English Language’s Functioning in the Student’s Microcommunity: a Case of Kazakhstan

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

English Language's Functioning in the Student's Microcommunity:

a Case of Kazakhstan

Saule A. Shunkeyevaa, Bakytgul A. Zhetpisbayevaa,

Gulnara T. Smagulovab, Lyailya S. Syrymbetovaa and Dmitriy V. Dyakova

“Innovative University of Eurasia

Pavlodar, Kazakhstan

bKaraganda University

named after academician E.A. Buketov

Karaganda, Kazakhstan

Abstract

The trilingual strategy in the context of state language policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan predetermined the research needs to specify the functioning of English language as well as its spreading, status and role in the communicative and language space of Kazakhstan. It is the purpose of the article to investigate the specified functioning of English language in the student's micro society under the conditions of Kazakhstani polylingualism.

The research is based on the concepts of sociological and interactional (social induced) communicative and theoretical sociolinguistics. The student's microcommunity with peculiar linguistic and behavioral characteristics is meant to be the object of research. There are applied the principal empirical method of obtaining knowledge for pedagogical and sociological research that is sample-based questioning and mathematical and statistical analysis.

The main results involve the analysis of the empirical data obtained during questioning. While researching the authors revealed the specifics of English language's functioning in the student's microcommunity that initially caused by individual and personal motivation of the native speakers.

In the conclusion the authors deduce that specifics of English language's functioning in the student's microcommunity is determined by the unique language situation in Kazakhstan due to cooperative functioning of two powerful languages that is the Kazakh and Russian in the united communicative space. The authors state that communicative function of English language in the student's environment at the present stage is generally realized in the academic sphere (study and science) and more rarely in the daily sphere of communication.

Keywords: sociolinguistic monitoring, English language, trinity of languages policy, student's microcommunity, communicative linguistic space, questionnaire, level of English proficiency.

Функционирование английского языка в студенческом микросоциуме (на примере Казахстана)

С.А. Шункееваа, Б.А. Жетписбаеваа, Г. Т. Смагуловаб, Л. С. Сырымбетоваа, Д. В. Дьякова

“Инновационный Евразийский Университет

Казахстан, Павлодар Карагандинский университет им. Е. Букетова Казахстан, Караганда лингвистическими и поведенческими характеристиками. Основной метод исследования - эмпирический метод познания педагогических и социологических исследований - анкетирование, имевшее выборочный характер, а также метод математически-статистического анализа.

Основные результаты заключаются в обобщении полученных при анкетировании эмпирических данных. В ходе исследования авторы выявили специфику функционирования английского языка в студенческом микросоциуме, обусловленную, прежде всего, индивидуально-личностной мотивацией языковых носителей.

В заключение сделаны выводы о том, что специфика функционирования английского языка в студенческом микросоциуме детерминируется своеобразием языковой ситуации в Казахстане, обусловленной, прежде всего, ^функционированием в едином коммуникативном пространстве двух мощных языков - казахского и русского. Авторы отмечают, что коммуникативная функция английского языка в студенческой среде на современном этапе реализуется преимущественно в академической сфере (учеба и наука), реже - в повседневной сфере общения.

Ключевые слова: социолингвистический мониторинг, английский язык, политика трехъязычия, студенческий микросоциум, коммуникативно-языковое пространство, анкетирование, уровень владения английским языком.

english language student kazakhstan

1. Introduction

The last two decades in the terms of moderate language policy implementation (definition by William Fierman , the American scientist, Professor of Indiana University's Department of Central Eurasian Studies) in Kazakhstan are characterized by cardinal changes in public, political and economic spheres of social life. These changes are caused to a certain extent by the processes of globalization and internationalization to encourage English language's strengthening and wide spreading as the language meant for international communication.

The language educational policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan in recent times is defined by implementation of the “Trinity of Languages” cultural project reflected in the paradigm of trilingual education. The strategic objective of trilingual education consists in laying the groundwork for simultaneous mastering three target languages by the citizens of Kazakhstan, that is, Kazakh, Russian and English, and according to the international standards. Thus, acquisition of Kazakh language as the nation's official one is meant to promote successful civil integration of the republic residents, the Russian language proficiency provides strengthening of the peoples' friendship and mastering the English language acts as means for integration into world economy (Syrymbetova et al., 2017).

Development of trinity of languages is considered to be an important aspect of economic and social modernization of the country, with recognizing the English language's importance to be the determinant of competitiveness of the young specialist in labor market . English communication skill is considered to be “one of the most important employability requirements” because of “job market is quite demanding and challenging” (Clement & Murugavel, 2015). Satisfactory English proficiency is needed “to compete against other nations' members in national, regional, and international job markets” (Kanoksilapatham, 2017).

The issues dealing with English language's spreading, the status and role of language in cross-cultural and interethnic communication, the functioning in language continuum of multicultural and polylingual society simi-lar to Kazakhstani one, fall within the scope of sociolinguistics and meant to be the focus of the sociolinguistic researches. From this point of view, the recent foreign and domestic publications concerning English functioning in terms of multilingualism (Botha, 2017, Mohr & Ochieng, 2017, Gorban, 2016, Aimoldina, 2012) seem to be advantageous for us. According to Anyanwu (2016), the sociocultural factors affecting the English language use concern the challenges abound in the teaching and learning of English. The statement has something in common here due to the list of these factors: the first language influence, the nature of the English language, specific background of English users or learners and their attitude towards English learning.

The questions of language's social conditionality and usage in Kazakhstan have become the actual ones since gaining independence and increasing need of identity in the multiethnic and polylingual society. The unique linguistic space in modern Kazakhstan is characterized by sociolinguistic and demographic complexity because of being multilingual society with more than 100 ethnic groups' representatives. Therefore, the functioning of national Kazakh language and international Russian language should be considered in interaction within united communicative and language space. Moreover, there has been observed recently the tendency of active English penetration into communicative and language space of Kazakhstan and change of emphasis in English learning and usage in the professional sphere.

In the course of our research we made an attempt to study efficiency of the language policy adopted in Kazakhstan and realized by means of language planning regarding the English language's status and acquisition by the socially active part of young generation of Kazakhstani citizens, especially by the student's youth. We wondered what extent the student's youth of Kazakhstan mastered English to, what communicative functions the English language exercised in student's microcommunity, what role and place the English language had got in the hierarchy of interacting languages of communicants.

The primary goal of the article is to investigate the specified functioning of the English language in the student's microcommunity under the conditions of Kazakhstani polylingualism.

2. Statement of the problem and Methods

The structure of society presented by the model of social stratum or groups having own culture and subculture with relevant language structures and levels rather than language by itself is considered to be the starting point of sociological linguistics. The structured language or its version as the structure's characteristic is compatible to the social structure, and language is treated as the group forming factor. What is more, the society structuring, the role and functional values of society are considered to be the general subjects (Amanbayeva & Shunkeyeva 2016: 14).

Thus, the object of our research appears to be such social group in the Kazakhstan's society structure as the student's microcommunity with peculiar linguistic and behavioral characteristics to be considered regarding to the English language, linguistic performance when interacting, including professional communication.

The selection of the student's youth as the research object is made for a good reason. Students as a specific part of the country's youth are classified as quite numerous and important social and demographic group and appear to be the source for reinforcing professional community with qualified specialists, including the intellectuals (Sergeyev, 2010).

To observe the English language's spreading dynamics and functioning in the student's microsocial community of Kazakhstan is the goal of our research. We treat sociolinguistic monitoring as systematic collecting, processing and analysis of obtained information for solving the problems, concerning improvement of current situation regarding English language's mastering and acquisition in the student's microcommunity.

The method of mathematical and statistical analysis, the empirical method of obtaining knowledge in pedagogical and sociological researches that is sample-based questioning formed the basis for sociolinguistic monitoring. While drawing up the questionnaire we applied the principles of anonymity, scientific objectivity, thematic ranging of question indicators. The closed and open-ended questions as well as the mixed type were presented in the questionnaire. The inquiry form included the questions covering several parameters and systematized by 5 blocks. These groups of parameters gave an option to highlight the respondents' level of English proficiency, the respondents' attitude to the trilingual policy implemented in the country and to the place of English language in society as well as the level of practical English usage in respondents' lives, the languages functioning in student's microcommunity, and also the social characteristics of respondents (21 points in total). The respondents were inquired during the period of February to June, 2017.

Questioning of the student's youth was conducted both in paper and electronic format: there is access mode of questionnaire in Russian as well as access mode of questionnaire in Kazakh .

Ultimately, the students from the following 9 Kazakhstani higher education institutions located in four regions of the country took part in questioning: Buketov Karaganda State University, Karaganda State Medical University, Gumilev Euroasian National University (Astana), Kozybayev North Kazakhstan State University (Petropavlovsk), Pavlodar State Pedagogical Institute, Shakarim Semipalatinsk State University, Auezov Southern Kazakhstan State University and Regional social innovative university (Shymkent), Dosmukhamedov Atyrau state university. 306 respondents were inquired in total, that is the students from both the language and non-language departments, such as, for instance, philological, physical and mathematical, physics and technology, economic, pedagogical, biological and geographical faculties, faculties of physical culture and sport, psychology and defectology, philosophy and psychology, information technologies, general medicine and stomatology, etc.

3. Discussion

While processing results of questioning we applied the method of direct average of the results in the course of calculating the open-ended questions (Chumichkin, 2009: 119), however, dividing up general sampled population, such as, for example, samples by the principle of belonging to the proper course year, faculty, higher education institution and region were not implied during research. For processing responses to the requests demanding “yes” or “no” decision-making there was calculated the share of positive and negative answers of the total number of interrogated respondents.

Survey findings by the block 1 “Level of English proficiency”. 94% of respondents have already learned English at school, college, intensive English language courses, private tutor classes, by online learning, individual study before entering the higher educational institution. Meanwhile, the number of negative answers (6%) came as a surprise. Furthermore, these respondents specify their learning English in higher education institution at the moment.

The question “How long do you learn English?” indicates that the most part of students has learnt English for a long time: 42,7% of respondents have studied for over 7 years, 22% of the students have learnt about 5 years; but the 9,55% share of students learning English less than 1 year seems to be rather high. However, we observe that more than a half of respondents have learnt English for a quite long time to testify continuity of English studying in the school-college-higher education institution system. This fact is meant to be a positive factor for English acquisition since continuity being the universal pedagogical phenomenon is treated as the continuous and successive knowledge process and as connection between previous material and the subsequent one (according to Ya.A. Komensky ). Otherwise speaking, it is the process of advanced development of the learner at any stage of continuous education system, and the process to be implemented by support and consideration of the previous stages, provided that the subsequent results by discipline studying are always based on previous ones fixing them (Tulassynova & Panina 2016: 73).

The last question in the block 1 (question 4) was intended for respondents' defining the actual level of English proficiency according to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The students were provided with an example of language proficiency levels from A1 to C2 with a short definition. The responses to the question let see that the most part of students knowing English at the elementary level or Survival (A1) amounts to 29,77%, 25,85% of students containing the following large group determined their level as the Threshold one (B1), the Way-stage level (A2) was pointed by 23,9% of respondents, the Upper Intermediate level (B2) was indicated by 15,1% of students, and only the small part of respondents knew English at the professional level, i.e. perfectly, thus, the Advanced level (C1) was marked by 3,15% of respondents and the Proficiency level (C2) was indicated by 2,2%.

Since in the course of our research we interrogated generally the senior students (3-4 course years), the obtained results highlight failure to follow the university program by English in the higher education institutions of Kazakhstan to a large extent. After completing English study the students who had lower than A2 language level by the time of entering had to master levels from minimum and sufficient (A1) to the level of basic commonality (B2); and the students who had higher than A2 level of language proficiency had to master foreign language to the level of upper and basic commonality (C1) . According to ultimate objectives of this standard program only the small share of learners successfully masters the university program on foreign language. Hence, it appears either to revise requirements of the standard educational program on foreign languages, or to raise demands for the level of foreign languages teaching in higher education institutions, or to lift a level regarding foreign language skills for the learners entering higher educational institutions of the country. The share opinion concerning starting level of English proficiency of the students going to higher educational institutions and revision of standard educational programs at any level of foreign language training is given in a number of articles of the Kazakhstani colleagues, for example, by Shaykhyzada Zh.G. (2016), Kassymova G.M. (2013), Mikhaylova G.M. (2014), etc.

Survey findings by the block 2 “Prospects for trilingual policy implementation and studying English language”. Within this block the students were offered to express their attitude to the trilingual educational policy adopted in the state. According to questioning, the most part of students support the trilingual policy implemented in the country and see the need of studying English language. The questioning results on the point are presented by percentage ratio from 56,3% to 80,6% of those who completely agreed. Broadly speaking, relevance of English language in the educational and professional environment is certain to be conditioned.

Moreover, this statement is confirmed by respondents' answering the following question: What purpose do you learn English for? While responding the students could choose some options among the offered ones, or add any version.

The answers of respondents create a positive profile of modern students, thus, 216 respondents which amounts 70,58% of the total number learn English for general development; 137 students (44,77%) associate English language with career development in Kazakhstan; 135 respondents (44,3%) learn English for further study abroad; English is required by 128 students (41,8%) for tourism purposes; 76 respondents (24,8%) do not avoid chance of working abroad by means of English comprehension. In contrast to positive attitude of the students' youth there are also non-academic and personal motives for studying language, thus, for example, 20 respondents (6,5%) learn English for further emigration; 1 respondent (0,3%) fairly admitted studying English as an obligatory component of the curriculum by specialty and therefore to have to learn it; another respondent (0,3%) is not intended for studying English.

In our opinion, the responses according to the question “Do you intend to continue studying English language after graduating from the university?” seem to be interesting and optimistic. 87,75% of the respondents answer in the affirmative to indicate the students' interest in English. Moreover, the interest exceeds the limits of academic course and university program in whole. Then, most of students are suggested to associate English knowledge with future professional activity and personal development. However, 11,67 % of respondents do not plan to learn English after graduating from the higher education institution. We think, there is indicated the normal and quite measured response of the part of student's youth who objectively assess their possibilities, abilities and needs for studying English.

At next point the respondents were offered to choose from the list (with several possible variants of answers) or to add the more efficient way for studying English in their opinion.

Most of students represented by 157 respondents (51,4%) consider studying English on an individual tutor basis to be the most effective way, 124 respondents (40,5%) think that the group English course classes rank second by efficiency, individual study is indicated as an effective means by 80 students (26,2% of the total number). Some respondents hold the opinion that the most effective ways are meant to be studying in the linguistic (English-speaking) environment (3 respondents, 0,95%) and practice with native speakers (4 respondents, 1,4%) (Fig. 1).

Survey findings by the block 3 “Practice applying the English language in various spheres”. While there are the questions implying the answers by declarative character in the first two blocks, the questions presented in the block 3 are aimed for identifying the qualitative level of English proficiency expressed by descriptors of practical skills as well as for revealing the actual English usage in the respondents' life. The responses appeared to be unexpected, they did not confirm the previous results (block 1, question 4), as well as surpassed some indicators, and exceeded number of students mastering English was indicated at the A2, C1 and C2 levels.

The students objectively identified the level of English proficiency in general. The most of respondents were divided according to A1 level (23,4%), A2 level (26,5%), B1 level (23,8%) similar to answers to the question 4 in the block 1 (Figure 3). However, there is observed reducing of share of the respondents with A1 level (by 6,37%) and B1 level (by 2,05%) as well as increasing of number of the students with A2 level (for 2,6%). In the case for B2, C1 and C2 levels there was indicated insignificant reduction of the share of respondents having B2 level (by 1,9%) as well as increasing at C1 and C2 levels by 3,15% and 2,2% respectively. We think the data presented in the block 3 are more reliable as the students identified the level by certain criteria descriptors, applying them to own language experience, not simply being guided by the level description. Thus, the students are certain to be quite inadequate to differentiate levels of foreign language proficiency if they have no accurately registered and transparent criteria.

By means of the following question we specified how often students used English in their everyday life and out of study. According to inquiry, the student's youth uses English language out of study, however, not “often” (12% of respondents) as wished it to be, but “sometimes” (indicated by 46,5% as the greatest number of answers); another quite large group of respondents “seldom” uses English language in everyday life (29,8%); there is great share of respondents who never uses English language out of study (11,6%).

Fig. 1. Effective ways for studying English

Further we asked students to specify where and how they used English out of study in everyday life. Thus, there were presented some activity types and opportunity to add the types and forms they actively used in life as well as the choice of several variants. The results are plain to see (Table 1).

The issue we would like to emphasize is meant to be practicing with friends, when students artificially maintain the linguistic environment, thereby tend to developing and improving the practical English skills. Moreover, any of activity types specified in the table and used by respondents in everyday life, is indicative of the student youth's recognizing the importance of studying English as well as the position of English language in their life.

The need for English language's learning was confirmed by the results of responses to the question: “Have you ever run into difficulties due to ignorance of English language?” More than half of all respondents (55,8%) said that they had to come across the situations requiring the English proficiency. The academic orientation is clearly in evidence according to the situations described by the students (provided by questionnaire) and caused considerable difficulties for communication in English. Everyday life situations are typically concerned with social life communication when respondents felt “ashamed”. Furthermore, students specify they faced with difficulties while watching movies and reading books in English, being abroad, communicating with foreigners by Skype. The high rate of respondents (44,2%) having no situations concerned with ignorance of English language, perhaps, implies either the students' successful communication in English when interacting in various situations, or lack of similar situations in everyday life.

Responses by two following questions indicated the importance of English language in future professional activity and further life in general. It is recognized by 62,75% of respondents while English knowledge is considered to be obligatory for further life by 70,95% of students. The students are obviously inclined to consider that knowledge of English language is more actual and applicable in life, the share of sceptics and those who deny the fact is very insignificant that is 3,8% and 1,6% respectively. Consequently, the English language is considered to play a strong role in life of the youth.

Table 1. English usage by students in everyday life according to types of activity

Survey findings by the block 4 “Functioning of languages in the student's microcommunity”. This block consisted of total three questions. The question: “What languages do you know?” introduced a wide range of various languages not to be connected by genealogy but related to different language families the student's youth could speak. The assortment includes both the traditional languages for Kazakhstan that is the Kazakh and Russian and various foreign languages meant to be the English, German, French, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Arab, Turkish, as well as the languages of the ethnic groups living in Kazakhstan, such as the Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Turkish, Karakalpak, Tabasaran. Moreover, there is an interesting individual statistics according to the languages, and it comprises monolinguals as well as bilinguals and polylinguals. Thus, monolingualism is presented by Russian or Kazakh, however, the Kazakh language is spoken only by the title nation's representatives while the Russian monolingualism is presented by the Russian nationality as well as by the Kazakh representatives.

Two languages proficiency is mainly presented by Kazakh-Russian bilingualism and less frequently by the Russian-Kazakh, Russian-English, Kazakh-English bilingualism; there are even ranged such pairs of languages as Kazakh-Turkish, Kazakh-German, Kazakh-Korean and Russian-Arab. Results of inquiry indicate a quite high percentage that is 58,7% or 179 respondents who know three and more languages. Trilingualism is generally presented by Kazakh, Russian and English languages in different variations depending on the respondent's nationality. Moreover, the several variations of languages seem to be the followings: Russian - English - Japanese/ French/ Turkish, Uzbek - Kazakh - Russian, Kazakh - Russian - Spanish. Polylingualism in the student's environment is presented by four and more languages. The variations of four languages appear to be the followings: Kazakh - Russian - English - German/ French/ Chinese/ Turkish/ Uzbek/ Korean/ Tabasaran, Kazakh - Russian - Uzbek - English, Kazakh - English - German - French/ Chinese, Russian - French - German - English, Russian - Uzbek - German - English. The remarkable linguistic variety of the respondents who know more than 4 languages is meant to be the following samples: Kazakh - Uzbek - Karakalpak - Russian - Turkish - English, Russian - English - Turkish - Korean - German - Japanese, Kazakh - Russian - English - Kyrgyz - Uzbek, Russian - Kazakh - English - Turkish - Uzbek, Kazakh - Uzbek - English - Turkish - Russian, Kazakh - Russian - English - Turkish - Korean/ Uzbek, Kazakh - Russian - Turkish - Chinese - Uzbek, Kazakh - Uzbek - Russian - English - German and Kazakh - Russian - English - Chinese - Uzbek. Specific polylingualism is customary for the representatives of various ethnic groups, namely the Kazakhs, Russians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kyrgyz, Kabardians, Tatars, Tabasarans, Koreans.

According to the chart (Fig. 2), there is a big majority of students as the respondents who know three languages. First of all, three target languages' proficiency that is Kazakh, Russian and English implies the working trilingual policy. There are good reasons to include the share of respondents who know four and more languages in the same group since there are target languages practically in any combination of languages specified above. The share of bilingual in the youth environment seems to be very high that is 32,3%; and there is 8,95% of the young who know no more than one language. In this case the reason is likely to be unwillingness and demotivation for studying another languages, first of all, the nation's official language. Nevertheless, in general, there is the demonstration of students' ambition and motivation to studying not only English, but also many different languages.

Fig. 2. Language proficiency (%)

However, the most part of students (43,97%) uses only one language in everyday life that is language the respondents perfectly know, even though all linguistic variety is represented in the previous question. The share of those who usually speaks two languages they know well in everyday life is high by contrast and accounts for 36,9%. Moreover, such students often change languages using various language codes in the course of conversation. As little as 10,3% of respondents can use any language they know as appropriate in everyday life. As few as 8,8% of respondents specify they use English language at the level of lexical units, phrases and even sentences in addition to the languages they know well in everyday life. Thus, monolingualism and bilingualism of the Kazakh and Russian languages initially dominate in actual everyday life even though a good many of students speak three and more languages. Primarily, it is explained by the lack of natural linguistic environment for effective functioning of different languages in the republic.

Further, we enquire about attitude of the student's youth towards the polylingual personality who speaks by changing several languages in equal measure. Speaking about polylingual personality, we accept the opinion of A.V Hekett-Jones referring to the individual who “.. does not keep them (several languages) in consciousness separately, but forms the unique communicative competence on the basis of acquired knowledge, skills and abilities generalizing cultural and linguistic experience” (Hekett-Jones, 2016: 106). The responses according to the point in question revealed that 43,85% of young people respect that sort of personality; but 22,55% of respondents feel no excitement over abilities of polylingual personality; 20,75% of students are normally disposed towards such person, moreover, their attitude implies that there is a lot of similar people surrounding them and therefore there is nothing extraordinary. According to one of the students, “it is considered to be quite normal phenomenon in our society”. However, polylingual personality appears to irritate any number of respondents that is 9,65%.

Nevertheless, it can be said according to the results of inquiry that the positive identity of personality who knows several languages and operates with various language codes within one communicative act has been developed to a greater extent in the youth environment.

The questionnaire's last block “Respondents information” included 4 questions: about higher education institution, faculty, course year and respondent's nationality. The review regarding to higher education institutions, faculties and courses was done above. Answers of the students according to the fourth question revealed ethnic variety of Kazakhstan's population in general and the student's youth in particular. Thus, representatives of 10 ethnic groups of the republic took part in questioning. The most part of respondents is presented by title ethnos that is the Kazakhs accounted for 79,2%; the rest of respondents is presented by the Russians, Germans, Uzbeks, Tatars, Tajiks, Kyrgyz, Koreans, Kabardians, Tabasarans.

Anyway, we can speak about the ethno- lingual virtual space created in student's microcommunity where there is used the set of various language codes even though the separate ethnic groups (the Germans, the Tajiks, the Kyrgyz, the Kabardians and the Tabasarans) are presented in small quantity, only by one representative.

Conclusions

Thus, the results of sociolinguistic monitoring in the student youth's environment of the Republic of Kazakhstan indicate that the language policy implemented in the republic regarding the status of English language and its learning by the young Kazakhstani citizens is supported by the students. Most of the student's youth intensively learn English, but there is still insufficiently high level of language proficiency, that is basically A2, B1. However, the results of research afford predicting the growth of qualitative level of English proficiency of the young people, both for the professional purposes and, generally, for life.

Specific functioning of English language in the student's microcommunity is determined by the unique language situation in Kazakhstan caused, first of all, by the cooperative functioning of two powerful languages that is the Kazakh and Russian in the united communicative space (Kassymova 2013:19). From this perspective, the English language cannot compete yet with dominant languages traditionally used in the republic. Nevertheless, it can be said that English language extensively penetrates into communicative and language space of the student's microcommunity that is primarily based on the individual and personal motivation. These days the English communicative function is implemented in the academic sphere (study and science), that is mainly in the student's surroundings and less commonly in the daily sphere of communication.

The fact that the English language has not acquired the nature of common and preferable lingua franca in the hierarchy of interacting languages in course of daily communication of the student's youth is clear in general.

In our opinion, the sociolinguistic monitoring we have conducted to be of practical effect. The results of research are certainly to be applied for formulating recommendations to develop educational language policy in the republic regarding English language, especially, how to improve the English teaching system in higher educational institutions of the country as well as to cultivate international tolerance, formation of public opinion on the matter.

References

Aimoldina, A.A. (2012). Osobennosti funktsionirovaniia angliiskogo iazyka v sovremennom kazakh- stanskom delovom soobshchestve [Peculiarities of the English language functioning in modern Kazakhstan business community]. In KSUBulletin, 3(67), 32-40.

Amanbayeva, G.Iu., Shunkeyeva, S.A. (2016). O predmete sotsiolingvistiki [On sociolinguistics subject]. In Gumilyev ENUBulletin, 5(114), 12-15.

Anyanwu, E.C. (2016). Socio-cultural influences on effective English communication of Nigerian undergraduates. In Mgbakoigba: Journal of African Studies, 6(1), 1-8.

Botha, W. (2017). The use of English in the social network of a student in South China: the social functions of language mixing among Chinese students. In English Today, 33(4), 19-29. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1017/S0266078417000190

Chumichkin, A.A. (2009). Metodika posledovatelnoi obrabotki rezultatov anketirovaniia sovok- upnosti oprashivaemykh, razbitoi na raznovelikie vyborki [Methods of serial processing the results of questioning the whole of respondents split into different-sized samplings]. In Udmurt University Bulletin, 2, 119-125.

Clement, A., Murugavel T. (2015). English for Employability: A Case Study of the English Language Training Needs Analysis for Engineering Students in India. In English Language Teaching, 8(2), 116-125. DOI:10.5539/elt.v8n2p116

Gorban, E.E. (2016). Protsess globalizatsii izucheniia angliiskogo iazyka v polikulturnom Kazakhs- tane [Globalization process of studying English in polycultural Kazakhstan]. In Sovremennye issledovaniia v oblasti prepodavaniia inostrannykh iazykov v neazykovom vuze [Modern researches in the field of foreign languages teaching in the non-language higher education institution], 4, 49-56.

Hackett-Jones, A.V. (2016). Ot bilingvizma k polilingvizmu: kontseptsii mnogoiazychiia v usloviiakh novoi obrazovatelnoi realnosti [From bilingualism to polylingualism: the concepts of multilingualism in the terms of new educational reality]. InMezhdunarodnyi nauchno-issledovatelskii zhurnal [International research journal], 3(45), 104-106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18454/IRJ.2016.45.042

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2017). Preparing Thai Mechanical Engineers for the Job Market: the Students' and Employers' Needs. In International Journal of Management and Applied Science, 3(10), 83-88.

Kassymova, G.M. (2013). Monitoring iazykovoi podgotovki studentov v neazykovykh vuzakh Res- publiki Kazakhstan [Monitoring of language training the students in non-language higher education institutions of the Republic of Kazakhstan]. In RIAT Bulletin, 4, 108-113.

Mikhailova, G.M. (2014). Upravlenie kachestvom inoiazychnogo obucheniia studentov inzhener- no-tekhnicheskikh spetsialnostei kak pedagogicheskaia problema [Quality management of foreign language training the students of technical specialties as the pedagogical problem]. In Kazakhstan-American Free University Bulletin, 5, 114-119.

Mohr, S., Ochieng, D. (2017). Language usage in everyday life and in education: current attitudes towards English in Tanzania: English is still preferred as medium of instruction in Tanzania despite frequent usage of Kiswahili in everyday life. In English Today, 33(4). 12-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0266078417000268

Sergeyev, R.V. (2010). Molodezh i studenchestvo kak sotsialnye gruppy i ob“ekt sotsiologicheskogo analiza [The youth and students as social groups and object for sociological analysis]. In Adygei State University Bulletin, 1, 127-133.

Shaikhyzada, Zh.G. (2016). O sostoianii inoiazychnogo obrazovaniia v Respublike Kazakhstan [On the status of foreign language education in the Republic of Kazakhstan]. In Actual science, 10, 50-51.

Syrymbetova, L.S., Zhumashev, R.M, Nygmetuly, D., Shunkeyeva, S.A., Zhetpisbayeva, B.A. (2017). Metodologicheskie podkhody i osnovnye strategii obucheniia trem iazykam v Respublike Kazakhstan [Methodological approaches and strategies for teaching the three languages in the Republic of Kazakhstan]. In Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 7(4), 72-92. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226- 3365.1704.05

Tulassynova N.Iu., Panina S.V. (2016). Preemstvennost' v prepodavanii inostrannykh iazykov v prot- sesse mnogourovnevogo pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniia [Continuity in teaching foreign languages in the course of multilevel pedagogical education]. In Mezhdunarodnyi nauchno-issledovatelskii zhurnal [International research journal], 6(48), 72-74. DOI: 10.18454/IRJ.2016.48.048

Размещено на Allbest.ru