Academic register anxiety? – How language ideologies influence university students’ oral participation

Esther Jahns

doi:10.1515/eujal-2024-0003

Article Open Access

Academic register anxiety? – How language ideologies influence university students’ oral participation

Esther Jahns

Published/Copyright: May 9, 2024

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal European Journal of Applied Linguistics Volume 12 Issue 1

Abstract

This paper deals with the registers of spoken language in university classes, their prestige, and the language ideologies linked to them. I will show that, due to these ideologies, the academic registers can trigger strong emotions that hinder oral participation. Previous research on language anxiety has revealed that formal situations are an important trigger. Therefore, the academic context is an interesting research site for language or register anxiety, as it offers a range of highly formal communicative situations. Academic language can be conceptualized as a set of distinctive registers that must be acquired by students. However, it is seldom made explicit which linguistic competences are expected and that their acquisition is a process. This might trigger feelings of anxiety in the classroom, especially for students who perceive themselves as not mastering these registers or who have already experienced unbelonging or exclusion due to their linguistic repertoire. Based on qualitative interviews with students from a German university, I will show that proficiency in the academic registers is often perceived as competence and knowledge in the respective discipline. This ideology together with other factors can lead to less or no oral participation in class.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag geht es um die gesprochene Sprache an der Universität, ihr Prestige und die Sprachideologien, die mit ihr verbunden sind. Ich zeige, dass die wissenschaftsprachlichen Register aufgrund dieser Sprachideologien starke Emotionen hervorrufen und die mündliche Beteiligung verhindern können. Bisherige Forschung zu Sprachangst hat gezeigt, dass formelle Situationen ein wesentlicher Faktor bei der Entstehung von Sprachangst sind. Der universitäre Kontext mit seinen sehr formellen kommunikativen Situationen bietet daher ein interessantes Forschungsfeld für Sprachangst. Die akademische oder wissenschaftliche Sprache kann als eine Anzahl von Registern beschrieben werden, die Studierende sich aneignen müssen. Es wird jedoch in der Regel weder explizit vermittelt, welche sprachlichen Kompetenzen genau erwartet werden noch, dass ihr Erwerb ein Prozess ist. Dies kann im Unterricht insbesondere bei den Studierenden zu Ängsten führen, die sich selbst nicht als kompetente Sprecher*innen dieser Register wahrnehmen oder die bereits aufgrund ihres sprachlichen Repertoires Ausschlusserfahrungen machen mussten. Anhand von qualitativen Interviews mit Studierenden einer deutschen Universität zeige ich, dass das Beherrschen der akademischen Register häufig als inhaltliche Kompetenz im jeweiligen Fach interpretiert wird. Diese Ideologie kann zusammen mit anderen Faktoren die mündliche Beteiligung von Studierenden stark oder sogar komplett verhindern.

Résumé

Cet article traite des registres de la langue parlée dans les classes universitaires, de leur prestige et des idéologies linguistiques qui y sont liées. Je montre qu’en raison de ces idéologies, les registres académiques peuvent susciter de fortes émotions qui empêchent la participation orale. Des recherches antérieures sur l’anxiété liée à la langue ont révélé que les situations formelles constituaient un facteur essentiel dans l’apparition de cet anxiété. Par conséquent, le contexte universitaire est un site de recherche intéressant pour l’anxiété liée à la langue, car il offre un éventail de situations de communication hautement formelles. Le langage académique ou scientifique peut être conceptualisé comme des registres que les étudiant·e·s doivent acquérir. Cependant, il n’est généralement pas enseigné explicitement quelles compétences linguistiques précises sont attendues, ni que leur acquisition est un processus. Cela peut susciter des sentiments d’anxiété en classe, en particulier chez les étudiant·e·s qui estiment ne pas maîtriser ces registres ou qui ont déjà fait l’expérience de la non-appartenance en raison de leur répertoire linguistique.Sur la base des interviews qualitatifs avec des étudiants d’une université allemande, je montre que la maîtrise des registres académiques est souvent interprétée comme une compétence en matière de contenu dans la discipline concernée. Cette idéologie, associée à d’autres facteurs, peut empêcher fortement, voire complètement, la participation orale des étudiant·e·s.

Keywords: language anxiety; language ideologies; academic registers; participation

Schlagwörter: Sprachangst; Sprachideologien; akademische Register; Partizipation

Mots-clés: anxiété linguistique; idéologies linguistiques; registres académiques; participation

1 Introduction

Language anxiety has been researched so far in the context of multilingualism, either concerning the learning of a foreign language (Horwitz 2001) or concerning majority and heritage languages in the migration context (Sevinç & Dewaele 2018). These contributions highlight that formal communicative situations foster language anxiety. Therefore, the academic context is an interesting and important research site for studying language anxiety, as it offers a large range of highly formal communicative situations in a place where participation of students with different backgrounds should be ensured. I define participation in this study as active oral participation in university classes.

Academic language can be conceptualized as a set of distinctive registers that have to be acquired by students. This acquisition is thus the prerequisite to participate, i. e., to make one’s voice heard and contribute to the process of knowledge production. However, it is seldom made explicit which linguistic competences are expected and that their acquisition is a process. This might trigger feelings of anxiety in the classroom, especially for students who perceive themselves as not mastering these registers or who have already experienced unbelonging or exclusion due to their linguistic repertoire.

I argue that in comparison to other types of language anxiety, it is not necessarily the mastering (or felt non-mastering) of several named languages that leads to anxiety, but rather that anxiety can arise also with respect to a distinct register or use of language that is supported by prevailing language ideologies.

2 Research background

2.1 Language anxiety

Language anxiety can be generally understood as a type of anxiety that is triggered by (the use of) a specific language and provokes strong emotions that lead to insecurity^[1] in the use or to avoidance of this very language. It must be differentiated from communication apprehension, which describes the general anxiety of speaking in public. While communication apprehension can be a factor contributing to language anxiety, it is not limited to or triggered by a specific language or register.

Language anxiety was first researched in the context of foreign language learning (Horwitz 2001; Horwitz et al. 1986; MacIntyre 2017) as foreign language anxiety (FLA) or foreign classroom language anxiety (FCLA) and can be defined as “the worry and negative emotional reaction aroused when learning or using a foreign language” (MacIntyre 1999: 27). This type of anxiety is conceptualized in contrast to trait or state anxiety as a situation-specific anxiety (see Horwitz 2001: 113; MacIntyre 2017: 15) that arises in a specific situation, namely the learning of a foreign language (i. e., a language that is not the speaker’s L1) in a formal classroom setting.

MacIntyre (2017) differentiates between three categories of causes (and consequences) of FLA: academic, cognitive, and social. While some of the causes are related to the specific context of learning a foreign language, most of them apply also to educational contexts in general, like public error correction by the teacher in an especially embarrassing way, test methods (both academic), competitiveness, or fear of being laughed at (both social). The cognitive factors cover individual causes like shyness and low self-esteem, which can, however, be aggravated by factors from the other categories. Horwitz et al. (1986: 127) relate FLA to three performance anxieties, namely test anxiety, communication apprehension, and fear of negative evaluation, but highlight that FLA is more than the sum of these three. Thus, it becomes clear that FLA operates on three levels, the individual (cognitive causes that can lead to communication apprehension), the societal (social causes including the fear of negative evaluation), and the academic (academic causes including the anxiety concerning tests). These levels are of course interrelated, as test anxiety or an embarrassing correction in front of the class can lead directly to the feared negative evaluation from both teachers and peers. This fear of negative evaluation can be aggravated by the fact that learners of a foreign language do not or not completely know the linguistic and societal norms against which they are evaluated (Horwitz et al. 1986: 128). In combination with their limited proficiency in the foreign language, this can provoke a feeling of inauthenticity that threatens the self-perception of the speaker; “the L2 is likely to challenge an individual’s self-concept as a competent communicator and lead to reticence, self-consciousness, fear, or even panic“ (Horwitz et al. 1986: 128).

In sum, FLA arises through the interaction of different factors situated on different levels. It can be an obstacle to language learning and achievement, which are main concerns of foreign language anxiety research. The relatively new dynamic approach in this research area highlights the importance of context and understands “anxiety as an emotion that fluctuates over time” (MacIntyre 2017: 23).

A newer strand of language anxiety research shifts the focus from the learning of a to-date unknown language in the classroom setting to the use of several languages in the everyday lifeworld of multilingual speakers, especially in the context of migration. This field of research investigates heritage language anxiety (HLA) and majority language anxiety (MLA) of multilingual speakers (Sevinç & Backus 2019; Sevinç & Dewaele 2018). In their study on Turkish migrants to the Netherlands and their descendants, Sevinç & Backus (2019) revealed a correlation between generations and the extent of MLA or HLA. While the migrants and to a lesser extent also their children were more likely to experience MLA, their grandchildren were more prone to heritage language anxiety.

HLA and MLA are similar to FLA insofar as speakers perceive their linguistic proficiency in a certain language as insufficient. Sevinç & Backus describe the causes and consequences of language anxiety as a vicious circle or feedback loop, as speakers often tend to avoid the languages they feel anxious about, which can lead to less (perceived) competence and more anxiety (2019: 708).

In the literature on HLA and MLA it is, however, emphasized that both differ significantly from FLA, as they are tied to speakers’ feelings of identity and belonging. Even though a person’s self-perception as a competent speaker can also be challenged when learning a foreign language (see above), this feeling and the possible anxiety related to it are linked to a specific and, in a way, artificial setting that is rather isolated from the person’s everyday life. Despite the consequences that this inauthenticity might have for the foreign language learner, the anxiety is limited to the classroom.^[2] Heritage languages and majority languages, however, are languages that define speakers’ everyday lives and their ancestries, i. e., who they are and where they or their families come from.

Analyzing the causes of MLA and HLA, Sevinç & Backus differentiate between two categories, namely linguistic and socioemotional factors (2019: 713–718). The latter comprise the felt pressure to perform perfectly in both languages, as well as conflicts of identity and belonging. Unsurprisingly, linguistic factors include in both cases a low proficiency in the respective language. The perceived linguistic inferiority to so-called ‘native speakers’^[3] of the respective language is of course tied to the socioemotional factors, as it can lead to the feeling of not being a legitimate member of either the society the speaker lives in or the speaker’s ethnic group (Sevinç & Backus 2019: 708–709; Sevinç & Dewaele 2018: 176). Speakers are confronted with monolingual ideologies (see Section 2.3) and expectations of fluency, which puts them under an enormous pressure to perform linguistically because their membership in the society or an ethnic group is at stake (Bunk in press). Concerning MLA, this pressure is especially high in formal or “... communicative settings in which perceived fluency is key to social acceptance and socio-economic success” (Sevinç & Backus 2019: 710).

In sum, the research on language anxiety has so far focused on settings where several named languages are involved, either in the context of foreign language learning (FLA) or in the context of multilingualism due to migration (HLA, MLA). Perceived limited proficiency in the respective language and expectations from the speakers themselves, but also from others, exert a pressure on the speaker that can lead to anxiety and avoidance. Formal settings seem to be an important factor contributing to LA in both cases. While FLA arises in the closed setting of the classroom, HLA and MLA are strongly tied to questions of identity, belonging, in- and exclusion, as these are speakers’ everyday languages and the perceived fluency in these languages has consequences for their access to or social position in the respective society.

In the next chapter, language at university will be described in order to discuss whether a form of language anxiety can also be expected concerning language use in this setting.

2.2 Language at the university

The university context can be seen as a formal setting for education. The accomplishment of university studies enjoys high prestige as the highest possible educational attainment, allowing the graduate to apply for well-paid employment opportunities. Thus, two of the main criteria contributing to language anxiety apply in this context.

Language is vital to university education – as to the educational system in general – across all disciplines. University teaching and learning are based on written and spoken language; texts of different types are read and written, presentations are held, questions are asked, discussions enhanced. However, while it is accepted that written academic language is a competence that can and has to be learned, as the number of courses offered for this purpose across universities prove, spoken academic language is generally not an explicit topic in university teaching or an object of meta-discussion in German universities, with the exception of academic language skills in languages other than German (mainly English).

In the English-speaking literature, the label ‘academic language’ often refers to the language used and learned in school, as well as in higher education (Cummins 2008; Hurst et al. 2017; Rhodes et al. 2021). In the German-speaking literature, however, the language use in schools is generally differentiated from that in universities. While the language used at school is mainly referred to as Bildungssprache (‘language of education’) (Gogolin & Duarte 2016; Morek & Heller 2012; Riebling 2013), the language used at university is sometimes called Wissenschaftssprache (‘language of science’) (Dannerer 2018; Fandrych 2006) or akademische Sprache (‘academic language’). The Wissenschaftssprache can be further subdivided into Alltägliche Wissenschaftssprache (‘everyday scientific language’) (Ehlich 1999) and the respective discipline-specific professional languages (Roelcke 2020).

Even though these different labels indicate a difference between the language used in the different levels of the educational system (primary/secondary vs. tertiary), a clear-cut boundary between the language used in schools and that used at universities or between the language use in different university disciplines is difficult to draw and not the focus of this paper. Some aspects of Bildungssprache, like the three functions that Morek & Heller (2012) describe, can also be applied to the language used at university. They differentiate between a communicative function for the transfer of knowledge, an epistemic function for the processing of knowledge and for comprehension, and a social function. This last refers to indexing adherence to a higher social class by the use of this language. We can, however, assume – and this has been shown for the written language (Pohl 2007) – that with the increased complexity of content at the university, the complexity of the language used is increasing as well and moving closer and closer to the pole of written conception even in oral communication (Riebling 2013: 120–121). It seems, therefore, to be more adequate to understand the language uses within the different levels of the educational system as a continuum.

In the English and German-speaking literature, both Bildungssprache and academic language are often conceptualized as registers, due to their functional and situative dimensions (Riebling 2013: 114; Rhodes et al. 2021: 524). I consider this perspective appropriate also for the language used at university, and would describe it accordingly as a register, or more precisely, as several registers (taking into account the different disciplines plus the everyday scientific language, see above) of a distinct named language (in the case of this study, German). I am following the definition of registers from Pescuma et al. (2022: 1), who define them “as recurring variation in language use on the function of language and the social situation.” The conceptualization of the speech patterns used at university as registers based on this definition has two advantages: First, it highlights the difference between the registers used at school and at university because the settings can be described as different social situations and, second, because these speech patterns are understood as parts or varieties of a named language and not as languages that differ from the dominant language of the country. This is of paramount importance for the perception of these speech patterns and their effect on speakers, which is the focus of this study (see below).

Thus, when I refer in this study to academic registers, I am referring to the everyday scientific language, Alltägliche Wissenschaftssprache (Ehlich 1999), together with the respective discipline-specific professional languages (Roelcke 2020) at university, and not to the register learned and used in school (Bildungssprache). This means that I do not assume that we are dealing with one homogeneous register, but rather with different registers varying by discipline, medium (written/spoken), etc. In this paper, I will, however, use the term ‘academic registers’ only to refer to the oral communication in university classes that is my focus here. Moreover, the aim of my study is not a description of grammatical or lexical features of the academic registers, but an analysis of university students’ perception of them and the emotions such as anxiety that might be triggered by this perception. Like Rhodes et al., I am “...not convinced that the technical features of language (qua lexico-grammar) suffice to make sense of AL [academic language] and its implications for students” (2021: 524). This might also entail processes of enregisterment, which are “... processes whereby distinct forms of speech come to be socially recognized (or enregistered) as indexical of speaker attributes by a population of language users” (Agha 2005: 38).

Academic registers are a means to participate not only in the process of knowledge construction, but also in the general public discourse. What is according to Mecheril & Quehl necessary for (multilingual) pupils at school, i. e., to “find their voice” (2006: 371) is necessary for university students as well. One of the most important means to contribute their perspective is to make their voice heard and engage in discussions with others, react to them, make themselves understand, find a compromise, disagree etc., i. e., to participate orally in class. The prerequisite for this is the acquisition and actual use of the academic registers. However, (oral) academic registers are often referred to as being part of a “hidden curriculum” (Morek & Heller 2012: 78; Wagner 2012: 62). This means that their mastering is expected, but they are neither taught nor spoken about. This lack of transparency concerning the linguistic expectations can lead to feelings of insecurity (Wagner 2012). Students perceive that they are expected to conform to linguistic norms they are not familiar with. This is similar to the evaluation against unknown linguistic and social norms in a foreign language (see above for FLA). In contrast to the learning of a foreign language, however, students might not expect problems concerning the language use at university because the teaching and learning takes place in the majority language, a language they expect themselves to master completely. Even if they perceive it as a different and more formal register, it can be assumed that most students (and teaching staff) would consider having accomplished the acquisition of a formal register necessary to transfer and process knowledge in school. This is line with Dannerer’s observation that an awareness of the necessity to support university students in expanding their linguistic resources in the academic language in their L1 is lacking (2018: 181).

Thus, in a very formal setting that offers the opportunity for socio-economic success, students are confronted with unknown linguistic norms and conventions in a language that they expect to master.^[4] In addition, the lack of transparency relates not only to the existence of such registers, but also to the fact that their acquisition is a process. This might lead to feelings of insecurity and elusive discomfort, as the source cannot (easily) be identified. Or, if students realize that they have to use different registers with unknown norms, the discomfort can be aggravated due to the seemingly effortless use of the registers by others, as this might lead to the assumption that their mastering is a prerequisite for studying at university.

We can therefore hypothesize the existence of academic register anxiety and will take a look at how language ideologies contribute to this phenomenon in general, but also to the individual experience of perceiving one’s individual linguistic repertoire in the next section.

2.3 Language ideologies and Spracherleben in the educational context

Language ideologies can be conceptualized as the shared values that speakers attribute to different languages, varieties, registers or other linguistic practices and, with this, to their speakers. These evaluations can lead to hierarchies of languages according to their presumed value or utility (e. g., for work or socioeconomic success), but also to the attribution of single characteristics or affective evaluations towards them. They are based on differentiation, as only what is perceived as different can be an object of evaluation (Blommaert 1999; Irvine & Gal 2000; Jahns 2024).

Language ideologies can deploy their power as explicit or implicit linguistic norms or conventions of a given society or community about, for example, ‘good’, ’bad’ or ‘adequate’ language use. These norms can lead to power inequalities because they might affect the identity and social position of individual speakers or speaker groups by devaluing their language use as inferior or erasing it from the public sphere, e. g., in the case of minority languages (Busch 2021: 87–88; Irvine & Gal 2000: 38–39). Speakers embody these norms and evaluations due to their individual experience and based on their social position and the socio-cultural system in which they are embedded (Irvine & Gal 2000; Kroskrity 2004). However, as Blommaert puts it, “ideologies do not win the day just like that, they are not simply picked up by popular wisdom and public opinion” (1999: 10), but rather gain their power through reproduction in everyday and institutional practice, which eventually leads to their normalization. This means that they are often not contested or even perceived, but taken as a fact or as evidence (Busch 2021: 88).

The literature on language ideology is as vast as the number of its definitions (Woolard & Schieffelin 1994). The following two describe best what is essential for this study, as they emphasize the interdependence of social position and linguistic form:

“language ideology as a mediating link between social structures and forms of talk” (Woolard & Schieffelin 1994: 55)

“the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading or moral and political interests” (Irvine 1989: 255)

Several language ideologies that prevail in German society can be identified as strongly influencing the educational sector. These include, first of all, the normative monolingualism or what Maitz & Elspaß (2013) label the “ideology of homogeneity” that treats any deviation from a standard variety or any kind of variation or code-mixing as negative and a threat to the linguistic unity of the country. This illusion of Germany as a monolingual country leads to what has come to be known as the “monolingual habitus” in the educational system (Gogolin 1994; Wiese et al. 2020). The only form of bi- or multilingualism that is generally accepted encompasses (Western European) languages that are acquired at school. This ideology is labeled “elite bilingualism” (Morek 2018). In contrast, languages that are spoken by people with a so-called Migrationshintergrund (‘migration background’), like Arabic or Turkish, are not perceived as pleasant and are assigned a lower market value (Adler & Ribeiro Silveira 2020; Wiese 2015: 361). The term Migrationshintergrund is commonly used in the German public discourse and originated in reference to German nationals who themselves or one of their parents were born outside Germany, i. e., migrated to Germany. The term is criticized for its potential as a means of Othering, as it is often used to construct these people as not ‘real’ Germans, i. e., as an out-group that represents huge challenges for the society as a whole. The foreignness of this out-group is explained by their alleged lack of competence concerning the German language or their special needs in this domain (Scarvaglieri & Zech 2013; Oldani & Truan 2022; Wiese 2015). Interestingly, only multilingual speakers who have in their repertoire one of the languages that are perceived as less prestigious are referred to as having a migration background.

Language ideologies exist, however, not only concerning different named languages, but also concerning certain varieties as well as the ‘correct’ and unmixed use of them, as the “standard language ideology” prevailing in Germany and other European countries proves. As explained above, the values and characteristics that are attributed to certain languages and varieties are often extended to their speakers as well. Therefore, speakers making use of the valued variety of standard German are often seen as competent and educated, while pupils not mastering the Bildungssprache are considered as lacking cognitive abilities (Morek & Heller 2012: 75). This is why Morek & Heller characterize the above-mentioned social function of the Bildungssprache as both an entrance ticket and business card (Eintritts- und Visitenkarte), because the use of this register both grants admission to and demonstrates membership in the educated middle class.

Thus, language ideologies do affect what Busch labels Spracherleben, i. e., the lived linguistic experience of speakers. She describes three axes of this lived experience as fundamental and, in a way, reflected in most linguistic biographies: a) self-perception and perception by others, b) belonging and unbelonging, and c) the experience of linguistic power or powerlessness (Busch 2021: 20–33). The lived experience can lead to feelings of shame or inferiority when speakers perceive that their language use is not valued and/or they feel that they cannot conform to the linguistic norms of the society or community of which they are and want to be a part (Becker 2021; Busch 2021; Schroedler et al. 2022). In consequence, language ideologies can be powerful on both an individual and societal level, as they link perceived or presumed linguistic difference to questions of belonging, using language or language use as a justification to exclude (Dirim 2020; Wiese 2015).

Therefore, Bunk (in press) rightly claims that the role of language ideologies should not be underestimated but rather taken into account systematically when language anxiety is under study. He argues that foregrounding the influence of ideologies also shifts the focus from the “anxious speaker” as having an individual ‘problem’ to the pressure that society and its norms exert (see also Oldani & Truan 2022 on the role of the addressee). To tackle this shift in focus also with respect to terminology, Bunk proposes to use the term “linguistic pressure” instead of ‘language anxiety.’ Even though I completely agree with his argumentation, I will stick with the concept of language anxiety as an umbrella term for two reasons. First, it allows me to investigate the concept comparatively and focus on the similarities and differences between different types of language anxiety. Second, it emphasizes that the respective language or register that is part of its label, including the language ideologies that are linked with it, is the cause of the strong emotions.

3 Research design and research questions

As shown in the previous chapter, it can be hypothesized that the concept of language anxiety can also be applied to the university context and the oral academic registers. Even though the academic registers are not a foreign or different named language, they are – to a different extent – foreign to students who enter university. The fact that their distinctiveness is less obvious might even aggravate the problem. Therefore, the research questions for this study are:

Is there a form of language anxiety that applies to the academic registers used in universities and hinders students from orally participating in class?

What are the factors contributing to this presumed academic register anxiety?

It is important to note that the focus of this study is on how students perceive the academic registers and how they describe their reactions to them. It is not about their competence in these registers, but about their lived linguistic experience. This study can therefore be understood as a metapragmatic analysis in reference to the concept of metapragmatic positioning, as it investigates speakers’ explicitly uttered ideas and evaluations about a certain language use including their positioning towards this use (Spitzmüller 2013).

The data used in this study were collected in the framework of the project “Language anxiety as a barrier to academic participation.”^[5] As the aim of the project was to reveal whether an academic register anxiety exists and what the factors are that contribute to it, we opted for a qualitative approach and conducted semi-structured interviews. By this means, we could make sure not to ignore factors we were not thinking of beforehand. This decision was also supported by other studies on LA (Sevinç & Backus 2019: 711–712).

We started with an explorative focus-group discussion^[6] with four students from different social and linguistic backgrounds, assuming that the language ideologies prevailing in the educational sector (see Section 2.3) and the (non)-academic background (Wagner 2012: 71) might have an influence on speakers’ lived experience with and perception of academic registers.

The focus-group discussion confirmed that the academic registers^[7] affect the level of oral participation in university classes. Another important outcome was the difference the group members perceived between first academics^[8] and students with an academic background concerning the ease or level of oral participation. During the discussion, it became clear that participation varies also across the different disciplines.

Because of these initial insights that were supported by findings from the literature, we looked for monolingual and multilingual participants with and without an academic background and from different disciplines. We conducted a total of 12 individual interviews with students from the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg. Concerning the categories that we hypothesized to have an effect, the distribution was as follows:

6 of the interviewees defined themselves as female, 6 as male;
6 had an academic background, 6 were first academics;
6 were monolingual speakers of German, 6 were bilingual or multilingual with Azerbaijani, Kurdish, Low German,^[9] Spanish or Turkish in addition to German.

The range of disciplines they studied included English, Gender Studies, German, History, Spanish, Medicine, Philosophy, Special Needs Education, Social Sciences, Technology, and Business Administration.

The interviews were semi-structured and covered four general topics: academic language (first contact, perception, description), oral participation (individual experience and development, factors that influence it), emotions and experiences of discrimination in this context. We started each interview with a question concerning the respondent’s first impression of the language used at the university, but covered the other topics in varying order depending on how the interview developed. The minimum duration of an interview was 60 minutes; the maximum was 90 minutes.

All interviews were transcribed and coded with MAXQDA. Speakers were anonymized by means of a code containing the number of the interview, a F or M for the gender, mo for monolingual or bi for bilingual, and na for a non-academic background or ac for an academic background, e. g., 12Mbina.

For the analysis, we coded the data based on the four general topics of the interview and eventually added codes and categories that emerged from the data inspired by the principles of Grounded Theory (Charmaz 2010) in order to grasp the interviewees’ perspective on and perception of language anxiety, as well as factors contributing to it.

4 Findings and discussion

All interviews started with the interviewer’s request to the participants to remember and describe how they perceived and felt about the language use they encountered in the first seminars they attended during their first week at university. Speakers’ answers and perceptions varied quite significantly. While some interviewees felt well prepared by their prior school experience and did not perceive a great difference concerning the language use at the university or considered it adequate, others described their first contact with the academic registers as a Schock (‘shock’) and perceived them as exklusiv (‘exclusive’) and unnötig kompliziert (‘unnecessarily complicated’). In this section, I will focus on interviewees who stated that their oral participation was affected by the academic registers in order to identify which factors contribute to academic register anxiety (and what the role of language ideologies is in this context). To avoid confusion between the numbers of the quotes and the numbers of the respective speakers, I use the letters A-L for the latter.

In the first quote, speaker K, who describes herself as feeling anxious concerning oral participation in class, explains in more detail what happens when she is (thinking of) participating.

(1) K: Absolutes (lacht) Herzrasen. [...] Ja, also auch heute noch. [...] Schon wenn ich darüber nachdenke, ob ich meinen Arm hebe, ist mein (lacht) Herz schon am Rasen. [...] Ja, auch oder wenn ich jetzt zum Beispiel nicht die richtigen Worte finde, um das passend auszudrücken. Also darüber denkst du ja lange nach, wie ich Sachen formuliere. Ja, das (lacht) braucht sehr viel Zeit dann, wo manchmal das Thema schon längst vorbei ist, weil ich so lange darüber nachgedacht hab‘: ‚Wie kann ich das jetzt gut formulieren?‘ (11Fmona, 17:06)

Total (laughs) heart-racing. [...] Yes, even today still. [...] Even when I just think about raising my arm, my (laughs) heart is already racing. [...] Yes, and also when I don’t find the right words, for example, to put it adequately. Well, you do in fact think for a long time, how I say something. Yes, that (laughs) takes a lot of time, and sometimes the topic is already long gone, because it took me so long to think: ‘How can I say this in a good way?’^[10]

This quote describes quite nicely some general characteristics of language anxiety, like the emotional and physical reaction, the academic register as the actual trigger of these emotions, and the consequences for participation. The pressure to find die richtigen Worte (‘the right/correct words’), i. e., to express oneself in an adequate and accepted way, is so strong that it sometimes prevents the student from contributing at all. This reaction seems not to have changed a lot for her in the course of her studies.

Other interviewees describe a perceived difference between themselves and others concerning the adoption of academic registers (2) and during their own development over the course of time (3).

Student L has a non-academic background and is answering the question whether there is a difference in the quality or quantity of oral participation between students with and without an academic background:

(2) L: Mh, (lacht) Ich glaube die reden einfach leichter, also manchmal ähm, die reden dann auch genauso wie Dozenten so viel, ganz viel drumherum. Sie erzählen da ‘n drei Minuten Monolog und dann eigentlich geht’s nur um eine Sache, [...]. Die können dann/haben das besser adaptiert als ich, dieses überspitzte Reden und... Doch. Also ich glaube die meisten also Akademikerkinder, die äh melden sich schon mehr. (09Mbina, 42:31)

Hm, (laughs) I think they just talk more easily, well sometimes, hm, they just talk like the lecturers, just hedging around the subject. They give like a three-minute monologue and in the end, it’s only about one thing, [...]. They are able to/have adapted to it better than I, this exaggerated talking and... Yes. Well, I think most of those with an academic background actually raise their hands more often.

He perceives students with an academic background as adapting easier to the expected way of speaking and admits that he has not adapted to the registers as well as they have. However, it seems that he is not aiming to acquire the registers completely, as he distances himself from this way of speaking by describing it in a negative way as drumherum reden (‘hedging around the subject’) and überspitzt (‘exaggerated’).^[11] Therefore, this quote is an obvious example of metapragmatic positioning (Spitzmüller 2013), as the speaker evaluates the academic registers and positions himself towards them, as well as towards speakers with an academic background who use them, from his perspective, better or more easily. This distancing could be interpreted either as a face- or identity-saving strategy (Morek & Heller 2012: 80–81) in a setting where the speaker perceives his language use as different in the eyes of others (Busch 2021: 20), or as a form of resilience against the pressure that academic registers can exert. The latter could be supported by the fact that the student explains later in the interview that due to the professional training he completed before starting university, he feels more self-assured about his qualities and competences and less threatened by the registers he does not master completely.

Interviewee B, who described the academic registers as exclusive, realized that she has adapted pretty well to the expected way of speaking in the course of her studies, even to the point that others feel excluded when she is talking:

(3) B: Ich weiß, dass ich auch sehr exklusiv spreche und mir Leute das spiegeln und sagen, dass... ‘Ich hab/versteh’ gar nicht, was du von mir möchtest.’ Und ich glaub jetzt merk’ ich erst: Ok, das ist genau dieselbe Ohnmachtserfahrung, die ich damals gemacht habe, aber gar nicht einordnen konnte, weil ich gar nicht wusste, dass ich die quasi gemacht habe, weil mir ist das nie so aufgefallen. Ich dachte, das ist einfach... Ich versteh quasi einfach oder komm nicht gut genug mit im Fach äh. Obwohl ich eigentlich immer ganz gut mitkam. (02Fmona, 03:30)

I know that I also speak in a very exclusive way and people react to this and say that... ‘I have/do not understand what you want from me.’ And I think it’s only now that I realize: Ok, that is exactly the same feeling of powerlessness that I experienced, but that I couldn’t grasp, because I didn’t know that I was experiencing it, because I never noticed it. I was thinking it’s just because... I just, like, don’t understand or can’t follow along in the subject. Even though I could always follow pretty well, actually.

Speaker B can only make sense of her experience in retrospect. While she now gets reactions from others to the way of speaking she has adopted, she realizes that the language was the reason for her elusive discomfort when entering university. As she could not grasp the reason for this discomfort at the time, which can also be interpreted as a feeling of not belonging, she linked her feeling of powerlessness to her lack of competence in the discipline itself, questioning her cognitive abilities. She ended up doubting herself even though she already knew then that this was not justified. This feeling of insecurity that can lead to silence is labeled by Busch (2021: 21) as sprachliche Ohnmacht (‘linguistic powerlessness’). Despite the fact that others confirm her proficiency in the academic register, she admits later in the interview that the fear of being outed as not belonging and not mastering the registers prevails:

(4) B: Ja und es ist immer auch ‘n bisschen die Angst so aufzufliegen und eigentlich, dass das dann alle merken, dass man eigentlich gar nicht so wortgewandt ist, wie man da gerade vorgibt zu sein. Und dass man so’n bisschen entlarvt wird, da eigentlich gar nicht, gar nicht so richtig reinzupassen und vielleicht nicht richtig zu zugehören. [...] Ok, wahrscheinlich ist meine Angst äh unberechtigt und ich pass’ wirklich gut hier rein und es merkt niemand. Aber ich glaub’ diese unterschwellige Angst ja vergeht einfach nicht so richtig. (02Fmona, 35:24)

Yes, and it’s always also the fear of exposing yourself and actually that everybody realizes you’re not as eloquent as you’re pretending to be. And that you’re outed as not really fitting in and not really belonging maybe. [...] Okay, maybe my fear is, uh, not justified and I really fit in well and nobody notices. But I think this subliminal fear, yes, just doesn’t go away completely.

The use of auffliegen (‘to expose’), entlarven (‘to out’ or ‘to reveal’), and vorgeben (‘to pretend’) suggests that she somehow feels like a fraud when using the academic registers. This indicates that she perceives eloquence as a sort of shibboleth (Busch & Spitzmüller 2021) or cluster of shibboleths, such that someone who masters the academic registers belongs to the academic community. This could also be understood as enregisterment (Agha 2005), because for her the academic registers seem to be the accepted and typical registers for speakers with an academic background or at least for speakers belonging to the academic community. Even though reactions from peers and professors prove that she has adapted to the registers, the fear prevails that she does not master them well enough and thus risks being ‘exposed’ as not being a legitimate member of the community. The reason why she does not expect to belong, or questions the possibility, might lie in her non-academic background that she brings up fairly early in the interview. She describes a strong ambivalence when it comes to this background. She often hopes not to be exposed as someone with a non-academic background, but sometimes also wishes to be perceived as a first academic. She also mentions that, concerning language use, she does not feel completely comfortable when speaking either with her family or at university. Thus, adapting to a new language use affects her identity in a significant way and leads to being perceived as not or no longer completely belonging by others (her family) and not (yet) belonging to the academic community by herself. This self-perception, however, is influenced by the presumed and expected perception of others, namely accepted and ‘legitimate’ members of the academic community. This is in line with Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, which can be understood as a ‘class’ (or social group)-related incorporated behavior that also includes the use of language. The fact that the behavior is the individual outcome of a process of socialization makes it difficult or almost impossible to adapt to the habitus of another (socially privileged) group (Fröhlich 2014; Spitzmüller 2022: 226–227). This means, in this case, that student B as a student without an academic background is trying to adapt to the academic norms of speaking, but cannot get rid of the feeling that she has not grasped the whole picture or overlooked something, as she lacks the socialization of her peers with an academic background. She therefore constantly fears being exposed as a fraud, only pretending to belong.

Another way of feeling outed is experienced by the following multilingual speaker C. Her languages are German, Turkish, and Kurdish.

(5) C: Angst in dem Sinne, dass du halt abgestempelt wirst. Weil ich ja halt noch diesen Migrationshintergrund habe. Und ich mir so denke [...], du wirst so abgestempelt. Und so nach dem Motto: durch diesen Migrationshintergrund, kann sie sich sprachlich nicht so ausdrücken, dass es gerade inhaltlich passt. Und wenn ich unsicher bin und denke, ich kann mich vielleicht fachsprachlich nicht gut genug ausdrücken, dann halt ich mich auch zurück, damit ich halt nicht einfach abgestempelt werde. (03Fbiac, 47:58)

Anxiety in the sense of being written off. Because I still have this migration background. And I think to myself [...], you’re being written off. And according to the principle: Because of this migration background, she can’t express herself appropriately for the content. And when I’m insecure and think that I might not be able to express myself well enough in a discipline-specific way, then I hold back, because I don’t want to be written off.

While speaker B (4) is anxious that some part of her identity will be revealed that she considers inadequate for the academic setting, speaker C feels that one part of her identity, namely her migration background, will be taken as a reason or an explanation for everything she does. Interestingly, she switches from first person to third person when she talks about herself as having a migration background. This might indicate that she is now taking over the role and voice of others who perceive and construct her in this way and thus deny her access to the group of ‘real’ Germans that possess an unquestioned mastery of the German language (see above on migration background and the axes of lived experience according to Busch 2021). Here again, the academic registers affect her oral participation, as speaker C decides to remain silent in cases where she is not completely sure about the academic wording. It also affects her self-perception of her cognitive abilities as was the case for speaker B (3), linking her perceived (non-)mastery of the academic register to her competence in the discipline:

(6) C: Sprache kann so ein Faktor sein, dass man anfängt, an sich selber zu zweifeln, obwohl man von den Fächern her, von der Didaktik her, eigentlich es richtig draufhat. (03Fbiac, 1:05:40)

Language can be such a factor that it makes you doubt yourself, even though as far as the subjects go, didactics, you really got it.

Like speaker K, she feels a pressure to perform linguistically, but in her experience the pressure is even higher for speakers who are constructed as having a migration background. She has to prove her belonging to the academic community with even better linguistic skills than those without a migration background:

(7) C: Ich hab‘ immer das Gefühl, dass Migrantenkinder sich viel mehr beweisen müssen im universitären Rahmen, gerade in Germanistik. Ich hab‘ immer das Gefühl, dass man mehr machen muss, sprachlich noch besser sein muss. (03Fbiac, 1:03:42)

I always have this feeling that children of migrants have to prove themselves much more in the university context, especially in the German department. I always have the feeling that you have to do more, be better concerning the language.

Interestingly, in only two of the interviews with bi- or multilingual speakers did multilingualism, or more precisely, the language ideologies linked to it, come up as a factor influencing oral participation. This was the case in the interview with speaker C (see above), with Turkish and Kurdish as part of her repertoire, and with speaker J, who speaks Turkish and Azerbaijani. Speakers with Low German as (one) family language did not mention this language either at all or as having an influence on their oral participation. Speaker E, with Spanish as one of her languages, reported that she would love to be perceived more often as a speaker of Spanish. Thus, multilingualism alone cannot be seen as a factor hindering oral participation or fostering academic register anxiety. However, language ideologies regarding languages besides German in the speakers’ repertoire, i. e., the different prestige that the languages enjoy in German society, are an important factor. Speakers of languages that enjoy lower prestige, like Kurdish and Turkish, feel reduced to the migration background that others perceive them as having. They experience low expectations regarding their linguistic competences and therefore perceive a higher pressure to perform linguistically according to the norm. In consequence, they participate to a lesser extent in order to avoid further feeding the stereotypes with which they are confronted. In contrast, Spanish enjoys a higher prestige in German society, and Low German at least in the area in which the university is located. Low German is spoken in this very area and enjoys prestige within the university, as it is an area of both research and teaching. Thus, while speaker E would love to foreground the Spanish-speaking part of her identity in order to enjoy the prestige with which the language is associated, speakers C and J wish to avoid focusing on the languages in their repertoire that are associated with migration and are perceived by others as an index for lower proficiency in German (see elite bilingualism in Section 2.3 and Oldani & Truan 2022 for expectations concerning linguistic abilities for students that are perceived as having a migration background).

The examples from my data indicate a strong link between the academic registers and the extent of oral participation in university classes. Academic registers can trigger strong emotions like anxiety that reduce or even hinder oral participation. The pressure to conform to the linguistic norms that are perceived despite being neither transparent nor stated explicitly is felt by some of the students to be very high. On the other hand, no one factor, like multilingualism or a (non-)academic background, could be singled out to generally or solely trigger academic register anxiety. Nevertheless, I would argue that speakers’ backgrounds, in a very broad sense, in combination with language ideologies can influence academic register anxiety in both directions. I understand background as speakers’ individual linguistic, social, and professional biographies including their lived experiences due to these biographies. Speakers’ backgrounds can be either constructed by others, as in the case of a migration background, or felt by the speakers themselves, like the experience of completing some type of professional training. Moreover, the external perception by others can also influence one’s self-perception, as in the case of speaker C who defines herself as someone with a migration background. Regardless of whether it is a felt or assigned background, it can affect the speaker and his or her perception and interpretation of further experiences.

There are several background settings that have a positive effect on participation in university classes or an attenuating effect with respect to academic register anxiety. First of all, language socialization at home that encompasses a language use similar to or in part overlapping with the academic registers seem to lead to more ease in oral participation. Some of the speakers without an academic background presume speakers with it to have received this socialization (cf. Bourdieu’s habitus concept), and one student from an academic family overtly agreed in the interview. She did mention, however, settings in which she reduces her participation as well.

In addition to this linguistic (and presumably also social) factor, two other factors are linked to an individual’s professional biography. Like speaker B (example 3), most speakers reported that their participation increased over the course of their studies, as they acquired more knowledge in their respective disciplines and with this gained confidence in their competence. We can assume that the acquisition of academic competence in the chosen discipline goes along and is intertwined with the acquisition of the academic registers and that the opposite of the vicious circle of avoidance (see Section on MLA/HLA above) takes place, namely that the use of academic registers leads to a feeling of proficiency in them, which eases increased participation. Another factor with an attenuating effect seems to be a an accomplished professional training (speaker L). In this case, the professional competence that the student gained made it less important for him to demonstrate his competence and belonging to the academic community through linguistic means.

I argue based on my data that this linking of professional/academic and linguistic competence is the basis for a language ideology that prevails in this context. Proficiency in the academic registers is equated with competence in the respective discipline, which means that mastering the registers is understood and perceived as demonstrating one’s competence in the respective discipline. This is in line with Rhodes et al., who emphasize: “Registers as Agha (2005) shows, produce social boundaries by creating groups. That which is marked as ‘academic’ contrasts with that which is not, thus AL [academic language] can serve as a means of making and marking experts from non-experts” (2021: 525).

This language ideology exerts an especially high pressure on those whose competence has been questioned or who expect not to belong due to previous experiences as they have to demonstrate their academic competence and belonging through mastery of the academic registers. This is the case for multilinguals who speak a language that does not enjoy a high prestige and is associated with migration, as the quotes from speaker C show. In her experience, it is not enough to master academic registers; as a person who is perceived as having a migration background, she feels pressure to do even better. The pressure to perform linguistically in an adequate (or even better) way in order to demonstrate one’s academic competence in a discipline can also be seen in the quotes from speakers K and B. Even though speakers know better, this ideology affects their self-perception, as can be seen in the quotes from speakers B and C who report that language is the reason for doubting their academic competence. In contrast, those whose competence has been demonstrated or is unquestioned, as can be assumed for the teaching staff, for example, can deviate from the linguistic norm or at least feel less pressure and participate more easily. This is the case for almost all speakers who feel they have acquired more competence in their discipline during their studies (see above), but also for speaker L, whose professional competence was demonstrated by the professional training he completed successfully. Nevertheless, he is not completely at ease, as this language ideology is powerful.

5 Conclusion

In this paper, I have shown based on data from qualitative interviews that the academic registers can trigger strong emotions and hinder oral participation. I argue that these emotions and reactions to the academic registers can be considered a form of language anxiety, as causes and triggers investigated for other forms of LA could be identified in the university context as well and were confirmed by the data from the interviews. These include the formal setting and the prestige of a university degree including the presumed socio-economic advantages, but also questions of identity and belonging affected by the previous and currently lived linguistic experiences of the individual and mediated by language ideologies. I argue that it is not the different named languages that are the buttress of language anxiety, but rather the social inequalities that are reproduced in the form of different and excluding language uses.

The concept of language anxiety (LA) can therefore be extended beyond the use of different named languages to that of different registers as well, encompassing not only the anxiety triggered by the learning and use of a foreign language (FA) in a closed setting and of different languages in an everyday setting (HLA/MLA), but also of a different register (academic register anxiety) in the university setting. While the distinctiveness of a foreign language compared to the speaker’s L1 is clear and the learner presumably expects no or low proficiency in this foreign language at the start, the distinctiveness of the academic registers is less obvious and students might not expect to be confronted with a feeling of low proficiency concerning this language use when entering university, especially as the registers (perceived or not) are part of the language in which they have been educated. The habitus prevailing at German universities might therefore be better described not only as monolingual, but monoglossic as accepted members of the academic community, like the teaching staff, often act as though the academic registers are uncontested and implicit. Despite this overall picture, however, there are significant differences between the disciplines that came up in the interviews (not included in the quotes presented here). Very generally, it can be said that in the more applied disciplines students seldom seem to experience academic register anxiety. Whether this is due to a lesser use of academic registers or whether other factors help reduce this effect cannot be concluded from the data.

Language ideologies are the core reason for the emotions triggered by academic registers. In addition to those like the ideologies of homogeneity and of elite bilingualism, another ideology could be revealed to be especially powerful in this context. This ideology could be described as the conviction that linguistic competence (understood as proficiency and fluency in the academic registers) equals discipline-specific academic competence (understood as expertise in the respective field of study). Therefore, every deviation from the expected norm has the power to mark speakers as lacking the academic competence to successfully pursue their studies and might even question their belonging to the academic community. The power of this ideology can be seen in the fact that even though speakers know that they have the required academic competence in their respective discipline, they start to doubt this.

As the analysis of the interviews revealed, not every student feels intimidated by the academic registers and those who report being affected by it are so to varying degrees on the inter- and intrapersonal levels. A non-academic background or multilingualism do not inevitably lead to academic register anxiety. Those who have already experienced exclusion or question their belonging to the academic community due to their linguistic and social biography are, however, more likely to feel the pressure of the prevailing language ideology and might at least reduce their oral participation.

Thus, in order to ensure the participation of all students and avoid exclusion or the reproduction of social inequalities, universities and especially teaching staff should strive to prevent academic register anxiety. As this article has focused on the question of whether academic register anxiety exists and what factors contribute to it, more research should be done in order to determine factors that attenuate and reduce it. However, what should have become clear already is that transparency and reflection are key. This means that from their first day at university students should be explicitly and redundantly informed about the fact that they are expected to acquire new registers and that this acquisition is a process. But this means also that prevailing language ideologies should be an object of both self-reflection and open discussion, including the question about the benefits and limitations of the use of academic registers.

References

Adler, Astrid & Maria Ribeiro Silveira. 2020. Spracheinstellungen in Deutschland – Was die Menschen in Deutschland über Sprache denken. In Sprachreport, 16–24. Mannheim: Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS).Search in Google Scholar

Agha, Asif. 2005. Voice, Footing, Enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15(1). 38–59.10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.38Search in Google Scholar

Barbour, Rosaline S. 2007. Doing focus groups (The Sage qualitative research kit / ed. by Uwe FlickPt. 4). Los Angeles: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar

Becker, Anna. 2021. “I’m Always in This Conflict” – Students’ Struggle of Plurilingual Identity Expression, Linguistic Insecurity, and Assimilation in Switzerland’s Higher Education. European Education 53(1). 15–30.10.1080/10564934.2021.1971542Search in Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan. 1999. The debate is open. In Jan Blommaert (ed.), Language Ideological Debates (Language, Power and Social Process 2), 1–38. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110808049.1Search in Google Scholar

Bunk, Oliver. In press. The anxious heritage speaker?: Language anxiety and insecurity in multilingual contexts. In Artemis Alexiadou, Claudio Scarvaglieri, Christoph Schroeder & Heike Wiese (eds.), The Construction of multilinguals as others: Do we practice what we preach? Berlin: Language Science Press.Search in Google Scholar

Busch, Brigitta. 2021. Mehrsprachigkeit, 3rd edn. (UTB Sprachwissenschaft 3774). Wien: Facultas.Search in Google Scholar

Busch, Brigitta & Jürgen Spitzmüller. 2021. Indexical borders: the sociolinguistic scales of the shibboleth. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2021(272). 127–152.10.1515/ijsl-2020-0095Search in Google Scholar

Charmaz, Kathy. 2010. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar

Cummins, Jim. 2008. BICS and CALP: Empirical and Theoretical Status of the Distinction. In Nancy H. Hornberger (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (Springer eBook Collection Humanities, Social Science and Law), 71–83. Boston, MA: Springer Science+Business Media LLC.Search in Google Scholar

Dannerer, Monika. 2018. Sprachwahl, Sprachvariation und Sprachbewertung an der Universität. In Arnulf Deppermann & Silke Reineke (eds.), Sprache im kommunikativen, interaktiven und kulturellen Kontext (Germanistische Sprachwissenschaft um 2020), 169–192. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110538601-008Search in Google Scholar

Dirim, İnci. 2020. Der Natiolekt als hegemoniales Instrument der Verweigerung von Zugehörigkeit. In Claus Altmayer, Carlotta von Maltzan & Rebecca Zabel (eds.), Zugehörigkeiten: Ansätze und Perspektiven in Germanistik und Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache (Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache 15), 37–53. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Ehlich, Konrad. 1999. Alltägliche Wissenschaftssprache. Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache 26(1). 3–24.10.1515/infodaf-1999-0102Search in Google Scholar

Fandrych, Christian. 2006. Bildhaftigkeit und Formelhaftigkeit in der allgemeinen Wissenschaftssprache als Herausforderung für Deutsch als Fremdsprache. In Konrad Ehlich (ed.), Die Wissenschaft und ihre Sprachen (Linguistic Insights – Studies in Language and Communication 52), 39–61. Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, Wien: Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Fröhlich, Gerhard. 2014. Einverleibung (incorporation). In Gerhard Fröhlich & Boike Rehbein (eds.), Bourdieu-Handbuch: Leben – Werk – Wirkung, 81–90. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.10.1007/978-3-476-01379-8_18Search in Google Scholar

Gogolin, Ingrid. 1994. Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Zugl.: Hamburg, Univ., Habil.-Schr., 1992 (Internationale Hochschulschriften). Münster: Waxmann.Search in Google Scholar

Gogolin, Ingrid & Joana Duarte. 2016. Bildungssprache. In Jörg Kilian (ed.), Handbuch Sprache in der Bildung (Handbücher Sprachwissen (HSW) Serv.21), 478–499. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Inc.10.1515/9783110296358-025Search in Google Scholar

Horwitz, Elaine K. 2001. Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (21). 112–126.10.1017/S0267190501000071Search in Google Scholar

Horwitz, Elaine K., Michael B. Horwitz & Joann Cope. 1986. Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety. The Modern Language Journal 70(2). 125–132.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.xSearch in Google Scholar

Hurst, Ellen, Mbulungeni Madiba & Shannon Morreira. 2017. Surfacing and Valuing Students’ Linguistic Resources in an English-Dominant University. In David M. Palfreyman (ed.), Academic Biliteracies: Multilingual Repertoires in Higher Education (Bilingual Education & Bilingualism), 76–95. Bristol: Channel View Publications.10.21832/9781783097425-007Search in Google Scholar

Irvine, Judith T. 1989. when talk isn’t cheap: language and political economy. American Ethnologist 16(2). 248–267.10.1525/ae.1989.16.2.02a00040Search in Google Scholar

Irvine, Judith T. & Susan Gal. 2000. Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities & identities (School of American Research advanced seminar series), 35–84.Search in Google Scholar

Jahns, Esther. 2024. Diglossic translanguaging – The multilingual repertoire of German-speaking Jews in Berlin (Language and social life). Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783111322674Search in Google Scholar

Kroskrity, Paul V. 2004. Language Ideologies. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (Blackwell companions to anthropology 1), 496–517. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996522.ch22Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William. 2006. The social stratification of English in New York City, 2nd edn. Cambridge UK, New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618208Search in Google Scholar

MacIntyre, Peter D. 1999. Language anxiety: A review of literature for language teachers. In Dolly J. Young (ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (The McGraw-Hill second language professional series), 24–43. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

MacIntyre, Peter D. 2017. An Overview of Language Anxiety Research and Trends in its Development. In Mark Daubney, Jean-Marc Dewaele & Christina Gkonou (eds.), New Insights into Language Anxiety: Theory, Research and Educational Implications (Second Language Acquisition), 11–30. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Maitz, Péter & Stephan Elspaß. 2013. Zur Ideologie des ‘Gesprochen Standarddeutsch’. In Jörg Hagemann, Wolf P. Klein & Sven Staffeldt (eds.), Pragmatischer Standard (Stauffenburg Linguistik 73), 35–48. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Mecheril, Paul & Thomas Quehl. 2006. Sprache und Macht: Theoretische Facetten eines (migrations-)pädagogischen Zusammenhangs. In Paul Mecheril (ed.), Die Macht der Sprachen: Englische Perspektiven auf die mehrsprachige Schule, 355–381. Münster, München, Berlin: Waxmann.Search in Google Scholar

Morek, Miriam. 2018. „Der redt halt so komisch.“: Mehrsprachigkeit und Sprachideolgien in Gesprächen unter Dortmunder Schülerinnen und Schülern. In Markus Denkler (ed.), Dortmund – sprachliche Vielfalt in der Stadt (Niederdeutsche Studien 59), 239–278. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Morek, Miriam & Vivien Heller. 2012. Bildungssprache ‒ Kommunikative, epistemische, soziale und interaktive Aspekte ihres Gebrauchs. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 2012(57). 67–101.10.1515/zfal-2012-0011Search in Google Scholar

Oldani, Martina & Naomi Truan. 2022. Navigating the German school system when being perceived as a student ‘with migration background’: Students’ perspectives on linguistic racism. Linguistics and Education 71. 1–15.10.1016/j.linged.2022.101049Search in Google Scholar

Pescuma, Valentina N., Dina Serova, Julia Lukassek, Antje Sauermann, Roland Schäfer, Aria Adli, Felix Bildhauer, Markus Egg, Kristina Hülk, Aine Ito, Stefanie Jannedy, Valia Kordoni, Milena Kuehnast, Silvia Kutscher, Robert Lange, Nico Lehmann, Mingya Liu, Beate Lütke, Katja Maquate, Christine Mooshammer, Vahid Mortezapour, Stefan Müller, Muriel Norde, Elizabeth Pankratz, Angela G. Patarroyo, Ana-Maria Pleşca, Camilo R. Ronderos, Stephanie Rotter, Uli Sauerland, Gohar Schnelle, Britta Schulte, Gediminas Schüppenhauer, Bianca M. Sell, Stephanie Solt, Megumi Terada, Dimitra Tsiapou, Elisabeth Verhoeven, Melanie Weirich, Heike Wiese, Kathy Zaruba, Lars E. Zeige, Anke Lüdeling & Pia Knoeferle. 2022. Situating language register across the ages, languages, modalities, and cultural aspects: Evidence from complementary methods. Frontiers in psychology 13. 1–31.10.3389/fpsyg.2022.964658Search in Google Scholar

Pohl, Thorsten. 2007. Studien zur Ontogenese wissenschaftlichen Schreibens. Zugl.: Siegen, Univ., Diss., 2005 (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 271). Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110946116Search in Google Scholar

Preston, Dennis R. 2013. Linguistic Insecurity Forty Years Later. Journal of English Linguistics 41(4). 304–331.10.1177/0075424213502810Search in Google Scholar

Rhodes, Catherine R., Katherine Clonan-Roy & Stanton E. F. Wortham. 2021. Making language ‘academic’: language ideologies, enregisterment, and ontogenesis. Language and Education 35(6). 522–538.10.1080/09500782.2020.1797771Search in Google Scholar

Riebling, Linda. 2013. Heuristik der Bildungssprache. In Ingrid Gogolin, Imke Lange, Ute Michel & Hans H. Reich (eds.), Herausforderung Bildungssprache – und wie man sie meistert (FörMig-Edition 9), 106–153. Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann.Search in Google Scholar

Roelcke, Thorsten D. 2020. Fachsprachen, 4th edn. (ESV basics 37). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Scarvaglieri, Claudio & Claudia Zech. 2013. “ganz normale Jugendliche, allerdings meist mit Migrationshintergrund„. Eine funktional-semantische Analyse von “Migrationshintergrund„. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 2013(58). 201–227.10.1515/zfal-2013-0008Search in Google Scholar

Schroedler, Tobias, Judith Purkarthofer & Katja F. Cantone. 2022. The prestige and perceived value of home languages. Insights from an exploratory study on multilingual speakers’ own perceptions and experiences of linguistic discrimination. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1–18.10.1080/01434632.2022.2121402Search in Google Scholar

Sevinç, Yeşim & Ad Backus. 2019. Anxiety, language use and linguistic competence in an immigrant context: a vicious circle? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(6). 706–724.10.1080/13670050.2017.1306021Search in Google Scholar

Sevinç, Yeşim & Jean-Marc Dewaele. 2018. Heritage language anxiety and majority language anxiety among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(2). 159–179.10.1177/1367006916661635Search in Google Scholar

Spitzmüller, Jürgen. 2013. Metapragmatik, Indexikalität, soziale Registrierung. Zur diskursiven Konstruktion sprachideologischer Positionen. Zeitschrift für Diskursforschung 1(3). 263–287.Search in Google Scholar

Spitzmüller, Jürgen. 2022. Soziolinguistik: Eine Einführung (Lehrbuch). Berlin, Heidelberg: J. B. Metzler.10.1007/978-3-476-05861-4Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, Wolf. 2012. Uni-Angst und Uni-Bluff heute: Wie studieren und sich nicht verlieren. Berlin: Rotbuch Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Wiese, Heike. 2015. “This migrants’ babble is not a German dialect!”: The interaction of standard language ideology and ‘us’/‘them’ dichotomies in the public discourse on a multiethnolect. Language in Society 44(3). 341–368.10.1017/S0047404515000226Search in Google Scholar

Wiese, Heike, Artemis Alexiadou, Claudio Scarvaglieri & Christoph Schroeder. 2022. Multilinguals as Others in society and academia: Challenges of belonging under a monolingual habitus. Urban Language & Literacies 302. 1–19.Search in Google Scholar

Wiese, Heike, Rosemarie Tracy & Anke Sennema. 2020. Deutschpflicht auf dem Schulhof?: Warum wir Mehrsprachigkeit brauchen (Duden). Berlin: Dudenverlag.Search in Google Scholar

Woolard, Kathryn A. & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1994. Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23(1). 55–82.10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2024-05-09

Published in Print: 2024-05-15

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

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2024-0003

Keywords for this article

language anxiety; language ideologies; academic registers; participation

Creative Commons

BY 4.0