INTRODUCTION OF CLIL APPROACH IN SOCIOLOGICAL DOCTORAL PROGRAMMES: THE ETHNOLINGUISTIC FOCUS ON THESES WRITTEN IN RUSSIAN OR IN ENGLISH

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International.

For a long time, the assumption prevailed that the content of scientific texts cannot depend on the native language of a writer since all scientific texts should conform to a common academic style. Then some papers started to emphasise the specificity of disciplines (e.g. Bernstein). Now, under the influence of globalization and the shift to teaching in the lingua franca languages, there is a question about the peculiarities of a national style of academic discourse.

Quite sharp cultural confrontation began to emerge between Western and non-Western styles of academic writing. According to L. Steinman, “Western notions of academic writing are not neutral, not objective, and not universal. A variety of rhetorical issues such as audience, organization, and voice have significant cultural implications and variations” (STEINMAN, 2003, p. 81). Kecskes and Papp (2000) show the difference between Russian and English academic languages according the topic-centered (English) versus topic-associating (Russian) dichotomy:

It is enough to compare an article written on a linguistic topic in English by a NS [native speaker] of English to another article written on a linguistic topic in Russian by a NS of Russian. In the English article the point is made at the very beginning of the article, and then come the facts that support the argument, with a summary at the end functioning like a conclusion. In the Russian article, however, first comes a list of facts that are about the topic, but it is not yet clear exactly how those facts are connected. Close to the end of the article the loosely connected facts are united in an inseparable whole supporting the main point that is just becoming clear for the reader. This presentation style, used by a NS of Russian writing an essay, composition, or article in English, can easily upset a NS of English who is not familiar with that kind of organization of text (KECSKES; PAPP, 2000, p. 116).

The reaction of Russian readers will be the same. The English-language article by a NS of English can also discourage the Russian reader. The numerous “subtle” hints in Russian articles show alternative ways of the topic, and may also be communicated to the opposition point of view. The article in English by a NS of English may be poorly understood by Russian readers as it can be considered as too assertive and one-dimensional with the lack of disclosure of additional problems resulting from a major topic and, as a result, the problem seems as insufficient discussed or discussed in the most primitive and simplistic way. The Russian article for the Russian reader is polyphonic, while the English article presents only one voice, which can be understood as a lack of respect for the different opinions. This makes an English article unconvincing for the Russian reader; it seems that it imposes its point of view.

This is a common problem in the collision of Western and non-Western cultures since "A broad range of the world's peoples adopt models and norms diametrically opposed [to Western notions of voice]: they foreground subtle, interpretive, interdependent, non-assertive and even non-verbal characteristics of communicative interaction (RAMANATHAN; KAPLAN, 1996, p. 22).

Recently, in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Science and Education of Russia, some Russian speakers began to write scientific papers in English. As a result of the shift to the English language academic writing, English-speaking papers of Russian authors remain to be topicassociating, that make them unreadable for NS of English. However, the representatives of other cultures, with similar parameters of the discourse organization can easily read and understand English-speaking papers of Russian authors (for example, readers from Eastern Europe).

Discussing the difference between Russian and English, Kecskes and Papp (2000) offer to distinguish grammatical word order (GWO) and pragmatic word order (PWO) languages. GWO language (e.g. English) is subject-prominent, configurational, syntactically dominant. PWO language (e.g. Russian) is topic-prominent, nonconfigurational, pragmatically dominant. Rhetorical differences usually include factors such as topic-centered versus topic-associating style amongst others (KECSKES; PAPP, 2000, p. 115).

If the Russian language is “pragmatically dominant”, it may mean that it uses more pragmatic tools, then English. Kogut (2014) shows that Russian academic writing involves a semi-structured text, which often does not have separate parts (in articles) or has a minimum amount of parts (in theses). The task of clarifying the order of ideas is performed through discourse (pragmatical) markers (KOGUT, 2014). S. Kogut has compared Russian and German articles and found that the number of discourse markers in the Russian articles is much higher than the number of discourse markers in the German articles: 112 and 45, respectively (KOGUT, 2014, p. 22-23). All German-language articles are clearly structured in sections, and each of the sections has a corresponding title: introduction, chapters, subchapters and conclusion. Most of the Russian authors emphasize the forced transition from one scene to another and the end of argumentation using markers: “therefore”, “it can be concluded”, “as a result”, “thus”, “consequently” (KOGUT, 2014, p. 24).

In order to check differences between Russian and English academic writing, we are focusing specifically on discourse markers as tools for the structuring of science written discourse (KOGUT, 2014, p. 18). Therefore, our study addressed the following research question:

• Are there differences in the use of discourse markers in Doctoral Theses written in Russian or in English?

Data was collected from six Doctoral Theses – three in Russian and three in English – from the field of sociology (see Appendix 1). For the selection of the theses, we asked three independent experts who teach at a bilingual programme in one of Russian Universities. They informed us about the theses that they use most often and we studied these theses.

We have chosen the Russian theses of “doktor nauk” (a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences, which is given to reflect second (advanced) research qualifications or higher doctorates in ISCED 2011) due to the fact that, in accordance with the formal requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation (VAK, 2015), this scientific genre is more clearly structured, whereas Russian articles usually do not meet this requirement. Therefore, one might expect that Russian scientists are using discourse markers in the Russian theses of “doktor nauk” similarly to the way these are used in theses in English. In order to do our study comparable to the other, we also like Kogut chose discourse markers “therefore”, “it can be concluded”, “as a result”, “thus”, “consequently” (see: KOGUT, 2014, p. 24).

The table1 is presented the results (see Table1.) The average amount of discourse markers per 1000 words is 3,89 in Russian theses and 1,75 in theses in English. These results are similar to those obtained by Kogut (KOGUT, 2014).

Table 1
Discourse markers in PhD theses in Russian or in English.

Cont. Table 1
Discourse markers in PhD theses in Russian or in English.

What are the reasons for this seemingly excessive use of discourse markers in well-structured Russian academic papers? According to S. Kogut, this difference is caused by the fact that the Russian academic language is semi-structured (KOGUT, 2014). In this regards it is necessary to compare typical schemes (model) of Russian and English scientific paper.

The approximate scheme of a typical Russian Doctoral Theses in the field of social science is the following (KUZIN, 2014):

1. 1. The problem, which is dedicated to the study, is presented in two parts: the theoretical part (how to describe this phenomenon) and the empirical part (how to change a situation).
2. 2. The theoretical-methodological base: works of classics in the field, including basic philosophical conceptions, for example, Hegel's dialectics of development.
3. 3. Possibilities and limits of the theoretical-methodological basis and its key opponents, according to Karl Popper's falsification criterion (see POPPER, 2004).
4. 4. Empirical verification of the theoretical-methodological basis (empirical research).
5. 5. Two groups of conclusions: conclusions about the applicability of this theoretical and methodological basis in examining the problem and recommendations for solving a problem.

In a brief scheme, a Russian Doctoral Theses can be represented as theory –practice – theory.

The approximate scheme (model) of a typical English academic article in the field of social science is the following (WITTAKER, 2014):

1. 1. Problem, which research is devoted to (Introduction)
2. 2. Research questions and hypotheses
3. 3. Theoretical Framework (recent articles in this field)
4. 4. Data and methodology
5. 5. Opportunities and limits of the empirical methodology
6. 6. Results
7. 7. Discussion: paper's contribution to the solution of an empirical problem in contexts of other similar studies

In a brief scheme, an English academic paper can be represented as practice –theory - practice.

Perhaps this difference creates a peculiar perception of Russian professors. In their interviews, they said that ‘the English academic genre is empirical, whereas the Russian is rationalistic’ (RUBTCOVA, 2015b). For many Russian scientists in the field of social sciences, this difference is essential, and they have a critical attitude towards ‘the domination of empiricism in Western science’ (RUBTCOVA, 2015b). Switching to work with English academic genres can be perceived as ‘a crisis of scientific knowledge under the Western influence’, ‘deterioration or elimination of a philosophical basis’, ‘refusal to check theoretical limits and lack of serious work with the opponents` points of view’ (RUBTCOVA, 2015a).

Our research helps clarify some reasons why Russian social science professors can avoid the transition to English as the language of doctoral teaching and scientific communications. The scientific community, in accordance with the characteristics of the professional communities, has its own values and traditions. The transition to English language teaching cannot lead to the mechanical replacement of one language to another; this transition involves the use of English academic genres including the introduction of the Western structure of the article and the changes in the writing of final papers.

Due to the fact that the genre-based CLIL focuses on academic English, it assumes development of English academic genres, including the western traditions of academic writing. The difference in English and Russian academic genres could become one of the obstacles in the implementation of CLIL Doctoral programmes. That is why the key question of CLIL introduction in the Russian academic environment is the following: which model of academic genres will be taught in the English language: Russian or English? Perhaps, we have to find a combination of these genres in our CLIL Doctoral programmes. When we introduce new CLIL Doctoral programmes at Russian universities, we should take into account these differences.

While the small-scale investigation has been confirmed as a suitable procedure for directing our research questions, a number of shortcomings of this approach need to be recognized. The selection of small-scale research indicates that the consequences cannot be considered to be representative. Hence, the small sample size allows us to make only preliminary conclusions. In conjunction with the lack of information on this topic in Russia and reflecting the glut of ideological narratives, these conclusions can be useful. Notwithstanding some Russian ideological beliefs and comprehension of the English language as a tool of latent control, these conclusions show that there are possibilities to open debate about genre differences in sociological academic English and Russian.

A study on the interaction between Russian and English academic genres in sociology should be continued. We still do not know how to work with the English academic language and, at the same time to keep Russian scientific traditions that deserve careful care of their development. Perhaps it makes sense to think of the development of Russian English as part of World Englishes. It can be an objective of the further research.

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.