Council of Europe. Description of the levels of language competence

To determine what skills a communicant should have for successful intercultural communication, we consider it appropriate to consider the concept of intercultural competence, which, from our point of view, is a conglomerate of at least three components: linguistic, communicative and cultural competence. Combining together, they form a qualitatively new whole, which has its own characteristics, different from each of the components taken separately. Competence in the terminological meaning of this word means not just the sum of acquired knowledge and techniques that a person can use as needed in MC - it implies the presence of a set of skills that allow one to adequately assess the communicative situation, correlate intentions with the intended choice of verbal and non-verbal means, bring to life communicative intention and verify the results of the communicative act with the help of feedback. The distinction between different types of competence is rather conditional, but it is necessary for a study that "prepares" the concept of competence for the purpose of its detailed analysis.

^ Language competence

The concept of competence in relation to language was first introduced by N. Chomsky, who developed it on the basis of an internal learned generative grammar and meant by it “linguistic intuition”, “language knowledge”, “language behavior”, and, ultimately, the ability of an ideal speaker to master an abstract system of language rules (Manfred 1987: 198).

According to Chomsky's concept, linguistic competence includes phonological, syntactic and semantic components of linguistic knowledge. Yu. Manfred considers grammatical competence, which, from his point of view, is "the ability of the speaker / listener to make right choice from the existing inventory of linguistic signs and the rules for their combination to create language structures "(Manfred, op. cit.: 198). Along with the above components of linguistic competence, G. I. Bogin calls the possession of spelling norms, language functions, styles and the ability to freely operate with the whole text (Bogin 1980: 7 - 11) Thus, language competence is a multifaceted phenomenon that requires versatile linguistic skills and abilities.

J. Schumann identifies the following factors that affect language acquisition:

• 
  social (length of residence in a foreign culture, the nature of the relationship between a group of non-native speakers and native speakers, etc.);
• 
  affective (instrumental and integrative motivation, culture shock, attitude to culture, etc.);
• 
  personal (tolerance towards uncertainty, level of self-esteem, ego-orientation);
• 
  cognitive (cognitive style, dependence / independence from the environment);
• 
  biological, etc. (Schumann 1974).

Despite the importance of knowing the pronunciation norms, vocabulary and grammar of a foreign language, this is not enough for its correct use in specific communicative situations. Language is one of the aspects of a person's general psychological ability, which determines the fate of communication. This idea is consistent with the position of Chomsky, who distinguished language competence (linguistic competence), that is, "mental representations of language rules, acting, in his opinion, as the internal grammar of an ideal speaker-hearer" (Zalevskaya 1996: 9) and linguistic performance(linguistic performance) - understanding and production of speech in real situations of communication. According to Chomsky, linguistics should not be limited to the description of competence. Its purpose is to show how a person constructs a system of knowledge from daily experience (Crystal 1987: 409). Thus, it is not only about the ability to express one's thoughts, but also about the ability to think like a native speaker, which implies the ability to visualize the cultural images reflected in it.

Language competence goes far beyond mastering the rules of language use - it involves expanding one's own conceptopher and modifying the picture of the world based on intercultural experience. According to the concept developed by Yu. N. Karaulov, a person functions at three levels of linguistic competence: 1) verbal-semantic (personal lexicon); 2) linguo-cognitive (personal thesaurus, which captures the system of knowledge about the world, or “the image of the world); 3) motivational (activity-communicative needs of the individual, reflecting his pragmaticon: a system of goals, motives, attitudes) (Karaulov 1987: 238).

V. I. Karasik also comes to the conclusion that “language competence allows for several dimensions”:

1) on the basis of actual/virtual language proficiency - actual knowledge of the language and socially prestigious approach to the language;

2) on the basis of normative correctness - the language competence of educated and uneducated native speakers;

3) on the basis of system correctness - the linguistic competence of native speakers and those who speak a non-native language;

4) on the basis of linguistic wealth - the linguistic competence of language users and experts who own a variety of literary or proto-literary styles (Karasik 1992: 63 - 64).

Under the conditions of MC, language competence is responsible for the correct choice of language means that are adequate for the communication situation; correct reference; correlation of mental models with the forms of reality; comparison of mental schemes and constructions with cognitive experience; the ability to repeat once acquired language experience in similar communicative situations. The Problem of Mastery foreign language is that learning situations can be far from real experience, so repeating them in real communication can present significant difficulties.

In essence, language competence is a relative concept, especially in relation to MC. First, relativity is manifested in the fact that different criteria are used to assess the linguistic competence of representatives of different social groups. Secondly, different cultures may have different ideas about what is the correct and incorrect language usage. For example, some forms that are considered normative for American English may be perceived by the British as incorrect. Thirdly, the requirements for owning natives are higher than for owning foreign ones. Fourth, the assessment of the level of competence differs depending on the goals of communication: a person may be excellent at everyday communication, but not have a sufficient level of competence to perform more qualified actions, for example, explaining professional topics to colleagues or discussing philosophical problems.

Since language is closely related to thinking, the process of intercultural communication can give rise to an internal conflict between the levels of language competence in the native and foreign languages. For a person who is used to accurately expressing his thoughts in his native language with a high degree of detail and semantic nuance, the lack of linguistic means in a foreign language can be painful. In situations where regular participation in MC is inevitable, this contradiction becomes an incentive to improve language skills and move to a higher level of competence.

G. I. Bogin identifies five levels of language proficiency: 1) the level of correctness, compliance with the speech norm; 2) the level of internalization, the presence or absence of an internal plan of a speech act; 3) the level of saturation, an indicator of poverty or richness of speech; 4) the level of adequate choice, possession of synonyms; 5) the level of adequate synthesis, compliance with the tone of communication (quoted from the book: Karasik 1992: 4). In addition, in the theory and practice of teaching foreign languages, there are many methods for determining the level of language competence of students for dividing them into groups, differentiating the learning process and assessing their knowledge.

Considering the dynamism of the linguistic meaning, one must also keep in mind that it is subject to changes depending on the nature of the linguistic personality that “appropriates” it, the context of communication, the time of use, etc. The meaning in the thesaurus of each linguistic personality has a certain “tail” due to the fact the experience of linguistic perception and use that a person has received during his use of the language. This "train" includes connotations fixed in certain chronological periods of the development of a language unit, changes that the meaning undergoes in the course of language development, the degree of word assimilation, etc. himself in his homeland and having brilliantly mastered phonetics and grammar, he often uses a "naked" language, devoid of this divided linguistic knowledge.

Communicative competence

Since language competence covers only a part of the skills necessary for adequate communication, great importance acquires the concept communicative competence, first proposed by D. Himes. The criteria on the basis of which the concept of communicative competence was developed in American science were co-orientation and coordination. Coorientation is seen as the ability to achieve a certain degree of mutual understanding through such verbal strategies as confirmation (acknowledging), reflection (mirroring), paraphrasing (paraphrasing), explanation (clarifying), etc. Coordination, in turn, means the ability to adapt one's own verbal actions to the actions of other communicants, as well as to individual and group goals of communication. Coordination strategies include apologies, disclaimers, meta-accounts, etc. Lack of co-orientation and coordination is associated with chaotic, asynchronous communication characterized by repeated asking and interrupting the interlocutor (Matyash 1999).

Communicative competence includes the mechanisms, techniques and strategies necessary to ensure an effective communication process. The requirements for communicative competence in MC are even more stringent than within one culture, since it is supposed to understand not only the laws of human communication as such, but also take into account numerous cultural differences, sensitivity to the slightest changes in the communicative situation and the behavior of the interlocutor. The communicator must always proceed from his own ignorance something, admitting the possibility of their own mistakes and readiness to correct them. Here the role of intuition and empathy increases many times over.

The components of communicative competence in relation to MC are:

• 
  activity:

• 
  the ability to interpret culture-specific signals of the interlocutor’s readiness to join the MC or, on the contrary, unwillingness to communicate (the so-called “unmessages” - Gamble and Gamble 1990: 28);
• 
  the degree of involvement in communication, the ability to determine the share of speaking and listening, depending on the situation and cultural norms;
• 
  efficiency, that is, the ability to adequately express one's thought and understand the interlocutor's thought;
• 
  the ability to direct the conversation in the right track;
• 
  the ability to give and interpret signals for the change of communicative roles and signals for the completion of communication that are acceptable for a given culture;

• 
  appropriateness, that is, an adequate choice:

• 
  communication distance;
• 
  topics of conversation;
• 
  discursive genre, register and tone of communication;
• 
  verbal and non-verbal means;
• 
  speech strategies;

• 
  dynamic:

• 
  empathy - a sensitive attitude to the mood of the interlocutor, "reading" verbal and non-verbal feedback signals, the ability to empathize;
• 
  adaptability to social status communicants and intercultural differences;
• 
  flexibility in choosing and switching topics;
• 
  a high degree of readiness to adjust their own communicative behavior.

^ Cultural Competence

Another critical factor necessary for effective MI is cultural competence, which has been repeatedly pointed out by scholars (see, for example, Damen 1987: 215). Cultural competence involves the understanding of presuppositions, background knowledge, value attitudes, psychological and social identity, characteristic of a given culture.

The concept of cultural competence to a certain extent coincides with the concept of cultural literacy. The identification of indicators of cultural literacy is complex, controversial and much discussed in scientific world a problem that is not only theoretical, but also applied in nature (how much information should a person have in order to be considered culturally literate? should it be local or world culture7 and if global, should it be almost completely reduced to Western culture, as is customary in modern world? can it be expressed in quantitative and material form?).

The most famous and (perhaps for this reason) the most criticized attempt in this direction is the monograph ^ Cultural Literacy and the dictionary of the same name by E. D. Hirsch (Hirsch 1988; Hirsch 1993), an ardent supporter of American acculturation, who equates the national thesaurus with the American currency, the dollar (Hirsch 1988: 26). The essence of Hirsch's concept is an attempt to present the cultural thesaurus of the educated American as the basis for effective communication within American culture—what he calls "national communication" (op. cit.: xi). Hirsch writes about cultural literacy as a phenomenon designed to create a "spirit of communal cooperation." It includes background knowledge that allows the bearer of culture to take a newspaper and read it with an adequate level of understanding of both explicit and implicit information, correlating what is read with the implied context that gives meaning to what is written. Cultural literacy, in Hirsch's view, "makes us masters of the standard instrument of cognition and communication, thus enabling us to transmit and receive complex information orally and in writing, in time and space" (op. cit.: 2–3). Hirsch's efforts seem to be commendable because, despite a certain degree of subjectivity in compiling the thesaurus, 90% of consultants agreed with his selection of language units included in the dictionary. Hirsch writes: "History has decided what these elements are. They are the medium of public discourse, the tools by which we can convey our views to another person and make decisions in a democratic way" (op. cit.: 107).

Hirsch's opponents believe that attempting a rigorous selection of a culturally literate thesaurus could become a tool for a class structure that aims to standardize American society. Thus, N. H. Seely writes that the Hirsch dictionary is useful only for that sector of the population that receives the most institutional education and, unfortunately, represents the country as a whole only to a small extent (Seelye 1993: 27).

Obviously, the cultural competence necessary for effective intercultural communication presupposes the coincidence of the volumes of cultural literacy of the interlocutors in that part that concerns the subject and context of communication. Since MK is inherently asymmetric (cm. relevant section), a heavier burden falls on the non-bearer of the culture in which the communicants are located.

The author of this study, in collaboration with E. I. Sheigal, compiled a dictionary based on the idea of ​​cultural literacy and aimed at intercultural communication between Russians and Americans (Leontovich O. A., Sheigal E. I. Life and culture of the USA. Linguistic Dictionary, 1998; 2nd revised and enlarged ed. 2000). We set ourselves the task of reflecting in the dictionary the nationally specific knowledge of the average American, which, to one degree or another, may be incomprehensible to representatives of Russian culture. It was this idea that formed the basis for the selection of the dictionary and the definition of the structure of the dictionary entry. Therefore, the dictionary includes the following categories of language units:

1. 
   actually Americanisms, that is, words and phrases that originated in the American version of the English language (for example, hippie; drugstore; bootlegging);
2. 
   words that originally existed in British English but have changed their meaning in American English ( closet; corn; bathroom and etc.);
3. 
   common English words and phrases, which, however, have specific associations in the American version or are associated with important regional information ( college; television; health care; rock music);
4. 
   toponyms and anthroponyms that are culturally significant ( Louisiana; Cape Kennedy; Columbus, Christopher);
5. 
   names of political realities, public organizations, US government agencies, etc.;
6. 
   titles of famous books, films, paintings and other works by American authors;
7. 
   trademarks, company names, stores, etc., which are part of the average American's mind;
8. 
   quotes included in the fund of precedent texts: words from popular songs, poems, sayings famous people etc.;
9. 
   the names of types of dwellings, transport, clothing, shoes, food, and other realities that are an integral part of the life of Americans;
10. 
    names of events of world significance, covered from the point of view of the participation of the United States in them ( ^ World War II; World War II; world fairs ).

It should be borne in mind that the volume of cultural literacy consists not only of culturally specific information, but also of information about the world as a whole (outside the countries represented by the communicants). E. D. Hirsch complains that in recent decades, American high school graduates have been deprived of the cultural vocabulary that previous generations possessed, and calls this phenomenon "new illiteracy" ("new illiteracy", Hirsch 1988: 108). The experience of communicating with young Americans and teaching in American universities allows us to agree with this point of view and argue that the "new illiteracy" interferes with intercultural communication.

Cultural literacy is the most dynamic component of competence. Along with fairly stable historical and geographical data, there are elements related to the current political situation, scandals, fashion, etc., which quickly arise and smooth out in the memory of the bearers of culture. This dynamism requires constant replenishment of cultural literacy.

Depending on the approaches and aspects of consideration, further detailing of the types of competence can be carried out. So, A. A. Zalevskaya suggests, along with linguistic and communicative competence, to consider the pragmatic, socio-cultural and strategic competence of the individual (Zalevskaya 1996: 9). Yu. Manfred operates with the concept of linguo-social competence and sociolinguistic competence (Manfred 1987: 189).

Competence does not exist apart from communication. It is in specific situations of communication that the level of language and other types of competence is revealed. The communicant is not aware of his incompetence in those areas of communication that, due to circumstances, remain closed to him.

MI is that rare area where different types of competence (linguistic, cultural, communicative) can exist in isolation from each other. A person who is fluent in a language may also have an insufficient level of communicative or cultural competence (as was often the case in the Soviet Union, when texts for learning English were based on stories about the telemaster Ivanov, a member of the Communist Party, who lives on Gorky Street in Moscow). On the other hand, a communicant may be well acquainted with the history and culture of another country, but not speak a foreign language. A person who does not know either one or the other, but who has a natural talent for communication, who knows how to listen to the subtle nuances of the mood of the interlocutor, can find with him " mutual language", using non-verbal means of communication or the services of an interpreter. A typical situation is also when an immigrant who does not speak a foreign language well, but has lived in a given culture for a long time, is able to communicate effectively using a minimum set of learned verbal and non-verbal means. But one way or another, all these That is why it is extremely short-sighted that American journalists live in Russia for many years without learning the language, and in their assessments of the situation rely on the opinion of a narrow circle of acquaintances who speak English.

Different levels of MK provide varying degrees the usefulness of functioning in a foreign culture: 1) the level necessary for survival; 2) a level sufficient for "entry" into a foreign culture; 3) a level that ensures a full existence in new culture- its "assignment"; 4) a level that allows you to fully realize the identity of a linguistic personality.

For adequate intercultural understanding and effective activity in the context of MI, a directly proportional relationship between the levels of linguistic, communicative and cultural competence is needed. In the case of asymmetry, there is a high probability of misunderstanding, since a person who is fluent in the language is expected to have an appropriate level of cultural literacy and is treated as a carrier, expecting that he has a sufficient amount of cultural information.

The level of linguistic, communicative and cultural competence can be considered as part of the identity of a linguistic personality (LP). S. A. Sukhikh and V. V. Zelenskaya distinguish formal or exponential, substantial and intentional aspects in the discourse structure, which reflect different levels of SL. The linguistic competence of a person is projected at the exponential level, and the communicative competence is projected at the level of the intentional organization of discourse, which includes a system of speech actions, dialogic modality, communication schemes and strategies (Sukhikh, Zelenskaya 1998: 81).

Under the conditions of MC, an individual may be inclined to underestimate or overestimate the level of his cultural and linguistic competence. This is largely due to the psychological characteristics of YL. Some communicators experience uncertainty when using a foreign language, others are ready to get by with minimal language tools.

Both underestimation and overestimation of one's own intercultural competence, as well as the competence of the addressee, becomes a hindrance in communication. Having overestimated the level of competence of his foreign partner, the native speaker ceases to make allowance for the lack of his linguistic and cultural knowledge, as a result of which a significant part of the information may be lost. When underestimating the interlocutor, the communicant begins to use simplified speech, which is usually addressed to marginal native speakers - children, foreigners, the sick -, as a result of which the recipient of the speech has a question: “Who do you take me for?” (Karasik, 1992: 60).

For a sufficient level of intercultural competence, we take the total level of linguistic, communicative and cultural competence, which provides the possibility of adequate communication in a particular social group (including professional, age and status parameters).

Understanding as the goal of intercultural communication.

Levels of Understanding

To express in words what you understand, so that the other understands you, as you yourself, is the most difficult thing; and you always feel that you are far, far from achieving what you should and can do.

^ L. N. Tolstoy

Misunderstandings do not exist, only the failure to communicate.

South East Asian proverb

One of the most important human desires is to be understood by others. The reasons for which a person seeks understanding may be different: love, ambition, a sense of duty, scientific, cultural or economic interests - however, in all cases, the task remains to most fully convey one's information to the interlocutor. Individuals as carriers of cognitive structures "seek to explicate them, make them available to others, seeing this as the basis for self-expression and self-affirmation, in order to achieve certain practical goals" (Dridze 1980: 110). This desire leads to the fact that the thoughts and emotions of the individual are embodied in acts of speech communication.

Problems of understanding are developed by psychologists, philosophers, linguists, specialists in the field of communication, computational linguistics, etc. (see the works of F. de Saussure, L. S. Vygotsky, A. A. Leontiev, P. Thorndike, C. Osgood, A. R. Luria, I. A. Zimney, L. V. Sakharny, V. Z. Demyankova, T. M. Dridze, A. A. Zalevskoy, R. Vodak, N. I. Zhinkina, T. A. van Dyck, V. Kinch, G. I. Bogin, V. I. Karasik, M. L. Makarov, etc.). At the heart of modern approaches is the difficult path traversed by hermeneutics, from the art of understanding someone else's individuality, developed by G. Schleiermacher, through the phenomenology of E. Husserl, to the ontology of H. H. Gadamer.

B. Russell, L. Wittgenstein and other researchers of linguo-philosophical problems point out a number of weaknesses of natural language, which do not always allow it to be an adequate carrier of meaning: polysemy of words and expressions, fuzzy logical structure of phrases, tacit agreements and psychological associations. "Language disguises thoughts," writes L. Wittgenstein. Just as behind the outer forms of clothing the forms of the body are only guessed, so the true logical essence of thought is hidden behind the linguistic shell. Since the language is aimed not only at the exact expression of thought (and sometimes used for directly opposite purposes), it contains many obstacles to the implementation of this task (Kozlova 1972: 57 - 58).

The effectiveness of communication is directly proportional to the level of mutual understanding between the communicants. By mutual understanding in this case, we mean the coincidence of the amounts of information encrypted in the message by the sender and correctly decrypted by the addressee. However, S. A. Sukhikh and V. V. Zelenskaya provide data showing that only 30% of the information communicated is understood, the rest of the information is lost in the communication process (Sukhikh, Zelenskaya 1998: 52). If these startling figures are correct, then it can be assumed that in the process of MI, due to cultural and linguistic differences, the loss of information will be even more significant.

To achieve mutual understanding, a certain set of invariant knowledge is needed that is common to all communicators, which in the works of scientists received different names: "a single total horizon", "life world" (E. Husserl), "pre-understanding" (H. D. Gadamer), " shared knowledge" (D. Hirsch; E. Roche and others).

Understanding necessarily implies the possibility of misunderstanding as its opposite. "Where there can be no misunderstanding, there can be no understanding" writes G. I. Bogin (Bogin 1986, p. 8). A similar thought is expressed by M. Birvish: "Different types of misunderstanding provide an additional illustration of the levels of understanding." He views misunderstanding as a particular type of understanding in which the listener attributes to a sign an internal representation that differs on one or more levels from what the speaker has in mind (Birvish 1988, p. 97).

Thus understanding is relative. It is based on knowledge, and the latter reflects the dialectic of relative and absolute truth. "Human thinking is constantly moving from ignorance to knowledge, from the superficial to ever deeper, essential and comprehensive knowledge" (Philosoph. Enc., 1983: 192). Understanding can be schematically represented as a scale, on the poles of which there will be complete misunderstanding and complete understanding as internal contradictions, which, on the one hand, exclude each other, and, on the other hand, cannot exist one without the other. Denying each other, they are at the same time mutually permeable and are an internal source of self-development of the information process.

J. Steiner expresses the paradoxical opinion that true understanding is possible only with complete silence (Steiner 1975: 286). In this case, silence must be understood as the absence of the use of any semiotic system. In fact, silence in discourse can be very eloquent and can be interpreted differently by communicants.

Both complete misunderstanding and complete understanding will be an ideal construct, since in the communication of individuals, neither one nor the other can exist in pure form. Even in the interaction of people belonging to different civilizational types and not those who know the language each other, anyway, at least a small part of the communication signals will be deciphered correctly, due to the presence of universal human properties and reactions to the world. On the other hand, full understanding would be achieved if the decoding process mirrored the encoding process. But this is even theoretically impossible for a number of reasons, including the individual differences of communicators, their belonging to different socio-cultural groups, as well as the dynamic nature of the communicative process.

The following factors allow us to speak about the dynamic essence of understanding:

1. 
   the simultaneity of a number of heterogeneous processes that are carried out in a complex manner, together forming an understanding as a qualitatively new whole;
2. 
   "activation and use of internal, cognitive information" (Dyck and Kinch 1988: 158) as an integral part of understanding;
3. 
   relationship between past experience/knowledge and expected meaning (Bogin 1987; Zalevskaya 1992; Solso 1996);
4. 
   consideration of understanding in the mobile and changing social context common to communicators.

N. I. Zhinkin interprets understanding as a translation from the national language into the language of the intellect (Zhinkin 1982). One of the paradoxes of language as a means of expressing thought is the decomposition of disordered thinking into units corresponding to linguistic ones, about which F. de Saussure writes: "Thinking, chaotic in nature, is forced to refine itself, decomposing." He further concludes that the mysterious interconnection of thought and sign "requires divisions, and that language develops its units by taking shape between two formless masses" (Saussure 1933: 116). Recognizing the validity of this point of view, we return to the traditional "vicious circle": what is primary - does the language divide chaotic thinking in accordance with the way it categorizes thinking, or, conversely, does national-specific thinking dictate the way of division into units for the language?

It can be assumed that initially the decomposition of the language into elements occurred under the influence of the surrounding world. As human thinking and language as a way of expressing it became more complex, these two processes began to be carried out as mutually directed and complementary. Today one can find many examples of how language sets the boundaries within which our thought must fit. For example, numerous objects denoted in Russian by the words shawl, kerchief, scarf, pioneer tie, muffler, in English are included in the concept of scarf. No one will deny that Russians see a similarity between a scarf and a headscarf, but for Russians this similarity is not enough to call them the same word, as happens in English. Native English speakers perceive the kneel action as monolithic, while in Russian it is interpreted as a separate form: kneel.

But even in those cases when linguistic units are considered equivalent during interlingual comparison, they, according to the classical opinion of W. Humboldt, act as "boundary signs of the same space in the field of thinking, which, however, never completely cover each other", as a result, “no matter how rich and fruitful an eternally young and eternally mobile language may be, it is never possible to present the true meaning, the totality of all the combined features of such a word, as a definite and complete value” (Humboldt 1985: 364).

Obviously, the decomposition of thought into components occurs at the stage of formation of inner speech. If the generation of speech is carried out in a non-native language, then the conflict between the native and foreign languages ​​\u200b\u200bmay begin already at this stage. Depending on the level of cultural and linguistic competence and "inclusion" in a foreign cultural and linguistic space, chaotic thinking will break up into units in accordance with the way it will be prescribed by the native or foreign language. The utterance may be generated immediately in this language or may be mediated by internal speech in the native language. Even if the speaker knows how to think in a foreign (for example, English) language, this does not mean that he is able to divide the world in the same way as a native speaker of this language - the use of foreign words does not guarantee an appropriate mindset. As a result, the so-called. "Russian English", "Chinese English", "Japanese English", etc. Thus, the "internal programming code" of a native speaker and a foreigner can be different. Further, interlingual differences act at the stage of "re-signification" (the term of O. D. Kuzmenko-Naumova; cited by: Zalevskaya, 1988), that is, the recoding of a message from one language to another, mediated by the internal socio-mental picture of the world.

Scientists consider the meanings that are born in the process of communication as constructs that are not an exact copy of the ideas of the addresser (see, for example, Dijk and Kinch 1988: 157; Wodak 1997: 57). We share the opinion of those scientists who interpret communication as the joint creation of meanings. So, for example, A. Schutz writes about the "social world of everyday intersubjectivity" of a communicant, which is built in mutual reciprocal acts of presentation and interpretation of meanings (Makarov 1998; 21). Similarly, the "hermeneutics of the game" by the German culturologist W. Iser, creatively developed by the American scientist P. Armstrong, suggests "alternating-oncoming movement of meanings open to each other for questioning" (Venediktova 1997: 202).

Does the mental construct that develops in the minds of individuals in the process of communication have national and cultural specifics? We tend to answer this question in the affirmative, since communicants - representatives of different cultures - formulate their ideas on the basis of different physical worlds and different languages, refracting the world in their own way. An important role in the formation of this difference is played by the connection established between the past experience of the communicant and the new epistemological image mastered by the linguistic personality in the process of communication, which G.I. Bogin calls reflection (Bogin 1986; 1987).

All understanding is interpretative. Interpretation of new experiences is seen as an essential element of understanding (see, for example, Dijk 1985; Wodak 1997). Discrepancies in the interpretation of the same facts of reality by different individuals are objectively due to the fact that the relationship between real objects and their images imprinted in the human mind is always approximate and incomplete and can only claim to be homomorphism ( Philosophical Enc. dictionary 215).

Differences in interpretations are also due to the fact that communicants interpret the relationship between surface and deep semantic structures in different ways. The material side of the linguistic sign in itself does not yet carry content, but only serves as a stimulus that activates the communicant's thinking. Often the meaning of the whole is not derived from the totality of the meanings of individual language units, as, for example, when using idioms, tropes, indirect speech acts: the same cabbage soup, but pour it thinner; pull the cat by the tail; cold turkey; you make a better door than you do a window(cf. Rus. you are not glass), etc. In addition to rethinking the components, such forms of linguistic expression are accompanied by an increase in meaning, which may have its own cultural and linguistic specificity. Understanding such semantic structures is the most difficult for participants in intercultural communication.

In addition, any discourse has an idiolectal character. The sender and receiver of information bring different types of sensitivities into communication, like "a set of electronic receiver frequencies, each of which can only listen to a specific program" (Salso 1996:321). An example of how individual meaning can be assigned to almost any form of linguistic expression is the following example from an American girl who lives in China and attends a British school where she is forced to sing in the morning God Save the King:

I was American every minute of the day, especially during school hours<...>I asked my mother to write an excuse so I wouldn't have to sing, but she wouldn't do it. “When in Rome”, she said. “do as the Romans do.” What she meant, “Don't make trouble. Just sing.” (Fritz, Jean. Homesick// Elements of Literature: 557) .

The mechanisms operating at the level of generation and interpretation of oral speech include the following actions of communicants:

1. 
   phonetic-phonological analysis of the speech chain;
2. 
   recognition of patterns at the phonetic-phonological level and division of the speech flow into words;
3. 
   recognition of patterns at the morphological and lexical level;
4. 
   choice of meanings of polysemantic words in accordance with the context;
5. 
   extraction of propositional structure;
6. 
   integrating propositions with presuppositions, frames, scripts, schemas, and background knowledge and creating an appropriate mental model.

Another issue that attracts close attention of scientists is the different hermeneutic depth of understanding. Based on the foregoing, the following relationships can be distinguished between the information encrypted in the message by the sender and decrypted by the addressee:

1. 
   understanding;
2. 
   misunderstanding;
3. 
   quasi-understanding, that is, the appearance of understanding;
4. 
   pseudo-understanding (false understanding);
5. 
   misunderstanding.

1. 
   In addition, finer gradations of levels of understanding can be considered, as, for example, in the analysis below:

^ First level understanding a given textual passage is understanding the surface structure of the language. In general, there is nothing tricky here - all the words and the syntactic structure of the sentence are clear to the reader. Nevertheless, most of the information remains outside the brackets: who is "he"? why is he puzzled? Why doesn't he understand what is going on?

^ Second level. Replacing a personal pronoun with a given name "Rip Van Winkle" indicates the identity of the speaker and somewhat clarifies the situation for people familiar with American literature and history. However, a significant part of the information is still "behind the scenes".

^ Third level. The next level of understanding is achieved by placing the sentence in the context of Washington Irving's story. "Rip Van Winkle":

"Rip-van-Winkle", the most popular short story by W. Irving (Irving, Washington), whose hero - good-natured, but lazy and weak-tempered Rip - after another drinking bout under the influence of magic spells falls asleep for 20 years and wakes up many important events, including hours and the War of Independence (Leontovich, Sheigal 2000).

^ Fourth level understanding implies that the reader has background knowledge about what is Revolutionary War, Congress, Stony Point(the place where one of the largest battles of the War of Independence took place) and related cultural associations. The hero of the novel himself, who does not have this knowledge, does not understand why his life has changed so much in 20 years, what happened to his acquaintances and friends, etc.

^ Fifth level understanding requires familiarity with precedent texts and more extensive background knowledge, in particular that the idea of ​​the story goes back to the German legend of the sleeping emperor, as well as salient features Dutch - the ancestors of Rip van Winkle - who arrived in America as settlers.

By the way, the short story itself perfectly illustrates the communication failure that occurs between Rip van Winkle and other villagers as a result of the fact that after his sleep, which lasted 20 years, the amount of his background knowledge no longer matches the knowledge of his fellow countrymen (during this time America gained independence , ceased to obey the British king, etc.):

The orator bustled up to him, and, drawing him partly aside, inquired "on which side he voted?" Rip stared in vacant stupidity. Another short but busy little fellow pulled him by the arm, and, rising on tiptoe, inquired in his ear, "Whether he was Federal or Democrat?" Rip was equally at a loss to comprehend the question; when a knowing, self-important gentleman… demanded in an austere tone, "what brought him to the election with a gun on his shoulder, and a mob at his heels, and whether he meant to breed a riot in the village?" - "Alas! gentleman," cried Rip, somewhat dismayed, "I am a poor quiet man, a native of the place, and a loyal subject of the king, God bless him!"

^ Here a general shout burst from the by-standers – "A tory! a tory! a spy! a refugee! hustle him! away with him!"

The highest level of development of a linguistic personality determines its ability to reflect on all human experience and thus makes understanding not only an individual-personal, but also a social phenomenon (Bogin 1986: 11-12, 56-59).

Understanding in intercultural communication depends on the following factors:

1. 
   ratio of contact cultures;
2. 
   similarities or differences of modal language personalities;
3. 
   stratification of society horizontally and vertically;
4. 
   crop locations on the timeline;
5. 
   similarities or differences in language pictures of the world;
6. 
   correlation of cultural and linguistic codes;
7. 
   ability to use feedback effectively.

Conclusions on the first chapter

1. The paradoxical nature of the system of intercultural communication lies in the fact that it simultaneously confirms and refutes the postulates of normal communication, first formulated by P. Grice, and then developed and supplemented by other scientists (the principle of cooperation, postulates about the completeness of the description and sufficiency of information in the IC, identity, general memory, semantic coherence, truth of judgment, etc.).

2. The leading mechanisms of MI include abstraction, filtering, simplification, association, combination and reorganization of information, placement of accents, gap filling and interpretation.

3. The communicative process is a dynamic entity that includes both invariant and variant features. The variables of the communicative process, endowed with intercultural specificity, include: participants in communication and the nature of the relationship between them, attitude to MC, form, channels and tools of MC, types of communicative activities, context, as well as various parameters of information content.

4. To encrypt information, an internal code ("language of thought") or an external code (existing in verbal and non-verbal form) can be used. The ability to "join" codes is a prerequisite for successful intercultural communication. The transformation of codes is expressed in the formation of a "link" between the internal universal subject code and the new "external" code, which the person masters in order to participate in MC. The transformed code is based on the unity of the concepts used, background knowledge, presuppositions, allusions and other cultural and linguistic means.

5. Intercultural competence is a conglomeration of at least three components: linguistic, communicative and cultural competence. Language competence is responsible for the correct choice of language means that are adequate for the communication situation; correct reference; correlation of mental models with the forms of reality; comparison of mental schemes and constructions with cognitive experience; the ability to repeat once acquired language experience in similar intercultural situations. Communicative competence activates the mechanisms, techniques and strategies necessary to ensure an effective communication process: activity, the appropriateness of the choice of communication means, dynamism, “reading” signals of impaired understanding and timely “switching on” feedback. Cultural competence provides for the correct interpretation of presuppositions, background knowledge, values, signals of psychological and social identity. Optimal for MC is a directly proportional relationship between the levels of linguistic, communicative and cultural competence.

6. The system-dynamic model of intercultural communication proposed in this paper reflects the dialectical nature of intercultural communication, the possibility of its consideration in the aspect of synchrony and diachrony, the stratification of society, as well as the complex interweaving of the collective and the individual in the process of communication. This approach allows us to present intercultural communication as a network of connections and relationships that permeate human society horizontally and vertically and are determined by the properties of its structure. The hierarchy of the IC system is also reflected in a multi-stage approach to the consideration of a linguistic personality, the relationship and mutual influence of linguistic units of different levels on each other and the creation of a multidimensional effect in the transmission of information of a sociocultural nature.

8. The effectiveness of communication is directly proportional to the level of mutual understanding between the communicants. The mental construct that develops in the minds of individuals in the process of communication has national and cultural specifics, since communicants - representatives of different cultures - formulate their ideas on the basis of different physical worlds and different languages, which refract the world in their own way. We consider adequate understanding sufficient to coordinate the actions of individuals within a given society in a particular situation of MC.

The process of world globalization, which accelerated at the end of the 20th century, inevitably affected the national education systems and, first of all, the systems of teaching foreign languages. The question arose of determining the level of knowledge of a specialist in a foreign language. The result was the creation of a document of the Council of Europe called "Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment".

Main content of this document

The document consists of nine chapters that describe approaches to the organization of teaching foreign languages, the creation of curricula and the level certification of students. It has two main purposes. The first goal is to systematize approaches to teaching foreign languages. The second goal is to standardize assessments of language proficiency levels.

As a result of extensive research in different countries and procedures for approbation of the assessment methodology, the experts agreed on the number of levels allocated for the organization of the process of learning the language and assessing the degree of proficiency in it. Exists 6 major levels:

IN developed a system of language proficiency levels and a system for describing these levels.

First of all, this activity approach: that is, the mastery of speech activity should take place directly in communication.

Competencies represent the sum of knowledge, skills and personal qualities that allow a person to perform various actions.

Communicative competence allows to carry out speech activity using language means.

Speech activity is the practical application of communicative competence in a particular area of ​​communication.

In speech activity, its types are distinguished: speaking, writing, reading, listening.

IN "Common European Framework of Reference for Languages" classification is given in a slightly different way. Stand out:

• reception as an internally active speech activity;
• production as externally active speech activity;
• interaction, in which at least two speakers exchange statements in oral or written form;
• mediation focused on translation and interpretation, that is, the transfer of the content of the statement to a third party.

All speech acts are carried out in order to solve the problem of communication in a certain field of activity.

Under sphere of communication refers to the broad spectrum of social life in which social interaction takes place.

Within the spheres of communication, topics of communication are distinguished. In secondary school, a number of topics were identified, each of which can be represented by a set of sub-themes:

1. personality
2. home and surroundings
3. leisure and recreation:
4. trips
5. relationships
6. health and lifestyle
7. education
8. purchases
9. nutrition
10. service
11. attractions
12. foreign languages
13. weather

Communication within a certain topic is carried out in context.

Context- this is the spectrum of events against which communicative actions are carried out. The context is also revealed by the concept communication situation.

"Common European Framework of Reference for a Foreign Language" offer a table that allows you to foresee almost any communication situation and simulate it for training or control purposes. We give the beginning of this table in an abbreviated form.

How student responses are assessed

There are six main levels for which the level assessment scales are made.

There are two types of rating scales: analytical and holistic. The analytical scales are for the use of examiners only.

Holistic scales are intended for the user. They describe what a person can do when trying to determine their level of foreign language proficiency. Let us give an example of a level scale of the most general type (levels of fluency C1 and C2 are excluded from the scales, since in secondary school students can reach the maximum B2 level):

In the level scale given as an example, in the most general form, human competencies in all four types of speech activity are described. Considering the fact that competence in a foreign language can be uneven for different types speech activity, it is customary to compile more detailed scales for each of them.

Scale assessing skills in the field of oral reception

listening

The following table allows you to qualitatively assess speaking skills:

A1 (Survival level):

A2 (Prev threshold level):

B1 (Threshold level):

B2 (Threshold Advanced):

It is possible to provide for an even greater degree of detail of the level scales. This is achieved by creating descriptors for evaluating skills in the implementation of specific speech actions. A large number of such scales are given in the document "Common European Framework of Reference for Languages". For example:

All the above examples of scales are designed to assess the level of formation of the speech component of the student's communicative competence. IN Lately efforts have been made to create rating scales for measuring other elements of foreign language communicative competence. Here are some examples:

As required State standard general secondary education, upon completion of the 9th grade, students of secondary general education schools must reach the A2 level.

Certification of foreign language training received by students in the framework of school education is increasingly subject to the idea of ​​level control. Therefore, the methodology and techniques of level assessment must certainly be in the methodological arsenal of a modern teacher.

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages ​​(CEFR) is international standard, used to describe the level of foreign language proficiency. It is used around the world to describe the language skills of learners. According to the CEFR scale, knowledge and skills are divided into three categories, which, in turn, are further divided into six levels:

For each level, the knowledge and skills that a student should have in reading, listening, speaking and writing are described:

The following table shows the relevance of international Cambridge exams to different levels of proficiency English language.

If you know your level, then using the table below, you can choose the exam that suits you. When successful delivery the exam you choose, you will receive an international certificate confirming your language proficiency at this level.

More detailed information about which exams suit you can be found on the website www.cambridgeenglish.org.ru.

Also, to determine your level of English proficiency on a common European scale, you can take a free online test on the website

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment

The document of the Council of Europe entitled "Common European Framework of Reference: Learning, Teaching, Assessment" reflects the result of the work begun in 1971 by experts from the countries of the Council of Europe, including representatives of Russia, on the systematization of approaches to teaching a foreign language and the standardization of assessments of language proficiency levels. "Competencies" in an understandable form define what a language learner needs to master in order to use it for communication purposes, as well as what knowledge and skills he needs to master in order for communication to be successful.

What is the main content of this project carried out within the framework of the Council of Europe? The participants of this project tried to create a standard terminology, a system of units, or a common language to describe what constitutes the subject of study, as well as to describe the levels of language proficiency, regardless of what language is being studied, in what educational context - which country, institute, school , in courses, or privately, and what methods are used. As a result, it was developed a system of language proficiency levels and a system for describing these levels using standard categories. These two complexes create a unified network of concepts that can be used to describe any certification system, and, consequently, any training program, in the standard language, from setting goals - learning goals to the competencies achieved as a result of training.

The system of language proficiency levels

When developing the European system of levels, extensive research was carried out in different countries, assessment methods were tested in practice. As a result, an agreement was reached on the issue of the number of levels allocated for organizing the process of learning the language and assessing the degree of proficiency in it. There are 6 major levels, which represent lower and higher sub-levels in the classic three-level system, which includes basic, intermediate and advanced levels. The level scheme is built on the principle of sequential branching. It begins with the division of the level system into three major levels - A, B and C:

The introduction of a pan-European system of language proficiency levels does not limit the ability of various pedagogical teams to develop and describe their own system of levels and modules of education. However, the use of standard categories when describing one's own programs helps to ensure the transparency of courses, and the development of objective criteria for assessing the level of language proficiency will ensure recognition of the qualifications obtained by students in examinations. It can also be expected that over time the system of levels and the wording of the descriptors will change as experience accumulates in the countries participating in the project.

In a generalized form, the levels of language proficiency are presented in the following table:

Table 1

When interpreting the level scale, one must keep in mind that the divisions on such a scale are not the same. Even if the levels appear to be equidistant on the scale, it takes different time. So, even if Waystage is halfway to Threshold Level, and Threshold is on the level scale halfway to Vantage Level, experience with this scale shows that that it takes twice as long to progress from "Threshold" to "Threshold Advanced" as it takes to reach "Threshold". This is due to the fact that at higher levels the range of activities is expanding and everything is required large quantity knowledge, skills and abilities.

Selecting specific learning objectives may require more detailed description. It can be presented as a separate table showing the main aspects of language proficiency at six levels. For example, table 2 is designed as a self-assessment tool to identify your knowledge and skills in terms of:

table 2

A1 (Survival level):

A2 (Pre-threshold level):

B1 (Threshold level):

B2 (Threshold Advanced):

In practice, one can focus on a certain set of levels and a certain set of categories, depending on specific goals. Such detailing makes it possible to compare training modules with each other and with the system of common European competencies.

Instead of identifying the categories that underlie speech activity, it may be necessary to evaluate language behavior on the basis of individual aspects of communicative competence. For example, table 3 is designed to assess speaking, so it focuses on qualitatively different aspects of language use:

Table 3

A1 (Survival level):

A2 (Pre-threshold level):

B1 (Threshold level):

B2 (Threshold Advanced):

C1 (Professional Level):

C2 (Proficiency Level):

The tables for assessing the levels discussed above are based on the bank "illustrative descriptors", developed and tested in practice, and subsequently graduated by levels during the research project. Descriptor scales are based on a detailed category system to describe what language proficiency/use means and who can be called a language proficient/user.

The description is based activity approach. It establishes the relationship between language use and language learning. Users and language learners are seen as subjects social activities , that is, members of society who decide tasks, (not necessarily language related) in certain conditions , in a certain situations , in a certain field of activity . Speech activity is carried out in a wider social context, which determines the true meaning of the statement. The activity approach makes it possible to take into account the entire range of personal characteristics of a person as a subject of social activity, primarily cognitive, emotional and volitional resources. Thus, any form of language use and its study can be described in the following terms:

Competencies represent the sum of knowledge, skills and personal qualities that allow a person to perform various actions.

General competencies are not linguistic, they provide any activity, including communicative.

Communicative language competencies allow to carry out activities using language tools.

Context- this is a spectrum of events and situational factors against which communicative actions are carried out.

Speech activity- this is the practical application of communicative competence in a certain area of ​​communication in the process of perception and / or generation of oral and written texts, aimed at performing a specific communicative task.

Types of communication activities involve the implementation of communicative competence in the process of semantic processing / creation (perception or generation) of one or more texts in order to solve the communicative task of communication in a certain field of activity.

Text - it is a coherent sequence of oral and / or written statements (discourse), the generation and understanding of which occurs in a specific area of ​​communication and is aimed at solving a specific problem.

Under sphere of communication refers to a wide range of social life in which social interaction takes place. In relation to language learning, educational, professional, social and personal spheres are distinguished here.

Strategy is a course of action chosen by a person to solve a problem.

Task- this is a purposeful action necessary to obtain a specific result (solution of a problem, fulfillment of obligations or achievement of a goal).

Multilingualism concept

The concept of multilingualism is decisive in the approach of the Council of Europe to the problem of language learning. Multilingualism arises as a person's linguistic experience expands in the cultural aspect from the language used in the family to mastering the languages ​​of other peoples (learned at school, college or directly in the language environment). A person “does not store” these languages ​​separately from each other, but forms communicative competence on the basis of all knowledge and all language experience, where languages ​​are interconnected and interact. According to the situation, the individual freely uses any part of this competence to ensure successful communication with a particular interlocutor. For example, partners can move freely from one language or dialect to another, demonstrating the ability of each to express an idea in one language and understand in another. A person can use multilingualism to understand text, written or spoken, in a language they did not previously know, recognizing words that sound and are spelled similarly in multiple languages ​​in a "new form".

From this point of view, the purpose of language education is changing. Now the perfect (at the level of a native speaker) mastery of one or two, or even three languages, taken separately from each other, is not the goal. The goal is to develop such a linguistic repertoire, where there is a place for all linguistic skills. The latest developments in the language program of the Council of Europe are aimed at developing a tool with which language teachers will contribute to the development of a multilingual personality. In particular, the European Language Portfolio is a document in which the most varied experiences of language learning and intercultural communication can be recorded and formally recognized.

DESCRIPTION OF LANGUAGE COMPETENCE LEVELS

The introduction of the concept of language competence and its levels correlates with the world theory and practice of determining the goals and levels of language proficiency. Competence in modern methodology is understood as a set of knowledge, skills and abilities that are formed in the process of teaching the Russian language and which ensure mastery of it and ultimately serve the development of the student's personality.

The concept of "language competence" was introduced into scientific use in the 60s of the XX century by the American linguist N. Chomsky and semantically opposed to the term "language use". The difference between the meanings of these terms was revealed as the difference between the knowledge of the "speaking-hearing" about the language and the use of the language in the practice of communication and human activity. In domestic science today, the term "language competence" is actively used. Language competence (linguistic ability) is most often disclosed in our country as a set of specific skills necessary for a member of the language community to communicate with others and master the language as an academic discipline.

By definition, which is conceptual for the implementation of this project, language competence is the ability of students to use words, their forms, syntactic structures in accordance with the norms of the literary language, use its synonymic means, and ultimately, the possession of the richness of the language as a condition for successful speech activity.

The main goals of development (in the situation of teaching foreign children in schools with teaching in Russian - the formation and development) of language competence in the framework of the implementation of the content of the subject “Russian language. Native language» in elementary school are defined by the Federal State Educational Standard for Primary General Education:

Mastering the initial ideas about the norms of the Russian and native literary language (orthoepic, lexical, grammatical) and the rules of speech etiquette; the ability to navigate the goals, objectives, means and conditions of communication, to choose adequate language tools for the successful solution of communication problems;

Mastering learning activities with language units and the ability to use knowledge to solve cognitive, practical and communicative problems.

It is important to note that these goals are operationalized in the Exemplary Basic Educational Programs of Primary General Education, fixed in the Basic Educational Programs of General Educational Institutions and are common to all students in these programs, regardless of their initial level of Russian language proficiency.

In teaching Russian as a non-native language and as a native language, the formation of language competence occupies an unequal place. In the situation of teaching Russian as a native language, in fact, it is no longer about the formation, but about the improvement of language competence. These tasks are traditionally solved at school: new layers of vocabulary are introduced, phraseological stock is replenished, the grammatical structure of students' speech is enriched: morphological norms, norms of coordination, control, construction of sentences of various types are assimilated, students' speech is enriched with synonymous forms and constructions.

In the case of teaching foreign children, we are talking about mastering a semiotic, sign system that is new for students. Children learn the sound and lexical systems of the Russian language, its grammatical categories, learn to understand Russian speech and build their own statements.

The difficulty of teaching foreign children in a class-lesson system is that the adaptation period should be very limited in time. To improve the effectiveness of teaching tools and methods during this period, it is necessary to accurately diagnose (assess) the level of language competence at the beginning of this period. The European level system seems to be acceptable for these purposes. In accordance with the recommendations of the Council of Europe, 6 major levels are distinguished (in generally accepted terms - “level of survival”, “pre-threshold level”, “threshold level”, “threshold advanced level”, “professional level”, “level of excellence”), which represent the lower and higher sub-levels in the classic three-level system, which includes basic, intermediate and advanced levels. The level scheme is built on the principle of sequential branching. It begins with the division of the level system into three major levels - elementary knowledge of the language (A), independent knowledge (B), fluency (C).

A1– “I understand and can use familiar phrases and expressions in speech that are necessary to perform specific tasks. I can introduce myself / introduce others, ask / answer questions about the place of residence, acquaintances, property. I can engage in a simple conversation if the interlocutor speaks slowly and clearly and is ready to help.

A2– “I understand certain sentences and common expressions related to the main areas of life (for example, basic information about myself and my family members, shopping, getting a job, etc.). I can perform tasks related to the simple exchange of information on familiar or everyday topics. In simple terms, I can talk about myself, my family and friends, describe the main aspects of everyday life.

IN 1– “Understand the main ideas of clear messages made in the standard language on various topics that typically arise at work, study, leisure, etc. Can communicate in most situations that may arise during a stay in the country of the language being studied. I can compose a coherent message on topics that are known or of particular interest to me. I can describe impressions, events, hopes, aspirations, state and substantiate my opinion and plans for the future.”

AT 2– “I understand the general content of complex texts on abstract and concrete topics. I speak quickly and spontaneously enough to constantly communicate with native speakers without much difficulty for either party. I can make clear, detailed messages on a variety of topics and give my perspective on a major issue, showing the advantages and disadvantages of different opinions.”

C1 - " I understand large complex texts on various topics, I recognize the hidden meaning. I speak spontaneously at a fast pace, without difficulty in choosing words and expressions. Flexible and effective use of the language for communication in scientific and professional activities. Can produce accurate, detailed, well-structured messages on complex topics, demonstrating mastery of text organization patterns, means of communication, and combination of its elements.

C2 – “I understand almost any oral or written communication, I can compose a coherent text based on several oral and written sources. I speak spontaneously with a high tempo and a high degree of accuracy, emphasizing shades of meaning even in the most difficult cases.

However, it was found that the level of fluency in Russian in accordance with the above classification is not typical even for those primary school students for whom Russian is their native language. Sufficient for mastering the basic educational programs of primary general education is the level of independent knowledge of the Russian language (level B). At the same time, the modern norm for well-performing primary school students is the transition from level B1 (in grade 1) to level B2 (in grade 4). It is problematic to equalize the levels of proficiency in the Russian language if in the student group some of the students are at elementary level(Level A).

Level A1 is the cause of significant communication difficulties between a Russian-speaking teacher and a foreign student. The development of the main educational program of primary general education and the formation of cognitive UUD in this case is possible only through a native speaker of the child's native language. If a foreign child speaks Russian at the A1 level, his parents need to make special efforts to master the Russian language at the A2 level as soon as possible.

If the child is at the A2 level, the teacher has methodological opportunities to speed up the process of the child's adaptation to the class-lesson system.

TOOLS FOR ASSESSING THE LEVEL OF LANGUAGE COMPETENCE IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

Table 1

Toolkit for diagnosing the level of language competence in the Russian language, adapted to the age norms of a primary school student