When teachers and researchers use the word linguodidactics today, they usually mean something more than just “methods of teaching foreign languages.” In modern literature it is described as a separate scientific field that studies how people actually learn a new language and culture, how this process is connected with their native language and culture, and how we can design aims, content, methods and technologies of language education on this basis (Galskova, 2020; IGI Global, 2020). In other words, linguodidactics tries to give a solid theoretical picture of language teaching, not only a list of “good activities” for lessons.

The roots of linguodidactics are in traditional methodology of foreign language teaching. For a long time, the main focus was on comparing methods like grammar–translation, audio-lingualism, communicative approach, and so on. In the second half of the twentieth century linguistics, psycholinguistics and sociocultural theories started to develop very quickly. It became clear that simple “recipes” for teaching are not enough and that we need a broader theoretical base.

This push led to the formation of linguodidactics as an integrative science at the crossroads of linguistics, psychology, pedagogy and cultural studies (Galskova, 2020; Khasanova & Safarova, 2023). In many post-Soviet and Central Asian publications, it is described as the theoretical part of methodology: it explains general laws of language teaching and learning, while methodology focuses more on concrete techniques and lesson formats (Ashuralievna, 2023; Khodjaeva, 2024; Khasanova & Safarova, 2023).

Applied linguistics is often mentioned together with linguodidactics, but the scope is different. Applied linguistics works with a wide range of practical language problems – for example translation, terminology, language policy. Linguodidactics concentrates mainly on the teaching–learning process and on educational models. In this sense it does not simply “borrow” ideas from linguistics; it also produces its own concepts, such as linguodidactic competence, professional language personality or productive linguodidactic technology (Galskova, 2020; Seytkasimov, 2023).

Most authors agree that the object of linguodidactics is the whole system of foreign or second language education in its development, at school, university and in continuing education (Galskova, 2020). The subject is the regularities of how learners’ communicative competence is formed and how they “grow” inside a new language and cultural space (Galskova, 2020; IGI Global, 2020).

On this basis a number of key categories appear in linguodidactic research:

• aims of language education;
• selection and organisation of content;
• principles of teaching;
• methods and technologies;
• forms of classroom interaction;
• criteria and tools for assessment.

Khasanova and Safarova (2023) highlight the strong connections with neighbouring sciences. Linguistics explains the structure and functioning of language and discourse. Psychology brings in models of cognition, memory, motivation and age-related development. Pedagogy offers general principles of teaching and education. Cultural studies and sociolinguistics add an intercultural and social perspective (Khasanova & Safarova, 2023). Linguodidactics tries to put all this together into a coherent scientific picture and then translate it into decisions about curricula, textbooks and classroom practice (Galskova, 2020).

Thus, when linguodidactic authors discuss, for example, the goals of English in primary school, they do not simply repeat the national standard. They analyse how practical communicative aims are connected with cognitive, developmental and value-oriented aims, and ask how realistic it is to reach all of them in existing conditions (Ashuralievna, 2023; Niyazova, 2024).

One of the main tasks of linguodidactics is to formulate general principles that guide concrete methodological choices. Today the communicative and intercultural orientation of language teaching is usually seen as basic: language is treated as a tool of interaction and self-expression, not just a system of forms (Galskova, 2020; Khazratova, 2025). This means that tasks should imitate real communication, texts should be linked to authentic situations, and assessment should check what learners can actually do with the language.

Another important group of principles is connected with the choice and organisation of content. Ashuralievna (2023) writes that linguodidactic foundations of teaching English require selecting language material that is functionally necessary for typical communication spheres of learners and integrating different skills (reading, listening, speaking, writing) around meaningful topics. Niyazova (2024) also underlines that linguodidactics supports the unity of language system knowledge, speech skills and cultural knowledge, instead of teaching them separately.

In the 2000s the competence-based approach influenced this picture. Many authors now speak about linguodidactic competence as an integrated quality which includes linguistic, communicative, methodological, technological and reflective components (Narzilloyeva, 2021; Atzhanova & Shayakhmetova, 2025; Seytkasimov, 2023). From this point of view, linguodidactics deals not only with what students should learn, but also with what teachers should be able to design, implement and critically analyse.

The idea of linguodidactic competence plays a central role in discussions about teacher professionalism. According to Narzilloyeva (2021), it is a modern type of professional competence which allows the teacher to plan, conduct and evaluate language teaching on a scientific basis, not just using personal experience. This competence presupposes:

• high level of language proficiency;
• knowledge about linguistic and psycholinguistic mechanisms of acquisition;
• awareness of modern methods and technologies;
• ability to select, adapt and sequence teaching material according to learners’ needs (Narzilloyeva, 2021).

Seytkasimov (2023), who studies the development of linguodidactic competence in teaching the Karakalpak language, adds that teachers must also understand the sociocultural and institutional context. For regional and minority languages questions of language status, bilingualism and community expectations strongly influence teaching decisions (Seytkasimov, 2023). This shows that linguodidactic competence is always contextual; we cannot create one universal checklist of skills for all situations.

Digitalisation brings another dimension. Research on using ICT to form linguodidactic competence among future foreign language teachers shows that digital tools can help with flexible course design, richer feedback and new formats of learner production (for example, podcasts or digital stories), but at the same time demand new skills in task design, platform management and ethical use of online resources (Chernyavskaya et al., 2023; Vasylenko, 2020). Linguodidactics therefore increasingly needs concepts related to multimodality, online interaction and hybrid learning spaces.

In recent years much attention has been given to so-called linguodidactic technologies – structured models of teaching that operationalise principles in real classrooms. One well-known example is the productive linguodidactic technology described by Almazova, Eremin and Rubtsova (2016). Their model was proposed to increase the efficiency of foreign language training in Russian higher education. It focuses on forming productive communicative skills through problem-based tasks, work with authentic texts in different genres and systematic reflection on learning strategies (Almazova et al., 2016).

Later this technology was adapted for different contexts, such as teaching foreign languages to international students or English for specific purposes (Allahverdiyeva, 2023; Yessengeldinova et al., 2024). At the same time, many national and regional studies offer their own technologies – for example, for continuing education of adults or for rural schools – which take into account local conditions and typical learner profiles (Ashuralievna, 2023; Dildora, 2025).

Integrated models such as CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) are also discussed within linguodidactics. Galskova (2020) notes that when language and subject content are taught together, teachers need new ways to balance linguistic support and cognitive challenge. This has led to additional principles, for example subject–language integration and multidisciplinarity, and to tasks that aim not only at everyday communication, but also at academic and disciplinary literacy.

Despite the active development of theory, linguodidactics faces several serious challenges.

First, there is a visible gap between ambitious goals and everyday practice. In articles we often read about forming a “professional language personality” or fully developed intercultural competence. In reality many teachers work with large groups, limited hours and high-stakes tests that mainly measure grammar and vocabulary. Not surprisingly, they sometimes see linguodidactic ideals as something beautiful on paper but difficult to realise in real classrooms (Niyazova, 2024; Tugenovna, 2025).

Second, the internationalisation of research is a double-edged sword. On one side, it gives access to rich experience and new models from different countries. On the other, there is a risk of simply copying fashionable concepts – for example, certain versions of the communicative approach or CLIL – without serious adaptation to local exam systems, teacher training traditions or learners’ real language levels (Khodjaeva, 2024; Khazratova, 2025; Shukurov, 2024). Here linguodidactics has to play a critical role and ask: what exactly should be borrowed, what should be modified, and what does not fit our context at all?

Third, digitalisation opens new possibilities but also new problems. Digital tools can support multimodal input, autonomous learning and various forms of formative assessment. At the same time, they sharpen inequalities in access, blur borders between formal and informal learning and raise questions about authorship when artificial intelligence systems are used to generate texts or translations (Chernyavskaya et al., 2023; Zou et al., 2025). Linguodidactics needs to reflect on what it means to “appropriate” a language when part of the visible product may be created with algorithmic help.

Finally, the field still lacks enough strong empirical studies. Many publications describe principles, approaches or technologies on a mainly theoretical level. There is a growing need for mixed-methods research that combines test data, observation, learner corpora and interviews, so that we can see how linguodidactic decisions influence real learning trajectories and not only lesson plans (Linguodidactic innovations of the 21st century, 2024; Linguodidactic principles of developing students’ written discourse, 2024).

Today linguodidactics can be seen as a developing, transdisciplinary science at the centre of language education. It grew out of classic methodology but has gone further, offering a broad model of language learning and teaching that connects linguistic, cognitive, sociocultural and technological aspects (Galskova, 2020; Khasanova & Safarova, 2023). Its main achievements include clarification of aims and categories of language education, formulation of principles that unite communicative, intercultural and competence-based approaches, and creation of linguodidactic technologies that try to bring these principles into everyday teaching.

At the same time, linguodidactics is clearly still in progress. Core notions like linguodidactic competence, professional language personality or productive technology must be constantly checked and refined through research in different contexts. Digitalisation, multilingual classrooms and changing expectations of society guarantee that the questions raised by linguodidactics will stay relevant.

In simple words, the key question is: how can we design language education that is both scientifically grounded and realistic for teachers and learners? A second, no less important question: how do we prepare teachers who do not just follow given methods, but are able to think linguodidactically and develop the field further? The way we answer these questions will show whether linguodidactics can really provide a strong foundation for language education that is effective, fair and humane.