The achievements and development prospects of teaching Polish as a non-native language

The discussion begins by indicating the strengths and weaknesses of teaching Polish as a non-native language today while focussing on how approaches to individual issues have changed. The main body of the article, devoted to the achievements of, and development prospects for, teaching Polish as a non-native language, is divided into three parts. The first includes remarks on the necessity to engage in further research into such subdisciplines of teaching Polish as a non-native language as the acquisition of Polish as a foreign and a second language, the preparation and evaluation of materials for teaching Polish as a non-native language, computer-aided teaching PFL, the reality of Polish studies in different countries and world regions, and the history of teaching Polish as a foreign language. The second part applies to the development of teaching Polish as a heritage and second language within the context of its development as a foreign language. The third part refers to people working for the growth of teaching Polish as a non-native language, and offers a discussion of the outcomes of a study by Grażyna Zarzycka of the discourse community of researchers and instructors of Polish as a non-native language and the discourse of teaching Polish as a non-native language itself. 1. THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF TEACHING POLISH AS A NON-NATIVE LANGuAGE TODAY 1.1. When I summarised the situation of the field of teaching Polish as a non-native language in the age of globalisation and informatisation, during the 4th Congress of Polish Studies Abroad at the Jagiellonian University, I enumerated its (THIS ARTICLE WAS TRANSLATED FROM POLISH BY JAKUB WOSIK) Władysław T. Miodunka 14 strengths and weaknesses. The former aspects of the field at that time included: 1) references to European standards within the CEFR framework when training language instructors, developing of curricula, and preparing teaching aids; 2) provision of university-grade forms of education for future teachers of PFL in the form of 2-year master’s studies or post-graduate studies; 3) preparing works which summarise our knowledge on various aspects of teaching Polish as a foreign language, which exist in university textbooks; 4) reinforcing the community of the researchers of teaching Polish as a non-native language by including academics who defend their doctoral theses and complete their habilitation procedures; and 5) integration of foreign Polish researchers with Polish centres of Polish studies (Miodunka 2010, p. 51). I considered the following as the weaknesses of the field: 1) a lack of a clear policy of the Polish state in terms of teaching PFL and teaching Polish as a second language; 2) the impact of the conviction about the superiority of Polish studies training in preparation for teaching PFL, and the ignoring of the achievements of applied linguistics and of teaching Polish as a non-native language; 3) reducing the changes occurring in the field of teaching Polish as a non-native language to labels assigning new names to old practices, without ever considering the entire European system within which those practices occur; 4) the belief that an enthusiastic amateur may achieve more than a well-prepared specialist familiar with European standards and the achievements of teaching Polish as a non-native language viewed globally; and 5) the conviction that successful teaching of PFL at the university level can occur without an academic background or without research into teaching Polish as a non-native language, including without comparative studies (Miodunka 2010, pp. 51–52). 1.2. Now, nearly a decade since I uttered those words, I believe that I overdid it with works summarising the achievements of teaching Polish as a non-native language, in terms of teaching the parts of the language system, and individual skills, not to mention the approaches, methods and techniques being used. Such works are essential, but, basically, they are a thing of the future as Adriana Prizel-Kania’s study Rozwijanie sprawności rozumienia ze słuchu w języku polskim jako obcym (2013) only heralded the new direction of works which should be pursued. Furthermore, when I was discussing the strengths of teaching Polish as a non-native language, I was particularly impressed by the achievements in the methodology of teaching and learning PFL, which has continued to defend itself well, which was proven emphatically in Chapter 2 of Glottodydaktyka polonistyczna (Miodunka 2016, pp. 59–130). At that point, I had not been thinking consistently within the categories of the subdisciplines of teaching Polish as a non-native language, which if finally considered, will change the field’s entire image. That is emphasised by the titles of Chapters 2 and 3, in which only the methodology of 15 The achievements and development prospects of teaching Polish... teaching PFL was defined as an existing subdiscipline, while others were deemed as developing (Miodunka 2016, pp. 59–300). Clearly, then, first the emergence of the subdisciplines and the later consistent reference to them in analyses has been radically altering the vision of the entire output of teaching Polish as a non-native language. 1.3. As I return now to the strengths and weaknesses of teaching Polish as a non-native language, I must admit that I see them somewhat differently. The vision of the strengths has changed less significantly, though their hierarchy has undergone a considerable change. This is how I now see the strengths of teaching Polish as a non-native language: An increasing integration of foreign centres of Polish studies with Polish centres of Polish studies. The process, which started with the establishment and registration of Stowarzyszenie “Bristol” Polskich i Zagranicznych Nauczycieli Kultury Polskiej i Języka Polskiego jako Obcego [Bristol Association of Polish and Foreign Teachers of Polish Culture and Polish as a Foreign Language] in Warsaw on 22 April 1997, has been unfolding successfully, and after nearly 20 years it culminated during the 6th World Congress of Polish Researchers and Instructors, which was held at the University of Silesia in Katowice in June 2016. One should remember that both ideas originated in the heads of foreign and not Polish Polish teachers: the idea to create the Bristol Association was proposed in 1995 by Donald Pirie, of the University of Glasgow, and the idea to organise another Congress of Foreign Polish Studies as a World Congress of Polish Researchers and Instructors was proposed by professor Tokimasa Sekiguchi of the University of Tokyo (see Miodunka 2016, pp. 315–328). Making up for the set-backs visible in teaching Polish as a foreign language in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, and reaching the current level of development of teaching Polish as a non-native language, which has been proven by, e.g. Glottodydaktyka polonistyczna by W.T. Miodunka (2016). The progress occurred through the transfer of the achievements of general teaching of Polish as a non-native language, and the teaching of world languages, into teaching Polish as a foreign language, and by referring to European standards within the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR – ESOKJ, 2003) when training language instructors and developing curricula, and when preparing teaching aids. The rapid development of the university-based forms of training of future teachers of Polish as a foreign and second language in the form of post-graduate studies, 2-year master’s studies, and 3-year bachelor’s studies. All those forms of education emerged through the initiatives of particular academics, and they constitute the achievements of individual universities. Young specialists, well versed in teaching Polish as a foreign and second language, are not sufficiently utilised either in the Polish education system or in teaching Polish abroad—that is mostly hindered by legal regulations for which individual ministries are responsible. Władysław T. Miodunka 16 The consolidation of the community of teachers of Polish as a non-native language through, on the one hand, the emergence of a new generation of well-educated specialists, the most talented representatives of which undertake doctoral studies, develop and defend valuable and sometimes seminal doctoral dissertations, and, on the other, as academics who specialise in teaching Polish as a non-native language complete the habilitation process and acquire the positions of university professors (see Gębal 2018a, pp. 48–60). The development of compendia and monographs gathering our knowledge in various aspects of teaching Polish as a non-native language, which can be used as university textbooks for students preparing to become teachers of Polish as a foreign and second language (see Miodunka 2016, pp. 66–107). The authors of such works should not, however, fall into complacency and they should remember that we live in a time of rapid change, and that they should consider those changes in the textbooks, which should be updated approximately every five years. 1.4. I consider the following as the weaknesses of teaching Polish as a non-native language: Lack of consistency in the policies of the Polish state in terms of the promotion and teaching of Polish in the world. As indicated in the subchapter Polityka językowa w zakresie promocji i nauczania polszczyzny w świecie [Language policy in terms of the promotion and teaching of Polish in the world] (see Miodunka 2016, pp. 216–226), there have been developed in Poland numerous theoretical and policy-oriented works which refer to the subject. The problem is that the representatives of appropriate Polish state bodies are not familiar with those works, nor do they intend to read them or apply them in practice. Thus, those valuable works are not reflected, even in the slightest, in the social practice. The Polish state’s officials’ consistent disregard for the arguments raised by professionals and following the opinions of