ABOUT SOME PROBLEMS OF TEACHING RUSSIAN AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE TO AN AZERBAIJANI AUDIENCE

ABSTRACT

Currently, there is an acute problem of developing the most optimal methodology not only for the development of purely linguistic skills of students of foreign languages, but also for the formation of their speech competence, linguo-creative communicative abilities and speech culture. The article notes that modern educational standards dictate organizing the process of teaching RFL on the basis of a new scientific and educational paradigm, which provides for language teaching in the light of developing speech competence in students.

АННОТАЦИЯ

В настоящее время остро стоит проблема разработки наиболее оптимальной методологии не только для развития чисто языковых умений и навыков обучающихся иностранным языкам, но и для формирования у них речевой компетенции, лингвокреативных коммуникативных способностей и культуры речи. В статье отмечается, что современные образовательные стандарты диктуют организовать процесс обучения РКИ на основе новой научно-образовательной парадигмы, которая предусматривает обучение языку в свете формирования у обучающихся речевой компетентности.

Keywords: local accent, Russian as a foreign language, national and cultural characteristics, Russian speech, pronunciation norms, native language, speech competence, speech culture.

Ключевые слова: местный акцент, русский язык как иностранный, национально-культурные особенности, русская речь, произносительные нормы, родной язык, речевая компетентность, культура речи.

As it is well known, over the past decade, new teaching-theoretical paradigms and innovative technologies have emerged in the field of linguistics methodology for the teaching of foreign languages, including Russian as a foreign language (RFL). All of these paradigms and teaching tools aim to study the use of a foreign language in daily speech activities. In this regard, researchers often go beyond the frameworks of linguodidactics and the methodology of foreign language teaching. In some methodological studies, it is possible to find initial theoretical propositions aimed at linking the problem of mastering spoken foreign language with various scientific disciplines directly related to language (psychology, sociology, cultural studies, pedagogy, etc.). However, it should be particularly noted that today, to a certain extent, not only linguodidactics but also linguoculturology (including cognitive linguistics) stands out as an important scientific paradigm in methodological terms.

In the methodology of teaching foreign languages, including Russian as a foreign language, the secondary linguistic personality, language situation, "sociocultural linguistic landscape" (a term by Z.V. Asadov [see: 2, p. 95]), communicative competence, and other related problems directly connected with the mastering of spoken foreign language within the national cultural context are of particular interest. The relevance of developing linguoculturological foundations for the teaching of Russian as a foreign language (RFL) can be clearly seen from the names of these teaching-related problems, which serve as linguistic orientations for RFL teaching.

Today, the development of systematic provisions for RFL teaching implies a comprehensive study of these problems. The most important of them are related to the analysis of the oral speech's orthoepic variability and phonetic "diversity" in the context of national and cultural interaction. As early as the end of the last century, K.V. Gorshkova noted that in languages where paradigmatic relations dominate, and as a result, the phonetic and phonological structure of the language is rich in positional variations, one can often observe the neutralization of sounds and phonemes [see: 5, pp. 81-83]. Therefore, the mentioned paradigmatic preference, on the other hand, implies a less weak variability in the orthoepic structure of the language and, as a result, a more serious attitude towards the orthoepic norms of the language society. In other words, the dominance of phonetic paradigmatic without exceptions is inversely proportional to orthoepic variability and directly proportional to the strict orthoepic norms of the language: “...the more members a paradigm has, the more complex its sound structure, the more variations of the phonemes in speech there are. And only a strict orthoepic norm at a given historical period determines which of all the possible variants (one or two) will be used by the speaking group” [5, p. 82].

The statement made by K.V. Gorshkova above can be interpreted as follows: language, as a system, must continuously develop, and as a result, certain elements may go beyond the framework of the language system, while others may be incorporated into it, meaning that certain systematic compensatory relationships emerge. Therefore, despite the fact that a language may have a wide spectrum of sound variability, the given dominant orthoepic variability may not be considered. For example, in Russian, phonetic variability involves the different pronunciations of the same sound in different words (neutralization processes and certain phonetic homophony), which can significantly complicate the perception of spoken Russian, especially for an Azerbaijani-speaking audience. Compare: [лук]: “лук” and “луг” words; [кот]: “кот” and “код” words; [sama]: “сама” (the pronoun) and “сома” (the nominative form of the fish); [калотца]: “колоться” (verb) and “колодца” (noun in the genitive form), and many more. “A person who speaks the language fluently usually does not perceive the word-formation relationships or internal form of a borrowed word, as this information is typically unnecessary. However, when encountering unfamiliar words in both native and foreign languages, or in various instances of language interaction, the internal form is updated” [1, p. 35]. There are so many such examples in the Russian language that they could be the subject of a separate research study in the process of teaching Russian phonetics. Therefore, we will not go into this issue further.

One of the significant challenges in Azerbaijani students’ acquisition of correct spoken Russian is the particular difficulty resulting from the constant (or rather, regular) neutralization of Russian phonemes: as a result, certain identification and pronounced variability processes can be observed in the field of Russian orthoepic norms. As a result, most foreign speakers display an attitude toward pronunciation norms that significantly differs from that of native Russian speakers. This distinction must be taken into account when studying the practical phonetics of the Russian language. For example, the remarkable orthoepic variability inherent in students' native language determines, first, that many Azerbaijanis fail to fully comprehend the necessity of adhering strictly to Russian pronunciation norms, and second, it leads to the variability of their phonetic accent when speaking Russian. Such variability is more probable due to the observed positive attitude toward the native dialectal phonetics, which is not entirely characteristic of native Russian speakers.

Consequently, pronunciation skills acquired in the native language are transferred to the target language. Accordingly, the instructor working with a group of native speakers may, as anticipated, encounter not only errors of the same type (for instance, in the speech of most Azerbaijanis, the Russian sounds [ч] and [ц] are pronounced as a single sound, [ц] = [ç]), but also errors deviating from various types of orthoepic norms. In this context, we recall A.A. Reformatsky’s renowned remark about the dialectal pronunciation accent of Chinese speakers: “For northern Chinese, the distinction between [л] and [н] in Russian does not pose any difficulty, since this distinction exists within their phonological system. However, for southern Chinese speakers, this presents a significant challenge, as the sounds [л] and [н] merge between vowels in their speech. Thus, for a prolonged period, the words ‘лилия’ and ‘линия’, ‘клялись’ and ‘клянись’ were indistinguishable to southern Chinese speakers” [6, p. 511].

Therefore, when predicting and analyzing the local accent in Russian speech, it is not always feasible for students to achieve accurate literary pronunciation. For many students, the primary linguistic system is not the literary language, but rather the dialect. Consequently, the “dialect reproduction” of the native language can become one of the primary factors interfering with a foreigner's Russian speech. These same principles are applicable to Azerbaijani, Persian, Arabic, and other accents in Russian.

Thus, when teaching Azerbaijanis Russian pronunciation (at least correct pronunciation), the following factors must be taken into account:

• Firstly, it is essential to consider the linguistic situation in the regions where students’ native languages are spoken. For example, compare the urban and rural accents in Azerbaijani speech when learning Russian as a foreign language (RFL). In regions such as Nakhchivan and Zangilan, Azerbaijani speakers pronounce the Russian sounds [ц] and [ч] as a single sound [ç] = [ц], which is considered normal for them. This variation does not deviate from the standard pronunciation in their native language, as the residents of these regions pronounce the word “чай” (tea) as [цай] = [çay] in both Russian and their native language.
• Secondly, the students’ attitude toward speech culture issues is influenced by the aforementioned factors. From the first perspective, the residents of the above-mentioned regions will likely have a different attitude toward speech culture in both foreign languages (in this case, Russian) and their native language compared to the inhabitants of central cities and metropolises (such as Baku, Mingachevir, Sumgait, etc.).

Another significant issue closely related to the teaching of RFL within the context of Russian cultural traditions is the use of words (or national-cultural and historical realities) that do not have equivalents in the language. The relative rigidity of Russian lexical norms, which grants “considerable freedom of variation” (synonymy) in the use of certain words and expressions, creates challenges in understanding and properly using Russian words and phrases with specific national-cultural connotations in an Azerbaijani-speaking audience. For instance, words like «авось», «ямщик», «масленица», «снегурочка», «Жар-птица», «матрёшка», «Баба-Яга», «тужить», «тайга», and many other Russian words without direct equivalents pose such difficulties. In these cases, the “linguistic-cultural interpretation” (or “additional background knowledge”) method is commonly employed in Azerbaijani audiences. This traditional approach is still considered the most rational and meaningful today, but it requires extra preparation and time from the teacher. Explaining the meaning of a word by embedding it within its conceptual-substantive context and introducing the audience to the historical-cultural “conceptosphere” (as D.S. Likhachev calls it) is sometimes insufficient during the teaching of RFL. Therefore, it is necessary to incorporate modern multimedia teaching tools (such as visual and illustrative support, presentation materials, slides, etc.) to present the language material. It should be noted that creating teaching slides and presentations involves not only auditory but also visual channels, ensuring content fulness, optimality, and a high level of comprehension of the presented information, which ultimately enables students to better and more easily grasp the language material.

It should be noted that the phenomenon of equivalence is not constant. The phenomenon of equivalence can vary according to time criteria. For example, scientific and technical terms may be without equivalents for a certain period. As information spreads, new events acquire lexical correspondences in the form of equivalents in other languages. The use of words and the names of the objects or events they denote may also be subject to historical or past norms, which should dominate outside the audience (in historical films, or on the stage of a theatre, during interviews, or in special poetry readings, etc.).

I would like to offer an example from my own experience. Within the framework of "historical and artistic reproduction," i.e., reading as the poet wrote in his time, I attempted to convey the word "музы́ка" by stressing the second syllable to the audience from an excerpt from A.S. Pushkin's poem “Eugene Onegin”:

“Полна народу зала; 

Музы́ка уж греметь устала;

Толпа мазуркой занята;

Кругом и шум и теснота…” (A.S. Pushkin).

Naturally, this pronunciation and stress placement caused some confusion among students, as such a pronunciation is archaic in modern Russian and even considered outside the norm in certain respects. For example, the same can be said about the following expressions, which were once pronounced in this way, and this pronunciation suited the specific rhythmic harmony of the rhyme in these poems. Compare: "Белеет парус одинокой / В тумане моря голубом!" (M.Y. Lermontov, “Sail”, 1832); "И на шелкóвые ресницы / Сны золотые навевать…" (M.Y. Lermontov, “Demon”, 1875); and many others (also see the archaic forms of the adjective «одинокой / одинокий» in Old Russian; also compare the history of once former combinations [кы-] (“Кыевъ”, “роукы”, “убыткы”) / [гы-] (“гыбѣль”, “книгы”, “ногы”) / [хы-] (“хытрьць”, “въсхыти”, “хытрость”)). In this regard, as correctly pointed out by G.O. Vinokur, “pronunciation, like a theatrical performance, is not merely intended to appear natural for a historical period, but rather alludes to deeper reasons.” In general, these reasons can be defined as the need to characterize the given theatrical image with artistic instinct" [4, pp. 100-101]. Therefore, in RFL (Russian as a Foreign Language) classes, the "stage pronunciation" of classical examples from Russian literary works (in the terminology of G.O. Vinokur) is to some extent unacceptable, because such pronunciation has a deep artistic and theatrical function, and it is intended not for educational audiences but for theatrical stages. In other words, the informational and cognitive role of archaic pronunciation norms holds significant meaning in creating speech portraits in theater, on stage, and on screen, rather than within the audience. However, in purposeful lessons, such archaic pronunciation can be used cautiously to create a foreigner’s spoken image or reconstruct a historical-social scene.

We would like to draw attention to one detail regarding this. Unlike the perception of sounds, intonation perception, as it appears, sometimes possesses a unique character, which could be more universal. For example, in Azerbaijani, the intonation pattern of a neutral question without a question word involves a gradual rise in tone after the central word, followed by a lower tone level in the last vowel of the final word. In contrast, in Russian, the intonation pattern of a neutral question without a question word involves a sharp rise in tone in the central vowel, followed by a decrease (according to the concept of IK-3 E.A. Bryzgunova [see: 3, pp. 201-203]). This pattern can be perceived incorrectly by speakers of many languages, including Azerbaijani: the neutral question may seem emotional, and sometimes even aggressive to them. All of this may lead to communication failures and, furthermore, create conflict situations, which are essential to be avoided for successful intercultural communication.

Finally, we would like to touch upon one more issue regarding the distance-based teaching of RFL. The 2020 coronavirus infection showed that the transition to online learning formats sets new challenges in humanitarian and philological education – new methods and approaches need to be developed for teaching and learning RFL in distance formats. In recent years, several online educational portals have been created for the independent and individual learning of RFL, as well as portals for Russian language teachers for foreign languages. In this regard, innovative forms of presenting language material, as well as self-assessment and testing the taught material, have emerged (online "bases" for phonograms, video grams, and video phonograms, infographics, online games, etc.).

In order to optimize the teaching process, teachers resort to various online services that stimulate students' motivation to learn Russian as a Foreign Language (RFL). These include network resources such as "LearningApps", "Wizer", "Wordwall" for creating online assignments, as well as virtual platforms such as "DesireToLearn", "MOODLE", "Blackboard", and some Internet educational channels, for example, "Веб-дидактика.РФ", "Elearning на отлично", "1С Репетитор (for Russian language)", and "Russian for Beginners". These and other RFL teaching tools are considered worthy “assistants” for RFL teachers in the current dynamics of developing students’ intellectual and technological skills. Here, teachers are called upon to apply innovative teaching forms and methodologies, and they are provided with the opportunity to "visualize" educational content in dynamic learning processes and offer support in a comprehensive manner. Since multimedia tools are more interactive, flexible, and visual, considering the group and individual abilities of students, they are regarded as productive and rational.

It is also important not to overlook teaching resources and didactic materials that are available both in electronic versions and in printed formats (such as additional CDs and DVDs for listening and visual tasks), which have proven to be effective and convenient. These tools are optimal and accessible didactic materials for mastering speech and grammar skills in RFL and play a foundational role in creating modern multimedia tasks that cover RFL learning at all levels (A1 – C2). Modern multimedia and online teaching tools for RFL have virtually unlimited potential for presenting teaching materials more clearly and effectively compared to traditional teaching methods: they allow for the simultaneous use of several receptors for perceiving and mastering language material, enabling the combinational presentation of educational content that would not be possible under normal teaching conditions, where students focus on the "memory and translation" principle.

Thus, it can be concluded that in order to rationally implement language teaching in both higher and secondary schools, and to teach Russian as a foreign language, the following fundamental teaching and didactic components must necessarily be incorporated into the educational process:

•  Pure language (linguistic) knowledge (theoretical and grammatical knowledge about the structure and system of the language);
•  Speech skills (learning sequential speech, understanding the functional capabilities of the language being taught);
•  Preparedness for a sharp transition to distant education and experience by using the latest online educational platforms; online resources help elevate the lessons to a new level, as it is not easy to capture students' attention and engage them when learning the grammar of a new language;
•  Communicative competence (the ability to optimally and successfully master all linguistic and non-verbal means of the language, as well as the professional and social-cultural potential for communication among language learners);
•  Formation of discursive competence, which significantly increases the level of students' communicative competence and contributes to the implementation of intercultural professional communication.

In the latter case, the development of linguistic and cultural foundations for teaching Russian is a crucial task, the solution of which can significantly enhance the effectiveness of the methodology for teaching Russian as a foreign language. After all, every language is a vast source of information that tells the history of a nation and its traditions, and therefore, every language has its own unique linguistic landscape, which serves as the foundation for communicative environments created by its speakers.

References:

1. Armonik L.B. Vnutrennyaya forma slozhnogo slova v processah semantizacii // Russkij yazyk v sovremennom mire. – 2009. – № 1. – Pp. 35-39.
2. Asadov Z.V. Konsolidiruyushchaya rol' kul'tury i genezisa naroda v realizacii yazykovoj politiki: teoretiko-metodologicheskij aspekt // YAzykovaya politika i sovremennost'. – Baku: BSU, – 2019. – Pp. 95-98.
3. Bryzgunova E.A. Zvuki i intonaciya russkoj rechi. – 3-e izd. – M.: Izdatel'stvo «Russkij yazyk», – 1977. – 280 p.
4. Vinokur G.O. Russkoe scenicheskoe proiznoshenie // Vinokur G.O. Biografiya i kul'tura. Russkoe scenicheskoe proiznoshenie. – M.: Izdatel'stvo «Russkie slovari», – 1997. – Pp. 89-173.
5. Gorshkova K.V. O foneme v yazyke i rechi // Slavia orientalis. – Warszawa, – 1980. – DXXIX. – № 1 / 2. – Pp.79-83.
6. Reformatsky A.A. Fonologiya na sluzhbe obucheniya proiznosheniyu nerodnogo yazyka // Reformatsky A.A. Iz istorii otechestvennoj fonologii: Ocherk; Hrestomatiya. – M.: Izdatel'stvo «Nauka», 1970. – Pp. 506-515.