJ (video jockey).
74
g) borrowings of mixed origin: rating, know-how, freelancer, freeway, highway, buck
(AmE).
2. Borrowings naming realities that exist in Russia.
The popularity of words that substitute the existing equivalents in Russian is
impressive. Frequently, English equivalents are more preferably used instead of their Russian
equivalents: image for “obraz”, speech for “rech”, weekend for “konets nedeli”, teenager for
“podrostok”, make-up for “makiyazh”, gamer for “igrok”, performance for “pokaz”.
This fashion is also typical for sports games e.g. goalkeeper (“vratar”), forward
(“napadayushchiy”),
half-back
(“poluzashchitnik”),
off-side
(“vne
igry”),
freestyle
(“svobodnyi stil’”).
It is noteworthy that some borrowings acquire additional semantic meanings. For
example, manager is also used to name a young salesman or saleswoman in a shop or a
supermarket who can provide information about goods.
Besides this semantic characteristic, it is also worth mentioning, borrowed nouns
assimilate to Russian and behave morphologically as authentic Russian words, displaying
Russian flexional and derivational suffixes. For instance, borrowed nouns take gender and
inflect to show case:
Web-serfing-a
na display-e
babysitter-u
(Genitive case, from web-surfing),
(Prepositional case, on the display),
(Dative case, to the babysitter).
They also take the plural ending:
stamp-y, businessmen-y, looser-y, e-mail-y.
Curiously, sometimes the plural form is created by adding the plural ending to the
already plural English form:
shoes-y, peopl-y, reports-y.
75
Some nouns are formed by adding a Russian suffix to an English word, e.g. looserstvo, flash-ka.
In some cases, abbreviations of English words are preferably used, e.g. comp
(computer), net (Internet).
The combination of compound-nouns or hybrids composed of one Russian and one
English-word is also frequently met in Russian:
‘sales structure’,
‘business-journal’,
‘fantasy fiction’.
sales-struktura
business-zhurnal
roman-fentezi
Verbs.
In comparison with the influx of nouns, verbs borrowed from English are not so
numerous.
In Russian, English verbs are nativized by taking verb suffixes and infinitive endings,
e.g. click-at’, promot-irovat’. Correspondingly, they are conjugated like all other regular
Russian verbs, as the following example in Minaev (2006: 245) illustrates:
On odin promoutiruet novye produkty?
promoutiruet - 3rd person, sg., Present Tense.
‘Does he promote food items alone?’
Adjectives.
Just like verbs, adjectives form but a small group of borrowings. Some adjectives are
formed by adding Russian suffixes and endings, e.g. cool-nyi (‘cool’), fak-ovyi (‘fake’),
super-skiy (‘super’), and agree with nouns in gender, number and case.
Other borrowings such as cool, sexy, super, and mega do not agree with the noun they
describe, e.g. super mama (‘super mother’), mega obsluzhivanie (‘mega service’). The last
two are also frequently used as intensifiers before adjectives, e.g. super sexy, super dorogoy
(‘super/very expensive’), super novyi (‘super/very new’).
Other expressions.
In every day Russian, English hi, ok,30 sorry, thank you, please, come on are
commonly heard. Sometimes these words and expressions are used jokingly instead of their
Russian equivalents.
30
McArthur (2003a: 174) notes that OK or okay is probably one of the most intensively and widely used and
borrowed word in the history of the language.
76
Swearwords such as shit, fuck, fucker, mother fucker and son of the bitch are rather
common, especially among teenagers, just like English interjections such as oops, wow and
eh. Oops!, for example, is the title of a popular magazine for young women.
Pseudo-loans.
Pseudo-loans are quasi-English words and phrases that are coined from English lexical
material. These expressions used only in Russian English, are absolutely unintelligible in
English contexts. Pseudo-loans include words such as the following ones in Safonova (n. d.).
Mezhdugorodnie zvonki
Interurban calls (‘long-distance calls’);
Khimchistka
Chemical cleaning (‘Dry-cleaner’s’).
Calques.
A semantic transfer or calques occurs when English meanings of words or
combinations of words are transferred to Russian as in sverkhderzhava (‘superpower’),
neftedolar (‘petrodollar’), mini-yubka (‘mini-skirt’), utechka mozgov (‘brain drain’),
massovaya kul’tura (‘mass culture’), etc.
Many lexico-syntactic constructions have also come into common use under the
influence of English. Examples of these lexico-semantic calques (Safonova, n. d.) used in
colloquial constructions include,
Nu, ya tipa poshyol.
‘Не’s kind of gone’.
Opredelyonno on sdelaet eto.
‘He’ll definitely do it’.
3.3.3. Code switching.
The growing contacts between Russian and English have given rise to the
phenomenon known as code switching.
Sichyova (2005: 488) gives the following operational definition of code switching:
“Russian-English code switching means English words, sentences, and speech fragments
embedded in a Russian-based interaction”.
77
Further, the author specifies that “a person switches from Russian into English and
vice versa to demonstrate his or her bilingual and bicultural identity, clarify and emphasize an
idea, separate facts from feelings, achieve a certain dramatic effect, or for reasons of language
economy” (Sichyova, 2005: 490).
According to the syntactic arrangement of the switches, a distinction can be made
between:
1. intersentential switching – switching from one language to another at a sentence
boundary,
Esli chelovek stremitsa k chemu-libo, to on dob’’etsa etova. Sky is the limit, govoriat.
‘If a person craves for something, she/he will achieve it. Sky is the limit, they say.’
(Sichyova, 2005: 488)
2. intrasentatial switching when switching takes place within one sentence,
Tam kak raz bylo black out, a u menia expiry date 17 avgusta, i ia takuiu
vozmozhnost’ upustila.
‘I missed such a great opportunity, as there was a black out at that time, and the 17th
of August was my expiry date.’
(Sichyova, 2005: 488)
3. tag-switches – the insertion of an exclamation, a tag, or a parenthetical.
Guliai, hip-hop planeta! Hey everybody, attention! Hey, devchonki! Zachem, krasivye,
vy khodite za mnoi?
‘Have a good time hip-hop planet! Hey everybody, attention! Hey, girls! Why are you,
beauties, following me?’
(Sichyova, 2005: 489)
As it can be noticed in the following review, these new forms of Russian English are
used in a great number of situations and in various domains of everyday life.
3.4. Domains of English in Russia.
Though English in Russia is traditionally described as a foreign language, nowadays it
serves as a tool of communication conducted on a regular basis in different realms of
78
everyday life such as business meetings, political and economic negotiations, personal
contacts, international conferences, and scientific research, etc. Such “massive and increasing
extent of these uses (…) that ha[ve] been primarily responsible for establishing English
globally as the predominant international language – English as a Lingua Franca” (Seidlhofer,
2011: 4).
However, it is not only the inter-national uses that make English a true lingua franca.
Nowadays, English is also increasingly implied as a means of intra-national communication,
communication internal to the community to which it is not a native language. Hence, for
instance, across the countries of the Expanding circle, English has penetrated into such
domains as advertising, entertainment, and media, as well as to domains in which it is used
either for personal or professional interactions, etc. In these domains English is implied as a
means of creativity and expression, often mixing with native languages.
Reflecting on the current uses of English, it is thus becomes vague to refer to the type
of English used in the countries of the Expanding circle exclusively as EFL, the functional
range of which is limited to domains related to business, education and tourism. On the other
side, so far, the ELF approach to English in Russia has been considered very cautiously.
Repeating the observation made by Yuzefovich (2005) with reference to the ELF concept in
the Russian national contexts, it is argued that,
To be a true lingua franca Russian English should be a variety that
reveals Russian culture by means of the English language, making the
latter change but not necessarily lose completely its own ‘‘ethnic’’
background.
(Yuzefovich, 2005: 509)
Nowadays, however, discussing the extent to which English has penetrated into
everyday domains of social life, this observation may seem rather arguable, for the ELF
approach to English is well compatible with the assertion that, in restricted contexts of the
Expanding circle countries, English may function not only as a means of international
communication, but also as a tool of expression of national and cultural identity. More than
that, these new uses of English allow for a broader demarcation of English domains
traditionally applicable to the countries of the Expanding circle.
79
Grounding himself on the typology of language functions suggested by Halliday
(1973: 10-5),31 Kachru (1992c: 58) identifies four domains of the English language use. First,
he designates instrumental domains which involve English usage as a medium of teaching and
learning in the educational system of the country. Secondly, Kachru specifies regulative
domains which refer to the use of English in public or governmental services. Interpersonal
domains describe the use of English between speakers of different language and cultural
backgrounds. The imaginative or innovative domains are associated with the use of English as
a language of creativity in non-native contexts.
Although Kachru’s classification helps to describe the role of English in international
settings, it does not adequately assess its use as a lingua franca. Moreover, as Erling (2004:
218) notes, this classification does not specify new domains of English uses. Influenced by
the typologies set out by Halliday, Kachru and Berns, the author (Erling, 2004: 218-20)
creates her own classification of English domains which she divides into two main strands:
domains of English as used as a lingua franca where “English functions (…) as a tool that
links speakers of various languages in different domains of use”, and domains where English
is used “as a language of creativity and identity expression”.
If regarded from the ELF perspective, the range of domains of English allows for a
broader perception of the type of language and its functions in Russian society, even though
English in Russia is not as widespread as in many other countries of the Expanding circle.
Thus, the domains, which involve English as a lingua franca in communication
between speakers who may or may not have English as an L1, include educational, personal,
professional, and, to a smaller extent, bureaucratic domains. Intranationally, English is more
widely used as a language of expression “increasingly accommodated to suit localized needs
and to express involvement in the international community” (Erling, 2004: 220), expanding
into media and entertainment, advertising, creative, and identity domains.
This classification is further applied to English uses in modern Russia.
31
Halliday explores a functional approach to the study of language, how the language is used and for what
purposes. Kachru grounds himself on the following functions and language models designated by Halliday: 1)
instrumental function used for satisfaction of material needs; 2) regulatory function refers to the use of language
to regulate the behavior of others; 3) interactional model describes the use of language in the interaction between
the self and others; 4) imaginative model implies the ability to create through the language. Another model,
which is not used in the description of Kachru’s domains of English use, but is relevant to the current uses of
English, is personal model. This refers to awareness of language as a form in which individuality is identified
and realized through language.
80
3.4.1. Domains of ELF.
Domains of ELF describe the use of English as a lingua franca in communication
between speakers who may or may not have English as L1.
Educational domains.
Educational domains of English refer to English studied at schools, in universities and
other educational institutions. This category also shows the role of English in academic
lectures, conferences and scientific publications. Further in chapter 4, it will be demonstrated
that although the role of English in academic research is becoming more prominent, at other
levels of education English is still primarily used and studied as a foreign language.
Personal domains.
Personal domains are extended to the use of English in informal situations - with
friends, on vacations, in private email or online communication.
Recently a great number of Russians have become members of online chats, dating
and pen pal sites. Communication with people from native English-speaking countries and
from other countries all over the world is considered by many Russians not only as the way to
find friends or life partners but also as a good opportunity to improve their English.
-----------Hello! I'm eager to find a pen-friend from the UK or the USA because I
love English language and want to improve it. And besides, it’s very
interesting for me to talk with someone from another country.
If you’re Russian but you speak English very well I will looking forward
to your letter too!
-----------Looking for friends
My name is Tatiana. I’m 28. I want to find pen-friends. I want to
correspond with people who to know English. It maybe people from
different countries. I will be wait. Please write to me.
-----------I’d like to find friend!
Hi everybody! I’d like to find a pen friend from English speaking
countries for practice of my English!
(Online Forum a)
81
Professional domains.
Professional domains describe the use of English in the workplace. Employees of big
companies and joint ventures are expected to have a good command of English in order to use
it at meetings, for translating business correspondence, in phone conversations, email and
business letters with partners, clients and suppliers, and in other professional settings. A high
level of English proficiency is considered to be crucial for business success especially in
international settings. Sometimes English is adopted by international companies such as
Toyota, LG, and Coca Cola as “the company language” for correspondence and internal
documentation.
Nowadays leading specialists form big companies can raise their English proficiency
in executive courses, corporate language trainings, tailor-made courses based on professional
language and at language schools abroad.
Bureaucratic domains.
English is not an official language used by state or federal bodies in Russia. The only
exception is the Republic of Sakha-Yakutia where English was declared to be a working
language along with two national (Russian and Yakut) and five official languages (Even,
Evenk, Yukaghir, Chukchi, and Dolgan) (Proshina, 2007: 114-5).
While the Russian language is exclusively used for internal matters, in international
settings English remains an indispensable language of communication. When the protocol
allows the Russian leaders occasionally make public speeches in English. Vladimir Putin was
the first Russian president after the dissolution of the Soviet Union making efforts to speak
English.
By opening his speech at a Buckingham Palace state banquet in 2003, Putin addressed
the audience with a few sentences in English. This effort was recognized as “a sign of
respect” and “a sign of times”. “It was also a recognition of the importance of English today,
the most widely spread language for international communications” (Kwiatkowski, 2003).
English likewise was chosen by Putin during the presentation of Sochi for the 2014
Winter Olympics in Guatemala City in 2007. The former Russian president Dmitriy
Medvedev, following the steps of his then predecessor, spoke English at the opening session
of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in 2011.
As a member and observer of many international organizations such as the United
Nations, the Council of Europe, the International Monetary Fund, and the International
Olympic Committee, Russia has to respect their official languages. Although Russian is the
82
official or working language of many international organizations, English still remains the
first choice of lingua franca for official meetings, reports and general proceedings.
3.4.2. Domains of expression.
The following domains describe the use of English as a language of creativity.
These are domains in which English use “is being increasingly accommodated to suit
localized needs and to express involvement in the international community” (Erling, 2004:
220).
Media and entertainment domains.
Media and entertainment domains depict the use of a language for news distribution,
radio and television broadcasting, as well as its use for television, film, culture or literature,
hence becoming probably the most effective channels of bringing English into the home.
The mass media has also been crucial to the expansion of English in
Russia, as through media Russians are exposed to the tremendous
influx of Western values, traditions, and culture.
(Ustinova, 2005b: 247)
Television.
English language television programs and films shown on Russian television are
always dubbed into Russian. Nonetheless, code-switching into English is actively used by
Russian commentators and TV hosts in TV shows directed to younger and middle-aged
audience as a sign of time and modernity.
Commentator: Davayte nasladimsya etim perfomansom, kak ob etom seychas prinyato
govorit’.
Commentator: ‘Let’s enjoy this performance, as people say it today’.
(Football match between Russia and Germany, ОRT, 10 Oct. 2010.)
Anastasiya Zavorotnyuk: Esli ne s’’esh’ ty, to s’’edyat tebya. Never, never give up.
Anastasiya Zavorotnyuk (a guest of the TV show): ‘If you don’t eat up somebody,
you’ll be eaten up. Never, never give up’.
(Reality show “Cruel Games”, ОRT, 17 Apr. 2010)
For those who prefer watching shows and films in English a wide choice of English
language channels is available via cable and satellite TV. An increasing number of
83
households in Russia now have access to such English language channels as Bloomberg,
Hallmark, Eurosport, Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, Cartoon Network, MTV Hits, and
World Fashion Channel, etc.
The results of the Magram Market Research (Grishaeva, 2007) carried out in 2007 for
NTV Plus broadcasting company found that although Russians still prefer watching channels
in their native language, the interest to English language broadcasting has grown
considerably. Top leaders among channels in English in Russia are BBC World, Russia
Today and CNN. Among other popular channels are Bloomberg, business and financial
network, and the Chinese channels broadcasting in English – CCTV9 и CCTV4.
It is interesting to note that, in 2007, the monthly audience share of Russia Today
exceeded that of CNN and Bloomberg TV. Russia Today is the Russian channel broadcasting
in English 24/7 in over 100 countries spread over five continents. Apart from regular news
updates that present information from a purely Russian perspective, Russia Today offers a
unique insight into many aspects of Russian history, culture and opinions.
Cinema and films.
In Russian cinemas, films in foreign languages are dubbed. However, in bigger cities
one can find cinemas that offer films in the original. For example, in Moscow there are
several cinemas which present films in English such as the Moscow’s Original AmericanStyle Cinema, the Dome Cinema, which shows only non-dubbed films with Russian
translation available via headphones, the Illuzion, the Cinema Museum, the Viva Lingua Klub,
the 35MM, and the Cinema Centre in Krasnaya Presnya. The Viva Lingua Klub, for instance,
not only shows films in the original but also offers discussion groups with native speakers
where new words and expression used in the film are explained after the film viewing.
In Moscow, video films in English can be bought in the supermarket Perekryostok, in
the video shop Video, at the book fairy in the Olimpiyskiy Sport Complex and at the markets
Gorbushka and Mitinskiy. One can also watch English films in the All-Russian State Library
for Foreign Literature.
From June 3 to September 2, 2012, new art house films in English with Russian
subtitles were shown at the Summer Times Open Air Film Festival in Moscow.
Radio.
Among international radio stations the BBC World Service and the Voice of America
are the most popular among Russian listeners. As in the Soviet times these radio services
84
broadcast on short and medium waves. A greater number of radio stations broadcasting in
English are available online.
The Russian radio broadcasting in English is the Voice of Russia. The Voice of Russia
is the Russian government’s international radio service, broadcasting to 160 countries in 38
languages including English (Voice of Russia, 2012). On the air since October 29, 1929, the
Voice of Russia was the official international broadcasting station of the USSR. Today the
Voice of Russia has 109 million listeners. It broadcasts on short and medium waves, in the
FM band, via satellite and through global mobile communications network. It is believed to
be a channel to provide with information about Russia and highlight its opinion on global
events. The Voice of Russia is among the world’s top five radio broadcasters which include
the BBC, the Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, and Radio France International.
Newspapers, magazines, news services and books.
Contacts with English in Russia are also fulfilled through British and American
publications such as the New York Times, the New Yorker, and the Daily Mirror. English is
also used as a press language of some newspapers circulating in Russia, such as the Moscow
News, the Moscow Times, the St. Petersburg News, the Vladivostok Times, and the Sakhalin
Times, etc. Among Russian English-language magazines are the Russian Life, covering
Russian culture, history, travel and life, and the Russia Profile, offering expert analysis of
Russian politics, economics, society and culture.
The biggest Russian news agencies offering news in English are Interfax, ITARTASS, Prime-Tass, RIA-novosti, and Prima-News.
In Moscow, books in English can be bought in the bookstores Moskva and BiblioGlobus and at the book fairy in the Olympiyskiy. There are also several bookshops which
specialize in English-language such as the American Bookstore and the English bookshop. In
the RELOD bookshop one can buy textbooks edited by Oxford University Press and
Cambridge University Press. Longman editions can be found in the Evrokniga.
Almost all big libraries in Russia have a section of foreign literature. Such sections are
also available for students of universities with foreign-language departments. In Moscow, the
All-Russian State Library for Foreign Literature M.I.Rudomino offers a big collection of
books and periodicals in English. Books in English can also be found in the library of the
American centre in Moscow.
85
Music.
Just as English, music has long ago become the lingua franca that links people from
different cultures. It is not surprising that music in English widely available over radio and
TV serves as a “motivating force” for the younger generation to learn the language (Ustinova,
2005b: 247). English permeates different musical genres such as pop music, rock, jazz, hiphop, rap, and even folk.
Since Russia first took part in the Eurovision song contest in 1994, 10 participants out
of 17 have performed their songs in English. In 2008 Russian popular singer Dima Bilan with
his song “Believe” became the winner of the song contest and made it possible for Russia to
host Eurovision 2009, the official language of which became English.
Many Russian popular singers like Alsou, Dima Bilan, and Sergey Lazarev sing both
in Russian and English. Duets with foreign stars are also popular. Alsou and Enrique Iglesias
with the song “You are my number one” and Timati feat. Snoop Dog with “Groove on” are
among many others. In 2007, Russian popular singer Valeriya released the album Out of
Control which was recorded in two versions Russian and English.
The Russian band Plazma is one of the Russian music groups to produce its songs
exclusively in English for the Russian-speaking audience. Its first songs, “Take My Love”
and “The Sweetest Surrender”, immediately put the group on top of the Russian charts. Many
alternative music bands such as rock-punk band Lazy Bitches, rock metal band Great Sorrow,
death metal band Psilocybe Larvae, and gothic metal band Forest Sream also choose English
to perform their songs.
However, the first Russian band to gain international popularity was the Soviet glam
metal band Gorkiy Park. With the fall of the Iron Curtain and a growing interest in all madein-USSR from Western countries, Gorkiy Park soon became famous for its pseudo-traditional
clothing, balalayka-like guitar design and Hammer and sickle as their logo. Gorkiy Park was
the first Russian band aired on MTV. Its songs “Bang”, “Try to Find Me”, “Peace in Our
Time”, recorded in collaboration with Bon Jovi, received rotation on mainstream radio
stations. But as perestroika era came to its end, the band’s fame in America subsided rather
quickly.
Following modern trends, a lot of Russian singers insert English words and even
whole verses in their songs.
86
Ladies and Gentelmen,
Lyubite svoy gorod
Tak kak Timati i Dj Smash lyubyat
Moskvu.
Moscow never sleeps.
Vse samye krasivye Ladies
Dobro pozhalovat’ v stolitsu.
Ladies and Gentelmen,
Love your city
Just as Timati and Dj Smash love
Moscow.
Moscow never sleeps.
All the most beautiful Ladies
Welcome to the capital.
(Timati, “Moscow never sleeps”)
To attract advanced young audience Russian singers and bands frequently choose
English stage names - Dj Groove, Infinity, Smash, Mainstream one, etc.
However, the results of online inquiry of metal music fans show that the majority of
people prefer that Russian singers sing in Russian (see table 3.1). In most of the cases the
main reason against songs in English is not the language itself but unnatural harsh accents of
Russian performers.
1. Russians must sing in Russian.
37.5%
2. I don’t care as soon as there is no accent like in Ryazan.32
21.3%
3. Every respected band must sing both in Russian and English.
24.2%
4. I don’t care as soon as it is loud and heavy.
17%
Table 3.1. Survey carried out by the Heavy Metal portal on whether Russian heavy metal fans like when Russian
bands sing in English (Online Forum b).
Whatever the attitude to English music and songs may be, for many people music
remains one of the main sources of access to authentic language usage. Even the then Russian
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during an interview with US talk show host Larry King said he
was working to improve his English by learning some songs with his teacher.
When King asked Putin if he was ready to deliver a public speech in English, the then
Prime Minister said, “My English is very bad. And I’d better be precise and make no mistakes
in the conversation with you. My teacher and I are now learning different English songs and
trying to sing and this is not even a lesson but a kind of a game” (Rian News, 2010).
In 2011, Moscow residents had a chance to witness the concerts of such world stars
like Sting, Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Lenny Kravitz, and many
others, all of them performing their songs in English.
32
To say that somebody has an accent like in Ryazan is a humorous way to hint that a person speaks with a poor
accent.
87
Other entertainment domains.
A great number of events that take place in Russia are realized in collaboration with
diplomatic missions in Russia, the British Council and the American Centre. For instance, in
2012, Moscow residents could visit Henry Moore exhibition in the Moscow Kremlin
Museums. In September, 2011, US Education Fair was hold in Moscow with the support of
the American Embassy.
Advertising domains.
Advertising domains refer to the use of English in TV commercials, shop signs,
posters, trademarks menus, billboards and other forms of advertisement. As such, English has
been shown to play an extremely important role in shop signs in Europe. This topic has been
discussed by Schlick (2002) in her article dedicated to the use of English in shop signs in
Europe, Martin (2002) who made an investigation of English usage in French TV
commercials, and Dimova (2007) whose article covered English in shop signs in Macedonia.
The influence and presence of English and an English-Russian mix in Russian TV
commercials as the main source of linguistic creativity has been thoroughly studied by Irina
Ustinova (2005a: 496). She notes that English in Russian advertising domains absolutely
dominates in four components: labeling products, company name, wrapper, and logo.
In commercial advertising, English is frequently used for key words and slogans,
sometimes side by side with Russian. However, the majority of international companies such
as LG, Sony, Samsung, Phillips, Coca Cola, Fanta and Sprite promote their products by using
English and familiar product names. For example, McDonald’s always keeps fast-food
Anglicism in Russian advertisements unchanged,
Novinka Chiken Bekon!
‘New Chicken Bacon!’
Sheyk Malina.
‘Raspberry Shake!’
Uznay pochemu Big Mak takoy vkusnyi?
‘Find out why Big Mac so delicious is!’
Mixing of different languages, primarily, English and Russian, is one of the principal
sources of creativity in Russian TV commercials. Many advertising slogans involving English
and English product names are well known virtually to every adult Russian.
88
Galoshi Waterlow. Odezhda dlya obuvi.
‘Rubbers Waterlow. Clothes for your shoes.’
Bud’ v forme. Reebok.
‘Be in shape. Reebok.’
Chistota - chisto Tide.
‘Cleanliness – clean Tide’ (washing powder Tide).
Vsegda Coca-Cola.
‘Always Coca-Cola.’
Vanish. Bol’she, chem otbelivatel’.
‘Vanish. More than bleach.’
Hosting po karmanu.
‘Hosting you can afford.’
LifeStyles. Pochuvstvuy vse...
‘LifeStyles. Feel everything…’ (condoms).
Sprite. Zhazhda podskazhet.
‘Sprite. Thirst will tell/knows.’
Advent Transleyshn. Kazhdoe slovo imeet znachenie.
‘Advent Translation. Every word matters.’
Hello. Vyshe spleten, blizhe k zvyozdam.
‘Hello. Above gossips, close to the stars.’
Gillette. Luchshe dlya Muzhchiny net.
‘Gillete. There is nothing better for a man.’
Moloko vdvoyne vkusney, esli eto Milky Way!
‘Milk is twice tastier if it is Milky Way!’
The last two slogans play on the rhyming effect of the English product names and
Russian words – Gillete - net, vkusney - Milky Way, making the advertisement catchy and thus
more efficient.
While English in names of companies and products reveals the familiar identity,
English in the closing lines, headers or attention-getters reinforces the advertising message
(Ustinova, 2005a: 496).
LG Life’s good
LG Digitally yours
LG Live) Borderless
89
In TV commercials, printed messages are combined with background settings and
images, and music soundtracks to reinforce the effect of advertising strategies. Foreign
landscapes, music, lifestyles and other culturally-loaded atmosphere-enhancing elements
associated with native English contexts are used to increase the consumer’s appetite for a
particular product (Martin, 2002: 8). In the commercial for BMW X3, for instance. changing
background – the car starting its journey from the door of a family house, then continuing its
way against the city landscape, along the seacoast, and against the moon landscape, with the
end point at the foot of snowy mountains, in combination with the music soundtrack “Move
Your World” - creates the atmosphere of holiday and traveling without borders. The written
slogan in Russian “Vostorg rasshiryaet granitsy vozmozhnogo” (‘Delight enlarges all possible
borders’), enhances the desired effect.
As a part of their image, many companies and even small firms and enterprises that
operate in the domestic market adopt English or English sounding names, among them the
insurance company Gold Stability Club, the company which sells air-conditioners Air Well
Konditsioner (‘Air Well Conditioner’), Mr. Doors Home Decor selling furniture, Beauty
Philosophy, a beauty salon, and Swell Tour, a travel agency. In a small provincial town far
away from all the benefits of civilization, one can see such shop signs as Prodovol’stvennyj
market (‘Food Market’) on a humble grocery, and the Best on a small dim shop.
A big number of bars and restaurants also use English names or English elements,
words, and letters in their names: All-time bar, Art’s Palace, BeerMаркет (‘BeerMarket’),
MeetPoint, New Васюки (‘New Vasyuki’), Simple Pleasures, STARИКИ BAR (‘STARiki
BAR’), the Caд (‘the Sad’), Wine story, Balalayka Bar. And if Chicago Prime Steakhouse &
Bar offers its clients American food, London Grill has on its menu European food and grilled
meat and New Amsterdam Hall offers mixed European and Japan food. Surprising is the
choice of the name for a tea house in Moscow named EkshnSport (‘ActionSport’).
As it has been observed, English in Russia is often seen as a prestigious and effective
advertising language. It symbolizes novelty, fashion and trendiness. Messages written in
English are primarily targeted to upper-middle-class Russians who are expected to have some
proficiency in English. Becoming thus the part of the country’s linguistic landscape, the
prominence of English in advertising “is now one of the most noticeable global
manifestations of English language use” (Crystal, 2003b: 94).
90
Creative domains.
Although English is actively used in many domains of everyday life in Russia, it
would be too early to anticipate the emergence of national literature in English. However, one
cannot deny that the presence of English in creative writing in Russia is quite evident. Modern
Russian writers increasingly use English as a language of expression, introducing new
expressions, loan words and phrases into their fiction.
Sometimes writers’ creativity becomes evident already in the title of the book, e.g.
Oxana Robski
“Casual”,
“Про ЛюбOFF/ON” (“Pro LyubOFF/ON” – ‘About Love/He’),
“Glaмурный Дом” (“Glamurnyi Dom” – ‘Glamorous House’),
“Happy Book. Технология совершенства” (“Happy Book.
sovershenstva” – ‘Happy Book. Technology of Perfection’);
Tekhnologiya
Alexander Chubaryan
“В полном Roote” (“V polnom Roote” – ‘Completely in the root’);
Sergey Minaev
“Духless” (“Dukhless” – ‘Spiritless’),
“Media Sapiens”,
“The Тёлки” (“The Tyolki” – ‘The Chicks’).
Commenting on the title of his book “Dukhless” Sergey Minaev (2006) says: “By the
way, the title of the book written with Russian letters “Духлесс” is not correct, like this the
meaning which adds the English suffix -less is lost”. The story itself is divided into two parts
with the English titles: Part I – Get rich or die trying; Part II – Insomnia.
The characters of these books are mainly middle-aged educated people, residents of a
big city, usually Moscow, active Internet users, proficient in English. In the book “Dukhless”
by Sergey Minaev the main character works as a commercial director for a big international
company with the head-office in Moscow. He reads Ellis and Houellebecq and likes old films
with Marlene Dietrich. He is a proficient speaker of English who frequently uses English in
his speech. Another character Valya Glen from the novel “Vneklassnoe chtenie” by B.Akunin
(2002) – a strange creature without sex who obtained chaotical education in different
countries speaks a mix of French, German and English.
91
It is interesting to note that the majority of English words used in fiction undergo the
processes of nativization. They are written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Nouns and adjectives
inflect to show gender, number and case. Words coined from English are formed by adding
Russian suffixes. The majority of compound nouns are made up of one English and one
Russian word. More than 90% of English loan words and coinages are nouns.
Nouns:
K beybisitteru vashemu zaedu, skazhu, chtoby zaderzhalas’.
beibisitteru – dative case, sg.
‘I’ll call on your babysitter on the way and tell her to stay.’
(Akunin, 2002: 310)
A kak oni hotyat den’gi? Keshem?
cashem – instrumental case, sg.
‘How do they want the money? In cash?’
(Minaev, 2006: 81)
Moy vzglyad soderzhit yasnyi messedzh.
messedj – accusative case, sg.
‘My look contains a clear message.’
(Minaev, 2006: 107)
Sekretarsha opyat’ otvetila neponyatno:
- Shef puteshestvuet vo vremeni. Hotite – zhdite. Von, v chill-aute. – I motnula
golovoy v storonu divanchika.
v chill-aute - – prepositional case, sg.
‘The secretary again answered incomprehensibly.
- The boss is traveling in time. If you want, wait. There, in chill-out. – And shook her
head at the sofa.’
(Akunin, 2002: 13)
K chemu tebe vsya eta atributika luzerstva?
The noun luzerstvo is formed by adding the Russian suffix -stvo to the English word
looser. Luzerstva – genitive case, sg.
‘What for all these attributes of a looser?’
(Minaev, 2006: 159)
Compound nouns:
I chego? Poydyom rabotat’ k nemu feyskontrol’shchikami?
The compound-noun feiskontrolshcnik is formed by adding the Russian suffix -shchik
to the English expression face control; feiskontrolshchikami - instrumental case, sg.
‘So what? We’ll go to him to work as face control personnel.’
(Minaev, 2006: 80)
92
Kto, blyad’, ne zavez? Mirovoy komitet po postavke dyrokolov? Dyrokolman iz
komiksov?
The coinage dyrokolman is formed by the Russian word “dyrokol” meaning “punch”
and the English word “men”; nominative case, sg.
‘Who, fuck, haven’t delivered? The World Punch Committee? A punchman from
comics?’
(Minaev, 2006: 38)
Adjectives:
Tam emu bystro ob”yasnili, chto chasy feykovye.
The adjective feikoviy is formed by adding the Russian suffix -ov, the adjective
feikovie agrees with the noun chasy “watch” – nominative case, pl. inflection.
‘There they quickly explained him that the watch was fake.’
(Minaev, 2006: 220)
Lola, konferans’e. On kul. Poglyadim?
‘Lola is an animator. He is cool. Let’s have a look?’
(Akunin, 2002: 255)
Interjections:
Esli naydete, prinesite mne togda, o’key?
‘If you find it, bring it to me, ok?’
(Minaev, 2006: 27)
Swear words:
Sasha pokazyvaet emu fak i prodolzhaet shchelkat’ po klavisham komp’yutera.
‘Sasha shows him the fuck and continues pressing the keyboard keys.’
(Minaev, 2006: 96)
Proydet dvesti let i pro nas skazhut: laki bestardz, oni byli sovremenikami velikogo didzheya Kavalera Glyuka.
‘After two hundred years they will say about us: Lucky bastards, they were the
contemporaries of the great Dj Kavaler Glyuk.’
(Akunin, 2002: 257)
Other expressions:
Ot takoy ektsentrichnosti biznes-ledi prishla v neopisuemyi vostorg: “Derevyashkoy,
po beznalu! Hay klass!”
‘This eccentricity brought the business-lady to indescribable ecstasy: ‘Soft money
without cash! High class!”’
(Akunin, 2002: 24)
Net, chto ty, welcome, - govoryu ya, starayas’ byt’ kak mozhno bolee gostepriimnym.
‘No, not at all, welcome, - I say, trying to be more hospitable.’
(Minaev, 2006: 109)
93
Business lexis:
To, chto nevozmozhno zamylit’ nikakimi mificheskimi “market-resyochami” i “fildreportami”. Golaya pravda. I nichego, krome pravdy. Posemu lineynyi seyls – eto
glavnye lyudi lyuboy torgovoy kompanii.
‘Something that cannot be hidden by any mythic market researches and field reports.
The naked truth. Nothing but the truth. Therefore the line sales are the main people of
any trade company.’
(Minaev, 2006: 31)
Computer technology lexis:
Voskresenye nachinaetsya dlya menya s veb-serfinga. Ya otkryvayu noutbuk, vkhozhu
v Internet i nabirayu v stroke brauzera WWW.LITPROM.RU.
‘Sunday starts for me from the web surfing. I open the notebook, get connected to the
Internet and type in the browser WWW.LITPROM.RU.’
(Minaev, 2006: 140)
Sometimes English words and phrases are written in the Latin alphabet, serving like
this as intensifiers that grip the reader’s attention.
Mir soshyol s uma? Voobshche, WHAT THE HELL IS GIONG’ ON.
‘Has the world gone mad? And WHAT THE HELL IS GIONG’ ON.’
(Minaev, 2006: 68)
Ya deystvitel’no losing my mind.
‘I’m really loosing my mind.’
(Minaev, 2006: 285)
Although the main characters of these books use what is called the global language to
express their identity, the language they speak is meant to arouse only pejorative associations.
They are the representatives of a new lost generation not attached to any language or culture,
an idle generation living in the era of globalization and consumerism. “Dukhless” – literally
spiritless, they care only for material values: money and brands.
In “Vneklassnoe chtenie” by Akunin one of the main characters expresses fear that in
the next century people will completely lose their linguistic identity.
Nikolas shuddered from the thought that in one hundred years all the
mankind, after having been finally globalized, will express itself
approximately in the same way.
(Akunin, 2002: 36)
94
Sergey Minaev, the author of “Dukhless”, is more precise. According to him, the
degradation of new generation is caused by globalization which devalues individuality in
favor of the International Corporate Army of clerks, all having the same smile and manner.
We all speak about globalization. About transnational corporations,
absorbing the planet and transforming it into one giant factory with
inhuman working conditions and miserable wages. We absolutely
seriously reason aloud that McDonalds’, Coca Colas and Microsofts
make us do this and that.
Nonsense. Do you understand that this is a full nonsense? Here
nobody has been able to make anyone do anything for a long time.
Everybody is advancing in the direction of the Company without
Borders with seven-league strides.
(Minaev, 2006: 35)
Identity domains.
Identity domains involve English as a new channel of expressing national identity
through the language other than native. People may feel the other language offers them new
ways of expression that broaden their identities in light of cultural and linguistic diversity.
Olga Sichyova (2005: 491) describes the case when her students used a Russian word
with the English suffix. The English suffix -ation was added to the Russian root otdykh
meaning “rest, relaxation”. In this case the new coinage maintains the national identity of the
group, but at the same time shows their desire to participate in cross-cultural communication
and pertain to the growing cosmopolitan community.
3.5. Summary.
In an attempt to identify the place of Russia among other English-speaking
communities worldwide, it has been referred to the category of the Expanding circle countries
where English is learnt and taught as a foreign language for
1. English in Russia is not an official language used in governmental or
administrative domains.
2. It is oriented towards exonormative models, British English (mainly in the
European part of Russia) and American English (primarily in the Asian part of
Russia).
95
A synchronic description of the spread of English has been taken up to describe how
and in what forms the language is appropriated in many situations of everyday life in Russia,
including such performance varieties as Russianized English or Russian English, Ruslish and
Runglish.
It has also been demonstrated to what extent English has penetrated into the Russian
language and underwent the processes of nativization. Despite the fact that lately the
penetration of English words into Russian has considerably subsided, English still remains an
active source of borrowing and a prestige marker in speech of those who use it.
Besides, as it may be observed, nowadays the type of English used in Russia is less
and less oriented towards NS norms, undergoing the processes of nativization and
acculturation in Russian contexts. Even though the majority of speakers may not yet feel as
English users on their own right, they modify and use the language characteristic of their
culture and identity and not of that of a distant native speaker.
This chapter has also given some considerations to the argument that in today’s Russia
the status and function of English is not exclusively that of EFL but more widely that of a
lingua franca between people who may or may not have English as their native tongue. To
support this conclusion English uses in Russia have been considered in terms of two strands
of domains: domains of ELF and domains of expression. The domains that involve ELF are
described as including educational, personal, professional, and, to a smaller extent,
bureaucratic domains. Intranationally, English in Russia is more widely used as a means of
expressing identity and creativity through media, entertainment, advertising, creative, and
identity domains.
In the following chapter, English will be considered more closely in formal
classroom settings of today’s Russia. This chapter will also attempt to establish new
approaches and possible strategies for ELT in this particular environment.
96
4. English in Formal Education and Approaches in ELT.
Following the description of the forms and types of English as well as domains of its
use in Russia, it is believed that today it is essentially significant to design new practices and
models for language learning and teaching.
Chapter 4 starts with a detailed account of the ways English is implemented through
all stages of formal (though not exclusively) instruction, starting from kindergartens and most
often being pursued up to the end of tertiary education, and even further in university
academe.
The following subchapters challenge “standard language ideology”, which still persists
across the countries of the Expanding circle, in favor of the ELF approach. The issue under
discussion, as such, calls into question NS superiority in devising teaching models and
dictating rules not only to English learners but also to non-native English teachers and
instructors. It rather dismisses conformity to the Inner circle varieties, instead advocating
efficiency, relevance and economy of the language.
At the same time, it is claimed that ELF is not called to substitute EFL, rather than it
proposes an alternative teaching strategy for English learners who have the right to choose
what model to follow, depending on their targets in language acquisition.
By describing further the Lingua Franca Core for the majority of NNSs of English, an
attempt is made by designing core and non-core features for Russian learners of English:
those which stand out crucial for international intelligibility and must be paid special attention
in teaching process, and those which are not likely to cause breakdown in international
communication.
A digression is made by discussing what ELF is if it is set as a teaching model. Is it a
form or function that English learners are supposed to be taught, if finally confronted with
such an option?
97
Lastly, it is shown that the Russian community may eventually reveal great resistance
towards ELF as a concept and ELF as a teaching strategy or model due to its reverence to
tradition and perpetual desire to conform to standard.
4.1. English in the Russian educational system.
Nowadays, learning English is encouraged from the earliest possible age and is
pursued at all levels of education, from kindergartens to universities. In the past decades
Russia has seen the explosion of private tuition and the emergence of private language
schools and courses, and programs for studying abroad. English in Russia is taught as a
foreign language on the level of primary, secondary and tertiary education, alongside with
German, French, and less frequently Spanish.
Unlike many European countries where English is increasingly used as a means of
instruction especially at the level of tertiary education, the principal language of instruction in
Russia remains the Russian language.
English in pre-school education.
Although the study of a foreign language for children under 6-7 years old is neither
compulsory nor mandatory, most parents have positive attitudes toward early introduction of
English instruction. That is why many private, as well as state kindergartens, offer English at
the earliest age though basically through games and playful activities. As to the real numbers,
there are still no estimates of how many children study English on the level of pre-school
education.33
4.1.1. English in the structure of secondary education.
Compulsory education in the Russian Federation begins for all children at the age of
six or seven, and lasts a total of 9 years of basic secondary education.
33
According to the All-Russian Census of Population 2002 (2002a), 68% of children in Russia (78% urban and
47% rural) aged 5 are enrolled in kindergartens offering contiguous pre-school and primary education programs.
Kindergartens, unlike schools in Russia, are regulated by regional and local authorities. The federal Ministry of
Education regulates only a brief pre-school preparation program for the 5–6 year old children.
98
The structure of school education in Russia is based on a 4+5+2 system: four years of
primary school (grades 1-4), five years of basic secondary school (grades 5-9) and another
two years of upper-secondary school (grades 10-11).
The principal language of instruction in Russian schools is Russian. The citizens of the
Russian Federation have the right to be instructed in their native languages, as well as to
choose their language of instruction within the range of possibilities offered by educational
institutions.
School instruction in Russia is not based on one uniform curriculum and may vary
from one educational institution to another. The school curriculum is formed in compliance
with the requirements of the Federal Component of State Standard for Complete General
Education. The sample curriculum program has a recommendatory character regarding overall
hours of instruction, sequence and distribution of teaching material.
English as a foreign language in the school curriculum.
During their compulsory school education, all pupils study at least one language other
than their mother tongue. English on the school curriculum in Russia is not a mandatory
foreign language. Other popular foreign languages are German, French, and less frequently
Spanish. Many children start their second foreign language in their first year of secondary
school.
Although, in theory, it is possible for students not to include English in their school
curriculum, in practice, almost all choose English as their first foreign language and in rare
cases as a second foreign language. It is increasingly common for Russian schools now to
introduce English starting from grade 2. In schools where there are no necessary conditions
available, English can be offered in grade 5. In this case, students may be offered an extra
hour of instruction to catch up with their peers.
The sample curriculum on teaching a foreign language, including English, is primarily
directed at the development of communicative competence and the language use as a means
of interpersonal and intercultural interaction, including Internet communication.
A recommendatory list of teaching material on English and other foreign languages is
approved annually by the Ministry of Education. It includes textbooks for each school grade.
Every educational institution has the right to choose textbooks from this list depending on
their needs and recourses.
All English textbooks are elaborated by Russian linguists and educators, sometimes in
collaboration with foreign colleagues. For example, the list of English textbooks for 201199
2012 includes 9 textbooks of different authorship for grade 9 (Ministry of Education and
Science, 2011).
Although no exact number of English learners in Russia can be provided, according to
Ustinova (2005b: 245) data collected from the British Council regarding “young learners”
from 1st to 4th grades revealed that, at the end of the 1990s, there were 1,300,000 young
learners of English, 260,000 of German, 90,000 of French, and 13,000 of other languages.
Thus, at least 80% of elementary school children studied English as their first foreign
language. On the whole, it is estimated that approximately 14 to 16 million of overall number
of schoolchildren studied English. In 2004, 1.2 million students graduated from Russian high
schools, and more than 900,000 of them had credit for English as a foreign language on their
transcripts.
English in basic secondary school.
On the level of basic secondary education students receive a total of 525 hours of
instruction. According to the Federal basic school curriculum, English teaching on the level of
basic secondary education is split in two stages:
1. English teaching in grades 5-7
2. English teaching in grades 8-9.
By the end of basic secondary education, students complete 525 hours of instruction.
In grades 5-7, they receive 315 hours of instruction, offered as three 45-minute classes per
week. In grades 8-9, students complete 210 hours, also distributed as three 45-minute classes
of English instruction per week. In specialized language schools, the number of hours may be
increased from 3 up to 5 hours of instruction.
By the end of basic secondary school, students achieve pre-intermediate A2 English
level which allows them to continue their education, either in upper-secondary school or at a
professional college.
On the completion of basic general education – a nine-year program, students take the
State final examination and are awarded, if they pass, the Certificate of Basic General
Education. The English language is not obligatory on the final exams, which consist of 2
mandatory subjects (the Russian language and maths), and 2 subjects of students’ choice,
including a foreign language. On the basis of the Certificate, students are further admitted
either to secondary complete general education or to vocational education, as well as to nonuniversity level of higher education.
100
English in upper-secondary school.
In upper-secondary school, students receive 210 hours of English instruction as three
45-minute classes per week. In specialized language schools, the number of hours may be
increased from 3 up to 6 hours of instruction. By the end of secondary complete general
education, students achieve intermediate B1 English level.
On the completion of upper-secondary school, students take the Unified State
Examination (USE),34 a state exam mandatory to enter university or professional college. The
state exams include 2 obligatory subjects (the Russian language and maths). The English
language may be chosen as an optional exam, and is highly recommended for students,
thinking to enter language departments, though not exclusively. The final exam in English
lasts 160 minutes and is in written form. In 2012, the minimum passing mark for English
exam was 20 and the maximum passing mark was 80, according to the Federal Data Portal on
Russian Education (Federal Portal of Russian Education, 2012).
4.1.2. Tertiary education.
Nowadays, Russia is in the process of completing its transition from traditional tertiary
education model, incompatible with the existing Western academic degrees, to a modernized
model in line with the Bologna Process. It is necessary to note that two-tier education in
Russia was introduced as early as 1992. In October 2007, Russia enacted a law that replaces
traditional single stage five-year model of education to two tiers: a four-year Bachelor degree
followed by a two-year Master’s degree.
Accession to the Bologna process is believed to provide Russia with the integration
opportunities and the global interfaces, bringing the high education up to the standards and
requirements of the Information Age and the global market (Pursiainen & Medvedev, 2005:
24). Active implementation of the Bologna requirements have a pivotal significance for
establishing the common space of education between Russia and the EU, which will
encourage international openness of Russia’s higher education establishments, the mobility of
faculty, students, and teaching corps.
34
The USE program, launched as an educational experiment in 2001, became fully mandatory in 2009. The set
of standardized tests for high school graduates, issued uniformly throughout the country and rated independent
of the student's schoolmasters, akin to North American SAT, was supposed to replace entrance exams to state
universities.
101
The establishment of a common space of education between Russia and the EU as
such invariably implies the implementation of the tacit Europe-wide rule that an educated
person has a fluent command of more than one foreign language.
The boom of studying foreign languages affects not only high institutions with
humanitarian or socio-economic profiles, but also with natural-science and engineering ones.
Nonetheless, the problem of learning foreign languages requires additional reforms from the
State. So far, at the final stage of language training, students most frequently acquire skills
necessary for reading professional literature and communicating on professional subjects, and
have little competence in broader contexts.
At the university level, a foreign language is required for university enrollment to
departments with humanitarian or socio-economic profiles, e.g. philosophy, history,
linguistics, management, international relations, and journalism, etc. Out of other possible
options, including French, German, and Spanish, the supremacy of English as the most
frequently chosen foreign language is obvious. According to Ustinova (2005b: 245), in 2003,
4.7 million students were enrolled in higher educational establishments. Many of them
became freshmen at Russian universities and continued to study English as a required subject.
Taking into account the data collected by the British Council, which estimate the number of
English language students at 85%, 3.8 million of them studied English at the university level.
The programs for teaching foreign languages are elaborated partly in accordance with
the State Educational Standards, partly by the university itself. Universities in Russia are still
allowed to introduce their own entrance tests in addition to USE scoring, including entrance
exams on a foreign language.
The sample program on foreign language teaching for non-linguistic institutions of
higher education and non-language departments has a recommendatory character. It
determines levels of English proficiency, distribution of hours of instruction, the content of
language course, minimal requirements to language skills, and the evaluation system. The
program includes 340 hours of instruction and is divided into 170 hours of classroom
instruction and 170 hours of individual work.
Depending on students’ proficiency and teaching capacity of a particular institution of
higher education, English teaching can be realized on two levels:
1. Basic level, from elementary A1 to pre-intermediate А2;
2. Advanced level, from pre-intermediate А2 to intermediate В1.
Departments with natural-science and engineering profiles usually incorporate English
into their curricula as a four-semester course. However, as the instruction at such departments
102
is basically geared toward the development of specialized vocabulary and English is
infrequently used as a medium of instruction, students rarely achieve high levels of linguistic
proficiency.
Depending on the level and capacity of higher institution, English is used a medium of
instruction in some of the courses at the departments with humanitarian and socio-economic
profiles. The majority of disciplines at Philological departments are taught in English. At
language departments of the Moscow State University disciplines in English include Theory
of Foreign Language, Lexicology of English Language, Fundamentals of the General Theory
of Translation, Cultural Studies, Comparative Grammar of English and Russian Languages,
and Teaching English as a Foreign Language.
4.1.3. Private tuition.
In Russia, many individuals receive private tutoring in English. The growing spread of
English-language private tuition was noticed in the post-perestroika 90s when English was
ultimately recognized as an international language both socially and professionally important.
Private tutoring at that time appeared to be the only viable alternative to few language schools
that could not accept a great number of people who were interested in acquiring English
proficiency or merely wanted to improve their language skills.
At the beginning, this out-of-school tutoring was mostly carried out by school
teachers. For the majority of them, language tutoring became their principal income, more
lucrative than their regular salary. Some of the teachers quit their schools to devote
themselves entirely to private tutoring which helped them to survive in the turbulent and
unstable 90s.
Even now, when the number of language schools has significantly increased, most
people choose private tutoring for an individual approach in teaching.
It is commonly
believed that linguistic achievements of students who take private lessons are higher than of
those who cannot afford paying private fees. Besides, taking into consideration that the
teaching process in school is most frequently realized in large classes of students with mixed
ability and has insufficient hours of instruction, most parents see private tuition as the only
solution for their children to make a break.
4.1.4. English in academic research.
In such areas as science and technology, English remains a significant medium of the
world’s
scientific
knowledge.
The
International
103
Federation
for
Information
and
Documentation (FID), a world body which keeps track on information distribution, reports
that nearly 85% of all scientific and technological information in the world today is written
and/or abstracted in English (Kaplan, 2001: 11-2). The percentage of information written in
English is traditionally high in language subjects such as linguistics. In exact and natural
sciences, the proportion is even higher.
Recently the concern about the loss of national languages in scientific research has
been a sensitive issue for European countries.35
In Russia, the use of English in academic and scholarly discourse is growing across
disciplines. English is used for scholarly research, at international conferences and meetings,
in international collaborative research projects, for teaching and communication in academic
settings. For a lot of Russian scholars English has become an active tool indispensable for
access to international academic knowledge and community. Investigation on English use in
Russian academe, carried out by Elena Lawrick revealed that the use of English was found
across all contexts; at the same time it was observed that its use in scholarly discourse (e.g.,
conference presentations, publications, and international research-related collaboration)
surpassed the use in academic discourse, e.g., teaching and interpersonal professional
communication (English in Russia, 2011)
However, despite the value attributed to scholarly research in English, the dominance
of Russian is still overwhelming. Although the use of both languages, Russian and English, is
welcome, an immense body of scientific research is written in Russian. The tendency makes
no exception even for language sensitive disciplines. Thus, the list of scientific journals,
approved by the Ministry of Education for publication of scientific findings produced by
applicants of academic degrees includes for the most parts journals published in Russian
(Higher Attestation Commission, 2011). Just a few journals of this list are published in
English such as, for example, Applied Magnetic Resonance. Some of the journals accept
articles both in Russian and English or have translated English versions.
Furthermore, frequently when it comes to the presentation of articles in English, the
standards of English in translated versions are very low, especially when translated by nonspecialists in the corresponding field of investigation. Besides, the majority of these journals
are published for circulation inside the country, and the chance that scholarly findings will be
35
For example, at the University of Helsinki, Finland, in the Faculty of Medicine, out of the 119 dissertations in
2001, 118 were in English and one in Finnish, and in 2002, out of 93 dissertations, all but one were in English.
In the Faculty of Arts, including the Finnish language department and other areas of national research, 50% of
the 74 dissertations during an 18-month period in 2001–02 were in English (Taavitsainen and Pahta, 2003: 7).
104
accessed by foreign audience is rather scarce. The chances increase only for scholars who
publish their works in international journals. At the same time, many of those researchers who
cannot adopt English to meet standards of international journal editors are deprived of the
opportunity to contribute with their research to international science.
Unfortunately, the facts mentioned above still greatly impair the access to Russian
scientific research and development for scholars working outside the Russian Federation.
Despite a lot of efforts taken for the visibility of Russian research works in this field, an
immense body of research works carried out in Russia “virtually remains terra incognita for
scholars working outside the Russian Federation” (English in Russia, 2011), being isolated
from the front line of international research.
One of the main reasons is that the majority of works are published in the Russian
language. Although the findings also suggest that the value attributed to scholarship written in
English increases, Russian retains its dominant position, with academics being encouraged to
produce scholarship in both languages: Russian and English. Likewise, works published in
international journals are not always available to Russian scholars and researchers. As such,
the use of English and the improvement of academic publishing standards could be a sensitive
advantage for those scholars who want to have their say in international scholarship.36
After having exemplified in great detail how the English language is situated in the
system of formal education in Russia, it is of great interest to demonstrate how far the models,
applied in teaching practices, relate to the actual use of the language.
4.2. Standard language ideology.
“The belief that imposed language uniformity is good for society and that the standard
variety is the only legitimate one is referred to as ‘standard language ideology’” (Seidlhofer,
2011: 42). Despite the fact that English studies have recently gone beyond traditional
perceptions of the English language, its uses and users worldwide, as it has been exemplified
36
In an attempt to build a link of cooperation between Western and Russian researchers, Zoya Proshina, PhD
professor at the Moscow State University, and Elena Lawrick, currently working at Purdue University, U.S.A.,
where she is teaching a graduate-level ESL academic writing course, have started an online project – English in
Russia (2011) which includes bibliographies of published works and dissertation theses (in Russian and English),
announcements of conferences and calls for papers, as well as information about international impact factor
journals, professional organizations, and Russian English-language media.
105
in chapter 2, the approach to ELT still remains, to a greater extent, a matter of “standard
language ideology”, primarily associated with conformity to one single monochrome variety.
The persistence of the view about language uniformity is still deeply entrenched in
attitudes about a standard language variety and is transmitted through educational practices as
the only viable condition to ensure effective communication. Consequently, irrespective of the
evidence that the English language varies considerably in its uses across English-speaking
communities, any attempt towards alteration of the traditional standard models is continued to
be confronted with much resistance. That is to say that for the majority of language teachers
and educators the only legitimate goal for teaching English has not moved far from the
institutionalized varieties of the Inner circle, closely tied up to the language codified in
grammars, dictionaries, and textbooks.
A language that conforms to that of the Inner circle communities is traditionally the
reference point for ELT in the countries of the Expanding circle. In these communities, the
concept of “nativeness” as “the only universally accepted criterion for authenticity”
(Seidlhofer, 2001: 14) is especially significant when applied to the type of language learnt and
taught. By default, the pedagogical focus is still on Standard British English and American
English varieties (rather than on other varieties of the Inner circle), recognized as the only
legitimate and authentic “material” taken for granted by both teachers and learners.
Another assumption, retained by the overwhelming majority of English learners, is
that NSs are automatically the only possessors of knowledge about the language which is
considered their own. The fact of being a NS is often believed to supply with the exceptional
ability to provide with reliable material in terms of pronunciation, lexis, and grammar.
[Instead,] we find a deep-seated assumption that the language remains,
and indeed should remain, essentially the same as it has always been:
the property and preserve of its native speakers, irrespective of who
uses it and in what contexts.
(Seidlhofer, 2011: 28)
The common assumption that Standard English must conform to the language of NSs
strongly persists among NNSs of English. This view largely depends on the fact that the only
material available for teaching is, so far, that of NSs.
Nonetheless, the notion of standard language is more an idealized concept that is not
related to the actual use in a variety of contexts and communities of English speakers. For
instance, RP accent, imposed through teaching practices and so much aspired by all learners
106
of English, actually relates to a small royal and upper-class minority in Britain. To add,
perhaps only 9-12% of the populations of Britain are speakers of Standard English with
“broad” local accents, phonologically and phonetically distant from RP (Trudgill, 1999).
Taking into account this fact, the dominance of NS models has been challenged as
being counter-productive and inefficient as a communicative tool for those users of English
who avail of English in international contexts and frequently with no NSs present at all.
4.3. Challenging the traditional ELT models.
Recently, the practices implied daily in English teaching have been radically called
into question, being referred to as inappropriate and counter-productive, “giving rise to some
misgivings and unease” (Seidlhofer, 2001: 134), and impeding decisive steps that must be
taken in the direction toward the reconsideration of traditional models. This state of affairs has
been described as “a conceptual gap in the discourse of ELT”. Such misconception is
emphasized by the fact that more communication exchanges occur now between “speakers for
none of whom English is the mother tongue” (Jenkins, 2006: 160).
Increasingly, the recognition is taking hold that English as an
international language belongs to all who use it, and that people who
learn it as an additional language have an active role in the way the
language spreads and changes.
(Seidlhofer, 2011: 49)
It is further argued that,
Instead of speaking a monolithic variety of English, it is considered
more important for WEs and ELF to be able to adjust their speech in
order to be intelligible to interlocutors from a wide range of L1
backgrounds, most of whom are not inner circle native speakers.
(Jenkins, 2006: 174)
Hence, the focus of ELT may be argued to be gradually shifting from the EFL
approach to the ELF perspective, and consequently from EFL speakers to speakers of English
as a lingua franca, whose major target is communicative competence and efficiency, rather
than orientation towards NS models. “The reality is that a language must meet the
communicative and social needs of all its speakers, and not only those of the guardians,
107
whose qualifications to judge ‘correctness’ are often highly dubious anyway” (Milroy, 1999:
21).
In his considerations, Widdowson (1993) goes even further to claim absolute
irrelevance of NSs and NS norms in the development of English worldwide.
How English develops in the world is no business whatever of native
speakers in England or anywhere else. They have no say in the matter,
no right to intervene or pass judgment. They are irrelevant. The very
fact that English is an international language means that no nation can
have custody over it. To grant such custody over the language is
necessarily to arrest its development and so undermine its international
status.
(Widdowson, 1993)
Thus, the achievement of native-like competence is considered far less relevant than
the acquisition of efficient, contextually appropriate and adequate communicative skills.
They (ELF speakers) are not primarily concerned with emulating the
way native speakers use their mother tongue within their own
communities, nor with socio-psychological and ideological meta-level
discussions. Instead, the central concerns for this domain are
efficiency, relevance and economy in language learning and language
use.
(Seidlhofer, 2001: 141)
It follows that ELT is supposed to prepare speakers to adopt their language
competence in completely different contexts, hence, for the most part, shifting to EIL or ELF
rather than ENL use. “This approach, it is believed, would enable each learner’s and speaker’s
English to reflect his or her own sociolinguistic reality, rather than that of a usually distant
native speaker” (Jenkins, 2006: 173).
It is further claimed that these are not ELF speakers who must play by the rules of the
minority group of ENL speakers, but rather vice versa as this is the overwhelming majority of
ELF speakers who will set their rules for all the rest. As Jenkins (2006: 161) notes, “as far as
ELF interactions are concerned, any participating mother tongue speakers will have to follow
the agenda set by ELF speakers, rather than vice versa, as has been the case up to now”.
Although the changing attitudes towards the role and place of English in intercultural
communication have greatly influenced the current perceptions of approaches to English
teaching, if not teaching itself, teaching material has not moved far from the description of
English as L1.
108
The bulk of works published in this field is very scarce, and there is still little research
devoted to the majority of speakers, those who primarily use English as a lingua franca.
Nonetheless, it may be argued that in light of the recent developments it would be much more
relevant to acquire efficient communicative models, rather than to continue following those of
a distant native speaker.
Preference for native vs. non-native teachers in the educational process.
In ELT, a “conceptual gap” referred to in the previous subchapter is also related to the
relevance of native vs. non-native teachers dichotomy in the process of language acquisition.
Traditionally, disadvantages of being a non-native speaker in the EFL teaching
environment prove straightforward, for, so far, the only desirable target in ELT has been and
still frequently is the acquisition of near-native proficiency as close as possible to NS
standards. In these constrains, it is believed that “the L2 students of L2 teachers will not have
any appreciation of the cultural or environmental context in which native speakers actually
use the language. The student will speak, if at all, in a form of English that the native speaker
will find strange, bookish, stiff, formal, and often unintelligible” (Qiang and Wolff, 2003: 32).
The existing stereotypes still prevail in minds of the majority of English learners. To
achieve the desired goal, a native English teacher is frequently considered better equipped
with cultural and linguistic knowledge of the target language, especially in terms of a model
accent. In other words, NSs are a priori defined as “the owners of the language, guardians of
its standards, and arbiters of acceptable pedagogic norms” (Jenkins, 2000: 5).
Lately, however, the semantics of superiority attached to NSs has been radically called
into question (Widdowson, 1993; Butcher, 2005). It has been pointed out that “being a ‘native
speaker’ is not enough to make one a good teacher of the English language” (Butcher, 2005:
15).
EFL teaching, for instance, emphasizes the so-called foreignness of the language, and
it is only as a foreign language it may be taught most effectively. However, when telling
about six fallacies about the users and uses of English, Kachru (1992d) notes that it is
generally accepted
(…) that the native speakers of English as teachers, academic
administrators, and material developers provide a serious input in the
global teaching of English, in policy formation, and in determining the
channels for the spread of the language. In reality, the native speakers
have an insignificant role in the global spread and teaching of English.
(Kachru, 1992d: 358)
109
Clinging less to native teachers’ linguistic knowledge, Seidlhofer (1999) emphasizes
the unique contributions that non-native teachers in the Expanding circle can make:
Non-native EFL teachers are double agents. They are at home with the
language(s) and culture(s) they share with their students, but they also
know the relevant terrain inhabited by the target language, be that a
certain use of ESP/EAP, EIL or maybe English as spoken by native
speakers in their communities. This makes non-native teachers
uniquely suited to be agents facilitating learning by mediating between
the different languages and cultures through appropriate pedagogy.
(Seidlhofer, 1999: 235)
To compare with, a non-native teacher is valued for a personal approach and readiness
to help. Being a bearer of the learners’ mother tongue, he/she is believed to know what
difficulties they have in learning English and how the language should be taught. However,
the preference for native teachers is not that easily shaken.
A discussion has gathered momentum which highlights the potential
special expertise non-native teachers have because they know the
target language as a foreign language, share with their students the
experience of what it is like to try and make it their own, often through
the same first language/culture ‘filter’, and can represent relevant role
models for learners.
(Seidlhofer, 2011: 12)
At the initial stage of language acquisition, the role of a non-native teacher turns out to
be essential. A native teacher shares the same background with students and knows problems
they might have in the language learning process. At the same time, the contribution of native
teachers is not being devalued, especially when taking into account the development of
communicative abilities. It is strongly believed, however, that it is with mutual efforts and
contribution of both native and non-native agents that a foreign language is most efficiently
taught.
4.3.1. ELF and EFL in ELT.
As it has been already observed, as far as teaching and learning English is concerned
across the Expanding Circle, the majority of learners are taught EFL. It means that the prior
target set for learners of English is conformity to NS standards not only from the point of
view of appropriateness of grammatically correct norms, but also from the point of view of
110
linguacultural behavior. The acquisition of EFL implies, for the most part, communication
with NSs and exclusively in native contexts.
Recently, however, the awareness has been raised that “English’s greatest use is as a
contact language” (Grushko and Petrosyan, 2008) or ELF, and the fact that the achievement
of native-like competence should not be set as the only desirable target, as the majority of
learners eventually become engaged in communication with other NNSs and if ever with NSs
of English. It is thus believed that the emphasis should be given on the acquisition of models
and norms “with a focus on communication, intelligibility, and efficiency rather than on
correctness and idiomacity in ENL terms” (Seidlhofer, 2011: 110).
Far more people learning English today will be using it in international
contexts rather than in just English-speaking ones. Therefore, taking
account of this difference between second language/foreign language
and lingua franca would be crucial in the formulation of relevant target
competences, and should thus have considerable consequences for
SLA theorizing in general.
(Seidlhofer, 2011: 11)
Nonetheless, in reality, English learning as L2 or EFL is still assumed to be applicable
to language pedagogy in general, including that of future ELF users. It is thus comes out that
in the Expanding circle countries both terms English as a foreign language and English as a
lingua franca do not exclude, but rather complement each other, “partly because many of
those who start out thinking they are learning English as a foreign language end up using it as
a lingua franca” (Grushko and Petrosyan, 2008).
The language attainment in the countries of the Expanding circle can be as such
illustrated as an inverted triangle where at the bottom is EFL, and on the opposite sides of the
top line are ENL and ELF (see figure 4.1).
As it is demonstrated in the figure, the acquisition of English in the Expanding circle
starts most frequently as a foreign language. However, depending on the target it may result
either in a native-like command of the language or the use of ELF. As such, it may be argued
that, depending on learning goals, approaches to teaching and learning English cannot remain
the same. English learners should be equally given choice of achieving either ENL or ELF
competence, having as a starting point their targets in language acquisition.
111
ENL
ELF
EFL
Figure 4.1. Language acquisition targets for learners of EFL.
The reconsideration of norms and standards for ELT inevitably takes into pedagogical
questions. As far as ELF is concerned, it offers absolutely new differentiations of learners,
their purposes, and speech communities. Some distinctive features, vital for the understanding
of new strategies for teaching, were summarized in Strevens (1992: 41). In table 4.1, the
distinction is made between strategies for teaching of English for speakers of other languages
(ESOL), i.e. ESL or EFL, and English as an international auxiliary language (EIIL).
As it may be observed from the table, the scope and depth of language treatment of
ESOL and EIIL remains absolutely the same. The main distinction is made when it comes to
the models and targets of language acquisition, with ESOL primarily directed at the
acquisition of native-like language competence and integration into the target culture, and
EIIL being oriented towards language adaptation in broader international contexts, involving
both native and any educated non-native speakers in the process of communication.
It is noted that
In terms of approach and methodology, it is not so much that teaching
English as an international language has introduced major changes. It
is rather that the gradual sophistication in learning and teaching
English has now added a new element: awareness of the fact that most
ESL/EFL today relates to NNS populations requiring English for their
internal purposes, or for dealing with other NNS populations, without
the presence or intervention of native speakers.
(Strevens, 1992: 41)
112
ESOL:
English as a Foreign
Language
Scope and Depth of General English
Language Treatment English for Special Purposes
“Officialdom” Public school subject
Function
Purpose of Learning
Student Population
Language Model
Performance Target
Language Interactors
Cultural Emphasis
EIIL:
English as
an International Language
General English
English for Special Purposes
international business
ads
sports
news
diplomacy
travel
entertainment
a) limited use as a tool for for international interactions
jobs
Communications: high priority
b) higher education
Communication:
low priority
non-native speakers
native and non-native speakers
educated native speaker
any educated English speaker
(native speaker, local, or regional)
performance level of educated mutual
intelligibility
and
native speaker
appropriate language for situation
(L2↔L1)
(L2↔L1)
international
(L2↔L2)
international
(L1 ↔L1)
culture of native speakers
culture of specified countries
Table 4.1. Some distinctive features of ESOL vs. EIIL
(Strevens, 1992: 42-3).
The question of how teaching English as a language for international communication
can be implemented in practice still remains to be answered as the material applied for ELT
does not give much choice for language teachers and educators who wish to reorientate their
teaching strategies for the majority of teaching material available is that of NSs’. It may also
be argued that for the present moment only after the initial stage of learning EFL and after
achieving a certain degree of competence, students are able to clearly define their purposes in
language acquisition and be more receptive and conscious of different strategies that may be
implied by their teachers and educators in the teaching process.
113
4.3.2. Towards the Lingua Franca Core.
At the present moment there is no available model for ELF teaching, the fact that
largely impedes radical changes to take place in pedagogy and teacher education. The absence
of systematic research about ELF seriously impairs from considering lingua franca speakers
as language users on their own right. To match the needs of ELT curricula, the research in this
field requires serious theoretical and descriptive perspectives, and the appearance of teaching
material to promote new practices in ELT.
The research into lingua franca model is currently under way, including the
description of EIL phonology (Jenkins, 2000), the compilation of the corpus of spoken EIL,
focused on lexico-grammar (Seidlhofer, 2004), and important works on the pragmatics of
“non-native-non-native” communication in English, referred to in Seidlhofer (2001: 142).
A first step towards recognition of lingua franca English alongside with ENL would be
an alternative model for ELT. The prior research objective for a Lingua Franca Core is thus to
complement the work already done on EIL phonology, EIL lexico-grammar and discourse,
and on EIL pragmatics, capturing the features of EIL from a wide variety of L1 backgrounds,
different levels of proficiency, and a variety of settings and domains. “A pedagogical core of
phonological intelligibility” and the corpus of spoken EIL will be given a special emphasis in
this subchapter.
“A pedagogical core of phonological intelligibility for speakers of EIL, the ‘Lingua
Franca Core’”, as proposed by Jenkins (2000), is established on empirical studies of instances
of communication among NNSs of English by means of prioritizing features that regularly
cause mutual unintelligibility (Jenkins, 2000: 123). Having EIL primarily in mind, the
phonological core of English is an attempt “to scale down the phonological task for the
majority of learners by … focusing pedagogic attention on those items which are essential in
terms of intelligible pronunciation”. It also appears that there seems to be “a one-to-one
correspondence between what is relevant (crucial for EIL phonological intelligibility) and
what is realistic (‘teachable’ in the sense that learning follows teaching)” (Jenkins, 2000:
133). As such, it is noteworthy that Jenkins’ Lingua Franca Core does not comprise such
particularly difficult for an English learner features as the “th-sounds” and the “dark l”
allophone, frequently defined as the main targets of traditional ELT practices. The
substitution of the “th-sounds” with [f, v] or [s, z] or [t, d] is believed to be unproblematic for
EIL intelligibility, just as the substitution of the ‘dark l’ allophone with either clear [l] or [ʊ].
In the Lingua Franca Core Jenkins designates “core” features, when pronunciation
was regularly the cause of miscommunication, and “non-core” or “peripheral” features,
114
regarded as instances of L2 regional variation: German English, Russian English, Japanese
English and the like (Jenkins: 134-60).
Core features
1. All consonants sounds except for voiceless and voiced ‘th’ as in the words ‘thin’
and ‘this’, and dark ‘l’ (pronounced with the back rather than the tip of the tongue
raised, as in RP ‘feel’ as compared with ‘leaf’).
2. Phonetic requirements: aspiration following word-initial voiceless stops /p/, /t/ and
/k/ to prevent them being heard as [b], [d] and [g].
3. Consonant to be simplified only according to the rules of English syllable structure
which, in particular, means:
- no omission in word-initial clusters e.g. in product, strap;
- in middle and final clusters only certain consonants can be omitted – usually
the middle of three consonants, and often a /t/ or /d/ e.g. ‘Christmas’  ‘Chrismas’ but
not ‘Christas’ or ‘Chritmas’;
- additional vowel sounds is preferable to deleting consonants sounds, e.g. it is
better to say ‘Macudonaludo’ as a Japanese speaker might pronounce ‘Macdonald’,
than ‘Madono’ as a Taiwanese speaker might pronounce it.
4. Vowel sounds
- the contrast between long and short vowels need to be maintained e.g. ‘live’
v ‘leave’, ‘stuff’ v ‘staff’, ‘cot’ and ‘caught’ etc, although it is possible that in EuroEnglish the short and long ‘i’ may be merging in a sound half way between the two;
- L2 regional vowel qualities are permissible provided they are consistent.
5. Production and placement of nuclear (tonic) stress within tone groups. e.g. ‘You
deserve to be SACKED’ v ‘You deSERVE to be sacked’. In the first example, the
person referred to has not been sacked but deserves to be, while in the second
example, the speaker is acknowledging that the referent’s sacking – which has already
taken place – was deserved.
Non-core features
1. Voiceless and voiced ‘th’, and dark ‘l’.
2. Vowel quality, e.g. a German-Engish speaker might pronounce the ‘a’ in the word
‘jazz’ as an ‘e’, and thus say ‘jezz’.
3. Weak forms, i.e. the use of schwa instead of the full vowel sound in words such as
‘to’, ‘from’, ‘of’, ‘was’, ‘do’.
115
4. Other features of connected speech, especially assimilation e.g. the assimilation of
the sound /n/ at the end of one word to the sound at the beginning of the next, so that
‘green paint’ becomes ‘greem paint’.
5. The direction of pitch movements: these are unreachable: especially as regards the
so-called ‘attitudinal function, i.e. the use of specific pitch movements to indicate
particular attitudes.
6. The placement of word-stress, although at the time of writing it seems possible
that new EIL word stress rules may be emerging, and if so, then these will eventually
become the norm in EIL interaction.
7. Stress timing, which does not exist except in nursery rhymes, poetry and the like.
It is impossible to speak in a stress-timed manner in conversational speech while
attention is focused on meaning. On the other hand, it is possible that syllable timing
may one day become the norm for EIL.
The compilation of the corpus of spoken EIL, the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus
of English (VOICE), has been taken up at the University of Vienna under the direction of
Barbara Seidlhofer. Its research focus is concentrated on lexico-grammar and discourse, since
it is mainly in the spoken language that changes and variation can be more easily verified.
Spoken data are thus described “as overtly reciprocal and reveal the online negotiation of
meaning in the production and reception of utterances, thus facilitating observations regarding
mutual intelligibility among interlocutors”.
The compilation of data is based on transcripts of naturally occurring, non-scripted
face-to-face interactions in ELF. ELF interactions recorded cover a range of different speech
events in terms of domain (professional, educational, leisure), speech event types (interviews,
seminar discussions, working group discussions, conversations, etc.), function (exchanging
information, enacting social relationships), and participant roles and relationships (acquainted
vs. unacquainted, symmetrical vs. asymmetrical). Currently the size of VOICE is 1 million
words of spoken ELF interactions, equaling approximately 120 hours of transcribed speech.
The speakers recorded in VOICE are experienced ELF users from a wide range of first
language backgrounds. In sum, VOICE encompasses approximately 50 different, basically
European, but also non-European, first languages, including Russian. Although in its purest
form ELF is defined as “a language which has no native speakers”, ELF interactions also
include speakers from backgrounds where English is used as L1 or L2. Currently, speakers
who have English as L1 make up less than 10% of all speakers recorded in VOICE.
116
Seidlhofer’s (2001) suggestions is to find out which items tend to be crucial for
international intelligibility and which do not cause communication problems although used
differently from NSs.
The objective here, then, would be to establish something like an
index of communicative redundancy, in the sense that many of the
niceties of social behaviour associated with native-speaker models and
identities might not be operable and certain native-speaker norms
might be seen to be in suspense.
(Seidlhofer, 2001: 147)
Thus, the features of ELF lexico-grammar which appear to be generally unproblematic
for communicative success are identified as follows:
1. Non-use of the third person present tense–s (“She look very sad”).
2. Interchangeable use of the relative pronouns who and which (“a book who,” “a
person which”).
3. Omission of the definite and indefinite articles where they are obligatory in native
speaker English and insertion where they do not occur in native speaker English.
4. Use of an all-purpose question tag such as isn’t it? or no? instead of shouldn’t they?
(“They should arrive soon, isn’t it?”).
5. Increasing of redundancy by adding prepositions (“We have to study about ...” and
“can we discuss about ... ?”), or by increasing explicitness (“black colour” vs. “black”
and “How long time?” vs. “How long?”).
6. Heavy reliance on certain verbs of high semantic generality, such as do, have, make,
put, take.
7. Pluralisation of nouns which are considered uncountable in native speaker English
(“informations,” “staffs,” “advices”).
8. Use of that-clauses instead of infinitive constructions (“I want that we discuss about
my dissertation” (Seidlhofer, 2004: 220).37
As one of the main causes of communication breakdown Seidlhofer (2003: 19)
identifies unilateral idiomaticity. This occurs when one speaker uses a NS idiomatic
expression such as an idiom, phrasal verb, or metaphor that the interlocutor does not know.
37
Examples to illustrate the features of ELF lexico-grammar are taken from Jenkins (2006: 170).
117
Identifying the core features which stand out in their significance for the teaching of
EIL is hence seen as a starting point from which learners of English can move in their own
directions choosing teaching models, defined by their own goals and desires in the process of
language acquisition. At the same time, teachers of English could already concentrate on
those features that are more relevant in EIL, and leave the explanation of other features for
later stages of language acquisition if needed.
Such proposition, however sound it may seem, is likely to meet a great deal of
resistance especially on the part of language professionals and educators. This prejudice is
deeply rooted in traditional perceptions of the teaching of English, still favoring the
acquisition of native-like competence at the expense of communicative ability.
Identifying the core features for speakers of English in Russia.
Variation in Russian English can be found on all levels of the language, i.e. spelling,
phonology, morphology, syntax, vocabulary, and discourse. For the most part, such
“mistakes”38 or “errors” that occur in speech of Russian speakers of English are associated
with the incorrect usage of the language, as being deviant from NS norms, rather than as an
attempt to assert the identity of its speakers in the type of language they use.
The attitude towards Russian English is mainly negative. Russia
English (as well as Russian English) is associated with broken, bad
English rather than with a lingua franca able to convey Russian culture
and Russian mentality to other nations.
(Proshina, 2007: 121)
Although the status of Russian English is still of a very contradictory character,
features common for the majority of Russian speakers of English can be referred to the type
of English spoken in Russia. What follows is an attempt to identify those “core” features for
Russian English which require more pedagogical attention in the classroom settings as
contrasted to “deviations”, considered permissible in ELF discourse.
To add, the term “feature” will be preferably used over “interference” 39 or
“deviation”40 when referred to describe regular grammatical and lexical occurrences that arise
38
Kachru defines “mistake” in the following way, “A mistake … does not necessarily have an underlying
sociolinguistic explanation: it may be essentially a marker of acquisitional inadequacy, or it may indicate a stage
in language acquisition” (Kachru, 1992b: 301).
39
“Interference” is viewed as a “violation” of the code of L1 (Kachru, 1992b: 304).
118
in Russian English, for being perceived as neither associated with deficient use in the sense of
native varieties nor yet being a marker of legitimized variety of English.
The Phonological Core of Russian English.
Grounding on the common features in the phonetic level (Proshina, 2007: 121-2),
there can be distinguished core features for Russian English that should be given a special
attention in the process of language acquisition, and non-core features that are not seen as
seriously impairing EIL intelligibility.
Core Features for Russian English
1. Aspiration. In Russian English aspirated consonants are not generally aspirated. For
example,
Standard English
Russian English
car [khɑ:]
[ka]
ten [then]
[tɛn]
The aspiration of the fortis plosives, however, is listed as one of the phonetic
requirements for the Lingua Franca Core (Jenkins, 2000: 158-9).
2. Maintenance of vowel length contrasts. Russian English speakers make no
distinction between closed/open and long/short vowels. To compare with, Russian has fewer
sounds (six) than British English RP which has twenty or American English, GA, which has
sixteen. For example, in Russian English /ɛ/ stands for the British English /æ/, /e/ and
occasionally /ə/. The inability to distinguish between closed/open and long/short vowels
results in such word pairs (homophones) as
‘sport’ – ‘spot’ [spot],
‘fool’ – ‘full’ [ful],
‘heart’ – ‘hut’ → [hat].
40
“Deviation” is “the result of the new use of English. It marks the typical variety-specific features, and is
systemic within a particular variety. It can be suggested that “deviation” deviates only form the point of view of
the model variety” (Kachru, 1992c: 62).
119
Occasionally this feature of Russian English pronunciation eliminates any difference
between three and even four words. For example,
‘steal’, ‘steel’ and ‘still’ [stil],
‘leave’, ‘live’ and ‘leaf’ [lif],
‘bad’, ‘bed’, ‘bat’ and ‘bet’ [bɛt].
3. Maintenance of the fortis/lenis distinction. The inability to differentiate between
long and short vowels, inevitably leads to the devoicing of the final voiced consonants.
Consequently this feature removes any distinction between such words pairs as
‘mob’ and ‘mop’ [mop],
‘food’ and ‘foot’ [fut],
‘live’ and ‘life’ [lajf],
‘fuzz’ and ‘fuss’ [fas],
‘bridge’ and ‘breach’ [brjitʃ].
Although this feature is typical of other ELF Englishes, such as German English
(Erling, 2004: 231), the maintenance of the fortis/lenis distinction is crucial for EIL
intelligibility.
Non-core features for Russian English
1. Regressive assimilation of middle consonants (absorption [ɛp`sopʃn]).
2. Lack of the intonation stepping scale;
3. Rising tone of special and alternative questions (why did you  say that? Is his name
Mike or  Andrew?).
One of the most common features that Russian English shares with other varieties of
English is the inability to reproduce the dental fricative sounds [θ] and [ð]. Hence, /θ/ is
reproduced as [s], less often [f]; /ð/ is realized as [z], less often [v]. For example, think [θɪŋk]
– [sjink] or [fjink]; that [ðæt] – [zɛt] or [vɛt]. Although according to Jenkins (2000) it is
essential to distinguish between most consonant sounds, various substitutions of /θ/ and /ð/
are generally permissible and do not impair intelligibility.
120
The fact that these sounds are so infrequent among the world’s
languages supports their exclusion from the EIL phonological core on
the grounds that classroom time will not be wasted on difficult items
whose omission does not jeopardize EIL intelligibility.
(Jenkins, 2000: 111)
As the above sounds are referred to the so-called non-core features, the same
assumption may be eventually applicable to other non-core features in general that are not
seen as seriously impeding communication.
Since speakers of different English varieties are more likely to base their interpretation
on the acoustic information received, the important fact to be mentioned here is that
phonological transfer from L1 background is frequently cited as the major source of
intelligibility problem in ELF communication, far greater than errors that relate to lexis and
grammar where there is more common ground.
Lexico-grammar.
Lexico-grammatical deviations in the Russian language are numerous. They are
primarily the result of L1 transfer to the target language. Among those features which
acquisition causes greater problems for Russian speakers of English, but remain of little
relevance in EIL communication are,
1. Misuse of articles,
S5 [L1=rus-RU]: <soft> yah </soft> we have something like midterm but it’s not <3>
really </3> the real <4> exam </4> (.)
(VOICE: EDcon521)
2. Absence of the third person present tense -s,
S10 [L1=rus-RU]: er it <1> is </1> yah it is yes it’s it follow from the fact that (.)
(VOICE: PRwgd537)
3. Pluralisation of uncountable nouns such as “advice”, “fruit”, etc. are often treated as if
they were non-count as the case in Russian English is.
4. Redundancy in the use of prepositions,
S2 [L1=rus-RU]: …they have to find some other niches. (.) e:r for approximately two
years ago (.) er (.) certain players (.) have e:rm discovered for them (.) while these
were interesting markets er which was er <pvc> (consumal) </pvc> ending.
(VOICE: PBpan28)
121
The following extracts, reproduced in VOICE to illustrate interactions between nonnative speakers of English, demonstrate to what extent lexico-grammatical deviations can
build barriers to successful communication.
In extract 1, S5, a Russian native speaker, is engaged in conversation with her
colleagues from other universities about working and studying in different European
countries. Extract 2 is a discussion taken place between two mathematicians on the
development of a mathematical theorem, where S10 is a native Russian speaker, talking to his
Japanese colleague.
Extract 1.
(823) SX-f: it’s enough (2)
(824) S5 [L1=rus-RU]: so enough (1) tomorrow will be hard day (.)
(825) SX-f: yea:h <1> @@ </1>
(826) S5: <1> @@ </1> listening (.) just <soft> listening </soft>
(827) SX-f: the most important is not to <2> fall </2> asleep
(VOICE: EDcon521)
Extract 2.
(1) S10 [L1=rus-RU]: er so c- c- can we prove that if er three form omega alpha
define er this er distribution <spel> h </spel> (.) and satisfies this condition so in fact
er we have definition that (.) you say that =
(2) S11 [L1=jpn-JP]: = yeah
(3) S10: er three er (.) okay triple (1) er triple er (.) say er {S10 starts writing} rho one
rho two (.) <1> rho </1> three (.)
(…)
(34) S10: <3> but </3> can we prove that then (.) a:h probably ye- er (.) yes or not (.)
(35) S11: but er not using the metric? (.)
(36) S10: er okay so (wha- er) we we can do so w- er w- we we assumes that we have
omega alpha (.)
(37) S11: yah (.)
(38) S10: and so it is one form (.)
(39) S11: right (.)
(VOICE: PRwgd537)
In both extracts, there can be found what would be traditionally called “serious
grammatical mistakes” needed correction, such as the missing indefinite article in tomorrow
will be hard day (line 824) and confusion of the third person -s in can we prove that if er three
form omega alpha define er this er distribution <spel> h </spel> (.) and satisfies this
condition (line 1) and in we assumes that we have omega alpha (.) (line 36). Nonetheless, in
both cases the “mistakes” made do not cause any misunderstanding between the interlocutors,
on the contrary, the communication successfully continues without any interruption on either
side.
122
One instance of communication breakdown occurs in extract 3 when the speaker
misuses the expression “twice a year” adding the plural ending to the word “year” – twice a
years (.) (line 859). However, once the phrase is repeated, the conversation continues.
Extract 3.
(856) S3 [L1=dut-NL]: = before this? (.) w- how many times exams do you have a
year (.)
(857) S5 [L1=rus-RU]: e:r <3> twice </3> (.)
(858) SX-f: <3><soft> two times </soft></3>
(859) S5: twice a years (.) tw(860) SX-f: yah
(861) S3: twice a? (.) <4><un> xx </un></4> (.)
(862) S5: <4> a year </4>
(863) S3: <5> a year?</5>
(864) SX-f: <5> yah </5>
(865) SX-f: <soft> yeah <6> in winter and </6> in <7> spring </7></soft> (.)
(866) S3: <6> no more?</6>
(867) SX-f: <6> twice <un> x </un></6>
(868) S5: <7> no more </7>
(VOICE: EDcon521)
Seen in the light of traditional ELT practices, the above extracts contain some serious
grammatical “mistakes”. Despite this fact, in none of the case, these “errors” disturbed the
flow of the conversation or seriously impaired its outcome. It all allows concluding that not
much proportion of communication breakdown in ELF discourse is caused by grammatical or
lexical deviations.
The minor role of grammar errors in ELF communication Jenkins (2000: 88) partly
attributes to “the developmental factor in the acquisition of L2 grammar”. Although speakers’
levels of competence may be different, they pass through more or less similar stages of
language acquisition irrespective of their L1 grammar. That is why being all learners in this
case they are able to interpret errors of their interlocutors even if they have already moved
beyond the developmental phase of which these errors are typical.
4.3.3. ELF: form or function.
Having dwelled so much on the validity of the ELF approach for teaching in nonnative contexts, there still remains an open question to be answered. If ELF is implemented in
teaching practices, is it a form or a function that language instructors and educators are
supposed to teach (Saraceni, 2008: 24-5).
123
If considering ELF only from the point of view of formal characteristics, its definition
may seem more than vague. Melchers and Shaw (2003: 179), for instance, reserve the term
“International English” for “a complex of linguistic features and communicative practices
which make the variety widely comprehensible”.
Departing from the formal characteristics of ELF, the main proposition here would be
to focus on features of maximal functional value without giving much emphasis on those
features that are redundant and not efficient for communication.
Thus, at present, the major aspects of ELF can be defined as follows,
1. ELF is spoken with easily discernable accent to a majority of proficient speakers.
Those speakers who speak the language with strong regional accents are not
perceived as ELF users unless they make their speech more comprehensible to
their interlocutors;
2. In terms of lexico-grammar, ELF includes features comprehensible to interlocutors
form a wide range of L1 backgrounds. Indeed, it is counter-productive to teach
obsolete features of the language in the sense that only a segment of the native and
proficient non-native groups are aware of the meaning of the term or phrase
(Modiano, 1999b: 9);
3. Since ELF is a predominantly spoken variety of English, it follows internationally
standardized written standard with little deviations but mostly in terms of lexis and
vocabulary, including features recognizable both in NS and NNS contexts.
Surely, if related to the establishment of ELF as a teaching model, these aspects alone
are not enough in the sense that there is still much work to be done into what features may be
defined as redundant and those which are viewed as commonly comprehensible.
It is also very important to add that ELF as a new approach in teaching is based on a
descriptive rather than on a prescriptive model since it does not require consistency in one
variety and is derived from the language usage of proficient speakers. Therefore, in its
essence ELF is broader that EFL, for it is not restricted in its uses and is diversified to the
extent that it even might be difficult to teach. So, ELF is by no means a simplistic approach to
the language as it might be claimed.
If we define ELF as a function, its use will first be limited to just a few of domains;
second, it is absolutely clear that learners of English will have to follow the norms that
124
conform to traditional ENL models, even though being absolutely dysfunctional in other than
native settings where people are chiefly engaged in communication with other NNSs.
When coming up to the definition, ELF thus may be conceived as “functionally and
not formally defined; it is not a variety of English but a variable way of using it (the
language): English that functions as a lingua franca” (Seidlhofer, 2011: 77).
What emerges (…) is that ELF is not a variety of English with clearly
demarcated formal linguistic properties to be set against some
institutionalized norm of the so-called standard language, but a
variable exploitation of linguistic resources.
(Seidlhofer, 2011: 110)
As is also pointed out, any language is conceived of in two different ways: “as abstract
code on the one hand, and as actual usage on the other” (Seidlhofer, 2011: 112). The “real”
language consists of actual usage which is actually produced. Thus it may be claimed that
“real” English at least for the majority of language users is not ENL but ELF (Seidlhofer,
2011: 60) and it is real language that should be set in teaching processes for those who want
to be efficient in a variety of contexts.
From the ELF perspective, the main goals for ELT are:
- To equip learners with the communicative strategy without making distinctions
between NSs and NNSs;
- To prepare learners for communication in NNS or mixed NNS-NS contexts;
- To raise awareness of other English varieties besides standard ones;
- To teach how to accommodate to international exchange, explaining which will be
the most efficient features for crosscultural communication and how these features are
appropriated in different speech communities.
The major purpose now is by no means trying to substitute one standard model by
another. The fundamental concern is that people must be given a choice of what models to
follow in English learning and teaching to be efficient in broader international contexts.
4.3.4. English as a lingua franca in Russia: fears and apprehensions.
To summarize the attitudes of Russian speakers towards the concept of ELF and
further test the possibility of introducing ELF as a teaching strategy in Russia, the workshop
125
discussion on the definition of the term “lingua franca”, taken from VOICE, will be analyzed
(VOICE: EDwsd303). Being a part of a European student conference on the future of English
in Europe, the event is a dialogue between participants of different L1 backgrounds. One of
them, identified in the dialogue as S23, is a native Russian speaker.
Although the opinion expressed in the long of this conversation is voiced by one
individual and might be regarded as highly subjective, it, in fact, reveals the attitudes of all
Russian speakers in general towards the concept of lingua franca, the role the English
language assumes in the global society, and, to a greater extent, their perceptions of what is
considered standard, as it will be further observed, by default associated with the community
of NSs and the motherland of the language. The convictions and, for the most part,
stereotypes will be first defined and then surveyed separately, each followed by an extract
from the dialogue.
Recognition of English as a global lingua franca.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, English has been recognized as a means of
access to the global community, uniting people from different linguistic and cultural
backgrounds - a tool (.) is like the: (.) auxiliary language for international communication.
among people with (.) e:r different nationalities different backgrounds and different cultures
and (.) language. (line 127). The uniqueness of the language is primarily linked to its
unprecedented spread around the world – the fact that turns English into a global language,
surpassing by its importance all other regional languages (line 290; 292).
(127) S23 [L1=rus-RU]: well for me er: lingua franca is (a) (.) a tool (.) is like the: (.)
auxiliary language for international communication. among people with (.) e:r
different nationalities different backgrounds and different cultures and (.) language. (.)
that’s my definition of this. (.) a:nd NOWadays like (.) english has this role (.) in (the)
condition of european union (1) in europe. (1)
(…)
(288) S23: i i want to object that (.) er it’s like (.) you say that lingua franca can be
different languages like it may be in eastern europe it’s russian a:nd in other like =
(289) S1 [L1=dut-NL]: = mhm
(290) S23: part of the world maybe it’s spanish in latin america for instance (.) BUT i
think that english is kind of unique. it’s not like usual lingua franca. cos lingua franca
it’s everywhere (in) just in small territories. but =
(291) S1: = m<2>hm </2>
(292) S23: <2> eng</2>lish is like <8> we </8> we can(’t) say that it’s a glob<3>al
language </3>
126
The necessity of standards.
One of the crucial conditions for Russians to accept ELF is its definition as a native or
standard variety, and the fact that this variety is codified in books and grammars (line 805). It
is still very difficult for them to reconcile with ELF unless it undergoes the process of
standardization (line 807, 809). The apprehension is voiced that the type of English spoken as
a lingua franca in Russia, be it defined as Runglish or some other sort of Russian-English mix,
will be understood only by Russian speakers, but not by the rest of English society (line 814,
816). Like this, the preference for a native variety is likely to prevail, being regarded as more
standard and comprehensible to other English speakers (line 828).
(805) S23: again what do I think that (.) there are SOME different variants of english
it’s american english it’s british english it’s australian (eng)lish canadian english and
so on. and there are two: like standard norms of english like british one and american
one. (.) and i believe that it DOESn’t matter which standard we use. we can use BOTH
. we can use like. i can (.) okay some people can <8> speak </8> both (.)
(806) SX: <8><soft> @ </soft></8>
(807) S23: norms they can speak british variant american some people choose
american some people <1> it doesn’t </1> matter BUT i believe that english franca
should be stantard- like (.)
(808) S1: <1> mhm </1>
(…)
(809) S23: er should be standar- <pvc> standardecide {standardized} <ipa>
ˌˌstændʌrdɪ’saɪd </ipa> </pvc> @@ by: (.) native (.) speakers. because (.) okay (.) ten
years ago: i was t- when i began like to study english at school we studied (tha:t) we
<un> xx </un> the grammar of english is (like) <slow> we: shall and i SHALL
.</slow><clears throat> the future (.) present. the:n the american variant began and (.)
they like the native speaker (began) said i <slow> we will and i will.</slow> and now
ALL people say i will and we will. so it’s like THEY changed their mother tongue
<2> a:nd </2> it (.)
(810) S1: <2> mhm </2>
(811) S23: it has the reflection to the like english as lingua franca. a:nd or i think
WHY it’s like in russia we have a joke about we have kind of mixture of russian and
english we call it <pvc> runglish </pvc>
(812) S1: @@
(813) SS: @ <3> @@ </3>
(814) S23: <3> a:nd you know </3> then we okay we can (w-) i can say oh yeah
<pvc> runglish </pvc> will be like russian variant of english will be a lingua franca
because you can understand. like all russian people can understand it’s like you
translated russian word by word(s)
(815) SX-f: uhu
(816) S23: in english and every russian will understand.<4> but if i began to
communicate </4> with you in THIS language you WON’T understand it. so that’s
why i believe that it should be standard- like we should have standard of: native
speakers. how THEY
(817) SS: <soft><4> @@@@ </4></soft>
127
(818) SX-f: <soft> hm </soft> =
(819) S23: = do that we should do the same =
The reverence for native speakers.
It is not surprising that Russians who themselves feel a part of the unique cultural
legacy will express their reverence for NSs and their ownership of the language which is
theirs by primogeniture (line 874, 876, 879). If their own language were treated that freely,
they indeed could feel deeply hurt in their national pride. That is why any violation of the NS
models is more likely to be perceived as the lack of respect towards the “owners” of the
language. In line with this, the question of quality is inevitably raised (line 865). Hence, the
use of English as a lingua franca may be regarded as substandard, improper and incorrect – an
attempt to create “crazy mixtures” instead of using a “real language” that already exists and
that has its native speakers (line 868).
(863) S23: = it was my <4> (idea) <un> x </un></4>
(864) S1: <4> you can re</4>act and then <5> you can <un> x </un> (up) </5>
(865) S23: <5> it it(’s) the question </5> of quality of language. (.) i believe that <8>
e:r </8> like we can use <soft> as [S17] said </soft> they can use a:ny language as
lingua franca. they can use like the: real language like english spanish and they can use
artificial like esperanto for instance.
(866) SX-17: <8> hh </8>
(867) SX-12: mhm =
(868) S23: = we (talk) and we’re discussing here (.) like english as lingua franca.
english is a real (nan-) language. and there are a lot of <soft> er </soft> native english
speakers. don’t you think so that we can offend them just <soft> er </soft> t- c- ttrying to create THEIR language trying to create our own languages like <6> m- crazy
</6>
(869) S17: <6> but it’s not </6> THEIR
(870) S23: <7> crazy mixtures </7>
(871) S18: <7> offend them?</7>{brief parallel conversation in background}
(872) S1: <soft> so </soft>
(873) S18: <soft> so <9><un> xxx </un> (possible) </9></soft>
(874) S23: <9><slow> offend them.</slow></9> (.) because like (.) i don’t know
maybe it’s russian nat<@>ion identity </@><5> but </5> all russians because they’re
really offended then (.)
(875) SX: <5><soft> @ </soft></5>
(876) S23: foreigners trying to (.) re:- reorganize russian language be<1>cause </1> it
sounds great it’s our it’s part of CUlture and <2> like eng</2>lish is a part of (.)
(877) SX: <1> @ </1>
(878) SX-f: <2> mhm </2>
(879) S23: [S13] culture is a part of a lot of culture (.) <3> and </3> we <4> just
t:ry</4>ing to r- to: create our own languages.<8> and that </8> sounds like
<imitating> what are you doing </imitating>
128
Reverence for Standard English varieties
Despite the recognition of English as a global lingua franca, the acquisition of one of
the Standard English varieties, which is either British English or American English, still
remains the main target for the majority of Russians. This target, however difficult it may be
to reach, is something everybody is supposed to strive to (line 1114), even if in the end it is
used not for communication with NSs, but with the rest of English-speaking community. The
example brought is that to study English abroad Russians would choose either Britain or the
US, because it is there that the standard variety is believed to be spoken (line 1117).
(1114) S23: english? as the native speaker(s) does. It’s the AIM . or maybe it’s
impossible b:ut it’s not <7> imPOss</7>ible maybe it’s too hard to do it
(1115) S1: <7> mhm </7>
(1116) SX-18: mhm
(1117) S23: just sitting here and communicating with not (.) native speakers BUT (.)
we sho- we should strive to do that. a:nd (.) wha- what about (.) standard english. okay
why ALL foreign students just if if i decided to: study english (.) WHY (.) all people
go to the <spel> u s </spel> or britain (why) people don’t go to study english in
sweden (1) f:or instance. or to finland because they want to speak english as foreign (.)
speakers do a:nd it’s not nat- it’s DOESn’t mean that they’re going to communicate
only with americans or with british <1> that means </1> they they’re studying english
for <pvc> interNAtion </pvc> communiCAtion
(1118) S1: <1> mhm </1>
(1119) S1: mhm
(1120) S23: but they’re going to NAtive speaking country because <8> they </8>
believe that it should be STAndard.
As it has been noticed, despite the acknowledgement of the status of English as a
global lingua franca, Russians are still driven backwards by the traditional preconceptions
greatly influenced by what is imposed on them in the course of their formal education,
including reverence for NSs, and respect for standard models and norms. Another explanation
for the origins of Russian stereotypes and apprehensions connected with the concept of ELF is
hidden in the Russian character.
Their cruel climate, harsh history and skeptical outlook on life have
caused Russians to value stability, security, social order, and
predictability and to avoid risk. Big changes are feared, and the tried
and tested is preferred over the new and unknown.
(Richmond, 2009: 34)
One of the main reasons why the concept of lingua franca is taken with greater
resistance in Russia is caution and conservatism. Russians are known for their reluctance to
129
accept something new until it becomes verified by time. If something is taken for granted, the
conviction is not that easily shaken.
Although the above apprehensions are not without reasonable ground, the main thing
to be cleared here is that by defining the language a lingua franca nobody deprives NSs of
what is originally theirs. The native language will continue to belong to its speakers, but the
same language functioning as a lingua franca can serve as a tool of communication for a
greater community of NNSs. So, what language to speak is an individual choice of any
speaker, but every individual must be conscious of this choice, especially when it is made at
the level of formal education.
4.4. Summary.
Chapter 4 has given a general overview of the ways teaching English is implemented
at different stages of formal education in Russia, being introduced either as a school subject or
university discipline, or, in rare cases, as a language of instruction.
Though currently English teaching in Russia gives priority to the development of
communicative competence and the language use a means of interpersonal and intercultural
interaction, including Internet communication, its practices are not well related to the actual
use of the language.
So far, across the countries of the Expanding circle, English is continued to be taught
as a foreign language, being largely tied up to the “traditional ideology”, involving conformity
to NS models and the achievement of native-like proficiency as the only desirable target in
ELT.
However, since the focus of English studies has recently shifted to the majority of
NNSs of English, the proposition and main strategy for language pedagogy is now to
concentrate on core features of maximal functional value and not on those non-core features
that are redundant and not efficient for communication.
As such, a new approach in ELT suggests an alternative strategy for those English
learners who need to achieve an internationally intelligible variety with emphasis on
efficiency and relevance in international communication.
After a detailed account of the present spread and uses of English in Russia, it is
considered to be pertinent to carry out a research on people’s perceptions of the English
language as used in the local context as well as to challenge efficiency of educational models,
130
employed for English instruction in Russia, especially if related to younger generation of
English users who are currently introduced to English from a communicative perspective.
The following chapter is a sociolinguistic study of three generations of English users,
designated to reveal their attitudes towards the presence of English in Russia, its forms, uses
and functions, as well as its prospects in the national context.
131
5. A Sociolinguistic Study of Three Generations of Russian Users of English.
Chapter 5 provides with a sociolinguistic analysis of the spread and presence of
English in the particular context of Russia, taking into account the major periods of its
contemporary history. Consequently, this study is based on an empirical assessment of three
generation of English users.
First, it establishes the grounds for a sociolinguistic profile of three groups of subjects,
which includes the results of a statistical analysis of questionnaires completed by 130
respondents in 2010. It further explains rationale and methodology for carrying out this
survey, as well as questionnaire composition and data analysis.
A division into subchapters that follows coincides with that of the questionnaire,
distributed to the groups of subjects surveyed. By examining various aspects of the use of
English in Russia, this part of the chapter presents attitudes towards the presence of English,
its forms, uses and functions, as well as its prospects in the national context.
The section of questionnaire analysis starts with a general description of the
population that has been sampled. This profile, then, reveals respondents’ competence in
English, their perceptions of the type of English they speak, and their motivation for learning
the language. It further describes subjects’ attitudes about the presence of English in Russia,
their preference for an English variety, and attitudes towards language standard and variation,
etc. The survey is concluded with the analysis of subjects’ opinions about the future of
English in the national settings.
132
5.1. Rationale and methodology for the present survey.
This survey attempts to reveal attitudes of Russian users of English towards the
presence of English in Russia, its usage, models, variation, as well as its prospects in the
national context. The prior challenges of the research are
1) to trace the connection between the policy pursued by the country and language
planning since the post-war period to the present days on the example of three groups of
English users, and
2) to demonstrate how these changes in language policy have influenced attitudes
towards the use of English in Russia.
With reference to different phases of contemporary Russian history, the present
research rests on the following hypothesis:
(H): English users from different periods differ in their language proficiency, as well
as in their attitudes and experience in the use of English.
The major research hypothesis, in its turn, is grounded on the following subhypotheses:
(SH1): The youngest generation of English users reveals higher attainment of
language proficiency, and frequency of language use, as well as broader perceptions in the
sense of English varieties, and the notions of nativeness and standard language.
(SH2): English users with diverse international background and greater experience in
international communication demonstrate better language proficiency, and, consequently,
greater awareness of the pluricentric character of the English language, and its multiple uses
in the world.
The research also points out the fact that, despite a considerable breakthrough that can
be noticed in perceptions of the use of English, Russia still remains stuck in traditional
models. However, the goal of this study is not to criticize, but to revisit traditional practices in
ELT in Russia, make weaknesses a strong point, and try to find possible implications for
teaching English within the new paradigm which has recently shifted its focus from NSs to
NNSs of English.
133
In order to carry out a comprehensive analysis of attitudes towards the use of English
in Russia, its acceptance and prospects in the national context, a questionnaire was
administered to 130 subjects in 2010, attempting to relate the changes in the language policy
to perceptions of the English language and English learning experience of respondents from
different periods of contemporary Russian history.
Survey participants were grouped according to their age in 2010. The elementary
knowledge of English was an obligatory criterion for all the respondents of this survey. Group
I includes the youngest age group from 18 to 22 years old; group II - the subjects of the age
group 23-30 years old, and group III - the subjects of 31 and over 31 years old.
The years these groups of respondents entered the secondary school correspond to the
beginning of each period referred to in this project: the Cold War (1947-1991), including the
subjects of group III, the post-perestroika period (1992-1999) – group II, and the New Russia
epoch (from 2000 onwards) – group I. The reason why the beginning of secondary school was
taken as a reference point for the demarcation of age groups, differentiated in this survey, is
that until recently English has been introduced into the school curriculum from grade 5, at the
age of 10-11.
The major risk to be taken here was thus that some of respondents from group I could
already be introduced to English in elementary school, since now it is increasingly widespread
for Russian schools to start English from grade 2. However, since this practice is not yet
common for all schools in general, it is not considered as an invalid criterion for, in the
majority of cases, until recently at the beginning of secondary school, students have been
involved in the repetition of the already learnt material, what was supposed to give an
opportunity for those children who had just started to learn the language to catch up with their
peers.
Taking into consideration the fact that the urban society has greater access to English,
all the subjects are Russian residents coming from Moscow and the Moscow region. For this
reason, the present research is not representative of Russian population on the whole. Besides,
a quantitative research for the present survey was considered impossible, as the overall
number of Russian population exceeds 138.7 million people,41 this fact coupled with the
geographical vastness of the country and its ethnic diversity. Although questionnaires were
administered in a geographically restricted area, the data obtained fully satisfied the set
variable, and the main criterion, applied to the subjects of this survey.
41
See note 13, p. 21.
134
When related to the type of sampling procedures, convenience or opportunity
sampling was applied to group I. The majority of population of this group are students of the
Moscow Regional Pedagogical College, situated in the Moscow region, Serpukhov. The
population sampled met the key selection criterion for group I, being composed of
respondents from 18 to 22 years old.
Snowball sampling was chosen as a sampling procedure to select respondents from
group II and group III, involving “chain reaction”. In this case, the researcher first identified
people who met the set criterion, – that is the division into age groups, and then asked them to
identify further members, from relatives, friends, or colleagues, to answer the questionnaire.
Questionnaires were, then, either sent directly to the researcher or handed in by the first
member of the “chain”.
In the process of data collection, different methods of administration procedure were
used: administration by e-mail, one-to-one administration, and group administration.
Group administration was applied to the youngest age group – group I. The researcher,
however, was not directly involved in the collection process. Questionnaires were
administered by the head of the English language department of the Moscow Regional
Pedagogical College who gave general guidelines at the beginning of the administration.
Group administration showed the highest return rate (100%).
Administration by e-mail and one-to-one administration were chosen in case with the
subjects of groups II and III to ensure a high return rate. It further appeared that one-to-one
administration (97.2%) proved to be more effective than administration by e-mail, which
registered the lowest return rate (40%).
5.1.1. Questionnaire composition.
The present questionnaire was roughly modeled on the basis of the questionnaires,
constructed by Erling (2004), Fonzari (1999), Jin (2005), and Preisler (1999).
The questionnaire is divided into 6 sections of a total of 32 items (see appendix I).
Each section is designed to elicit the following information:
Section A. Personal information.
- general information (age, sex, occupation, etc.);
- respondents’ level of study;
- respondents’ amount of traveling;
- respondents’ personal experience of international communication.
135
Section B. Languages learning background.
- respondents’ knowledge of English and other foreign languages;
- respondents’ desire to learn other foreign languages besides English;
- respondents’ formal background of English learning.
Section C. Competence, types of English and motivation.
- respondents’ competence in using English;
- respondents’ perception of a variety of English they speak;
- respondents’ actual reasons to know English;
- respondents’ desire to improve language skills in future.
Section D. Language acquisition and preference for an English variety.
- respondents’ attitude towards English learning;
- respondents’ preference for English varieties, in particular for British English and
American English;
- respondents’ reaction to language variation.
Section E. Attitudes towards the use of English in everyday life.
- respondents’ actual uses of English;
- respondents’ attitude towards the presence of English in Russia;
- arguments in favor of or against the use of English in Russia.
Section F. The future of English.
- respondents’ awareness of the expansion of English;
- respondents’ perception of English trend in the future in national and international
contexts.
To avoid monotony, the questionnaire is composed of different types of questionnaire
items (Dörnyei, 2003: 35-50) such as factual questions (items 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11), specific open
questions (items 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15), numeric items (items 1, 6), rating scales (items 12, 16,
19, 24, 26, 30, 32), including true-false items (item 29), multiple-choice items (items 17, 18,
20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28), and rank order items (item 31).
136
In order to make a user-friendly questionnaire, in its final form it was translated into
Russian, so that the respondents who claim only the elementary level of English proficiency
could choose the easiest form to fill in the questionnaire to be more confident in their replies.
Finally, questionnaires were collected in a manner that protected the anonymity of
respondents.
Processing questionnaire data.
The purpose of this study was not only to find out the attitudes of three groups of
Russian users of English, but also to analyze how these attitudes differ. Results from each age
group were first analyzed separately and then compared. The questionnaire data was
processed using SPSS (Version 17.0).42
For the data analysis, each questionnaire was given a unique identification code in a
numerical form by writing a code number in the right corner of the front page. The first digit
referred to one of the focus groups. Thus, group I was identified as the number ‘1’, group II as
‘2’, and group III as ‘3’. The last digits identified the subjects of this survey. For example,
code III/27 refers to subject 27 from group III. Although simplistic as it is, this identification
code helped to keep together questionnaires, coming from the same focus group. At the same
time, the final numbers used to identify subjects of the study once again assured their
anonymity in the process of data collection.
5.2. Questionnaire analysis.
The analysis of survey results follows the questionnaire division into sections, devised
to elicit subjects’ personal information, as well as different aspects of the presence of English
and its use. To facilitate the reading of the profile of three generations of Russian users of
English, each questionnaire item is analyzed separately.
5.2.1. Section A: Personal information.
In the first section of this survey, respondents were addressed with factual questions
concerning their age, sex, place of residence, occupation, and education level. This section
also attempts to reveal general information about subjects’ international background.
42
SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) is a data management and statistical analysis tool which has
a very versatile data processing capability.
137
Q1: Age.
The average age of subjects of this survey is 29.58 (see table 5.1). The minimum age
is 18, and the maximum age is 58.
Age
Mean
29.58
Std. Deviation
11.75
Minimum
18
Maximum
58
Table 5.1. Age statistics, irrespective of focus groups.
Involving a quota sampling procedure, subjects were thus split into three age groups,
referred to as group I, group II, and group III (see table 5.2).
Group
Age
Subjects
%
I.
18-22
50
38.5
II.
23-30
40
30.8
III.
≥31
40
30.8
Table 5.2. Age group division.
Q2: Sex.
The majority of subjects who completed the questionnaire are female – 81.5% (see
table 5.3).
Group I
Group II
Group III
F
94%
72.5%
75%
Total by
Groups
81.5%
M
6%
27.5%
25%
18.5%
Table 5.3. Sex distribution.
If compared within the groups, the difference between the female and male population
from group I is more prominent – 94% against 6%. This ratio is anticipated since group I is
composed of students of the pedagogical college with the predominantly female student body.
If taken on the whole, women were more ready to participate in the poll than men.
138
Q3: Place of residence.
As it has been already referred to, the survey population is made up of Russian
residents, coming from Moscow (40%) and the Moscow region (60%) (see table 5.4).
Group I
Group II
Group III
Moscow
10%
57.5%
60%
Total by
Groups
40%
Moscow Region
90%
42.5%
40%
60%
Table 5.4. Place of residence.
It is not surprising that the highest percentage of respondents, coming from the
Moscow region, are students of the Moscow Regional Pedagogical College who make up the
majority of group I.
In fact, that some of respondents live in the capital and others in its region is of little
importance for this research since the survey population living in close proximity to the
megalopolis has greater chances for using English in their daily interactions, in the workplace
or occasional meetings, than, for instance, people who live in small provincial towns, distant
from big cities.
Q4: Occupation.
The survey population represents a wide range of professions from physicians,
teachers and accountants to musicians, librarians and shop assistants (see appendix II: table
1).
To analyze respondents’ professions within groups, they were divided according to the
level of education required (see table 5.5). A separate category was reserved for students, that
is, respondents who are still on their way of attainment of either professional or higher
education.
The largest group of survey population is thus composed of students – 39.2%, who
make up the overwhelming majority of group I and 2.5% of group II.
36.9% of the overall number of those surveyed have professions that require higher
education. 3.1% of respondents have professions that require professional or technical
education.
The category “unspecified” includes such answers as “unemployed”, “employee” or
“housewife”. None of these answers could be referred to any of the three other categories.
139
Student
Higher Education
Group I
Group II
Group III
100%
2.5%
NA43
Total by
Groups
39.2%
NA
55%
65%
36.9%
NA
2.5%
7.5%
3.1%
NA
40%
27.5%
20.8%
(architect, doctor, economist, etc.)
Professional/Technical
Education
(builder, cook, shop assistant, etc.)
Unspecified
Table 5.5. Occupation by level of education.
On the whole, most professions claimed by respondents require the attainment of
higher education what also suggests that the majority of survey population, except for the
group of students, will demonstrate high levels of education attainment.
Q5: Level of education.
When taken into consideration subjects’ educational level, comparative analysis of the
focus groups is considered to be irrelevant as the respondents from group I still find
themselves on their way of obtaining either professional or higher education. Group I is, as
such, composed of students with basic secondary (70%) and complete secondary education
(30%).
A large majority of group II – 80% of respondents, have higher education. 10% are
post-graduate, 5% have technical, and 5% complete secondary education.
82.5% of group III obtained higher education. 7.5% have incomplete higher education;
the same percentage has technical education. The remaining 2.5% are post-graduate.
When still comparing the results between respondents with complete formal education
(see figure 5.1), it is observed that the subjects from group III demonstrate slightly higher
results of attainment of tertiary education. Group II, nonetheless, compensates this difference
by post-graduate studies.
43
NA = not applicable.
140
Post-Graduate
Higher Education
Incomplete Higher
Education
Technical Education
Complete Secondary
Education
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Complete
Incomplete
Technical
Higher
PostSecondary
Higher
Education
Education Graduate
Education
Education
Group II
5%
5%
0%
80%
10%
Group III
0%
7,5%
7,5%
82,5%
2,5%
Figure 5.1. Levels of education by subjects from group II and group III.
The findings show that despite the fact that education standards, especially on the level
of tertiary education, have recently been called into question, a large majority from group II
and group III obtained higher education.44
Q6: The amount of traveling.
Regarding the amount of traveling (see figure 5.2), 46.9% of all subjects travel abroad
every year, 39.2% travel rarely, and 13.8% say they never travel abroad.
The highest amount of traveling is observed in older age groups. 60% of subjects from
group III and 50% of subjects from group II claim they travel abroad every year.
The majority of respondents from group I – 38%, say they travel abroad rarely. It is
still in this group that the highest percentage of those who claim they never travel abroad is
indicated – 28%.
44
According to the country statistical profile published by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (2007), Russia has a very high level of attainment of tertiary education. It occupies one of the top
positions among OECD member countries. In Russia, the portion of people with higher and post-HEI
professional education (Tertiary Type A and advanced research programs) among people aged 25-64 is 21%. It
is comparable with the indices for Australia, Canada, Korea (22%) and Japan (21%).
141
Although initially the subjects were given 4 options to choose from, nobody of
respondents opted for the answer “monthly”.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Group I
Group II
Group III
28%
38%
34%
10%
40%
50%
0%
40%
60%
Never
Rarely
Every Year
Total by
Groups
13,8%
39,2%
46,9%
Figure 5.2. Amount of traveling.
The results obtained are not surprising since the majority of those who travel less are
the respondents from group I. The amount of traveling increases in older groups, with the
subjects from group III traveling more than those from group II.
Q7: Visited countries.
The survey population claims Turkey, Finland, and Germany as top popular tourist
destinations (see table 5.6). By number of visits, the UK maintains its leading position,
occupying the 6th place. The USA is only on the 10th place.
1. Turkey
6. UK
2. Finland
7. Italy
3. Germany
8. Czech Republic
4. France
9. Ukraine
5. Egypt / Spain
10. USA
Table 5.6. Top 10 holiday destinations (questionnaire data).
142
In table 5.7, it is noticed that nobody of group I has been to the US. The most popular
holiday destination for group III is the UK.
Group I
Group II
Group III
1. Finland
1. Turkey
1. UK
2. Turkey
2. France
2. Turkey / Germany
3. Sweden / Swiss
3. Spain
3. Spain
5. Czech Rebublic / Spain / UK
6. Bulgaria / Egypt / UK
6. Italy / Sweden / USA
7. Finland / Greece / Portugal /
Swiss / USA
Table 5.7. Top holiday destinations by groups.
Among English-speaking countries, the UK occupies a leading position with greater
number of visits. Such attractiveness of this destination for Russian tourists may be attributed
not only to the desire to visit a country with rich historical and cultural legacy, but also to the
fact that Great Britain is considered to be the ancestral home of all Anglo-speaking culture
and the English language.
Q8: Languages used for communication abroad.
Following the findings (see figure 5.3), the most popular language used for
international communication remains English – 81.5%. Only 6.9% use English and some
other foreign language for communication. 11.5% say they do not speak any language other
than their own, when traveling to other countries.
Within the groups English is chosen by the majority of respondents. Higher percentage
of those who use English for communication abroad is chosen by the respondents from group
III – 92.5%
Remarkably, the highest percentage of those who use English and some other foreign
language comes from group II – 15%. In group III, the same answer is chosen only by 7.5%.
Nobody from group III opts for the same answer.
143
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group I
Group II
Group III
76%
77,5%
92,5%
Total by
Groups
81,5%
0%
15%
7,5%
6,9%
24%
7,5%
0%
11,5%
English
English and some other
foreign language
None
Figure 5.3. Language(s) used abroad to communicate.
Already in this part of the research, it may be assumed that more subjects from group
II, in comparison with the two other focus groups, will demonstrate their knowledge in other
foreign languages besides English.
For most respondents of this survey, English, however, remains a prior tool of
international communication.
Q9 / 10: Visits to English-speaking countries.
When asked if they have ever been to an English-speaking country, 30.9% confirm
their experience, whereas 69.1% say they never have.
Out of 30.9% of those who assert that they have visited one of the English-speaking
countries (see figure 5.4), 16.2% have visited the UK, 6.2% have been to the US, 3.1% have
been both to the UK and the USA. 5.4% of respondents have visited other English-speaking
countries, including Ireland, the South African Republic, Singapore, Malta, Finland, and
Sweden.
144
16,2%
UK
6,2%
USA
3,1%
UK+USA
5,4%
Other countries
None
69,1%
Figure 5.4. English-speaking countries visited by respondents.
It is not surprising that the amount of traveling to English-speaking countries increases
in older age groups (see table 5.8). For instance, 10% of group III claim they have been both
to the UK and the US.
None
NA
Other
countries
4%
7.5%
NA
5%
75%
12.5%
10%
7.5%
40%
UK
USA
UK+USA
Group I
8%
NA
Group II
12.5%
Group III
30%
88%
Table 5.8. English-speaking countries visited by groups.
The majority of those respondents who assert they have visited one of the Englishspeaking countries go there as tourists, spending in these countries from 3 days up to 2 weeks.
Of all subjects only two went abroad to obtain language certificates. One respondent
from group III spent 1.5 months in EF School in Malta, having the English language
acquisition as the main purpose of his travel. Another participant from group I obtained a
language cource certificate in Finland.
It is noteworthy that among English-speaking countries, respondents name not only
“diasporas of native speakers”, having in mind the UK, the USA, Ireland and South Africa,
but also the countries of the Outer circle with English acquired as L2, such as Singapore and
Malta, and the countries of the Expanding circle, such as Finland and Sweden, currently in
145
transition from EFL to L2 status, as such, revealing growing awareness of many Englishes
that exist under the common label of “the English language”.
5.2.2. Section B: Languages learning background.
Section B of this survey sheds light on respondents’ learning background of English
and other foreign languages. It also presents a detailed account of subjects’ personal
evaluation of English proficiency.
Q11: First foreign language.
Remaining the most popular foreign language in Russia, it is not surprising that
English is the first foreign language for 96.9% of the overall number of survey population
(see table 5.9), compared with the remaining 3.1% who claim it is not.
English
German or French
Group I
Group II
Group III
100%
90%
100%
Total by
Groups
96.9%
NA
10%
NA
3.1%
Table 5.9. First foreign language.
It is interesting to note that 3.1% of those who claim some other foreign language
besides English as their first foreign language are from by group II, with their replies equally
divided between German and French.
Already here the parallels can be drawn between item 11 and item 8,45 in which it was
supposed that the respondents of group II would demonstrate more diversity in their replies
concerning foreign languages they speak. Following the results, the supposition proved to be
correct.
Q12: Knowledge of English and other foreign languages.
Item 12 was devised to elicit subjects’ proficiency in English and other foreign
languages. English proficiency was analyzed in terms of four language skills: listening,
speaking, reading, and writing.
45
See p. 143.
146
a) Respondents’ proficiency in English.
Regarding respondent’ proficiency in English (see figure 5.5), it is noted that the
majority of subjects choose the intermediate level to evaluate their language skills (see
appendix II: figures 1, 2, 3, 4). Interestingly enough, higher percentage of respondents defines
their reading and writing skills as intermediate, in comparison with listening and speaking.
On both the intermediate and proficient levels, reading is the language skill with the
highest level of proficiency assessment – 53.1% and 30.8% correspondingly.
Writing
Reading
Speaking
Listening
0%
A-elementary
B-basic
C-intermediate
D-proficient
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Listening
11,5%
20,8%
46,9%
20,8%
Speaking
9,2%
23,1%
46,9%
20,8%
Reading
4,6%
11,5%
53,1%
30,8%
Writing
7,7%
20%
50,8%
21,5%
Figure 5.5. Language skills assessment.
Assessing English proficiency by age groups, nobody from group I chooses the
elementary level to describe one of the four skills (see table 5.10). The vast majority refer to
their language skills as intermediate, with reading demonstrating the highest results – 76%.
Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
B-basic
16%
14%
8%
16%
C-intermediate
72%
72%
76%
74%
D-proficient
12%
14%
16%
10%
Table 5.10. Group I: Language skills assessment.
147
Analyzing the results from group II (see table 5.11), it can be observed that the
majority of subjects rate their knowledge of English as intermediate or proficient. On the
intermediate level, speaking is the language skill with the highest percentage of proficiency
assessment – 42.5%. On the proficient level, it is reading with 40% of replies.
In comparison with group I, more subjects from group II judge their language skills as
basic or elementary. On the elementary level, lower degree of proficiency is shown in
listening – 15%; on the basic level, 20% equally in speaking and writing.
Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
A-elementary
15%
7.5%
5%
10%
B-basic
12.5%
20%
12.5%
20%
40%
42.5%
42%
35%
32.5%
30%
40%
35%
C-intermediate
D-proficient
Table 5.11. Group II: Language skills assessment.
In group III (see table 5.12), the difference between listening and speaking, and
reading and writing skills comes to the fore. The majority of subjects from this group define
their listening and speaking skills as basic – 35% and 37.5%.
The situation with reading and writing is quite the opposite, with the majority of
subjects evaluating their reading skills as proficient – 40%, and writing as intermediate –
37.5%.
Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
A-elementary
22.5%
22.5%
10%
15%
B-basic
35%
37.5%
15%
25%
C-intermediate
22.5%
20%
35%
37.5%
20%
20%
40%
22.5%
D-proficient
Table 5.12. Group III: Language skills assessment.
As it follows from the results, the highest level of language attainment by the subjects
of this survey is achieved in reading. In group III, the striking difference is registered between
148
listening and speaking, and reading and writing skills. The overall findings show, however,
that English language proficiency is improving in younger generations.
b) Other foreign languages besides English.
Despite the unquenched popularity of English, one may assert that nowadays the ideal
speaker in Russia is imagined to be fluent in several foreign languages (one of which is
ideally English due to its global position).
The findings (see figure 5.6) show that 44.6% of subjects have knowledge only of the
English language, 45.4% speak English and one other foreign language, and 10% claim to
speak English and more than one foreign language.
Of those subjects who speak only English, the highest percentage is registered by
subjects from group III. In the two other groups surveyed, the majority claims to speak
English and one other foreign language – 52% from group I and 45% from group II.
At the same time, the highest percentage of those who speak English and more than
one foreign language is observed by the subjects from group II – 20%.
English Plus
Total by Groups
Group III
Group II
Group I
0%
English
English + 1
English + 2 or >
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Group I
40%
52%
8%
Group II
35%
45%
20%
Group III
60%
37,5%
2,5%
Total by Groups
44,6%
45,4%
10%
Figure 5.6. Knowledge of English and other foreign languages.
For the population surveyed, the most popular foreign languages, besides English,
remain French and German. Of those subjects who claim to speak one or more other foreign
languages, 24.6% equally speak either German or French, and 4.6% claim to know both.
149
46.2% speak other foreign languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, Polish,
Ukrainian, Romanian, and Turkish (in descending order).
The combination English+French (see figure 5.7) is more common for subjects from
group I – 32%, and group II – 25%. English+German is the most popular combination for
group III – 25%. 26% of group I also claim to know both English and German. Most of those
who know German and French show only elementary or basic proficiency in these languages.
English Plus
Total by Groups
Group III
Group II
Group I
0%
English + French
English + German
English + French + German
Other Languages
50%
100%
Group I
Group II
Group III
32%
26%
2%
40%
25%
22,5%
12,5%
40%
15%
25%
0%
60%
Total by
Groups
24,6%
24,6%
4,6%
46,2%
Figure 5.7. English Plus.
The results obtained are not striking. Firstly, the majority of those who speak only
English come from group III since it was only at the end of the post-perestroika period when
some schools started to introduce several foreign languages in their curricula, though even
now it is not a common practice, and when no option is given, a foreign language to be learnt
is still predominately English.
Secondly, that German is spoken by the majority of respondents from group III,
whereas French is chosen mostly by subjects from group I and II, is explained by the fact, that
during the Cold War period, German was the second popular option after English in Soviet
schools. The major contradiction here is that nobody of group III opted for German as their
first foreign language in item 11,46 presumably because those who had it as a foreign language
46
See p. 146.
150
in school have poor knowledge of the language and are more exposed to English in their daily
life.
The overall findings show that, whatever may be the way of acquiring proficiency in
other foreign languages, whether through formal education or private tutoring, younger
generations recognize the importance of speaking one or two other foreign languages.
Q12 * Q5 Crosstabulation: Knowledge of foreign languages and the level of education.
When comparing the results obtained in item 12 to those of item 547 (see appendix II:
table 2), primarily with reference to group II and group III, it is noted that of those subjects
from group II who speak English and one other foreign language 83.3% have higher
education, 5.6% are post-graduate. In group III, the subjects with English and one other
foreign language make up 86.7%, 6.7% are post-graduate.
Of those who know English and more than one foreign language, 62.5% from group II
have higher education and 37.5% are post-graduate. All the subjects from group III who know
English and more than one foreign language have higher education.
So, it is observed that the more languages a person claims to speak, the higher the
level of education obtained is.
Q12 * Q8 Crosstabulation: Languages used for international communication.
After analyzing item 12, it is believed to be pertinent to compare its results with the
findings obtained in question 8.48 Hence, it is noted that of 55.4% of those subjects who claim
to speak English and one other or more than one foreign language, only 6.9% use other
languages besides English when traveling abroad.
It thus may be concluded that English remains the major tool of international
communication for a large majority of the survey population.
Q13: Other foreign languages by their popularity.
When asked about their desire to speak other foreign languages, the majority of
respondents give their preference for Spanish, followed by French and Italian, with German
only on the 4th position (see table 5.13).
47
See p. 140.
48
See p. 143.
151
1. Spanish
6. Chinese
2. French
7. Japanese
3. Italian
8. Portuguese
4. German
9. Turkish
5. Arabic
10. Other foreign languages
Table 5.13. Foreign languages by their popularity among respondents in descending order
(English not included).
The popularity of other foreign languages besides English is slightly different among
respondents from each group (see table 5.14). Group I and group II chooses Spanish as the
language they would like to know, followed by French and German. Group III, however,
places Italian before French and Spanish.
Group I
Group II
Group III
1. Spanish
1. Spanish
1. Italian
2. French
2. French
2. French
3. German
3. German / Italian
3. Spanish
Table 5.14. Top three popular foreign languages by their popularity
(English not included).
The results confirm the rise and increasing interest in other world languages such as
Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese, as well as the importance of French and German for
the countries situated in geographical proximity to Europe.
Q14 / 15: English learning background.
For the survey population, English learning background is primarily confined to the
years of English instruction at the levels of secondary and tertiary education (see table 5.15).
English learning background of respondents from group I is more diverse, than that of
the two other focus groups. In general, they claim from 4 up to 11 years of English instruction
in school. The most common model of English learning background for group I is 7 years of
English instruction in school and 2/3 years at college (32%). By the time of this survey, the
majority of respondents from group I had completed 2 or 3 years of English instruction at
college.
152
The model, applicable to the respondents from group II, includes 6 years in school
plus from 2 up to 5 years of English instruction at the university.
For the majority of participants from group III, the model of English education is 6
years at school49 plus 2 or 3 years at the university.
One of the respondents of group III assumes 30 years of continuous English
instruction. Indeed, for the majority of respondents English learning is a lifelong process that
does not stop after finishing school or graduating from the university. Thereafter, English
proficiency is mastered with private tutors, at language and training courses at home and
abroad.
Group I
Group II
Group III
18%
27.5%
47.5%
-
27.5%
37.5%
7s + 2/3c
32%
-
-
8/9s+2/3c
20%
-
-
Other
30%
45%
15%
6s + 2/3u
6s + 5u
Table 5.15. English educational background.
In item 15, 16.9% of the overall number of respondents claim to have improved their
English proficiency at language courses. So, most of them opt for language courses that offer
international certificates such as FCE (First Certificate in English), TOEFL (Test of English
as a Foreign Language), and ILEC (International Legal English Certificate).
Two respondents have certificates from language schools abroad. As it has been
already referred, one of the respondents from group I has obtained a certificate of a language
course taken in Finland, another respondent from group III has a certificate from EF School
Malta.
Conspicuously, the greater amount of time spent on English learning falls on the years
of English instruction in school. As it can also be observed, recently English in Russia has
started to be increasingly introduced in elementary grades. It is hence argued that namely on
the level of school education language instruction should be given special attention in order to
build solid basis for language expertise and future practice.
49
From 1966 to 1984 secondary education in Russia comprised 10 years. A foreign language was introduced in
grade 5. Upon the completion of grade 10 students usually received 6 years of English instruction.
153
5.2.3. Section C: Competence, types of English and motivation.
In the next section of this survey, subjects were first requested to rate their competence
in English. The following questions were designed to find out the type of English respondents
identify themselves with, and give insights into subjects’ motivation for speaking English.
Q16: Language competence.
In item 16, subjects were requested to rate their competence in English by evaluating
to what extent they are able to understand, read, write, and speak English under particular
conditions such as, for instance, listening to English songs, or reading English books. The
information obtained was analyzed according to the groups of subjects surveyed (see
appendix II: table 3).
The findings (see figure 5.8) show that the majority of subjects from group I can
understand English song lyrics - 60%, and read a book in English – 60%, “to a certain extent”.
High percentage of respondents claims to read, write and speak English under a particular
condition “to a great extent” – 38% of replies equally for each question. Only 4% report they
cannot write a letter at all.
To what extent are you able to...
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
(a)
understand
English song
lyrics when
you listen to
music?
to a great extent
30%
to a certain extent
60%
very little
10%
not at all
0%
(b)
(c) read and
understand understand a
English films book written
without
in English?
subtitles?
22%
54%
24%
0%
38%
60%
2%
0%
(d) write a
letter in
English?
(e) speak and
communicate
in English?
38%
48%
10%
4%
38%
58%
4%
0%
Figure 5.8. Group I: Language proficiency assessment.
154
The replies to the same questions, registered by group II (see figure 5.9), are, for the
most part, “to a great extent” and “to a certain extent”. Higher percentage of respondents still
claims to understand English song lyrics “to a great extent” – 50%. Considerably lower
percentage is able to write a letter “to a great extent” – 32.5%, in comparison with those who
claim they are able to write a letter “to a certain extent” – 52.5%. Nobody of this group
reports he/she is not able to understand English films or communicate in English.
To what extent are you able to...
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
(a)
(b)
(c) read and
understand
understand understand a
English song English films book written
lyrics when
without
in English?
you listen to
subtitles?
music?
to a great extent
50%
40%
45%
to a certain extent
40%
47,5%
40%
very little
7,5%
12,5%
12,5%
not at all
2,5%
0%
2,5%
(d) write a
letter in
English?
(e) speak and
communicate
in English?
32,5%
52,5%
5%
10%
40%
45%
15%
0%
Figure 5.9. Group II: Language proficiency assessment.
What is more striking in the analysis of the subjects’ competence from group III (see
figure 5.10) is that 45% of respondents say they can read and understand a book written in
English “to a great extent”, what is considerably higher than in other responses with the same
option. At the same time, 20% report they cannot write a letter at all.
It follows that, the respondents from group I and group II, boast higher levels of
language competence, being more exposed to English in everyday life through music, movies
and advertising. They also come into contact with the language in their classroom (group I) or
workplace (group II).
155
To what extent are you able to...
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
(a)
understand
English song
lyrics when
you listen to
music?
to a great extent
22,5%
to a certain extent
40%
very little
30%
not at all
7,5%
(b)
(c) read and
understand understand a
English films book written
without
in English?
subtitles?
27,5%
27,5%
32,5%
12,5%
45%
40%
5%
10%
(d) write a
letter in
English?
(e) speak and
communicate
in English?
22,5%
42,5%
15%
20%
27,5%
47,5%
25%
0%
Figure 5.10. Group III: Language proficiency assessment.
Q16 * Q12.
Though, in fact, both items, item 1250 and item 16, were designed to evaluate subjects’
proficiency in English, the results obtained differ to a certain extent.
As it is observed in group I, when asked to assess their language skills in item 12, the
subjects tend to evaluate them slightly better in comparison with item 16, in which the same
skills are rated taken into consideration a particular condition such as, for instance,
understanding English song lyrics or writing a letter in English.
So, in item 12, nobody of respondents from group I evaluates one of their four skills as
elementary. In item 16, nonetheless, 4% say they cannot write a letter in English at all and
24% reply they understand English films without subtitles very little.
In group II, the tendency is quite the opposite. More persons judge their skills better
when they have to evaluate them, taking into account their language competence under
particular conditions than when the same skills are evaluated separately.
The analysis of subjects’ competence from group III in item 16, to a greater extent,
coincides with the findings in item 12. In item 16, higher percentage from this group – 45%,
says they can read and understand a book written in English to a great extent, confirming the
conclusion drawn in item 12, specifying that reading skills are better developed by this group
of subjects compared to other language skills. At the same time, in item 16, high percentage
50
See p. 146.
156
of respondents reports they cannot write a letter at all – 20%. However, in item 12, only 15%
assess their writing as elementary.
Despite the slight differences registered, the two items were devised to counterbalance
each other and obtain more objective information about the respondents’ level of English
proficiency.
Q17: Defining the type of English.
To elicit the variety of English respondents indentify themselves with, they were asked
to name a type of English they think to speak. The results (see figure 5.11) show that a large
majority of respondents (41.5%) identify it with British English.
It is interesting to note that a considerable number of respondents – 27.7%, prefer not
to specify the type of English spoken, opting for a seemingly neutral answer – “English”, that
is most likely a mixture of English-American features influenced by the Russian language.
12.3% of those who identify the type of English they speak with Russian English
attribute to it a pejorative meaning and do not gauge their language skills as very proficient.
This conclusion is made by contrasting this answer with personal proficiency assessment in
English.
11.5% reply they speak International English. Only 6.2% choose American English,
and 0.8% or one respondent respectively Runglish or Ruslish.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group I
Group II
Group III
Total
American
English
British
English
English
0%
12,5%
7,5%
6,2%
66%
25%
27,5%
41,5%
26%
30%
27,5%
27,7%
International
English
8%
12,5%
15%
11,5%
Runglish /
Ruslish
Russian
English
0%
2,5%
0%
0,8%
0%
17,5%
22,5%
12,3%
Figure 5.11. Respondents’ self-identification with the type of English they speak.
157
If compared by age groups, the highest percentage of those who identify themselves
with British English – 66%, is observed by group I.
Greater awareness of language varieties is demonstrated by respondents from group II.
Although the majority of them opt for a neutral answer “English” – 30%, 12.5% define the
language they speak as International English, and 2.5% or one respondent respectively as a
Russian variety of English, Runglish or Ruslish.
In group III, 15% of respondents claim to speak an international variety of English.
The fact that the majority of respondents associate the type of English they speak with
British English is not surprising, as British English remains so far the only model variety to be
taught in Russian schools. This conviction is especially noticeable by younger respondents –
recent school graduates.
At the same time, the greater experience subjects have in language usage in different
contexts, the less they are willing to opt for a language variety, confined to one speaking
group or community.
Q18: Motivation to know English.
Be it possible to regard it as an indicator of stability of modern Russia or for some
other reason, the majority of subjects (see figure 5.12) need to know English to travel (87.7%)
or to communicate with people from other countries (82.3%). 63.1% need to know English to
increase job opportunities. The equal percentage of subjects – 53.8%, needs English to read
books and understand English TV programs and films. Other answers include learning
English “to understand English songs” or even “to be an English teacher”.
Contrasting the results, the majority of respondents from group I need English for
communication – 96%. It is also not surprising that in this group one of the strongest
motivations to learn English is a chance to increase career opportunities – 88%. Higher
percentage of subjects from group I, in comparison with the other groups, needs to know
English to learn more about English/American culture – 54%, and also to read books in
original – 76%.
In group II, the motivation to know English is primarily influenced by the desire to
travel – 85%, and communicate with people from other countries – 70%.
The same motivation is true for group III, where 95% need English for traveling and
77.5% claim it for communication.
158
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
job
work/study
opportuniabroad
ties
Group I
88%
66%
Group II
55%
37,5%
Group III
40%
30%
Total
63,1%
46,2%
travel
Internet
usage
84%
85%
95%
87,7%
44%
52,5%
50%
48,5%
English /
American
culture
54%
22,5%
27,5%
36,2%
communication
96%
70%
77,5%
82,3%
reading
books in
original
76%
40%
40%
53,8%
English TV
programs
and films
60%
62,5%
37,5%
53,8%
Figure 5.12. Motivation to know English.
The results obtained in item 18 demonstrate the acknowledgement of English as a tool
of international communication, which acquisition serves as the highest motivation to learn
English, nowadays especially crucial in such spheres of everyday life as traveling, Internet
communication, and workplace, etc.
Q19: The need to know English.
For the variety of reasons, 84.6% of respondents of this survey claim they need to
know English “very much” (see figure 5.13). Only 15.4% need to know it “to a certain
extent”. Nobody of respondents report they do not need to speak English at all.
When comparing the results obtained by each group, the highest percentage of those
who need to know English is registered by the subjects from group I. In group II, 85% reply
they need to know English very much. Lower percentage of group III, 75%, gives the same
answer.
The necessity of being proficient in English, especially by younger age groups, is
attributed to the advantages the English language is believed to provide in terms of social
status and better career perspectives.
159
Total by Groups
Group III
Group II
Group I
0%
very much
to some extent
20%
40%
60%
80%
Group I
Group II
Group III
92%
8%
85%
15%
75%
25%
100%
Total by
Groups
84,6%
15,4%
Figure 5.13. The need to know English.
5.2.4. Section D: Language acquisition and preference for an English variety.
Section D of the questionnaire gives an account of respondents’ attitudes towards
language acquisition, and such dichotomies as native vs. non-native, British English vs.
American English, and standard vs. variation.
Q20: Effective language acquisition.
Expressing their opinion about effective language acquisition (see figure 5.14), the
overwhelming majority of subjects – 80%, consider that it is only in NS environment that a
foreign language should be learnt or can be substantially improved. 58.5% claim that effective
language acquisition means studying language at language courses abroad, including
internships, school or university exchanges.
A considerable number of respondents – 45.4%, give their preference for private
tuition, as private tutors are valued for personal approach and their ability to adjust to
learners’ needs.
A considerable degree of credit is given to language instruction at the university. This
answer, chosen by 29.2% respondents, presumably implies English acquisition at foreign
language departments.
Surprisingly only 17.7% think language courses effective for language acquisition.
Despite the years of English instruction obtained in school, only 15.4% of all
respondents consider school as an effective medium of language education.
160
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group I
Group II
Group III
Total
school
university
6%
20%
22,5%
15,4%
28%
30%
30%
29,2%
language
school
16%
20%
17,5%
17,7%
private tutor
40%
30%
67,5%
45,4%
language
native-speaker
school abroad environment
56%
80%
52,5%
82,5%
67,5%
77,5%
58,5%
80%
Figure 5.14. Effective language acquisition means learning English…
When analyzing the data obtained within the groups surveyed, it can be noticed that
the least value towards studying English in school is given by group I – only 6%.
Slightly higher percentage of group II believes English acquisition at language schools
is effective – 20%.
The subjects of group III, for example, confide more in private tuition – 67.5%, and
studying English abroad – 67.5% equally for each question. Comparatively higher percentage
thinks language instruction in school is effective for those who want to learn the language –
22.5%.
According to those surveyed, effective language acquisition means learning English in
a NS environment. With great regret, however, it is observed that nowadays less credit is
given to language instruction in school.
Q21: Native vs. non-native teacher of English.
The findings directed to reveal subjects’ attitudes towards native English teachers as
opposed to non-native teachers of English show that the existing stereotypes still prevail in
minds of Russian learners.
As it follows from the results (see table 5.16), a native English teacher is a priori
defined as someone who offers more reliable linguistic knowledge (21.a) – 83.8%, and sets a
good example of English (21.c) – 77.7%. Besides, respondents’ desire to achieve native-like
161
proficiency enhances their preference for native teachers who set a better model of
pronunciation (21.e), which is predominantly the RP accent, – 86.2%, and hence better serve
to achieve the aspired target (21.g) – 83.1%.
A non-native teacher, in a due way, is valued for a personal approach and the
readiness to help (21.f) – 59.2%. Being a bearer of the learners’ mother tongue, he is believed
to know what difficulties students have in learning English (21.b) – 63.1%, and how the
language should be taught in non-native settings (21.h) – 63.8%. The majority of respondents
also claim that non-native teachers explain grammar rules better, being capable of constituting
the links between the mother tongue and the language they teach (21.d) – 70.8%.
Group
II
I
(a) offers more
reliable linguistic
knowledge.
(b) knows what
difficulties you have
in learning English.
(c) sets a good
example of English
use.
(d) explains grammar
rules better.
(e) has a better
accent.
(f) is a person who is
always ready to help.
(g) will help you to
achieve native like
English.
(h) knows best how
the language should
be taught.
III
Total by
Groups
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
92%
NA
80%
12.5%
77.5%
10%
83.8%
6.9%
28%
58%
30%
67.5%
25%
65%
27.7%
63.1%
80%
6%
82.5%
15%
70%
15%
77.7%
11.5%
30%
62%
10%
80%
12.5%
72.5%
18.5%
70.8%
86%
6%
95%
NA
77.5%
15%
86.2%
6.9%
26%
54%
12.5%
57.5%
15%
67.5%
18.5%
59.2%
82%
12%
90%
NA
77.5%
12.5%
83.1%
8.5%
32%
62%
20%
60%
17.5%
70%
23.8%
63.8%
Table 5.16. Respondents’ opinion about a native English teacher and a non-native Russian teacher of English
(1 stands for a native English teacher, 2 for a non-native teacher of English).
When comparing the findings by age groups, it is noted that group I, consisting
primarily of students, gives more preference for native teachers, and consequently places to
the fore the development of NS language skills. 92% of this group consider that a native
teacher offers more reliable linguistic knowledge (21.a).
162
The majority of respondents from group II, on their side, regard a native teacher as one
who has a better accent (21.e) – 95%, and can help in the achievement of native-like
competence (21.g) - 90%. At the same time, 80% from group II think that a non-native
teacher explains grammar rules better than a native teacher (21.d).
Remarkably, 70% from group III believe that a non-native teacher knows best how the
language should be taught (21.h), presumably separating the achievement of near native
competence of English from the better ability to explain and draw differences between the
target language and the mother tongue.
As it is seen, in the traditional dichotomy of native vs. non-native teachers, native
teachers are still endowed with the privilege of being a bearer of authentic proficiency and
knowledge, and thus are better trusted than their non-native colleagues. Non-native teachers,
on their side, share with their learners the same experience in what concerns problems in
language acquisition, and thus are believed to be more helpful in overcoming language
barriers.
Q22: A model variety to be taught at school.
Defining a model variety to be taught at school (see figure 5.15), subjects’ opinions
are almost equally divided between British English – 45.4%, and an international variety of
English – 46.2%. Only 3.1% opt for American English.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group I
Group II
Group III
Total by Groups
American
English
British English
8%
0%
0%
3,1%
54%
35%
45%
45,4%
An
international
variety
38%
52,5%
50%
46,2%
No opinion
0%
12,5%
5%
5,4%
Figure 5.15. Respondents’ opinion about the model variety to be taught at school.
163
The further analysis by groups shows that the preference for British English is given
by the majority of respondents from group I – 54%. At the same time, 8% from this group
consider American English as a model variety to be imposed through language instruction in
schools.
Higher percentage of group II gives their preference for an international variety to be
taught in school – 52.5%. The same opinion is shared by 50% from group III. Nobody of
these two groups opted for American English as a teaching model.
The conclusion which can be drawn out of these findings is that the opinions
expressed by subjects from group I are still greatly influenced by traditional views which are
imposed on them daily through language instruction, as it has been already observed in
question 17.51 The subjects from group I and group II, however, are better aware of practical
need of knowing the language, which does not presuppose exclusively communication with
native speakers.
Q23: Preference for British English vs. American English.
The following questionnaire item was devoted to find out positive and negative
attitudes respondents assume towards British English and American English. Here, subjects
selected out of stereotypical judgments associated with the two major English varieties
(Preisler, 1999: 248).
As it can be seen from the survey (see table 5.17), British English is defined by the
majority as more “correct” and “prestigious” (23.a) – 82.3%, as well as more “natural” (23.b)
than American English – 49.2%.
American English, in its turn, is associated with progress and individualism (23.c) –
53.8%, whereas British English is an English variety which conveys tradition and spiritual
values (23.d) – 82.3%.
90.8% reply that British English is more “beautiful” than American English (23.e).
Higher percentage from group I prefers British English because this variety represents
tradition – 88% (23.d). It is not only considered by respondents from group I as more correct
and prestigious – 86% (23.a), but also as more natural – 56% (23.b) than American English.
68% think that American English is more “ugly” than British English (23.e).
51
See p. 157.
164
You prefer…
I
BrE
AmE
Group
II
BrE
AmE
Total
by Groups
BrE
AmE
III
BrE
AmE
86%
6%
85%
10%
75%
7.5%
82.3%
7.7%
56%
30%
37.5%
47.5%
52.5%
35%
49.2%
36.9%
28%
56%
25%
47.5%
15%
57.5%
23.1%
53.8%
88%
NA
77.5%
NA
80%
NA
82.3%
NA
68%
14%
37.5%
2.5%
55%
10%
54.6%
9.2%
(a) … because this
variety is more
correct and
prestigious.
(b) …because this
variety is more
natural.
(c) …because this
variety represents
progress and
individualism.
(d) …because this
variety represents
tradition and
spiritual values.
(e) …because the
other variety is
ugly.
Table 5.17. Respondents’ preference for British English and American English.
Group II, still believes it is American English which is more natural than British
English – 47.5% (23.b).
Most respondents from group III associate American English with progress and
individualism – 57.5% (23.c).
In line with the previous findings, greater preference for British English is
demonstrated by group I by attributing to it such characteristics as “correct”, “prestigious”,
and “natural”. American English is more likely to be associated with progress and
individualism, but is considered not as “proper” as British English.
Q24: Standard English varieties vs. other English varieties.
For the majority of respondents (see figure 5.16), Standard English remains British
English (24.a) – 70.8%, rather than American English (24.b) – 4.6%. Not significantly high
percentage of respondents, 42.3%, still considers it is NSs’ right to decide how English should
be used in comparison with 31.5% who do not agree with the statement (24.c). The majority
of subjects 78.5% agree that there are different kinds of Englishes in the world (24.d).
165
(a) Standard English means
British English.
(b) Standard English means
American English.
Agree
I don't know
Disagree
(c) It is native speakers' right to
decide how English should be
used.
NA
(d) There are different kind of
English in the world.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 5.16. Respondents’ opinions about Standard English and English varieties
(see appendix II: table 4).
When comparing the results within groups (see table 5.18), in statement 24.a the belief
in British English as the standard variety is demonstrated by the majority of respondents from
group I – 78%.
Agree
(a) Standard English means British English.
(b) Standard English means American English.
(c) It is native speakers’ right to decide how English
should be used.
(d) There are different kinds of English in the world.
Group I
Group II
Group III
78%
65%
67.5%
4%
5%
5%
34%
42.5%
52.5%
82%
75%
77.5%
Table 5.18. Respondents’ opinions about Standard English and English varieties
(see appendix II, table 5).
Higher percentage of group III, for example, considers that it is NSs’ right to decide
how English should be used (24.c) – 52.5%.
The findings show that despite the fact that the majority of the survey population
acknowledge the existence of many different varieties of English in the world (24.d), the
belief in NS ownership still prevails in the perceptions of Russian users of English.
166
Q25: Preference for a native-like accent.
64.6% of respondents demonstrate their preference for a native-like accent (see figure
5.17). 17.7% consider that a variety that does not represent one culture or country is more
advantageous. 17.7% choose not to express their opinion.
Total by Groups
Group III
Group II
Group I
0%
A native-like accent
A variety that does not
represent one culture or
country
No opinion
20%
Group I
80%
40%
Group II
57,5%
60%
80%
100%
Group III Total by Groups
52,5%
64,6%
18%
17,5%
17,5%
17,7%
2%
25%
30%
17,7%
Figure 5.17. Respondents’ preference for a native-like variety.
When comparing respondents’ opinion according to the set variable, a native like
accent is chosen by the majority of group I – 80%.
Almost equal percentage of each group considers a variety that does not represent one
culture or country as more advantageous than a native-like accent.
It may also be observed that respondents from older groups are more cautious in the
answers they give, for most of them choose not to opt for any of the two variants.
Nonetheless, most subjects of the population surveyed still gauge their proficiency by
how close they are to NS models.
5.2.5. Section E: Attitudes towards the use of English in everyday life.
Section E of the questionnaire is first directed to reveal subjects’ frequency of English
contacts with the English language, and domains of English use in Russia. Secondly, it
highlights attitudes towards the presence of English in everyday life.
167
Q26: Frequency of language contacts in English.
Item 26 summarizes to what extent English is actively as well as passively used by the
survey population. For the convenience of this study, the data obtained is analyzed separately
by each group.
As it is observed in table 5.19, in group I active and passive experience is maintained
at approximately the same level. The overwhelming majority of young Russians report they
speak English (94%), write in English (94%), hear/listen to English (100%), or see/read
English (100%) at least once a day.
How often do you…
once
a day
once
a week
once
a month
hardly
ever
never
Active experience
(a) speak English?
(b) write in English?
6%
6%
94%
94%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Passive experience
(c) hear/listen to English?
(d) see/read English?
NA
NA
100%
100%
Table 5.19. Group I: Frequency of using English.
In group II (see table 5.20), the predominance of passive experience over active
experience becomes more evident. While 52.5% hear/listen to English and 60% claim they
see/read English at least once a day, 40% speak English and only 30% write in English with
the same frequency.
How often do you…
once
a day
once
a week
once
a month
hardly
ever
never
Active experience
(a) speak English?
(b) write in English?
27.5%
30%
40%
30%
17.5%
15%
12.5%
22.5%
2.5%
2.5%
15%
10%
5%
5%
NA
NA
Passive experience
(c) hear/listen to English?
(d) see/read English?
27.5%
25%
52.5%
60%
Table 5.20. Group II: Frequency of using English.
168
The frequency of active experience with English through speaking and writing
continues to decreases in group III (see table 5.21). For instance, if 60% of subjects from
group III say they hear or listen to English at least once a day, and 47.5% claim they see/read
English with the same frequency, the percentage of those who speaks and writes in English
once a day is much lower – only 22.5% of replies equally for each question.
How often do you…
once
a day
once
a week
once
a month
hardly
ever
never
Active experience
(a) speak English?
(b) write in English?
22.5%
15%
22.5%
22.5%
25%
20%
27.5%
22.5%
2.5%
20%
20%
17.5%
5%
7.5%
NA
5%
Passive experience
(c) hear/listen to English?
(d) see/read English?
15%
22.5%
60%
47.5%
Table 5.21. Group III: Frequency of using English.
At the same time, a considerable number of subjects in group III admits they use or
come in contact with English only “once a month”, “hardly ever” or even “never”.
As it can be concluded, the respondents from group II and group III don’t speak or
write in English as actively as the young generation, but they still remain continually exposed
to English through such passive channels as listening and reading.
Q27: Contacts with English in everyday life.
As it is seen in figure 5.18, the majority of respondents come into contact with English
on the Internet – 78.5%, in music – 69.2%, and on TV – 55.4%. The option “other” includes
contacts with English through literature, in communication with other people and at English
lessons. The last answer is given by the majority of respondents from group I.
When analyzing the results by groups, almost the same percentage of respondents
comes into contact with English on the Internet – 80% from group I, 75% from group II, and
80% from group III.
169
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
the
Internet
Group I
80%
Group II
75%
Group III
80%
Total by Groups 78,5%
music
TV
76%
65%
65%
69,2%
46%
57,5%
65%
55,4%
advertising
48%
40%
47,5%
45,4%
workplace
8%
75%
57,5%
43,8%
newspaper
32%
22,5%
30%
28,5%
other
30%
2,5%
10%
15,4%
Figure 5.18. Respondents’ contacts with English.
Higher percentage of group I comes into contact with English when listening to music
– 76%, and in advertising – 48%. Surprisingly, slightly higher percentage of respondents from
group I, if compared with group III, encounters English in newspapers – 32%.
75% from group II come into contact with English in the workplace – through
telephone conversations, fax, business letters, etc.
It is striking that high percentage from group III – 65%, claims to overhear English
words on TV, presumably being more vigilant when Russian words are substituted by their
English equivalents.
As it is seen, the respondents of this survey are exposed to English through a range of
domains, including education, Internet communication and technology, media, music, and
advertising. Increasingly, English is used as a language of communication in the workplace.
Q28: English on TV and in films.
The acceptance of English in Russia is measured in item 28 (see figure 5.19). It shows
respondents’ attitudes towards the use of English in TV programs and films. So, 66.2% prefer
to watch films with subtitles, 21.5% choose dubbed films and only 12.3% opt for watching
films in the original.
The majority of respondents out of each age group recognize the advantages of
watching TV shows and films with subtitles: 72.5% from group III, 70% from group I, and
55% from group II.
170
At the same time, the youngest respondents also show their preference for watching
TV programs and films in original – 18%.
30% of group II still prefer dubbed TV programs and films.
Total by Groups
Group III
Group II
Group I
0%
dubbed
subtitled
in the original
20%
40%
60%
80%
Group I
Group II
Group III
12%
70%
18%
30%
55%
15%
25%
72,50%
2,50%
100%
120%
Total by
Groups
21,50%
66,20%
12,30%
Figure 5.19. Respondents’ attitudes towards the use of English on TV and in films.
It is interesting to note that the percentage of older generation, which would
presumably prefer watching dubbed TV programs and films, maintains at the same level as
that of the young generation when choosing the option “subtitled”.
Watching TV with subtitles is thus seen as a helpful way of improving pronunciation
and enlarging vocabulary. In Russia, however, all TV shows and films in English are dubbed.
Q29: English in speech.
To further explore attitudes towards the English use in speech, respondents had to
choose between true or false statements (see figure 5.20). Thus, only 21.5% of the overall
number of respondents admit they use English words because it makes their speech sound
more prestigious and advanced (29.a), whereas 76.9% say it is false. The majority claim they
only use English words if there is no equivalent in Russian (29.b) – 71.5%. In statement 29.c,
83.8% confess that they use English words and do not disapprove when somebody uses them.
171
(a) You prefer English words to their
Russian equivalents because it makes
your speech sound more prestigious.
True
(b) You use English words only if
there is no equivalent in Russian.
False
NA
(c) You never use English words in
your speech and you disapprove when
somebody uses them.
0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 5.20. Respondents’ opinions about the use of English in their speech
(see appendix II: table 6).
The findings (see table 5.22) show that 42% from group I confess they use English
because it makes their speech more prestigious (29.a). 48% admit they prefer English words
to their Russian equivalents (29.b).
True
False
NA
Group
Group
Group
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
(a)
42%
12.5%
5%
54%
87.5%
95%
4%
NA
NA
(b)
46%
82.5%
92.5%
48%
17.5%
7.5%
6%
NA
NA
(c)
18%
17.5%
7.5%
78%
82.5%
92.5%
4%
NA
NA
Table 5.22. Respondents’ opinions about the use of English in speech by groups.
The respondents from group I and group II, however, demonstrate more resistance to
English in their speech and try not to abuse using English words unless there is no exact
equivalent in the Russian language. 87.5% respondents from group II and 95% from group III
claim they never prefer using English words to their Russian equivalents (29.a). 82.5% from
group II never use English words in their speech when there is an equivalent in Russian; the
same is true of 92.5% from group III (29.b).
Despite a certain degree of reluctance to freely admit foreign words, the majority of
participants from each group admit that they still use them in their speech and do not
172
disapprove it when somebody does (29.c): 78% from group I, 82.5% from group II and 92.5%
from group III.
Q30: Attitudes towards the presence of English.
Predominately positive attitudes were registered in item 30, in which respondents had
to express their opinion about the presence of English in Russian society.
Figure 5.21 shows that English, for the most part, is not seen as a threat to the Russian
language (30.a) – 76.2%, and culture (30.b) – 74.6%. Most subjects also find the presence of
English in everyday life useful because it improves their language skills (30.d) – 86.9%, and
broadens cultural horizons (30.e) – 83.1%. Even in statements 30.f and 30.g, no resistance
towards the use of English is expressed.
Nonetheless, in statement 30.c, 51.5% of respondents consider that the English use is a
serious trend. In 30.f, 18.5% confess they are worried about the effects of English on their
mother tongue. Nobody reports he/she does not like the English language and resents the fact
he/she uses it (30.g).
(a) a threat to my native language.
(b) a threat to my culture.
(c) a trend not to be taken
seriously.
Agree
(d) useful because it improves
one’s English.
I don't know
(e) useful because it improves
one’s cultural horizons.
NA
Disagree
(f) Sometimes I am worried about
the effects of English on my native
language.
(g) I don’t really like the English
language and sometimes I resent
the fact that I am forced to use it.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80% 100%
Figure 5.21. Respondents’ opinions about the presence of English in daily life
(see appendix II: table 7).
173
These results can be compared to the study done by Preisler (1999: 147) and Erling
(2004: 156). Table 5.23 shows the respondents’ attitudes towards the role of English in Russia
in comparison to the results of Preisler’s survey of Danish population and Erling’s survey of
German students at the Freie Universität Berlin (FU).
Danes
Germans
Russians
The presence of English in daily life is…
Agree
Agree
Agree
(a) a threat to my native language.
(b) a threat to my culture.
(c) a trend not to be taken seriously.
(d) useful because it improves one’s English.
(e) useful because it improves one’s cultural horizons.
(f) Sometimes I am worries about the effects of English
on my native language.
(g) I don’t really like the English language and
sometimes I resent the fact that I am forced to use it.
26.0%
19.0%
16.0%
89.0%
69.0%
22.0%
13.0%
32.0%
75.0%
77.0%
7.7%
7.7%
16.9%
86.9%
83.1%
NA
25.0%
18.5%
NA
5.0%
NA
Table 5.23. Opinions about English in Denmark, Germany and Russia.
The findings reveal that the Russian population is less biased against English use than
Danish and German societies. This fact can be explained by greater influence of English in
Europe. Russia is not as exposed to Anglo-American culture as the majority of European
countries. Hence in Russia, English is not perceived as a serious menace but more as a trend,
threatening neither national and cultural unity nor the national language.
When analyzing item 30 taking into consideration the set variable (see table 5.24), the
overwhelming majority from group I believe that the presence of English in everyday life
only helps to improve language competence (30.d), and widen cultural horizons – 86% (30.e).
92% from group I do not resent using English in their speech (30.g).
Interestingly enough, higher percentage from group II, 17.5% equally, considers that
English may threaten the native language and culture.
174
The presence of English is…
(a) a threat to my native language.
(b) a threat to my culture.
(c) a trend not to be taken
seriously.
(d) useful because it improves
one’s English.
(e) useful because it improves
one’s cultural horizons.
(f) Sometimes I am worries about
the effects of English on my
native language.
(g) I don’t really like the English
language and sometimes I resent
the fact that I am forced to use it.
I
6%
6%
Agree
Group
II
17.5%
17.5%
Disagree
Group
II
III
65%
82.5%
65%
85%
III
NA
NA
I
80%
74%
4%
10%
40%
72%
45%
32.5%
100%
65%
92.5%
NA
12.5%
2.5%
86%
65%
97.5%
NA
15%
2.5%
20%
25%
10%
66%
45%
70%
NA
NA
NA
92%
77.5%
77.5%
Table 5.24. Respondents’ opinions about the presence of English in daily life by groups
(see appendix II: table 8).
The finding related to group III, with slightly different percentage, match the results
obtained from the survey of group I. As in group I, the majority of respondents here consider
the presence of English useful because it improves one’s language proficiency – 92.5%, in
30.d, and widens cultural horizons – 97.5%, in 30.e. In 30.g, 92% claim they have nothing
against the presence of English.
The findings obtained in item 30 show that, for the most part, respondents positively
embrace the presence of English in Russia, irrespective of the focus groups they are referred
to. Moreover, though English is contemplated as a serious trend, it is still viewed more as a
source of improvement of one’s language proficiency and knowledge of foreign culture,
rather than a menace to the national language.
5.2.6. Section F: The future of English.
The last section of the questionnaire outlines the place of English on the global arena
in general and in the Russian local settings in particular. It further examines possible trends
that can shape the future of English in Russia.
175
Q31: World languages by their popularity.
To measure the importance of world languages, in item 31 respondents of this survey
were asked to rank top ten languages according to their importance in the world, using the
scale from one to ten, from “the most important” to “the least important”.
As it can be observed, the findings, to a greater extent, coincide with the encgo model
(Graddol, 1997: 59), estimating the global influence of world languages (see table 5.25).
Score
English
100
German
42
French
33
Japanese
32
Spanish
31
Chinese
22
Arabic
8
Portuguese
5
Malay
4
Russian
3
Hindi / Urdu
Bengali
0.4
0.09
Table 5.25. Global influence of
major languages according to the
engco model. An index score of
100 represents the position of
English in 1995
(Graddol, The Future 59).
In the ranking of world languages by the questionnaire population (see table 5.26), the
1st position is occupied by English, followed by French and German, rival languages of
English in Europe, and, so far, the most studied foreign languages in Russia, besides
English.52
52
See p. 149.
176
Mean
English
7.86
French
4.99
German
1.13
Russian
3.64
Spanish
3.83
Chinese
9.70
Japanese
7.61
Portuguese
4.02
Arabic
4.91
Hindi
7.38
Table 5.26. Importance of world
languages among respondents.
The fact that the majority of respondents place Russian behind English, French and
German supports the conclusion that Russian, most evidently, will maintain its influence as
the local language for Russia and the regional language for the most territories of Eastern
Europe and Central Asia (Graddol, 1997: 58).
It is interesting to note that Spanish, rated by the majority of subjects as the most
popular language, besides English, they would like to learn, occupies only the 5th position in
the ranking of world languages. This fact, however, does not contradict to the conclusion
drawn in question 13,53 defining the Spanish language as a growing world language,
competing with English on the global arena.
If compared by age groups (see table 5.27), there is little difference in the degree of
importance the respondents of each group attribute to world languages.
53
See p. 151.
177
Group I
Group II
Group III
1. English
1. English
1. English
2. French
2. French
2. French
3. German
3. German
3. German
4. Russian
4. Spanish
4. Russian
5. Spanish
5. Russian
5. Spanish
Table 5.27. Importance of world languages by groups.
Q32: Opinions about the future of English in Russia.
Predominantly positive attitudes are revealed in item 32, in which respondents were
asked to express their opinion about the future of English as a foreign language in Russia and
its position worldwide.
58.5% of the overall number of subjects (see figure 5.22) agree that all adult Russians
should be able to speak and understand English (32.a). 42.3% think that it is not necessary for
all adult Russians to be able to read and write English (32.b). This demonstrates that the
acquisition of speaking and listening skills is regarded as more important for communication
than reading and writing.
High percentage of respondents – 62.3%, considers that English should become the
first foreign language in Russia (32.c), and that more English lessons should be taught in
Russian schools – 76.9% (32.d).
As for the predictions about the future of English in Russia, nothing, so far, seems to
decrease its dominant position in the local settings. 43.8% agree that English will be spoken
by the majority of the Russian population (32.e). 45.4% do not consider that the percentage of
English speakers will remain the same (32.f); 56.2% disagree that the number of English
speakers in Russia is likely to decrease (32.g).
The majority of respondents – 66.9%, believe that English will keep its global position
worldwide (32.h).
178
(a) All adult Russians should be able
to speak and understand English
without problems.
(b) All adult Russians should be able
to read and write in English without
problems.
(c) English should become the first
foreign language in Russia.
(d) More English lessons should be
taught in Russian schools.
Agree
I don't know
(e) English will be spoken by the
majority of the Russian population.
Disagree
NA
(f) The percentage of English
speakers in Russia will remain the
same over time.
(g) Fewer people in Russia will speak
English.
(h) English will keep its global
position.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 5.22. Respondents’ opinions about the future of English
(see appendix II: table 9).
After examining the results by groups (see table 5.28), it is noticed that the majority of
respondents from group I consider, in 32.c, that English should become the first foreign
language in Russia (70%) and, in 32.d, that more English lessons should be taught in Russian
schools (74%). Surprisingly, high percentage of this group does not think that all adult
Russians should be able to speak and understand English (30%), in 32.a, as well as read and
write in it (48%), in 32.b. Still the majority thinks that the percentage of English speakers in
Russia will not remain the same (50%), in 32.f, and that more people in Russia will speak the
language (56%), in 32.g.
What is more striking about group II is that, in comparison with the two other groups,
in 32.e, considerably high percentage of subjects does not think that English will be spoken
by the majority of the Russian population (30%). These results may account for the fact that
the majority of respondents of this group claim proficiency in one or more other foreign
179
languages besides English,54 recognizing the importance of bi- or multilingual competence in
international settings.
The findings of group III to a greater extent coincide with that of group I in what
concerns formal education (32.c, 32.d) and the prospects of English in the national contexts
(32.f, 32.g). In statement 32.e, 60% claim that English will be spoken by the majority of the
Russian population. 72.5% consider that English will keep its global position (32.h). In
comparison with group I, however, more respondents here seem to prioritize speaking and
listening skills over reading and writing. In 32.b, 50% disagree that all adult Russians should
be able to read and write in English.
(a) All adult Russians should
be able to speak and
understand English without
problems.
(b) All adult Russians should
be able to read and write in
English without problems.
(c) English should become the
first foreign language in
Russia.
(d) More English lessons
should be taught in Russian
schools.
(e) English will be spoken by
the majority of the Russian
population.
(f) The percentage of English
speakers in Russia will remain
the same over time.
(g) Fewer people in Russia
will speak English.
(h) English will keep its
global position.
I
50%
Agree
Group
II
60%
I
30%
Disagree
Group
II
17.5%
III
67.5%
III
15%
28%
22.5%
17.5%
48%
27.5%
50%
70%
52.5%
62.5%
12%
17.5%
22.5%
74%
65%
92.5%
10%
10%
NA
32%
42.5%
60%
10%
30%
22.5%
12%
17.5%
20%
50%
22.5%
62.5%
14%
10%
5%
56%
47.5%
65%
64%
65%
72.5%
10%
NA
7.5%
Table 5.28. Respondents’ opinions about the future of English by groups
(see appendix II: table 10).
The overall findings show that the status of English in Russia as the first foreign
language is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. The majority of the survey
54
See p. 149.
180
population recognize the importance of speaking English as a language with unique global
position, and, hence, do not foresee its dominance is likely to subside. Moreover, English is
still considered to play a crucial role on the level of school education and language
instruction.
5.3. Conclusion.
This study attempts to give insights into the role of English, its presence and usage in
the particular community of Russian speakers of English, assessing respondents’ proficiency,
motivations for learning English, experiences with the language, and attitudes towards it.
With reference to the major periods of contemporary Russian history, the sociolinguistic
study of three groups of Russian users of English rests on the hypothesis that “subjects from
different periods differ in their language proficiency, as well as in their attitudes and
experience in the use of English”.55
From what follows, the findings of this study match the research hypothesis, and
further its sub-hypothesis (SH1)56 in what concerns the difference of language proficiency
among subjects, as well as the assumption that higher degrees of attainment of language
competence would be demonstrated by the youngest group of respondents.
Thus, the youngest participants surveyed, referred to as group I in this research, verify
better language proficiency than older age groups. Most subjects from group III, in their turn,
can read and write in English, but they find difficulty in speaking and understanding the
language.
On account of the fact that their listening and speaking skills are not as well-developed
as their reading and writing skills, a large majority of respondents from group III can hardly
be called full-fledged speakers of English. Such striking difference in the development of
language skills observed by this group is partly a consequence of methods applied in teaching
practices, but, to a greater extent, a fault of political isolation, which made teaching English in
the Soviet Union useless and impractical. To ensure the English language enhancement,
however, the major goal of language instruction must be to practice the four skills – listening,
speaking, reading, and writing. This cannot be done if one of the skills is not developed.
55
See p. 133.
56
See p. 133.
181
Although it is difficult to predict what can happen to the English language in Russia,
the findings show that English language proficiency is improving from generation to
generation. If this apparently unstoppable trend continues unabating, the majority of subjects
from group I, who refer now to their language skills as intermediate, will most likely shift to
the group of proficient speakers. In the long term, this trend might certainly involve social,
political and economical changes that can alter its direction, but, so far, the English language
in Russia has secured its firm position which, as it seems, is not likely to change.
The same results are observed as related to the frequency of using English. The
highest frequency of language contacts is also registered by the youngest group, group I,
proving that English is now essentially the language of younger generation, as nowadays
young people are more exposed to English in their daily life mostly through such channels as
Internet communication and music.
For, nowadays the use of English in Russia manifests itself in a range of domains,
including education, business, media, music, and advertising, the majority of Russians
regularly come into contacts with English either through active or passive channels, be it an
active use of English in the workplace or simply the fact of recognition of foreign elements in
advertising, newspapers or even occasionally in Russian TV programs.
However, the findings, regarding the use and frequency of English in Russian speech,
followed from this the survey, are not exhaustive. For instance, whether the frequency of
using English will be maintained by each age group, it is not yet clear. Like this, two
scenarios are possible.
According to one scenario, the frequency of using English will remain at the same
level irrespective of age groups in Russia. This scenario will make it possible for Russia to
shift from EFL countries to ESL countries.
Another scenario presupposes a decrease in the frequency of English use and
subsequent predominance of passive experience over active experience in older age groups.
This assumption accounts for the fact that respondents from the youngest group are primarily
exposed to English in their classroom where they have the possibility to constantly practice
their speaking and writing skills. However, when formal education is finished active use is
gradually passing into passive knowledge, unless it is not constantly maintained at language
trainings and in communication with other English speakers at workplace or in other possible
settings.
Whatever their competence or frequency in the language use may be, the
overwhelming majority of subjects, however, recognize the importance of speaking and
182
understanding the language. They claim to need English for a variety of reasons, including
traveling, communication with other people, studying, understanding books and TV programs
in English, and using the Internet. For the subjects from group I, one of the crucial factors of
learning English is a chance to increase job opportunities and advance in their career. The
respondents from older groups primarily need English for traveling and communication with
other people.
The results concerning micro-attitudes towards the presence of English show that the
knowledge of English in Russia is highly prestigious and socially class-related. Unlike the
governmental and public reactions,57 on a micro-scale the results make it clear that, the
majority of respondents positively embrace the presence of English in Russia irrespective of
the focus groups they are referred to.
The positive reactions are primarily associated with social advantages the use of
English may eventually bring. English usage is hence considered as offering an alternate way
of expressing national identity and building links to the international community. Moreover,
English is contemplated more as a source of enrichment, a temporary phenomenon and a
modern trend, rather than a menace to the national language. A lot of people quite consciously
use English in their speech to demonstrate their international background and acceptability.
Nonetheless, the fear of deterioration of the Russian language in local context is, so
far, without its reasons. Although the study reveals positive perceptions of the presence of
English, Russian society still strongly depends on cultural values, transmitted through and by
means of the Russian language. Hence, the excessive use of English in speech may be
considered as neglect of one’s own national and cultural roots. As such, English words are
frequently perceived as more prestigious and proper under certain circumstances, but, by no
means, as substitutes of Russian words, expressing the same meaning.
The findings of this survey also reveal the fact that the youngest respondents still
assess their proficiency by how close they are to NS models, for the most part, demonstrating
their preference for British English and native-like proficiency as the only viable condition
not only in language learning, but also in its usage. Indeed, the youngest group of
respondents, composed of recent school graduates and current college students, still find
themselves under the stereotypical perceptions imposed on them daily through teaching
practices, introducing British English as the only correct and proper variety of English with
emphasis on British English accent (RP), vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and style, etc.
57
For detailed information see pp. 23-27.
183
It follows that language instruction has a significant effect on subjects’ attitudes and
perceptions of the English language, its acquisition and teaching standards. For that reason
especially, nowadays a considerable effort must be directed at English instruction at all the
stages of formal education.
As such, this study suggests that pedagogical considerations for ELT need to be reexamined with the focus on such issues as teaching English in diversified international
contexts, exposure to other English varieties besides American English and British English, as
well as to national linguistic forms, and an emphasis on communicative abilities, etc.
With great regret, it can be stated, however, that language instruction in Russian
schools has been discredited to such an extent that the majority of respondents do not believe
that a due competence in English can be obtained through traditional teaching practices.
In fact, the distrust of traditional practices has been kept strong since the times of the
Soviet Union when the grammar-translation teaching method produced English speakers
poorly equipped for communication outside the classroom settings. Nowadays, English
instruction in school is frequently criticized for methods that rarely go beyond textbook
formats, not enough hours of instruction, and mixed groups of students with varied language
proficiency. Taken into consideration the fact that greater amount of time spent on English
learning falls on the years of English instruction at school, it is argued that there exists an
urgent necessity to restore the value and prestige of Russian educational system, especially on
the level of primary and secondary education.
Coming back to the research sub-hypothesis (SH2),58 set at the beginning of this study,
it was also assumed that subjects with diverse international background and greater
experience in international communication would reveal better expertise in English.
Nonetheless, neither broad international background nor the fact of having visited an Englishspeaking country proved to correlate directly to the level of English proficiency, claimed by
the survey population.
Secondly, it was surmised that broad international background influences subjects’
attitudes and perceptions of the pluricentric character of English, and its uses worldwide. The
findings showed that the English language is not perceived anymore as one monolithic unity.
Depending on the level of proficiency and the situation involved, the English language is
associated with many Englishes, including standard varieties of English, British English and
58
See p. 133.
184
American English, local English varieties, defined as Russian English and Runglish or
Ruslish, and an international variety of English.
Though the results of the profile of three generations of Russian users of English also
match the sub-hypotheses in what concerns attitudes to the language variation and its presence
in Russia, the finding obtained prove to be quite the opposite to what was expected at the
beginning of this survey.
Surprisingly, broader perceptions in the sense of English varieties and the notions of
nativeness and standard language are demonstrated not by the youngest participants, but by
the subjects of older age groups. Having varied international background and greater
experience in international communication, the respondents from group II and group III
recognize the importance of speaking English in intercultural settings rather than being a
bearer of a language that reflects one speaking community and culture. Even at the level of
language instruction the subjects of these groups show their readiness to accept other teaching
models besides British English.
Having made these conclusions, it can be said with confidence that the remarkably
growing amount of traveling, observed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, has already
influenced people’s recognition of the importance of the English language as an international
means of communication and the existence of multiple Englishes which have gained their
independence to develop on their own, far away from the ancestral mother-land of the
language. In short term, it is also believed that the amount of traveling will improve people’s
competence in using English on the level of international exchange and communication.
The overall findings prove that the status of English in Russia as the first foreign
language is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. The majority of the survey
population recognize the importance of speaking English as a language with a unique global
position. At the same time, on the national level the Russian language still remains the prior
language for intranational communication.
185
Conclusion.
The English language has long ago surpassed the borders of the Inner and Outer circle
communities, and, therefore, its spread around the world is universally acknowledged as
unparallel and unique in its kind. Already in the title of this research, the linguistic
phenomenon which establishes the grounds for the present study is referred to as English as a
lingua franca, described as a means of communication for people from different L1 and
divergent cultural backgrounds. It is now a matter of fact that interactions conducted on a
regular basis in different realms of everyday life such as business meetings, political and
economic negotiations, personal contacts, and scientific conferences and research are
increasingly between NNSs of English who take an active role in the development of the
language, adapting English to their sociocultural needs.
Such dispersal of English, without precedence in terms of the increasing number of its
users and uses, is a linguistic phenomenon that calls for radical reconsideration and
reconceptualization in the contemporary research, especially in what concerns the notions of
variety and variation, language competence, English-speaking community and description of
English speaker, functions and domains the English language is used in. However, by far, the
prior conceptual challenge the theoretical research is faced with is related to linguacultural
norms, still greatly attached to NS models and standards.
In order to close a “conceptual gap” and establish serious terminological distinctions
taking into account the recent linguacultural developments, the linguistic phenomenon under
consideration has been discussed with reference to the specific community of Russian users of
English, its spread being described with regard to the language policy, assumed by the
country at different stages of Russian contemporary history, influencing attitudes towards the
spread of English and its uses in the national context.
186
As it has been exemplified already in the first chapter of this research, the extent to
which the language penetrates Russian society is not as prominent as in many other countries.
In fact, the current spread of English in Russia is the evidence of two competing trends: the
first trend is captured in the traditional language policy paradigm; the second one situates
English as an international lingua franca.
The peculiarity of the English language situation in the national contexts is primarily
hidden in the language policy which is, to a great extent, a product of the political strategy
within and outside the country. For a long time, during the period of the Cold War the
language policy was not to promote language learning but to make it a tool of the leading
ideology, mainly through language instruction and teaching material. The Soviet language
policy seldom focused on language issues, cutting itself off the linguistic reality at the
expense of learners’ needs in the acquisition of communicative competence.
Even now, when the country has finally passed the transitional stage to the democratic
order in a globalized perspective, political, economic, cultural, social, and linguistic resistance
towards the influence of English keeps strong, due to the governmental policy directed to
protect national and cultural identity, by strengthening the position of the Russian language.
The strangest contradiction of all, however, is that, within the country, English is
recognized as the world’s international lingua franca, being the result of increasing numbers
of people who claim English for daily interactions, independently of NS community.
As to the number of English speakers in Russia, its approximate estimates are still
rather modest. Although the poll carried out in 1999 registered the increase in the percentage
of English speakers in the younger generations, since that time the number of fluent speakers
of English in Russia has remained roughly the same. If taken into account the findings of
some recent surveys, only 1% of all Russian population speak English fluently, though this
number may be slightly higher, considering other polls, – 3.2% of the overall population.59
Already with reference to the findings of the empirical research undertaken in chapter
5, the improvement of English proficiency has been registered by the youngest participants
surveyed.60 72% from the youngest age group rate their speaking skills as intermediate. Out of
the group of respondents between 23-30 years old, most of them choose the intermediate level
to describe their speaking skills – 42.5%; 30% are proficient English speakers. Of those over
59
See chapter 1, p. 16.
60
See chapter 5, pp. 147-149.
187
31 years old, the majority asses their speaking skills as basic – 37.5%, and 22.5% are
elementary English speakers.
The modest estimates of English fluent speakers in Russia, however, are not yet
indicative of the overall number of those users of English who claim the language for a
variety of needs and reasons in everyday life, frequently without even being aware of the fact
that the language they use is now more actively employed as a means of communication
among people from different L1 backgrounds rather than as a language conceived of in terms
of native-like competence and cultural behavior.
The second chapter, as such, establishes the concept of ELF as an independent
linguistic phenomenon with the focus on the majority of its users, those who are now
predominantly NNSs, and particularly on those proficient speakers of English who possess
the linguistic repertoire efficient for interaction and widely comprehensible within particular
international contexts. For the English language is the property of its users, wherever those
come from and whatever their reasons in using the language are, it is claimed that “‘real
English’ in a global perspective is surely not ENL but ELF” (Seidlhofer, 2011: 23).
Thus, the theoretical ground of this research challenges NS centeredness as a
framework for English studies, displacing NSs from the central position in favor of
communicative ability, claiming that people can be competent without adhering ENL
competence and that non-conformity to NS norms is not detrimental to communication.
It also very important to note that the concept of ELF, as approached to in this
research, does not fall under the “umbrella label” of WE (Bolton, 2004: 367), rather it
establishes itself on a parallel with many varieties of English that have emerged in English
studies. The proposition is, as such, to include ELF “in our theoretical repertoire for the
‘unique linguistic phenomenon’ …, not as a replacement of but as an addition to other
Englishes, whether native or nativized, whether ENL, ESL, or EFL, whether global(ized) or
local(ized)” (Seidlhofer, 2011: 80).
Despite much evidence that speaks in favor of the emergence of ELF as an
independent linguistic concept, there still exist many controversies and theoretical
implications that should be considered more narrowly in further research into ELF. In reality,
the reluctance to accept ELF as a linguistic phenomenon on its own right may be interpreted
as unwillingness to accept the infallible fact that the prior function of any language is
communication, and that any language is a possession of its speakers whoever those may be
and whatever their purposes in language acquisition are.
188
As it is observed in chapter 3, it may be for this reason especially, that today’s Russia
is still traditionally referred to the countries of the Expanding circle, in which English is learnt
and taught as EFL with the focus on the acquisition of native-like proficiency, closely tied up
to the legitimate varieties of the Inner circle, not only in terms of linguistic norms, but also in
terms of linguacultural behavior, assumed as the only correct and efficient model appropriate
for communication with NSs and exclusively in the native contexts.
As far as the attainment of near-native proficiency remains the prior target for ELT in
Russia, the language acquisition is rooted in “integrative” motivation which involves the
learner’s desire for integration into the native society, approximating as closely as possible the
community of NSs in every manifestation of their language and culture. The view which
persists in educational purposes implies British English with RP accent, less often American
English, as a prescriptive norm for English language and teaching.
Nowadays, however, as the English language in Russia is recognized as an
indispensable tool of international communication, it becomes increasingly problematic to
refer the country to English-speaking communities with restricted venues of language use, in
which English is learnt and taught as a foreign language. In fact, it is now a range of domains
of English that allows for a broader perception of the type of language and its functions in
Russian society, establishing its status as a lingua franca for people who do not speak it as
their mother tongue.
As it has been detailed in chapter 3, in the intranational contexts, English has become
diversified in a number of performance varieties such as Russianized English or Russian
English, Ruslish and Runglish. Being used as a tool of creativity and identity expression, it
expands into media and entertainment, advertising, creative, and personal domains. Although
Russian speakers of English may not yet feel as language users on their own right,
intranationally, they accommodate and use the language characteristic of their own culture
and identity and not those of distant NSs.
In order to test the possibility for introducing ELF as a linguistic phenomenon,
applicable to English studies and teaching pedagogy in Russia, it was considered to be
fundamental to undertake an empirical research, crucial for the understanding of how the
language is used in Russia, and how people react to its presence in the national settings.
The findings of the empirical survey were considered to immediately raise various
implications for further research, for it is assumed that
189
(…) if recent important developments in applied linguistics on the
meta-level are matched with an empirical basis for looking at the
linguistic manifestations of ELF, this would help close the ‘conceptual
gap’ (…) and provide us with a way of ‘naming’ ELF and making
clear terminological distinctions.
(Seidlhofer, 2001: 151)
In general, surveys demonstrating different manifestations of English use as an
international lingua franca in specific local contexts are, first of all, carried in university and
classroom settings, and university academe, as, for instance, the empirical studies undertaken
by Erling (2004), Ciscel (2002), and Jin (2005). Comparatively fewer research papers and
dissertations are dedicated to empirical description in post-educational language learning
background. Those include Fonzari’s study (Fonzari, 1999) of three generations of English
users in Estonia, and Preisler’s survey (Preisler, 1999) of the adult Danish society, assessing
their experiences with, attitudes towards and motivations for learning English. These latter
studies, however, deserve special attention, – for giving insights into the evolution of people’s
perceptions towards the presence and use of English after completing their formal education.
The empirical study, undertaken in chapter 5 of this research, has been devised to
describe the English-speaking community in Russia and examine the evolution of people’s
attitudes towards the presence and current uses of English in Russia on the example of three
generations of English users.
The findings of this survey point out that, despite a considerable breakthrough that can
be noticed in attitudes towards the use and presence of English, most Russians, irrespective of
the focus groups they are referred to, remain under the influence of stereotypical perceptions,
this fact, however, largely accounted for teaching models, still imposed on English learners
through their formal instruction.
Thus, as it has been already specified, teaching models in Russia prioritize the
achievement of native-like competence, largely affecting learners’ language behavior and
their choices. The learning targets are, most frequently, bound to British English standard
variety and native-like proficiency as the only viable condition not only in language learning,
but also in its usage. That is why the representatives of the youngest generation continue to
regard NS models as more “proper” and “comprehensible”, even when communication takes
place in other than native settings. Consequently, irrespective of the evidence that the English
language varies considerably in its uses across English-speaking communities, any attempt
towards the alteration of language standards is continued to be confronted with great
resistance.
190
At the same time, as it has been observed, the greater experience subjects have with
the use of English in international contexts, the less they are willing to opt for the type of
language, confined to one speaking group or community, and the more readiness they
demonstrate to accept ELF as a type of English they identify themselves with and as a model
to follow in language learning and teaching.
The findings of the empirical research only reinforce the proposals set in chapter 4
concerning the establishment of new teaching strategies and models from the ELF
perspective, since more learners may feel they need to achieve communicative competence to
be efficient in broader cross-cultural contexts. A new approach in ELT should be directed first
of all to prepare efficient speakers who can negotiate in multilingual and multicultural
situations.
That is why for those learners whose learning targets are mainly integrative, involving
the approximation to the community of NSs in every aspect of their language and culture, the
teaching model should remain ENL with acquisition of near-native linguistic competence. On
the other hand, for many learners of English who may not want or need to acquire linguistic
models and linguacultural behavior, particular for the community of mother-tongue speakers,
a sound alternative may be a language oriented towards adaptation in international contexts,
involving both native and any educated NNS in the process of communication.
If applied in teaching, the ELF approach is believed to be regulated by communicative
goals with emphasis on intelligibility, and efficiency, rather than orientation towards NS
models and ENL linguacultural norms. From this point of view, everything that may be
defined as correct, appropriate or productive is primarily linked with what is efficient for
communication. What follows then is that ELT is supposed to prepare speakers to adopt their
language competence in completely different contexts, and that “this can be supported by
promoting forms of the language which function in the international context” (Modiano,
1999a: 26).
Though very realistic and reasonable the arguments in favor of the ELF approach for
ELT may seem, at the present moment, there is no available model for teaching ELF, which
largely impedes radical changes to take place in pedagogy and teacher education. So far, as it
has been already pointed out, the refusal to accommodate ELT to the needs of the majority of
English users is interpreted by the fact that ELF is not yet acknowledged as an independent
English linguistic phenomenon on its own.
Nonetheless, despite the unavailability of teaching models appropriate for promotion
of ELF, in a short term, English teachers and instructors are believed to be able to start
191
applying new pedagogies to suit learners’ goals and their expectations on a broader
international scale, first as a teaching strategy, and then probably as a teaching model.
For the present, though the acquisition of English in the Expanding circle countries,
such as Russia, begins most frequently as a foreign language, there is nothing contradictory in
the fact that even if being initially introduced as a foreign language, depending on the targets
set forth for the language acquisition, English proficiency may further result either in a nativelike command of the language or the use of ELF.
The major purpose now is by no means trying to substitute one teaching model by
another. The fundamental concern is that people must be given a choice of what language
they themselves want to learn and speak. Depending on the learning goals, approaches to
teaching and learning English cannot remain the same. As such, in a due term, English
learners should be equally given choice of being able to achieve either ENL or ELF
competence.
Moreover, it is even argued that, at the initial stage, English should be taught and
learnt as a foreign language to introduce learners into the common notions about the language
and culture. It is only after this first stage that learners are believed to be able to clearly define
their purposes in language acquisition, and be more receptive and conscious of different
strategies that may be implied by their teachers and educators in the teaching process
In this research, it is believed that an important step has been taken in an attempt to
establish core features of English for Russian learners. These underlined core features which
stand out crucial for international intelligibility and require more pedagogic attention in
classroom settings were defined in the phonetic level. On the level of lexico-grammar, the
attention was, on the contrary, drawn to those “deviations” that are permissible in ELF
discourse. However, all of them can be set further as a potentially new teaching model for
those learners who want to acquire competence for being efficient in international
communication.
Though the concept of English as a lingua franca is now increasingly being referred to
in the theoretical research, in teacher education, and in teaching practices and materials, this
special status of English, so far, has had no effect on how the language is applied in practical
pedagogy. One of the prior effort and maybe the most important one is thus to be directed at
raising awareness about the study into ELF within the communities of language instructors
and educators to finally match the discourse about ELF with practical pedagogy.
By having carried out this study, it is also hoped that the theoretical considerations and
implications which have been pointed out for applied linguistics and ELT will lead to further
192
research into ELF and its uses in the specific context of Russia. More comprehensive research
is also needed concerning the study of language policy and ideology. It is also believed that it
would be relevant to continue testing the assumptions related to the evolution of people’s
linguacultural competence and behavior over time.
Henceforth, absolutely new reconceptualization of English is needed in various fields
of English studies, including contact linguistics, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, creative
writing, language pedagogy, etc. However, the reassessment is far beyond this realm and is
related to such areas as language planning and policy, interpretation, international contacts
and negotiations in professional and research areas.
Lastly, coming back to the quotation from Graddol (2006: 117), introducing the reader
into the present research, in which this author states that “speakers will signal their nationality,
and other aspects of their identity, through English”, nowadays the English language in Russia
is proved not only to be adapted as a tool of access to a wide range of linguistic and cultural
backgrounds, but also increasingly as a means of expressing national identity and culture.
193
References
Printed sources.
Akunin, Boris. 2002. Vneklassnoe chtenie. [Home Reading]. Part I. Moscow: OLMA-PRESS.
Ammon, Ulrich. 2001. The Dominance of English as a Language of Science. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Bailey, Richard W., and Görlach, Manfred. 1982. English as a World Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bell, Roger T. 1976. Sociolinguistics: Goals, Approaches and Problems. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Bex, Tony, and Watts, Richard J. 1999. Standard English: The Widening Debate. London,
New York: Routledge.
Bolton, Kingsley. 2004. “World Englishes”. In Davies, Alan, and Elder, Catherine (eds.). The
Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden MA: Blackwell. 367-396.
Breiteneder, Angelika. 2009. English as a Lingua Franca in Europe. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr.
Müller.
Butcher, Carmen A. 2005. “The Case against the Native Speaker”. English Today 21 (2): 1324.
Ciscel, Matthew H. 2002. “Linguistic Opportunism and English in Moldova”. World
Englishes 21 (3): 403-419.
Clark, Arthur C. 1997. 2010 Odyssey Two. London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Crystal, David. 2003a. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. 2nd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, David. 2003b. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Crystal, David. 2008. “Two Thousand Million?” English Today 24 (1): 3-6.
Dalby, David. 2001. “The Linguasphere: Kaleidoscope of the World Languages”. English
Today 17 (1): 22-26.
Davies, Alan. 1999. “Standard English: Discordant Voices”. World Englishes 18 (2): 171186.
Davies, Alan, and Elder, Catherine (eds.). 2004. The Handbook of Applied Linguistics.
Malden MA: Blackwell.
194
Dimova, Slobodanka. 2007. “English Shop Signs in Macedonia”. English Today 23 (3-4): 1824.
Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2003. Questionnaires in Second Language Research. New York, London:
Routledge.
Erling, Elizabeth J. 2004. Globalization, English and the German University Classroom: A
Sociolinguistic Profile of Students of English at the Freie Universität Berlin. PhD
thesis. Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Edinburgh.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1992. “Sociology of English as an Additional Langauge”. In Kachru, Braj
B. (ed.). The Other Tongue. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 19-26.
Fonzari, Lorenza. 1999. “English in the Estonian Multicultural Society”. World Englishes 18
(1): 39-48.
Graddol, David. 1997. The Future of English? London: British Council.
Graddol, David. 2006. English Next. London: British Council.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language: New
Models, New Norms, New Goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006. “Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English as a
Lingua Franca”. TESOL Quarterly 40 (1): 157-181.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer, Modiano, Marko, and Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001. “Euro-English”. English
Today 17 (4): 13-19.
Jin, Jong. 2005. “Which Is Better in China, a Local or a Native English-speaking Teacher?”
English Today 21 (3): 39-46.
Kachru, Braj B. 1990. The Alchemy of English. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois
Press.
Kachru, Braj B. (ed.). 1992. The Other Tongue. 2nd ed. Urbana and Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Kachru, Braj B. 1992a. “Introduction: The Other Side of English and the 1990s”. In Kachru,
Braj B. (ed.). The Other Tongue. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 115.
195
Kachru, Braj B. 1992b. “Meaning in Deviation: Toward Understanding Non-Native English
Texts”. In Kachru, Braj B. (ed.). The Other Tongue. Urbana and Chicago: University
of Illinois Press. 301-326.
Kachru, Braj B. 1992c. “Models for Non-Native Englishes”. In Kachru, Braj B. (ed.). The
Other Tongue. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 48-74.
Kachru, Braj B. 1992d. “Teaching World Englishes”. In Kachru, Braj B. (ed.). The Other
Tongue. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 355-365.
Kachru, Braj B., Kachru, Yamuna, and Nelson, Cecil L. (eds.). 2006. The Handbook of World
Englishes. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaplan, Robert B. 2001. “English – the Accidental Language of Science?” In Ammon, Ulrich.
The Dominance of English as a Language of Science. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 326.
Leontovich, Olga A. 2005. “American English as a Medium of Intercultural Communication”.
World Englishes 24 (4): 523-532.
Lovtsevich, Galina N. 2005. “Language Teachers through the Looking Glass: Expanding
Circle Teachers’ Discourse”. World Englishes 24 (4): 462-469.
Martin, Elizabeth. 2002. “Cultural Images and Different Varieties of English in French
Television Commercials”. English Today 18 (4): 8-20.
McArthur, Tom. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McArthur, Tom. 2003a. World Englishes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McArthur, Tom. 2003b. “World English, Euro-English, Nordic English?” English Today 19
(1): 54-58.
McCaughey, Kevin. 2005. “The Kasha Syndrome: English Language Teaching in Russia”.
World Englishes 24 (4): 455-459.
Melchers, Gunnel, and Shaw, Philip. 2003. World Englishes. London: Arnold.
Milroy, James. 1999. “The Consequences of Standardization in Descriptive Linguistics”. In
Bex, Tony, and Watts, Richard J. Standard English: The Widening Debate. London,
New York: Routledge. 16-39.
Minaev, Sergey. 2006. Dukhless. [Spiritless]. Moscow: Publishing house “Khranitel”.
Modiano, Marko. 1999a. “International English in the Global Village”. English Today 15 (2):
22-28.
Modiano, Marko. 1999b. “Standard English(es) and Educational Practices for the World’s
Lingua Franca”. English Today 15 (4): 3-14.
196
Modiano, Marko. 2000. “Rethinking ELT”. English Today 16 (2): 28-34.
Modiano, Marko. 2001. “Ideology and the ELT Practitioner”. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 159-173.
Modiano, Marko. 2003. “Euro-English: A Swedish Perspective”. English Today 19 (2): 3541.
Modiano, Marko. 2006. “Euro-Englishes”. In Kachru, Braj B., Kachru, Yamuna, and Nelson,
Cecil L. (eds.). The Handbook of World Englishes. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.
223-239.
Preisler, Bent. 1999. “Functions and Forms of English in a European EFL Country”. In Bex,
Tony, and Watts, Richard J. Standard English: The Widening Debate. London, New
York: Routledge. 239-67.
Prodromou, Luke. 2008. English as a Lingua Franca. A Corpus Based Analysis. New York:
Continuum.
Proshina, Zoya G. 2005a. “Intermediary Translation from English as a Lingua Franca”. World
Englishes 24 (4): 517-522.
Proshina, Zoya G. 2005b. “Russian Englishes. Introduction”. World Englishes 24 (4): 437438.
Proshina, Zoya G. 2008. “English as a Lingua Franca in Russia”. Intercultural
Communication Studies XVII (4): 125-140.
Proshina, Zoya G., and Ettkin, Brian P. 2005. “English-Russian Language Contacts”. World
Englishes 24 (4): 439-444.
Pursiainen, Christer, and Medvedev, Sergey A. 2005. The Bologna Process and Its
Implications for Russia. Moscow: RECEP.
Quiang, Niu, and Wolff, Martin. 2003. “China, and Chinese, or Chingland and Chinglish?”
English Today 19 (2): 9-11.
Richmond, Yale. 2009. From Nyet to Da. 4th ed. Boston and London: Intercultural Press.
Rivlina, Alexandra A. 2005. “‘Threats and Challenges’: English-Russian Interaction Today”.
World Englishes 24 (4): 477-485.
Saraceni, Mario. 2008. “English as a Lingua Franca: Between Form and Function”. English
Today 24 (2): 20-26.
Schlick, Maria. 2002. “The English of Shop Signs in English”. English Today 18 (2): 3-7.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 1999. “Double Standards: Teacher Education in the Expanding Circle”.
World Englishes 18 (2): 233-45.
197
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001. “Closing a Conceptual Gap: the Case for a Description of English
as a Lingua Franca”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 133-158.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2003. A Concept of International English and Related Issues: from ‘Real
English’ to ‘Realistic English’? Stasbourg: Council of Europe.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2004. “Research Perspectives on Teaching English as a Lingua Franca”.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics: 209-239.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sichyova, Olga N. 2005. “A Note on Russian-English Code Switching”. World Englishes 24
(4): 487-494.
Smith, Larry E. 1992. “Spread of English and Issues of Intelligibility”. In Kachru, Braj B.
(ed.). The Other Tongue. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 75-90.
Sridhar, Kamal K., and Sridhar, S.N. 1992. “Bridging the Paradigm Gap: Second Language
Acquisition Theory and Indigenized Varieties of English”. In Kachru, Braj B. (ed.).
The Other Tongue. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 91-107.
Starkov, Anatoly P., and Dixon, Richard R. 1984. Ninth Form English and Tenth Form
English - Pupil’s Book. Moscow: Prosveshchenie.
Strevens, Peter. 1992. “English as an International Language. Directions in the 1990s”. In
Kachru, Braj B. (ed.). The Other Tongue. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois
Press. 27-47.
Taavitsainen, Irma, and Pahta, Päivi. 2003. “English in Finland: Globalization, Language
Awareness, and Questions of Identity”. English Today 19 (4): 3-15.
Ter-Minasova, Svetlana G. 2005. “Traditions and Innovations: English Language Teaching in
Russia”. World Englishes 24 (4): 445-454.
Tod, Loreto. 1982. “The English Language in West Africa”. In Bailey, Richard W., and
Görlach, Manfred. English as a World Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 281-305.
Ustinova, Irina P. 2005a. “Convergence of English in Russian TV Commercials”. World
Englishes 24 (4): 495-508.
Ustinova, Irina P. 2005b. “English in Russia”. World Englishes 24 (4): 239-251.
Ustinova, Irina P. 2011. “Multiple Identities of English in Russia”. The International Journal
of Diversity 10 (6): 67-77.
Widdowson, Henry. 1993. “The Ownership of English”. Lecture delivered at 1993 IATEFL
International Conference, Swansea, Wales, UK. n. pag.
198
Yano, Yasukata. 2001. “World Englishes in 2000 and beyond”. World Englishes 20 (2): 119131.
Yuzefovich, Natalia G. 2005. “English in Russian Cultural Contexts”. World Englishes 24
(4): 509-516.
Electronic sources.
All-Russian Census of Population. 2002a. “Shares of Children Aged 3-9 Attending School
and Pre-School Institutions”. Web. 06 Oct. 2008.
<www.perepis2002.ru/ct/html/TOM_03_04_1.htm>.
All-Russian Census of Population. 2002b. “Spreading of Knowledge of Languages (except
Russian)”. Web. 30 Jul. 2012 <http://www.perepis2002.ru/index.html?id=87>.
Aphorisms, Quotations, Sayings, and Proverbs. 2012. “V.G. Belinskiy Aphorisms”. Web. 30
Jul. 2012. <http://www.wisdoms.ru/pavt/p21_1.html>.
Blomfield, Adrian. 2007. “English Invades Russian Language”. Telegraph 20: n. pag. Web.
09 Mar. 2010. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562947/Englishinvades-Russian-language.html>.
Bovarskaya, Olga. 2005. “Pidgin English”. U-Journal 1 (7): n. pag. Web. 12 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.u-journal.com/sections/common-language/1(7)/112>.
Cleek, Ashley. 2007. “English-Language Students Keep in Contact”. The St. Petersburg
Times 1325 (91): n. pag. Web. 18 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=23685&highlight=English>.
English in Russia. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.
<http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~elawrick/EnglishinRussiaIndex.html>.
English Russia. 2009. “London, 1970”. 26 Oct. Web.
<englishrussia.com/index.php/2009/10/26/london-1970>.
05
Apr.
2012.
Eremeeva, Valentina. 2008. “English for All”. Career 12 (119): n. pag. Web. 26. Dec. 2010.
<http://www.kariera.idr.ru/items/?item=1949>.
Ermakov, Alexey. n.d. “Vvedenie. Stan’ poliglotom, ili sekrety uspeshnogo izucheniya
inostrannykh yazykov”. [Introduction. Become a Polyglot, or the Secrets to Successful
Foreign Languages Learning]. n. p., n. pag. Web. 19 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.multikulti.ru/Strategy/info/Strategy_info_195.html>.
The Federal Portal of Russian Education. 2012. “Metodika shkalirovaniya rezul’tatov EGE v
2012 g.”. [The USE Evaluation Methodology for 2012]. Web. 30 Jun. 2012.
<http://www.edu.ru/abitur/act.8/index.php?ege/MethodShkalir2012.html#eng>.
199
Feuer, Alan. 2005. “For the Thirsty Runglish Speaker: Try an Ized Cyawfeh”. Brighton Beach
Journal, 14 Jun.: n. pag. Web. 10 July 2009.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/nyregion/14runglish.html>.
Galkin, Boris. 2006. “Like Native”. Career 2 (87): n. pag. Web. 26 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.kariera.idr.ru/items/?item=858>.
Gramota.ru. 2006. “Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii ‘O provedenii Goda russkogo
yazyka’”. [Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “About the Year of the
Russian
Language”].
29
Dec.
Web.
14
Jun.
2010.
<http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/docs/16_1>.
Grishaeva, Olga. 2007. “‘NTV Plus’ studied the information”. Business & Financial Markets,
02 Jul.: n. pag. Web. 17 Jul. 2010.
<http://eng.magram.ru/about/published/2007/07/02/published_36.html>.
Grushko, Elena I., and Petrosyan, Karina S. 2008. “Reflecting on English as a Lingua Franca:
Possible Implications for Language Teaching and Learning in Russia”. International
Internet Conference. Web. 06 Apr. 2012. < http://www.t21.rgups.ru/Arhiv2008s2>.
Higher Attestation Comission of the Ministry of Education and Science. 2011. “Perechen’
vedushchikh periodicheskikh izdaniy. Perechen’ rossiyskikh retsenziruemykh
nauchnykh zhurnalov, v kotorykh dolzhny byt’ opublikovany osnovnye nauchnye
rezul’taty dissertatsiy na soiskanie uchyonykh stepeney doktora i kandidata nauk
redaktsii 2011 goda”. [Leading Periodicals List. A list of Russian Peer-reviewed
Scientific Journals, in which the Major Findings of Dissertations for Academic
Degrees of Doctor and Candidate of Science are Published, Edition 2011]. Red. 17
Jun. 2011. Web. 12. Dec. 2011. <http://vak.ed.gov.ru/ru/help_desk/list/>.
Internet World Stats. 2011. “Internet World Usage and Population Statistics”. Web. 18 May
2011. <http://www.internetworldstats.com>.
Ivleva, Natalya V. 2005. “The Sublanguage of Russian Speaking Users of the English
Language (Ruglish)”. Innovations and Reproductions in Cultures and Societies
(IRICS).
Vienna,
9-11
Dec.
2005.
Web.
10
Oct.
2010.
<http://www.inst.at/irics/speakers_g_m/ivleva.htm>.
Kalashnikova, Olga. 2009. “Languages Remain in Fashion”. The St. Petersburg Times 1513
(75): n. pag. Web. 24 Apr. 2010.
<http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=29914&highlight=English>.
Kwiatkowski, Alex. 2003. “Putin’s English Skills Pass Toughest Test of All”. The St.
Petersburg Times 879 (47): n. pag. Web. 10 Jan. 2010.
< http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=10372&highlight=English>.
Leary, Warren E. 2000. “Russian and U.S. Crew Ready to Blast Off to Space Station”. New
York Times, 30 Oct.: n. pag. Web. 08 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/30/world/russian-and-us-crew-ready-to-blast-offto-space-station.html?src=pm>.
200
Litovskaya, Mariya A. 2008. “Konstruirovanie chuzhogo, ili uchimsya govorit’ poangliyski”. [Reconstructing a Foreign Language, or We Learn to Speak English].
Neprikosnovenniy zapas 2 (58): n. pag. Web.
01 Apr. 2012.
<magazines.russ.ru/nz/2008/2/li8.html>.
The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. 2011. “Prikaz № 19776 ob
utverzhdenii
federal’nykh
perechney
uchebnikov,
rekomendovannykh
(dopushchennykh) k ispol’zovaniyu v obrazovatel’nom protsesse v obrazovatel’nykh
uchrezhdeniyakh,
realizuyushchikh
obrazovatel’nye
programy
obshchego
obrazovaniya i imeyushchikh gosudarstvennuyu akreditatsiyu, na 2011/2012 uchebnyi
god”. [Decree N19776 on Approval of the Federal List of Textbooks for 2011-2012,
Recommended to the Use in Educational Process for Educational Institutions with the
State Accreditation, Implementing Basic Education Programs]. Attachment 1. 10 Feb.
2011. Web. 8 Mar. 2011. <http://www.edu.ru/db/mo/Data/d_10/m2080.html>.
Nash, Rose. 1971. “The Place of the English Language in the U.S.S.R.”. Revista
Interamericana Review 1 (1): 1-13. Web. 25 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED053583.pdf>.
Nassor, Ali. 2008. “Language Learning Popular as Ever”. The St. Petersburg Times 1351
(15): n. pag. Web. 21 Jan. 2010.
<http://www.times.spb.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=25182>.
Non-Fic-Tion. 2009. “Runglish, ili Rungliyskiy yazyk”. [Runglish, or Rungliyskiy]. 23 Jul.
Web. 10 Sept. 2010. <http://non-fic-tion.livejournal.com/2209.html>.
Orban, Leonard. 2007. “The Diversity of Languages – an Opportunity, not an Obstacle”.
European Dissemination Conference, 27 Sept. 2007. Web. 24 Dec. 2009.
<http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/orban/news/docs/speeches/070927_Dissemi
nation_conference/070927_Dissemination_conference_en.pdf>.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2007. “OECD Thematic Review
of Tertiary Education: Country Background for the Russian Federation”. Web. 10 Jul.
2012. <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/10/40111027.pdf>.
Online Forum a. n. d. “Find Friends in England”. Web. 17 Jul. 2010.
<http://www.2uk.ru/forum/2/34.html>.
Online Forum b. n. d. “Tyazhyolyi metal iz Rossii i SSSR”. [Heavy Metal from Russia and
USSR]. Web. 05 Jul. 2011. <http://metalrus.ru/forums-m-posts-q-325-d-100.html>.
Pechko, Vasiliy. 2006. “Budushchee russkogo yazyka”. [The Future of the Russian
Language]. Vzglyad, 24 Nov.: n .pag. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.vz.ru/society/2006/11/24/58475.html>.
Poletaeva, Natalya. 2008. “Angliyskiy yazyk kak dvigatel’ kar’ery”. [English as a Driving
Force of Career]. Rabota, 9 Dec.: n. pag. Web. 23 Jun. 2011.
<http://www.rabota.ru/soiskateljam/tehniki/anglijskij_jazyk_kak_dvigatel_karery.html>
201
Proshina, Zoya G. 2007. The ABC and Controversies of World Englishes. Khabarovsk:
DVIIJ. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. <http://www.ffl.msu.ru/ru/personalpages/proshina_zg/2/>.
Proshina, Zoya G., and Lawrick, Elena. 2009. “The Bibliography of Publications on English
in
Russia”.
English
in
Russia.
1-29.
Web.
10
Oct.
2011.
<http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~elawrick/pdfs/Bibliography_10112009.pdf>.
The Public Opinion Foundation. 1999. “Russia-Wide Poll of Urban and Rural Populations”.
Web. 18 Oct. 2010. <http://bd.english.fom.ru/report/map/150_12139/eof994806>.
The Public Opinion Foundation. 2002. “Internet in Russia/Russia in the Internet”. Web. 18
Oct. 2010. <http://bd.fom.ru/report/cat/smi/smi_int/ir00020202>.
Radchenko, Ilya. 2008. “Smes’ angliyskogo s ... nizhegorodskim”. [Mixture of English and
… the language of Nizhny Novgorod]. Study.ru, Oct. Web. 10 Jan. 2010.
<http://www.study.ru/support/lib/note105.html>.
Rian News. 2010. “Putin Says Sings Songs to Improve His English”. 2 Dec. Web. 01 Jul.
2011 <http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101202/161586195.html>.
Rian News. 2011. “Ukazateli v moskovskom metro budut dublirovat’sya na angliyskom
yazyke”. [Indicator Boards in the Moscow Metro Will Be Translated in English]. 20
Apr. Web. 25 April 2011. <http://rian.ru/moscow/20110420/366418834.html>.
Rosich, Yuriy. 2000. “Internet Development in Russia: Territorial and Institutional
Particularities”. Articles on the Runet, 21 Jun. Web. 23 Jun. 2010.
<http://www.rocich.ru/runet/runet_e.php>.
Rossotrudnichestvo. 2012. “Federal’naya tselevaya programma ‘Russkiy yazyk’ na 20112015 gody”. [Federal Target Program “Russian Language” in 2011-2015]. Decree of
the Governement of the Russian Federation N492. 20 Jun. Web. 30 Jun. 2012.
<http://rs.gov.ru/taxonomy/term/184>.
Russia Federal Agency for Tourism. 2012a. “Statistics of Inbound Tourism in 2011”. Web.
30 Jun. 2012. <http://www.russiatourism.ru/rubriki/-1124140896/>.
Russia Federal Agency for Tourism, 2012b. “Statistics of Outbound Tourism in 2011”. Web.
30 Jun. 2012. <http://www.russiatourism.ru/rubriki/-1124140897/>.
Russkaya Gazeta. 2005. “O gosudarstvenom yazyke Rossiyskoy Federatsii”. [On the State
Language of the Russian Federation]. Federal Law of the Russian Federation N53, 1 st
of July 2005. Federal Issue 3789: n. pag. Web. 12 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.rg.ru/2005/06/07/yazyk-dok.html>.
Safonova, O.E. n. d. “Angliyskiy lingvisticheskiy komponent v yazykovoy situatsii
sovremenoy Rossii”. [Linguistic Component of English in the Context of Present
Situation in Russia]. Russian Philological Portal. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.philology.ru/linguistics3/safonova-00.htm>.
Saint Petersburg. 2001-2012. Web. 02 Feb. 2012. <http://www.saint-petersburg.com>.
202
Shearer, Bernard. 2011. “Sochi will speak English – EF is Sochi 2014 Official Supplier”.
Education First, 28 Apr. Web. 05 May 2012.
<http://360.ef.com/post/2011/04/28/Sochi-will-speak-English-e28093-EF-is-Sochi2014-Official-Supplier.aspx>.
Silaev, Vladimir. 2010. “Sochintsev besplatno nauchat angliyskomu”. [Sochi Dwellers Will
Be Taught English Free of Charge]. Live News Inbox, 03 Mar. Web. 02 Jun. 2011.
<http://www.infox.ru/sport/olympiad/2010/03/03/Sochincyev_byesplatn.phtml>.
Special Eurobarometer. 2006. “Europeans and Their Languages”. European Commission.
Web. 26 Dec. 2010 <http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/doc629en.pdf>.
The St. Petersburg Times. 2003. “Presidential PR Spun in English”. 878 (46): n. pag. Web.
02 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=10353>.
The St. Petersburg Times. 2008. “Call for Cyrillic Cyberspace”. 1382 (46): n. pag. Web. 18
Feb. 2010. <http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=26299>.
Travel Guide. 2003-2012. Web. 02 Feb. 2012. <http://www.moscowcity.com>.
Trudgill, Peter. 1999. “Standard English: What It Isn’t”. n. p., n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/SEtrudgill.htm>.
Vaynshteyn, Grigoriy. 2002. “Neyarkiy mir, ili globalizatsiya i ‘povrezhdenie’ kul’tury”.
[Dim World, or Globalization and Culture “Damage”]. Political Commentary Site
“Politcom.ru”, 23 Nov. Web. 05. Mar. 2010.
<http://miresperanto.narod.ru/aliaj_lingvoj/nejarkij_mir.htm>.
Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), n. d. Web. 15 Sept. 2011.
<http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/index.php>.
VisitRussia. 2003-2012. Web. 02 Feb. 2012. <http://www.visitrussia.com>.
Voice of Russia. 2012. “About Us”. Web. 05 Jul. 2011. <http://english.ruvr.ru/about.html>.
Weiner, Cori. 2006. “Finding the Client behind Battering Bureaucracy”. The St. Petersburg
Times 1193 (59): n. pag. Web. 18 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=18472&highlight=English>.
203
Appendix I
Sociolinguistic Study on Attitudes towards
the Presence of English, Its Uses, Forms, and Functions in Russia.
Dear participants, this questionnaire is aimed at a comprehensive analysis of attitudes towards the use of English
in Russia and its prospects in the national context. This study is conducted within the PhD project of the
University of Lisbon. Your name is not asked for and all the information provided is absolutely confidential. The
main scope is to learn about your personal opinion and experience in using English. There are no ‘right’ or
‘wrong’ answers. Please give your answers sincerely as only this will guarantee the success of our investigation.
Section A. Personal Information.
1. Age: ____
2. Sex: □ M
□F
3. Place of Residence: ____________________
4. Occupation: ____________________
5. Education:
□ Basic Secondary
□ Complete Secondary
□ Technical
□ Incomplete Higher Education
□ Higher Education
□ Post-Graduate
Please answer the following questions:
6. How often do you travel abroad?
(a) monthly
(b) every year
(c) rarely
(d) never
□
□
□
□
7. What countries have you already visited?
__________________________________________
8. What language(s) do you use abroad to communicate?
____________________________________________
9. Have you ever been to an English-speaking country?
Yes □
No □
10. If the answer is No, please proceed to Section C.
a) If Yes, please specify the countries:
_____________________________________________
205
b) How many days/weeks/months/years did you spend there?
_____ days/weeks/months/years.
Section B. Languages Learning Background.
11. 1st foreign language:
□ English
□ German
□ French
Other ____________
12. Please evaluate your competence in foreign languages according to the following scale:
A = elementary
□ English
□ French
□ German
□ Polish
□ Portuguese
□ Spanish
□ ____________
□ ____________
B = basic
Listening
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C = intermediate
Speaking
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
D = proficient
Reading
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Writing
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
13. What other foreign languages would you like to learn?
_____________________________________________
14. How many years have you studied English for?
___________________________________________________________________________
E.g. 6 years at school + 3 years at the university or 3 years at the university.
15. If you hold a certificate of English proficiency, please specify.
______________________________________________
206
Section C. Competence, Types of English and Motivation.
16. Give answers to the following questions. Be sure to checkmark only one option.
To what extent are you able to…
to a great
extent
to a certain
extent
very little
not at all
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
(a) understand English
song lyrics when you
listen to music?
(b) understand English
films without subtitles?
(c) read and understand a
book written in English?
(d) write a letter in
English?
(e)
speak
and
communicate in English?
□
17. If you were to name the type of English you speak, what would you call it? Be sure to
checkmark only one option.
(a) Russian English
(b) British English
(c) American English
(d) English
(e) Runglish/Ruslish
(f) Business mix
(g) International English
(h) Other ____________________
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
18. Complete the sentence by selecting as many options as you like.
You need to know English to…
(a) increase job opportunities.
(b) work/study abroad.
(c) travel.
(d) use the Internet.
(e) learn more about English/American culture.
(f) communicate with people from other countries.
(g) read books in original.
(h) understand English TV programs and films.
(i) Other____________________
207
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
19. Complete the sentence.
very much
to some extent
not at all
□
□
□
You need to know English…
Section D. Language Acquisition and Preference for an English Variety.
20. Complete the sentence by selecting as many options as you like.
Effective language acquisition means learning English…
□
□
□
□
□
(a) at school.
(b) at the university.
(c) at a language school.
(d) with a private tutor.
(e) at a language school abroad
(internship or university exchange)
(f) in a native-speaker environment.
(g) Other ________________
□
21. Provide your opinion about a native English teacher and a non-native Russian teacher of
English.
(a) offers more reliable linguistic knowledge.
(b) knows what difficulties you have in learning
English.
(c) sets a good example of English use.
(d) explains grammar rules better.
(e) has a better accent.
(f) is a person who is always ready to help.
(g) will help you to achieve native like English.
(h) knows best how the language should be
taught.
A native English A non-native teacher
teacher …
of English…
□
□
22. Select and checkmark one of the following options.
The model variety to be taught at schools is…
(a) American English
(b) British English
(c) an international variety
(d) No opinion
(e) Other ___________________
□
□
□
□
208
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
23. Explain your preference for British English and American English.
You prefer…
BrE…
AmE…
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
(a) … because this variety is more correct and
prestigious.
(b) …because this variety is more natural.
(c) …because this variety represents progress
and individualism.
(d) …because this variety represents tradition
and spiritual values.
(e) …because the other variety is ugly.
24. Express your opinion about the following statements.
□
□
I don’t
know
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Agree
(a) Standard English means British English.
(b) Standard English means American English.
(c) It is native speakers’ right to decide how
English should be used.
(d) There are different kinds of English in the
world.
Disagree
NA
□
□
□
□
25. Which is more advantageous?
(a) A native-like accent
(b) A variety that does not represent one culture or country
(c) No opinion
□
□
□
Section E. Attitudes towards the Use of English in Everyday Life.
26. Select just one option for each question.
How often do you…
(a) speak English?
(b) write in English?
(c) hear/listen to English?
(d) see/read English?

once
a day
□
□
□
□
once
a week
□
□
□
□
NA = Not Applicable
209
once
a month
□
□
□
□
hardly
ever
□
□
□
□
never
NA
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
27. Complete the sentence by selecting as many options as you like.
You come into contact with English…
□
□
□
□
□
□
(a) on the Internet
(b) on TV (films, TV programmes)
(c) in newspapers
(d) at work (telephone conversations, fax, business
letters)
(e) in music
(f) in advertising (advertisements, shop signs, labels,
posters, etc.)
(e) Other ____________________
28. Choose the option that most closely matches your opinion.
You think that English TV programs and films should be…
(a) dubbed
(b) subtitled
(c) in the original
□
□
□
29. Evaluate the following statements by selecting True or False.
(a) You prefer English words to their Russian equivalents because it makes your
speech sound more prestigious.
(b) You use English words only if there is no equivalent in Russian.
(c) You never use English words in your speech and you disapprove when
somebody uses them.
True
□
False
□
□
□
□
□
30. Provide your opinion regarding the presence of the English language in daily life.
The presence of the English language in daily life is…
(a) a threat to my native language.
(b) a threat to my culture.
(c) a trend not to be taken seriously.
(d) useful because it improves one’s English.
(e) useful because it expands one’s cultural horizons.
(f) Sometimes I am worried about the effects of English
on my native language.
(g) I don’t really like the English language and
sometimes I resent the fact that I’m forced to use it.
210
Agree
□
□
□
□
□
I don’t know
□
□
□
□
□
Disagree
□
□
□
□
□
NA
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Section F. The Future of English.
31. Rank the following languages according to their importance in the world. Use the scale
from 1 to 10. (1 for ‘the most important’ and 10 for ‘the least important’)
Arabic
Chinese
English
French
German
___
___
___
___
___
Hindi/Urdu
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Japanese
___
___
___
___
___
32. Express your opinion about the following statements. Be sure to checkmark only one
option for each statement.
(a) All adult Russians should be able to speak and
understand English without problems.
(b) All adult Russians should be able to read and write in
English without problems.
(c) English should become the first foreign language in
Russia.
(d) More English lessons should be taught in Russian
schools.
(e) English will be spoken by the majority of the Russian
population.
(f) The percentage of English speakers in Russia will
remain the same over time.
(g) Fewer people in Russia will speak English.
(h) English will keep its global position.
Agree
I don’t know
Disagree
NA
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
We have tried to make this questionnaire as comprehensive as possible but you may feel that there is more to be
added concerning English teaching and acquisition in Russia. Please, write what you think below, using an extra
page if necessary. Thank you for taking the time to fill in this questionnaire! 
211
Appendix II
Section A: Personal information.
Q4: Occupation.
Frequency
Valid
accountant
administrator
architect
broker
builder
cook
designer
diplomat
doctor
driver
economist
employee
engineer
grocery manager
housewife
human resources
manager
information technology
lawyer
librarian
linguist
manager
musician
office worker
pharmaceutist
production engineer
sales manager
secretary
serviceman
shop assistant
student
teacher
translator
unemployed
vice president
Total
Percent
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
3
4
2
1
2
1
3.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.5
0.8
1.5
1.5
0.8
2.3
3.1
1.5
0.8
1.5
0.8
Valid
Percent
3.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.5
0.8
1.5
1.5
0.8
2.3
3.1
1.5
0.8
1.5
0.8
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
4
2
2
51
18
2
3
2
0.8
1.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
2.3
2.3
0.8
0.8
1.5
3.1
1.5
1.5
39.2
13.8
1.5
2.3
1.5
0.8
1.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
2.3
2.3
0.8
0.8
1.5
3.1
1.5
1.5
39.2
13.8
1.5
2.3
1.5
130
100
100
Table 1. Respondent’ occupation.
213
Cumulative
Percent
3.8
4.6
5.4
6.2
6.9
8.5
9.2
10.8
12.3
13.1
15.4
18.5
20
20.8
22.3
23.1
23.8
25.4
26.2
26.9
27.7
30
32.3
33.1
33.8
35.4
38.5
40
41.5
80.8
94.6
96.2
98.5
100
Section B: Languages learning background.
Q12: Knowledge of English and other foreign languages.
a) Respondents’ proficiency in English.
Listening
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group I
Group II
Group III
Total by Groups
Elementary
0%
15%
23%
11,5%
Basic
16%
12,5%
35%
20,8%
Intermediate
72%
40%
22,5%
46,9%
Proficient
12%
32,5%
20%
20,8%
Figure 1. Groups * English listening crosstabulation.
Speaking
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group I
Group II
Group III
Total by Groups
Elementary
0%
7,5%
22,5%
9,2%
Basic
14%
20%
37,5%
23,1%
Intermediate
72%
42,5%
20%
46,9%
Figure 2. Groups * English speaking crosstabulation.
214
Proficient
14%
30%
20%
20,8%
Reading
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group I
Group II
Group III
Total by Groups
Elementary
0%
5%
10%
4,6%
Basic
8%
12,5%
15%
11,5%
Intermediate
76%
42,5%
35%
53,1%
Proficient
16%
40%
40%
30,8%
Figure 3. Groups * English reading crosstabulation.
Writing
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group I
Group II
Group III
Total by Groups
Elementary
0%
10%
15%
7,7%
Basic
16%
20%
25%
20%
Intermediate
74%
35%
37,5%
50,8%
Figure 4. Groups * English writing crosstabulation.
215
Proficient
10%
35%
22,5%
21,5%
Q12 * Q5:
Basic
Secondary
English Plus
English
English + 1
English + 2 or 
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group I
Group II
Group III
90%
NA
NA
61.5%
NA
NA
25%
NA
NA
Complete
Secondary
10%
7.1%
NA
38.5%
5.6%
NA
75%
NA
NA
Education
Technical
Incomplete
Higher
Education
NA
NA
7.1%
NA
8.3%
12.5%
NA
5.6%
6.7%
-
Table 2. Groups * Education * English Plus crosstabulation.
216
Higher
Education
NA
85.7%
79.2%
NA
83.3%
86.7%
NA
62.5%
100%
Post-Graduate
NA
5.6%
6.7%
NA
37.5%
NA
Section С: Competence, types of English and motivation.
Q16: Language competence.
Group I
Group II
Group III
16(a)
16(b)
16(c)
16(d)
16(e)
16(a)
16(b)
16(c)
16(d)
16(e)
16(a)
16(b)
16(c)
16(d)
16(e)
To a great extent
N
%
15
30%
11
22%
19
38%
19
38%
19
38%
20
50%
16
40%
18
45%
13
32.5%
16
40%
9
22.5%
11
27.5%
18
45%
9
22.5%
11
27.5%
To a certain extent
N
%
30
60%
27
54%
30
60%
24
48%
29
58%
16
40%
19
47.5%
16
40%
21
52.5%
18
45%
16
40%
11
27.5%
16
40%
17
42.5%
19
47.5%
Very little
N
%
5
10%
12
24%
1
2%
5
10%
2
4%
3
7.5%
5
12.5%
5
12.5%
2
5%
6
15%
12
30%
13
32.5%
2
5%
6
15%
0
25%
Table 3. Groups * Q16 crosstabulation.
217
Not at all
N
Total
%
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
4
0
3
5
4
8
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5%
NA
2.5%
10%
NA
7.5%
12.5%
10%
20%
NA
N
50
50
50
50
50
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Section D: Language acquisition and preference for an English variety.
Q24: Standard English varieties vs. other English varieties.
Agree
N
24(a)
24(b)
24(c)
24(d)
92
6
55
102
%
70.8%
4.6%
42.3%
78.5%
I don't know
N
%
14
10.8%
20
15.4%
21
16.2%
11
8.5%
Disagree
N
NA
%
13
84
41
4
Total
N
10%
64.6%
31.5%
3.1%
%
8.5%
15.4%
10%
10%
11
20
13
13
N
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
130
130
130
130
Table 4. Respondents’ opinions about Standard English and English varieties.
Agree
N
Group I
Group II
Group III
24(a)
24(b)
24(c)
24(d)
24(a)
24(b)
24(c)
24(d)
24(a)
24(b)
24(c)
24(d)
39
2
17
41
26
2
17
30
27
2
21
31
%
78%
4%
34%
82%
65%
5%
42.5%
75%
67.5%
5%
52.5%
77.5%
I don't know
N
%
5
10%
6
12%
6
12%
4
8%
3
7.5%
7
17.5%
10
25%
3
7.5%
6
15%
7
17.5%
5
12.5%
4
10%
Disagree
N
%
3
35
24
0
6
24
6
2
4
25
11
2
Table 5. Groups * Q24 crosstabulation.
218
NA
6%
70%
48%
NA
15%
60%
15%
5%
10%
62.5%
27.5%
5%
N
Total
%
3
7
3
5
5
7
7
5
3
6
3
3
6%
14%
6%
10%
12.5%
17.5%
17.5%
12.5%
7.5%
15%
7.5%
7.5%
N
50
50
50
50
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Section E: Attitudes towards the use of English in everyday life.
Q29: English in speech.
True
N
29(a)
29(b)
29(c)
False
%
21.5%
71.5%
14.6%
28
93
19
N
100
34
109
NA
%
76.9%
26.2%
83.8%
N
Total
%
2
3
2
N
1.5%
2.3%
1.5%
130
130
130
%
100%
100%
100%
Table 6. Respondents’ opinions about the use of English in speech.
Q30: Attitudes towards the presence of English.
Agree
N
30(a)
30(b)
30(c)
30(d)
30(e)
30(f)
30(g)
10
10
22
113
108
24
0
%
7.7%
7.7%
16.9%
86.9%
83.1%
18.5%
NA
I don't know
N
%
13
10%
16
12.3%
31
23.8%
7
5.4%
12
9.2%
21
16.2%
13
10%
Disagree
N
99
97
67
6
7
79
108
NA
%
76.2%
74.6%
51.5%
4.6%
5.4%
60.8%
83.1%
N
Table 7. Respondents’ opinions about the presence of English in daily life.
219
8
7
10
4
3
6
9
Total
%
6.2%
5.4%
7.7%
3.1%
2.3%
4.6%
6.9%
N
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Agree
N
Group I
Group II
Group III
30(a)
30(b)
30(c)
30(d)
30(e)
30(f)
30(g)
30(a)
30(b)
30(c)
30(d)
30(e)
30(f)
30(g)
30(a)
30(b)
30(c)
30(d)
30(e)
30(f)
30(g)
%
3
3
2
50
43
10
0
7
7
4
26
26
10
0
0
0
16
37
39
4
0
6%
6%
4%
100%
86%
20%
NA
17.5%
17.5%
10%
65%
65%
25%
NA
NA
NA
40%
92.5%
97.5%
10%
NA
I don't know
N
%
3
6%
7
14%
8
16%
0
NA
6
12%
5
10%
1
2%
5
12.5%
6
15%
15
37.5%
7
17.5%
6
15%
11
27.5%
7
17.5%
5
12.5%
3
7.5%
8
20%
0
NA
0
NA
5
12.5%
5
12.5%
Disagree
N
40
37
36
0
0
33
46
26
26
18
5
6
18
31
33
34
13
1
1
28
31
Table 8. Groups * Q30 crosstabulation.
220
%
80%
74%
72%
NA
NA
66%
92%
65%
65%
45%
12.5%
15%
45%
77.5%
82.5%
85%
32.5%
2.5%
2.5%
70%
77.5%
NA
N
4
3
4
0
1
2
3
2
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
2
0
3
4
Total
%
8%
6%
8%
NA
2%
4%
6%
5%
2.5%
7.5%
5%
5%
2.5%
5%
5%
7.5%
7.5%
5%
NA
7.5%
10%
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Section F: The future of English.
Q32: Opinions about the future of English in Russia.
Agree
N
32(a)
32(b)
32(c)
32(d)
32(e)
32(f)
32(g)
32(h)
76
30
81
100
57
21
13
87
%
58.5%
23.1%
62.3%
76.9%
43.8%
16.2%
10%
66.9%
I don't know
N
%
23
17.7%
42
32.3%
21
16.2%
20
15.4%
43
33.1%
45
34.6%
37
28.5%
33
25.4%
Disagree
N
28
55
22
9
26
59
73
8
NA
%
21.5%
42.3%
16.9%
6.9%
20%
45.4%
56.2%
6.2%
Table 9. Respondents’ opinions about the future of English.
221
N
3
3
6
1
4
5
7
2
Total
%
2.3%
2.3%
4.6%
0.8%
3.1%
3.8%
5.4%
1.5%
N
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Agree
N
Group I
Group II
Group III
32(a)
32(b)
32(c)
32(d)
32(e)
32(f)
32(g)
32(h)
32(a)
32(b)
32(c)
32(d)
32(e)
32(f)
32(g)
32(h)
32(a)
32(b)
32(c)
32(d)
32(e)
32(f)
32(g)
32(h)
25
14
35
37
16
6
7
32
24
9
21
26
17
7
4
26
27
7
25
37
24
8
2
29
%
50%
28%
70%
74%
32%
12%
14%
64%
60%
22.5%
52.5%
65%
42.5%
17.5%
10%
65%
67.5%
17.5%
62.5%
92.5%
60%
20%
5%
72.5%
I don't know
N
%
10
20%
11
22%
6
12%
7
14%
27
54%
16
32%
13
26%
12
24%
7
17.5%
18
45%
11
27.5%
10
25%
9
22.5%
22
55%
14
35%
14
35%
6
15%
13
32.5%
4
10%
3
7.5%
7
17.5%
7
17.5%
10
25%
7
17.5%
Disagree
N
15
24
6
5
5
25
28
5
7
11
7
4
12
9
19
0
6
20
9
0
9
25
26
3
Table 10. Groups * Q32 crosstabulation.
222
NA
%
30%
48%
12%
10%
10%
50%
56%
10%
17.5%
27.5%
17.5%
10%
30%
22.5%
47.5%
NA
15%
50%
22.5%
NA
22.5%
62.5%
65%
7.5%
N
Total
%
0
1
3
1
2
3
2
1
2
2
1
0
2
2
3
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
NA
2%
6%
2%
4%
6%
4%
2%
5%
5%
2.5%
NA
5%
5%
7.5%
NA
2.5%
NA
5%
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5%
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%