Level-Based Diagnostics of Developing Ethnocultural Linguistic Personality Types in Language University Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18886118
Abstract
This paper proposes a level-based diagnostic framework for tracking how language-university students develop an ethnocultural type of linguistic personality during professional English training. The study argues that mastering Anglophone communicative behaviour requires not only lexico‑grammatical skills but also interpretive reflection, cultural commenting, and pragmatic adaptation. The framework operationalises four levels – local ethnocentric, comparative reactive, contrastive adaptive, and intercultural strategic – each described through observable verbal and nonverbal indicators, typical interference errors, and assessment criteria. The model was validated in a pedagogical experiment (EG N=356–357; CG N=342–344) using three measurements (entry, mid-course, exit) and a mixed toolkit (situational tests, scenario-based contrastive analysis, classroom observation, and self-assessment). Results show a stronger upward shift in the experimental group: the intercultural-strategic level rose from 7.86% to 20.45%, while the local-ethnocentric level decreased from 49.72% to 25.49%. Tasks draw on the author’s teaching manual and target routine classroom and interaction scripts.
Keywords:
Ethnocultural linguistic personality communicative behaviour intercultural pragmatics speech-behaviour interference level-based diagnostics pragmatic competence scenario-based tasks language universityReferences
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Routledge.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Makhkamova, G. T. (2021). Comparative typology of cultures. Lesson Press.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd ed.). Continuum.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
Thomas, J. (1983). Cros s-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Mouton de Gruyter.
Махкамова, Г. Т. (2010). Концепция формирования межкультурной компетенции студентов факультетов английского языка. Фан.
Ҳамроева, Н. Н. (2022). Ўзбек нутқий мулоқотида фатика (илтифот мисолида) (Автореф. дисс. PhD). Бухоро.
Published
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mariya Aleksandrovna Saidova

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
