The purpose of this article is to help language teachers at all levels of education to understand in depth problems posed by linguistic superdiversity. Based on the study of scholarly literature, documents of educational bodies and the authors experience in language teaching in different countries, the article answers the question of how the teaching of world languages such as English and Russian is changing due to the recognition that their functions and status differ in various countries. We explore why, despite gradual changes in curricula, there is still pervasiveness of pedagogies attempting to achieve a perfect command of the studied languages, without considering students needs and language repertoires, the local sociolinguistic situation and labor market requirements. We focus on methods of teaching English and Russian, taking into account various aspects of language ideologies related to mono- and pluricentricity. To show the dependence of language teaching on the socio-cultural situation, we apply the concept of Critical Language Awareness covering aspects of language variation and changes in attitudes to normativity, prescriptivism and regional language varieties. We also show that innovative pedagogies put new demands on teachers requiring that they have to adjust to new teaching formats, acquire skills of using educational technologies and teaching diverse student populations. The focus of the review on teaching English and Russian proves that despite different histories of their pedagogies, the interplay of language, ethnicity, identity, culture and education systems is significant for both, and without taking all these elements into account, the goal of educating effective multilinguals is elusive.

This article presents research on teaching English in Israel, a vibrant multilingual country, in the period between 2014 and 2020. After a brief introduction to the current approach to English language teaching around the world, it outlines the studies investigating: (a) learners of English, (b) English teachers, and (c) methods that are used in the country for teaching English. We explore how various student populations, Arabs, Bedouins, Circassians, Druze, Charedi (ultra-orthodox Jews), Jews, and foreign students, are taught English as well as their attitudes to this language. Then, we discuss research investigating different categories of English teachers in Israel, including teachers in Arab and Jewish sectors, the teachers labeled as ‘native speakers’, and also teacher trainers and teacher-training principles. We look at secondary and high school students, including those in special education, as well as those who take English courses in tertiary educational institutions. Finally, we are interested in whether innovative teaching methods compete with the conventional ones and which groups of learners have access to the former. Throughout the article, we aim to show to what extent practitioners and researchers are aware of the present-day realities of the interconnectedness of ‘teacher, student, and method’ elements and the impact of multilingualism on English teaching in Israel. This Country in Focus report also considers the current holistic perspective on English language teaching. This language should not be taught in isolation but work in concert with other contact languages.

Can the Russian language be regarded as pluricentric since it is used in various countries and regions of the world where different varieties of the language have evolved? Indeed, in Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and some other countries, Russian is used as the official language of state bodies and institutions. However, each of these countries has its own linguistic and cultural specificities of grammar, vocabulary and phonetics, which distinguish it from other varieties of the Russian language. In addition, the Russian language is used in countries where it is not an official language, such as Finland, Germany, Israel. There it also has its own characteristics caused by interaction with different languages and cultures. The goal of the study is to show that all these varieties of the Russian language can be viewed as pluricentric variants, i.e. as independent language systems with their own characteristics and differences. Theoretically, the recognition of the Russian language as pluricentric would help to better understand the old and emerging varieties of the language and establish their relationship with each other, making it possible to compare different varieties of the language with each other at all linguistic levels. Practically, such recognition would also make it possible to trace the adaptive possibilities of the Russian language, which vary depending on the region and cultural environment, which in turn will diversify and deepen the study of the Russian language, making it more interesting for the learner. Based on the theory of pluricentricity, the paper compares practices of the language use and seeks to establish commonalities of Russian pluricentrism. Moreover, it highlights the unique features of the Kazakhstan language variety while demonstrating new opportunities for studying the flexible adaptability of the language. This approach will contribute to better understanding and appreciating the richness and versatility of the Russian language as it is used around the world.

Russian, as a pluricentric language, demonstrates differences in pronunciation, lexis, syntactical structures, and regional specificity of grammar deviations. The imposition of a norm, which is difficult even in the metropolis, is hardly possible in the diaspora, where host countries’ realities have a strong impact on the Russian language spoken outside of Russian borders. Even support of the Russian language turns into a double-edged sword, as Russian institutions offering it to the diasporic communities refuse to admit the growing pluricentricity of the Russian language. Although almost 30 years have passed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russian heritage remains strong in the post-Soviet space, and many countries continue using Russian in public settings and in education. Regional varieties of Russian increasingly drift away from the “Moscow norm”, although it still dominates culturally. New European borders and economic conditions stipulate new regulations in the use of traditional international languages. The debate on the norm and the struggle for bi- and multilingualism characterize the current situation with the Russian language in the world. At the same time, it is important to point out that due to diasporans’ transnational ties, globalization of Russian electronic media, and growing commodification of Russian, it is often used as a lingua franca on the territory of the former Soviet Union and in immigrants’ host countries. This requires a high degree of stability of the main linguistic features to ensure mutual understanding in communication. Russian speakers stick to their language and elevate its status whenever they feel mistreated or underrepresented in their countries of residence, or when they see economic benefits in its use.

This article provides a comparative analysis of the sociolinguistic situation in three Asian countries, India, Japan, and South Korea, which are relatively less known as countries where the Russian language is used. The aim of the study is to assess the significance of the Russian language in these countries Russian-speaking diasporas, business sphere, and education, as well as to define the characteristics of its teaching in the cultural contexts under discussion. In all these domains processes of language commodification are intensifying. The countries chosen for analysis differ in the history of language contacts, political relations with Russia, language policy, language attitudes, and as a result, residents motivation for maintaining and learning the Russian language. We discuss similarities and differences in the development of Russian speech communities. We also reflect upon linguistic and cultural hybridity, and in particular, its effect on the evolution of multilingual identities on the basis of interviews, fieldnotes, internet resources, and published data. The results show that in Japan and South Korea, the number of immigrants, students, businesspeople and mixed families using Russian is growing, and Russian language schools are popular; in India, the established relationship of peace, friendship and cooperation through various treaties continues to have its effect on the popularity of the Russian language in various spheres of life. In all the three countries Russian serves as a lingua franca for immigrants from different post-Soviet countries, which increases its value for the diasporans. The study argues that realities of diasporic life contribute to the pluricentric trends in the development of Russian.

Teaching Russian as a foreign language outside the nation might still be oriented towards the norm and conventions of contemporary metropolitan Russian, but in the minority situation, which emerged after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and massive migrations, teaching should absorb the newly developed local lexis and formulate the rules reflecting regional changes in the structure. State-of-the-art language pedagogy rejects stringency of approach to communication and accepts the reality of translanguaging and regional varieties, considering them in the curricula. Clearly, teaching Russian in the situation of the new linguistic contacts calls for innovative methods and flexible approaches. The article is based on the interviews and informal conversations with Russian-language teachers and school owners, as well as on meta-analysis of the already published data. This article aims to show challenges confronting Russian-language teachers in various countries, with examples drawn from Estonia, Finland, Germany, Israel, Kazakhstan, Norway, and Slovakia.