Russian language textbook as agent of change: from USSR to the new century

Full Text

Introduction

Linguistic analysis of a text involving a large amount of empirical data has become traditional for artistic, scientific, and educational texts in the modern scientific paradigm (Gal’perin, 2007; Shanskii, 2019, etc.). Russian linguistics has always been interested in the text of school textbook, designed to show a living figurative language: in the 1970s–1980s, the collection “Issues of School Textbook”¹ was regularly published in Russia; many scientific works on textbook issues were published, and scientific and methodological conferences were held.

At the turn of the century, linguistics expanded its boundaries not only by attracting additional material (Bogatyreva, 2006; Chistyakova, 1993; Chichasova, 1995), but also by active use of computer linguistics methods (see Vakhrusheva et al., 2021; Solovyev et al., 2019).

Big linguistic data involved in the linguistics of the new time required new approaches to text analysis, new methods, and technologies. First, it concerns automated level analysis aimed at confirming or refuting the findings of the previous scientific paradigm. Empirical methods became very active in linguistics after the works of D. Biber where the scientist proved the possibility of creating a taxonomy of texts based on quantitative differences in their structural elements (see Biber, 1988; 1992). At the same time, it is indicative that one of the first linguistic interpretations of the text belongs to the Russian scientist, L.V. Scherba, who in 1923, suggested teaching Russian language in the same way as teaching a foreign language, i.e. “accustoming students to the linguistic analysis of the text” (Shcherba, 2017: 220). In his classical work “Levels of Linguistic Analysis” (Benveniste, 1974: 129–140), E. Benveniste proposes to refer to structural levels in text analysis, rightly claiming that this approach allows “to correctly reflect such an essential feature of language as its articulate character and the discreteness of its elements” (Benveniste, 1974: 129).

To study educational texts from this perspective becomes relevant since the textbook is singled out as a separate genre with its specific characteristics (Klerides, 2010; Parodi, 2010) that distinguish it from texts of other genres. Moreover, the analysis of Russian language textbooks is especially relevant nowadays due to the monitoring of Russian textbooks and the need for linguistic expertise, which is much spoken about (Sidorova, 2018). The additional relevance of the presented study is in the fact that it analyzes Soviet Russian language textbooks published in 1935–1974, and the scientific interest in textbooks of this period is growing². Unfortunately, most discussions about the pros and cons of Soviet textbooks are based on the personal preferences of the authors and do not have a sufficient scientific basis. However, in the media space, scholars have also spoken out on this issue. For example, L.A. Verbitskaya considered the textbook of the academician L.V. Shcherba to be the best Russian language textbook³. The interest to the textbooks of the past in the modern Russian society results in their reprinting with the included current realities⁴.

The presented study is based on theoretical principles regarding (1) the textbook as a separate genre, (2) linguistic profiling as a basis for comparing and contrasting linguistic facts and texts, and (3) the obligatoriness of a balanced and representative corpus for reliable analysis and comparison of text types (Passonneau et al., 2014).

Modern Russian and foreign linguistics of our time regards the textbook as a separate genre of educational and pedagogical discourse (Bulavina, 2009; Karasik, 2002; Tokareva, 2005; Klerides, 2010; Parodi, 2010) with a clearly organized structure, mandatory and optional components. At the same time, the textbook is recognized as an eclectic genre in terms of language material composition and functional and semantic types of speech (Klerides, 2010). The main component of the textbook as “a book that sets forth the subject content of education” (Zuev, 1983: 12) is the text used in its three main functions: informational, instructional and motivational (Zuev, 1983: 115–116). The modern scientific paradigm treats the text of a Russian language textbook as a very eclectic text that combines three different “functional and thematic constructive units”, three “genre-forming formants”, realized separately in theoretical material, tasks, and exercises (Red’kina, 2014). Tasks in the textbook have instructional formulations and contain a high proportion of verbs, while the sources of exercise texts are predominantly fiction works with a high degree of narrativity. Consequently, we are particularly interested in studying differences in the stylistics of each of the above formants in the textbooks of the two periods under study.

From 2000s the school textbook has been studied in linguistic works as an object of written educational discourse (see Tokareva, 2005, Laposhina et al., 2019; Churunina et al., 2023), and the researchers have noted a trend towards increased dialogization (Tokareva, 2005; Galanova, 2013), where “tactics that implement dialogical strategies, primarily the strategy of monitoring the understanding of the communicated information” are significant (Tokareva, 2005). With all the variety of modern approaches to textbook text analysis, there were no studies comparing parameters of Russian language textbooks of two historical periods — the 20^th and 21^st centuries.

The aim of the study is to make a comparative description of the structure of Russian language textbooks of two periods (Soviet textbooks and textbooks of the 21^st century) and to identify similarities and differences of their linguistic  parameters.

Methods and materials 

The algorithm of the presented research included the following stages:

1. Preparation of a corpus of “stable” textbooks on Russian language for the 5^th grade of secondary school of the USSR period and modern textbooks included in Federal State Educational Standard, their conversion into text files and preprocessing.
2. Comparison of the thematic structure of textbooks.
3. Analyzing illustrative sources.
4. Dividing the text of textbooks into three blocks: texts on the theory of linguistics, texts of tasks and texts of exercises and analyzing each of them with the help of RuLingva text profiler.
5. Description and comparison of the texts of tasks and finding the author’s communicative strategies of dialog with the learner.
6. Analyzing the typography of the studied textbooks.
7. Data processing and description of the results.

The material of the study was eight Russian language textbooks for 5^th grades of secondary school (Table) of two periods: four Soviet textbooks (Shapiro, 1935⁵ (Sh5); Scherba, 1946⁶ (Sch5); Barkhudarov, Kryuchkov, 1959⁷ (BK5); Baranov et al, 1974⁸ (B5)) and modern textbooks (Ladyzhenskaya et al., 2012⁹ (L_5), Rybchenkova et al., 2012¹⁰ (R_5); Bistrova et al., 2015¹¹ (Bi_5); Shmelev et al., 2014¹² (ShF_5)).

The text of the section “Noun” in all the textbooks was manually divided into three genre-forming formants: the text of theory, the text of tasks and the text of exercises (Red’kina, 2014). For automatic analysis in RuLingva text profiler (rulingva.kpfu.ru), all texts were segmented into 1000 word forms.

Size and sources of the dataset

Textbook	Textbooks of 1935–1974					Textbooks of 2012–2015
	Sh5	Sch5	BK5	B5	Number of segments	L_5	R_5	Bi_5	ShF_5	Number  of segments
Type of the text	The volume of a text in word usage, number of segments
Theory	2435 (2)	4622 (4)	2237 (2)	1124 (1)	8	790 (1)	1455 (1)	2304 (2)	3252 (3)	7
Tasks	311 (0)	1560 (1)	1276 (1)	2426 (2)	4	2175 (2)	1441 (1)	4241 (4)	4675 (4)	11
Exercises	3157 (3)	7309 (7)	5671 (5)	2435 (2)	17	1634 (1)	2152 (2)	6236 (6)	4873 (4)	13
Total	5903 (5)	13491 (12)	9184 (8)	5985 (5)	30	4599 (4)	5048 (4)	12781 (12)	12800 (11)	31
	34563				30	35228				31

Source: compiled by E.N. Bulina, M.I. Solnyshkina, Y.N. Ebzeeva.

Therefore, the corpus of the study may well be considered representative and balanced in terms of the size of the two collections in word uses (34563↔35228) and the number of segments (30 ↔ 31).

Results 

The study showed that the structures of the 1935–1974 and 2012–2015 textbooks are similar: theoretical material is followed by practical tasks. The exception is A.B. Shapiro's 1935 textbook; the first part of the textbook contains a text on the theory of linguistics and the second part contains exercises. The texts of exercises in modern textbooks are much larger than the corresponding texts in Soviet textbooks due to indirect directives in the form of question-addresses. Modern textbooks demonstrate a higher degree of dialogicality and a new age tendency to cooperative tactics objectified in indirect speech acts. The graphic organization of the text in the textbooks of 1935, 1946 and 1959 differs from all subsequent ones in a monotonous visual row, absence of illustrations and additional marks to attract the reader's attention. In Soviet textbooks, typical tasks are mostly focused on analyzing linguistic material, while modern textbooks contain creative tasks. 

Discussion

The reform of public education in our country, which began in the 1920s and was completed in the early 1930s, gave rise to new textbooks; they, on the one hand, reflected the development of Russian language teaching methods of that time, and, on the other hand, had common weaknesses. Among the latter, scholars point out the disagreement between the authors of textbooks on the main methodological provisions and the insufficient amount of general educational knowledge offered in modern textbooks (Prudnikova, 1974: 89).

After the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) “On textbooks for primary and secondary schools” of April 12, 1933¹³ and the transition “to new stable programs and methods of teaching” in the USSR, the so-called “stable” Russian language textbook edited by A.B. Shapiro (1935) was published from 1933 to 1936. Consisting of two parts, A.B. Shapiro's textbook was divided into “Morphology” and “Syntax”; it had “all the etymological and syntactic definitions necessary for a systematic course”, and the authors managed to avoid such shortcomings of “previous grammar textbooks as the absence of clearly formulated grammatical definitions and rules”¹⁴. In full compliance with the Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the textbook was intended to “eliminate the existing ‘method’ of endless ‘designing’ of textbooks”. 

In 1938, a new “stable” textbook by S.G. Barkhudarov and E.I. Dosycheva, “Grammar of the Russian Language”, was published; in 1944, a revised edition of the same textbook was published under the editorship of L.V. Shcherba. In 1954, a textbook by S.G. Barkhudarov and S.E. Kryuchkov was published, designed to eliminate “the shortcomings of previous textbooks”, which included excessive theorizing and monotonous exercises (see Prudnikova, 1974: 85). In 1969, the textbook “Russian Language” for grades 5–6 by M.T. Baranov and others, edited by N.M. Shansky, was published.

Modern textbooks on Russian language for secondary schools, being a part of the educational and methodical complex, are published on the results of psychological and pedagogical expertise and comply with the Federal State Educational Standards¹⁵. The textbook by L.M. Rybchenkova (2012) was published in the series “Academic School Textbook”, and the textbook by E.A. Bystrova (2015) — in the series “Innovative School”. The traditions of the Soviet textbook are to some extent continued in the textbook by T.A. Ladyzhenskaya (2012), as it is based on the textbook by M.T. Baranov (1984¹⁶), which was awarded the State Prize of the USSR. 

The structure and typical tasks of Russian language textbooks                                                                                                                         

Textbooks of the studied periods have a similar structure established for this kind of publications: for Soviet textbooks the standard was the Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of February 12, 1933¹⁷. For modern textbooks, the standard was the Order No. 1897 of December 17, 2010 “On Approval of the Federal State Educational Standard of Basic General Education”¹⁸. Moreover, when creating textbooks of both periods, the principle of continuity, classic for linguistics, was observed both at the structural and content levels.

The structure of Soviet textbooks. Each textbook consists of two books: “Morphology” for grades 5–6 and “Syntax” for grades 6–7; it includes a preface (Introduction or “Editor’s Foreword”), a list of conventional abbreviations and sections “Phonetics”, “Word Composition” or “Word Formation”, “Parts of Speech” divided into paragraphs. A distinctive feature of the structure  in A.B. Shapiro's textbook (1935) is that the rules (theory) and exercises are placed in different parts of the textbook. All other textbooks are organized according to the traditional principle: grammar rules alternate with exercises to consolidate the studied material. In the textbooks by L.V. Shcherba (1946)  and S.G. Barkhudarov, S.E. Kryuchkov (1959), each section ends with “Revision exercises on the material studied”.

The visual organization of the text in the 1935, 1946, and 1959 textbooks is similar: boldface, italics, tables, curly brackets, etc. are used in the text, but the overall organization of the text resembles rather a textbook for high school or university (Fig. 1, 2).

Fig. 1. A page from the textbook by A.B. Shapiro, 1935¹⁹ 

Fig. 2. A page from the textbook by S.G. Barkhudarov, S.E. Kryuchkov, 1959²⁰

The textbook by M.T. Baranov et al. (1974) contains a wide variety of typographic elements that control attention and contribute to a better perception of the text: diagrams, asterisks, marked exercises with advanced level of difficulty,  triangles, list markers, illustrations, etc. (Fig. 3). 

Fig. 3. A page from the textbook by M.T. Baranov et al., 1974²¹

The peculiarity of the textbook by M.T. Baranov et al. (1974) is its division into two parts: in the 5th grade, word formation, noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, and verb are studied; starting from the 6th grade, students learn participle, adverbial participle, adverb, and functional parts of speech. Each section of this textbook begins with “Revision of what has been studied”, ends with “Revision and summary of what has been studied” (control questions and tasks), contains an Appendix consisting of a list of studied punctuation, orthographic rules, a list of words with non-checkable orthograms, and a dictionary. It is obvious that  M.T. Baranov's textbook (1974) in structure and design represents a certain intermediate stage between the Soviet Russian language textbooks and modern ones.

The structure of modern textbooks is unified. The first part includes “Phonetics”, “Graphics”, “Orthography”, “Orthoepy”, “Lexicology”, “Word formation”, “Spelling”, etc., and the second part contains material on the notional parts of speech. In the corresponding sections, the authors of all textbooks present material on the differences between language and speech: “Language and Man”, “Language and Linguistics”, “Language and Speech”, “What is Communication”, “Our Native Language”, etc. Rules alternate with exercises to consolidate the material studied. All textbooks contain revision sections.

There are few differences between modern textbooks. First, they have different content in the sections “It's Interesting to know”, “Tips”, “Reading School”, “From the History of Language”, encyclopaedia of tips, linguistic games  (Rybchenkova et al., 2012), “Did you know that...”, “Check Yourself” (Bystrova et al., 2015), “Linguistic Storeroom” (Shmelev et al., 2014; 2015). Secondly, each chapter of A.D. Shmelev's (2014; 2015) textbook, which is built according to the modular principle, includes six recurring sections. Other textbooks have a different number of sections.  The graphic design of modern textbooks is diverse: they contain colour illustrations, many schemes, signs, highlighted headings, etc.

Texts of tasks (on the example of the section “Noun”)

Traditionally, Russian language exercises are classified into five types:  1) observation of the language in order to discover a linguistic fact or phenomenon; 2) parsing (grammatical, phonetic, etc.); 3) copying, sometimes with underlining, filling in blanks, etc.); 4) word construction; 5) creative (e.g., composing a text based on a picture) (L’vov, 1988).  In Soviet textbooks, tasks on parsing (mainly grammatical), copying and construction prevail. 

Important is the wording of tasks that implement “communicative tactics” of the student's dialog with the textbook (Tokareva, 2005). The texts of tasks are expected to reproduce “live oral communication” of the student with the book, “as people usually communicate with each other” (Granik, Borisenko, 2011: 6). In the textbooks by L.V. Scherba (1946) and S.G. Barkhudarov, S.E. Kryuchkov (1959), the tasks are quite numerous, their directives use the second person form of the imperative mood: “write out...”, “learn...”, “finish...”, “change...”, “remake...”, “invent and write...”, etc.  For example: “Read the passage, write out the names of .... Explain their origin.”

The 1935 textbook edited by A.B. Shapiro differs from other Soviet textbooks, because its directives are expressed only with infinitives (“to insert...”,  “to highlight...”, “to write out...”, “to ask questions...”, “to find...”, “to form...”, “to explain...”, “to agree...”, “to compose...”, “to specify...”, “to establish  a connection...”). So, the directives become impersonal. For example, “To write the text down and entering the words in brackets into the sentences. To indicate the cases of all nouns of the 3rd declension” (Shapiro, 1935: 95).

The textbook by M.T. Baranov et al. (1974) retains the address forms of the previous textbooks, but reveals more tasks for word and sentence construction, and introduces common forms of directives: “Build sentence schemes...”, “Give your examples...”, “Decipher...”. In the texts of the tasks in the textbook by  M.T. Baranov et al. (1974), motivational questions to pupils appear for the first time. At the same time, the question itself can be related to the observation of not only linguistic, but also extra-linguistic phenomena: “What new things have you learned...?”, ”What rivers, lakes, cities are there in your area? Compare the rivers...”, ”Find out the meaning of words in the Dictionary.... How are these words formed?”, etc. It is noteworthy that this textbook begins with an expressive wish: “Much success to you in your studies, dear children!” Baranov's (1974) textbook also reveals cooperative tactics explicated in the imperative of “joint action”: “Let's determine whether the noun is used without not. ...Let's write separately” There are no similar speech acts in the three textbooks of the earlier period. Obviously, this form of address is aimed at emotional interaction between authors and pupils, as K. D. Ushinskii wrote: “To accustom a child to a reasonable conversation with a book, to encourage such a conversation, in our opinion, is one of the most important tasks of the school” (Ushinskii, 1974: 30).

In modern textbooks, typical tasks partially repeat the structure of tasks in textbooks of the previous period: there are tasks for copying, parsing, and constructing, but the volume of tasks for language observation has been increased; in them students are asked to read a text fragment, observe language changes, and then formulate a rule. As in the Soviet textbooks, here we find the wording of tasks in the form of the imperative mood: “write down...”, “read...”, “title the text...”, “determine (gender, number, case)”, “underline...”. In contrast to Soviet textbooks, which are characterized by rather concise formulations of tasks (“In one column, write out nouns that are used only in the singular; In another column, write out nouns used in the singular and plural” (Scherba, 1946)), the texts of tasks in modern textbooks are longer because they include questions. For example, “What nouns in the text are combined with adjectives? Match the adjectives suitable in meaning to the other nouns in the text. Write down all the collocations. Can the same adjective change in gender? And the noun?” (Shmelev, 2014). The tasks in modern textbooks reproduce the style of conversation with the addressee where questions are followed by a directive: “Do you have favourite books? Tell us about them”. A number of creative and reconstructive tasks have been revealed where pupils are asked to invent or reproduce something on the basis of the received information, to describe a picture (“look at the picture...”), to imagine themselves in a situation and tell about it (“imagine that you...”), i.e. the tasks are aimed at activating thought processes, memory, imagination (“identify..., select..., think...”, “remember...”).

The main tactic in task formulating, both in Soviet and modern textbooks, is the tactic of direct inducement, realized in the imperative. Indirect tactics of inducement are represented in modern textbooks in creative tasks, work in pairs, choice tasks, appealing to the addressee's personal experience, etc.

The analysis of the volume of each of the formants (exercises, theory, tasks) of the studied textbooks confirms the significant differences in the volume of texts of the tasks in the new and Soviet textbooks (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. The proportion and size of the formants in Soviet (1935–1974) and modern textbooks (2012–2015), %²²
Source: compiled by E.N. Bulina, M.I. Solnyshkina, Y.N. Ebzeeva using Microsoft Excel.

As we can see, the volume of the texts of tasks in modern textbooks exceeds the volume of the texts of tasks in Soviet textbooks by 20%, and the volume of the texts of tasks exceeds the volume of rules and explanations by 14%. At the same time, it is indicative that exercises in both groups of textbooks make up the largest text volume: 54% in the Soviet textbooks and 42% in the modern ones, while explanations and rules (theory) have less volume: 30% and 22% respectively.

Illustrative sources. The illustrative material in both theoretical and practical parts of the textbooks was mainly excerpts from Russian literature. The number of appeals to classical literature varies considerably: Scherba (1946) — 32; Shapiro (1935) — 39; Barkhudarov, Kryuchkov (1959) — 73; Baranov et al. (1974) — 84; Ladyzhenskaya et al. (2012) — 102; Rybchenkova et al. (2014) — 128; Shmelev et al. (2014) — 158; Bystrova et al. (2015) — 190. As illustrative material for tasks and exercises, the authors of textbooks of both periods use texts by N.A. Nekrasov, A.S. Pushkin, and A.N. Tolstoy; all authors, except  A.D. Shapiro 1935, use texts by S.T. Aksakov, I.A. Krylov, M.Y. Lermontov, L.N. Tolstoy, and I.S. Turgenev. The textbooks of both periods contain texts by A.A. Blok, K.G. Paustovsky, M.M. Prishvin, I.S. Sokolov-Mikitov, F.I. Tyutchev, A.A. Fet, A.P. Chekhov, N.V. Gogol, A. Barto, A.P. Gaidar, S.A. Esenin,  V.G. Korolenko, D.N. Mamin-Sibiryak, S. Mikhalkov, A.K. Tolstoy, K. Chukovsky, M. Gorky.

Modern textbooks use texts by V.P. Astafiev, A. Akhmatova, V. Berestov, V. Bianki, K. Bulychev, V. Vysotsky, V. Dragunsky, N. Zabolotsky, Y. Kazakov and others. They also take translated texts as illustrative sources, for example, G.H. Andersen, R. Burns (Rybchenkova, 2012), A. Milne (Bystrova, 2015), E.T.A. Hoffmann, V. Hugo, D. Defoe, J. Rodari, P. Merimee, A. Saint-Exupery, A. Mickiewicz, P. Travers, M. Gettuev, Y. Tuwim, M. Karim, and G. Tukai (Shmelev 2014). Except for A.B. Shapiro (1935) and L.V. Shcherba (1946), the authors of textbooks actively use folklore sources: proverbs, sayings, riddles, fables, and songs.

Modern authors also use non-fiction texts as illustrative sources. The textbook by L.M. Rybchenkova (2012), published in the Academic School Textbook series, uses illustrations from encyclopaedic dictionaries, the Young Philologist's Dictionary, and the Encyclopedia for Children. The textbook by E.A. Bystrova (2015), series “Innovative School”, uses the textbooks “Biology”, “Natural Science”, encyclopaedic editions “A Comprehensive Atlas”, “About the Russian language entertainingly”, “The Book of Nature”, “What is it? Who is it?”, ‘I Know the World’, ‘What is What’, ‘Linguistics for Everybody’, and dictionaries of the Russian language as illustrative material. In Soviet textbooks, non-fiction texts are rarely used: fragments from the textbook of zoology and N.K. Krupskaya's memoirs in A.B. Shapiro's textbook (1935), an article about I.V. Stalin by A. Barbusse in L.V. Scherba's textbook (1946) were revealed.

Thus, in modern textbooks there is a significant expansion of the range of illustrative material in comparison with the books of the previous century, and texts of exercises include not only fiction, but also texts of educational children's literature and popular scientific texts. At the same time, texts from many subject areas have been identified as sources: from humanitarian to natural science.

Conclusion

The modern Russian language textbook, while retaining the genre characteristics common to Soviet textbooks, has differences concerning the composition of illustrative sources, the increase in the share of texts of tasks, and the transition from tactics of direct inducement to tactics of cooperation and collaboration. However, the research has revealed only the most significant structural differences of the studied texts. The detailed elaboration of the revealed differences suggests continuing the research in two main directions: (1) systemic parameterization of the lexicon of the studied textbooks in terms of (a) frequency, (b) theme, (c) tone, (d) density, and (e) diversity, on the one hand, and (2) lexical-syntactic and discourse analysis of the texts of the three textbook blocks: theory, tasks, and exercises. The first will highlight the content preferences of the authors of the two periods, as well as the changed complexity of the texts. The second direction can define the characteristics of different types of texts and become the basis for automatic taxonomies of large linguistic data.

 

 

_{¹ Issues of School Textbook. 1974. № 1. Retrieved July 15, 2024 from http://sbooks.gnpbu.ru/text/problemy_shkolnogo_uchebnika_v1_1974/p0/}

_{² School textbooks have changed by only one third in a hundred years. Retrieved July 09, 2024 from https://www.kp.ru/daily/26636.5/3655429/?ysclid=lyagygrjwh153520505 ; Teach me the Soviet way. Retrieved July 09, 2024 from https://vogazeta.ru/articles/2021/4/2/quality_of_education/16851-uchi_menya_po_sovetski?ysclid=lyajlkypj7788802808 ; Forward to the past : how Russian children are taught by “Stalinist” textbooks. Retrieved July 9, 2024 from https://ria.ru/20210119/obrazovanie-1593462601.html?ysclid=lyakahrzh243139649}

_{³ About the best Russian language textbook. Verbitskaya L.A. Expert opinion : video.  Retrieved July 09, 2024 from https://ya.ru/video/preview/1791891092484274369}

_{⁴ Shapiro, A.B. (2022). Grammar for Secondary School. 5 and 6 grade. Part 1. Morphology. Мoscow: Sovetskie Uchebniki publ. (In Russ.); Shcherba, L.V. (2023). Grammar of the Russian language. 5–6 grades. Part 1. Мoscow: Nashe zavtra publ. (In Russ.).}

_{⁵ Shapiro, A.B. (1935). Grammar. Part. 1. Morphology (10th ed.). Мoscow: Gosuchpedgiz publ. (In Russ.).}

_{⁶ Grammar of the Russian language. Part 1. Phonetics and morphology. (1946). Textbook for the 5th and 6th grades of seven-year and secondary schools. (7th ed.). Мoscow: Gosuchpedgiz publ. (In Russ.).}

_{⁷ Barkhudarov, S.G., & Kryuchkov, S.E. (1959). Textbook on the Russian language. Part 1. Phonetics and morphology. For 5th and 6th grades of secondary school. (6th ed.). Мoscow: Gosuchpedgiz publ. (In Russ.).}

_{⁸ Baranov, M.T. et al. (1974). Russian language. Textbook for 5-6 grades. Мoscow: Prosveshchenie publ. (In Russ.).}

_{⁹ Ladyzhenskaya, Т.A., Baranov, M.T., & Trostentsova, L.A.; Shansky, N.M. (ed.) (2012). Russian language. 5th grade. Textbook. In 2 parts. Мoscow: Prosveshchenie publ. (In Russ.).}

_{¹⁰ Rybchenkova, L.M. et al. (2012). Russian language. 5th grade. Textbook. In 2 parts.  (2nd ed.). Мoscow: Prosveshchenie publ. (in Russ.).}

_{¹¹ Bistrova, E.A. et al. (2015). Russian language : Textbook for 5th grade. In 2 parts.  (4th ed.). Moscow: Russkoe slovo — uchebnik publ. (In Russ.).}

_{¹² Shmelev, A.D., Florenskaya, E.A., & Gabovich, F.E. (2015). Russian language. Part 1. Textbook for 5th grade. Moscow : Ventana-Graf publ. (In Russ.); Shmelev, A.D. et al. (2014). Russian language. Part 2. Textbook for 5th grade. Мoscow: Ventana-Graf publ. (In Russ.).}

_{¹³ On textbooks for primary and secondary schools. Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (b) of February 12, 1933. Appendix No. 9 to item 53/18 of PB No. 131. Retrieved Juny 25, 2024 from https://istmat.org/node/58635}

_{¹⁴ On the nature and content of textbooks for primary and secondary schools in Russian language, mathematics, geography, physics, chemistry, and natural science. (To the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of 12.II.1933) Annex  No. 10 to item 53/18 of PB No. 131. Retrieved Juny 25, 2024 from https://istmat.org/node/58636}

_{¹⁵ Order of December 17, 2010 № 1897 “On Approval of the Federal State Educational Standard of Basic General Education”. Retrieved July 01, 2024 from https://fgos.ru/fgos/fgos-ooo}

_{¹⁶ Baranov, M.T. et al. (1984). Russian language. Textbook for 5-6 grades. Мoscow: Prosveshchenie publ. (In Russ.).}

_{¹⁷ On textbooks for primary and secondary schools. Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (b) of February 12, 1933. Appendix No. 9 to item 53/18 of PB No. 131. Retrieved Juny 25, 2024 from https://istmat.org/node/58635}

_{¹⁸ Order of December 17, 2010 № 1897 “On Approval of the Federal State Educational Standard of Basic General Education”. Retrieved July 01, 2024 from  https://fgos.ru/fgos/fgos-ooo}

_{¹⁹ Shapiro, A.B. (1935). Grammar. Part 1. Morphology. Textbook for the 5th and 6th grades of incomplete secondary and secondary schools. (10th ed.). Мoscow: Gosuchpedgiz publ. (In Russ.).}

_{²⁰ Barkhudarov, S.G., & Kryuchkov, S.E. (1959). Textbook on the Russian language.  Part 1. Phonetics and morphology. For the 5th and 6th grades of secondary school. (6th ed.). Мoscow: Gosuchpedgiz publ. (In Russ).}

_{²¹ Baranov, M.T. et al. (1974). Russian language: Textbook for 5-6 grades. Мoscow: Prosveshchenie publ. (In Russ.).}

_{²² Identified with the help of RuLingva automatic analyzer and STATISTIKA program.}

About the authors

Eugenia N. Bulina

Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University

Email: evgeniya-bulina@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0296-815X
SPIN-code: 2091-0280
Scopus Author ID: 57219028331
ResearcherId: AAE-7408-2019

PhD in Philology, Senior Lecturer of the Department of Theory and Practice of Teaching Foreign Languages, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication

18 Kremlevskaya st., bldg. 1, Kazan, 420008, Russian Federation

Marina I. Solnyshkina

Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University

Author for correspondence.
Email: mesoln@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1885-3039
SPIN-code: 6480-1830
Scopus Author ID: 56429529500
ResearcherId: E-3863-2015

Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Theory and Practice of Teaching Foreign Languages, Head of “Multidisciplinary Text Investigation” Research Lab, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication

18 Kremlevskaya st., bldg. 1, Kazan, 420008, Russian Federation

Yulia N. Ebzeeva

RUDN University

Email: ebzeeva-jn@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0043-7590
SPIN-code: 3316-4356

Doctor of Social Sciences, PhD in Philology, First Vice-Rector - Vice Rector for Education and Head of Foreign Language Department

6 Miklukho-Maklaya St, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation

References

Supplementary files