Volume 34, Issue 1

Linguistic diversity and its management have become increasingly significant for higher education institutions around the world. Indeed, in the context of a growing student and staff mobility, information exchange, and networked multilateral interactions, the multiplicity of languages used by university stakeholders in more and more contexts has steadily grown over the past decades. A wide range of scholars (from applied and sociolinguists to higher education researchers) have responded with an equal growing attention to this phenomenon. In this paper, we funnel some of the relevant recent scholarship on the language-planning dimension of the internationalization of higher education, providing as a result an analytical framework that attempts to capture the complex sociolinguistic nature of present-day universities. To date, with only a handful of exceptions, few attempts have been made to provide a comprehensive overview of the different levels, stakeholders, and contexts of language use in higher education. Given the rapid changing nature of language matters in such context, the framework we present in this paper should be useful to both sociolinguists interested in language issues in higher education and to on-the-ground university administrators actively engaged in language planning initiatives in their institutions. The framework, however, is not conceived of as a closed-end solution to language problems at universities today, but rather as a guiding roadmap to think productively about such issues.

This paper focuses on issues related to sign language policies in Higher Educational Institutes (HEIs) in Europe. Drawing on the analytical framework proposed by Darquennes/Du Plessis/Soler (2020, i. e. this volume), which serves to address HEI language planning issues at macro, meso and micro levels, we carry out an inventory of how these issues play out for sign languages across Europe. Our investigation reveals the scarcity of information about sign language policies in HEIs, relating to both sign language as a language of instruction and as a subject of study. What becomes clear is that language planning activities (sign language acquisition, sign language status and corpus planning) are taking place in many countries but tend to go undocumented and unresearched. Given the increase in formal recognition of sign languages across Europe, coupled with the ratification of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) by all EU member states, it would seem logical to expect that the status and prestige of sign languages would rise, with greater visibility of, and planning for, incorporation of sign languages in HEIs. However, the reality of the situation is unclear, suggesting the need for coordinated effort, supported by key pan-European bodies like the Council of Europe, the European Centre for Modern Languages and the European Commission, to ensure that sign language policy is on the agenda as parts of a rights-based response to deaf communities and the sign languages of Europe. Equally important is the need for European HEIs to embrace sign languages and ensure that they are part of the linguistic landscape. This will support and promote the status planning of sign languages and open up access to HEIs for deaf communities, a group that remains under-represented in academia.

Within the context of the internationalisation of higher education, language matters have become increasingly prominent for universities across a wide variety of contexts. This has made the higher education domain an attractive site for applied linguists and sociolinguists to investigate in close detail. One relatively consolidated idea is that contexts in which English has made further incursions in universities are more internationalised than those settings where English has penetrated to a lesser extent. In line with that, a supposed north-south divide in European higher education has been conceived of, with universities in the north leading in terms of internationalisation efforts, while those in the south lag behind. In this article, I problematise this idea and suggest instead that a narrower and more focused contrastive analysis between language ecologies across different countries and contexts might be more useful. In doing that, we can thus avoid the dangers of binarism and lumping that can come associated to holding preconceived geographical borders. In particular, the comparative analysis proposed here allows us to highlight two key issues that seem to be highly pressing in present-day higher education domains: the language-ideological and the socio-economic. I build the argument in the paper by utilising empirical material from Estonia and Catalonia, two contexts that have been at the centre of my own work in recent years.

This article discusses a number of linguistic aspects of the internationalisation and anglicisation of higher education in Flanders. We aim to combine an overview of the applicable legal measures with the most detailed and complete information to date on the actual linguistic practices in universities and university colleges. To this end, we collected the most recent available data from a variety of official reports and databases on parameters including the number of English bachelor and master programmes currently on offer, the relative share of students involved in these international programmes, as well as the extent to which students and professors meet official language requirements. Next to these English-focused aspects, we also supply new figures on the required mother tongue proficiency to enrol in the regular Dutch-based curriculum (theory versus practice). The situation in the Dutch-speaking community of Belgium is then compared to that of the French-speaking Community, once again based on figures and data that were collated from a variety of official sources. All data indicate that the actual impact of anglicisation in Flemish universities and university colleges remains limited and unproblematic, compared to the situation in many other medium-sized language communities. The closing discussion advocates a language policy for higher education in Flanders that combines a strong focus on mother tongue proficiency with a solid training in English for academic purposes.

This paper is devoted to several ways in which the language of instruction in Czech universities is managed. One of the key issues in this context is the fact that programs accredited in the Czech language are tuition-free, while those in foreign languages are paid. On the one hand, it is deemed desirable by certain actors to integrate greater numbers of students from abroad, conform to the discourse of internationalization, and even earn money through courses in English. On the other hand, it is also viewed as necessary by other actors to cultivate the Czech language and provide a solid education for local students. These multiple and often opposing interests, as well as a number of language ideologies, guide individual management acts. Utilizing the language management framework (Jernudd/Neustupný 1987; Fairbrother/Nekvapil/Sloboda 2018), I explore three selected examples of the management of the language of instruction. In the first, I show how many Czech university programs are accredited in the Czech language, but offer many classes in English. In the second, I examine one case of financial motivation for foreign-language courses through university teaching development projects. In the third, I point to the differences between the language of accreditation of some Ph.D. programs and the languages actually used in their realization. Finally, I consider the fact that all of these cases of management involve some sort of compromise between the interests of certain groups, which means that the only way forward is an increased awareness of all aspects of the management processes.

Luxembourg is officially a trilingual country with most indigenous Luxembourgers speaking Luxembourgish, German and French, even if not necessarily all to the same standard. A high proportion (44.5 %) of the population consists of immigrants whose different linguistic repertoires add other languages to the multilingual landscape of the country. Multilingualism is a highly salient feature of Luxembourg’s society and plays out differently in different domains, such as home, school, work or public institutions. The country’s university, the University of Luxembourg, founded in 2003, is one of Luxembourg’s multilingual institutions, with English, French and German as official languages but with currently no explicit language policy. Study schemes and diplomas should be at least bilingual and students as well as staff should master at least two of the official languages. Neither the country’s national language Luxembourgish, nor the language of the proportionally highest migrant community Portuguese are part of the university’s languages. Due to the lack of an explicit and official document regarding the University of Luxembourg’s language policy and planning, in this chapter, I will focus on the current language situation in the areas of teaching, research and administration. After looking into the use of different languages in these domains and studying the existing guidelines regarding language use, I will identify the different actors responsible for and influencing the language planning and policy at the University of Luxembourg and situate them on the micro, meso and macro level.

In this paper, language policy (LP) at the University of Salzburg (Austria), a mid-size seemingly monolingual university, serves as an example to analyse (potential) language conflicts at the institutional level considering the roles played by German, English and ‘immigrant’ languages at the university. Language management, beliefs, and (reported) language use by different stakeholders in higher education (administrators, academic and administrative staff and students) are contrasted, also taking into consideration different linguistic backgrounds (German as L1, German as L2 and German as a foreign language). This offers an overall perspective on institutional LP that is still group sensitive, one that reveals two different hidden language conflicts: the non-addressed conflict between the two most important and visible languages at the university by far, German and English, as well as the neglected and negated conflict between German and the hidden “immigrant” languages. A consistent ‘internationalisation at home’ strategy would address these hidden conflicts and show backwash effects on ideas of language use in education as well as in society in general.

The South African University of KwaZulu-Natal has developed an ambitious language policy aiming “to achieve for isiZulu the institutional and academic status of English” (UKZN LP 2006/2014). Part of this ambition is a mandatory Zulu language module that all undergraduate students have to pass if they cannot prove knowledge of the language. In this article, we examine attitudes of South African Indian students towards this compulsory module against the strained history and relationship between Zulu and Indian people in the province. Situated within the approach of Language Management Theory (LMT), our focus is on students as micro level actors who are affected by a macro level policy decision. Methodologically combining quantitative and qualitative tools, we attempt to find answers to the following broad question: What attitudes do South African Indian students have towards Zulu more generally and the UKZN module more specifically? The empirical findings show that students’ motivations to learn Zulu are more instrumental than integrative as the primary goal is to ‘pass’ the module. South African Indian students have developed a blind spot for the prevalence and significance of Zulu in the country which impacts negatively on the general attitudes towards the language more general and the module more specifically. Language ideologies that elevate the status of English in the country further hamper the success of Zulu language learning.

The question about the role of Language Planning Agencies (LPAs) in higher education is very relevant within the South African context. A range of policy provisions regarding language in higher education are characterised by the use of language policy and planning (LPP) jargon found in the Framework for Language Planning Goals, pointing to the need for a range of LPAs to be involved in this language domain. Since such involvement has been documented in the case of the institutionalisation of Afrikaans as alternative language of higher education during the period 1910-1961, it provides the basis for a comparison with post-1994 initiatives regarding the elevation of the Sintu languages and the extension of their use in this language domain. Such comparison is undertaken on the basis of a Typology of LPAs that is developed from earlier insights that evolved during the International Research Project on Language Planning Processes at the University of Hawaii in the 1970s, essentially distinguishing between LPAs involved in regulatory, productive and promotional language planning functions. Evidence on the work of LPAs involved during the two periods is collected from secondary sources documenting the cases and analysed in terms of this typology. The results of the study provide insights into the role of LPAs in each case and in their relative effectiveness in aiding the institutionalisation of the designated languages. The article concludes by suggesting the “ideal” LPA mix for the realisation of LPP goals in higher education in South Africa.

In response to trends such as internationalization, migration and the knowledge economy, universities globally are under pressure to open their doors to as many students as possible. In South Africa, massification of higher education has two additional dimensions to the above. Firstly, it has to provide a forum for creating a socially inclusive society. Further to this, it has to compensate for the inferior standard of basic education. Together these factors compound the number of diversity variables that require management, particularly as far as language and academic literacy imperatives are concerned. This chapter examines how massification is unfolding at one institution of higher learning in the country and how it fuels systemic problems in a particular teacher training programme. What distinguishes the students in this undergraduate course from those in other programmes is that they constitute the future educators responsible for literacy development in the first years of schooling, precisely where literacy levels are deplorable and of critical concern. The study considers relevant policies, institutional support and curricula, before scrutinizing student performance. Two main findings emerge: Successful massification of higher education is highly dependent on quality basic education in which language instruction and the development of academic literacies are foregrounded at school level. This in turn requires comprehensive teacher training programmes that are attentive to sociolinguistic realities and theoretical underpinnings of language learning.

This article presents a practical project to develop a language policy for an English-Medium-Instruction university in Uzbekistan. Although the university is de facto English-only, it presents a complex language ecology, which in turn has led to confusion and disagreement about language use on campus. The project team investigated the experience, views and attitudes of over a thousand people, including faculty, students, administrative and maintenance staff, in order to arrive at a proposed policy which would serve the whole community, based on the principle of tolerance and pragmatism. After outlining the relevant language and educational context and setting out the methods and approach of the underpinning research project, the article goes on to present the key findings. One of the striking findings was an appetite for control and regulation of language behaviours. Language policies in Higher Education invariably fall down at the implementation stage because of a lack of will to follow through on their principles and their specific guidelines. Language policy in international business on the other hand is characterised by a control stage invariably lacking in language planning in education. Uzbekistan is a polity used to control measures following from policy implementation. The article concludes by suggesting that Higher Education in Central Asia may stand a better chance of seeing through language policies around English-Medium Instruction than, for example, in northern Europe, based on the tension between tolerance on the one hand and control on the other.