IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Russian Accent in English Written Discourse
Olga R. Bondarenko
Russian State University for the Humanities
Moscow, Russia

29

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
This research is a multi-aspect exploratory investigation of Russian English institutional
written discourse and highlights its features demonstrated by Russian native learners, tertiary
students of English for the tourism and hospitality industry. The author approaches the themefrom the perspectives of World Englishes and the pedagogical agenda. This sample study isbased on the analysis of the researcher’s corpus of English written works by Russian students.
It reveals Russian English discoursal variations as manifestations of ethnolinguistic andethnocultural identity. The paper highlights users’ repeated salient discoursal features, the mainof which appeared to be in communication strategies, structure, and register. Specific choicesof linguistic, stylistic, structural and strategic variables result in the uncovered Russian English
discoursal features, such as straightforwardness, excessive evaluation, abuse of negation andothers. The research also focuses on their possible unwelcome pragmatic effects in business
communication. This paper is a contribution to scarce comprehensive World Englishes
discourse studies, particularly to the under-explored theme of Russian English. Revelation of
local voices in English discourse and their interpretation in terms of indigenous languages andcultures may be a demanded addition to the World Englishes theory and practice. The
pedagogical inferences of this research suggest that culturally relevant English-as-a-foreignlanguage teaching should take into account the English discoursal profile of learners resulting
from their interfering native profile to improve pedagogical practices.
Keywords: Russian accent, Russian English discoursal variations, World Englishes, discourse
analysis, pragmatic dissonance.

30

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

As English is learned in Russia as a foreign language (EFL) to be used as a means ofcommunication with native speakers and non-native speakers globally, it is evident thatmastering English discourse is becoming a most important target, especially for today’s
students of English for Special Purposes (ESP) preparing to join the professional worldcommunity tomorrow. According to Graddol (1997, 2006), English used by non-natives posesat least two issues:“English as a global lingua franca requires intelligibility and the setting and maintainingof standards” (Graddol, 1997, p. 3); and“as English becomes more widely used as a global language, it will become expectedthat speakers will signal their nationality, and other aspects of their identity throughEnglish” (Graddol, 2006, p. 117).
Unlike prevalent linguistic EFL error-sensitive areas in grammar, syntax and mechanics(Pescante-Malimas and Samson, 2017, p. 194), particular vulnerable areas in EFL discourse
have not become the focus of much scholarly attention yet. Meanwhile, as the overwhelming
majority of English learners come from various non-native ethnic backgrounds there arises apedagogical priority of exploring their discoursal specifics. As Kachru (1997) pinpoints, it isequally legitimate to acquaint foreign writers with rhetorical patterns common to Inner Circle
Englishes and at the same time to disclose to English educators differing rhetorical conventionsof the world majority learners of English (p.161). Many of such learners are Russians andaccording to the author’s previous quantitative studies, English discourse imperfections rank
second after grammar in the most numerous errors of Russian learners (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Share of discourse in the total of written errors of Russian learners

31

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

The data in Figure 1 show the average percentage of student informants out of the total numberof 160 who made particular types of errors in English writing. The kinds of writing analysed
were students’ email messages to the researcher and written business genres important for
students of tourism and hospitality. As the graph shows, the most widely spread errors weremade by Russian natives in articles usage, grammar, syntax and discourse. Approximately
every second informant violated discoursal practices applied by natives in corresponding
genres. This makes EFL discourse a zone of special pedagogical attention.
Forming discourse competence in a foreign language is a great challenge. First, there are no
settled rules or prescriptions to assume because of the complex hierarchy of the subject andWorld Englishes diversity. Second, inevitable cross-cultural and cognitive barriers worsen
discourse comprehension and production. As Rifkin and Roberts (1995) illuminate, a message
can be both understandable and irritating, highly comprehensible and “foreign” (p. 522). In
other words, there is something to EFL text that accounts for this “aftertaste”, and thissomething may be discoursal inadequacy.
Literature Review
Discourse study is a multi-focus endeavour. It can become an identification tool: What people
are saying or writing makes recognisable who they are, and the ways they are writing constructwhat they are actually doing (Gee, 2004, p. 48).
White accentuated the influence of factors making spoken and written texts to seem wellformed. (Canale, & Swane, 1980, cited in White, 1997, part 3 “Intercomprehensibility &Communicative Competence”). The knowledge of discourse rules is socially shared, and to
make mutual understanding possible, “social actors share norms, values and rules ofcommunication” (Van Dijk, 1997, p. 17). It means that, in order to be accurately understood,
EFL users have to share them too.
It is important for EFL users to be aware of various discourse dimensions and realise theappropriateness of discourse elements usage at several levels. One of the most crucial andinsufficiently investigated World Englishes dimensions is discourse strategies. Cots interpretsthem as “the systematic adoption of a series of verbal actions which respond to a more or lessconscious plan or communicative routine to achieve a specific goal” (Cots, 1996, p. 94). It ishere that non-native English users run the greatest risk of making “faux pas” producing
unintended effects. Meanwhile, there is evidence that recipients are often less tolerant of
pragmatic failures of their foreign interlocutors in intercultural communication contexts thanthey are of grammatical errors. Thus, Thomas (1983) emphasised the importance of pragmaticcompetence, as in international contexts it is pragmatic failure that affects communication
rather than grammatical and lexical deficiency. Pragmatic dissonance may be cognition-boundor culture-rooted and is a special focus in EFL pedagogical contexts. Moreover, researchers
claim that pragmatic failure can deny learners access to valuable academic or professional
opportunities (Tanaka, 1997). Consequently, a particular WE discourse accent may pose anissue from communicative, social and pedagogical perspectives.
One of the serious obstacles in discourse study is the fact that unlike other language levels,
discourse has no codified norm to which to resort. Therefore, the practical concern for EFL
learners pertains to which English discourse norm they should regularly employ. Linguists givevarious answers. Kachru and Smith (2008) highlight an acrolect, or a preferred dialect, of an
educated variety of English used for international communication (p.60). In McArthur’s terms

32

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020(2001), it may be English as a Native Language (ENL) and International Standard English(ISE), which is globally used preserving the essential unity of English as a means ofinternational communication. Unfortunately, for EFL learners, ENL and ISE differ. The ideaof two diverging Englishes was highlighted by Crystal (1988, p. 265). Since ISE is not clearly
described and remains no stable variety, it becomes unreliable from pedagogical perspectives.
Consequently, the teaching model in the Expanding Circle should remain the native norm
(Mollin, 2006, p. 54). Echoing this opinion, Saraceni (2016) acknowledges that World
Englishes are mostly described in terms of the extent of their deviation from more establishedvarieties (p. 79). Eligibly, this research considers ENL discourse patterns as a benchmark.
Although there is no monolithic ENL, trustworthy authoritative British and American ENL
sources of “model” exemplars and judgements about expected discourse features wereconsidered. Digressions from them by Russian English (RE) users might be regarded as theirdiscoursal accent, because as Kachru (1983) argued, unlike mistakes, deviations are “the resultof a productive process which makes the typical variety-specific features; and it is systemic
within a variety and not idiosyncratic” (p. 159).
The Oxford Dictionary defines accent as “[def.1] a distinctive way of pronouncing a language,especially one associated with a particular country, area, or social class” (Oxford Dictionary ofEnglish, 2010, p.9). Scholars have already admitted foreign accents in written discourse andnoticed that unlike face-to-face interactions, online communication makes categories of L2
identity less salient (Klimanova & Dembovskaya, 2013). In other words, a foreign accent canexist in oral and written discourse, although it is less conspicuous in the latter. Revelation ofsuch accents and their interpretation by means of local culture contributes to the World
Englishes theory and practice and may be pedagogically meaningful.
There have been a number of contrastive studies of English and Russian discourses recently,
many of them by Russian researchers, such as Khoutyz (2013), Klimanova and Dembovskaya(2013), Uzlenko (2002) and others. Each concentrated on a particular aspect of cross-linguistic
analysis of English and Russian discourse such as difference in reader engagement strategy, insocial interaction behavior, and in symbolic meaning of folklore concepts accordingly.
However, there has not been attempted a multi-aspect viewing of English written discourse
strategies of Russian natives. The focus of this research, therefore, is on insufficiently
investigated English discourse strategies as problem areas for foreign learners andcharacteristic RE discourse features. Written discourse is chosen because it constitutes aconsiderable share of business interaction in tourism, is functionally important for
professionals, and, as evidenced by Godfrey (2016), clear written communication is ranked
within the top five employability advantages (p. 114).
Research Questions
Considering the importance of maintaining standards of written discourse by foreign students
in view of potential pragmatic misfire; sparse scholarly information about written ENL
features, and scarce data about RE discoursal features, this study was undertaken to seek
answers to the following Research Questions:a) What are the main acknowledged ENL prototypical features of written discourse ingeneral and relevant written genres in particular?
b) What are the multi-aspect characteristic features of RE written discourse and how dothey compare to the ENL prototypical ones, if at all? How may they result in pragmatic
dissonance? What may underlie differences?
c) What kind of pedagogical implications may follow?

33

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Methodology
Theoretical Framework
This exploratory research relies on the World Englishes theory of Kachru (1983) and Bolton(2004); discourse theory relevant to language learning developed by Cook (1989), Van Dijk
(1997), Gee (2004), Paltridge (2012), Kachru (1997); as well as comparative discourse studies
of Swales (1990). Also to be considered is the field of cultural linguistics as noted by Sharifian(2011) as “unfamiliarity with the systems of conceptualisations on which the international
speakers of English are relying may lead to various forms and degrees of discomfort and evenmiscommunication” (p. 95). Since the researcher does not share the ENL linguistic repertoire
and has insufficient “insider knowledge” (Saraceni, 2016, p. 97), a look at the studied matter
through native familiar behavioural patterns of the researcher was practiced. Saraceni titled thisapproach “tourist gaze”, as the things that leap to the eye are those that stand out being different
from familiar “home” features. The author also drew on Bhatia’s (2013) model of discourse
genre analysis regarding integrated communicative purpose, structural patterns, distinctive
textual characteristics, and rhetorical conventions.
Methods
As there are no ready-made data banks of Russian English, the researcher's corpus of students’
written samples was set up and investigated. The data were received over the period of 20132018. The informants were Russian native male and female adult tertiary students of tourism
and hospitality of various ages: undergraduates for the specialist diploma, for bachelor’s andmaster’s degrees at the Moscow Institute of Tourism Industry. They used English in naturalcontexts (writing a trip report about one’s journey) or quasi-natural contexts (simulated written
activities in suggested professional situations like replying to a customer’s letter of complaint,
refusing a customer’s request). Most written products were homework submitted by email,some were presented in handwriting in contact classroom sessions. Taking into consideration
Van Dijk’s (1997) requirement for discourse analysis known as “naturally occurring text ortalk” (p.29), the samples were not edited and were studied in their appearance. The pedagogicalcontext of the researcher reduced the genre range to professionally relevant ones. Thus, theresearch concentrated on such ESP genres as business letters and email messages ofconfirmation and cancellation, of request and refusal, of complaint and apology, cover letters,
curriculum vitae, trip reports, as well as essays and home reading reviews. The total number of
discourse samples analysed was 220. The number of informants involved amounted to160
persons.
Data collection involved convenience sampling, that is, gathering written documents ofstudents the researcher was teaching in particular years. The size of the sample corresponded
to the normal size of many business genres and was one-page text of about 1800 signs.
The following study design applied:a) ENL scholars’, writers’ and rhetoricians’ judgments about intrinsic English discoursefeatures were summarised. The researcher, a native Russian, applied the “tourist gaze”
approach to English written discourse of the selected genres in order to spot uncommon
to Russian similar written genres features (trustworthy ENL resources of British
Council, FluentU blog were used). Discoursal characteristic features of English as
described by natives and spotted as noticeable by the researcher made up a kind of amatrix to judge RE discourse in terms of comparison with ENL.

34

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020b) The RE discourse corpus of student-authored written samples was processed. The raw
data were browsed through and coded with a predefined set of ENL dimensions codes,
categorised and juxtaposed with the above qualities to identify the most visible features.
The main principle for identifying RE discourse salient features was demonstration of
the same feature by several informants rather than the number of a feature’s
occurrences, as the latter could result from some idiosyncratic preferences. Results
below encompass only common and repeated specifics found in more than five people's
works.
Although discourse analysis deals with complex and unstructured data, scholars have a choiceof computer-aided tools for this purpose today (Stegmeier, 2012), like JASP (Love et al., 2019).
Despite the fact that these platforms can extract topics from texts and create annotations, they
are mainly useful for quantitative linguistic elements counts, frequency of word combinations,and parts-of-speech information. Such subtle matter as discourse strategies and their pragmaticeffects are beyond their scope. That is why this research employed an e-tool only for assessing
evaluative attitude, or sentiment analysis. The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing
toolkit (Manning et al., 2014) was chosen for its accessibility and clear visualisation ofprevailing in-text positive or negative attitudes in tree graphs.
During the research the themes and tasks offered to students did not involve any sensitive
information, trespassing upon privacy, or personal identification. All quoted examples of RE
discourse are participant students’ quotations.
Findings and Discussion
The research revealed a set of certain characteristic ENL discourse qualities that may
distinguish it from other ethno-cultural discourses, presenting it at three levels (Table 1).
(1) General discourse qualities.
Researchers highlight the English tendencies to laconism (Visson, 2015, p. 82); factual
presentation of information (Condon & Yousef, 1975); non-categorical indirectness andunobtrusiveness (Loveday, 1982; Leech, 1983) eased by softeners like couldn’t/wouldn’t, I’mafraid that, rather in contrast to Russian “self-confidence and dogmatism” (Visson, 2015, p.
78-81); positivity, unwelcome negation because of its psychologically intimidating impact on
ENL users (Visson, 2015, p. 32–33) and so on. These are due to deeply rooted cognitive
patterns or culture-based practices.
(2) Particular discourse qualities determined by the channel of communication (oral,
multimodal or, as in this research, a written channel).
It has been noted that English written text requires clear structuring and cohesion of four types(Kirkpatrick, 1999, p. 49-50). Besides, it is characterised by explicitness or low context(Paltridge, 2012, p. 138; Khoutyz, 2013, p. 3). As Paltridge (2012) testifies, “spoken texts may
be more implicit and leave a lot of what is to be understood unsaid whereas written texts (inEnglish at least) may often be more explicit” (p. 138). Apart from that, English written
discourse is marked by a high level of nominalisation that is presenting actions and events withnouns, rather than verbs (Paltridge, 2012, p. 137; Visson, 2015, p. 159; Uzlenko, 2002), which
may align with the above-mentioned characteristic of laconism.
Interactivity as addressee awareness and self-engagement also characterises written English
discourse. Hyland (2005) paid attention to the interactional quality of English texts marked by

35

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

boosters (definitely, absolutely) and hedges (possibly, hopefully, might) providing indirect
evidence of the author presence and materialising such quality as self-identification (p. 49).
(3) Special qualities determined by a particular discourse genre.
As Paltridge (2012) pointed out, genres are culture specific with particular purposes andlinguistic features (p.65). According to Swales (1990), a discourse genre has its own form,
structure, contents and positioning determined by audience expectations (p.49). A written text
may not seem plausible if its structural, linguistic, stylistic and content elements and theirarrangement do not correspond to the “prototypical” features of the corresponding ENL
discourse genre. Some dimensions of ENL genre discourse important for EFL learners areindicated in the table below.
Table 1. Target English discourse dimensions
General qualities

Written English qualities

Genre-bound qualities

Factual presentation

Explicitness

Content

LaconismNominalisation

Structure and frame (e.g. required
opening and closing part
corresponding to each other andthe purpose of the genre)

Positivity

Self-engagement

Register (tone)

Non-categoricalindirectness

Addressee-awareness by the writer

Acceptable discourse strategies ofparticular functions (requesting,refusing, face-saving, apologisingetc.)

Non-evaluative
presentation

Punctuation and spelling specificity(I not i as a pronoun, capital letter
following the colon sign,
capitalised nouns in titles,
avoidance of exclamation marketc.)

Communicative style (e.g. full
sentences vs noun collocations;
metaphorical vs non-metaphoricalnarration, with/without humouretc.)

Elaborate structuring and cohesion(special markers, long noun groups,
complex sentences types)

Language specificity (clichés,terminology, idioms, abbreviationsetc.)
Layout patterns

RE samples analysis pursued answers to the following questions: Do RE discourse samples
demonstrate these characteristics? What are the most typical RE users discourse features? The
results showed the following typical variations on the prototypical qualities.

36

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

General Qualities of RE Discourse: Positivity, Non-Evaluation, Non-Categorical Stance
The analysis of RE 1-page essay samples showed that 64% of the informants made 3 to 7
negations per sample, so were not fully positive (negative verbal forms or negative adjective
or noun prefix counted). The individual peak of negations recorded was 12 per essay. Here isan extract from this essay by Darya:
People think that zoos help endangered species to survive. But this is not true
because most rare animals are extremely difficult to breed in captivity. In
addition, it is nearly impossible to meet the animals’ natural needs in zoos. On
this basis I can conclude that zoos do not seem to help endangered species andkeeping animals behind bars only for the sake of our entertainment is not quite
fair.
These findings echo the opinion of Visson (2015), whose contrastive analysis of English andRussian discourses revealed dissonance between Russian linguistic “negativism” and“pessimism” and American “optimism and positive thinking” (p.31, 33).
Considering the non-evaluative quality of discourse, 71% of the Russian informants mostly
imparted evaluative attitudes to their writing. The counts were based on three or more words
with an evaluative sememe per sample. Students used the following highly evaluative lexis:
Terrible, disgusting, aggressive, boring, huge, helpful, enjoyable, great, outstanding; victims,
suspicion, violence, happiness; efficiently; and destroy. These findings confirm thecomparative cognitive study of Uzlenko about the difference between the Russian and English
linguistic mindset. It revealed mostly non-evaluative, tending to be impartial English discourse
as opposed to predominantly evaluative Russian one (Узленко, 2002). The fact that theevaluative quality is confirmed on the material of two researches testifies to the fact that there
may be cognitive causes underpinning ENL and RE discoursal differences. Native cognitive
schema present a great risk for transferring them to international contexts.
The non-categorical stance appeared hard to trace in RE written discourse. Russian students ofEnglish do not typically use such markers as rather, fairly, hardly, likely, possibly, might, some,would, I am afraid, I am sorry but, or regrettably. Here are some examples:(1) “I want to ask you to return the money” (a bid for a refund).
(2) “Our holiday was spoilt through the fault of the hotel” (a letter of complaint).
(3) “Go to the Baikal. You will like it!” (A trip report).
Being non-categorical is a fundamental quality and a form of politeness in English
communication, that is why ignoring it may lead to pragmatic failure or some unwelcome
outcome, such as reluctance to refund the money or to visit Lake Baikal. The RE specifics
shown above tend to demonstrate interfering native discourse features.
Qualities of Written RE
RE written samples were checked for such qualities as explicitness, self-engagement, addressee
awareness, and style of writing.
Explicitness. Explicitness was marked by broken cause and effect relations, omitted textual
conclusion or content required by the context (missing names, dates), unclear allusions,evasive promises without specific dates, exact amounts and other details. An extract from a
RE trip report below from the student Svetlana serves as an illustrative example:

37

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

I won`t describe all delights of travel in second-class carriage of the train, I canonly say that we were ‘very pleased’ with the number of the wagon 13.
Superstitions and everything. However, we got to Ulan-Ude lucky. We
transferred from the railway station to the bus station with a small adventure.
Two hours later, we were admiring the expanse of the great lake.
This piece of RE contains reference to one of Russian superstitions, the belief that number 13
spells ill luck. This unwelcome circumstance is marked by “very pleased” in inverted commas
and by mention of superstition without any explanation. Writing this report for TripAdvisor,
the author overlooked the fact that superstitions are culturally-rooted and may differ globally,
which makes her text inexplicit in international contexts. Besides, there is mention of someadventure, which is left behind the scene without any comments. This leaves the reader
wondering why it was mentioned at all. In a word, RE reticence may run counter to the English
requirement of explicitness. This phenomenon can be explicated by the high context of Russian
culture in contrast to lower-context ENL cultures (Hall, 1976). RE writers keep from dotting
their i’s and crossing t’s in order not to seem trivial or to offend readers doubting theirintellectual capacity. This feature was noticed by other researchers (Khutyz, 2013, p. 3).
Alternately, lower-context Anglo cultures “embed much more meaning in the words that makeup their verbal messages” (Hackman & Johnson, 2000, p. 301). Failure to follow thisexpectation is likely to produce the effect of a pragmatic dissonance and discoursal accent.
Self-engagement. Self-engagement or self-involvement was demonstrated by 68% of theinformants in their essays. Only samples with three or more markers like I, my, as far as I canjudge, I think, or in my opinion per sample were taken into account. The personal maximum of
self-identification instances came up to 22 per essay. In other words, the majority of students
were not afraid of being personal and self-involved. This result runs counter to the data of
Khoutyz (2013, p. 7) who compared English and Russian English academic articles anddiscovered that English-writing scholars more often than their Russian counterparts use thefirst-person singular pronouns. Such strategy is culture-rooted, as ENL users belong toindividualistic cultures, and Russians are from a moderately collectivist culture background(Lewis, 2006), where it is in bad taste to point to oneself. The contradictory results may be dueto the difference in the genres studied (personal essay vs academic paper). However, it may be
a forerunner of a new trend in RE discourse under the influence of communicating globally inEnglish.
Addressee-awareness. Reader awareness was demonstrated by 57% of the informants, whichis less than in the case of self-engagement. This quality materialised with such markers as you,
your, we, “It's a well-known fact that”, “We shouldn't forget”, “It's up to you to”, imperatives“Be yourself”, “Don't be afraid”, rhetorical questions like “Why are people fond of books?”,and “Who wouldn’t like to visit Lake Baikal?” Since the researcher did not set the pre-task ofapplying these techniques by students, the fact that the majority of them demonstrated thesetwo vernacular English written discourse strategies proves that they are not foreign to Russians
and do not need much pedagogical effort.
Style of writing. A widely spread feature of Russian English business messages is the profuse
usage of contracted forms, which produces an effect of careless familiarity sooner than
expected. What is more, contractions may peacefully coexist in the same message with theformal markers like “Dear Sir” and “Yours faithfully”. Evidently, stylistic consistency andfull-form writing in English seem to pose a problem for Russian users despite the fact that38

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

contracted forms do not exist in written Russian to interfere. It may be the result of intracommunicative interference of social netting.
RE users’ written style is characterised by some noticeable punctuation features, which werehighlighted in the author’s earlier papers (Bondarenko, 2015, p. 99), the most salient
characteristic being the abuse of the exclamation mark even in institutional writing. According
to the data received, every third informant used it at least once per text.
RE Lexical Markers
The reason for foreign looking text may be lexis as well. The research revealed substitution ofdescriptive word combinations and paraphrases for special terms and clichés, which isespecially ruinous for business communication: “The place of the event” (the venue); “theadministrator on duty” (the duty manager); and “possibilities to eat” (wining and dining
facilities).
Another cause of the lexical “foreign effect” was connotation blindness of Russian writers.
They are often unaware of the negative lexical connotations, for instance:(1) You must comment on the gala dinner menu attached here.
(2) The problems of inbound tourism will be considered at the conference.
(3) The toilets en route were dirty and not free.
“Must” is too imperative and authoritative a verb to use writing to a client. The word “problem”
has a disapproving connotation in ENL communication. Ignorance of euphemisms(“facilities”, “the gents”, “the ladies”) makes RE discourse seem too brusque and lacking
courtesy.
Genre-bound RE Discourse Qualities
Structural RE variations. Analysis of RE samples disclosed the following features. First, RE
learners tend to avoid in business letters the introductory sentence stating the purpose of themessage or gratitude for the previous message of the addressee. They prefer to take the bull by
the horns from the very start without performative statements of apologising, or requesting like
“I am writing to enquire about”:(1) Dear Sir/Madam,
Yesterday late in the evening I arrived in Spain and checked into the Don Angel
Hotel (letter of complaint).
(2) Dear Ms. Lari,
On behalf of the Don Angel Hotel, kindly accept our sincere apologies for not
being able to provide you the high standard of hospitality (letter of apology).
Second, RE writers like to preface factual narration with an evaluative emotional
statement:(1) It was a terrific time spent together. We visited four cities: Dresden,
Nuremberg, Munich and Stuttgart. We enjoyed the October beer festival.
(2) Two days ago I returned from your Tour ST 104/5. I am so annoyed that I was
there! The standards and the organization were awful. I have a number ofcomments about it.

39

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

The above structural features of RE discourse give evidence of some straightforwardness,
impulsiveness and a strong emotional dominant, which is, by and large, in accord with theimmoderate Russian national character as described in scholarly literature (Евтушенко, 2008,
p. 105–106). Structural conventions are significant for successful communication, for “being asocial outsider is very much a case of non-conformity to the norms and regularities of discourse
structure” (Cook, 1989, p. 23).
RE discourse strategies. RE strategies of requesting turned out to be rather direct and lesspolite than ENL requirements. Below are some eloquent quotations:(1) Could you give us details about discounts?
(2) We are very sorry but we have to ask your company to refund the money paid forthe tour.
(3) We should inform you that we demand a credit note toward the next deal.
(4) We demand you have a proper attitude to our tourists.
(5) Send us a check.
(6) Please deal with this matter urgently, otherwise we will be forced to take thematter further.
The chosen examples are arranged in the order of growing brusqueness from the first politely
neutral, through attempted softeners (we are sorry, we should inform you that) to an open
warning demonstrating request strategies rather different from normally applied standards.
Lewis (2006) testifies to vagueness and understatement of English people as manifestation of
non-confrontation (p. 63). On the contrary, Russian strategies of verbal politeness are lesselaborate in terms of discoursal means and are reduced to a proper intonation and a special
word – “пожалуйста” (please). As evidenced by other researchers, negative transfer may occur
when “learning in one context negatively influences one’s performance in another context”(Hajian, 2019, p. 103).
RE strategies of refusal were also characterised with some straightforwardness without any
verbal markers heralding bad news (although, however, whereas, unfortunately): “I was
delighted to receive your offer but I will not be able to accept it”. In sensitive situations likerefusal, RE users do not seem to care about face-saving, and at best exclude the addressee fromthe motivation of the refusal: “Another candidate’s qualifications better meet our requirements”(not yours); “I have accepted an offer from another company” (not yours).
RE samples of apologising have demonstrated examples of adopting such a strategy as faultshifting:(1) It was not our fault.
(2) I was very sorry to hear that the honeymoon of Mr. and Mrs. Kotov was
spoiled through the fault of the Garden Hotel. The hotel did not cope with theirduties and the staff in charge will be punished for their mistake. I will personallysort it out.
As can be seen, there is an attempt to keep face without resort to corporate ethics saving the
reputation of the company. This is a kind of split-off from traditional Russian collectivism andmay be suggestive of starting ethno-psychological changes in the Russian mindset. Besides,
RE apologies are marked with verbal preference of the plural We to the singular I, especiallyin the opposition of collective responsibility versus personal actions: “We are sorry for the40

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020incident”; “Please accept our apologies for….”; “Our agency regrets”; “I can assure you
that…”; “I will refund you the full amount”.
Such language preferences can be interpreted from the ethno-psychological perspective as
readiness of Russian natives to take decisive actions personally and, at the same time, certain
reluctance to assume individual responsibility for doing wrong, preferring instead to share itwith others concerned.
It is also worth mentioning such a noticeable RE “repair” technique in face-threatening
messages as a “thank you” note at the end: “Thank you for your cooperation” (after asking fora refund); “Thank you for your understanding” (at the end of an apology letter); “Thank you in
advance” (at the end of a letter of complaint). “I believe I am entitled to a partial refund. I
would be grateful if you could deal with this matter as soon as possible. I look forward tohearing from you. Thanking you in advance. Your faithfully” (a letter of complaint).
This friendly gesture in an awkward situation makes a negative reply at the other end harder tomake. However, this self-defensive strategy may produce pragmatic dissonance felt as
weakness by the addressee because ENL cultures, especially North American, value
assertiveness, pressure and persistence (Elashmawi, 2001, pp. 36, 38, 48). Such pragmatic
dissonance can be explicated by the fact that Englishes are affected by users’ cultural andlinguistic backgrounds and reflect their specific conventions mirrored in the schemas they use(Kirkpatrick, 2007, p.9).
The cover letter by the student Sergey below illustrates a multi-aspect RE discourse accent:Dear Mr. Ferdinand
Having functioned as front office duty manager at IterContinental Moscow tverskayafor the last several years, I would like to serve as the Front office manager at Holiday
Inn Taganskiy.
After almost 2 years working experience on the reception desk I've grown like a staff
member and like a person as well. I've learned a lot of leadership skills and now there
are about 3 people, who I responsible for.
Notice in my enclosed resume that I have:•
Strong Leadership skills•
Working involvement in progress and growth•
Stress-resistantI have a proven great work and amazing results under pressure — and I can't wait
until I can help you and your great team! Thank you for your consideration of myattached resume and cover letter. I'll check in with you next week to see when I can fit
into your interview calendar.
Sincerely yours
As it is seen, alongside with some spelling, grammar and lexical mistakes the letter has an
unusual structure (no opening sentence with reference to the information source about thevacancy, no paragraphing), non-prototypical rather direct and categorical laudatory comments
without factual proof, self-centred, not company-centred. The tone is more presumptuous thanrespectful (the imperative recommendation to notice, the promise to participate in an interview

41

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

before being shortlisted). The emotional exclamatory mark, “thank-you” technique, andcontracted forms are also there.
Summary
As a result of this research, ENL discoursal features of relevant written genres were discoveredand explored. Written RE repeated characteristic features were uncovered and inferences madeabout their correspondence to the expected qualities: RE is less positive and explicit but more
direct and categorical, lacks addressee awareness and lexical accuracy as compared to ENL
discourse. Genre-bound RE discourse is characterised by specific discourse strategies, such as
evaluative attitude, emotional preamble before factual narration, and “thank you” courtesy
closing phrases in the function of “advance payment” for expected response. The revealed RE
discoursal variations can be explicated by the World English variety functioning in a Russiansocio-cultural context, local cognition, negative transfer of Russian discoursal practices. Thesevariations combined form a part of Russian learners’ specific discourse profile to be considered
for reorientation of EFL instruction toward culturally relevant discourse teaching based oncomparative discourse strategies analysis. Thus, this research significance is in highlighting theissue of selective approach toward discourse qualities that need special pedagogical effort from
EFL instructors and learners and in outlining such qualities for Russian learners of English.
Recommendations
Sensitising Russian students to problem-prone EFL discourse dimensions and making themvisible for other learners are a worthy challenge because it makes them zones of focused
attention and scaffolding for educators. To this effect, it can be recommended to redistributetime budget in favour of problem areas in order to efficiently approximate prototypical
discoursal qualities through focused tasks and exercises, parallelly developing intercultural
pragmatic awareness. The exploratory nature and limited scope of this research necessitate
more data about RE discourse features from the perspectives of describing RE discoursal
variety. It would seem illuminating to carry out comparative discourse genre analyses between
ENL and particular Expanding Circle varieties, including RE. Besides, further research is
required from educators to develop pragmatic awareness of students and elaborate efficient
cross-cultural discoursal customisation.
Conclusion
This research attempted a multi-aspect investigation of RE written institutional discourse andhighlighted its features. It confirmed the importance of cross-cultural aspects of foreign
language discourse learning and teaching and revealed Russian learners’ problem areas inmastering discourse competence. Besides, distinctive ENL discourse features were clarified.
The main RE variables lie in the field of communicative strategies, structure, register, andlexical choices. Inconsistency with the target discourse qualities and written genre patterns maylead to unwelcome pragmatic effects in international contexts because of failure to meetaddressee’s expectations. It concerns such RE qualities as unavailable or low interactivity,
abuse of negation, overdosed evaluation, insufficient nominalisation, familiarity,communicative straightforwardness, etc. Put together and regularly repeated these features
account for Russian accent in English written discourse. RE discourse profile can serve as amanifestation of Russian identity in the Expanding Circle and could be taken into account byothers as part of intercultural communication courses within EFL paradigm. Thus, the present

42

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

research is a small contribution to scarce comprehensive World Englishes discourse studies,particularly, to the under-explored theme of Russian English and may stimulate its further
studies as well as investigation of discourse variations in other Englishes.
EFL learners often shape their discourse competence in monocultural contexts preparing forinternational contacts. That is why, although Expanding Circle learners and teachers of English
need discourse models on which to rely, they will also need skills of cross-cultural discoursal
reconceptualisation. This fact makes mastering ENL discourse standards only a core basis of
EFL discourse competence with necessary further multiple cross-cultural adjustments tofollow.
Acknowledgements
The researcher is grateful to her students for authentic material and to the participants in the2015 European Conference on Language Learning in Brighton, where part of this study waspresented, and for the delegates’ valuable comments.

43

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Bhatia, V. (2013). Analysing genre. Language use in professional setting. London, New
York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315844992
Bolton, K. (2004). World Englishes. In A. Davies, & C. Elder (Eds.), The Handbook of
applied linguistics (pp. 367–396). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757000.ch15
Bondarenko, O. R. (2015). Russian-like discourse in English essays. In: The European
Conference on Language Learning Official Proceedings (pp. 95–101). Brighton, UK:
IAFOR. Retrieved 3 August 2016 fromhttps://papers.iafor.org/proceedings/conference-proceedings-ecll2015/
Canale, M., & Swane, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Condon, J., & Yousef, F. (1975). An introduction to intercultural communication. New York:The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cots, J. (1996). Bringing discourse analysis into the language classroom. Links and Letters, 3,
77–101. Retrieved 7 July 2017 fromhttp://www.academia.edu/21023070/Bringing_discourse_analysis_into_the_language_classroom
Crystal, D. (1988). The English language. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Elashmawi, F. (2001). Competing globally: Mastering multicultural management andnegotiations. Woburn, Ma: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gee, J. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An
Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. (2nd ed.), (pp.19–50).
Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Godfrey, J. (2016). Writing for university. London: Palgrave. Second edition.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53188-9
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? – A guide to forecasting the popularity of the
English language in the 21st century. London: The British Council. Retrieved fromhttps://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/future-english
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: The British Council. Retrieved fromhttps://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/english-next
Hackman, M. and Johnson, C. (2000). Leadership: A communication perspective. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Hajian, Sh. (2019). Transfer of learning and teaching: A review of transfer theories andeffective Instructional practices. IAFOR Journal of Education, 7, 1, 93–111.
https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.7.1.06
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

44

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Kachru, B. (1983). Models of New Englishes. In J. Cobarrubias J., & J.A. Fishman (Eds.),
Progress in language planning (international perspectives) (pp.145–170). Berlin,
New York: Mouton.
Kachru, Y. (1997). Culture, variation and English language education. In S. Cromwell, P.
Rule, & T. Sugino (Eds.), On JALT 96: Crossing borders. The Proceedings of the
23rd Annual JALT International Conference on Language Teaching/ Learning 1996
in Hiroshima (pp. 199–217). Tokyo: JALT.
Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. (2008). Cultures, contexts and World Englishes. New York, London:
Taylor & Francis.
Khoutyz, I. (2013). Engagement features in Russian and English: A cross-cultural analysis ofacademic written discourse. TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 13, (1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.7916/D8T72W29
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes. Implications for international communication andEnglish language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, R. (1999). Text analysis at different levels: Schema theory, genre analysis,
discourse analysis. Language Issues, 5(1), 49–66.
Klimanova, L., & Dembovskaya, S. (2013). L2 identity, discourse, and social networking.
Language Learning & Technology, 17, 1, 69–88. https://doi.org/10125/24510
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Ltd.
Lewis, R. (2006). When cultures collide: Leading across cultures. Boston, London: Nicolas
Brealey International.
Love, J., Jamil, T., Ly, F., Epskamp, S., Knight, P., Selker, R., … Morey, R. (2019). JASP:
Graphical statistical software for common statistical designs. Journal of Statistical
Software, 88, 2, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v088.i02
Loveday, L. (1982). The Sociolinguistics of learning and using a non-native language.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
McArthur, T. (2001). World English and world Englishes: Trends, tensions, varieties, andstandards. Language Teaching, 34, 1, 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800016062
Manning, Ch. D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S., & McClosky, D. (2014).
The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit. In Proceedings of the
52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System
Demonstrations, (pp. 55–60). Baltimore, Maryland USA: Association for
Computational Linguistics.
Mollin, S. (2006). English as a lingua franca: A new variety in the New Expanding Circle.
Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.11
Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis. An introduction. (2nd ed.). London, New York:
Bloomsbury.
Pescante-Malimas, M.A., & Samson, S.C. (2017). Linguistic error analysis on students’
thesis proposals. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3, 2, 193–209.
https://doi.org/10.22492/ijll.3.2.09

45

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Rifkin, B., and Roberts F. (1995). Error gravity: A critical review of research design.
Language Learning, 45, 3, 511–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14671770.1995.tb00450.x
Saraceni, M. (2015). World Englishes: A Critical Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Publishing
Plc.
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam / Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stegmeier, J. (2012). Toward a computer-aided methodology for discourse analysis.
Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 41, 91–114. https://doi.org/10.5774/41-0-45
Stevenson, A. (Ed.). (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English (Hardcover). (3rd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tanaka, K. (1997). Developing pragmatic competence: A learners-as-researchers approach.
TESOL Journal, 6, 14–18.
Thomas, J. (1983). Pragmatic failure. Oxford University Press.
Van Dijk, T. (1997). Discourse as structure and process. (1st ed.). London: Sage
Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884
Visson, L. (2015). Where Russians go wrong in spoken English. Moscow: R. Valent.
White, R. (1997). Going round in circles: English as an international language, and crosscultural capability. Retrieved 25 June 2014 fromhttp://host.uniroma3.it/docenti/boylan/text/white01.htm
Евтушенко, О.В. (2008). Концепт и образ России в текстах иностранных и российских
авторов [Russia’s concept and image in texts of foreign and native authors]. Русское
слово в русском мире: Россия и русские в восприятии инокультурной языковой
личности. Сборник научных статей / Под ред. И.В. Ружицкого, Ю.Н. Караулова,О.В. Евтушенко. Москва: Васиздаст.
Узленко, О. Е. (2002). Этнокультурная специфика языкового сознания носителей
английского и русского языков: на примере фольклора. Канд. дисс.
…...канд.фил. наук. Москва: МГЛУ. (Ethnocultural specifics of linguistic cognitionof English and Russian natives as exemplified in folklore. [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation] Moscow State Linguistic University, Russia]). Retrieved 25 June 2014
from https://tinyurl.com/u26mz6q
Corresponding author: Olga R. Bondarenko
Contact email: orbon@mail.ru

46