CC BY
13
А.Д. ПЕТРЕНКО, К.А. МЕЛЕЖИК
Оригинальная статья
УДК 811.111:004.77:[316.72+316.77] DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-1-189-195
Персонализация языковой среды в обучении предметно-ориентированной коммуникации1
А.Д. Петренко1'—^
Крымский федеральный университет им. В.И. Вернадского,
г. Симферополь, Российская Федерация ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3481-1130; e-mail: [email protected]
К.А. Мележик
Крымский федеральный университет им. В.И. Вернадского, г. Симферополь, Российская Федерация ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4581-1280; e-mail: [email protected]
Получена: 17.12.2018 Принята: 4.02.2019 Опубликована онлайн: 25.03.2019
Резюме: Статья основана на концепции английского языка межнациональной коммуникации университетского сообщества, предметно-ориентированного английского лингва франка (ПОАЛФ) университетского сообщества, как инструмента интернационализации и вторичной социализации. Актуальность исследования определяется недостаточной разработкой вопросов интернализации англоязычных культурно-специфических реалий (КСР) в студенческой интернет-коммуникации, а его целью является систематизация КСР ПОАЛФ, функционирующего в студенческом сообществе Крымского федерального университета имени В.И. Вернадского. Единственной постоянно доступной и персонализованной языковой средой, посредством которой все члены сообщества могут практиковать общение на АЯ, служит интернет-коммуникация. Для отбора КСР в англоязычной интернет-коммуникации информантов были использованы сайты MyLanguageExchange.com и Russian Language Exchange Partners, построенные по принципу коннективизма, который объясняет языковую деятельность в открытой среде (Интернет) с точки зрения формирования сетей различной природы (от семантических до социальных, опосредованных компьютерными интерфейсами). Методика коннективизма отказывается от традиционных вузовских образовательных сред («изолированных систем») в пользу создания персональных учебных сред («открытых систем») на основе общедоступных сервисов. При этом снимается ограничение на количество слушателей, а процесс обучения принимает форму участия в сетевом сообществе, т.е. создается внешняя сеть информации, которая открыта для всех, кто организует свое участие в соответствии с общими интересами и целями. Участники в процессе свободного общения усваивают лексику, произношение и элементы лингвокультуры виртуальных партнеров. Предлагается отчет об эксперименте по созданию открытой языковой среды по методике коннективизма в интернет-коммуникации студентов, где формируется лингвокультурный компонент национально-культурной идентификации. Ключевые слова: Межнациональная коммуникация, предметно-ориентированный английский лингва франка, коннективизм, интернет-коммуникация.
Для цитирования: Петренко А.Д., Мележик К.А. Персонализация языковой среды в обучении предметно-ориентированной коммуникации. Актуальные проблемы филологии и педагогической лингвистики. 2019; 1: 189-195. DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-1-189-195.
1 Статья публикуется в рамках V Международной научно-практической конференции «Коммуникативные технологии в образовании, бизнесе, политике и праве: проблемы и перспективы реализации в современной цифровой среде» (Волгоград, ВГСПУ, 6-8.12.2018).
Original Paper
DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-1-189-195
Personalization of language environment in teaching domain-oriented communication
Aleksandr D. Petrenkol^^l
VI. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, Simferopol, Russian Federation ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3481-1130; e-mail: [email protected]
Karina A. Melezhik
VI. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, Simferopol, Russian Federation ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4581-1280; e-mail: [email protected]
Received: 17.12.2018 Accepted: 4.01.2019 Published online: 25.03.2019
Abstract: The premise of the study is the concept of domain-oriented English lingua franca of the university community, serving as an instrument of secondary socialization. It is characterized by culture specific realia (CSR) ensuring internationalization of students. The relevance of this research is predetermined by the necessity to study types of contact English (CE) CSRs internalization in student online communication, and the goal of this paper is to systematize domain-oriented English lingua franca (DOELF) CSRs functioning in the CE communication of the Crimean Federal V.I. Vernadsky University student community. Internet communication is the open and easily personalized language environment where all members of the community can practice CE communication. The web sites MyLanguageExchange.com and Russian Language Exchange Partners were used to select CSRs in the CE Internet communication of CFU students. These web sites are built on the principle of connectivity or communicative interaction in an open online environment similar to that of social networks (socially mediated online interfaces). The method of connectivism rejects traditional university educational environments ("isolated systems") in favor of creating personal learning environments ("open systems") based on social networks. The learning process means interaction in a network open to all participants in accordance with their common interests and goals. They acquire vocabulary, pronunciation and elements of the linguaculture of virtual partners in the process of free communication. It is proved experimentally that internalization of English is acquired in online communicative practice where open personalized language environment is created by the principle of connectivism.
Keywords: International communication, domain-oriented English lingua franca (DOELF), the principle of connectivism, Internet communication.
For citation: Petrenko A.D., Melezhik K.A. Personalization of Language Environment in Teaching Domain-oriented Communication. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2019; 1: 189-195. DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-1-189-195. (In Russ.)
Introduction
Modern trends of Internet usage in various fields of international communication make educators and researchers reconsider approaches to communicative activity in such a conservative field as higher education. Expanding learning interaction in digital space has contributed to the fact that more and more universities have begun to look for ways and means to transfer part of their training programs to the WWW network or to use its potential for delivering educational content. A significant impact to this process has been given by the ideas of connectivism which explains language activity in an open environment (the Internet) from the point of view of networks formation of different nature (from semantic to social, computer mediated interfaces) [10]. Thus, the main objective of this article is to discuss methodological possibilities for empirical research of application of WWW network and its potential for delivering educational content on practice-based studies. The main reasons for this objective are the large number of studies that have been taking teaching practices as a theoretical framework and the need to contribute to the advancement of research in the practice field. The fact fairly widely recognized among the researches is that the study of practice still needs more methodological discussions [7, p. 309].
A.fí. nETPEHKO, K.A. MEHEXHK
Literature review
The concept of connectivism was developed by Canadian distance 309]instruction researchers J. Siemens and A. Downes who proposed to abandon traditional classroom environments ("isolated systems") in favor of creating personal learning environments ("open systems") based on the public services of Web 2.0 [10]. As a result, the limit on the number of students was lifted and the learning process began to resemble participation in a network community: "to learn in a course" meant "to follow" the learning community [10]. In 2008 J. Siemens held his first Massive Open Online Course - MOOC, devoted to the theory of connectivity according to which instruction means construction of an external information network. A MOOC goes beyond the university limits as it is open to all and sundry who organize their participation in accordance with common interests, goals, knowledge and skills [1].
The active expansion of the sphere of scientific studies in the field of constructing personal learning environments inspires researchers to develop new forms of using open online space in the educational process of Russian university, where English is the main foreign language.
Contact English (CE) of international communication is the gate opener for students to become a potential part of the global community, to actively participate in its daily life and be informed in a professional field. The key role of CE in international higher education is determined by the fact that it enhances mobility trends, enables students to compete in the global labor market, alleviates cultural and linguistic differences and encourages the university administration to expand exchange programs, introduce double diplomas and encourage the participation of their scientists in foreign studies [11, p. 24].
As A. Pennycook points out, international communication is the space in which CE is constantly reproducing and receiving new energy through expressive ingenuity of communicants in ever changing contexts of speech interaction. Consequently, the prospect of transforming English as a lingua franca (ELF) in the overall process of globalization does not consist in the emergence and consolidation of any homogeneous norms of the language, but, conversely, in the expansion of the range of transcultural flows as a result of which the variability of the language is facilitated [13, p. 169].
The notion of DOELF
We introduce the concept of domain-oriented English lingua franca (DOELF) to determine the CE of international communication associated with this or that information sphere and pertaining to specialized domains of socio-cultural diversity of modern society. DOELF is defined as the instrument of international communication deployed by a community functioning in any socio-cultural, economic, political, etc. area.
The choice of DOELF as the language of internationalization takes place in national and local academic communities composed of same first language speakers, but these communities are potential components of an international system. DOELF internationalization of Russian higher education system is characterized by two main factors: the mobility of the collective subject of communication (students and academics), and the mandatory regulation of educational activities.
According to our observations, it is precisely the goals of internationalization that are served by DOELF functioning in the student community of Crimean Federal V.I. Vernadsky University. Students constitute one of the levels of sociocultural stratification of the university community and are identified with certain reference groups that demonstrate a sustainable choice of socially relevant language means in their discourse.
The content of the communicative competence of students using DOELF as a contact language is determined as a publicly coordinated linguacultural set of collective representations of the DOELF functional and pragmatic orientation. The structure of DOELF used in this community is expressively marked for the maximum variability of language forms and free choice of communication strategies within a politically correct functional range in accordance with the language ideology regulating politically correct communication.
Following the definition of K. Woolard and B. Schieffelin, language ideology is a collection of language concepts formulated by its speakers to substantiate their choice of structures and units of language. It is manifested by collective views about the role of language, by the social experience of members of a given community, by the cultural system of linguistic relations, and, finally, by socially consistent sets of shared concepts [17, p. 57].
The language ideology of modern students is characterized by the fact that they all belong to the "digital generation" and naturally function in the online space. Their stay at the university and the associated secondary socialization are limited to the period of study. It is noteworthy that researchers metaphorically call the student community - "a community of multilingual sojourners" [16, p. 64], or "a community of temporary travellers in different cultures'" [8].
An obligatory prerequisite of the students' secondary socialization in the university community is formation of specialized and general segments of the linguistic and cultural component of the DOELF. Its specialized segment serves as an identifying category of DOELF and is formed through the acquirement of cognitive-specific concepts and cognitive-specific terminological vocabulary of the definite areas of scientific knowledge. At the same time, the content of a specific area of knowledge is inseparable from the language of its representation, consequently mastery of special English-language terminology is perceived as mastery of professional knowledge in this field [11, p. 22].
The general segment of the DOELF linguacultural component performs the function of socio-national identification of the DOELF speaker. Within the student community, an important stage in the formation of the DOELF linguacultural component general segment is acquirement of English-language cultural-specific realities (CSRs). English-language CSRs are viewed here as an important marker for secondary socialization in the process of Internet intercultural communication. CSRs are understood to mean language units serving as referents pertaining to one linguacultural community and absent in the other linguacultural community [4, p. 532].
Actual problems of the research
The relevance of this article is determined by the fact that internalization of English-language CSRs in personal learning environments of students' Internet communication has not yet been recognized as an important marker of CE speakers' communicative competence. It is of vital interest to determine the range of the thematic variability of CSRs used in personal learning environments, which is the objective of this study basing on sample analysis of students' Internet blogs. To achieve this objective, it is necessary, firstly, to substantiate the choice of the Internet as a channel for secondary socialization of students, and, secondly, to outline the thematic repertoire of English-language CSRs used by students in personal learning environments.
In the educational contexts of students' DOELF communication two types of discourse are used - institutional classroom discourse and non-institutional informal discourse. By VI. Karasik's definition, the status-oriented, institutional discourse is a specialized cliched version of communication between people who may not know each other but ought to communicate in accordance with the norms of the given community [2, c. 279]. Contrary to the cross-cultural pragmatics of institutional discourse, the cross-cultural pragmatics of non-institutional discourse in DOELF is primarily marked by its functional orientation, absence of limitations on variability, use of certain forms, and choice of communicative strategies.
Non-institutional discourse on the same, even very rigidly prescribed topic differs from the institutional discourse depending on the linguaculture of the group within which this discourse is formed, i.e. depending on the cultural characteristics of the speakers' community, as well as on the subject, addressee or content of the message [6, c. 18].
We hypothesize that in personal learning environments of non-institutional Internet communication, to be more concrete DOELF speaking students, CSRs constitute a significant part of the general segment of the linguacultural component of their English discourse.
Secondary socialization of students and their internalization of the English language are accompanied by the assimilation of the CSRs in the process of communicative practice. As it happens, Internet communication is the only permanently available channel for creating personal learning environments where all students can practice interactive communication in English. There are quite a few language exchange sites built on the principle of connectivity and offering free access, for example, the Russia Language Exchange-Russian Language Partners. Language exchange takes place between two or more participants who have different native languages and want to learn each other's languages or some third language in the process of online communication.
Methods of research
It is important to understand that the methodological framework should be shared to enable others to use Internet communication to provide fresh opportunities to look at specific educational settings in order to explore, understand and enhance teacher practice [14, p. 185 ].The authors of this study developed an experimental procedure, at the initial stage of which 100 students, young people aged 20 to 28 years, were selected. They met three requirements: 1) constant use of the Internet; 2) relatively high competence in CE; 3) desire to improve it by language exchange in Internet chats in the process of intensive communication in English. To simplify the process of collecting factual material, informants who agreed to participate in the survey were emailed a brief explanation of the concept of CSR.
For one or two months, the informants had been having communicative sessions, after which they were asked: a) to select 20-30 English-speaking CSRs reflecting the reality of an English-speaking country, their
A.g. nETPEHKO, K.A. MEHEXHK
country of origin, Russia and the Crimea, and b) to forward to the authors a recording of one chat containing 100-200 words. Finally, the list of 320 CSRs was assembled, and 88 chat audio records were received.
A preliminary survey of informants' foreign chat friends showed that among their partners in language exchange sessions there were few representatives of English-speaking countries: 11 Canadians, 7 Americans, 3 British, 1 Australian, 1 New Zealander. The group of speakers from Argentina, Germany, Greece, Israel, India, Spain, Nigeria, Norway, Slovenia, Turkey, France, South Korea and some other countries interested in communicating in English and learning Russian turned out to be much more numerous.
Finally, we compiled a list of CSRs which belong in the general segment of the DOELF cultural component displayed in personal learning environments. It is divided into two groups: 1) national CSRs and 2) social CSRs, typical for youth Internet communication.
Results and Discursive points
National CSRs are subdivided into the following thematic areas: personal names, for example: President Putin, Dostoyevski, Leo Tolstoy, Jennifer Lopez, Hugh Laurie, Rihanna, Batman; names of countries and nationalities, for example: Russia, The USA, The United Kingdom, England, English, Russian, Korean, Japanese, Yoruba; toponyms, for example: New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul, Istanbul, Simferopol, Crimea, The Black Sea; names of organizations, groups, events and phenomena, for example: The European Union, Green Peace, Sochi Olympics, Beatles; names of money, for example: dollar, euro, real, lira, yen, rouble. As it turned out, in the collected samples, the number of national-specific realities was small and limited to individual geographical names, personal names and realities of everyday life. This allows us to claim that nationally colored CSRs are hardly of much interest to university students.
In their English-speaking Internet communication, there are many more social CSRs that reflect the activities of young people and testify to the peculiarities of their way of life. This culture-specific vocabulary explicitly renders the linguacultural component of their DOELF. It is represented by groups of CSRs related to such spheres as fashion, clothing and appearance, for example: combats, unisex style, trendsetter, fashion-buyer; music and entertainment, for example: gangsta rap, acid jazz, clubber, freestyler; sport, for example: scuba-diving, wind-surfing, parcour, free running, kayaking.
The most numerous was a group of vocabulary related to the Internet and computer. These are nouns and verbs, describing all sorts of concepts and activities related to working on a computer, for example: account, ban, banner, blog, browser, cash, comp, content, domain, drive, driver, guest book, info, interface, mail, message, nick (name), search engine, service, site, skype, SMS, spam, subject, target, teaser, twitter, web-board, webcam, webmaster, web-service, Windows, chat, crack, kick, like, twit, upload, etc. In fact, all this vocabulary is international, and its users can come from any country and be of any age, provided that they all work with the computer.
More than 50% of all CSRs used in personal learning environments are names of objects and phenomena most of which relate to the Internet and computer work. CSRs, describing leisure, appearance and sport account for about a third of the entire body of samples, and national-specific realities constitute no more than 20% of the sampling.
Our assessment of the role of English-speaking CSRs in creating personal learning environments is based on the understanding that there is a double transfer of cultural-specific realities (i.e. from native English variants to global contact English as a mediator of intercultural and interethnic communication, and further into DOELF).
The main necessary condition for the transfer of the CSRs is a certain degree of bilingualism, familiarization of the target language speakers with the meaning of an original CSR and the meaning of its nominations in DOELF personal learning environments. In fact, all participants of such environments have proved to be bilinguals with the first - their national language and the second - English in the form of DOELF.
The extralinguistic content of global CE contacts with national languages is distinguished by the fact that the whole sectors of global English-speaking reality are being transferred. To put it differently, this is not a transfer of CSRs as names of individual objects of a national culture from the language of one national community to the language of another national community. It is rather the dissemination of the names of cultural elements of discourse communities whose members belong to different original linguacultural and national-language communities.
Inferences
Summing up, it is necessary to emphasize that the students' DOELF develops in the university community as a social phenomenon, and its main purpose as a potential tool of international communication is to ensure the process of internationalization of the members of this social community.
Speech behavior of the DOELF user in situations modeling non-institutional communication in personal learning environments is socially determined and characterized by a wider range of language options, among which there are a variety of CSRs pertaining to a cultural-specific factor of Internet communication.
Language competence of speakers using DOELF as a contact language in personal learning environments is expressed in a set of CSRs that reflect collective notions about the role of language in the social experience of members of a given community. The cultural-specific vocabulary typical for Internet communication of students consists of two groups: 1) a few national-specific realities and 2) international social-specific realities that reflect the interests of young people.
In conclusion, it should be underlined that students, users of DOELF, potentially are Russian-English / DOELF bilinguals, and in university professional interaction such bilingualism is recognized as a factor increasing social status of the individual.
Список литературы
1. Бугайчук К.Л. Массовые открытые дистанционные курсы: история, типология, перспективы // Высшее образование в России. 2013. № 3. С. 148-155.
2. Карасик В.И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. 447 с.
3. Качру Б.Б. Модели вариантов английского языка, не родного для его пользователей // Личность. Культура. Общество. Международный журнал социальных и гуманитарных наук. 2010. Том 12, вып. 1, № 53-54. С. 175-196.
4. Конецкая В.П. Лексико-семантические характеристики языковых реалий // Великобритания: Лингвострановедческий словарь. М.: Русский язык, 2000. С. 532-538.
5. Межкультурная коммуникация: учебное пособие / под ред. В.Г. Зусмана. Нижний Новгород, 2001. 314 с.
6. Шейгал Е.И. Семиотика политического дискурса: монография. М.: Гнозис, 2004. 324 с.
7. Bispo M. Methodological Reflections on Practice-based Research in Organization Studies. BAR - Brazilian Administration Review, 2015. № 12 (3). Pp. 309-323.
8. Bochner S. Culture shock due to contact with unfamiliar cultures // Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. 2015. № 8 (1) [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1073 (дата обращения: 06.04.2015).
9. Carter R., McCarty M. Spoken Grammar: Where Are We and Where Are We Going? // Applied linguistics. 2017. Vol. 38. Pp. 1-20. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amu080.
10. Downes S. Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. Essays on meaning and learning networks. Creative Commons License, 2012. 616 p. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.downes.ca/post/54540 (дата обращения: 18.10.2017).
11. Faber P. English as an Academic Lingua Franca // Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses. 2015. № 23. Pp. 19-32 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://en.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/17421/1/RAEI_23_02.pdf (дата обращения: 01.10.2017).
12. Kramsch C. Applied Linguistics: A Theory of the Practice // Applied linguistics. 2015. Vol. 36. Pp. 454465. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amv039.
13. PennycookA. Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge, 2007. 189 р.
14. Rapley E. Seeing the light. Personal epiphanies and moving towards interpretivism; a researcher's tale of exploring teacher pedagogic practice, Ethnography and Education. 2018. Volume 13, issue 2. Pp. 185-203.
15. Russia Language Exchange - Russian Language Partners [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www. mylanguageexchange.com/Search.asp?selCountry=79&selTxtChat=true (дата обращения: 11.07.2017).
16. Smit U. CLIL in an English as a lingua franca (ELF) classroom: On explaining terms and expressions interactively // Dalton-Puffer Chr. et al (eds) Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2018. Pp. 259-278.
17. Woolard K., Schieffelin B. Language Ideology // Annual Review of Anthropology. 1994. Vol. 23. Pp. 55-82.
References
1. Bugaychuk, K.L. (2013) Mass open distance courses: history, typology, perspectives: Higher education in Russia, no 3, pp. 148-155.
А.Д. ПЕТРЕНКО, К.А. МЕЛЕЖИК
2. Karasik, VI. (2002) Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse, Volgograd: Peremena, 447 p.
3. Kachru, B.B. (2010) Models of non-native English language versions for its users, Personality. Culture. Society. International journal of social and human Sciences, vol XII, no 1, 53-54, pp. 175-196.
4. Konetskaya, V.P. (2000) Lexical and semantic characteristics of linguistic realities, Great Britain: Linguistic and cultural dictionary, pp. 532-538.
5. (2001) Intercultural communication. A training manual / V.G. Zusman, Nizhnij Novgorod, 314 p.
6. Sheygal, Ye. (2004) Semiotics of Political Discourse: Monograph, M.: Gnozis, 324 p.
7. Bispo, M. (2015) Methodological Reflections on Practice-based Research in Organization Studies. BAR - Brazilian Administration Review, no 12 (3), pp. 309-323.
8. Bochner, S. (2015) Culture shock due to contact with unfamiliar cultures, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, no 8 (1). Availible at: http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1073 (access at 6 April 2017).
9. Carter, R., McCarty, M. (2017) Spoken Grammar: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?: Applied linguistics, vol. 38, pp. 1-20. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amu080.
10. Downes, S. (2012) Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. Essays on meaning and learning networks. Creative Commons License, 616 p. Availible at: https://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_ Knowledge-19May2012.pd (access at 18 October 2017).
11. Faber, P. (2015) English as an Academic Lingua Franca, Revista Anglicantina de Estudios Ingleses, no 28, pp. 19-32. Availible at: http://en.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/17421/1/RAEI_23_02.pdf (access at 1 October 2017).
12. Kramsch, C. (2015) Applied Linguistics: A Theory of the Practice, Applied linguistics, vol. 36, pp. 454-465. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amv039.
13. Pennycook, A. (2007) Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows, London: Routledge, 189 р.
14. Rapley, E. (2018) Seeing the light. Personal epiphanies and moving towards interpretivism; a researcher's tale of exploring teacher pedagogic practice, Ethnography and Education, volume 13, issue 2, pp. 185-203.
15. Russia Language Exchange - Russian Language Partners. Availible at: https://www.mylanguageex-change.com/Search.asp?selCountry=79&selTxtChat=true (access at 11 July 2017).
16. Smit, U. (2018) CLIL in an English as a lingua franca (ELF) classroom: On explaining terms and expressions interactively // Dalton-Puffer Chr. et al (eds) Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 259-278.
17. Woolard, K., Schieffelin, B. (1994) Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 23, pp. 55-82.
Петренко Александр Демьянович, доктор филологических наук, профессор, Крымский федеральный университет им. В.И. Вернадского, Институт иностранной филологии, директор, кафедра теории языка, литературы и социолингвистики, заведующий, г. Симферополь, Российская Федерация.
Aleksandr D. Petrenko, Doctor of Philology, professor, VI. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, Institute of Philology and Foreign Languages, Director, Department of Language Theory, Literature and Sociolin-guistics, Head of; the address: Simferopol, Russian Federation.
Мележик Карина Алексеевна, кандидат филологических наук, доцент, Крымский федеральный университет им. В.И. Вернадского, кафедра иностранных языков № 3, заведующий, г. Симферополь, Российская Федерация.
Karina A. Melezhik, Candidate of Philology, associate professor, VI. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, Foreign Languages Department № 3, Head of, the address: Simferopol, Russian Federation.
