Indeed, choosing the subjects for a foreign language course for Russians one should take into consideration the actual social, cultural and historical situation in the country: In most countries the courses are meant mainly for people intending to have some real, active, live contacts with foreign-speaking people and foreign-speaking countries. From this point of view all the hotel, bank, post office, launderette, etc. topics are quite reasonable. The situation in our country is still quite different, even now with all the new prospects, all the new contacts, private invitation travelling, etc. AH this new promising way of life still concerns a tiny fragment of students of foreign language in the RF. Most of them (the absolute majority) study a foreign language not because they mean or plan to go to a foreign country, but because they either want to know English for their profession, for "special purposes" (to read special professional papers and talk to their colleagues — not only shop, as they are human) or they want it as part of culture to be able to read and speak everyday English (or sing songs - for young people), or both. Consequently, to them checking in a hotel is, putting it mildly, not the first priority. They need more general things (introductions, apologies, refusals, agreeing-disagreeing, assessments, suggestions, etc.) and more general human, less specific situations.
Thus, the problems of what to teach (as opposed to how to teach) is extremely topical and urgent nowadays. Answering this question largely depends on the aims of the foreign language course, on the skills that are meant to be acquired.
The optimal teaching material for acquiring "passive skills", skills of recognition (mostly reading special texts in our case) should be presented by topical, informative texts. The efficiency of these texts is increased when they have a special learner's commentary — both linguistic and extralinguistic. The problem of commenting upon scientific texts used for teaching purposes has not received all the attention it deserves. The Learner's commentary is concerned with two main kinds of difficulties: 1. realia, extralinguistic facts (names, dates, etc.); 2. language units requiring explanation. The latter comprises mostly: 1) polysemantic words when it Is not easy for a student to understand which of the meanings of the word is realized in this particular utterance; 2) complex syntactic structures; 3) peculiarities of the individual author's style.
The question of commenting upon extralinguistic facts is much more delicate and complicated. Indeed, teaching LSP to specialists in this subject is a difficult and unenviable task because the students know the subject matter of the text under "study better than the teacher, and often it is the latter who needs this kind of extralinguistic explanation. The only conclusions drawn at the present stage of research in this field can be formulated as follows: 1) the learner's commentary on a scientific text should be oriented towards the background knowledge of the student; 2) it must be sociolinguistically determined, i.e. it must reveal the cultural, social, traditional allusions and connotations of the words in the text; 3) it must be adequate - neither abundant, nor deficient; 4) it depends to a great extent on the addressee.
It is obvious that an English text on Russian history should be explained differently for Russian and non-Russian students. For example, in M.J. Clark's English Studies Series History, Sociology, Politics, Economics and Law (Oxford, 1964) extralinguistic facts are explained in a concise and acceptable way:
Peter the Great - Peter I, Tsar of Russia, 1682-1725 Moscovy — old name for Russia
Tsarism - the pre-revolutionary system of government in Russia (tsar — emperor) (p. 32)
However, the following commentary given in a textbook for Russian students seems to be abundant and unnecessary, and is confined to a mere translation or even transliteration of the commented .units, putting it mildly:
the Bolsheviks — большевики
the Mensheviks — меньшевики
the cossacks -- казаки
Thus, the teaching material for developing skills of recognizing the written LSP text (passive skills) is a topical informative text supplied with the learner's commentary.
The teaching material which may be recommended for developing active skills, skills of production, especially at early stage, is a modelled text, that is a text which, by method of analysis through synthesis, is shaped into such a perfect, pure, standard form that it can be safely reproduced by a foreign learner.
In brief, the process of modelling a text for LSP students at the initial stage of their studies is confined to the following steps:
1. Choosing an optimal pattern scientific text written in standard, normalized language.
2. Analyzing it on different levels of linguistic research (grammar, lexis, syntax, style) for pragmatic foreign language teaching purposes. The idea of this stage of modelling is to specify: all violations of the norm, stylistic effects, play on words, etc., that is all those moments that cannot be recommended for foreigners to use.
3. Synthesizing the results of the analysis.
4. Analyzing the modelled text.
5. Synthesizing the improved version. The process can go on indefinitely as long as there is room for improvement.
And the last (but by no means least) aspect - psychological. Learning a foreign language, like no other subject, requires a special psychological approach, the atmosphere of relaxation, trust even love and faith. Indeed, learning a strange language, a strange world picture, strange (often alien) mentality is a difficult psychological barrier for many learners. Teaching foreign languages to university students of non-philological subjects is complicated by the fact that for these students a foreign language is not part of their special, professional education which may result in a lack of motivation.
Thus, the foreign language teacher's difficult but noble task is to create a relaxed, uninhibited atmosphere in class without being too indulgent or permissive.
I. Answer the following questions:
1. Why can teaching English in Russia be regarded as a social problem?
2. Why is it difficult for native speakers of English to fully realize the significance of *, teaching English to foreigners?
3. What is the situation with learning English in Russia?
4. What is the position of teachers of English?
5. In what way is the situation with foreign language teaching in Russia different from that in other countries?
6. What are the tasks of a university course of foreign language teaching?
7. What is meant by 'learner-oriented' teaching methods? Why is it important?
8. What are the problems of teaching grammar?
9. What are the problems of teaching vocabulary?
10. What is the optimal teaching material for 'passive' skills, skills of recognition? For active ones, skills of production?
11. Support or challenge the following statements:
1. English-speaking people do not fully realize the significance of teaching English to foreigners.
2. Teachers of English become more vulnerable.
3. The problem of what to teach is more urgent and more important than the problem of how to teach.
4. Learning a foreign language, like no other subject, requires a special psychological approach, the atmosphere of relaxation, trust, even love and faith.
III. Expand on the following:
1. Teaching English is a social problem in Russia.
2. Foreign language teachers have found themselves in the focus of public attention.
3. Teaching grammar is a very essential part of foreign language teaching.
4. Choosing the subjects for a foreign language course one should take into consideration the social, cultural and historical situation in the country of native-speakers.
4. Training LSP teachers in Russia
S. Ter-Minasova
Nowadays, one of the characteristic features of life in Russia is an unprecedented surge in the study of foreign languages — chiefly English. The growth in political, scientific, economic, cultural and educational contacts with different countries has set the scene for a renewed interest in foreign language studies. Language teachers will have to work very hard in order to satisfy this interest: they must change drastically their inadequate and outdated teaching methods and produce new, effective methods.
In order to perform all these tasks, which may look humble but are in fact extremely difficult and complex, many questions have to be, settled; the most urgent of these is: how to teach teachers? In other words, a new approach to foreign language teaching should begin with a new approach to language teachers' training and education.
In Russia this problem is especially urgent because, oddly enough, the profession which is in greatest demand nowadays that of teacher of foreign languages for scientists - - is not fully recognized as such: it does not exist in the official State Committee of Education list of professions. Russian universities and higher education institutions provide training for philologists (the chosen few, the experts in languages and literature) and for schoolteachers of foreign languages. The former know too much, the latter too little, to be good teachers of foreign languages for non-philologists, that is, for those legions of specialists in all branches of knowledge for whom a foreign languages is not the subject of their research but just a tool of their trade. This last statement may seem paradoxical and is, obviously, an exaggeration, but it gives, in a nutshell, some idea of the problem.
Teachers of foreign languages for non-philologists should, then, be specially trained along the following lines:
1. They must learn the variety of language for special purposes that they are going to teach, its peculiarities in all aspects -- whether grammar, vocabulary, syntax or style.
2. They must have a general idea of the subject their students are doing. This seems to be a highly revolutionary point, usually provoking protests and panic among those foreign language teachers who are accustomed to teaching economists or chemists the foreign language skills they require for their professional communication without themselves having the slightest idea about economics or chemistry.
3. They must be taught to cater to their students' needs. This is a difficult psychological requirement but there is no doubt that foreign language teaching must be learner-oriented. Language teachers must resist the temptation of revealing their vast, profound knowledge of the subject to the students and think only about their actual needs.
4. Finally, they must enthuse their students. Teaching foreign language to university students of non-philological subjects is complicated by the fact that for these students a foreign language is not part of their special, professional education: hence their lack of motivation. Foreign language teachers must, therefore, think of ways of arousing interest in their subject and of finding new means of increasing their students' motivation.
I. Answer the following questions:
1. What is the situation with foreign language studies in this country?
2. What are the main problems in teachers' training?
.3. What are the peculiarities of teaching foreign languages to non-philologists?
II. Support or challenge the following statements:
1. Philologists know too much, schoolteachers know too little to be good teachers of foreign languages for non-philologists.
2. Teachers of foreign language for non-philologists must have a general idea of the subject their students are doing.
III. Expand on the following:
1. Non-philologists are specialists in all branches of knowledge for whom a foreign language is not the subject of their research but a tool of their trade.
2. Foreign language teaching must be learner-oriented.
Приложения
Приложение 1
David Chrystal
(from The Cambridge Encyclopedia of language, 2nd ed., CUP, 1998)
English has already become a world language, by virtue of the political and economic progress made by English-speaking nations in the past 200 years, and is likely to remain so, gradually consolidating its position. According to conservative estimates, mother-tongue speakers now have reached around 400 million; a further 350 million use English as a second language; and a further 100 million use it fluently as a foreign language. This is an increase of over 40% since the 1950s. More radical estimates which include speakers with a lower level of language fluency and awareness, have suggested that the overall total is these days well in excess of 1,000 million...
Surveys of range of use carried out by UNESCO and other world organizations reinforce the general statistical impression. English is used as an official or semi-official language in over 60 countries, and has a prominent place in a further 20. It is either dominant or well-established in all 6 continents. It is the main language of books, newspapers, airports and air-traffic control, international business and academic conferences, science, technology, medicine, diplomacy, sports international competitions, pop music and advertising.
Over two-thirds of the world's scientists write in English. Three-quarters of the world's mail is written in English. Of all the information in the world's electronic retrieval systems, 80% is stored in English. English radio programmes are received by over 150 million in 120 countries.
Over 50 million children study English as an additional at primary level; over 80 million study it at secondary level (these figures include China). On any one year, the British Council helps over a quarter of a million foreign students to learn English, in various parts of the world. Half as many again learn English in the USA.
Приложение 2
Big Dictionary
(from “Moscow News” № 26, July 10 – 16 2002, p.10)
Today, after 1,500 years of promiscuous acquisitiveness, the vocabulary of English is vast. The Oxford English Dictionary lists more than 600,000 words; German has fewer than one third that number, French fewer than one sixth. What makes English mammoth and unique is its great sea of synonyms, words with roughly the same meaning but different connotations, different levels of formality and different effects on the ear. Anglo-Saxon words are blunt, Latin words learned, French words musical. English speakers can calibrate the tone and meter of their prose with great precision. They may end (Anglo-Saxon), finish (French) or conclude (Latin) their remarks. A girl can be fair (Anglo-Saxon), beautiful (French) or attractive (Latin). A bully may evoke fear (Anglo-Saxon), terror (French) or trepidation (Latin).
Its depth and precision have helped make English the foremost language of science, diplomacy and international business — and the medium of T-shirts from Tijuana to Timbuktu. It is the native tongue of 350 million people and a second language for 350 million more. Half the books being published in the world are in English: so is 80 percent of the world’s computer text. While Americans debate bilingualism, foreigners learn English. Its popularity is fed by U.S. wealth and power, to be sure. But Richard Lederer, author of The Miracle of Language and other books on the peculiarities of English, believes the language s “internationality” has innate appeal. Not only are English’s grammar and syntax relatively simple, the language’s sound system is flexible and “user friendly” — foreign words tend to be pronounced the same as in their original tongue. “We have the most cheerfully democratic and hospitable language that ever existed,” Lederer says. “Other people recognize their language in ours.”
Приложение 3
A 'glorious mongrel'
(from “Moscow News” № 26, July 10 – 22, 2002, p.10)
The language that some Americans want to defend against foreign invasions is itself a multicultural smorgasbord of borrowed words. Back in 1780, John Adams urged the creation of an American academy with a lofty mission — to keep the English language pure. The Continental Congress, preoccupied with other challenges (such as winning independence from Britain), let the proposal die. And wisely so. It would have been like giving a courtesan a chastity belt for her birthday. “The English language,” as Carl Sandburg once observed, “hasn’t got where it is by being pure.” Not from the get-go. The language that many now seek to shore up against the babel of America’s multicultural masses is a smorgasbord (Swedish) of words borrowed from foreign tongues. Three out of four words in the dictionary, in fact, are foreign born. Sometimes anglicized, sometimes not, many loan words are so familiar that most English speakers are aware of their exotic origins only vaguely if at all. We can borrow sugar from a neighbor only because English borrowed the word from Sanskrit centuries ago. Ask your pal (Romany) to go to the opera (Italian), and he may prefer instead to go hunting in the boondocks (Tagalog), to play polo (Tibetan) or to visit the zoo (Greek) to test his skill (Danish) at milking a camel (Hebrew), after which he may need a shampoo (Hindi). Whether silly or scholarly, many sentences have equally rich lineages, illustrating Dorothy Thompson’s aphorism (Greek) that English is a “glorious and imperial mongrel” (mongrel, fittingly, being pure English). English itself is one of history’s most energetic immigrants. Three northern European tribes, the angles, the Saxons and the Jutes, got the enterprise started by invading Britain around A.D. 449. The Vikings arrived from Scandinavia in A.D. 793 to mix it up, battle-ax against battle-ax, adverb against adverb. The Norse and Anglo-Saxon tongues melded, enriching the word hoard. Example: You reared a child (Anglo-Saxon) or raised a child (Norse). As every school-child used to know, the Norman French conquered England in 1066. The language of the Saxon peasantry then conquered the Norman aristocracy. The result was a tongue that kept its Germanic structure but took in a huge new vocabulary of French words and through it Latin and Greek terms. Traders, warriors, scholars, pirates and explorers all did their part to advance English’s cosmopolitan destiny. The language was happily spiced with words from 50 languages even before the opening of the New World offered fresh avenues. Americans quickly became known for their own coinages, the many “Americanisms” they invented — words like groundhog lightning rod, belittle (minted by Thomas Jefferson), seaboard — new words for a new land. But American English also adopted American Indian terms, (mostly place names) and welcomed useful words brought across the water by immigrants. The Dutch supplied pit (as found in fruit) and boss (as found in the front office), sleigh, snoop and spook. Spanish supplied filibuster and bonanza. Yiddish enabled Americans to kibitz schmucks who sold schlock or made schmaltz.