Linguodidactic discourse: the student as a subject in teaching foreign languages

Kosteeva Dar'ya Teaching Assistant, Foreign Languages Department, MIREA – Russian Technological University 78 Vernadsky Avenue, Moscow, 119454, Russia kosteevadaria@gmail.com

Introduction

In the process of teaching foreign languages, the metalanguage function of the language is realized, and therefore learning is built based on linguistic, speech, socio-cultural, compensatory and educational-cognitive competencies, the formation and development of which is simultaneously its goal ^[1]. As a consequence, the formation of communicative competence in the field of AI requires an understanding of the patterns of the organization of social interaction in this language and should be considered within the framework of a discursive paradigm. In relation to the teaching of AI, scientists turn to various types of discourse — pedagogical, didactic, methodological and linguodidactic — which is due to the multidimensionality of the tasks solved in the learning process. It is assumed that each of the types of discourse is responsible for a certain number of aspects corresponding to the goals and objectives of the scientific discipline represented by it: pedagogy — for pedagogical discourse, teaching methods — for methodological discourse, etc. The frequency of referring to the concept of discourse in the field of teaching AI in domestic research has increased significantly: at the end of the XX century, the discourse was stated in the topics of articles and dissertations much less often than it was presented in them in the 2010-2020s. As a result, the boundaries of the initially adjacent types of discourse, within which the problems of teaching and learning are considered, are blurred, which leads to the question of the legitimacy of their differentiation. The purpose of this work is to analyze the grounds for distinguishing related types of discourse in research in the field of teaching and to determine the place and features of linguodidactic discourse among related types of discourse in this field. To do this, it is necessary to analyze which definitions of pedagogical, didactic, methodological and linguodidactic discourses are based on modern research on the teaching of AI; to determine the differential features that distinguish these discourses; to show, based on the selected features, how the boundaries of discourses are related to the problems of research in the field of AI. The conclusion about the limitations of the problems of research in the field of teaching AI within the framework of pedagogical, didactic and methodological discourses will allow us to distinguish among the related types of discourses linguodidactic, whose differential features make it possible to consider the widest range of problems within the framework of modern approaches in the field of teaching AI.

Literature review

In order to analyze how research in the field of teaching AI draws the boundaries between pedagogical, didactic, methodological and linguodidactic discourses, let us turn to dissertations from the Russian State Library (RSL), defended over the past 10 years and considering the problems of teaching AI within these types of discourse. The criteria for the selection of dissertations were such keywords as "pedagogical discourse", "didactic discourse", "methodological discourse" and "linguodidactic discourse", stated in the title or in the table of contents of the works, as well as the focus of the research only on teaching and learning. 9 works were selected according to these criteria, among which 3 are devoted to pedagogical discourse ^{[2; 3; 4]}, 2 — didactic discourse ^{[5; 6]}, 2 — methodical discourse ^{[7; 8]} and 2 — linguodidactic discourse ^{[9; 10]}. It is noteworthy that there are no relevant works on methodological discourse (the last dissertation was written in 2012), while there are more and more new works on linguodidactic discourse (both dissertations considered were defended in 2020).

In dissertations devoted to pedagogical discourse, M. S. Bachurka (2017) ^[2], M. N. Tlenkopacheva (2019) ^[3] and M. K. Trushina (2020) ^[4] focuses on the pedagogical interaction of the teacher and the student in the framework of the IYA training. M. S. Bachurka explores the evaluative statements of the teacher in Russian and English during the English lesson. She notes that pedagogical discourse is distinguished by "hierarchy, ritualism, educational and educational orientation, the specifics of the role statuses of communicants" ^{[2, p. 6]}. M. N. Tlenkopacheva studies the features of speech interaction of participants (teachers, students and organizers) of English-language webinars. Pedagogical discourse in her work is described as an "interactive model of socially ritualized behavior of participants in the educational process" aimed at their socialization ^{[3, p. 6]}. The work of M. K. Trushina is devoted to the study of euphemistic utterances within the framework of pedagogical discourse, where pedagogical discourse is a "discourse of pedagogical activity" ^{[4, p. 9]}, which is characterized by the teacher's observance of ethical and communicative norms, as well as the "monopolization" of dialogue in communication with students [ibid., p. 19]. At the same time , only the study of M. K. Trushina analyzes the linguistic means most characteristic of pedagogical discourse. However, all three works emphasize the presence of teacher–student social roles, where the teacher's position becomes the leading one.

S. A. Gerasimova (2011) ^[5] and O. Yu. Redkina (2017) ^[6] conduct their research within the framework of didactic discourse. S. A. Gerasimova explores the discursive features of the genre of methodical notes in Russian and French. She introduces the concept of educational and didactic discourse in her work, but notes that it, as well as didactic discourse, is one of the types of pedagogical discourse, which emphasizes the problem of distinguishing related types of discourse. The author notes the institutionality of pedagogical discourse and the presence of a "specialized cliched kind of communication" between the teacher and the student inherent in it, which is "regulated both in content and in form" ^{[5, p. 4-5]}. In turn, the educational and didactic discourse in the work is considered "as a written discursive practice" and has a limited scope of application, since it is aimed "at persuading the addressee (teacher/student) to perform certain didactic tasks" [ibid., p. 12]. O. Yu. Redkina explores the educational and methodological texts used in teaching RCT, bringing out the educational material (educational and methodological text) as a third agent in the learning situation, on the interaction with which communication between the teacher and the student is built. When defining didactic discourse, the author resorts to the concept of V. I. Karasik, according to which the didactic speech interaction studied in the work has the characteristics of an institutional discourse: "the purpose of communication", the presence of role characteristics in communicants and "fixed typical circumstances of communication" ^{[6, p. 8]}. Thus, both works focus on the institutionality of the type of discourse used and the social functions of its communicants.

The research of M. G. Sessateleva (2011) ^[7] and N. P. Ivinskikh (2012) ^[8] are written on the basis of methodological discourse. M. G. Sessateleva studies the terminology of the competence approach in German and Russian methodological discourse. N. P. Ivinskikh explores the use of metaphors in monographs and articles on the methodology of teaching English-speaking and Russian-speaking authors. The definitions of methodological discourse given by both authors practically coincide, presenting methodological discourse as "a set of texts in which special knowledge about the methodology of teaching foreign languages is represented" ^{[8, p. 8]}. This understanding differs significantly from the definitions of pedagogical and didactic discourses due to the orientation to methodological materials, and not to the interaction of participants in the educational process. A distinctive feature of the work of N. P. Ivinsky is that she considers three different periods of the development of methodological discourse, where the third period is characterized by "equality of participants in the process of studying AI" ^{[8, p. 12]}, but this idea is not fully disclosed.

The dissertations of O. N. Gich (2020) ^[9] and M. V. Klimanova (2020) ^[10] are carried out within the framework of linguodidactic discourse. O. N. Gich explores the concepts of native speaker and native speaker in English and Russian linguodidactic scientific discourse, understanding linguodidactic discourse "as a kind of practice-oriented scientific discourse", the main purpose of which is It becomes "to identify the most effective way of mastering a non-native language in various socio-cultural contexts" ^{[9, p. 13]}. M. V. Klimanova examines the concept of knowledge in modern English-language linguodidactic discourse. According to the author, linguodidactic discourse is "a kind of speech activity aimed at mastering knowledge of linguistic, linguoculturological and sociolinguistic nature" ^{[10, p.8]}. Thus, both works are characterized by the study of theoretical and practical aspects of teaching AI in an inextricable connection with the socio-cultural context. However, both authors work with scientific and academic texts and do not fully disclose the functioning of teacher-student speech interaction.

As the review shows, research in the field of AI education addresses various types of discourse, however, the grounds that serve to distinguish them remain uncertain. In order to have a clear idea of where the boundaries of adjacent types of discourses lie, it is necessary to identify the parameters that define the boundaries of discourse, which will clarify how the problems of research in the field of teaching and learning correlate with the boundaries of adjacent types of discourse.

Methodology

The definition of discourse and the categorization of discourse types are the tasks that do not have an unambiguous solution ^[11]. Unless specifically specified, discourse is understood as "a coherent text in combination with extralinguistic, pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological and other factors", as "speech immersed in life" ^{[12, pp. 136-137]}. Therefore, A. A. Kibrik notes that "the forms of discourse are as diverse as the forms of human life itself" ^{[13, p. 2]}, which explains the diversity of existing approaches to the typologization of discourses: genre ^{[14, 15]}, cognitive ^{[16, 17]}, content analysis ^[18], the French school ^{[11, 19]}. Despite the multiplicity of approaches, A. A. Kibrik proposes to identify 4 parameters for typologizing discourses that allow them to be characterized ^[13]: 1) opposition by mode, that is, the channel of information transmission (oral, gestural, mental, written, etc.); 2) opposition by genre (interview, discussion, report, story, etc.). 3) opposition by functional style, based on the spheres of human activity (scientific style, official style, household style, etc.); 4) opposition by formality, based on the nature of social relations of participants in a communicative situation and echoing the principles and categories of politeness. However, the proposed four parameters cannot be considered as independent: such parameters as written, scientific and formal define a number of genres of academic communication: abstract, theses, article, dissertation — which can be attributed to a single academic discourse ^[15], and do not form different discourses, as the proposed parameterization suggests.

Introducing genre as one of the parameters necessary for the typologization of discourses, A. A. Kibrik refers to the work of M. M. Bakhtin devoted to speech genres, but refuses to further use his approach ^{[13, p. 8]}. Despite the formal absence of the term discourse in the works of M. M. Bakhtin, his reflections on the social conditionality of the utterance embedded in the complex structure of the relationship between the speaker and the listener allowed V. I. Tyupe to conclude that the discursive approach was anticipated in the works of M. M. Bakhtin ^[18]. V. I. Tyupa draws a clear parallel between the definition of the speech genres of M. M. Bakhtin and understanding the nature of the discourse of M. Foucault and Van Dyck. Van Dijk defines discourse as a "communicative event of sociocultural interaction" determined by the positions of its participants and the social context in which they act [ibid., p. 161]. M. M. Bakhtin considers the speech genre as a stable type of utterance formed by a certain sphere of language use ^[20]. The main characteristic of the speech genre then becomes the trinity of thematic content, compositional construction and style. The choice of speech genre "is determined by the specifics of this sphere of speech communication, subject-semantic (thematic) considerations, the specific situation of speech communication, the personal composition of its participants, etc." ^{[20, p. 433]}. Based on the works of M. M. Bakhtin, V. I. Tyupa suggests considering discourse as a certain type of discursive practices, the structure of which is limited by the regulatory boundaries of social practices. V. I. Tyupa's statement that "the boundary between discourses consists in changing the subject, or the addressee, or the strategy of utterance in the communicative field of continuous communication" ^{[21, p. 33]}, allows us to identify the parameters of the boundaries of discourse, which can be considered independent and describe different types of discourses determined by social practices: the positions of subjects and strategies for their interaction.

When teaching AI, teachers and students are involved in interaction, who implement communication strategies in various socio-cultural contexts. A communicative strategy is a "set of speech actions aimed at achieving a communicative goal" ^{[22, p. 54]}. In other words, we are talking about the planning of speakers, teachers and students, their speech behavior depending on the given socio-cultural context of interaction. The participants of the interaction build a communicative strategy in accordance with the subject, purpose and social practices, thereby forming the boundaries of discourse. With this approach to defining the boundaries of discourse, different interaction strategies will link different subject positions.

Results

The use of the presented parametrization, where the boundaries of discourse are built up due to the positions of subjects and the strategy of their interaction, which, in turn, develops according to the subject, purpose and social practices, allows differentiating pedagogical, didactic, methodological and linguodidactic discourses, despite the vagueness of their definitions in the dissertation studies in the field of teaching and learning.

The analysis of the works performed within the framework of pedagogical discourse leads to the conclusion that pedagogical discourse focuses on teacher–student pedagogical interaction, where the teacher occupies a dominant position. According to M. N. Tlenkopacheva, this is due to "socially ritualized behavior" ^{[3, p. 6]}, which presupposes the existence of formal rules of social and cultural behavior of the teacher and the student, where the verbal interaction of communicants arises on the initiative of the teacher. M. S. Bachurka also notes the desire of the teacher to exert a certain "influence on the addressee" ^{[2, p. 13]}, that is, the student, which emphasizes their unequal positions. At the same time, AI is considered not as a subject of study, but as a way of implementing interaction: the research material is texts and speech utterances reflecting the communication process of teachers and students, while the linguistic aspects of their interaction remain outside the scope of the authors' consideration, that is, the language within this interaction is considered only as a means of communication, but not as an element the content of the training. The only exception is the work of M. K. Trushina, who draws attention to the importance of linguistic means, but her research focuses on euphemistic utterances, which makes it highly specialized.

Didactic discourse acts as a subspecies of pedagogical discourse, from which such significant components as the educational situation and the teacher–student relationship of subjects are borrowed. The didactic component is a set of communicative strategies and methods of influence aimed "at persuading the addressee to perform certain didactic tasks" ^{[5, p. 12]} and helping to identify the leading position of the teacher, that is, the role of the student remains limited. Within the framework of didactic discourse, as well as within the framework of pedagogical, research in the field of AI does not address the implementation of the metalanguage function, that is, the language means used in foreign language communication of the teacher and students are not considered from the point of view of the content of teaching.

In the works based on methodological discourse, the student is presented as an object (addressee) to which the teaching activity of the teacher is directed, studied in detail from the point of view of content, content and teaching methods. In research, there is a shift in emphasis on the teaching activities of the teacher and methodological materials. At the same time, language is not only considered as a means of communication, but also performs a metalanguage function (for example, metaphor acts as a "means of modeling, interpretation and understanding" ^{[8, p. 12]}), which distinguishes methodological discourse from pedagogical and didactic. Despite the fact that in the model of methodological discourse it is possible to represent a student and a teacher as equal participants in the process of learning, for example, using the "ESA (engage, study, activate) learning model - involvement, study, activation" ^{[8, p. 12]}, this approach remains an exception: the leading role is reserved for the teacher. The selection of the teaching content and its refinement depending on the needs of the student is the function of the teacher (see I. L. Bim ^[23], M. V. Lyakhovitsky ^[24], A. N. Shchukin ^[25]).

Studies conducted within the framework of linguodidactic discourse, in contrast to pedagogical and didactic, tend to consider language material both as a way of organizing communication between teachers and students, and as the content of teaching. According to M. V. Klimanova, the materials of the linguodidactic orientation note "a close connection of theoretical linguistic knowledge with practical language proficiency" ^{[10, p. 13]} and with its application in situations of speech interaction. Moreover, linguodidactic discourse includes both sociolinguistic and sociocultural components of the speech activity of communication participants, excluded from consideration in other types of discourse. Despite the fact that O. N. Gich and M. V. Klimanova do not consider in detail the teacher–student speech interaction, their definitions of linguodidactic discourse imply active and equal participation of both the teacher and the student in foreign language communication, which also becomes a characteristic difference from all three previously considered types of discourse.

Thus, the most complete range of problems important for modern research in the field of AI teaching can be considered within the framework of linguodidactic discourse. It allows you to study various strategies for the interaction of communicants in various subject positions, while supporting the implementation of the metalanguage function of the AI. Despite the fact that pedagogical discourse includes the largest number of varieties of discourses related to diverse learning situations, it institutionally restricts the strategies of interaction between the teacher and the student, implying their unequal positions in teaching. In addition, within the framework of pedagogical and didactic discourses, language does not consider AI as a subject of study, which leaves aside the linguistic aspects of interaction strategies on AI. In contrast to pedagogical and didactic, methodological discourse assumes the implementation of a metalanguage function in teaching, however, it limits possible interaction strategies, excluding the change of subject positions by communicants. As a result, linguodidactic discourse stands out among the types of discourse related to it, since it allows us to explore not only the traditional strategies of teacher–student interaction, but also the strategies of teacher–teacher and student–student, which were previously considered not in a single field of research, but in various disciplinary areas. Moreover, within the framework of the linguodidactic discourse, all interaction strategies can be analyzed from the point of view of the implementation of the metalanguage function in foreign language communication.

Discussion

The study of the problems of teaching foreign languages through the prism of linguodidactic discourse can be correlated with the activity approach laid down in the "Pan-European Competencies of Foreign Language Proficiency" (Cadre europ?en commun de r?f?rence pour les langues: apprendre, enseigner, ?valuer, CECR) ^[26]. The new edition of this document, published in 2018, insists on the importance of an activity-based approach in the field of teaching AI: students are considered both as language users and as social agents, the social nature of language learning and use is emphasized ^[27]. At the center of the learning process is the joint construction of meanings in the course of interaction between the teacher and the student, as well as students among themselves. In other words, the main communicative task is taken out of the exclusively linguistic environment into the sociolinguistic and socio-cultural one, assuming the solution of various issues related to foreign-language social and cultural practices, in which teachers and students are equally involved. As a result, the participants of communication, the teacher and the student, switching subject positions and resorting to various communicative strategies determined by the subject, goal and situation, jointly form the content of learning, which thus becomes dynamic and is the product of their joint purposeful activity.

At the same time, the strategies of teacher–teacher and student–student interaction fall into the field of linguodidactic discourse, the consideration of which was previously carried out within the framework of pedagogy and didactics, which made it impossible to assess their role in constructing the content of teaching from a linguistic point of view. Linguo-didactic discourse allows us to include in the consideration the metalanguage function of language involved in various communicative strategies implemented by teachers and students at the IA. The interaction of subjects unfolds within the framework of a certain topic and sphere of communication (initially set or formed in the process of communication), outlining the field of possible linguistic means due to the socio-cultural environment. Thus, the subjects build their interaction around the content of the AI training in various combinations of positions, discussing, selecting and implementing it in joint activities.

Conclusion

According to the results of the work, the teacher–student interaction in the field of teaching AI, in which the student acquires a new active position on a par with the teacher, should be considered as the interaction of two independent subjects, in the process of changing their positions, the content of teaching AI is formed and changing, adapting to dynamically changing social practices. Of the four types of discourse analyzed, such an approach in teaching AI can be implemented only within the framework of linguodidactic discourse, which, assuming a change of subject positions, takes into account sociolinguistic and sociocultural factors and considers foreign language communication from the point of view of the content of teaching and strategies of interaction between its participants, teacher and student. Related types of discourse (pedagogical, didactic, methodical) exclude either one or two important factors: subjectivity, and consequently, the activity of the student's position within the framework of foreign language communication, and the metalanguage function of the AI implemented in foreign language communication strategies.