moscow

INSTITUTE OF ASIAN AND AFRICAN STUDIES, MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY

On October 1, 2010, the regular Dmitriev Readings, held annually by the Department of Turkic Philology, were held; this time the readings were dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the birth of a major Turkologist, one of the leading specialists of our country, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Turkic Philology of the ISAA D. M. Nasilov.

In a brief statement, Y. V. Shcheka (ISAA) noted that Dmitry Mikhailovich is constantly at the center of numerous scientific contacts, the threads of which stretch both in the Russian Federation and in the near and far abroad. He actively and regularly participates in various Turkological conferences, and the texts of his reports and articles are published.

The diversity and multi-aspect nature of his research interests is striking. These include the history of the Turkic languages. Dmitry Mikhailovich gives lectures and conducts seminars on Uyghur and Orkhon monuments, showing himself at the same time to be a wonderful teacher, always able to find a deeply individual approach to each student and master, from whom he enjoys a well-deserved love.

Dmitry Mikhailovich has trained a large number of graduate students, including foreign ones, in particular Turkish ones, who, despite various difficulties, successfully defended their dissertations in Russian. Students of D. M. Nasilov, who keep gratitude to their teacher, can be found not only in large turkological centers, but also in many parts of the country.

Dmitry Mikhailovich is known as a major specialist in the theoretical grammar and vocabulary of modern Turkic languages, on the material of which he seeks to creatively apply the principles of functional grammar. He is the author of textbooks in the Uzbek and Azerbaijani languages, which he conducts practical classes on.

Another important area of interest of the hero of the day should be called Turkic sociolinguistics. Along with his theoretical work, Dmitry Mikhailovich's cooperation with various ministries and departments is very important, as well as with the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, where he is often invited as a consultant on a wide range of issues, including the organization of teaching national languages in schools of various levels and profiles.

For many years, D. M. Nasilov has been editing the collections "Questions of Turkic Philology", published based on the materials of the Dmitriev Readings in the ISAA. He is also the editor-in-chief of the journal "Russian Turkology". Dmitry Mikhailovich actively works as a member of dissertation councils, opposes the defense of candidate and doctoral theses, having established himself as a principled scientist who is able to both appreciate the work of others and counteract the approval of unsatisfactory, weak, poorly prepared works.

Dmitry Mikhailovich's remarkable personal qualities earned him the love and respect of his colleagues. He is always distinguished by his attention to people, responsiveness, and willingness to help in any difficulties. The addresses of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the journal "Turkology" were read out and good wishes for good health and success in work were expressed.

Head of the Uzbek Language Department of the Tashkent Institute of World Languages Kh.S. Mukhiddinova made a congratulatory speech and spoke about the latest works of Uzbek Turkologists in various fields of Turkic linguistics.

The report of G. F. Blagova (Institute of Linguistics) considered the problem of restoring the original authorship of the well-known Grammar of the Altai language (GAYA), which should rightfully belong to N. I. Ilminsky. This grammar was prepared by a team of members of the Altai mission, however, on the basis of

page 167
for a year and a half, N. I. Ilminsky worked on its text, making important corrections and clarifications. Despite this, N. I. Ilminsky refused authorship, the reason for which was his resentment at some assessments of his edits. G. F. Blagova cited very convincing documentary facts, directly and indirectly confirming the undoubted authorship of N. I. Ilminsky in the creation of GAI.

A.V. Dybo's report (Institute of Linguistics) was devoted to the scientific work of E. D. Polivanov, a major specialist in both Japanese studies and Turkology. Among his significant Turkological works are mentioned: "Typology of Language Changes "(Tashkent, 1921), textbooks for national schools published in the period 1922-1930, articles on romanization of alphabets and providing a unified typographic basis for the Turkic languages. The analysis of E. D. Polivanov's works shows that he used A. N. Samoilovich's classification of Turkic languages. In relation to the analysis of parts of speech in the Turkic languages, he spoke about adjectives and adverbs as corresponding subclasses. E. D. Polivanov for the first time paid priority attention to the regular correspondence of long vowels in the Turkmen and Yakut languages.

I. L. Kyzlasov (MSU) touched upon the problem of the origin of the Talas script, which, according to his assessment, did not arise earlier than the tenth century. It existed along with other independent variants of the ancient Turkic script and was associated with the presence of the corresponding alphabetic substrate. The study of rock inscriptions in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and inscriptions on boulders makes it possible to identify typical Talas writing formulas that are found only in the Altai. This allows us to speak about the Altaic version of the Yenisei script.

O. A. Mudrak (Institute of Oriental Studies. He shared his experience in taxonomy of Turkic languages and dialects based on glottochronology and data on grammatical indicators (rather than vocabulary). These data were processed using formal mathematical methods, which allowed us to build a tree of convergences between different languages and dialects.

Subject of the message by E. A. Grunina ( ISAA) - questions of studying the Ottoman language. Despite the wide representation of Arabic and Persian loanwords in the Ottoman language, it is quite obvious that it is necessary to study it as a separate literary and written language. At the same time, it is necessary to modify the algorithms and structure of university departments in order to ensure that the Ottoman language is taught not only to philologists, but also to historians, all future specialists in the history of the Middle and Middle East. The basis of a deep study of the Ottoman language is working with monuments with access to the interpretation of the text and paleography.

S. A. Orlov (Moscow) raised the issues of changing the language norm and teaching modern Turkish. In his opinion, the introduction of separate lexical topics or even special courses is not enough to study certain functional styles. The practice of teaching Turkish shows that seemingly outdated lexical elements that were characteristic of the Turkish language at the beginning of the last century still remain relevant in certain situations and therefore should be introduced into the educational process at all stages of training. Mastering some Arabic-Persian constructions requires a special technique.

Dmitry Nasilov (ISAA) presented the results of the latest international scientific conferences on Turkology held in Russia. On September 15-18, 2010, Cheboksary hosted the conference "Chuvash language and Ethnos in the History of Eurasian Civilization", organized by the Chuvash State Institute for Humanitarian Studies in connection with the 80th anniversary of its foundation. During the plenary and breakout sessions, more than 80 reports and presentations were read on many aspects of modern Turkology: linguistics, literary studies, history, archeology, cultural studies, etc.

On September 20-21, 2010, Kazan hosted the conference "Word Formation in Turkic Languages: Research and Problems", dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the famous Tatar linguist, corresponding member. F. A. Ganiev Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan and organized by the G. Ibragimov Institute of Language, Literature and Art of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan. Topical issues of theoretical and practical research on Turkic word formation, as well as issues of compiling Turkish-language dictionaries were discussed. It is known that Tatar linguists have done a lot in these areas of Turkology, and under the leadership of F. A. Ganiev, Kazan developed a whole direction in the theory of word formation in Turkic languages.

page 168
M. E. Dubrovina (St. Petersburg) devoted her report to the Turkic verb-nominal forms. The existing terminology system in the form of adverbs, participles, and action names does not reflect the specifics of these forms. In particular, it is necessary to take into account the various functions in which the Turkic participle can act. At the same time, the use of the participle is distinguished not only as a definition, but also for expressing various substantive meanings. In this regard, it is proposed to use the term substantive-adjective forms.

The topic raised in the report by M. E. Dubrovina became the subject of a small discussion, during which O. A. Mudrak noted the absence of the category of voice in Turkic participles, and A. V. Kuchma (Kiev) - the absence of the category of time in them. However, according to Yu. V. Shcheka, this seems to be incorrect, being a manifestation of the general tendency for modern unreasonably semantized linguistics, which is replaced by the logic of linguistics, to actually destroy the doctrine of parts of speech.

Yu. V. SHCHEKA

NUSANTARA SOCIETY'

On April 27, 2010, two topics related to Indonesia were discussed at a meeting of the Nusantara Society in the framework of the "Malay-Indonesian Readings". V. V. Sumsky (IMEMO RAS) presented the report "The USSR-Indonesia: 1963-1965 (what and why preceded the "divorce" after the events of September 30)". It was emphasized that all protocol and diplomatic events related to Indonesia in 2010 were held under the sign of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and Indonesia, which explains the upbeat and benevolent tone in assessing the entire period of relations between these countries. However, the scientific community, according to the speaker, is allowed and even prescribed to have a critical view of events. And if you look at the past decades from this perspective, it becomes clear that not everything went smoothly, as it may seem at first glance. The very detailed topic of the report already suggests that there are some tensions or sharp corners in relations between the two countries. In particular, the speaker recalled such moments as the unwillingness of independent Indonesia to service the multi-million dollar loans provided by the USSR; the suspension or delay of construction of many industrial projects being built in Indonesia with the fraternal help of Soviet specialists due to the failure of the Indonesian side to fulfill its contractual obligations for financing; the tilt towards the United States- despite the fact that the USSR and Indonesia were known as great friends - in the issue of the liberation of Irian Jaya from Dutch dependence; finally, the design of the Jakarta-Beijing axis.

The cultural theme of the meeting was presented in the message of Uzkhara Aval (ISAA MSU)"Poetic art and the Koran". After briefly describing the poetic forms of the Muslim peoples of Indonesia, similar to the Arabic qasids, such as Kaby minangkabau, the speaker focused on the poem "Imitation of the Koran"by A. S. Pushkin. The speaker pointed out some lines of this poem that, in his opinion, go back to the surahs of the Koran or, at least, cause a similar allusion. In conclusion, Uzhara Awal read out his translation of this poetic work into Indonesian.

* * *

On May 27, the meeting of the society continued to discuss the topic of Indonesia and the USSR. V. V. Sumsky considered the situation on the eve of the coup of September 30, 1965 in Indonesia. Based on the study of many documents, including declassified archives of the US CIA, he painted a vivid picture of the events that preceded the coup, and described the actions of the main forces of the country: President Sukarno, the military group and the Communist Party of Indonesia. This analysis led him to the conclusion that although each of the forces was preparing for changes in the country, at that time none of them was objectively interested in the force majeure development of the situation. Thus, the secret springs that triggered the conflict remain unclear, as well as the role of the future President Suharto. V. A. Tsyganov, V. V. Sikorsky, and S. V. Chlenova shared their views on the development of the Indonesian situation in 1965. A wish was expressed to hold a special meeting

page 169
Nusantara on Suharto's role in the September 30, 1965 coup

V. A. Pogadaev (University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur) in his report "The language of advertising in Malaysia" noted that advertising, especially social advertising, reflects the real situation in the country, for example, the promotion of the "One Malaysia" concept, the fight against smoking and drug addiction, for the cleanliness of the city, etc.D. Moreover, many billboards are located near mosques, which indicates their active participation in these campaigns. The language of an ad depends on the type of audience it is intended for. In particular, due to the large influx of labor from Indonesia, advertising has appeared using Indonesian terms (about sending money to the homeland, about conducting telephone conversations, etc.). Most of the advertising respects the parity of the national Malay language and official English, which retains its position in the country. There are also ads only in Malay and only in English (in the latter case, they are mainly intended for foreigners). In chinatowns, you can see ads in Chinese, but here, as a rule, they are duplicated in Malay. Thus, the concerns of the language planning and development authorities in Malaysia (in particular the Language and Literature Council) about the future of the national language do not seem entirely justified.
On September 30, two reports were heard at the meeting of the society. Yu. K. Sirk (Institute of Agricultural Sciences) in his report "New Guinea-a country of early agriculture", describing the ethnolinguistic situation in this region (both the languages of the Austronesian family and Papuan are represented here, and the former are present mainly in the coastal areas of the island), raised the question: why did the Austronesian ethnic group not have such success as the in other parts of Nusantara? The answer, in his opinion, is provided by the hypothesis of Western scientists Golson and Bellwood that the autochthonous (pre-Great-Austronesian) population, besides quite large, was familiar with agriculture and was at a higher stage of development than the ancestors of the Austronesians. According to this hypothesis, the Papuan languages were spread in connection with the spread of agriculture on the island. Proof of this is the evidence that many plants (taro, sweet potato) were cultivated by the local population as early as the 9th millennium BC. e. while the Austronesians came here only in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. e.and therefore could not introduce the locals to agriculture, as initially assumed by researchers. In connection with the history of the discovery of the ancestral homeland of cultivated plants, the speaker mentioned the expeditions of the Soviet Academician of botany N. I. Vavilov. M. A. Chlenov (Maimonides Academy) and D. V. Deopik (MSU ISAA) took part in the discussion of the report.

* * *

In her presentation dedicated to the XIII Symposium of the Society for the Study of Nusantara Manuscripts/MANASSA (Masyarakat Pernaskahan Nusantara), held in Solo (Indonesia) in July 2010, L. V. Goryaeva (IB RAS) spoke about the activities of this organization, which has a history of just over a decade. The main objectives of the MANASSA Society, as the name implies, are to develop the rich written heritage of the Nusantara countries. The symposium was attended by textologists, source scientists, paleographers and literary historians - not only from Indonesia and Malaysia, but also from Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Russia. Among the most important issues that were reflected in the presentations and discussions were the preservation of manuscripts, their inventory and compilation of new, as complete and detailed as possible catalogues of Malay-language manuscript collections in different countries of the world, facsimile reproduction of manuscripts in digital format and ensuring the availability of digital copies via the Internet.

page 170
* * *

On November 24, two reports were presented at the meeting of the Nusantara Society. The philological topic was discussed in the report of V. V. Sikorsky (VKLIA of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation), exquisitely named by the author as "Credentials of Literature", which dealt with literary translations from Indonesian into Russian and from Russian into Indonesian. The speaker began his speech with a quote from the famous Indonesian writer Idrus about the importance of Russian literature for Indonesian society, which largely influenced the development of literary creativity in Indonesia on the eve and after independence. Among the first Russian writers who became known for translations (first through Dutch) in Indonesia were Vyach. Iv. Ivanov, I. S. Turgenev and L. N. Tolstoy, who largely shaped the style and manner of writing of local writers. The first translations directly from Russian began to appear in Indonesia in the early 1950s, they were performed by Indonesian students who studied in the USSR, and then followed by translations of Russian Indonesians who had already appeared by that time. The most widely translated writers are still the classics - in addition to the aforementioned Tolstoy and Turgenev - F. M. Dostoevsky and A. P. Chekhov. There were also experiments in translating Russian poetry. S. Pushkin, A. A. Akhmatova. The speaker also mentioned many names of Indonesian writers and poets translated by Soviet / Russian authors. Unfortunately, the speaker noted, a large translation activity in this area remains a little-known fact for the Indonesian public. The proof of this is the recently published book in Indonesia-a reference book of translations of Indonesian literature into the languages of the world, where there is not a single Russian name! In order to correct this glaring injustice, it was suggested that those gathered on the occasion of the upcoming 15-year anniversary of the Russia-ASEAN partnership (which includes Indonesia) in 2011 participate in the preparation and publication of a collection with a list of translations into all languages of the countries of this organization. Such a publication is important, since literature is a part of" people's diplomacy", which paves the way for serious diplomacy and significantly contributes to mutual understanding between peoples.

Director of the newly established ASEAN Center at MGI (U)In his speech entitled "The Second Russia-ASEAN Summit", Vladimir Sumsky spoke about the goals, themes and results of the second meeting in Hanoi in this format, which he attended as a member of the Russian delegation. The speaker pointed to the forum's unanimous recognition that relations between ASEAN and Russia are becoming more diverse. Along with fairly harmonious relations in the political sphere, contacts between non-governmental organizations have emerged, cooperation in the tourism and restaurant business has intensified, etc. Nevertheless, the range of problems and challenges facing ASEAN and Russia is quite extensive, and not the least of them is the difficult choice between partnership with the United States and China.

The summit stressed that Russia considers cooperation with ASEAN as an important direction of its foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region. Russia's participation in the East Asia Summit and its entry into the ASEM (Asia - Europe Forum) will mean a turn to the East in Russian politics.

T. V. DOROFEEVA

Kazan

From December 7 to 11, 2009, the Sh. Marjani Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan held an international scientific conference dedicated to the study of ancient and medieval cultures of nomadic peoples of Eurasia, "Idel-Altai: the Origins of the Eurasian Civilization", which simultaneously served as the first international congress on medieval archaeology of the Eurasian steppes. The conference program included discussion of current scientific problems in various fields of medieval archeology, nomadic studies and Turkology.

Akad addressed the participants with words of greeting. Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan M. A. Usmanov, President of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan, Academician A. M. Mazgarov, Deputy of the Legislative Assembly A. Sh. Ziyautdinov, Deputy Chairman of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan. Minister of Culture Z. M. Garetdinov. Corresponding member. Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan F. S. Luzin read out the greeting of X. Eren, Director General of the International Center for Islamic Studies-

page 171
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, which has a representative office in Istanbul. The conference was attended by archaeologists, ethnographers, and historians from Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine.

I. L. Kyzlasov (Russia) made a report on "Source study complexities of archaeological Turkology". He noted some difficulties that arise in the process of ethnic interpretation of the archaeological cultures of medieval Turkic peoples in Siberia.

Report by I. Fodor (Hungary) It was devoted to finding out whether there are Central Asian elements in the culture of the ancient Hungarians, which is relevant for Hungarian scientists. For comparison with archaeological finds related to the culture of ancient Hungarians, the author of the report drew on objects of toreutics made of silver with gilding, which were found in the monuments of the Saltovo-Mayak culture in Eastern Europe. In his opinion, there was no "Central Asian layer"in the culture of the ancient Hungarians of the tenth century.

Archaeologist B. Totev (Bulgaria) made a comparative analysis of objects from the Pereshchepinsky and Martynovsky hoards in the culture of the Danube proto-Bulgarians. Among them is the" second Madara belt " with metal plaques with cabochons, made in polychrome style. According to the speaker, this and other similar belts should belong to the culture of Proto-Bulgarian tribes. Having considered other, in his opinion, Proto-Bulgarian items, the speaker came to the conclusion that both of the analyzed treasures belong to the Proto-Bulgarian culture before their arrival on the Danube.

F. Sh. Khuzin (Russia) noted the peculiarities of the social structure and statehood of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples of the Eurasian Steppe belt. He considered these structures in a wide chronological range from the time of the formation of the Hun state and up to the period of the Kazan Khanate in the late Middle Ages.

V. V. Trepavlov (Russia) analyzed the peculiarities of the state structure of the Mongol Empire. The Golden Horde included many peoples with different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, cultural traditions, and economic activities. Therefore, there is no single cultural space that could unite all the peoples living here.

Report by A. V. Golovnev (Russia) It was devoted to the typology of different cultures in the cultural space of Eurasia. The author identifies among them the main cultures that have had a significant impact on the ethno-cultural development of many peoples and regions, and local cultures that are characteristic of certain areas within the Eurasian continent and have little connection with other cultures.

D. D. Vasiliev (Russia) provided valuable information about new finds of ancient Turkic runic writing monuments discovered during expedition work in the vicinity of the Por-Bazhyn complex near Lake Tere-Khol in southern Tuva. The runic inscriptions discovered here expand the fund of Turkic runic art in Central Asia. The author suggested translations of these inscriptions and noted the peculiarities of their paleography. The presentation of M. E. Esipova (Russia) contained information about the distribution of various stringed bowed instruments characteristic of the musical culture of many peoples of Eurasia in different historical periods. L. T. Yablonsky (Russia) analyzed the phenomenon of multiculturalism as one of the factors of ethnogenesis of the early nomads of the Volga-Ural region. S. G. Bocharov, V. L. Myts, and Yu. P. Zaitsev (all from Ukraine) spoke about the results of the study of the Vishennoe settlement in the Central Crimea, which they associate with the possibility of localization of the ancient settlement known from the medieval times. sources of the Khazar fortress of Fula. In the late Middle Ages, this Tatar settlement was called Ak-Kaya. V. S. Flerov's speech (Russia) was devoted to the cities of the Khazar Khaganate. The speaker offered his own interpretation of information from medieval written sources about Khazar cities, which will allow correcting the existing ideas in historical science on this problem. A. A. Tishkin (Russia) made a report in which he summarized the materials available so far from the monuments of the Mongolian period in the territory of the forest-steppe and mountain part of Altai. Borisov (Bulgaria) spoke about the Sarmatian or Alanian monuments that were explored at different times in southeastern Bulgaria. The archaeological materials presented by the speaker include a variety of metal products made in polychrome.-

page 172
nom style. The topic of V. V. Gorbunov's speech (Russia) is the legacy of the Turkic nomads of the era of the Turkic Khaganates in the development of military affairs of the medieval nomads of the Eurasian steppes.

Irina Arzhantseva (Russia) reported on the results of excavations of the famous monument of Uyghur culture in Southern Tuva - the Por-Bazhyn complex. The study of the finds found here (an iron dagger, a silver earring, and a stone bowl) revealed the features of architecture and construction technology and came to the conclusion that the builders used techniques characteristic of the Chinese construction traditions of the Tang Dynasty, and not Sughd, as previously assumed. According to some scholars, this structure could be a palace, temple or tomb.

N. P. Matveeva (Russia) described the multicultural environment that developed in the forest-steppe zone of the Trans-Urals in the middle of the 1st millennium AD, which became the basis for the formation of ethnic communities in this territory in the early Middle Ages. Pochekaev (Russia) presented an analysis of the historical data collected by the speaker on the legislative activity of the rulers of the Turkic states of the VI-XI centuries in different regions of Eurasia. B. B. Daishbalov (Russia) considered the components of the Xiongnu-Xianbian heritage in the Kurumchi culture of the Baikal region of Eastern Siberia. In his opinion, the Kurumchi culture is included in the circle of archaeological cultures of the Mongolian-speaking nomadic tribes "Xianbi-Shiwei", and the Xiongnu tradition can be traced in Buryat folklore to ethnographic modernity.

E. P. Kazakov (Russia) reviewed the Turbaslin-Imenkov monuments on the territory of the Middle Volga region. According to him, the cremation rite and features of the tradition of ceramic production indicate the connection of these monuments with the Slavic population, while some other components indicate similarities with late Sarmatian complexes.

N. I. Shutova (Russia) investigated the problems of ethno-cultural interaction of the Permian peoples with the ancient Turks, in particular, the influence that the medieval Turkic-speaking population of the Middle Volga region had on the Finnish ethnic groups of the Perm region. D. G. Savinov (Russia) made a report on the ceremonial saddles of the medieval nomads of Eurasia. He proposed new variants of reconstruction of some famous ceremonial saddles from monuments of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, in particular from the Pereshchepinsky treasure, Shilovsky and Chapelennogorsky burial grounds. S. F. Koksharov (Russia) reviewed medieval archaeological sites discovered in the Konda River basin in the taiga zone of Western Siberia. A. M. Dosymbaeva (Kazakhstan) made a report on the monuments A.V. Novikov (Russia) analyzed the features of the funerary rites of the population of the Middle Ob region in the V-VII centuries A.D. The presentation of A. M. Ilyushin (Russia) was devoted to the question of determining the eastern border of the Golden Horde based on the materials of the Russian Academy of Sciences. study of monuments of the Mongol period in Southern Siberia.

The report of Yu. S. Khudyakov (Russia) contained an analysis of common characteristic elements and local features in the development of military affairs of the Turkic and Mongolian nomadic peoples of the Central Asian region in the late Middle Ages. D. G. Bugrov (Russia) considered the ethno-cultural situation in the Volga-Kama region in the first half of the 1st millennium AD. The author came to the conclusion that the genesis of the anthropological appearance of the Ob-Ugric population led to the formation of an undifferentiated complex of anthropological features. According to him, such an anthropological appearance of the Ob Ugrians is unique. she revealed the peculiarities of the technique of jewelry making by master jewelers based on the materials of finds from the Kuzebaevsky treasure.

In a joint report by O. A. Shcheglova and V. E. Rodinokova (Russia), the features of handicraft production of belt sets made in the heraldic style found in the Dnieper region were considered. The authors of the report stated with regret that some of the finds discovered recently come from predatory excavations. He spoke about the ethno-cultural relations of the Bosporus. In his opinion, some of the archaeological materials studied, including swords and umbons from shields found during excavations in Kerch, should belong to the Przeworsk culture of the ancient Germans-Goths who migrated to the Northern Black Sea region. They lived in this area in the II-IV centuries AD before the Hunnic invasion. The speech of A. M. Oblomsky (Russia) was

page 173
The article is devoted to various ethnocultural components in the population of the Upper Don region in the middle of the 1st millennium AD based on the materials of the archaeological complex near the village of Ksizovo studied by the speaker. B. A. Ivanov (Russia) analyzed the costume accessories of the Uralic Ugric peoples and Hungarians of the "period of finding the Motherland". He noted the common elements characteristic of the costume complexes of both groups of the medieval Ugric population. When discussing the problems raised in a number of reports, some participants in the discussion drew attention to the need to take into account the movements of not only the Turkic and Sarmatian ethnic groups, but also the Germans-Goths, whose monuments were studied on the Lower and Middle Don, when analyzing materials from monuments dating back to the era of the Great Migration of peoples. A comparative analysis of the medieval population of the Baikal region and the Far East should bear in mind that these medieval ethnic groups belonged to different anthropological groups of the Mongoloid race. Regarding the reconstruction of the Pereshchepinsky and Shilovsky saddles, the speakers noted that the pre-Pereshchepinsky lion figures are almost complete three-dimensional sculptures, so they can refer to wands, and the Shilovsky plates to the shield lining.

The work of this forum demonstrated a certain development of scientific research on a wide range of problems of nomadic studies in Russia, the CIS countries and Eastern Europe.

Yu. S. KHUDYAKOV

ULAN-UDE

On July 15, 2010, the fourth General Session of the World Mongolian Convention, an international non - governmental organization established in 2006 to promote the preservation of Mongolian culture, as well as to strengthen peace and friendship between peoples, was opened. In the session, at the initiative of the President of Mongolia Ts. The event, which was held in Russia for the first time, was attended by 300 delegates and guests from 12 countries, including Russia, China, England, USA, France, India, Sweden and Poland. More than 100 journalists were accredited to cover this large-scale event.

The session was held under the motto "Russia welcomes the Mongols of the world". Within its framework, an international scientific conference "Globalization and the Mongolian world" was held. The same topic was also the main topic at the plenary sessions of the Convention.

The session was opened by the President of the Convention of World Mongols, Honored Worker of Culture of Mongolia Ts. Gombosuren (Mongolia). Welcoming speeches were delivered by President of Buryatia V. V. Nagovitsyn and President of Mongolia, Honorary President of the Convention Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj. V. V. Nagovitsyn stressed that holding the Convention session in Buryatia provides an opportunity for specialists and scientists to exchange experience and knowledge and gives a new impetus to humanitarian relations, as well as relations between Buryatia and Mongolia with Mongolian-speaking diasporas in different regions of the world (in 20 countries).

C. Elbegdorj thanked the leadership of the Russian Federation and Buryatia for organizing such a representative event. He noted that in the context of the globalization of international relations, when the trend of leveling national characteristics is becoming more and more clear, the development and strengthening of economic, cultural and humanitarian relations and cooperation with countries where Mongolian-speaking peoples live plays an important role in the policy of the Mongolian state.

The Convention received a greeting from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, which stressed the importance of discussing a wide range of issues at the forum, in particular, preserving the rich historical heritage and original traditions, and prospects for joint business and humanitarian projects. Welcome telegrams were also received from the Speaker of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation B. V. Gryzlov and the Presidential Envoy to the Siberian Federal District A. V. Kvashnin.

Opening remarks at the international scientific conference "Globalization and the Mongolian World" were made by the Chairman of the Presidium of the Buryat Scientific Center, Director of the Institute of Mongolian Studies, Buddhology and Tibetology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, corresponding member. RAS B. V. Bazarov; Minister of Education, Culture and Science of Mongolia Ye. Otgonbayar, Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Chairman of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, acad. Naumkin; Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Republic of Buryatia B. G. Balzhirov.

At the plenary session, two reports were heard: the President of the Academy of Sciences of Mongolia, Academician B. Enkhtuvshin, " Globalization: Mongolia

page 174
and the Mongols" and B. V. Bazarov "The Mongolian world in the context of East Asian interaction". The first report focused on civilizational issues, the role of Mongolia as a sovereign democratic republic and the center of the Mongolian world in preserving the rich heritage of nomadic culture and strengthening ties with the Mongolian-speaking peoples of the world. B. V. Bazarov focused on the problems of regionalization in the NEA, the current state and prospects of socio-economic interaction and cooperation between the two countries. siberian regions of the Russian Federation, Mongolia, and China.

The main work of the conference unfolded at breakout sessions. There were six sections: "Economic and economic structures of the Mongolian peoples"; "Globalization and the fate of nomadic civilization"; "Cultural and historical traditions and modernity of the Mongolian world"; "Old Mongolian writing and research of written monuments of the Mongolian peoples"; "The Mongolian World in Geopolitical and Civilizational dynamics"; "Ethnopedagogy of Mongolian-speaking peoples: traditional resources and innovative development".

The list of section names indicates an unusually broad coverage of the main problems related to the situation of the Mongolian-speaking peoples in the context of globalization. This is also evidenced by the number of reports heard and submitted (about 200). Special interest was shown to the problem of studying the original history of the culture of Mongolian-speaking peoples and its relations with the modern world.

The topics of presentations at all sections were very diverse: from " Interaction of ethnic cultures of Russia and Mongolia "(O. V. Buraeva, Ulan-Ude) to "Social well-being of residents of the city of Ulan-Ude in crisis" (A. Y. Egorova, Ulan-Ude), from "The ethno-linguistic situation in the Sayano-Altaisk region in the present-day period". in the light of global processes "(K. A. Bichalday, Kyzyl) to " The function of the Buryat family in the XIX-XX centuries "(T. D. Skrynnikova, Ulan-Ude), from "The role of the Pindita Hare in the history of the Mongols of the world" (Sh. Soninbayar, Ulaanbaatar) before "Fortune-telling on the shoulder of mutton" (B. L. Mitruev, St. Petersburg).

V. V. Naumkin, Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, "Buddhism and Islam in the Modern World: between Society, Man and Politics (experience of Comparative Analysis)", M. S. Meyer, Director of the Moscow State University Institute of Oriental Studies, "Problems and Prospects of Modern Oriental Studies", and D. D. Vasiliev, "E. F. Timkovsky's Contribution to Russian Mongolian Studies of the early 19th Century", were of great interest."and others. Director of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Mongolia S. Chuluun presented a broad picture of the development of historical science in Mongolia "The current state of research on the history of Mongolia and their further prospects".

In the section "Economic and economic structures of the Mongolian peoples", most of the reports dealt with the problems of economic development of Buryatia, Mongolia, Transbaikalia and Siberia, as well as traditional forms of management of the Mongolian-speaking peoples, primarily the Mongolian nomads.

An interesting comparative analysis of changes in the standard of living of the population of Buryatia, Mongolia and Inner Mongolia of the People's Republic of China was presented by the head. V. V. Graivoronsky, Institute of Mongolian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Director of the Institute of International Studies of the Academy of Sciences of Mongolia L. Haisandai made a report "Mongolia: two neighbors and the problem of Mongolia's economic security", in which he stressed that Mongolia's economic security can be guaranteed by the development of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between Russia, Mongolia and China.

The topics of the sections "Globalization and the fate of nomadic civilization" and "Cultural and historical traditions and modernity of the Mongolian world" are closely intertwined. A number of reports were devoted to the fate of nomadic civilization. The report of the Mongolian scientist O. Adyaa "Globalization and localization: some changes in the life of Mongols" showed the relevance of developing this issue and set a certain tone for the work of the section. It was followed by reports of Buryat scientists: P. B. Konovalov - on the Central Asian nomadic civilization, E. Y. Lepekhov - on the integrating influence of Mongolian culture on the development of Buddhist civilization, etc. The fundamental report of the Director of the Center for the Study of Central Asia at the School of International Relations of the University of Georgia, J. R. R. Tolkien, was extremely informative. Nehru in Delhi K. Varico "Revival of traditions and culture in Buryatia". Interest was aroused by the report of the famous Japanese scientist from Tokyo Katsuharo Tanaka "Eurasianism, panmogolism and Panturanism".

The reports of Mongolian scientists B. P. Punsaldulam and D. Tsakhilgan were devoted to the issues of rapprochement of the world's Mongols.

The main focus is on the section " Old Mongolian writing..."was paid to

page 175
problems of Mongolian linguistics, philology, and source studies. For example, we should mention the following reports: A. Oyungerel (Ulaanbaatar) "On the question of studying the means of expressing modal meaning in the Mongolian language", K. V. Orlova (Moscow) "The Oirat manuscript" Altan erihe "as a historical source", Altankhuyag (Harbin, China) "Changes in cultural speech in Inner Mongolia", D. D. Shagdarov (Ulan-Ude) "Problems of translation of Buddhist texts from Old Mongolian into modern Buryat and Russian languages", etc.

Reports on the section "The Mongolian world in geopolitical and civilizational dynamics" and on the section "Ethnopedagogy of Mongolian-speaking peoples: resources, traditions, innovative development" were presented mainly by scientists, employees and teachers of Buryat State University. They raised the problems of state and regional construction in Mongolia and Russia, in particular, the legal regulation of religious activities in these countries (T. K. Badmatsyrenov), human rights and freedoms in the Constitution of Mongolia of 1992 (Yu. G. Khamnuev), the formation of self-government and intellectuals in Buryatia (L. A. Dorzheev, A. L. Burkin, respectivelyurban culture of modern Buryatia and development of small business and innovative technologies (Yu. P. Tykheyeva and A.D. Dashieva, respectively), etc.

And all reports on the section " Ethnopedagogy..."they discussed ethnopsychological approaches and peculiarities in pedagogy and business, the importance of folk traditions and national culture in the education of young people.

The results of the conference clearly showed that the processes of globalization should not interfere with the current tasks of preserving the national identity of the Mongolian-speaking peoples, further developing their culture, cohesion and interaction.

The conference participants were presented with an extensive cultural program. It began with a visit to the museums of Ulan-Ude, where exhibitions dedicated to the Buddhist fine arts of Buryatia, artifacts of nomads and nomads of Transbaikalia from the Bronze Age to the XIX century were opened, as well as an exhibition of jewelry by Buryat masters "Silver Skies" and an exhibition "Age of Dinosaurs" prepared by the paleontological Center of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences. The conference participants also visited the IMBT repository, the world's largest collection of Buryat chronicles, which also houses many Mongolian and Tibetan sacred manuscripts.

In the new building of the Bestuzhev State Russian Drama Theater, a solemn meeting of the city's public was held, at which the President of Mongolia Ts. Elbegdorj presented the Mongolian Order "Polar Star"to the President of Buryatia V. V. Nagovitsyn. And before the meeting, a welcoming ceremony was held for the participants of the Ulaanbaatar-Ulan-Ude horse crossing, made in honor of the Convention. This was followed by a magnificent concert of artists from Buryatia, Kalmykia, Mongolia, and Inner Mongolia. After the concert, the President and the government of Buryatia gave a big reception in honor of the delegates and guests of the Convention.

Unforgettable impressions were made by exploring the "World of Baikal" - a boat ride "Grozny" across the expanses of Lake Baikal - and a theatrical performance at the VSGAKI recreation center "Visiting the Grandfather of Baikal", a visit to the Istomino International Environmental Education Center and a scientific base in Boyarsk.

Other events were also held: the presentation of the book "Steppe Stories and tall Tales"; the opening of the cultural and information center of Mongolia; the celebration of "Surkharbana", the third folklore festival "Night of the Yehora - Buryat National Round Dance", the opening of the mobile theater "Nudelchin" ("Nomad").

The staff of the Institute of Internal Affairs of the Russian Academy of Sciences - participants of the forum are grateful to the President and Government of Buryatia, and especially to B. V. Bazarov, for the extraordinary hospitality, attention and care that they showed to the delegates, guests of the IV General Session of the World Mongol Convention and participants of the International Conference.

M. I. GOLMAN

ULAANBAATAR

The fact of signing the treaty between Mongolia and Tibet on January 11, 1913 is well known to researchers, but until recently its authenticity and validity were often disputed. The recent" rediscovery " of the treaty in the Mongolian archives has raised the question of its comprehensive study.

On October 12-14, 2010, Ulaanbaatar hosted the international symposium "Treaty of 1913 between Mongolia and Tibet". His

page 176
The subject was the results of researchers ' work in Mongolia and other countries, an exchange of ideas about the reasons for signing the document and all related political and other issues at that time. The symposium was dedicated to the centenary of the Mongolian Declaration of Independence. It was not intended to emphasize the independence of Mongolia and Tibet. But the situation in which this treaty was signed and the situation of the leaders of the Tibetan and Mongolian peoples constitute one of the most important topics in the history of diplomacy. Another reason for organizing this symposium is that foreign researchers have explained the international situation in which the treaty of 1913 was concluded in different ways. The organizers emphasized that this symposium is not related to any country or its politics, it is only a subject of history and international law, in connection with which the participants express only their personal opinion. opinion on this topic. It was stressed that the Government of Mongolia does not participate in the organization of the symposium and does not take any position on this topic.

The symposium was organized by the editorial board of the Mongolian journal "Tusgaar togtnol" ("Independence"). The symposium was attended by 20 researchers from Mongolia, India, Canada, the Netherlands, Russia, Taiwan, the United States, Germany, South Korea and Japan. The symposium was held in an open format, and the meetings were usually attended by researchers from various organizations in Ulaanbaatar (mostly academic).

Opening the sessions, A. Tuvshintugs, editor-in-chief of the journal "Tusgaar Togtnol", stressed that this symposium, which brought together such a wide range of participants from different countries, shows the growing interest of researchers in the history of Mongolia in modern times and its relations with Tibet at the beginning of the XX century. The author of the monograph on the role of Mongolia in Eurasian diplomacy from ancient times to the present day, devoted his report to the historical significance of the treaty between Mongolia and Tibet. A report on a similar topic - on the meaning and background of the treaty, made by Ch. Tsering from the Department of Education of the Central Tibetan Administration (Dharamsala). research. J. Bayasakh (National University of Mongolia) spoke about the role of the 1913 treaty in the history of international relations. According to the report of S. L. Kuzmin (Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences), this agreement is legally valid. A detailed analysis of the international legal aspects of the treaty was made by M. van Walt van Praag (Intern. Council for Peaceful Settlement for States, Peoples and Ethnic Minorities, The Hague), one of the leading experts on international law.

E. Sperling, Professor of Tibetology at Indiana State University (Bloomington, USA), analyzed the international perception of the 1913 Treaty and its dissemination. N. V. Tsyrempilov (IMBiT SB RAS, Ulan-Ude) compared the course of state formation in Mongolia and Tibet at the beginning of the XX century and presented unique materials on the treaty preparation, in particular drafts preserved in the archive. Lin Inyiwang and Xie Beiying voiced the view of some of their Taiwanese colleagues who believe that Russia's intervention was the reason for the Mongols ' struggle for independence in the early 20th century. The well-known German Mongol scholar W. B. Barkmann, currently working at the National University of Mongolia, considered the issue of the Treaty of 1913 in the context of state sovereignty. S. Meinheit (Library of Congress) spoke about interesting findings concerning the meeting of W. Rockhill with the Dalai Lama XIII.

D. Ulambayar (Tusgaar Togtnol)made a report on the significance of the 1913 treaty in Mongolian diplomacy. Working in Dharamsala, S. Gyaltsen (Institute of Buddhist Dialectics) and T. Tsering (Tibetan Center for Special Studies) presented independent versions of the analysis of the 1913 Treaty of Kim Sun-soo (Seoul National University). University of Technology) analyzed relations between Mongolia and Tibet during the collapse of the Qing Empire.

D. Gombosuren (Institute of Defense of the Mongolian People's Republic) compared the Treaty of Mongolia with Tibet in 1913 and the note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mongolia in 1922. S. Soninbayar (Mongolian Center of Buddhism, Gandantegchenlin Monastery) made a report on the stay of the Dalai Lama XIII in Mongolia (even before the signing of the Mongolian-Tibetan Treaty). K. Gyaltsen (Tibetan Parliament in exile, Dharamsala) He presented the Tibetan point of view on Manchurian-Tibetan relations before signing this treaty.

In addition to the registered reports, several interesting presentations were made at the symposium in a free mode: O. Batsaikhan (In-t mezhdunar. research.,

page 177
MNR), K. Tanaka (Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo), and J. Boldbator (acad. Mongolian Academy of Sciences, member of the Constitutional Court of Mongolia).

In general, the symposium revealed a variety of approaches to the study of the 1913 treaty and the need to revise some conclusions based on the underestimation of a number of documents and the lack of important information that has only recently appeared.

S. L. KUZMIN

JINAN (CHINA)

An international symposium dedicated to the 110th anniversary of the Yihetuan Uprising was held in October 2010. This large-scale scientific event was organized by the Association of Chinese Historians, the Chinese Society for Yihetuan Studies, and Shandong and Shanghai Universities. The symposium was held in two stages. The main part of it was held in Jinan, at Shandong University, and continued at Shanghai University.

The symposium was attended by more than 100 participants, including 12 foreign researchers. 37 people represented educational, research institutions and other structures in Shandong Province. A significant part of the participants came from Shanghai University and various research centers in Beijing. It should be noted that the conference did not include researchers from the regions bordering Russia, and Northeast China was represented only by researchers from Dalian. Other States submitted three reports in person and in absentia: three from Taiwan, two each from Germany, Japan and Russia (Irkutsk and Krasnoyarsk), and one each from Australia, England and America.

The symposium was opened by Su Weizhi, Vice-president of the Chinese Association of Movement Researchers Yihetuanei. The conference participants were welcomed by the Chairman of the Association of Chinese Historians, Zhang Haipeng, Deputy Chairman of the Association of Chinese Historians. The heads of the working group of editors-compilers of the official history of Qing China are Gu Chun, Vice-rector of Shandong University, Dean of the History Department of Taiwan National University Gu Weiying, and Professor B. Martin of the German University of Freiburg.

Four people made presentations at the first plenary session. Wang Chengmian (Institute of History, Zhongyang Central University, Taiwan) presented a well-illustrated report, " U.S.-China Military Relations in the Wake of the Boxer Rebellion-A Study of the 15th Infantry Regiment in China." Lu Yao (Shandong University) devoted his presentation to a review of forgotten historical materials on the history of the Yihetuan movement. A guest from the United States, Kong Yangji, made a presentation on "Detailed studies of some facts from the history of Yihetuan", and B. Martin- " Militarism and massacre. The first and second naval battalions in China." These reports were opposed by Chinese historians.

Then the work was divided into three sections. The range of issues discussed was wide, including the Yihetuan movement itself, various aspects of the socio-economic, political and cultural development of various regions of China in connection with the Yihetuan uprising, and problems of international relations in the Far East in the late XIX-early XX centuries. At the same time, there were no reports on Russia's policy in China or the history of the regions bordering Russia. However, some speakers mentioned Russia's involvement in these events. For example, Fu Dehua (Fudan University), speaking about the participation of German troops in the suppression of the Yihetuan uprising, emphasized that the head of the combined international forces was not a German, but a Russian - E. I. Alekseev. The" Russian question "was also discussed in the report" Resolution and use of the Yihetuan cult practice by the Conservative Party of the Qing Court " by Liu Hong, a researcher from the Hubei Academy of Social Sciences.

At one of the sessions held under the leadership of Su Chang (Shandong University), the reports were devoted to issues related to Western historiography. Li Hongsheng (Shandong University). un-t) He devoted his speech to issues of public opinion in Europe. Su Weizhi's report analyzed V. G. Datsyshen's monograph " The Russo-Chinese War. Manchuria in 1900". Cui Huajie (Shanghai University) devoted his report to the dissertation work of the famous modern sinologist G. R. Tiedemann. Li Yuanpeng (Guizhou ped. un-t) considered issues related to the participation of the French in the events of the "Kunming sect" in Southern China. One of the official opponents on

page 178
Shi Jinsheng, a historian at Nanjing University, emphasized the importance of engaging Chinese historians with the work of foreign researchers. In addition, he noted the fact of significant differences in the approaches to the study of the history of this period by historians from southern and northern China.

One of the last sessions brought together foreign speakers-a German historian from England T. Klein, a representative of Australia Liu Yixu and a researcher from the University of Freiburg S. Kass. The first two reports were devoted to the materials of the periodical press, the subject of special research by S. Kass was foreign troops in China during the Yihetuan uprising. At the final plenary session of the Jinan Symposium, four reports were presented: "The Genzi Incident of the Year, Language Changes and the Concept of Renewal" by Liu Xuezhao (Huadong University); "The Yihetuan Revolt in 1900 and Public Opinion in Russia" by V. G. Datsyshen; "Catholics in the Yihetuan Movement" by Taiwanese historian Chen Fangzhong;" Yihetuan and the Coming of the Nationalist Era " by Wang Xianming (Nankai University). The symposium at Shandong University ended with a free discussion, where scientists formulated new tasks in the study of the Yihetuan uprising and problems of Chinese history and international relations in connection with this 110-year-old event.

After the completion of the Shandong part of the symposium, its work continued in Shanghai. The Shanghai component of the symposium was limited to a few sessions. Xie Weichang (Shanghai University) led the plenary session. Welcoming speeches were delivered by Xin Ping and Su Weizhi (both from Shanghai University). The presented reports aroused great interest of the audience and a lively discussion. Several reports were devoted to the problems of Southeast China during the Yihetuan uprising. Shi Quansheng's report (Nanjing University) "On the issue of joint defense of the Southeast" dealt in particular with the Russian presence in Hubei Province. Liao Dawei, a historian from Donghua University, devoted his speech to archival materials about the Yihetuan people. An interesting report was given by the Shanghai historian Liu Changlin about the Chinese who committed suicide during the military events of 1900.

The symposium reflected the general situation of the development of historical science in China at the present stage. The scale of the event allows us to speak about the significant material opportunities of Chinese university and academic science, about the presence of strong ties between historians from different regions of the country. Organizationally and methodically, the symposium fully met the standards adopted in the West and Japan. At the same time, the composition of participants and the subject matter of the presentations suggest that historical science in the north-eastern and north-western regions is not developing as actively as in the scientific centers of Central and Southern China. We can also say that the community of Chinese historians is still poorly integrated into the world scientific space. This is no longer typical for a number of areas of social science in modern China. For example, at the May 2010 Beijing conference "Migration in China and Asia: Experience and Policy", more than two-thirds of participants were foreigners, and the working language was English. However, the Jinan symposium showed that historians in China are also actively looking for access to the international arena, and cooperation with Russian researchers seems important and promising to them.

V. G. DATSISHEN

KUALA LUMPUR

On September 27 - 28, 2010, the University of Malaya hosted a symposium on "Innovative and Effective Methods of teaching Foreign Languages in the Classroom", organized by the Department of Asian and European Languages (Head of the Department and Chairman of the Organizing committee Tilagavati Shanmuganathan). The work of the symposium was divided into language sections and attracted the attention of teachers of foreign languages of the main universities of Kuala Lumpur. During the symposium, students were given lectures on how to get scholarships to study abroad and on the prospects of working with foreign languages in Malaysia.

In the Japanese section, the reports "Repetition after the teacher as a method of achieving fluency in speaking in Japanese" were heard (T. Musaev and J. Abramovich). Mohamad), "Basic Components in Teaching and Learning Japanese" (Ong Shi Ling), "The role of the cultural component in motivating Japanese language learning" (Naha Rajan Batumalai),

page 179
"Nonverbal methods of learning Japanese" (Wong Ngan Ling).

The French language section presented reports on "Effective use of films in learning foreign languages" (Zh Severi), " The importance of the Moodle system in French lessons "(Nurhayati Ali and Javakhir Mior Jafar), "Typical mistakes when composing simple sentences in French" (Shobeha Abdul Karim and Ajar Ahmad),"Learning Phonetics "(Regis Mahart).

The Italian, Spanish and Portuguese section was represented by presentations: "Language purism as an obstacle in learning foreign languages "(P. Coluzzi), "Using drama in learning Portuguese" (M.-K. Casimiro and Jamian Mohamad)," Chat as an additional effective way to learn foreign languages " (R.-Ch. Omar), "The QAPCOL system as a useful tool for studying students' opinions about foreign language classes " (C. Giordanelli).

In the German and Russian language section, the participants 'attention was drawn to the following reports:" Innovative and effective methods of teaching foreign languages in the classroom "(Seval Birlik), "Using Deutche Welle materials in the classroom" (J. Tan), "German as a third foreign language" (R. Kerchner-Ober), "Syntactic theories and teaching of a foreign language "(M.-K. Manueli), "The use of karaoke in the process of learning Russian as a foreign language" (V. A. Pogadaev).

The South-East Asian Languages section presented the following reports: "Effective methods for developing language skills in learning Burmese" (Ma Tin Cho Mar), "Effective methods for teaching Korean to Malaysians" (Park Yoon Seok and Sung Chaemin), "Elements of Culture in teaching the Filipino language" (R. Jubilado), "Essay review forms for students studying Filipino and feedback" (F.-P. Dumanig).

In each section, discussions were held on the issues raised, in which not only teachers-speakers, but also students participated.

V. A. POGADAEV

page 180

Permanent link to this publication: