In this article I explore the university discussion about the language use in teaching, which is balancing between the arguments of internationalization and language protection.

Among the language dimensions in current higher education, the use of English is the most researched aspect. For instance, Philipson (1992) discusses power and ideology contributions to the linguistic imperialism of English and presents this as a feature characteristic to English language. From the perspective of Crystal (1997), it stems that this kind of power could be brought up within any language, and that research should consider historical, political and cultural context. Therefore, while both authors explore the expansion of English and its hegemonic power, they differ in drawing political implications from this state of the art. However, the interpretation of practices concerning language(s) and their balance in different parts of the world could not be derived from these studies. As Pennycook (2000) and Chorpita (2005) argue, the large-scale theories are too general to embrace the shifting landscape of languages in the political, cultural and social context.            

Meanwhile, Pennycook (2000) suggests the distinction between the general discussion on English and its political power, and ideological impact of English on other languages and cultures. He fully acknowledges the first one, which in his interpretation unites the polarized positions of Philipson (1992) and Crystal (1997). However, he argues for a more nuanced approach with the analysis of the second one. In his view, this analysis of the ‘discursive effects’ of English could have divergent analytical frameworks, including colonial celebration, laissez-faire liberalism, language ecology, linguistic imperialism and language rights. Finally, he also elaborates on the postcolonial performativity approach, which “seeks to understand through contextualized sociologies of local language acts how English is constantly implicated in moments of hegemony, resistance and appropriation” (2000, p.108). This position seems to be most fruitful in analyzing the situation with several languages in the academia, because it reflects on language rights and ecology, along with linguistic imperialism, while trying to maintain a fluid and functional perspective on language. Yet, it also gives analytical perspective in approaching practices.

In analyzing practices, positions vary as well. For instance, Julianne House relies on the idea of De Swaan that in the sphere of science an argument about the most effective communication might hold equally strong power, and this rationale might prompt the choice of language (De Swaan, 2001, p.52 c.f. House, 2013). Further analyses of the practices feature a variety of aspects that English as a lingua franca brings into different disciplines and planning of teaching. Due to the changing picture of languages and perspectives on them, there a rethinking of professional fields, which have not been fully explored.

According to Warriner (2016), institutional arrangements have been transformed in such a way that language is conceptualized in a reduced form, merely as a tool of communication without a larger context of history and culture. As a result, it is no longer placed within humanities, its instruction has been reduced and less languages are being learned in tertiary studies. This inability to upkeep multilingualism is also a result of the macro conditions of strategizing of few stronger languages. This explains emergence of discussion around language preservation, which is focused on the national languages. This becomes a topic for discussion in the language policy, which I am focusing on in this article. In particular, I am addressing two questions:

(1). What kind of ethical claims are communicated by different respondents?

(2). What kind of practices are considered as the most valuable or problematic by different participants?

Data set 1: Interviews of administrators, scholars and students on the everyday linguistic practices I conducted interviews among the university community to reflect on perspectives on and experiences of language use in the academia. My goal was to have an input from a variety of disciplines, since the public discussions that I have followed so far, show a variety of language situations. This allowed me to delve into everyday situations and the cultural, pragmatic or power related aspect of the language choices. Data set 2: Case studies of languages in teaching Finally, I focus on 3 courses, and interview teachers on their language choices. Rather than claiming the overall impact of English, I explore the everyday challenges and motivations behind the language choices (e.g. final paper submissions and assigned readings). I focus on courses which had to consider several languages and establish the rules in the classroom. The methodological approach to this research had been inspired by Bourdieu’s analysis of language (2003). For my research data, meanings attached to the interplay of different languages would reveal conceptions of symbolic ‘market’, ‘capital’ and ‘profit’ within a given field. I would explore the dialogue on them, along with the latent conventions acknowledged by the participants. The conception on language, stemming from this approach, is referenced in the position of Wright (2015), who explores it not as a fixed notion, but as a ‘dialogic creativity’, also allowing for the interpretation of multiple languages’ position within the field. Yet, this perspective on the language itself does not denounce the consideration of the power issues, which stems from the ‘postcolonial performativity approach’ explored by Pennycook (2000).

University internationalization is argued as a normative discourse (e.g. education value, projected institutional benefits), but there is much less dialog about practices (e.g. meeting the organizational challenges and resolving problematic situations). Therefore, the links between ‘national’ and ‘international’ discourses are often unclear, and analysis reveals controversies, choices and hidden tensions. Further analysis of current situation in the academia, both in terms of policy and practice, would shift focus from internationalization towards language as a tangible everyday aspect that higher education institutions deal with. Finally, the discussion on the language dimensions of higher education should not be limited to the use of English or national languages in education, a more productive focus would feature the interaction of the national language and English, and also the overall arguments of linguistic diversity and its use in education. This focus on language opens a window on other aspects of the academic and institutional developments – power balance in the conditions of internationalization, inclusion of foreign students and researchers, and national interests in marketization of education, as well as norm claiming tendencies. Apart from the academic contribution, I believe that this research could further the dialog within the academia on the aspects that language choices bring into everyday communication, research and knowledge production. This kind of ‘language awareness’ would be beneficial for the academic community. Additionally, since similar kind of situation is faced by other countries, I believe that this research would have an international relevance and serve as grounds for a wider discussion.

Ammon, U. eds. (2001). The Dominance of English as a Language of Science: Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Bourdieu, P. (2003). Language and Symbolic Power, Harvard University Press. Campbell, S, (2005). English Translation and Linguistic Hegemony in the Global Era. In and Out of English, For Better, For Worse? Anderman, G., Rogers, M. (eds.), Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Chorpita, D., (2005). The Problem of World English: Reflecting on Crystal and Phillipson, Wintersemester, 2004/2005. Retrieved from: chorpita.com/uni/chorpita_douglas_world_english Cogo, A., Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a Lingua Franca. A Corpus-driven Investigation, London: Continuum. Cook, G. (2012). ELF and Translation and Interpreting: Common Ground, Common Interest, Common Cause, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(2), 241-62. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. House, J. (2013). English as a Lingua Franca and Translation, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 7 (2), 279-298, DOI: 10.1080/13556509.2013.10798855 Jenkins, J. (2011) Accommodating (to) ELF in the International University, Journal of Pragmatics,43 (4), 926-36. Leask B. (2007). International teachers and international learning. In Jones E., Brown S. (Eds.), Internationalising higher education (pp. 119-129). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Majhanovich, S. (2009). English as a Tool of Neo-Colonialism and Globalization in Asian Contexts. World Studies in Education, 10(1), 75-89. DOI: 10.7459/wse/10.1.05 Pennycook, A. (2000). English, politics, ideology: From colonial celebration to postcolonial permormativity. Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English. Ricento, T. (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taviano, S. (2013). English as a Lingua Franca and Translation, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 7 (2), 155-167, DOI: 10.1080/13556509.2013.10798849 van Erp, S. (2015). Should English be the shared academic property law language? European Property Law Journal, 4 (1). DOI:10.1515/eplj-2015-0001 Warriner, D. (2016). ‘Here, without English, you are dead’: ideologies of language and discourses of neoliberalism in adult English language learning, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(5), 495-508, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2015.1071827 Wright, S. (2015). What is language? A response to Philippe van Parijs. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 18 (2), 113–130. DOI:10.1080/13698230.2015.1023628