Variety and functional diversity of modern discourse in cognitive perspective

Full Text

1. Introduction

This Special Issue deliberates on some topics of cognitive linguistics and related fields which were discussed at the international conference VI Firsova Readings “Modern Languages and Cultures: Varieties, Functions, Ideologies in a Cognitive Perspective” held on 19–21 October, 2023 at the RUDN University, Moscow. Firsova Readings are regularly held in honour of Nataliya M. Firsova, renowned Russian scholar in the field of Spanish linguistics and intercultural communication who was an honorary professor of the RUDN university where she had been a faculty member for 52 years.

The conference brought together 204 speakers from 39 universities and  20 countries. The plenary speakers included well-known Russian and international scholars: Zoltan Kövecses, Andreas Musolff, Douglas Mark Ponton, Alan Cienki, Salvador Pons Borderia, Evgeny E. Ivanov, Olga S. Chesnokova, Natalia G. Med, Valery M. Mokienko, and Marina I. Solnyshkina. The work of the conference was organized along 12 panels, which comprised a wide range of research topics dealing with language and cognition. They included linguistic means of conceptualization and categorization, critical and positive discourse analysis, environmental thinking, pragmatics of gestures, multimodality, cognitive perspectives of intercultural communication and translation studies, discourse markers taxonomy, IT and cognitive studies, transdisciplinary methods in the study of language and cognition, methodology of cognitive science, neurocognitive and linguistic determinants in rehabilitation and educational activities, a cognitive approach to computational linguistics, etc.

In this introductory article to the Special Issue which presents a collection of articles authoured by the conference participants, we aim to briefly state our position on modern multidisciplinary research of discourse, highlight advancements in cognitive linguistics theory and outline the relevant subfields of research. We conclude with a discussion of the results and a brief outlook on future research.

Considering the potentially broad readership of the current Special Issue, we decided to start by providing researchers of different backgrounds with a quick overview of Nataliya Firsova’s achievements and their influence on further research.

2. Firsova’s academic legacy and its implications

Nataliya M. Firsova’s research interests comprised semantic and stylistic variants and territorial varieties of Spanish, as well as intercultural communication and socio-cultural differences of verbal and non-verbal communication in Spanish-speaking countries. She approached ‘World Spanishes’ from a range of perspectives as a theorist of language, a sociolinguist, a specialist in applied linguistics, a lexicographer, and a popularizer.

In her doctorate dissertation defended in 1979, Firsova encapsulated her conceptualization of stylistic functions of the tense forms (see also Firsova 2019) and founded Spanish “variantology” as a study of Spanish varieties. It was during that period that the scholar acquired ideas of cultural and cognitive values of territorial varieties of the language which do not only manifest multiple ways of nominating the same phenomena but also reflect different attitudes towards the same objects. She addressed the problem of semantic differences in Iberian and Latin American varieties of Spanish and registered multiple examples of formal coincidence of lexemes and numerous multifold semantic differences which she referred to as inter-variant homonymy (Firsova 2000: 39–44). The notion manifests itself in frequentative examples registered in Firsova’s collection as separate entries. E.g. Spanish gato means (1) ‘a cat’ (a pet); (2) ‘a representative of the cat family’; (3) ‘mousetrap’, in Argentinean Spanish; (4) ‘a folk dance’,  and (5) an open-air market in Peru (Firsova 2006). She developed five main types of “inter-variant divergence”: (1) lexical units that coincide in form, but diverge in meaning; and at the same time they may have common semantic elements;  (2) lexical units of the same form, but with different meanings; (3) lexical units of the same form, but with opposite meanings; (4) lexical units of different forms and the same semantics; (5) lexical units that have partial (morphological) differences and the same semantics (Firsova 2007).

Firsova addressed social determinism of language and demonstrated how the Spanish language changed over different periods of history. She meticulously registered immense changes in the Spanish vocabulary and spoken language and assigned them to historic events: Franco’s death in 1975, adoption of the new Constitution in 1978, division of the country into 17 federal regions and joining European Union in 2002, as well as others which caused democratization of language (Firsova 2005).

Firsova used a functional approach to the study of language focusing on various social and cultural contexts. She explored communicative behavior and language etiquette in national varieties of Spanish. In her multiple publications (Firsova 2000, 2002, 2003, 2007 among many others), she highlighted differences in language use and comminicative behaviour in Spanish speaking countries. She was among the first researchers who registered and described the shift from formal to informal register in different contexts.

In her classification of language varieties, Firsova distinguished between national and territorial varieties and territorial dialects. She argued that in contrast to national varieties, territorial varieties do not possess the “rank” of the state language and do not perform the full range of public functions. Moreover, they are not native to the absolute majority of residents and do not have standard norms. Functionally, territorial varieties are similar to territorial dialects. However, the latter serve small population groups, in other words they are employed for a part of the national community, and/or used in a limited sphere of communication  (Firsova 2003: 31–32).

As numerous studies of language varieties show, scholars predominantly employ a complex polyparadigmatic approach. Along with the traditional level-by-level research of language varieties, they address modern paradigms of linguistic and cultural studies, which embrace cognitive science, theory of communication, intercultural communication, discourse analysis, migration studies, among others (e.g. Galaktionov & Proshina 2023, Nelson et al. 2020, Proshina & Nelson 2020, Shaibakova et al. 2023, Tazik & Aliakbari 2023 among others).

Firsova’s theory of language varieties has been elaborated further in the works of her students and followers (Borisova & Ebzeeva 2019, Chesnokova 2014, 2020, Chesnokova & Martynenko 2019, Kotenyatkina 2019, Larina et al. 2019, Nikiforova 2016, Soomro & Larina 2023 among many others). They also explore the language situation and language policy in Latin America and other countries (e.g. Borisova & Ilina 2017, Chesnokova 2014, 2020), reveal culture specific features of communication in cross-cultural, intercultural and multicultural contexts (Khalil & Larina 2022, Larina 2009, 2015, Larina & Ponton 2020, 2022, Litvinova & Larina 2023, Zhou et al. 2023), trace the impact of culture and cognition on language and its functioning in various genres and discourses (Anissimov et. al. 2019, Borissova 2012, Borisova & Rubinshtein 2015, Chesnokova & Kotenyatkina 2022, Dugalich 2020, Ebzeeva & Dugalich 2018 among many others).

3. Paradigmatic shifts of modern research: Сognitive perspective, multidisciplinarity and multimodality

In this section of the article we aim to offer scholars ‘a snapshot’ of modern linguistics trends, which have been successfully implemented in the studies published in this Issue.

Researchers concur that one of the most productive approaches to the wide range of modern linguistic problems, i.e. a cognitive perspective, operates on two main beliefs: (1) people’s mind determines people’s behaviour and (2) “Language is only a representation of thought, but it is a powerful and very flexible and informative representation” (Tenbrink 2014:1). In other words, the cognitive perspective implies synthesizing cognitive models of human behaviour, both verbal and non-verbal. Analysis of people’s behaviour in different surroundings reveals valuable insights about the human mind and language.

The information explosion of the XX^th century followed by the fall of informational barriers between philology, psychology, IT and cognitive studies resulted in developing related disciplines, i.e. psycholinguistics, pragmatics, corpus linguistics, computational and cognitive linguistics, etc. Having validated and summarized the results of previous studies, the modern research paradigm equipped linguists with new methods which serve as a powerful driving force for the development in the field. Linguistics has acquired methods and techniques of numerous fields of knowledge, thus expanding the area of its research exponentially and addressing new and unresolved problems of the past. Its main characteristics include ability to promptly respond to the world events, provide an explanation for new language or discourse phenomena, and anticipate language development. The latter ultimately shifted the emphasis to the predictive function of research because it enables scholars to detect stable factors of external and internal determinants of language functioning and development. The main trend in modern linguistics is towards a holistic vision of an object which implies addressing not only traditional linguistic aspects of an entity, i.e. origin, semantics and forms, but cognitive mechanisms of its development and functioning, its pragmatics and applications. The questions which require attention of modern researchers include (but are not limited to) the following: how a native or foreign language affects comprehension, the ways people perceive and categorize the world in their languages, what causes differences in people’s communicative patterns and speech generation models, how multimodality expands research methods, etc.

When administered in phraseology, the cognitive perspective implies exploring capacities of different language communities to conceptualize information in numerous ways, i.e. when using the same sources, or coin idioms with similar or different meanings. Cognitive linguistics of modern times offers researchers reliable instruments to investigate mechanisms regulating modifications of idioms of all registers and ideographic groups as well as an ‘infinite cross-cultural variety’ of metaphors (Kövecses 2005, 2015, 2020). Multi-million token corpora and corpus managers available for modern phraseologists enable the enhanced accuracy of linguistic analysis and provide numerous facts testifying to the hypothesis proposed in pre-electronic corpora era. The latter include the systematic nature of idioms manifested in all or many languages, cognitive mechanisms of idioms production, the motivated nature of idioms, and the emergence of idiomatic meaning (Byiyk et al. 2017, Ivanov et al. 2021, Med 2022, Mokienko  & Nikitina  2018, 2021 among others).

Another issue where the cognitive perspective proved its efficiency is interpreting mechanisms behind cultural codes transfers. These views are corroborated by (Kozlova 2020: 899) who argues that “ the cognitive dimension of contemporary cognitive linguistics is based on the idea that the processes of the world conceptualization take place in the context of a certain culture and language imparting culturally determined character to our cognition”. Offering original explanations of metaphor variation in discourse, Kövecses (2005, 2015, 2020) points to the so-called ‘pressure of coherence’, which he defines as adjustment of metaphors to communicative situation so that metaphors would be coherent with the context. The researchers focusing on phraseology testify to the fact that the cognitive perspective has shifted the focus of idioms analysis exposing their regularities as cognitively dependent phenomena and a function of culture (see Med 2022). Modern multidisciplinary paradigm offers phraseologists a new and potentially useful view on idioms as linguistic units which are conceptual by nature (Kövecses 2020).

Another area of research deals with prediction models of metaphor comprehension which require understanding linguistic, cognitive, social, and emotional contexts of metaphor use. Psycholinguistic evidence confirms comprehension differences between the so-called ‘dead’ and ‘innovative’ metaphors: while the former are understood quickly and easily, innovative metaphors are more complex to infer. There are numerous examples proving that metaphor patterns are discernible at the level of scenarios rather than at the level of individual concepts, and their conceptual range is almost limitless. E.g. the research by Musolff (2019, 2020, 2021) confirms the overall nationalist bias of body politic metaphor which is realized in Russian discourse with a low criticism index Metaphoric images of the same referent may differ dramatically during different periods of history and discourse allowing for variation in attitudes and relations (e.g. Kövecses 2005, Leontovich et al. 2023, Solopova et al. 2023, Sun et al. 2021).

Discourse analysis has recently, and quite rapidly, earned a well-established place in modern linguistics. It was caused by its more problem-oriented and multidisciplinary than discrete character: conducting discourse analysis implies identifying the setting (time, place) and participants, including their roles, identities, and interrelations. Discourse analysts employ a variety of approaches, methods and tools focusing on the way a person generates and comprehends a text (Kress & Van Leeuwen 2020). They are often ‘blamed’ for the fuzziness of the methods employed, although the latter is viewed as a consequence of numerous research variables implicated by the complexity of processing and generating a text by a person. As researchers name it ‘unpacking’, i.e. comprehending a discourse, it is conducted with the reference to numerous dimensions, or variables, i.e. linguistic, intertextual, historical, social and situational (Khalil & Larina 2022).

More recent trends in multimodality studies compel scholars to investigate how different modes may interact in communication, including modifications or substitutes of meanings change as they drift across modes. Demonstrating an example of a multimodal research and resting on a solid validation mechanism, Leonteva et al. (2023) investigate how salience comes through in gestures of simultaneous interpreters and report that non-salient gestures outperform salient gestures and the latter tend to co-occur with the verbs of physical actions and negation, as well as with the nouns accompanied by attributes denoting high degree of a quality.

Less than two decades ago, researchers considered cognitive perspective of critical discourse analysis (CDA) to be strange, as ‘cognitive linguistics’ engagement with linguistic structure was viewed as limited almost exclusively to the sentence (Hart 2007). Now the situation has changed dramatically: during the last three decades we have witnessed a boom of research conducted on critical discourse. The greater part of those studies focus on criticism of the negative role of dominant political discourse, social insecurity and discrimination (e.g. Fairclough 2003, van Dijk 2006, Weiss & Wodak 2003, Zappettini et al. 2021). As distinct from critical discourse analysis (CDA), positive discourse analysis (PDA) as its counterpart explores “the discourse we like rather than the discourse we wish to criticize” (Martin & Rose 2003).

Ecolinguistics as a subfield of discourse analysis and a framework has covered the way from purely CDA to PDA (e.g. Fill & Penz 2018, Ponton 2022, 2023a,b, Stibbe 2015, 2017), broadening its coverage and including into its focus “discourse that inspires, encourages, heartens; discourse we like, that cheers us along” (Martin 1999). Nowadays, the multidisciplinary paradigm views ecological discourse analysis as a framework aimed at identifying beneficial, destructive, and ambivalent ‘stories’ that human beings live by (Stibbe 2015). The very existence of ecolinguistics emphasizes the importance of considering social and cultural implications of the language used in the environmental discourse and highlights the relevance of this new subfield of linguistics which gives new perspectives to the study of language and cognition (see Fill & Mühlhäusler 2001, Goatly 2017, 2022, Stibbe 2014, 2015, 2017 among others).

The phenomena which attract the attention of numerous discourse analysts are discourse markers (DMs), the emergence of which is nowadays viewed not as a result of grammaticalization or pragmaticalization only, but also that of cooptation (Abraham 2017). According to the theory of Discourse Grammar (Ariel 2009, Heine 2013, Hughes & McCarthy 1998), discourse markers belong to the level of discourse management: they have lost their status as constituents of a sentence, no longer being a part of the syntax or semantics (Heine 2013). However, despite the growing number of research on DMs and a universally accepted view that DMs play a vital role in utterance interpretation, there is still no agreement on the range of their meanings and the criteria to identify this class of linguistic items. The researchers in the area recognize the cognitive perspective as a solid foundation for the growing trend in discourse marking studies (see Bordería & Fischer 2021).

Another area of rapidly developing modern multidisciplinary research which has dramatically changed due to major findings of cognitivists is discourse complexology. A reliable platform for success and stimuli for breakthrough research in this field was Kintsch’s construction-integration model (Kintsch 1988) which completely diversified its paradigm. If the main achievement of text complexity studies in the XX^th century was the idea that “different types of texts are complex in different ways” and “readability formulas are genre-dependent”, modern discourse complexology addresses texts, cognitive aspects of reading and a level of challenge a text provides for readers. Based on a solid foundation of additive and non-additive types of complexity, researchers implement not only parametric methods measuring objective complexity of texts but criteria approach assessing relative complexity of texts for different categories of readers or individuals (Kupriyanov et al. 2023, Solnyshkina et al. 2022, Solovyev et al. 2022).

The ongoing paradigmatic shift and rapid changes in modern linguistics impose new rules and algorithms. The multidisciplinary research paradigm views validity as an obligatory measure introduced to increase transparency and decrease chances to insert researcher bias in qualitative research (Singh 2014). Researchers (including linguists) are expected not only to exemplify their findings but validate them, not only to test and (dis)prove hypothesis but provide the dataset so that their opponents and reviewers could replicate them, and provide not only evidence of their findings but explanations, even if it implies implementing methods and data of other sciences. The present stage of linguistics demands multidisciplinary approach to language and discourse phenomena and integration of multiple methods into a single whole contributing to the solution of the most pertinent issues. All of these mean that multidisciplinary research is extremely challenging.

Thus, the conference emphasised the now obvious interdependence between digital technologies and linguistics. On the one hand, digital technologies have given new incentives and opportunities for linguistic research by providing them with new methods of data collection and analysis. On the other hand, they have contributed to the formation of new subfields of linguistics (e.g. natural language processing, information retrieval systems, automatic speech recognition, discourse complexology,) and have given impetus to the study of new research areas (e.g. mobile App-mediated research, networked communication, digital communication, digital narratives, among others).

By way of conclusion to this section, it should be specially emphasized that the cognitive perspective provides a solid foundation for multidisciplinary analysis of many varieties of discourse, including multimodal.

4. Summary of articles in the Issue

The current Issue contains 10 articles, each exemplifying either a corpus-based or corpus-driven multi-disciplinary case-study of a discourse variety. One study, i.e. “Metaphoric gestures in simultaneous interpreting” (Leonteva et al.), constitutes an exception exploring the problem of nature and functions of gestures performed by simultaneous interpreters in their professional activity. Based on video recordings, the authors test two hypotheses to identify that interpreters’ gestures are more self-adapting than representational: interpreters resort to beat or presentation gestures as elements of the internalized dialogic nature of human communication. The latter do not only facilitate speech generation but also embody aspects of the source lecturer and are aimed at engaging with audience.

Contributing to the field of Ecolinguistics, Douglas M. Ponton investigates the role of public ‘positive’ discourse in the tree-centred narratives of UK people distinguishing between different types of ideologies, i.e. pseudoand authentic environmental sensitivity. The author uses social media as well as numerous Internet resources and centers his study on public responses to the sensational eco-vandalism, the felling of the Sycamore Gap tree in September 2023 in Northumberland. In stark contrast to critical discourse analysis which is focused on discourse practices of dominance, discrimination, power, and control, positive discourse analysis aims at tracing implicit positive ideologies (Fairclough 2003) in discourse.

Rania Magdi Fawzy contributes “Temporalizing the space of old Nubia in digital narrative: A semio-chronotopic reading” to extend or “resemiotise” the concept of chronotope manifested in digital communication. Using the Nubian Facebook¹ page Al Nuba Café as the research corpus and implicating numerous methods of studying multimodality, the author observes and registers constant identity reprocessing and translocality of the online Nubian identity.

The article “Internal migration and changes in language repertoire among Sindhi youth” (Abbasi et al.) provides a profound analysis of the language situation in modern Pakistan and expresses concern that the younger generation of Sindhis are targeted at mastering and use Urdu and English, not their native language. The authors conclude that the latter would ultimately result in the loss of Sindhi language functional range and possibilities to transfer Sindhi to the coming generations. Therefore, the authors call for risk reduction measures for Sindhi suggesting not only publishing more books, introduction and supporting social media in Sindhi, but also establishing language centres where children could be exposed to and taught the Sindhi language and culture.

Amir Salama proposes a Multimodal Hermeneutic Model to examine the advertising discourse. The model was validated on the Uber-Blog-mediated multimodal texts designed by Saudi Arabia-based Uber Company. The author utilizes (1) a multimodal cluster transcription and (2) an interpersonal-meaning analysis of multimodal participants to provide a comprehensive analysis of the discourse under study.

The main focus of “Discursive Design of Autobiographical Memories in Speech Ontogeny: Longitudinal Survey” (Petrova et al.) is on children’s recall as a basic productive mnemonic process of a linguistic personality development. Researchers provide a classification of discursive strategies and tactics of numerous information extraction practices from a child’s memory and exemplify it with the texts from their Corpus. Based on the observations and analysis, researchers offer a psycholinguistic model of ontogenetic generalization of childhood memories for German-speaking communication partners, which comprises six age levels. The model reflects the evolution of the surface structure of mnemonic recollections and is viewed as a framework of primary autobiographical narrations. Admitting the preliminary nature of their findings, researchers define validating the model as the prospect of their future studies.

Solnyshkina, Kharkova and Ebzeeva offer their views on linguistic and cognitive factors that influence qualitative and quantitative parameters of immediate text-based recalls conducted by high ability speakers of English as a foreign language. The contrastive analysis of the English stimuli text and recalls of Russian proficient readers revealed shifts in metadiscourse pattern of the original text from an interactive to a more logical one. Russian readers tend to omit hedges, emphatics and evidentials but add logical connectives to their recalls. The study furthers modern understanding of cross-linguistic differences in metadiscourse markers.

The authors of “Instrumentality Features in Texts of Recalls: The Case of Academic” (Gafiyatova et al.), identify, describe and discuss types of instrumentality manifestations in oral immediate recalls of native Russians. Although the research indicates that respondents do not experience difficulties in understanding and reproducing the semantics of instrumental action, respondents used a wide range of substitutions and replace instruments with Causator, Theme or the circonstant of Place.

Buntman, Borisova and Darovskikh demonstrate advantages and pragmatic demand for the new ways of annotating verbs in corpora providing users not only with information on formal characteristics of verbs (tense, mood, aspectuality, ratio of finite and non-finite forms), but the communicative situation as well (dialogical replica, negation, question, exclamation). The database may be used not only as a source of investigation into the system asymmetry of verbal forms but also into contextual and low-frequency asymmetry.

The Issue also contains two book reviews and finishes with the Tribute to the prominent Russian scholar Olga B. Sirotinina who is celebrating her centenary anniversary this year.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This Issue reflects the growing awareness of linguists working in different spheres that the cognitive approach to research provides an algorithm and offers possible objective explanations of the findings. The papers in this Special Issue demonstrate the diversity of theories, methods and approaches designed and developed in present-day cognitive linguistic research. The data used reflect a wide scope of discourse practices studied with the help of modern methods of cognitive and corpus linguistics. Drawing on diverse theoretical approaches and data, the authors implement multidisciplinary tools and algorithms searching for patterns distinguishing discourses and communities.

When reviewing the papers contributed to the current Issue, we observed the following tendencies on different levels of modern discourse analysis: (i) the number of Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA) studies is obviously increasing, though they are still much fewer than those on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Baker & Ellece 2011); (ii) few scholars deny an independent status of PDA arguing that it is a variety of CDA (Martin & Rose 2003, Martin 2004); (iii) The change over time is most visible in multidisciplinary methods and techniques expansion in linguistics: scholars tend to apply them to both verbal and non-verbal phenomena thus widening the area of research and their expertise. Among the preferable are cognitive, neuroand psycholinguistic experiments, and methods of statistics; (iv) the term ‘multimodality’ as “the entire range of semiotic resources which humans use for meaning making, including language, image, symbolism, gaze, gesture, space, architecture, and so forth” (O’Hagan 2019) has been acquiring additional senses of meaning in different spheres thus widening its differences in linguistics and related research (Blum & Liu 2006).

A variety of different approaches has been developed lately to facilitate understanding between semantic and pragmatic features of discourse and metadiscourse markers, on the one hand, and cognitive behaviour of L1 and L2 speakers, on the other (see Petrova et al. 2021, 2022). Those approaches refer both to comprehension and production of texts. Thus, a special focus in the Issue was made on identifying cognitive causes of differences in communicative practices of foreign and native language speakers. One of the main findings in this area is the confirmed hypothesis that the native language considerably affects discourse generation models. In other words, discourse markers and factual information are recalled and reproduced in different modes, and more specifically: while reproducing a text, speakers tend to focus mostly on textual not metadiscourse information thus shifting the original, i.e. reading text, metadiscourse pattern to minimum (Solnyshkina et al. 2023).

Once again, the articles of the Issue have shown the impact of digital technologies on the methodology of linguistics studies (see Buntman et al. 2023, Leonteva et al. 2023). They have demonstrated the relevance of digital communication research (see Salama 2023, Fawzy 2023) which shows “how technologies improve, change or replace traditional discourses and practices” (Eslami et al. 2023: 18, Rhee 2023) and create heterogeneous semiotic resources which coexist in a networked interrelations (Salama & Fawzy 2023).

The materials of this Issue point to the broad prospects for the study of language varieties, functions and principles of cognitive processing of discourse markers in different situation models as well as linguistic and cognitive varieties of idioms in different languages and cultures. The research adds insights into pragmatics of gestures and highlight exceptional scientific and social importance of ecolinguistic studies.

The Issue presents the broad context of research interest of contributors who offer a wide-scope view of cognitive perspective with broad implications for various fields of inquiry — pragmatics, discourse complexology, speech reproduction, ecolinguistics, sociolingiostics and discourse studies. The findings can be used in further research of cognitive perspectives of discourse analysis and applied linguistics and experimental linguistics to design experiment algorithms.

 

_{¹ Компания Meta Platforms, которой принадлежат данные ресурсы признана экстремистской организацией и запрещена на территории РФ.}

About the authors

Yulia N. Ebzeeva

RUDN University

Email: ebzeeva-jn@rudn.university
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0043-7590

Doctor of Social Sciences, First Vice-Rector - Vice Rector for Education and Head of Foreign Language Department, RUDN University. She is a member of the international scientific committee of QS. She actively participates in international conferences and forums, has spoken at the Council of Europe, and has repeatedly acted as an expert on linguistic and migration issues. Her research interests include French lexicology and stylistics, translation studies, intercultural communication, sociolinguistics, migration studies and educational policy.

Moscow, Russia

Marina I. Solnyshkina

Kazan Federal University

Email: mesoln@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1885-3039

Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Theory and Practice of Teaching Foreign Languages, Head of “Text Analytics” Research Lab, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication of Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia. Her research interests include Linguistic Complexology, Corpus Linguistics, and Lexicography.

Kazan, Russia

Habibullah Pathan

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology

Author for correspondence.
Email: habibullah.pathan@faculty.muet.edu.pk
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3425-3594

full Professor of Language Education/TESOL at the Center of English Language and Linguistics, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology at Jamshoro, Pakistan. He is a founding Director of Centre of English Language & Linguistics at Mehran University. He has recently been appointed Member Board of Governors, Linguistic Association of Pakistan. His research interests include Second Language Assessment, Foreign and Second Language teaching, Motivation and Technology Integration in Language Education.

Jamshoro, Pakistan

References