Globalization and English as a Lingua Franca:
is there the future of carbon copy or inimitable societies?
Irina Khoutyz
Abstract
Globalization is often blamed for turning modern societies into carbon copies of
one another (see, for example, Cronin 2003), with the English language affecting
modern languages and local communication styles. However, on closer
observation, it seems that some trends indicate that the spread of the lingua franca,
conditioned by transformations in other areas of people’s lives, brings about
counterbalancing tendencies.
This research analyses the effects of globalization on Russian society as well as the
counterbalancing tendencies spurred by globalization. As the results of the analysis
show, globalization is often misinterpreted by Russians and is blamed for
processes which in reality have a unique national flavour and are not consequences
of globalization. The most frequent complaints are about the reforms in the sphere
of education and the loss of national features in language and culture. However, as
this article states, the widespread use of anglicisms in Russian has many positive
features and is actually enriching the language, making it more flexible and
expressive. Russians enjoy the consequences of globalization on an everyday basis
(instant access to the latest information and films, equal or improving standards of
goods and services, etc.) without losing their cultural characteristics. Meanwhile,
more attention has been paid to the status of the Russian language, and business
culture has become more varied and dynamic.
Hence, I conclude that globalization will not turn our cultures into carbon copy
societies. On the contrary, the appearance of features that establish our cultures and
languages as unique is intensified.
Key Words: Effects of globalization, lingua franca, anglicisms, duality,
counterbalancing measures, communication.
*****
1. Defining Globalization: Everybody Sees What They Want To See
The phenomenon of globalization is so multifaceted that it is not easy for either
researchers with academic backgrounds or the general public to come to a unified
conclusion about what exactly globalization is. Contemporary American academic
Richard Lee, in his book ‘Globalization, Language, and Culture’, mentions that:
2
Globalization and English as a Lingua Franca
__________________________________________________________________
The late-20th-century phenomenon referred to as globalization
is a web of economic, political, linguistic, and cultural effects
enabled by advances in communication technology and led by
the development of computer chips. There have been at least
two other times in history when culture, language, and
economics combined to create a movement toward what can
be called a global state. The first is the spread of the Roman
Empire; the second is the growth of British imperial
dominion.1
Fairclough in ‘Language and Globalization’2 pays more attention to how
globalization affects languages and explains why it is impossible to separate
language from globalization. He establishes the following connection: social
changes, that is, changes in a particular social entity, bring about changes in
institutions and organisations. Thus, according to Fairclough, there are three levels
which allow us to observe transformations within societies caused by globalization:
1) social structures; 2) social practices; and 3) social events. 3 This view of
globalization stresses the fact that globalization simultaneously affects all strata of
society; at this stage, the process cannot be regulated by representatives of the
society.
Contemporary linguist Cronin places globalization in a negative context, warns
about its ‘dark side’, and sees ‘duplication’ as disadvantage. Cronin vividly
describes it in the following way:
Different countries, different continents but same McDonald’s
chains, same episodes of Dallas or Friends, same Disney
films in the same multiplexes, same Microsoft Windows and
same Britney Spears. This is doubling as a chain reaction. The
death of diversity then is the spread of the Double.4
It seems that globalization is defined based on whatever the researcher chooses
to focus upon. Moreover, the socio-cultural background of the author is also
important: for someone from a well-developed and stable economy, McDonald’s
chains all over the world mean duplication, but for persons from nations that have
been deprived of economic opportunities, the appearance of McDonald’s might
mean a great step forward towards a life they thought they would never have, a life
with quality standards, consumer possibilities, and expanded job markets equal to
those in developed economies.5
To conclude, there is no established (or unemotional) understanding of what
globalization is. To prove this point, a survey was conducted among students
specialising in foreign languages and linguistics at Kuban State University in
Irina Khoutyz
3
__________________________________________________________________
Krasnodar, Russia. All the students who participated in the survey understand
globalization as a process by which world cultures become interconnected; in their
explanations of globalization, they used words like ‘uniting’, ‘interconnectedness’,
‘integration’, ‘unification’. However, although the students generally shared a
similar understanding of the phenomenon, 24% of students saw only negative
consequences of globalization and 17% saw only positive effects of globalization.
The majority of students (59%) saw both positive and negative effects of
globalization on modern societies. The main disadvantage of globalization (cited
by 59%) is the loss of a culturally distinctive character of modern society.
Ironically, when one student (who is currently enrolled in an exchange programme
and is very happy to be studying in an American university) was asked to explain
why she was so negative about globalization, she said that globalization makes
second generation immigrants unwilling to speak their parents’ language. But the
reason for that is obviously connected with cultural accommodation rather than
globalization.
When the students were asked to describe how they personally experienced the
effects of globalization, they mentioned equal access to information and films,
equal or improving standards of goods and services, chain restaurants and cafes,
etc., employers’ increasing desire to hire specialists who speak English, easy
communication with people in other countries, and mobility. Nobody mentioned
that his or her cultural identity had been changed or suffered because of
globalization. A few people mentioned changes in the Russian education system,
which has become more westernized. Indeed, the necessity for the Bologna Process
reform seems to have been caused by globalization. However, the essence of this
reform has a very typical Russian flavour.
This simple experiment proves that the same phenomenon is interpreted
differently even among members of a rather homogeneous group within the same
society. The interpretation of events is often made subjectively. Globalization is
often blamed for changes initiated by local governments.
In my research, I intend to analyse the effects of globalization in Russia – a
country which, I think, has benefited from these changes while preserving its
typical local practices. The linguistic changes that reflect transformations in
people’s mentalities are discussed as significant evidence of the effect of
globalization on Russian culture. Globalization’s effects are further observed in
education and the business sector. While discussing these changes, I emphasize the
fact that similar processes of globalization were initiated in countries with diverse
economies, politics and, more importantly, lifestyles. This is especially true when
speaking about Russia, which had to very quickly attempt to switch from the
Soviet planned economy to a free market economy and become interconnected
with other countries.
2. Linguistic Effects Of Globalization: New Linguistic Word Order
4
Globalization and English as a Lingua Franca
__________________________________________________________________
The influence of globalization on modern languages has been characterised by
linguists in different ways depending on their area of research. For example, some
of those who concentrate on the field of sociolinguistics point towards the
establishment of a new linguistic world order facilitated by globalization and the
creation of new economic trading blocs.6 The latter processes intensify
interconnectedness and shared interests among modern societies, which are
reflected in ‘the linguistic relations of the world’s peoples’7. Crystal, who is mostly
concerned with the status of English as a lingua franca and its influence on modern
languages, points out that globalization processes transcend individual language
situations, putting a new value on multilingualism and at the same time increasing
the role of local languages in the expression of peoples’ identities.8 It seems that
globalization intensifies this kind of duality in cultures and languages.
The influence of English on modern languages is not limited to the most
obvious lexical transformations – the appearance of new words borrowed from
English and the assignment of new meanings to existing words. More importantly,
English borrowings also appear in grammar, which is much less flexible than
vocabulary: words have appeared that do not change their form, thus demonstrating
more features of the analytical (English) rather than synthetic (Russian) language.
The changes in lexis and grammar are a reflection of the development of new
cognitive patterns verbalised mostly by means of associations, metaphorisation
processes, etc. A borrowing is often used to express a connotation of elitism while
at the same time changing the modality of the discourse and implicatively
transmitting the speaker’s attitude towards the issue being discussed.9
Gottlieb points out that today ‘anglicisms constitute perhaps the strongest
unifying factor among the world’s languages’ and ‘have become the epitome of the
so-called globalization’10. Erling and Walton note that English is a corporate lingua
franca: in Germany it ‘no longer functions as a foreign language, but more like a
second or additional language’11. Gani talks about Italians’ zeal ‘for lacing their
language with English words’, which can appear in everyday conversations and in
mass media. The latter makes ‘widespread use of English terms and expressions’12.
A ‘modern’ identity in contemporary South Korea ‘is virtually guaranteed through
acquisition and use of English’ which basically means ‘being modern’, that is,
‘being international, progressive, futuristic, and fun-loving’13.
The terminological or professional character of borrowings and their obvious
belonging to a certain social stage associated with new opportunities and prosperity
are the main reasons borrowings have a bright pragmatic meaning, and not only in
the Russian language. In many societies, especially in Eastern Europe, the first
traces of globalization appeared with the collapse of the soviet state. That is why
English borrowings function as ideological markers for many modern societies: in
modern Russian, for example, ‘there is an obvious tendency towards the use of
vocabulary borrowed from English to distinguish between the periods before
(soviet ideology) and after (market orientation) perestroika’14 and to signal
Irina Khoutyz
5
__________________________________________________________________
belonging to a world without boundaries. Similar ideological connotations of
anglicisms have been observed in the Uzbek language, which was cleansed of
Russian borrowings in the early 1990s and started using anglicisms as a trademark
of modernity. 15 An analysis of discourses in which anglicisms were found revealed
that it is possible to characterize these words as:16
1.
Modality markers, which underscore the positive, up-to-date,
successful qualities of the phenomenon being described.
2.
Implicational markers, which indirectly emphasize the special
qualities of the phenomenon, its elitism and uniqueness.
3.
Choice markers, which reflect the fact that the addresser specifically
preferred a borrowed word to a local synonym.
Anglicisms are often used together with their Russian synonyms in the same
context. In such cases, the narration usually opens with a borrowing to stress the
topicality of the issue and thus attract the target audience’s attention.
Taking into consideration the extensive research on anglicisms and analyses of
discourses featuring these words, I conclude that borrowings in general and
anglicisms in particular enrich a language and turn it into an up-to-date and flexible
means of communication. Among the most obvious advantages of anglicisms are
features such as: 1) a quick means to fill in communicative gaps in areas which
were undeveloped before globalization. For example, the Russian language did not
have a rich system of terms describing financial relations, which were considered
somewhat shameful in Russian culture for a long period of time; 2) meaning
diversification: anglicisms promote the expansion of synonymic chains. In such a
way, more and more synonyms are created, each with a very specific meaning –
the more accepted the expansion of synonyms becomes in a society, the more
specific the related vocabulary system becomes. Expanding the vocabulary of a
language makes it adaptable in current usage and makes it possible to construct
more and more ways to describe modernity; 3) acquainting Russian people with
foreign cultures and at the same time constructing people’s global identities, which
makes it easier for people to adapt to foreign environments, to travel and thus in
the end to be more tolerant towards others; 4) testifying to people’s increased
knowledge and interest about the world around them. This eventually leads to
easier communication between cultures as English serves as a means to construct
common ground; 5) ideological reference: anglicisms were and still are used for
ideological reasons, mainly to distinguish between the periods before perestroika
(soviet ideology) and after (market orientation); 6) economy of use: the necessity
for linguistic economy arises from the compromise between efficient
communication and the constant human desire to invest as little strength in this
process as possible. The creation of ‘more meanings than utterances’ 17 is viewed as
the goal of language evolution and is certainly connected with an increasing
number of interpretations depending on contextual specifications.
6
Globalization and English as a Lingua Franca
__________________________________________________________________
All in all, the increasing number of anglicisms at all levels of communication
demonstrates the development of new identities which combine unique local
features together with global ones. This was observed by Stuart Hall18 and Anthony
Giddens19, who spoke about the development of hybrid identities which ‘identify
themselves with local, national, European and even global levels of society’ 20.
However, the rise of hybrid identities can cause ‘a counter-modern reaction,
seeking to protect national culture and tradition’21. This idea was demonstrated by
Danish linguists who examined the construction of both national and international
identities in legal discourse in which ‘the (re)construction of national identity is
accompanied by a competing discursive force, aiming at the construction of a
European identity’22. This shows once again that duality, reflected in symbiosis of
local and global aspects, is a feature of many modern societies.
3. Some Features Of The Russian Face Of Globalization
3.1 Education: the Bologna Process and language planning policies
The most obvious attempt of Russia to ‘globalize’ can be seen in the way the
country has drastically changed its education system. In 2003, Russia joined the
Bologna Process and embarked on a very controversial road of reforming its
educational system. The main reason for this decision, according to the Russian
government, was the necessity to promote academic mobility for both students and
professors and create educational standards similar to those in Western countries.
The changes were very slow because many representatives of the Russian
academic elite considered the existing system of education good enough and the
changes unnecessary.23However, in 2009, a unified state exam was introduced for
high school graduates throughout Russia. This exam is similar to the British Alevels or American SATs. Two of the exams – mathematics and Russian – are
obligatory. All other subjects are chosen by school graduates depending on their
plans for higher education.
Naturally, the reform of the Russian system of education has been conditioned
by globalization processes. However, it spurred a few counterbalancing measures,
the most important of which is the growing importance of the Russian language
test score. All high school graduates must take this exam. Moreover, high test
scores in Russian, for example, are a prerequisite for those who want to receive a
university degree in any field from any university in the country. Before the
changes in the Russian educational system, the Russian language exam was only
for those school leavers who were going to study in philology or foreign languages
departments.
The other educational reform measures are less important from the linguistic
point of view, yet the globalization-influenced changes nevertheless carry an
obvious ‘Russian flavour’. Most academic standards at the university level were
changed in 2010. According to the new standards, after graduation, students can
Irina Khoutyz
7
__________________________________________________________________
continue their education in numerous master degree programs. The bachelor and
master degree programs were constructed in such a way as to provide all lecturers
and professors with teaching hours. Physical education lessons were not reduced or
given the status of optional classes. However, students studying linguistics and
foreign languages experienced a noticeable cut in how many hours they had
English language classes and especially German classes (their second language), as
well as in the overall number of classes which they had to take to acquire their
degree.
The so-called ‘third generation’ standards (introduced in 2011) provided the
four-year academic program in linguistics with even fewer teaching hours devoted
to foreign languages and related subjects. The credit system was introduced.
However, it was stipulated that 1 credit equaled 36 academic hours. All the courses
and professors’ academic workload were still calculated in the old familiar way –
by academic hours. It seems that the main reason for all the changes is to cut state
spending on academic programs and limit the number of students who are able to
study free of charge.
3.2 Business practices
Many things have changed in Russian business culture following the collapse
of the Soviet Union and the rise of globalization. When perestroika started, Russia
lacked understanding of some norms of business behavior which seemed quite
established in western countries. As Nancy Ries noted, ‘when McDonald’s opened
in Moscow (in 1990 – I.K.) they trained young workers in ‘cheerfulness’; this
training included a segment on ‘how to smile’24.
Groznaya, an expert in intercultural communication, says that the variety of
business practices in contemporary Russia is explained by three unique
combinations of circumstances: a geographic location and environment ‘that has
forced people to adjust to unpredictable and often severe climate conditions. This
has created a collectivist, enduring and fatalistic mentality. The second factor is the
Orthodox Christian ethic that emphasized forbearance, obedience and strict
hierarchy. Third, the rapid historical changes of the 19th century partly destroyed
the previous culture and brought to life a new, communist and later postcommunist mentality’25. Elena Groznaya singles out three co-existing types of
business cultures in current Russia: the Russian technocrat, the first Russian
entrepreneurs, and the new generation of modern Russians, many of whom
received their education abroad and speak English fluently.
However, all the three types of business cultures exist in the same society and
hence share a few similarities. These similarities are caused by specific aspects of
Russian culture and can be affected by globalization only to a certain extent.
Russian business culture is usually short-term oriented and there is not much
information flow between hierarchical levels of the same company. Most
importantly, all generations share a flexible approach to rules and regulations.
8
Globalization and English as a Lingua Franca
__________________________________________________________________
There is one more thing that has caused changes in business communication –
the increased awareness of the connection between the success of phatic
communication, that is, small talk, and furthering the business relationship. In
Russia, a culture of business communication with service efficiency was nonexistent during the Soviet era, which explains why many Russians are not
conscious of small talk. In Soviet times, small talk was considered to be a part of
capitalist culture and was replaced by slogans and mottos created by the
Communist party and aimed at the agricultural population and blue-color workers.
Still, in Russia people are often not aware of small talk as such. This ‘superficial
conversation’ is, indeed, often regarded as a waste of time and an indication of a
lack of appropriate respect towards an addressee, thus leading to two
communicative strategies – either investing time into discussing such topics as
health, family, hobbies, etc. in more detail or broaching the subject of the
conversation without much further ado. A conversation which might have started
as small talk, if successful, will turn into a discussion of more serious and personal
issues. Moreover, conversations often turn to litanies which are a typical Russian
strategy of sharing and are ‘culturally patterned expressions of fear, anxiety,
disappointments, frustration’26. This manner of communication is essential for
expressing people’s identities and worldview, ‘personal aspirations and social
expectation’27. The Russian type of small talk can be quite surprising for those
expecting small talk, according to Laney28, to last from five to 20 minutes and
consist of four distinct stages: opening, sustaining, transitional and closing. A
typical conversation for many Russians means sharing problems with new people
and letting them know how to avoid making similar mistakes; criticising the
government and its policies is a very popular topic for discussion. The format of
small talk is also quite new for Russians who are used to gatherings where people
have known each other for quite a while and are going to spend considerable time
sitting at the dinner table next to each other.
5. Conclusion
The effects of globalization are experienced at different levels of modern
societies. Russians, for instance, westernize their communication styles and
anglicize their discourses. Other spheres of life, such as education, are also
transformed into more globally recognisable patterns. These changes make people
worried about a possible loss of unique cultural features of their societies and their
own cultural identities. At the same time, benefits of interconnection of nations and
their common development, ‘a new milestone in human progress’ 29, are often
forgotten. Moreover, globalization is often misinterpreted and tends to be blamed
for the mistakes and inefficiencies of local governments.
As it can be seen from the analysis of the processes happening in contemporary
Russia, transformations caused by globalization often strengthen local practices
which continue to co-exist together with more unified global organisation of
Irina Khoutyz
9
__________________________________________________________________
reality. This means that nations preserve their unique features at the same time
adjusting to requirements of modern life and continuing to function within
inimitable, yet more informed about each other societies.
Notes
1
Richard E. Lee, Globalization, Language, and Culture (Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2006).
Norman Fairclough, Language and Globalization (London, New York: Routledge, 2006).
3
Ibid., 33.
4
Michael Cronin, Translation and Globalization (New York: Routledge, 2003), 128.
5
Nancy Ries, Russian Talk. Culture And Conversation During Perestroika (Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press,
1997), 118.
6
Jacque Maurais, ‘Towards a new global linguistic order?’, in Language in a Globalising World, ed. Jacque Maurais,
Michael A. Morris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 13-36.
7
Humphrey Tonkin, ‘The search for a global linguistic strategy’, in Language in a Globalising World, ed. Jacque Maurais,
Michael A. Morris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 319-333.
8
David Crystal, English as a Global Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
9
Irina Khoutyz, ‘Synonyms in Modern Discourse: Marking Communicative Choices’, in Pragmalinguistics and Speech
Practices, ed. Galina G. Matveeva, Irina A. Zyubina (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011), 177182.
10
Henrik Gottlieb, ‘Anglicisms and Translation’, in In and Out of English: For Better, For Worse?, ed. Gunilla Anderman,
Margaret Rogers (Clevedon: Interlingual Matters, 2005), 161-184.
11
Elizabeth Erling, Alon Walton, ‘English at work in Berlin’, English Today 23, # 1 (2007): 32-39.
12
Martin Gani, ‘Anglicizing Italian’, English Today 23 # 1 (2007): 40-41.
13
Jamie Sh. Lee, ‘Linguistic construction of modernity: English mixing in Korean television commercials’, Language and
Society 35 (2006): 59-91.
14
Irina Khoutyz, ‘The pragmatics of anglicisms in modern Russian discourse’, in From International to Local English –
And Back Again (Bern: Peter Lang, 2010), 197-208.
15
Dilbarhon Hasanova, ‘English as a trademark of modernity and elitism’, English Today 26 # 1 (2010): 3-8.
16
Khoutyz, Synonyms in Modern Discourse, 180-181.
17
Peter Grundy, ‘Language evolution, pragmatic inference, and the use of English as a lingua franca’, in Explorations in
Pragmatics (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 2007), 219-256.
18
Stuart Hall, ‘The Question of Cultural Identity’, in Modernity and Its Futures, eds. Stuart Hall et al. (Cambridge, UK:
The Open University, 1992), 273–316.
19
Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1990).
20
Anne Kjær, Lene Palsbro, ‘National identity and law in the context of European integration: the case of Denmark’,
Discourse and Society, 19 (5) (2008): 599-627.
21
Ibid., 600.
22
Ibid., 600.
23
Виктор Садовничий, Lenta.ru, Viewed 6 January 2012, http://www.lenta.ru/lib/14164225/full.htm.
24
Ries, Russian Talk, 118.
25
Elena Groznaya, Conflict of generations: business culture of contemporary Russia, TC-world (e-magaizine), Viewwed 6
January
2012,
http://www.tcworld.info/tcworld/business-culture/article/conflict-of-generations-business-culture-ofcontemporary-russia/.
26
Ries, Russian Talk, 110.
27
Ibid., 110.
28
Marti Laney, The Introvert Advantage: How to Thrive in an Extrovert World. (Workman Publishing Company, 2002).
Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006), 7.
2
Bibliography
Cronin, Michael. Translation and Globalization. London, New York: Routledge, 2003.
Crystal, David. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Erling, Elizabeth, Alan Walton. ‘English at work in Berlin’. English Today 23, # 1 (2007): 32-39.
Fairclough, Norman. Language and Globalization. London, New York: Routledge, 2006.
Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006.
Gani, Martin. ‘Anglicizing Italian’. English Today 23, # 1 (2007): 40-41.
Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990.
Gottlieb, Henrik. ‘Anglicisms and Translation’. In In and Out if English: For Better, For Worse?, edited by Gunilla
Anderman, Margaret Rogers, 161-184. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 2005.
Groznaya, Elena. ‘Conflict of generations: business culture of contemporary Russia’, TC-world (e-magazine). Viewed 6
January
2012.
http://www.tcworld.info/tcworld/business-culture/article/conflict-of-generations-business-culture-ofcontemporary-russia/.
Grundy, Peter. ‘Language evolution, pragmatic inference, and the use of English as a lingua franca’. In Explorations in
Pragmatics, edited by Istvan Kecskes, Laurence R Horn, 219-256. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hasanova, Dilbarhon. ‘English as a trademark of modernity and elitism’. English Today 26, # 1 (2010): 3-8.
Hall, Stuart. ‘The Question of Cultural Identity’. In Modernity and Its Futures edited by Stuart Hall, David Held, and Tony
McGrew, 273–316. Cambridge, UK: The Open University, 1992.
Khoutyz, Irina. ‘Synonyms in Modern Discourse: Marking Communicative Choices’. In Pragmalinguistics and Speech
Practices, edited by Galina G. Matveeva, Irina A. Zyubina, 177-182. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 2011.
–––. ‘The pragmatics of anglicisms in modern Russian discourse’. In From International to Local English – And Back
Again, edited by David Crystal, Roberta Facchinetti, and Barbara Seidlhofer, 197-208. Bern: Peter Lang, 2010.
Kjær Anne L., Palsbro Lene. ‘National identity and law in the context of European integration: the case of Denmark’.
Discourse and Society 19 (5) (2008): 599-627.
Laney, Marti. The Introvert Advantage: How to Thrive in an Extrovert World. Workman Publishing Company, 2002.
Lee, Jamie Sh. ‘Linguistic construction of modernity: English mixing in Korean television commercials’. Language and
Society 35 (2006): 59-91.
Lee, Richard E. Globalization, Language, and Culture. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 2005.
Maurais, Jacque. ‘Towards a new global linguistic order?’. In Language in a Globalising World, edited by Jacque Maurais,
Michael A. Morris, 13-36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Ries, Nancy. Russian Talk. Culture and Conversation during perestroika. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 1997.
Tonkin, Humphrey. ‘The search for a global linguistic strategy’. In Language in a Globalising World, edited by Jacque
Maurais, Michael A. Morris, 319-333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Садовничий, Виктор, Lenta.ru. Viewed 6 January 2012. http://www.lenta.ru/lib/14164225/full.htm.
Irina Khoutyz is professor, head of Fundamental and Applied Linguistics Division within the Department of RomanceGermanic Language at Kuban State University (Krasnodar, Russia). Her area of interests includes pragmatics, intercultural
communication, discourse analysis, and sociolinguistics.
29