English As a Lingua Franca in Russia: a Sociolinguistic Profile of Three Generations of English Users

Home , Alsou, Chinglish, Grammatical modifier, Pidgin, Runglish, Russian declension

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.

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

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 65 3.3. English influencing Russian 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

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

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 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.

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 post- communist 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.

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.

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 glasnost’ (“openness”), perestroyka (“restructuring”), demokratizatsiya (“democratization”), and uskorenie (“acceleration” 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.

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.

[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:

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 poor- but-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 English- speaking 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.

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 English- speaking 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. Shakh- Nazarova.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.

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).

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.

11 Country Mln 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.

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.

“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:

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.

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 Anglo- American 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:

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.

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).

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 Russian- Spanish 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.

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.

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 21st 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

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 Urbana- Champaign (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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 so- called “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).

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.

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 Proficient language speakers proficiency

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

‘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.

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.

“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.

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 non- mother 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).

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.

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 Inner circle 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

“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

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).

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.

[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 ever- increasing 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).

The associations with EFL are closely bound with the ancestral homeland of the language and, consequently, with its native speakers. Accordingly, the attainment of near- native 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 co- constructing a viable modus operandi to achieve a communicative goal… In such situations it would be internationally counter- productive, 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).

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 ad hoc, negotiated

Objectives integration, membership in NS intelligibility, communication community in a NNS or mixed NNS-NS interaction Processes imitation, adoption accommodation, adaptation

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,

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 near- native 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.

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.

This attempt signifies Russia’s joining the communion with world Englishes (…) And though English in Russia is primarily Anglo- British 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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

First of all, it needs to be said that it [Russian Ruglish] is a socially marked sublanguage spoken by educated young people with western- oriented 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.).

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.

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 English- Russian 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).

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 VIP zona VIP area, WEB страницы WEB-stranitsy 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).

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 (Genitive case, from web-surfing), na display-e (Prepositional case, on the display), babysitter-u (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.

Some nouns are formed by adding a Russian suffix to an English word, e.g. looser- stvo, 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-struktura ‘sales structure’, business-zhurnal ‘business-journal’, roman-fentezi ‘fantasy fiction’.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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)

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 American- Style 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, ITAR- TASS, Prime-Tass, RIA-novosti, and Prima-News. In Moscow, books in English can be bought in the bookstores Moskva and Biblio- Globus 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.

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, hip- hop, 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 made- in-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.

Ladies and Gentelmen, Ladies and Gentelmen, Lyubite svoy gorod Love your city Tak kak Timati i Dj Smash lyubyat Just as Timati and Dj Smash love Moskvu. Moscow. Moscow never sleeps. Moscow never sleeps. Vse samye krasivye Ladies All the most beautiful Ladies Dobro pozhalovat’ v stolitsu. 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%

32 2. I don’t care as soon as there is no accent like in Ryazan. 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.

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.

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

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).

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. Tekhnologiya sovershenstva” – ‘Happy Book. Technology of Perfection’);

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.

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)

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 di- dzheya 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)

Business lexis: To, chto nevozmozhno zamylit’ nikakimi mificheskimi “market-resyochami” i “fild- reportami”. 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)

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).

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.

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?

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.

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 2011-

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 non- university 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 Federation for Information and

103

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 non- specialists 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: EIIL: English as a Foreign English as Language an International Language Scope and Depth of General English General English Language Treatment English for Special Purposes English for Special Purposes “Officialdom” Public school subject international business Function ads sports news diplomacy travel entertainment Purpose of Learning a) limited use as a tool for for international interactions jobs Communications: high priority b) higher education Communication: low priority Student Population non-native speakers native and non-native speakers Language Model educated native speaker any educated English speaker (native speaker, local, or regional) Performance Target performance level of educated mutual intelligibility and native speaker appropriate language for situation

Language Interactors (L2↔L1) (L2↔L1) international

(L2↔L2) international

(L1 ↔L1) Cultural Emphasis 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 Euro- English 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]: yah we have something like midterm but it’s not <3> really the real <4> exam (.) (VOICE: EDcon521)

2. Absence of the third person present tense -s, S10 [L1=rus-RU]: er it <1> is 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 (consumal) ending. (VOICE: PBpan28)

121

The following extracts, reproduced in VOICE to illustrate interactions between non- native 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> @@ (826) S5: <1> @@ listening (.) just listening (827) SX-f: the most important is not to <2> fall 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 h (.) 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 three (.) (…) (34) S10: <3> but 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 h (.) 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 (.) (858) SX-f: <3> two times (859) S5: twice a years (.) tw- (860) SX-f: yah (861) S3: twice a? (.) <4> xx (.) (862) S5: <4> a year (863) S3: <5> a year? (864) SX-f: <5> yah (865) SX-f: yeah <6> in winter and in <7> spring (.) (866) S3: <6> no more? (867) SX-f: <6> twice x (868) S5: <7> no more (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 non- native 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 (292) S23: <2> english is like <8> we we can(’t) say that it’s a glob<3>al language

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 both (.) (806) SX: <8> @ (807) S23: norms they can speak british variant american some people choose american some people <1> it doesn’t matter BUT i believe that english franca should be stantard- like (.) (808) S1: <1> mhm (…) (809) S23: er should be standar- standardecide {standardized} ˌˌstændʌrdɪ’saɪd @@ 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 xx the grammar of english is (like) we: shall and i SHALL . the future (.) present. the:n the american variant began and (.) they like the native speaker (began) said i we will and i will. and now ALL people say i will and we will. so it’s like THEY changed their mother tongue <2> a:nd it (.) (810) S1: <2> mhm (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 runglish (812) S1: @@ (813) SS: @ <3> @@ (814) S23: <3> a:nd you know then we okay we can (w-) i can say oh yeah runglish 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 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: <4> @@@@

127

(818) SX-f: hm = (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) x (864) S1: <4> you can react and then <5> you can x (up) (865) S23: <5> it it(’s) the question of quality of language. (.) i believe that <8> e:r like we can use as [S17] said 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 (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 er native english speakers. don’t you think so that we can offend them just er t- c- t- trying to create THEIR language trying to create our own languages like <6> m- crazy (869) S17: <6> but it’s not THEIR (870) S23: <7> crazy mixtures (871) S18: <7> offend them?{brief parallel conversation in background} (872) S1: so (873) S18: so <9> xxx (possible) (874) S23: <9> offend them. (.) because like (.) i don’t know maybe it’s russian nat<@>ion identity <5> but all russians because they’re really offended then (.) (875) SX: <5> @ (876) S23: foreigners trying to (.) re:- reorganize russian language be<1>cause it sounds great it’s our it’s part of CUlture and <2> like english is a part of (.) (877) SX: <1> @ (878) SX-f: <2> mhm (879) S23: [S13] culture is a part of a lot of culture (.) <3> and we <4> just t:rying to r- to: create our own languages.<8> and that sounds like what are you doing

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> imPOssible maybe it’s too hard to do it (1115) S1: <7> mhm (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 u s 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 they they’re studying english for interNAtion communiCAtion (1118) S1: <1> mhm (1119) S1: mhm (1120) S23: but they’re going to NAtive speaking country because <8> they 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 sub- hypotheses:

(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 Total by Groups F 94% 72.5% 75% 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 Total by Groups Moscow 10% 57.5% 60% 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

Group I Group II Group III Total by Groups Student 100% 2.5% NA43 39.2% Higher Education NA 55% 65% 36.9% (architect, doctor, economist, etc.) Professional/Technical Education NA 2.5% 7.5% 3.1% (builder, cook, shop assistant, etc.) Unspecified NA 40% 27.5% 20.8%

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 Post- Secondary 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 Total by Groups Never 28% 10% 0% 13,8% Rarely 38% 40% 40% 39,2% Every Year 34% 50% 60% 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% Total by Group I Group II Group III Groups English 76% 77,5% 92,5% 81,5% English and some other 0% 15% 7,5% 6,9% foreign language None 24% 7,5% 0% 11,5%

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 69,1% None

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.

UK USA UK+USA Other None countries Group I 8% NA NA 4% 88% Group II 12.5% 7.5% NA 5% 75% Group III 30% 12.5% 10% 7.5% 40%

Table 5.8. English-speaking countries visited by groups.

The majority of those respondents who assert they have visited one of the English- speaking 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.

Group I Group II Group III Total by Groups English 100% 90% 100% 96.9% German or French 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% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Listening Speaking Reading Writing A-elementary 11,5% 9,2% 4,6% 7,7% B-basic 20,8% 23,1% 11,5% 20% C-intermediate 46,9% 46,9% 53,1% 50,8% D-proficient 20,8% 20,8% 30,8% 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% C-intermediate 40% 42.5% 42% 35% D-proficient 32.5% 30% 40% 35%

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% D-proficient 20% 20% 40% 22.5%

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% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Group I Group II Group III Total by Groups English 40% 35% 60% 44,6% English + 1 52% 45% 37,5% 45,4% English + 2 or > 8% 20% 2,5% 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% 50% 100%

Total by Group I Group II Group III Groups English + French 32% 25% 15% 24,6% English + German 26% 22,5% 25% 24,6% English + French + German 2% 12,5% 0% 4,6% Other Languages 40% 40% 60% 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 6s + 2/3u 18% 27.5% 47.5% 6s + 5u - 27.5% 37.5% 7s + 2/3c 32% - - 8/9s+2/3c 20% - - Other 30% 45% 15%

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) (b) (c) read and (d) write a (e) speak and understand understand understand a letter in communicate English song English films book written English? in English? lyrics when without in English? you listen to subtitles? music? to a great extent 30% 22% 38% 38% 38% to a certain extent 60% 54% 60% 48% 58% very little 10% 24% 2% 10% 4% not at all 0% 0% 0% 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 (d) write a (e) speak and understand understand understand a letter in communicate English song English films book written English? in English? lyrics when without in English? you listen to subtitles? music? to a great extent 50% 40% 45% 32,5% 40% to a certain extent 40% 47,5% 40% 52,5% 45% very little 7,5% 12,5% 12,5% 5% 15% not at all 2,5% 0% 2,5% 10% 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) (b) (c) read and (d) write a (e) speak and understand understand understand a letter in communicate English song English films book written English? in English? lyrics when without in English? you listen to subtitles? music? to a great extent 22,5% 27,5% 45% 22,5% 27,5% to a certain extent 40% 27,5% 40% 42,5% 47,5% very little 30% 32,5% 5% 15% 25% not at all 7,5% 12,5% 10% 20% 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% American British English Interna- Runglish / Russian English English tional Ruslish English English Group I 0% 66% 26% 8% 0% 0% Group II 12,5% 25% 30% 12,5% 2,5% 17,5% Group III 7,5% 27,5% 27,5% 15% 0% 22,5% Total 6,2% 41,5% 27,7% 11,5% 0,8% 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 English / reading English TV work/study Internet communi- opportuni- travel American books in programs abroad usage cation ties culture original and films Group I 88% 66% 84% 44% 54% 96% 76% 60% Group II 55% 37,5% 85% 52,5% 22,5% 70% 40% 62,5% Group III 40% 30% 95% 50% 27,5% 77,5% 40% 37,5% Total 63,1% 46,2% 87,7% 48,5% 36,2% 82,3% 53,8% 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% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total by Group I Group II Group III Groups very much 92% 85% 75% 84,6% to some extent 8% 15% 25% 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% language language native-speaker school university private tutor school school abroad environment Group I 6% 28% 16% 40% 56% 80% Group II 20% 30% 20% 30% 52,5% 82,5% Group III 22,5% 30% 17,5% 67,5% 67,5% 77,5% Total 15,4% 29,2% 17,7% 45,4% 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 Total by I II III Groups 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 (a) offers more reliable linguistic 92% NA 80% 12.5% 77.5% 10% 83.8% 6.9% knowledge. (b) knows what difficulties you have 28% 58% 30% 67.5% 25% 65% 27.7% 63.1% in learning English. (c) sets a good example of English 80% 6% 82.5% 15% 70% 15% 77.7% 11.5% use. (d) explains grammar 30% 62% 10% 80% 12.5% 72.5% 18.5% 70.8% rules better. (e) has a better 86% 6% 95% NA 77.5% 15% 86.2% 6.9% accent. (f) is a person who is 26% 54% 12.5% 57.5% 15% 67.5% 18.5% 59.2% always ready to help. (g) will help you to achieve native like 82% 12% 90% NA 77.5% 12.5% 83.1% 8.5% English. (h) knows best how the language should 32% 62% 20% 60% 17.5% 70% 23.8% 63.8% be taught.

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% American British English An No opinion English international variety Group I 8% 54% 38% 0% Group II 0% 35% 52,5% 12,5% Group III 0% 45% 50% 5% Total by Groups 3,1% 45,4% 46,2% 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… Group Total I II III by Groups BrE AmE BrE AmE BrE AmE BrE AmE (a) … because this variety is more 86% 6% 85% 10% 75% 7.5% 82.3% 7.7% correct and prestigious. (b) …because this 56% 30% 37.5% 47.5% 52.5% 35% 49.2% 36.9% variety is more natural. (c) …because this variety represents 28% 56% 25% 47.5% 15% 57.5% 23.1% 53.8% progress and individualism. (d) …because this variety represents 88% NA 77.5% NA 80% NA 82.3% NA tradition and spiritual values. (e) …because the 68% 14% 37.5% 2.5% 55% 10% 54.6% 9.2% 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 (c) It is native speakers' right to Disagree decide how English should be NA used.

(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

Group I Group II Group III (a) Standard English means British English. 78% 65% 67.5% (b) Standard English means American English. 4% 5% 5% (c) It is native speakers’ right to decide how English 34% 42.5% 52.5% should be used. (d) There are different kinds of English in the world. 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% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Group I Group II Group III Total by Groups A native-like accent 80% 57,5% 52,5% 64,6% A variety that does not represent one culture or 18% 17,5% 17,5% 17,7% country No opinion 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.

once once once hardly How often do you… never a day a week a month ever

Active experience (a) speak English? 94% 6% NA NA NA (b) write in English? 94% 6% NA NA NA Passive experience (c) hear/listen to English? 100% NA NA NA NA (d) see/read English? 100% NA NA NA NA

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.

once once once hardly How often do you… never a day a week a month ever

Active experience (a) speak English? 40% 27.5% 17.5% 12.5% 2.5% (b) write in English? 30% 30% 15% 22.5% 2.5% Passive experience (c) hear/listen to English? 52.5% 27.5% 15% 5% NA (d) see/read English? 60% 25% 10% 5% NA

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.

once once once hardly How often do you… never a day a week a month ever

Active experience (a) speak English? 22.5% 22.5% 25% 27.5% 2.5% (b) write in English? 22.5% 15% 20% 22.5% 20% Passive experience (c) hear/listen to English? 60% 15% 20% 5% NA (d) see/read English? 47.5% 22.5% 17.5% 7.5% 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 adverti- work- news- music TV other Internet sing place paper Group I 80% 76% 46% 48% 8% 32% 30% Group II 75% 65% 57,5% 40% 75% 22,5% 2,5% Group III 80% 65% 65% 47,5% 57,5% 30% 10% Total by Groups 78,5% 69,2% 55,4% 45,4% 43,8% 28,5% 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% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Total by Group I Group II Group III Groups dubbed 12% 30% 25% 21,50% subtitled 70% 55% 72,50% 66,20% in the original 18% 15% 2,50% 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

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 I don't know one’s English. Disagree (e) useful because it improves NA 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 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. 26.0% 22.0% 7.7% (b) a threat to my culture. 19.0% 13.0% 7.7% (c) a trend not to be taken seriously. 16.0% 32.0% 16.9% (d) useful because it improves one’s English. 89.0% 75.0% 86.9% (e) useful because it improves one’s cultural horizons. 69.0% 77.0% 83.1% (f) Sometimes I am worries about the effects of English NA 25.0% 18.5% on my native language. (g) I don’t really like the English language and NA 5.0% NA sometimes I resent the fact that I am forced to use it.

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… Agree Disagree Group Group I II III I II III (a) a threat to my native language. 6% 17.5% NA 80% 65% 82.5% (b) a threat to my culture. 6% 17.5% NA 74% 65% 85% (c) a trend not to be taken 4% 10% 40% 72% 45% 32.5% seriously. (d) useful because it improves 100% 65% 92.5% NA 12.5% 2.5% one’s English. (e) useful because it improves 86% 65% 97.5% NA 15% 2.5% one’s cultural horizons. (f) Sometimes I am worries about the effects of English on my 20% 25% 10% 66% 45% 70% native language. (g) I don’t really like the English language and sometimes I resent NA NA NA 92% 77.5% 77.5% the fact that I am forced to use it.

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 0.4 Bengali 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.

(d) More English lessons should be Agree taught in Russian schools. I don't know (e) English will be spoken by the Disagree majority of the Russian population. 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.

Agree Disagree Group Group I II III I II III (a) All adult Russians should 50% 60% 67.5% 30% 17.5% 15% be able to speak and understand English without problems. (b) All adult Russians should 28% 22.5% 17.5% 48% 27.5% 50% be able to read and write in English without problems. (c) English should become the 70% 52.5% 62.5% 12% 17.5% 22.5% first foreign language in Russia. (d) More English lessons 74% 65% 92.5% 10% 10% NA should be taught in Russian schools. (e) English will be spoken by 32% 42.5% 60% 10% 30% 22.5% the majority of the Russian population. (f) The percentage of English 12% 17.5% 20% 50% 22.5% 62.5% speakers in Russia will remain the same over time. (g) Fewer people in Russia 14% 10% 5% 56% 47.5% 65% will speak English. (h) English will keep its 64% 65% 72.5% 10% NA 7.5% global position.

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 re- examined 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 English- speaking 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 native- like 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): 13- 24.

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): 171- 186.

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): 18- 24.

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. 1- 15.

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. 3- 26.

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): 35- 41.

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): 437- 438.

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): 119- 131.

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. .

All-Russian Census of Population. 2002b. “Spreading of Knowledge of Languages (except Russian)”. Web. 30 Jul. 2012 .

Aphorisms, Quotations, Sayings, and Proverbs. 2012. “V.G. Belinskiy Aphorisms”. Web. 30 Jul. 2012. .

Blomfield, Adrian. 2007. “English Invades Russian Language”. Telegraph 20: n. pag. Web. 09 Mar. 2010. .

Bovarskaya, Olga. 2005. “Pidgin English”. U-Journal 1 (7): n. pag. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. .

Cleek, Ashley. 2007. “English-Language Students Keep in Contact”. The St. Petersburg Times 1325 (91): n. pag. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. .

English in Russia. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. .

English Russia. 2009. “London, 1970”. 26 Oct. Web. 05 Apr. 2012. .

Eremeeva, Valentina. 2008. “English for All”. Career 12 (119): n. pag. Web. 26. Dec. 2010. .

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. .

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. .

199

Feuer, Alan. 2005. “For the Thirsty Runglish Speaker: Try an Ized Cyawfeh”. Brighton Beach Journal, 14 Jun.: n. pag. Web. 10 July 2009. .

Galkin, Boris. 2006. “Like Native”. Career 2 (87): n. pag. Web. 26 Dec. 2010. .

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. .

Grishaeva, Olga. 2007. “‘NTV Plus’ studied the information”. Business & Financial Markets, 02 Jul.: n. pag. Web. 17 Jul. 2010. .

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. .

Internet World Stats. 2011. “Internet World Usage and Population Statistics”. Web. 18 May 2011. .

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. .

Kalashnikova, Olga. 2009. “Languages Remain in Fashion”. The St. Petersburg Times 1513 (75): n. pag. Web. 24 Apr. 2010. .

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. .

200

Litovskaya, Mariya A. 2008. “Konstruirovanie chuzhogo, ili uchimsya govorit’ po- angliyski”. [Reconstructing a Foreign Language, or We Learn to Speak English]. Neprikosnovenniy zapas 2 (58): n. pag. Web. 01 Apr. 2012. .

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. .

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. .

Nassor, Ali. 2008. “Language Learning Popular as Ever”. The St. Petersburg Times 1351 (15): n. pag. Web. 21 Jan. 2010. .

Non-Fic-Tion. 2009. “Runglish, ili Rungliyskiy yazyk”. [Runglish, or Rungliyskiy]. 23 Jul. Web. 10 Sept. 2010. .

Orban, Leonard. 2007. “The Diversity of Languages – an Opportunity, not an Obstacle”. European Dissemination Conference, 27 Sept. 2007. Web. 24 Dec. 2009. .

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2007. “OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education: Country Background for the Russian Federation”. Web. 10 Jul. 2012. .

Online Forum a. n. d. “Find Friends in England”. Web. 17 Jul. 2010. .

Online Forum b. n. d. “Tyazhyolyi metal iz Rossii i SSSR”. [Heavy Metal from Russia and USSR]. Web. 05 Jul. 2011. .

Pechko, Vasiliy. 2006. “Budushchee russkogo yazyka”. [The Future of the Russian Language]. Vzglyad, 24 Nov.: n .pag. Web. 28 Feb. 2010. .

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.

201

Proshina, Zoya G. 2007. The ABC and Controversies of World Englishes. Khabarovsk: DVIIJ. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. .

Proshina, Zoya G., and Lawrick, Elena. 2009. “The Bibliography of Publications on English in Russia”. English in Russia. 1-29. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. .

The Public Opinion Foundation. 1999. “Russia-Wide Poll of Urban and Rural Populations”. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. .

The Public Opinion Foundation. 2002. “Internet in Russia/Russia in the Internet”. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. .

Radchenko, Ilya. 2008. “Smes’ angliyskogo s ... nizhegorodskim”. [Mixture of English and … the language of Nizhny Novgorod]. Study.ru, Oct. Web. 10 Jan. 2010. .

Rian News. 2010. “Putin Says Sings Songs to Improve His English”. 2 Dec. Web. 01 Jul. 2011 .

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. .

Rosich, Yuriy. 2000. “Internet Development in Russia: Territorial and Institutional Particularities”. Articles on the Runet, 21 Jun. Web. 23 Jun. 2010. .

Rossotrudnichestvo. 2012. “Federal’naya tselevaya programma ‘Russkiy yazyk’ na 2011- 2015 gody”. [Federal Target Program “Russian Language” in 2011-2015]. Decree of the Governement of the Russian Federation N492. 20 Jun. Web. 30 Jun. 2012. .

Russia Federal Agency for Tourism. 2012a. “Statistics of Inbound Tourism in 2011”. Web. 30 Jun. 2012. .

Russia Federal Agency for Tourism, 2012b. “Statistics of Outbound Tourism in 2011”. Web. 30 Jun. 2012. .

Russkaya Gazeta. 2005. “O gosudarstvenom yazyke Rossiyskoy Federatsii”. [On the State Language of the Russian Federation]. Federal Law of the Russian Federation N53, 1st of July 2005. Federal Issue 3789: n. pag. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. .

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. .

Saint Petersburg. 2001-2012. Web. 02 Feb. 2012. .

202

Shearer, Bernard. 2011. “Sochi will speak English – EF is Sochi 2014 Official Supplier”. Education First, 28 Apr. Web. 05 May 2012. .

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. .

Special Eurobarometer. 2006. “Europeans and Their Languages”. European Commission. Web. 26 Dec. 2010 .

The St. Petersburg Times. 2003. “Presidential PR Spun in English”. 878 (46): n. pag. Web. 02 Feb. 2010. .

The St. Petersburg Times. 2008. “Call for Cyrillic Cyberspace”. 1382 (46): n. pag. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. .

Travel Guide. 2003-2012. Web. 02 Feb. 2012. .

Trudgill, Peter. 1999. “Standard English: What It Isn’t”. n. p., n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. .

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. .

Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), n. d. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. .

VisitRussia. 2003-2012. Web. 02 Feb. 2012. .

Voice of Russia. 2012. “About Us”. Web. 05 Jul. 2011. .

Weiner, Cori. 2006. “Finding the Client behind Battering Bureaucracy”. The St. Petersburg Times 1193 (59): n. pag. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. .

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 B = basic C = intermediate D = proficient

Listening Speaking Reading Writing □ English ______□ French ______□ German ______□ Polish ______□ Portuguese ______□ Spanish ______□ ______□ ______

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 to a certain very little not at all extent extent

(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 native English A non-native teacher 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.

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 Agree Disagree NA know (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.

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… once once once hardly never NA a day a week a month ever (a) speak English? □ □ □ □ □ □ (b) write in English? □ □ □ □ □ □ (c) hear/listen to English? □ □ □ □ □ □ (d) see/read English? □ □ □ □ □ □

 NA = Not Applicable 209

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. True 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.

30. Provide your opinion regarding the presence of the English language in daily life.

The presence of the English language in daily life is… Agree I don’t know Disagree NA (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

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 ___ Hindi/Urdu ___ Chinese ___ Portuguese ___ English ___ Russian ___ French ___ Spanish ___ German ___ Japanese ___

32. Express your opinion about the following statements. Be sure to checkmark only one option for each statement.

Agree I don’t know Disagree NA (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. □ □ □ □

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 Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid accountant 5 3.8 3.8 3.8 administrator 1 0.8 0.8 4.6 architect 1 0.8 0.8 5.4 broker 1 0.8 0.8 6.2 builder 1 0.8 0.8 6.9 cook 2 1.5 1.5 8.5 designer 1 0.8 0.8 9.2 diplomat 2 1.5 1.5 10.8 doctor 2 1.5 1.5 12.3 driver 1 0.8 0.8 13.1 economist 3 2.3 2.3 15.4 employee 4 3.1 3.1 18.5 engineer 2 1.5 1.5 20 grocery manager 1 0.8 0.8 20.8 housewife 2 1.5 1.5 22.3 human resources 1 0.8 0.8 23.1 manager information technology 1 0.8 0.8 23.8 lawyer 2 1.5 1.5 25.4 librarian 1 0.8 0.8 26.2 linguist 1 0.8 0.8 26.9 manager 1 0.8 0.8 27.7 musician 3 2.3 2.3 30 office worker 3 2.3 2.3 32.3 pharmaceutist 1 0.8 0.8 33.1 production engineer 1 0.8 0.8 33.8 sales manager 2 1.5 1.5 35.4 secretary 4 3.1 3.1 38.5 serviceman 2 1.5 1.5 40 shop assistant 2 1.5 1.5 41.5 student 51 39.2 39.2 80.8 teacher 18 13.8 13.8 94.6 translator 2 1.5 1.5 96.2 unemployed 3 2.3 2.3 98.5 vice president 2 1.5 1.5 100

Total 130 100 100

Table 1. Respondent’ occupation.

213

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% Elementary Basic Intermediate Proficient Group I 0% 16% 72% 12% Group II 15% 12,5% 40% 32,5% Group III 23% 35% 22,5% 20% Total by Groups 11,5% 20,8% 46,9% 20,8%

Figure 1. Groups * English listening crosstabulation.

Speaking 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Elementary Basic Intermediate Proficient Group I 0% 14% 72% 14% Group II 7,5% 20% 42,5% 30% Group III 22,5% 37,5% 20% 20% Total by Groups 9,2% 23,1% 46,9% 20,8%

Figure 2. Groups * English speaking crosstabulation.

214

Reading 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Elementary Basic Intermediate Proficient Group I 0% 8% 76% 16% Group II 5% 12,5% 42,5% 40% Group III 10% 15% 35% 40% Total by Groups 4,6% 11,5% 53,1% 30,8%

Figure 3. Groups * English reading crosstabulation.

Writing 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Elementary Basic Intermediate Proficient Group I 0% 16% 74% 10% Group II 10% 20% 35% 35% Group III 15% 25% 37,5% 22,5% Total by Groups 7,7% 20% 50,8% 21,5%

Figure 4. Groups * English writing crosstabulation.

215

Q12 * Q5:

Education Basic Complete Technical Incomplete Higher Post-Graduate English Plus Secondary Secondary Higher Education Education English Group I 90% 10% NA NA NA - Group II NA 7.1% 7.1% NA 85.7% - Group III NA NA 8.3% 12.5% 79.2% - English + 1 Group I 61.5% 38.5% NA - NA NA Group II NA 5.6% 5.6% - 83.3% 5.6% Group III NA NA 6.7% - 86.7% 6.7% English + 2 or  Group I 25% 75% - - NA NA Group II NA NA - - 62.5% 37.5% Group III NA NA - - 100% NA

Table 2. Groups * Education * English Plus crosstabulation.

216

Section С: Competence, types of English and motivation.

Q16: Language competence.

To a great extent To a certain extent Very little Not at all Total N % N % N % N % N % Group I 16(a) 15 30% 30 60% 5 10% 0 NA 50 100% 16(b) 11 22% 27 54% 12 24% 0 NA 50 100% 16(c) 19 38% 30 60% 1 2% 0 NA 50 100% 16(d) 19 38% 24 48% 5 10% 2 NA 50 100% 16(e) 19 38% 29 58% 2 4% 0 NA 50 100% Group II 16(a) 20 50% 16 40% 3 7.5% 1 2.5% 40 100% 16(b) 16 40% 19 47.5% 5 12.5% 0 NA 40 100% 16(c) 18 45% 16 40% 5 12.5% 1 2.5% 40 100% 16(d) 13 32.5% 21 52.5% 2 5% 4 10% 40 100% 16(e) 16 40% 18 45% 6 15% 0 NA 40 100% Group III 16(a) 9 22.5% 16 40% 12 30% 3 7.5% 40 100% 16(b) 11 27.5% 11 27.5% 13 32.5% 5 12.5% 40 100% 16(c) 18 45% 16 40% 2 5% 4 10% 40 100% 16(d) 9 22.5% 17 42.5% 6 15% 8 20% 40 100% 16(e) 11 27.5% 19 47.5% 0 25% 0 NA 40 100%

Table 3. Groups * Q16 crosstabulation.

217

Section D: Language acquisition and preference for an English variety.

Q24: Standard English varieties vs. other English varieties.

Agree I don't know Disagree NA Total N % N % N % N % N % 24(a) 92 70.8% 14 10.8% 13 10% 11 8.5% 130 100% 24(b) 6 4.6% 20 15.4% 84 64.6% 20 15.4% 130 100% 24(c) 55 42.3% 21 16.2% 41 31.5% 13 10% 130 100% 24(d) 102 78.5% 11 8.5% 4 3.1% 13 10% 130 100%

Table 4. Respondents’ opinions about Standard English and English varieties.

Agree I don't know Disagree NA Total N % N % N % N % N % Group I 24(a) 39 78% 5 10% 3 6% 3 6% 50 100% 24(b) 2 4% 6 12% 35 70% 7 14% 50 100% 24(c) 17 34% 6 12% 24 48% 3 6% 50 100% 24(d) 41 82% 4 8% 0 NA 5 10% 50 100% Group II 24(a) 26 65% 3 7.5% 6 15% 5 12.5% 40 100% 24(b) 2 5% 7 17.5% 24 60% 7 17.5% 40 100% 24(c) 17 42.5% 10 25% 6 15% 7 17.5% 40 100% 24(d) 30 75% 3 7.5% 2 5% 5 12.5% 40 100% Group III 24(a) 27 67.5% 6 15% 4 10% 3 7.5% 40 100% 24(b) 2 5% 7 17.5% 25 62.5% 6 15% 40 100% 24(c) 21 52.5% 5 12.5% 11 27.5% 3 7.5% 40 100% 24(d) 31 77.5% 4 10% 2 5% 3 7.5% 40 100%

Table 5. Groups * Q24 crosstabulation.

218

Section E: Attitudes towards the use of English in everyday life.

Q29: English in speech.

True False NA Total N % N % N % N % 29(a) 28 21.5% 100 76.9% 2 1.5% 130 100% 29(b) 93 71.5% 34 26.2% 3 2.3% 130 100% 29(c) 19 14.6% 109 83.8% 2 1.5% 130 100%

Table 6. Respondents’ opinions about the use of English in speech.

Q30: Attitudes towards the presence of English.

Agree I don't know Disagree NA Total N % N % N % N % N % 30(a) 10 7.7% 13 10% 99 76.2% 8 6.2% 130 100% 30(b) 10 7.7% 16 12.3% 97 74.6% 7 5.4% 130 100% 30(c) 22 16.9% 31 23.8% 67 51.5% 10 7.7% 130 100% 30(d) 113 86.9% 7 5.4% 6 4.6% 4 3.1% 130 100% 30(e) 108 83.1% 12 9.2% 7 5.4% 3 2.3% 130 100% 30(f) 24 18.5% 21 16.2% 79 60.8% 6 4.6% 130 100% 30(g) 0 NA 13 10% 108 83.1% 9 6.9% 130 100%

Table 7. Respondents’ opinions about the presence of English in daily life.

219

Agree I don't know Disagree NA Total N % N % N % N % N % Group I 30(a) 3 6% 3 6% 40 80% 4 8% 50 100% 30(b) 3 6% 7 14% 37 74% 3 6% 50 100% 30(c) 2 4% 8 16% 36 72% 4 8% 50 100% 30(d) 50 100% 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 50 100% 30(e) 43 86% 6 12% 0 NA 1 2% 50 100% 30(f) 10 20% 5 10% 33 66% 2 4% 50 100% 30(g) 0 NA 1 2% 46 92% 3 6% 50 100% Group II 30(a) 7 17.5% 5 12.5% 26 65% 2 5% 40 100% 30(b) 7 17.5% 6 15% 26 65% 1 2.5% 40 100% 30(c) 4 10% 15 37.5% 18 45% 3 7.5% 40 100% 30(d) 26 65% 7 17.5% 5 12.5% 2 5% 40 100% 30(e) 26 65% 6 15% 6 15% 2 5% 40 100% 30(f) 10 25% 11 27.5% 18 45% 1 2.5% 40 100% 30(g) 0 NA 7 17.5% 31 77.5% 2 5% 40 100% Group III 30(a) 0 NA 5 12.5% 33 82.5% 2 5% 40 100% 30(b) 0 NA 3 7.5% 34 85% 3 7.5% 40 100% 30(c) 16 40% 8 20% 13 32.5% 3 7.5% 40 100% 30(d) 37 92.5% 0 NA 1 2.5% 2 5% 40 100% 30(e) 39 97.5% 0 NA 1 2.5% 0 NA 40 100% 30(f) 4 10% 5 12.5% 28 70% 3 7.5% 40 100% 30(g) 0 NA 5 12.5% 31 77.5% 4 10% 40 100%

Table 8. Groups * Q30 crosstabulation.

220

Section F: The future of English.

Q32: Opinions about the future of English in Russia.

Agree I don't know Disagree NA Total N % N % N % N % N % 32(a) 76 58.5% 23 17.7% 28 21.5% 3 2.3% 130 100% 32(b) 30 23.1% 42 32.3% 55 42.3% 3 2.3% 130 100% 32(c) 81 62.3% 21 16.2% 22 16.9% 6 4.6% 130 100% 32(d) 100 76.9% 20 15.4% 9 6.9% 1 0.8% 130 100% 32(e) 57 43.8% 43 33.1% 26 20% 4 3.1% 130 100% 32(f) 21 16.2% 45 34.6% 59 45.4% 5 3.8% 130 100% 32(g) 13 10% 37 28.5% 73 56.2% 7 5.4% 130 100% 32(h) 87 66.9% 33 25.4% 8 6.2% 2 1.5% 130 100%

Table 9. Respondents’ opinions about the future of English.

221

Agree I don't know Disagree NA Total N % N % N % N % N % Group I 32(a) 25 50% 10 20% 15 30% 0 NA 50 100% 32(b) 14 28% 11 22% 24 48% 1 2% 50 100% 32(c) 35 70% 6 12% 6 12% 3 6% 50 100% 32(d) 37 74% 7 14% 5 10% 1 2% 50 100% 32(e) 16 32% 27 54% 5 10% 2 4% 50 100% 32(f) 6 12% 16 32% 25 50% 3 6% 50 100% 32(g) 7 14% 13 26% 28 56% 2 4% 50 100% 32(h) 32 64% 12 24% 5 10% 1 2% 50 100% Group II 32(a) 24 60% 7 17.5% 7 17.5% 2 5% 40 100% 32(b) 9 22.5% 18 45% 11 27.5% 2 5% 40 100% 32(c) 21 52.5% 11 27.5% 7 17.5% 1 2.5% 40 100% 32(d) 26 65% 10 25% 4 10% 0 NA 40 100% 32(e) 17 42.5% 9 22.5% 12 30% 2 5% 40 100% 32(f) 7 17.5% 22 55% 9 22.5% 2 5% 40 100% 32(g) 4 10% 14 35% 19 47.5% 3 7.5% 40 100% 32(h) 26 65% 14 35% 0 NA 0 NA 40 100% Group III 32(a) 27 67.5% 6 15% 6 15% 1 2.5% 40 100% 32(b) 7 17.5% 13 32.5% 20 50% 0 NA 40 100% 32(c) 25 62.5% 4 10% 9 22.5% 2 5% 40 100% 32(d) 37 92.5% 3 7.5% 0 NA 0 NA 40 100% 32(e) 24 60% 7 17.5% 9 22.5% 0 NA 40 100% 32(f) 8 20% 7 17.5% 25 62.5% 0 NA 40 100% 32(g) 2 5% 10 25% 26 65% 0 NA 40 100% 32(h) 29 72.5% 7 17.5% 3 7.5% 1 2.5% 40 100%

Table 10. Groups * Q32 crosstabulation.

222