CC BY
7CLASSROOM BILINGUALISM. VARIOUS APPROACHES IN TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Abstract
The paper deals with various definitions of the term "bilingualism", concerns differences between natural and classroom bilingualism. It pays special attention to the question of classroom bilingualism forming conditions, its development and teaching approaches.
Keywords
bilingualism, natural, artificial (classroom), language personality, language environment, bilingual, cross-cultural communication
AUTHOR
Oksana Legostaeva
PhD, Associate Professor Department of Foreign Languages State University - Education-Science-Production Complex
Oryol, Russia [email protected]
Teaching questions of foreign language communication are of specific interest for solving practical tasks of linguodidactics in situation of classroom bilingualism.
The word "bilingualism" consists of two stems: bi - "double" and lingua - "language". Thus, "bilingualism" is an ability to master several languages. So, bilingual is a person who can speak two languages.
Bilingualism has become one of the most popular and wide-spread research phenomenon at present. Despite its false unambiguity of the term "bilingualism" we have found out certain difference. Due to some methodologists and scientists we have paid our attention to coexistence of actually two different terms meaning quite the same notion: "bilinguaily" and "bilingualism". Usually both terms are used as synonyms. At the same time it is much spoken about "bilingual communication", "bilingual vocabulary", "bilingual situation" but lately much attention has been drawn to "bilingual education" meaning such organization of students' bilingual teaching when it is possible to use more than one language as teaching language. By the way use of the foreign language ranges from its episode application in a regular subject teaching to its continuous usage in subject of one of numerous disciplines in the whole system of education. The person, who masters two languages, is called a bilingual, though recently a new term "bilingual individual" has appeared.
Bilingualism is considered by researchers (V.N. Komissarov, I.A. Zimnyaya, R.K. Minyar-Beloruchev, V.A. Avrorin, L.V. Shcherba) as knowledge of two languages, their mastering and their simultaneous use according to conditions of speech communication. In all cases bilingualism is treated as complicated, systematic, intrapersonal notion, which includes a certain new language system, skill to use it in communicative situation (communicative aspect). In this system besides situational meanings and concepts there are wider common cultural notions and world pictures (sociocultural and linguocultural aspects).
Bilingualism begins when level of command of the second language is very close to the level of command of the first one.
In psycholinguistics there are four different ways for definitions of acquiring and mastering of language priority: L1 - the first language or native and L2 - the second language or nonnative. The second language can consequently displace the first one if it is dominant in definite linguistic environment. There are two kinds of bilingualism: 1) natural (household); 2) artificial (classroom).
Natural bilingualism emerges in appropriate language environment which includes radio and TV in spontaneous speech practice. Comprehension of specific nature of the linguistic system is not necessarily to happen. As for artificial bilingualism the second language is learned in classroom environment, in this process one must use will efforts and special methods and techniques.
Urgency of this topic is caused by contradictions between the present system of foreign language teaching at technical university and requirements of modern society to the educational level of future specialist personality; also between realization of necessity of foreign professional communicative competence development of a graduate and partially developed teaching methodology of a foreign language in aims of professionally-oriented communication in classroom environment. Consequently one of the prior goals of current stage is development of linguistic and teaching methods of educational bases of professionally-oriented communication of a foreign language in classroom environment.
Linguodidactical aspects of classroom bilingualism are studied in papers of native scientists: I.E. Bryskina, G.M. Vyshnevskaya, G.V. Elizarova, A.S. Markosyan, S.G.
Ter-Minasova, V.P. Furmanova, I.I. Khaleeva and others.
Linguodidactics is relatively a young science which investigates common laws of foreign language method teaching, contents, means and methods of foreign language teaching depending on didactic aims and goals, conditions of mono and bilingualism, on the teaching stage and speech intellectual development of students (Russian Pedagogical Encyclopedia: 1 volume, 1999).
V.N. Karaulov interprets linguodidactics as science describing conditions of linguistic consciousness moulding, forming personality and consequently ways of language mastering on cognitive, thesaurus, motivational and pragmatic levels. Thus, a key notion of linguodidactics is a linguistic personality. This idea was studied in details in papers of G.I. Bogin, L.I. Grishanova, V.I. Karasick, S.G. Ter-Minasova, V.I. Thorick and others. Mane methodologists develop the concept of the second linguistic personality (I.E. Bryskina, E.K. Chernichkina), focusing on assimilating of the linguistic / language personality in a different linguoculture.
Russian researchers single out various parameters, aspects and levels in models of language personality. So, in the model presented by V.N. Karaulov (Karaulov, 1987), motivational level is the top one in the structure of language personality of a monolingual and at the same time E.K. Chernichkina considers this level to be initial for a bilingual personality because "mastering of a corresponding code is impossible without proper motivation" (Chernichkina, 2007).
Essential for this research is a statement of a language personality of a bilingual. That's why it is significant to study such notions as bilingual and bilingualism bec ause complex of this phenomenon is reflected in diversity of definitions. As a rule, bilingualism presupposes ability to use two different language systems, two different linguocultural codes. Some scientists suggest that we should take into consideration extent of two language mastering for bilingual fact statement (V.A. Avrorin, G.M. Vyshnevskaya, B.K. Gavraneck, A.A. Metlyuck, A.I. Rabinovich, V.Y. Rosenzweig, F.P. Filin, K.Kh. Khanazarov and others). Thus, an American linguist L. Bloomfield characterizes bilingualism as close notion to perfect mastering of two languages: native and nonnative (Bloomfield, 1942). One of the outstanding creators of the theory of language contacts E. Haugen, on the contrary, assumed that in bilingualism the extent of mastering of one of the languages
might be low enough (Haugen, 1972). In native linguistics both narrow and wide approaches to understanding of bilingualism phenomenon are widely spread.
Narrow meaningof the phenomenon is reflected in papers of V.A. Avrorin, A.I. Rabinovich, K.Kh. Khanazarov and others: bilingualism is considered to be the situation when a personmasters two languages simultaneously to equal extent.
Majority of Russian researchers admit possibility of wide meaning interpretation of bilingualism. (G.M. Vyshnevskaya, A.A. Metlyuck, V.Y. Rosenzweig, F.P. Filin and others): bilingualism is viewed as knowledge of the language on the elementary level and its total and fluent mastering (Vyshnevskaya, 2011).
In general, the whole diversity bilingualism concepts the home scientist G.M. Vyshnevskaya divides into two groups: the first predetermines mastering of the second language to the same extent as the native one and the second group presupposes essential differences in knowledge of two languages though it admits use of the nonnative language more or less successfully in communicative situation with native speaker (Vyshnevskaya, 2011). Significant requirements are in providing effectiveness of speech communication. Many-sided concept of the scientist is persuasive because it objectively reflects bilingualism phenomenon in terms of connection character between languages in speech of a bilingual. The methodologist assumes that bilingualism in narrow sense is more or less fluent mastering of two languages, in the wide one - relative mastering of the second language, skill to use it in various scope in definite fields of communication (scientific, industrial, household and others).
In the paper by E.K. Chernichkina ambiguity of this term is emphasized (Chernichkina, 2007). The scientist investigates this question on the base of interpretation of bilingualism essence: bilingualism developing as a process of linguoculture mastering and bilingualism developed as a product. In the first case, undoubtedly, a pupil, a student learning a foreign language within general disciplines and a graduate of a philological institution can be called artificial bilinguals of different levels. However, if we interpret bilingualism as a result of this process, the main criteria in definition of this notion as E. Haugen puts it is ability produce conscious texts (Haugen, 1972), but E.K. Chernichkina tells us about "developed bilingual communicative consciousness, about communicative behavior of a person according to norms of communicative foreign culture" (Chernichkina, 2007). So, it is difficult to give a definite answer who should be considered a bilingual.
Diversity of this phenomenon as an object of research caused a lot of theories for solving certain tasks which were set by scientists while studying different aspects of bilingualism - linguistic, psychological, sociological, fiction and linguodidactic.
Linguodidactic aspect of bilingualism represents great interest and is developed by significant goals of its research. In general this approach is based on linguistic, psychological and social ones. Its essential task is in development and application of various methods of language teaching in terms of bilingualism.
Depending on conditions of the second language mastering, L.V. Shcherba distinguished two types of bilingualism, which represent two edge cases of bilingual speech behaviour: pure bilingualism, i.e. the case of independent coexistence in bilingual consciousness two language systems and mixed bilingualism, when each element of one of the languages turns out to be connected with the element of the other language correlated to its sense (Shcherba, 1974). In this case we should distinguish independent / isolated and parallel bilingualism: in independent bilingualism languages are mastered without their successive correlation between each other, in parallel bilingualism mastering of the languages occurs on the bases of the other language mastering.
In bilingual personality two language systems are in interaction. According to Y. Weinreich, suggested classification of bilingualism in tree types, based on how languages are mastered; composed bilingualism is when for each notion there are two ways of realization considering:
a) correlation of language systems, to be exact, the mixed one;
- subordinate (bilingualism, when there is a dominant language, language of mentality as in school type of foreign language teaching), i. e. a person masters one language better than the other one;
- coordinate (when there is no a dominant language, i. e. a bilingual speaks different languages fluently to equal extent; such type is usually developed in situation of immigration) (Soldatova, 1997).
b) extent of both languages use, i.e. active (when a bilingual keeps in touch with native speakers) and passive (when he applies one language more often);
c) availability of language environment, to be exact contact (a person more or less regularly speaks both languages) and uncommunicative (lack of the contact).
Knowledge of the language may be conscious and unconscious. We speak native language totally unconsciously, i. e. we speak it without thinking how we speak and it is quite natural: we speak for transmitting our thoughts and feelings to the interlocutor and we think about the last ones but not about the language, which is only a means of communication. However when we use our literary language we are forced to think about this means of choosing the most appropriate words and expressions for our thoughts. When we are taught this literary language, consciousness is quite necessary: we should learn to write and to speak in a quite different way when we were children in the family environment. As a rule knowledge of native literary language is conscious. Learning is possible when there is a clash of contradictions - which is the essential law of dialectics that could be fully found in the language.
As for as processes of bilingualism forming are concerned, the differences of the conditions of natural and classroom bilingualism forming are in oppositions: grasping the language through abundant speech practice - learning the language through limited speech practice; vision of absence of necessity of will efforts - evident necessity of everyday will efforts; primarily unconscious processes of analysis, synthesis, comparison, classification - primarily conscious processes of analysis, synthesis, comparison, classification; domination of automated operations of words and its patterns choice - domination of unautomated operations of words and its patterns choice; shift from one language to other one - translation from language to the other one; parallel forming of the word image and both language systems in natural communicative situations - forming system of the second language in presence of the word image; "fixed" in language world picture of t he first language; focusing on sense of studied, spoken, heard - focusing on language means.
While working with educational material a student undertakes certain mental actions, i. e. develop certain operations: comparison, synthesis, analysis, compression. Readiness and ability of a linguistic personality to perform cognitive activity - is one of the principal components of the studies subject (Legostaeva, 2014). The most significant prerequisite of cognitive activity - knowledge of the language (Legostaeva, 2013).
Current classification of types and kinds of bilingualism reflect different criteria in its estimation. Questions of types of contemporary bilingualism are covered in details in papers of Russian and foreign scientists from various conceptual positions.
So, one of the wide-spread criteria of marking out bilingualism types is the level of language code mastering. According to this characteristic one singles out the following types:
- receptive bilingualism (a level of perception, comprehension and interpretation of the message received);
- reproductive bilingualism (a level of reproduction of heard and read);
- productive bilingualism (a level of mastering of all kinds of speech activity) (Vyshnevskaya, 2011).
- This classification can be vied as the significant one in linguodidactics, since it reflects the process of skill formation foreign code use by a bilingual.
Learning a foreign language in classroom environment causes a complex of difficulties that prevent from adequate and competent mastering of a nonnative language.
As a rule, researchers remark several trends, connected with difficulties of the foreign language mastering in classroom environment. First of all, foreign speech mastering inevitably depends on the level of a native language mastering. Strong impact of the native language is caused by phenomenon of integration of language systems in a bilingual speech.
Another trend is that while learning nonnative language under these conditions, knowledge of the studied language system is represented in terms of only one norm - full didactic norm of this language. For mastering other norms of realization of the nonnative language, as a rule, there are no natural conditions and enough quantity of time.
Studying difficulties of the nonnative language mastering in classroom environment, one also marks out a different character of the auditorium: basic level of the learning language; psychological peculiarities; motivation worldoutlook and others. Consequently, it is impossible to be aimed at the average listener and undoubtedly application of individual approach in practice of foreign communication teaching is regarded a real advantage.
Thus, studying bilingualism in classroom environment as a dynamic process is very important and practically significant which result in forming of a bilingual communicative personality.
While forming the personality of a classroom bilingual, some linguodidactics problems appear: what is the model structure of his communicative personality, what changes happen to a language personality who studies a foreign language, what influence of communicative skills of communication in native language on his communicative behaviour, what are linguodidactics success conditions of the classroom bilingual teaching, what are the stages of his formation and to what level is it possible to master foreign linguoculture, what are the ways of conceiving a foreign linguoculture (Chernichkina, 2007).
Under these conditions absolutely new qualities of the second language speaker are formed. It is connected, first of all, with the fact that modern education is aimed at not only a foreign language teaching, but also forming a foreign professional communicative competence, which is the main purpose of the foreign language teaching in sphere of professional communication.
Foreign language teaching in classroom environment must be aimed at transmitting of knowledge system and forming of foreign communicative skills considering conditions and situations of professional communication. It is necessary to construct the process of foreign language teaching in the way that enables to use imitating technique and also purposeful teaching, constructing speech situations which stimulate communicative models, related to certain professional linguoculture. Also it is necessary to pay attention to pragmatic direction of the statement, rules of speech etiquette, typical intonation models and use of certain speech patterns and clichés, performing the roles and frames.
So, we share the opinion of L.V. Tsurikova, which states that frames as schemes of communicative behaviour may be the same in different linguocultures by reason there are values which are common for human beings but their scripts or scenarios are different. Consequently, it is necessary to aspire to approximation of students' communicative behaviour, to its natural character (Tsurikova, 2002).
The questions of selection and including in teaching contents certain models of in professional discourse are vivid in peculiarities of communication development.
The problem of contents of profession-oriented teaching in nonphilological institution correlates with the teaching contents on the whole. Principal structural components of education contents must include:
- system of knowledge about nature, society, mentality, technology and ways of activity;
- system of common intellectual and practical skills
- system of creative activity;
- experience of emotional and will attitude to the world and each other.
Thus, in context of profession-oriented teaching, the contents should be aimed at many-sided development of personal abilities of each student.
It should be marked that teaching contents in nonphilological institution represents unfixed, constantly developing category, which changes according to teaching aims. Correlation of aims, contents, means and methods of teaching makes it possible to form a foreign communicative competence as final result of teaching.
In conclusion we should mention that research of classroom bilingualism as a dynamic process of forming of a communicative bilingual personality enables to optimize the process of teaching of profession-oriented communication under conditions of "lack of foreign environment".
Mastering of nonnative language in situation of classroom bilingualism, i. e. in "lack of appropriate language environment" (Shcherba, 1974) makes choice of language norm extremely important. At the same time classroom character of the language teaching environment dictates use of strategies and teaching materials that give an opportunity of actual acquaintance with a great number of variants of the language studied with norm evidence of the language varieties.
In speech of a bilingual who masters two languages, there is interaction not only of two systems, but also there is presence of various cultures. Cross-cultural communication presupposes "adequate mutual understanding between two participants of the communicative act, who belong to different national cultures (Vereshchagin, 1969). In situation of classroom bilingualism, while foreign language teaching in school or student auditorium, one can't but pay attention to forming cross-cultural competence in students' personalities which creates adequate understanding of differences between languages and cultures, intuition development and interpretation of reaction (positive or negative) of language speakers on their speech acts and also fixed mastering of rules of speech behaviour in foreign society, that may be helpful for more successful communication and reduce risk of unpleasant collisions of cross-cultural speech communication.
Bilingualism as a phenomenon of cross-cultural communication is of great interest for both linguists and foreign language teachers whom to significant extent efficiency of cross-cultural communication practice depend on.
REFERENCES
1. Vereshchagin, E.M. (1969), Psychological and methodological characteristic of bilingualism, MSU, Moscow, 160 P.
2. Vyshnevskaya, G.M. (2011), Literary-fiction bilingualism: linguistic interpretation, ISU, Ivanovo, 224 P.
3. Karaulov, Y.N. (1987), The Russian language and language personality, Nauka, Moscow, 168 P.
4. Legostaeva, O.V. (2014), "Communicative constituent of bilingualism", West-Siberian Pedagogical Herald: collector. Edition 2, Novosibirsk, pp.107-117.
5. Legostaeva, O.V. (2013), Development of linguistic competence of the 1st year students' of nonphilological specialities while studying adjectives in the Russian and English languages on the bases of functional-semantic approach, Kartush, Oryol, pp. 52-57.
6. "Russian Pedagogical Encyclopedia: 1 volume" (1999), Russian Pedagogical Encyclopedia: 2 volumes, Big Russian Encyclopedia, Moscow, 560 P.
7. Soldatova, N.V. (1997), Linguistic bases of the written speech test (on the material of exam compositions), Moscow, 326 P.
8. Haugen, E. (1972), "Language contact", New in Linguistics, Edition 6, Moscow, pp. 61-80.
9. Tsurikova, L.V. (2002), Problem of natural character of discourse in cross-cultural communication, Voronezh, 27 P.
10. Chernichkina, E.K. (2007), Concept of classroom bilingualism in theory of the language, Peremena, Volgograd, 231 P.
11. Shcherba, L.V. (1974), Language system and speech activity, Nauka, Saint Petersburg, 428 P.
12. Bloomfield, L. (1942), Outline Guide for the Practical Study of Foreign Languages, Baltimore.
THE AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM AS A UNITED ASSET: THE MODERN APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS OF ACCOUNTING
Abstract
The paper deals with the fundamental issues of accounting the software, OS, application software packages, databases, in conjunction with the computer technology and the hardware. A definition of a joint asset is presented, what will make it possible to analyze an automated information system (AIS) as an object, producing economic benefits. The best option of accounting AIS is highlighted, and it is based on the application of IFRS. The authors suggest that using a separate account, divided into sub accounts, would solve the problem of isolating information. Thus, fundamentally new approach to account AIS is formed and its possible implementation is presented in the paper.
Keywords
automated information systems (AIS), software, joint asset, intangible assets, exclusive rights, non-exclusive rights
AUTHORS
Eugenia Livskaya
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor Department of Foreign Languages The Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Kaluga, Russia [email protected]
Tatiana Lesina
PhD in Economics, Associate Professor Department of Accounting and Audit The Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Kaluga, Russia [email protected]
Today it's impossible to meet an organization, which organizes its activities without using information computer technologies (ICT), and the appropriate software, i.e. automated information systems (AIS), primarily the operating systems, the accounting programs, and antivirus programs. Most often, an organization, when purchasing a computer program, does not receive exclusive rights on it. The validity of its financial reporting directly depends on how correctly identified and evaluated intangible assets of the organization.
The analysis of the methods of investments into the automated information systems (AIS) and their further account presents a slightly examined sphere of the economic studies. The authors offer a new approach based on the use of international experience of accounting. The key point of the research is the exploring of a principally new concept named a joint asset (OA) in relation to AIS.
To explore the problem of the information technologies the authors have used the basic terms and concepts, presented in the literature by the scientists: Titorenko, G.A.,
