2.1 Variety or Interlanguage?

English in Russia is a performance variety of the Expanding Circle (Kachru B. Reference Kachru, Quirk and Widdowson1985a), which has restricted functions within the country and even a restricted number of speakers able to name themselves bilinguals who communicate easily in this language, though this number is gradually increasing. However, this is an English which is characteristic of the educated Russian speech community; this variety is systematic, distinguishable in a certain way, and expresses Russian identity in intercultural communication. Russians use English to communicate and fulfill a pragmatic purpose, and English inadvertently is being used as a channel for expressing unavoidable cultural realities.

As the social community that uses the variety consists of many different individuals and is not homogeneous, the variety is multidimensional. Typical features in speech of bilingual individuals constituting the speech community make up typical linguistic features of a variety. However, the two concepts – a variety and an interlanguage – are not mutually exchangeable, though they are definitely related (Proshina Reference Proshina2007).

The major difference in their nature lies in the fact that variety is a sociolinguistic concept, while interlanguage, introduced by L. Selinker (Reference Selinker, Richards, Byrd, Bailey and Gillerman1974), is a psycholinguistic term (Davies Reference Davies1989: 447). This means that a variety refers to a speech community, while interlanguage correlates with the speech of an individual and is defined as a fossilized “type of language produced by second- and foreign-language learners who are in the process of learning a language” (Richards et al. Reference Richards, Platt and Platt1993: 186). Associated with “the knowledge of the L2 in the speaker’s mind” (Cook V. Reference Cook1999: 190), interlanguage is understood as an approximative intermediate linguistic system that is formed in between the mother tongue and the target language when a learner tries to achieve a native-speaker competence. It is a system fossilized at a certain stage. Due to a transfer of the native tongue features, interlanguage is characterized by a regular occurrence of permanent errors in a learner’s speech resulting from “imperfect learning” (Kachru and Nelson Reference Kachru and Nelson2006: 85). Therefore, the term ‘interlanguage’ is sometimes flavored with negative connotation, while the term ‘variety’ is neutral. Variety as a social speech phenomenon is more abstract than interlanguage pertaining to the speech of an individual.

Following Kachru, we can argue that a variety is a sociolinguistic bilingual cline, or lectal continuum consisting of several functional zones, or ‘graded series’ (Kachru B. Reference Kachru and Smith1983: 77): acrolect – mesolect – basilect (the terms borrowed from creole studies) (Stewart Reference Stewart and Shuy1965). The acrolect is a subvariety whose users are characterized by high level of English proficiency and, therefore, it is sometimes termed ‘edulect’ (from ‘education’ + ‘lect’) (Bautista and Gonzalez Reference Bautista, Gonzalez, Kachru, Kachru and Nelson2006: 132) as it is the lect of highly educated users from the Outer and Expanding Circles. It is based on written standards and functions in formal situations. The basilect is the lowest point or rather zone of the speech continuum. It is the subvariety typical of users with low levels of education and is outstandingly marked by language transfer from the vernacular. The mesolect is the subvariety in between. It is based on the communicative norm of spoken speech and is used by people who have incomplete education or by educated people in informal situations (Platt and Weber Reference 289Platt and Weber1980: 274). Educated users of a variety can purposefully shift along the cline, switching from acrolect to mesolect or even basilect if there is special need and appropriate context of use.

Interlanguage users’ level can also be characterized as acrolectal, mesolectal, or basilectal but unlike the case with a variety, an individual’s interlanguage is fossilized, which does not make it possible for a basilectal speaker to rise onto the mesolectal or acrolectal level of language competence while the shift down is possible. Thus an interlanguage should be characterized as a static phenomenon, while a social variety is dynamic.

In describing Russian English, we have been keeping in mind that this is a social variety and in real speech practice it can be implemented individually in different ways. Indeed, there is no person in a country or in the world whose speech would be characterized by all the features typical of a community’s acro-, meso-, or basilect (Proshina Reference Proshina2007). Still, the features can be generalized and attributed to a variety. This means that when we describe mesolectal features of Russian English, they will not necessarily be encountered in the speech of every Russian speaker or learner of English. Yet, the features we will describe in Chapter 4 are quite typical, systemic, and productive, so they can be commonly expected and when expected and known to an interlocutor, they can hardly cause a serious miscommunication.

Chinese linguists have suggested naming the lectal differences in varieties by special terms (Ge Chuangui 1980, quoted by Zhang Reference Zhang1997; Xu Reference Xu2010): ‘China English’ for the acrolectal zone of the cline, ‘Chinese English’ for the mesolectal type of their variety of English, and the blended term ‘Chinglish’ for the basilect that has the greatest amount of hybrid features resulting from the vernacular transfer. Though this differentiation is not recognized unanimously and is not applied to all varieties of English, we consider these terms useful as they flexibly demonstrate the complexity and multifarious nature of a variety. Applying this terminological distinction to the English variety found in Russia, we can speak of the acrolectal Russia (or Russia’s) English as a formal kind of the variety, typical of governmental documents, mass media, performance by TV presenters, diplomats, well-educated scholars, etc.; mesolectal Russian English as a less formal and more casual subtype or a subtype of less educated speakers, and basilectal Ruslish, also known as Runglish or Renglish, a subtype used by speakers and writers with low language competence.

The three subtypes of English in Russia, taken together, make up a continuum of the variety characteristic of the speech continuum found in Russia. There are no evident, easily noticeable borderlines between the lectal zones of the continuum. They merge one into another, differing functionally, stylistically, and situationally. The administrative (governmental and diplomatic) function, for instance, is carried out by the acrolectal Russia English that has a formal stylistic overtone because English in this case is used in formal situations. Acrolectal speech is also characteristic of scholars proficient in English and keeping to a formal register of a conference where they present or an English-language journal where they publish their article in. At the same time, if a scholar’s level of performance slides down to a mesolectal zone, his/her English will demonstrate traces of the Russian language transfer and since these traces make up typical linguistic features of a great number of Russian speakers, they are related to the mesolectal subtype of the social variety rather than just to an interlanguage of this or that speaker.

The distinctive features of an educated variety of English are most apparent in its mesolectal zone of the continuum, for they can be obvious at all language levels here: phonetic accent, grammatical deviations, and lexical innovations. This is why we have named our book Russian English, though of course we are describing the entire cline and functions of various subtypes of English in Russia.

The basilectal subtype, making a lower part of the variety continuum, is typical of less educated Russians whose speech can be characterized as learner English and is usually described in the framework of typical mistakes learners make (Monk and Burak Reference Monk, Burak, Swan and Smith2001; Savitsky and Kurovskaya Reference Savitsky and Kurovskaya2004). Some of these deviations from the standard can also emerge in the mesolectal speech of individuals, and occurring systematically and being typical of the speech community, they become linguistic features of mesolectal Russian English that make Russian English distinct from other Englishes. Thus we can say that individual mistakes can gradually transfer to the concept of typical deviations of a speech community and become linguistic features of a mesolectal subtype of a variety of English. As J. Jenkins rightly pointed out, even in the speech of native speakers innovations “often start life as forms that are widely perceived as errors in the standard language” (Jenkins Reference Jenkins2006: 44) and then they gradually become traditional and standardized. Deviations at the basilectal level differ from errors or mistakes by their being irrelevant for the communication result – they do not impede communication, while errors can result in miscommunication. Being intermediate between linguistic features of a variety and individual mistakes, deviations are social, typical, and systemic, while errors are idiosyncratic and can be both typical and occasional. The transition of these concepts (mistake → deviation → linguistic feature) is due to the fact that a variety is a social performance continuum that is formed from individual idioms typically and systematically produced by bilingual speakers.

Distinctive linguistic features of a variety consist not only of deviations from the standard but also of innovations that result from the acculturation of English. Innovations are usually fixed in reference sources and media. As Kachru metaphorically put it, they are a “linguistic price” (Kachru B. Reference Kachru and Kachru1992: 309) paid by English for being used in a new cultural setting. Innovations include, first and foremost, culture-loaded words borrowed by English from an indigenous language. In our case, Russian-English innovations will include Russian loans, like perestroika, dacha, or borrowed stems or suffixes from Russian. Londongrad, the title of a book published by British journalists (Hollingsworth and Lansley Reference Hollingsworth and Lansley2009), can be a vivid example of the creative influence of Russian on English.

To sum up, Russian English is a variety of English used by bilingual Russians to express their cultural identity and implement other communicative goals. The social always consists of a sum of individuals. Therefore, a variety as a social phenomenon is closely related to the individual interlanguage but should not be mistakenly confused with it. Though both can be characterized by lectal levels, they are significantly different – interlanguage being static and a variety making up a dynamic lectal cline based on a socially functional principle.

2.2 Exonorms: Whose Norms?

Like any other variety of the Expanding Circle, English in Russia is an exonormative variety (Kachru B. Reference Kachru, Quirk and Widdowson1985a). It has not developed its own norms and depends on the existing standards provided by the English-speaking countries. Two models are prevalent in English language teaching and learning in Russia – British, which has a longer standing,Footnote ¹ and the American English model, which has been introduced mainly due to economic reasons, since business ties with the United States have been intensifying. The American model of English is prevalent in the Asian part of Russia neighboring with Far Eastern countries (China, Japan, South Korea) that are also oriented toward cooperation with the USA as the world’s dominant economy. The choice of the model also depends on the age of English users – young people tend to be more practical, often imitate American pronunciation, and use shorter spellings, while elderly teachers rely mostly on the British model. It is not infrequent that British and American models are perceived with different functional values, British English being associated with a high aesthetic value and American English regarded as very practical and efficient (though there are still users of English who believe that American English is ‘a corrupted variety’).

However, students being consistent with only one model is just an ideal nourished by many English teachers. What happens in reality is that British and American standards are often mixed in Russian English. Moreover, now that Russian-Australian connections are becoming more active and Australian universities provide various courses attended by Russian students, some users of English pick up an Australian accent and fill their speech with Australian words, which means that they have been employing the Australian English model or at least mixing elements of this model with British and American models.

In 2005, only about 5% of Russian speakers identified their English with Russian English (Proshina Reference Proshina2006). Similarly small is the number of Russians who admit learning Russian or Russia English at secondary or tertiary school though they were or are taught by Russian teachers of English, not native speakers from Great Britain or the United States. The awareness of the existing of the nativized and acculturized variety of English is still very low in Russia (see Chapter 16).

One of the reasons for the paradoxical assurance of Russians that they speak British or American English might be accounted for by an indiscriminate position toward language and speech (discourse). A language model taught and learnt is an ideal, mental construct materialized in nativized speech that represents a real variety. Russian English is not widely supported by the nation’s institutions; therefore, it is not an institutional variety and does not develop its own norms. The normative models that Russian users of English tend to adhere to should not be equated with the performance variety they use. Russian English as a variety of the Exonormative Circle is characterized by a greater variability of standard forms than British or American Englishes as it admits the form variations that occur in other Englishes of the Inner Circle and adds to them some transitory marked linguistic features, which though not normative, reflect the trend of the variety development. This view of a standard that “should be allowed to develop according the needs of its users” (Anchimbe Reference Anchimbe and Sharifian2009: 284) is new to Russians practicing English, and it will take time for this idea to become established in their minds. Even the Inner and Outer Circle Englishes nowadays are not characterized by a single standard. As Hickey emphasizes it:

Varieties of the Expanding Circle, Russian English among them, reveal a great scope of variability, much more than their prototypical varieties of the Inner Circle. And it is unfair to deprive Expanding Circle Englishes of the status of a variety – as it happens now and then in the scholarly world – just on account of the lack of their own codification – “a language or variety does not need codification in order to establish its existence. This is a bit like demanding that people have a birth certificate before allowing that they are alive” (Kirkpatrick Reference Kirkpatrick, Rubdy and Saraceni2006: 75). Russian English standard is based on a sum of variants characteristic of British, American, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Englishes with passive assumption of other variants typical of emerging New Englishes. It also manifests some culture-bound linguistic features when implemented in speech. In other words, the Russian English model is oriented toward English as an International Language, which embraces all possible variants, is intended for intercultural (interpersonal and professional) communication either with native speakers or non-native users of English, and takes into consideration pragmatic norms of the Russian culture and the culture of an interlocutor. However, whatever model is aimed at in language teaching or learning, it is ideal. It exists only in the minds of teachers, learners, and users. In real-life situations, Russians do not produce the abstract EIL. Their speech production reflects their mentality and their culture; it has to select one variant from a set of variants, and this results in emerging Russian English as a specific variety of the Expanding Circle.

2.3 Functions: Where?

Kachru’s concepts of functional range, that is, “the extension of English into various cultural, social, educational, and commercial contexts” and depth of language usage, which implies “the penetration of English-knowing bilingualism to various societal levels” (Kachru B. Reference Kachru and Smith1983: 78) are fundamental for investigating an emerging variety of English. The two concepts are very close to each other, for when we speak about the domains of language usage we inevitably take into consideration its users. That is why in this part of the work we will focus mainly on the functions Russia(n) English carries out and further chapters will describe the domains of use in more detail.

The main function of Russian English is intercultural and international. In this case both terms are only relatively synonymous. Multilingual and multicultural Russia does not use English in a wide scale for connecting cultures of the multiethnic state, the Russian language serving as a lingua franca within the country and often between former Soviet republics (see Chapter 14). However, when there is a need to address communicators abroad and connect Russian cultures with the outside world, English is a dominant tool.

Due to the functional dualism (Kabakchi Reference Kabakchi, Abiyeva and Belichenko2005) pertaining to any language, English intensively serves to express not only its native (Anglophone) cultures but also (and mostly, if we take into account the number of its users) non-native cultures, including Russian. Though Russian cultural concepts named by English words are termed xenonyms, that is, names of ‘other’ cultures, which implies some alienation from the nature and origin of Anglophone English, it is through English that Russian culture becomes better known to people of various nations and is promoted worldwide. For Russians, English has proved to be a secondary means of self-identification and cultural orientation (Kabakchi Reference Kabakchi1998) (see Chapter 17).

Other functions of English – regulative, instrumental, interpersonal, and creative (Kachru B. Reference Kachru and Smith1983: 77–78) – are more restricted in their range, though they are also found in the Russian context of situation, not infrequently revealing interdependence and merging of the domains of use.

The regulative function of Russian English is observed in diplomatic papers, translation of governmental and presidential publications which are outward oriented, intended for the global readership. The regulative function of English is also performed within a great number of transnational corporations located in Russia where administration, management, and control are usually carried out in two languages: Russian and English. Universe Technical Translation company offers translations of Russian National Standards and other official regulations for foreign businesses and trade companies dealing with the Russian marketplace (Russian National Standards n.d.) and the Garant database (Legislation of Russia in English n.d.) provides for about 25,000 Russian legislation documents translated into English. This means that regulative English is oriented outside the country. For local municipal administrations there is no need to resort to English. Neither is it used in the Russian law system because Russian as the national, state language is decreed to be the language of the law in the Russian Federation. In case a person does not have a good command of Russian, s/he can use any language they are competent in and have translation service help. One of the current challenges Russia faces is the absence of a court interpretation institution. So far Russian law has not required licensing, accreditation, or certification of interpreters working in court. The languages used in court when a case involves other ethnicities, different from Russian, are generally minority vernaculars (gypsy dialects make up 80% and 17% are languages from the Caucasus) (Vinnikov n.d.). English is used mostly in adoption cases when Russian children are adopted by foreign families, and in divorce hearings (Court translation 2011).

The instrumental function is implemented by English as a medium of learning at educational institutions in Russia. English has been one of the foreign languages studied at secondary school. However, in the twenty-first century, due to its prestige and associations with modernity, it has become de facto a prevailing choice of many schools and parents, gradually ousting German and French to the position of a second foreign language under study. According to 2007 Russian statistics, English was studied by 12.5 million schoolchildren, as compared with German (3.5 million pupils) and French (756,000) (Krugly Stol 2007). The trend for earlier English language education is evident (see more details in Chapter 7). English is taught as a school discipline, and only at schools with an intensive English program are some other subjects (literature, culture) taught in English. In tertiary schools, there is a tendency for the best universities to regard English as a language for competitive struggle, academic mobility, and modernity (this is documented, for example, by a RIA-Novosti news article headline ‘The English Language and Scientists Will Make Russian Higher Educational Institutions Competitive’ (RIA Novosti 2010)). English is regarded as a prerequisite for internationalization of education (Vozovikova Reference Vozovikova2012). In 2010, the Russian Academy of People’s Economy and State Service with the RF President launched an International English-language MBA program, unique in its kind in the Russian Federation. Some English-language programs, like ‘Russian Culture and Arts: Traditions and Modernity’ at Moscow State Institute of International Relations, are primarily geared toward training Russian émigrés and foreign students. The Swiss consulting group Medelle points out that a slow introduction of English-language programs in Russian universities is a major drawback of the Russian education system. Such programs might enlarge university budgets thanks to overseas students’ investments, improve the perspectives of Russian students’ careers, and raise the prestige of the universities due to the possibility of inviting outstanding professors from abroad (Deficiencies of the Russian education n.d.).

Another form of using English as an education tool is joint Russian-American programs that began to emerge immediately after perestroika. These programs provide students with double degree certificates – one from a Russian university, the other from its American partner – mostly in economics and management. Such programs were opened at Far Eastern National University (now Far Eastern Federal University) and Irkutsk State University cooperating with Maryland University (1991), Ulyanovsk State University together with Oklahoma-City University (1995), F. Dostoevsky State University of Omsk together with the State University of New York (1998), and some others. Similarly, Russian-British programs have been launched – for example, the joint program of Perm State University together with Manchester Metropolitan University (2006) – as well as Russian-Australian programs.

The interpersonal function of English is carried out as a kind of intercultural function, with Russian people establishing and maintaining communicative contacts with tourists coming to Russia and as tourists when going abroad; developing informal communicative links with their colleagues and overseas friends, often acquired on Internet forums and chats. The performance of this function within Russia is definitely lower than the interpersonal function related to the Russian diasporas living abroad since the latter are exposed to the English-language environment on a daily basis. A special case is international families with English as a family language. Such families are not only made up with an English-speaking partner,Footnote ² but there are also cases where neither of the partners knows each other’s tongue and English serves as a family lingua franca.

The creative function of English is implemented in various spheres: mass media, fiction, word and phrase building, advertising, popular culture and so on. English-language mass media (see Chapter 9) exist in many big industrial cities, attracting foreign investors to their industries and developing joint ventures and transnational companies. These media are staffed not only by hired foreign journalists and editors but also by Russian media people highly proficient in English, as well as Russian translators to English.

Russian English assumes a creative function in both translated (by Russian translators) and authentic fiction. The latter can be referred to as Russian literature in English. It is written primarily by émigré bilingual authors and is published abroad – examples being prose written by Vladimir Nabokov, Olga Grushin, Anya Ulinich, Lara Vapnyar, Gary Shteyngart and others (see Chapter 13) as well as poetry written, self-translated, or translated by other Russian poets (e.g., poetry by Joseph Brodsky and Yevgeny Yevtushenko). Publications by Russian authors in English are not encouraged by Russian publishers for two main reasons: first, there is little demand for English-language literature in the domestic book market and, therefore, publishers fear suffering financial losses on such publications; second, there are no creative writing courses in English at English departments of Russian universities and, as a result, there are no authors willing to express themselves in English in the non-English environment, especially when the majority of compatriots believe that only the author’s native language can be a genuine primary means of self-identity and using English in fiction writing is close to showing off.

However, English serves as an additional means for literary creativity. Some authors use English words or parts of words in their book titles: Духless. Повесть о ненастоящем человеке (Spiritless. Story of an Unreal Man) by Sergei Minaev; Про ЛюбOFF/ON (About Love-Off/On) by Oksana Robski, and Брачный коNтракт или Who is ху… (Marriage Contract, or Who is Who…) by Tatyana Ogorodnikova. The unusual form of the title attracts a reader’s eye and serves not only for code-mixing but mostly for advertising and some stylistic purpose. Maxim Krongauz, a prominent Russian linguist of today, argues that the mixing of the Cyrillic and Roman letters has become an index of novel glamor (Krongauz Reference Krongauz2009: 13). This type of linguistic creativity by code-mixing is rather frequent nowadays (see Chapter 3), especially for advertising (see Chapter 12), mass media, Internet (see Chapter 9), and popular culture (Chapter 11).

Lately, a decorative function of English has also been observed. English words and letters are printed on T-shirts, bags, mugs, etc. made in Russia. Though the English-language inscriptions are very often senseless, the usage of this language makes the objects carrying these inscriptions more fashionable, saleable, sometimes exotic and even elite, which indirectly proves the high prestige of English in the Russian speech community.

As we can see, English in Russia performs to a certain degree all the functions characteristic of a variety. Thus this brief survey of functions related to English in Russia can be one more proof for considering Russian English as a variety that has its functional and sociolinguistic specifics and is underpinned by Russian culture.

To summarize, Russian English is an exonormative variety of the Expanding Circle, characteristic of the speech of the Russian educated community. As a social phenomenon, the variety is made up by typical systematic features of idiolects, which are not identical and can represent different degrees of language competence. Being a kind of social abstraction, a variety can be roughly divided into three functional zones – acrolect, mesolect, and basilect. The most vivid features distinguishing this variety from other varieties are observed in the mesolectal zone, which we name Russian English. Though Russian English has no codified standards of its own, its specificity is a great variability of form variants resulting from orienting toward different models of the Inner (and sometimes Outer) Circle Englishes. The status of a variety can be attributed to Russian English due to its particular linguistic features, cultural underpinning, and all the functions typical of language varieties, though these functions are carried out in a restricted way and geared mostly for intercultural, rather than intranational communication.