English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective: Exploring the Higher Education Context 9780815395171, 9781351184335

Citation preview

English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective

English is increasingly used as a lingua franca (ELF) in communicative situations the world over with the acceleration of globalisation. This is in line with the increased introduction of English-medium instruction (EMI) to higher education institutions in many parts of the world to further promote both students’ and faculty’s mobility to make them competitive and employable in the globalised world, and to make their institutions more attractive and reputable. EMI and ELF, however, are rarely explicitly investigated together despite the fact that the spread of EMI cannot be separated from that of ELF. This volume tackles the issue head on by focusing on EMI in higher education from an ELF perspective. The volume includes contributions by Asian, European, Middle Eastern, South American and Anglo-American scholars. It discusses language policies, attitudes and identities, analyses of classroom EMI practices, case studies and finally, pedagogical implications from an ELF perspective, incorporating also theoretical and empirical issues in conducting EMI courses/programmes. The volume will be of great interest and use, not only to those who are conducting research on ELF, EMI, CLIL, language policy and related fields, but also to classroom teachers and policy makers who are conducting and/or planning to start EMI courses/programmes in their institutions or countries all over the world. Kumiko Murata is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the School of Education and the Graduate School of Education, Waseda University. Her edited and co-edited books include Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts (2016, Routledge) and Global Englishes in Asian Contexts (2009, Palgrave).

Routledge Research in Language Education

The Routledge Research in Language Education series provides a platform for established and emerging scholars to present their latest research and discuss key issues in Language Education. This series welcomes books on all areas of lan­ guage teaching and learning, including but not limited to language education policy and politics, multilingualism, literacy, L1, L2 or foreign language acquisi­ tion, curriculum, classroom practice, pedagogy, teaching materials, and language teacher education and development. Books in the series are not limited to the discussion of the teaching and learning of English only. Books in the series include: The Evolution of English Language Learners in Japan Crossing Japan, the West, and South East Asia Yoko Kobayashi Education Policy for the Promotion of Trilingual Education at Primary Level A comparative analysis of Ireland and Catalonia Elena Prats Porcar English as a Foreign Language in Saudi Arabia New Insights into Teaching and Learning English Edited by Christo Moskovsky and Michelle Picard English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective Exploring the Higher Education Context Edited by Kumiko Murata The Hopes and Experiences of Bilingual Teachers of English Investments, Expectations, and Identity Melinda Kong For more information about the series, please visit www.routledge.com/Routledge­ Research-in-Language-Education/book-series/RRLE

English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective

Exploring the Higher Education Context Edited by Kumiko Murata

First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 selection and editorial matter, Kumiko Murata; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Kumiko Murata to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-815-39517-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-18433-5 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

ContentsContents

List of figures List of tables List of contributors 1 Exploring EMI in higher education from an ELF perspective: introduction

viii ix x

1

KUMIKO MURATA

PART I

ELF in higher education – from the perspective of language policies at institutional and governmental levels 2 The internationalization of higher education: but what about its lingua franca?

13 15

JENNIFER JENKINS

3 Intelligibility, mimicry and internationalization: localized practices in higher education, or can the Global South speak?

32

CLARISSA MENEZES JORDÃO

4 Researching English-medium instruction at Swedish universities: developments over the past decade

46

MARIA KUTEEVA

5 English-medium instruction in the Korean higher education context: from an English as a lingua franca perspective JOO-KYUNG PARK

64

vi

Contents

6 EMI (English-medium instruction) in Japanese higher education: a paradoxical space for global and local sociolinguistic habitats

78

MASAKAZU IINO

PART II

ELF in EMI settings – attitudes, identities and classroom practices

97

7 Classroom discourse in EMI: on the dynamics of multilingual practices

99

UTE SMIT

8 Enacting an ELF-informed English-medium instruction curriculum: an autoethnography

123

PATRICK NG

9 Internationalization and the growing demand for English in Japanese higher education: undertaking doctoral study in English

137

JAROSLAW KRIUKOW AND NICOLA GALLOWAY

10 ‘English’-medium instruction in a Japanese university: exploring students’ and lectures’ voices from an ELF perspective

157

MAYU KONAKAHARA, KUMIKO MURATA, MASAKAZU IINO

11 Identity and pragmatic language use among East Asian ELF speakers and its implications for English-medium education

176

YOKO NOGAMI

PART III

ELF in EMI settings – policy, practice and pedagogy: focus on case studies

199

12 The role of English in the internationalisation of Chinese higher education: a case study of English-medium instruction in China

201

YING WANG

Contents vii 13 Designing CELFIL (content and ELF integrated learning) for EMI classes in higher education

219

NOBUYUKI HINO

14 Expanding ELF-informed EMI in Japanese higher education: a case study of actual graduates’ needs

239

JAMES D’ANGELO

15 Beyond Global English(es): university English program in transition

259

MASAKI ODA

16 Critical language testing and English lingua franca: how can one help the other?

271

ELANA SHOHAMY

Index

286

Figures

FiguresFigures

4.1 9.1 16.1a 16.1b 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5

16.6

Lectures in English across the four faculties Thematic framework A bilingual sign, Japanese English A bilingual sign, Japanese English A bilingual sign, Hebrew English, English is transliteration of

the Hebrew Name of a street in three languages: Hebrew (on top), Arabic

(erased) and English transliteration Length of time it takes for two immigrant groups to acquire

a language Comparison of scores on mathematics test presented in

two versions: monolingual Hebrew versus bilingual version

(Hebrew-Russian) according to years of residence A writing test in English for Hebrew native speakers

51

145

278

278

279

280

280

281

282

Tables

TablesTables

2.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 9.1 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 11.1 11.2 13.1 14.1

Top 10 destinations for international students Interactional data set Functions of LOTE instances in main talk Communicational functions of translanguaging Information of Table 7.3, rendered in three broad functional

categories Results of a coding query comparing the coverage of the

accounts of challenges with the accounts of benefits of EMI Details of eight types of questionnaires Student respondents’ year, home countries, and first languages

by targeted groups Students’ dis/agreement with EMI EMI-C students’ willingness to actively take EMI classes The background information of the participants in the

questionnaire-based interview study Summary of the participants’ L2 English pragmatic choices Profiles of EMI classes in higher education researched in the

present project Graduate participants by incoming proficiency group

23

105

106

110

111

144

161

162

163

165

181

185

221

246

Contributors

ContributorsContributors

James D’Angelo is Professor in the College of World Englishes, Chukyo Uni­ versity. He serves on the board of the Japan Association for Asian Englishes, and is Editor-in-Chief of the journal Asian Englishes (Routledge). His chapter, “The Status of ELF in Japan” appears in the Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. He holds a PhD from North-West University, South Africa. Nicola Galloway is Lecturer in Education (TESOL) at The University of Edin­ burgh, where she teaches a course on Global Englishes for language teaching. Her research has included looking at English learners’ attitudes towards Eng­ lish and ELT, Global Englishes curriculum design and materials development, the incorporation of Global Englishes into English teacher education programmes, and more recently into computer game software for young learners. She is also involved in several projects related to English-medium instruc­ tion (EMI) in higher education institutions in non-native English-speaking contexts. Nobuyuki Hino is Professor, Graduate School of Language and Culture, Osaka University, Japan. He currently serves on the editorial/advisory board of the journal World Englishes (Wiley) as well as of the book series Intercultural Com­ munication and Language Education (Springer) and Routledge Advances in Teaching English as an International Language (Routledge). Masakazu Iino is Professor of Sociolinguistics at the School of International Liberal Studies and the Graduate School of International Culture and Com­ munication Studies, Waseda University, Tokyo. Jennifer Jenkins is Chair of Global Englishes at the University of Southampton, where she is also Founding Director of the University’s Centre for Global Eng­ lishes. She has been researching English as a lingua franca for nearly 30 years, and is the author of numerous articles as well as three monographs on the subject: The Phonology of English as an International Language (OUP 2000), English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity (OUP 2007) and English as a Lingua Franca in the International University. The Politics of Academic Eng­ lish Language Policy (Routledge 2014). In addition, she has written a univer­ sity coursebook, Global Englishes (2015, 3rd) and is editor of the book series

Contributors

xi

Developments in English as a Lingua Franca (De Gruyter Mouton). She is also co-editor of The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (2018). Clarissa Menezes Jordão majored in Portuguese and English languages and literatures at the Federal University of Parana – Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (UFPR-CNPq), Brazil. She holds a Master’s degree in English-language literatures with the same university and a Doctoral degree in literary education with the University of São Paulo. She currently works at the Federal University of Parana, teaching at both graduate and undergraduate levels, in the areas of Applied Linguistics and Language Education. She also works in a teacher education centre at the same university, collaborating with public school teachers of English. She supervises both MA and PhD candidates. Her main research interests are critical literacies; English as a foreign/second/additional/international language; teacher education; internationalization of higher education, mainly where languages are concerned; and poststructuralist and postcolonial praxes, especially those related to discourse and representation. Mayu Konakahara is Assistant Professor at the Department of English, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan. She also teaches part-time at Waseda University, where she obtained a PhD. Her research interests mainly lie in the investigation of discourse-pragmatic features in ELF interactions and ELF users’ attitudes and identities. Jaroslaw Kriukow is a freelance researcher and academic tutor, and provides online academic support and research training to graduate students. He was awarded a PhD degree by the University of Edinburgh for his mixed methods research into Polish immigrants’ English language identity. His research interests include non-native English speakers’ self-concept and self-esteem in relation to English, the implications of Global Englishes research for educational psychology and English language teaching, and Polish migration to the UK. Maria Kuteeva received her PhD in English from the University of Manchester. Over the past 20 years, she has researched and lectured at universities in the UK, Portugal and Sweden. In 2008 she joined the Department of English at Stockholm University, where she has been responsible for developing the Centre for Academic English. She is currently Full Professor and serves as Head of Department. Her research has focused on academic uses of English, ranging from discourse analytical studies to qualitative studies of L2 writing to large-scale survey investigations. Her publications have appeared in Applied Linguistics, English for Specific Purposes, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Journal of English for Academic Purposes and other peerreviewed outlets. Kumiko Murata is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the School of Education and the Graduate School of Education, Waseda University. Her edited and co-edited books include Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and

xii

Contributors Business Contexts (2016, Routledge) and Global Englishes in Asian Contexts (2009, Palgrave).

Patrick Ng is currently Professor of Applied Linguistics and TESOL in the International Studies and Regional Department, University of Niigata Prefec­ ture, Japan. He has taught English for more than 20 years in Singapore and Japan. His current research interests include: language planning policy, native­ speakerism and English as a lingua franca. Yoko Nogami is Assistant Professor at Kwansei Gakuin University in Japan. Her current research interests are in development of EMI multicultural co-learning curricula, and in identity construction of Japanese students and their develop­ ment of pragmatic language use pre- to post- study abroad in ELF contexts. Masaki Oda is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Director of Center for Eng­ lish as a Lingua Franca (CELF) at Tamagawa University, Tokyo, Japan. His research interests include sociopolitical aspects of language teaching, media discourse, and intercultural communication management. He is Vice Presi­ dent of AsiaTEFL. Joo-Kyung Park is Professor at the Department of English Language and Lit­ erature, Honam University, South Korea. She received her PhD in Curriculum and Instruction, specializing in EFL/Bilingual/Multicultural Education from Texas A&M University, US. Her research interests include English as a lingua franca, critical pedagogy, teacher education and intercultural communication. Elana Shohamy is Professor at Tel Aviv University, where she researches co­ existence and rights in multilingual societies within language testing, language policy, migration and linguistic landscape. She authored The power of tests (2001) and Language policy (2006), and edited Volume 7 of The encyclopedia of language testing and assessment (2008, 2018). She also served as the edi­ tor of Language Policy (2006–2014) and is currently Editor of the journal Linguistic Landscape. Elana is the winner of the ILTA lifetime achievement award (2010). Ute Smit is Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Vienna, Aus­ tria. Her applied linguistic research focuses mainly on English in, and around, education and has been published in renowned journals (e.g. Applied Linguis­ tics, International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, Journal of Immersion and Content Based Language Education, TESOL Quarterly, Sys­ tem) and with international publishers (e.g. Benjamins, de Gruyter, Multilin­ gual Matters, Palgrave). Besides involvement in various international research projects, Ute is a board member of the ICLHE (Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education) Association. Ying Wang is Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at the University of Southampton. Her research focuses on English as a lingua franca, Global Englishes, and lan­ guage ideologies in relation to China and Chinese speakers. She has contrib­ uted to different journals and book volumes.

1

Exploring EMI in higher education from an ELF perspective Kumiko MurataExploring EMI in higher education

Introduction Kumiko Murata Research on ELF in EMI settings in higher education (HE): language policies English used as a lingua franca (ELF) in academic contexts (cf. ELFA, Mauranen 2012) is one of the major areas of investigation for ELF researchers as increas­ ingly more universities the world over are introducing English-medium instruc­ tion (EMI) to attract students from all over the world. EMI has quickly spread now with the acceleration of globalisation. European countries, where the mobil­ ity of both students and faculty is very high (Björkman 2016; Jenkins 2014, this volume; Kuteeva, this volume; Mauranen 2012, 2016; Murata 2016a; Murata and Iino 2018; Smit, this volume), in particular, are in the forefront of this trend. EMI is also an issue dealt with by Jenkins (2014) and Mauranen (2012); the for­ mer focusing more on language policies and attitudinal aspects in EMI settings in HE, while the latter investigates the characteristics of English as a lingua franca in academic contexts (ELFA) from grammatical, lexical and discoursal perspectives on the basis of its actual use in EMI settings based on the ELFA corpus Mau­ ranen and her colleagues compiled (Mauranen 2012, 2016). Since ELF is a relatively new research field, most of the existing or ongoing research on ELF so far has concentrated either on the detailed description of ELF features observed during interactions in various contexts (see Ehrenreich 2009, 2011, 2012; Firth 1996; House 2009 2016; Jenkins 2000; Kaur 2009, 2011a, 2011b, Mauranen 2006, 2012, 2016; Seidlhofer 2011; Seidlhofer and Widdow­ son 2009 among many others) or analyses of attitudes and identities behind the use of ELF (Jenkins 2007, 2014, this volume, see also works by her colleagues and research students) as well as its conceptualisation (Jenkins 2015; Mauranen 2012; Seidlhofer 2001, 2004, 2011, 2016; Widdowson 2016). Under these circumstances, this volume aims to explore the development of ELF research, paying special attention to EMI contexts, which is relevant to fur­ ther deepen our understanding of the meaning of ELF research, its role, possibil­ ity and implications in real-world contexts; that is, language pedagogy in EMI contexts in higher education (HE). This is all the more important as ELF is still relatively unknown territory despite the fact that ELF research is now thriving not only in the European context, where the first ELF research projects were ini­ tiated (see, for example, Jenkins 2000; Mauranen 2012; Seidlhofer 2011 among

2

Kumiko Murata

many others), but also in the Asian context, where a major project like Asian Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca (ACE) as well as various other projects are currently being (or having already been) undertaken (Kirkpatrick 2010, 2012, 2017) nearly 15 years after Seidlhofer (2001) voiced her opinion about the need for ELF descriptive research. EMI has been promoted in Europe under the ERASMUS project (Björkman 2016; Bolton and Kuteeva 2012; Coleman 2006, Cots, Llurda and Garrett 2014; Dafouz and Smit 2016; Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2013; Jenkins 2014, this volume; Kuteeva, this volume; Kuteeva and Airey 2014; Smit 2010, this volume, inter alia). This tendency is also widely observed in East Asian countries such as China and Korea (see Cheng 2012, Cho 2012, Hu 2005, 2009, Hu and McKay 2012, Park, J-K 2009, this volume, Park, K-J 2009, Wang, this volume). In Japan as well, EMI is now officially promoted by the government’s various policies, and the number of university courses which offer EMI is also on the increase (MEXT 2011, 2014, see also Iino 2012, this volume, Murata 2016 a, 2016b, Murata and Iino 2018). The Japanese government, in line with other Asian and European countries, is now also very eager to encourage EMI in order to pro­ mote students’ exchanges, both by inviting more overseas students to Japan and sending more Japanese students abroad (Iino 2012, this volume, Murata 2016a, 2016b, Murata and Iino 2018). The government, suggesting that more courses be conducted in the medium of English to realise this, has taken the initiative in providing selected universities with special funding for this purpose, starting, in 2009, with ‘the Project for Establishing University Network for Internationalisa­ tion’ (Global 30), in which 13 universities were provided with funding for five years to promote students’ exchanges and to encourage the universities to offer EMI courses (JSPS 2009, 2011, see also D’Angelo, this volume, Hino, this vol­ ume, Iino 2012, this volume, Iino and Murata 2016, Jenkins 2014, this volume, Murata 2016 a, 2016b, Murata and Iino 2018 and Oda, this volume). Along with this project, in 2012, it initiated another project entitled ‘The Project for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development’, in which 42 universities in total were chosen to promote the ‘internationalisation’ of university education and educate students to be active in the globalised world (MEXT 2012). These two projects were followed in 2014 by another big project entitled ‘Top Global University Project’, in which 13 Top Type universities and 24 Global Traction Type universities were given special funding to enhance their ‘international com­ petitiveness’ in the globalised world (MEXT 2014). It is also worth noting here that these moves were initiated under the strong influence of Japanese industries to have more ‘competitive human resources’ to compete with their counterparts in the globalised world, as also reported in Murata (2016 a, 2016b) and Murata and Iino (2018). Even outside this programme, more universities have started offering EMI courses to keep up with the urge for internationalisation of univer­ sities by the Government, industries and society in general (see also Iino 2012, this volume). Under these circumstances, EMI research from an ELF perspective in the Japanese context has also made great progress. Additionally, the number of

Exploring EMI in higher education 3 researchers who are interested in ELF research has steadily increased, particularly young scholars, but also some established scholars in the field of World Englishes (WE) are paying more attention to incorporating an ELF perspective into their WE paradigm (see D’Angelo, Hino, this volume, for example), in particular, in the EMI context, which is the focus of the current volume. This volume there­ fore specifically focuses on ELF communication in EMI academic contexts. It explores, both theoretically and pedagogically, what is going on globally in the use of ELF in the EMI context, although more case studies are introduced from East Asian contexts. For this purpose, the volume is divided into three parts. Part I, entitled ELF in higher education – from the perspective of language policies at institutional and governmental levels, mainly explores language policies regard­ ing EMI at both institutional and governmental levels, while Part II, ELF in EMI settings – attitudes, identities and classroom practices, investigates both students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards ‘English’ used mainly in EMI classroom settings and their identity formation in its use. The final part, Part III, ELF in EMI – policy, practice and pedagogy: focus on case studies, mostly introduces case studies, dealing with institutional EMI policies and practices as well as ELF pedagogy. In what follows, I shall briefly introduce these three parts in relation to the existing research in the field.

Contributions in the volume Part I of this volume, entitled ELF in higher education – from the perspective of language policies at institutional and governmental levels, includes five chapters by Jenkins, Jordão, Kuteeva, Park and Iino (Chapters 2–6). It focuses on English language policies from the perspective of the use of ELF in EMI in higher edu­ cation (HE) settings. The first contributor of Part I, Jenkins, scrutinises ‘inter­ national’ universities’ degree of ‘internationalisation’ in terms of their language policies, in particular, those of English or rather ELF, as English used in these universities is naturally expected to be ELF used by international students and staff from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds. Jenkins investigates this, utilis­ ing three research methods: 1) university websites search of 60 universities from all over the world for their language policies, 2) questionnaires administered to academic staff from wide-ranging countries and 3) interviews or rather in-depth ‘conversation’ with international postgraduate students at a university in the UK (see also Jenkins 2014). On the other hand, the second contributor of Part I, Jordão, critically explores the notion of internationalisation from a Brazilian, or ‘Global South’ perspective. Although Jordão does not explicitly subscribe to the term ‘ELF’ in explaining her practice of running ‘the English for Internationalization course’ for profes­ sors, conducting EMI at her university, what she advocates by using the expres­ sion, such as ‘construct[ing] more equalitarian practices around English’, actually shares its spirit with that of ELF research. It is an invaluable contribution to the volume as we do not have many chances to hear voices from South America in this field.

4

Kumiko Murata

Next, in Chapter 4, we move from the Global South to the North. The third contributor in Part I, Kuteeva, introduces language policy and practices in the Swedish context, where EMI has been firmly established as a way to opening uni­ versity courses to international students as well as encouraging domestic students and faculty to be internationally mobile. Sweden is one of the countries which is very successful in introducing EMI, attracting a great number of international stu­ dents from both inside and outside Europe (Bolton and Kuteeva 2012, Kuteeva, this volume, Kuteeva and Airey 2013). The chapter thus is of great relevance to the researchers, policymakers and practitioners of ELF the world over who are plan­ ning to introduce or have just introduced EMI-related courses and programmes. We then move from the North to Far East. The fourth contributor in Part I, Park, explores EMI situations in Korean HE. In so doing, she discusses the Korean government-initiated EMI policy implementation and its consequences, and details the problems both students and faculty have to face in order to cope with this drastic transition. Finally, Park lists issues to be dealt with in this situa­ tion, which could be informative and applicable to similar situations worldwide. We then move further east. The final contributor in Part I, Iino, discusses the changes made by the Japanese government in recent years regarding the use of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) to teach content courses at university. This, Iino asserts, is to attract international students as well as to make their domestic students more globally minded, promoting both students and faculty’s mobility on international markets in line with globalisation. Iino critically analyses this tendency from a political economic perspective, critiquing the trend, which is influenced by the recent surge of neo-liberalism. He further critiques the ways in which these recent changes are also affecting English education at secondary level, discussing the issues at both institutional and governmental policy levels. The five contributions in Part I thus all explore EMI policies at institutional and governmental levels in HE contexts. They, at the same time, persuasively reveal the extent to which English native speaker (NS) norms are prevalent and deep-seated in students’, academic staff members’ and policymakers’ minds, and critique the practices particularly from an ELF perspective, revealing these stake­ holders’ lack of awareness of the reality of ELF use. Part II (Chapters 7–11), ELF in EMI settings – attitudes, identities and class­ room practices, explores students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards ‘English’ and their identity formation in EMI settings, as well as actual classroom practices and accompanying attitudes and identities in these classroom settings. Attitudes towards English from an ELF perspective in general are explored by many schol­ ars, most notably by Jenkins (2007, 2009, 2014), followed also by her colleagues and students, e.g. Galloway (2011), Karakaş (2015), Takino (2015), Wang (2015), in both academic and business settings. The same issue is also addressed by Iino and Murata (2016). While students’ attitudes towards English or ELF have generally attracted more attention in academic settings, Part II also contains Ng’s contribution (Chapter 8), which has investigated teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards a ‘non-native’ teacher (Ng himself) from an Outer Circle coun­ try in an Expanding Circle setting, which is unique and intriguing.

Exploring EMI in higher education 5 The first contributor in Part II, Smit, on the basis of her longitudinal EMI investigation from an ELF perspective at a specialist (tourism) college in Austria, elaborates on students’ and teachers’ interactions in which translanguaging and code-switching practices are often observed. This is a global phenomenon often reported in recent research results of ELF interactions in both academic (Iino and Murata 2016) and business settings (see, for example, Cogo 2012, 2016a, 2016b, Ehrenreich 2009, 2011). Smit classifies these practices into different types in analysing her findings, utilising a discourse analytic approach supported also by quantification. On the other hand, the second contributor in Part II, Ng, as touched on ear­ lier, focuses on teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards ‘non-native’ teachers and their English as well as non-native-speaking teachers’ identity formation in this context. Through the method of autoethnography, Ng details the journey of one teacher from the Kachuruvian Outer Circle, conducing EMI in the Expand­ ing Circle, namely, in Japan. The third contributors in Part II, Kriukow and Galloway, with Galloway’s teaching and researching experiences in Japanese contexts, investigate Japanese PhD students’ attitudes towards the use of English and their conceptualisation of EMI (in particular, in writing their PhD theses in English at a Japanese univer­ sity, supported also by their supervisors’ opinions), thus incorporating the two different perspectives on the same issue. The investigation has been conducted through interviews of students and their supervisors, and the recorded data has been qualitatively analysed, both authors critically examining ideologies and insti­ tutional policies behind the interviewees’ narratives. The analysis is thus also of interest and informative from a methodological perspective to those who conduct narrative analysis in their research. The fourth contributors in Part II, Konakahara, Murata and Iino, jointly inves­ tigate students’ and lecturers’ attitudes towards EMI and ELF in two types of EMI settings: an EMI programme and EMI courses at a university in Tokyo. The investigation is based on the administration of questionnaires to both students and lecturers, supported also by some interviews of students as well as classroom observations and reflective interviews of lecturers after the observations. The findings reveal that the two groups show differences in attitudes towards ELF and EMI, the EMI course students with less exposure to diversity showing more orientation towards NS norms, while the EMI programme group more appre­ ciating the diversity of ELF use. This results in an important message that more exposure to diversity is essential in conducting EMI. In Chapter 11, the final contribution in Part II, Nogami explores Japanese ELF users’ attitudes and identity formation in communicating in ELF through EMI courses and experiences in ELF business interaction, utilising a discourse completion test (DCT) questionnaire followed by semi-structured interviews. Through this combined method, Nogami directly approaches the reason(s) why the informants have chosen the expressions they thought would be relevant in a particular interactional situation. The introduction of post-questionnaire inter­ views has enabled her to successfully elicit the reasons behind the informants’

6

Kumiko Murata

choices of certain expressions, which are differentiated depending on their wouldbe conversational interactants, considering their lingua-cultural backgrounds. Thus, by utilising various survey methods and instruments, these scholars in Part II successfully delve into the dynamics of both students’ and teachers’ atti­ tudes and identity formation in diverse EMI and ELF communication contexts. The results of the contributions on EMI practices bear important implications for language pedagogy, which needs to receive more careful attention particularly in academic contexts, where ELF is increasingly used as a shared means of commu­ nication. This is the theme the current volume addresses in Part III. The final part of the volume, Part III, entitled ELF in EMI – policy, practice and pedagogy: focus on case studies, consists mainly of the contributions of case studies of EMI at universities in East Asian HE contexts (see chapters by Wang, Hino, D’Angelo and Oda, Chapters 12–15) as well as one chapter on ELF assessment by Shohamy (Chapter 16). The theme is topical as more and more universities around the globe are trying to ‘internationalise’ their universities, one means of which is the introduction of EMI. In this situation, however, often the connection between ‘internationalisation’ and ‘English’ is not necessarily well defined in the official documents or recommendations (see also Jenkins 2014, this volume). In particular, the dynamic and fluid nature of ELF does not seem to be generally understood or incorporated into the government’s official discourses of EMI, English being automatically equated with NS English. It is therefore timely to discuss and scrutinise the current practice of EMI at universi­ ties as well as the ways in which each university is coping with this issue as case studies. This in turn could also be informative to those who are in the similar situations elsewhere in the world. Part III thus introduces four EMI case studies at universities in China and Japan as well as another very important contribution by Shohamy, who critically investigates language policy from an ELF assessment perspective. The first chapter in Part III (Chapter 12) by Yin Wang details an EMI case study at a university in China on the basis of interviews conducted to some instructors who are running EMI courses, supported also by classroom observa­ tions and the analyses of various official documents available. In so doing, Wang mainly focuses on two issues: first, the mismatch between content and language competencies in EMI practice; and second, attitudes towards both the Chinese and English languages. Wang concludes that changing awareness about the Eng­ lish language in EMI situations and providing teachers with proper language support are necessary (see also Doiz et al. 2013). Chapter 13, the second contribution in Part III by Hino, explicates Hino’s attempt to combine ELF and content and language integrated learning (CLIL) perspectives and incorporate them in his graduate EMI class, coining a term content and ELF integrated learning (CELFIL) for this course. On the basis of his actual experience in conducting graduate-level EMI classes at a university in Japan, Hino convincingly lists practical and useful suggestions for the introduc­ tion of CELFIL and necessary conditions for running these courses. This chap­ ter, therefore, is relevant not only to ELF and EMI scholars and practitioners but

Exploring EMI in higher education 7 also to CLIL and other language practitioners, and offers important implications for ELT pedagogy from an ELF perspective both at micro and macro levels. Chapter 14, the third contribution in Part IV by D’Angelo, introduces a detailed account and assessment of the practice of EMI courses offered at Chu­ kyo University in Japan, which founded the first department of WE in Asia. It thus conveys useful information to those who are currently running or planning to run similar EMI courses. The chapter is also informative about the interface of WE and ELF paradigms, D’Angelo having originally started as a WE scholar and recently incorporating an ELF perspective into the WE paradigm, and thus being knowledgeable about both fields. The fourth chapter in Part III, Oda’s (Chapter 15), describes the process and rationale for the establishment of the Centre for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) at a university in Tokyo in a detailed manner. Of particular interest is their academic staff recruitment policy, which is more ELF-orientated compared to the still very NES-based traditional hiring system in general in Japan. This practice, therefore, could become a model for many other ‘English’ language centres not only in Japan but also the world over, which may revolutionise ‘Eng­ lish’ language education and drastically change people’s awareness and attitudes towards ELF. In addition to these four case study-based contributions, Part III also contains another very important contribution by Shohamy, who critically investigates lan­ guage policy from an ELF assessment perspective, which plays an essential part in discussing language pedagogy. This final chapter of the volume (Chapter 16) by Shohamy maintains that the current practice of language testing and its defi­ nition of proficiency and measuring methods are not in line with the increas­ ingly bi- and multi-lingual world, where learners/users of a language have usually other language resources, and are readily mixing different language resources for communicative effectiveness (see also Jenkins 2014, Mauranen 2012, Seidlhofer 2011, all of whom also discuss the issue of assessment from an ELF perspective). Shohamy strongly proposes that, when making tests, language varieties – or vari­ ation in the case of ELF – should be taken into consideration, pointing out how currently most of the widely available large-scale tests have all monolingual ori­ entations and are NS-norm orientated, including the CEFR (see also Hynninen 2014, McNamara 2012, Pitzl 2015). She justifies her claim by demonstrating, with illustrative examples, how this is against the reality of language use. Accordingly, this volume is a combination of ELF and EMI-related theories, research and reports on actual ELF-informed practices in EMI settings. The vol­ ume is an ambitious one in that it deals with wide-ranging issues, covering EMI theory and practice with the possibility of further developing ELF research, includ­ ing the one related to language teaching and testing as well as language policies. With this wide and diverse coverage, it is hoped that the volume is a key to further development and enrichment of ELF and EMI research as well as a good consoli­ dation of the research so far conducted in EMI settings from an ELF perspective. The specially selected contributions in each part, I hope, lead to deepening the understanding of the field and the nature of ELF research in general.

8

Kumiko Murata

References Björkman, B. 2016. English-medium instruction and English as the lingua franca in Higher Education in central and northern Europe. In M-L. Pitzl and R. OsimkTeasdale (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and Prospects. Contribu­ tions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 57–68. Bolton, K. and M. Kuteeva 2012. English as an academic language at a Swedish uni­ versity: parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33(5), 429–447. Cheng, L. 2012. The power of English and the power of Asia: English as lingua franca and in bilingual and multilingual education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicul­ tural Development 33(4), 327–330. Cho, J. 2012. Campus in English or campus in shock? English Today 28(2), 18–25. Cogo, A. 2012. ELF and super diversity: A case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2), 287–314. Cogo, A. 2016a. Visibility and absence: Ideologies of ‘diversity’ in BELF. In M-L. Pitzl and R. Osimk-Teasdale (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and Prospects. Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Berlin: De Gruyter Mou­ ton, pp. 39–48. Cogo, A. 2016b. Conceptualizing ELF as a translanguaging phenomenon: Covert and overt resources in a transnational workplace. Waseda Working Papers in ELF 5, 61–77. Coleman, J. A. 2006. English-medium teaching in European higher education. Lan­ guage Teaching 39(1), 1–14. Cots, J. M., E. Llurda and P. Garrett 2014. Language policies and practices in the internationalization of higher education on the European margins: An introduc­ tion. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35, 311–317. Dafouz, E. and U. Smit 2016. Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for Englishmedium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics 37(3), 397–413. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.) 2013. English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ehrenreich, S. 2009. English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 126–151. Ehrenreich, S. 2011. The dynamics of English as a business lingua franca: A language contact perspective. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins (eds.), Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 11–34. Ehrenreich, S. 2012. English as a lingua franca today: Evolving perspectives. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1), 181–184. Firth, A. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of ‘normality’: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 237–259. Galloway, N. 2011. An investigation of Japanese students’ attitudes towards English. PhD Thesis. University of Southampton. House, J. 2009. Introduction: The pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2), 141–145. House, J. 2016. Own-language use in academic discourse in English as a lingua franca. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Con­ texts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 59–69.

Exploring EMI in higher education 9 Hu, G. 2005. English language education in China: Politics, progress, and problems. Language Policy 4, 5–24. Hu, G. 2009. The craze for English-medium education in China: Driving forces and looming consequences. English Today 25(4), 47–54. Hu, G. and S. L. McKay 2012. English language education in East Asia: Some recent developments. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33, 345–362. Hynninen, N. 2014. The common European framework of reference from the per­ spective of English as a lingua franca: What we can learn from a focus on language regulation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(2), 293–316. Iino, M. 2012. 英語でつなぐ世界の高等教育 － SILS のケースを中心に。[English as a lingua franca connecting higher education in the world – a case from SILS, Waseda University]. In K. Murata (ed.), Waseda Working Papers in ELF 1, 33–41. Iino, M. and K. Murata 2016. Dynamics of ELF communication in an English-medium academic context in Japan – from EFL learners to ELF users. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 111–131. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2009. Exploring attitudes towards English as a Lingua Franca in the East Asian context. In K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Con­ texts: Current and Future Debates. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 40–56. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University – The Politics of Academic Language Policy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85. JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) 2009. Project for Establishing University Network for Internationalization (Global 30). Available from: www.jsps. go.jp/nglish/e-kokusaika/outline.html. JSPS 2014. FY2014 Top Global University Project www.jsps.go.jp/j-sgu/gaiyou. html language in the outer circle. Karakaş, A. 2015. Orientations towards English among English-medium instruction students. Englishes in Practice 2(1), 1–38. Kirkpatrick, A. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A Multilingual Model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. 2012. English in ASEAN: Implications for regional multilingualism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33(4), 331–344. Kirkpatrick, A. 2017. EMI in higher education in East and Southeast Asia: Challenges and proposals. Keynote speech delivered at the 2nd EMI-ELF Workshop at Waseda University, Tokyo, 25 February 2017. Kaur, J. 2009. Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca. Studies and Find­ ings. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 7–123. Kaur, J. 2011a. ‘Doing being a Languge Expert’: The case of the ELF speaker. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins (eds.), Latest Trends in ELF Research. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 53–75. Kaur, J. 2011b. Raising explicitness through self-repair in English as a lingua franca. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2704–2715.

10

Kumiko Murata

Kuteeva, M. and J. Airey 2014. Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: Reflections on recent language policy developments. Higher Education, 67(5), 533–549. Springer. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9669-6. Mauranen, A. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lin­ gua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123–150. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauranen, A. 2016. English as a global lingua franca: Changing language in changing global academia. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Busi­ ness Contexts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 29–46. McNamara, T. 2012. English as a lingua franca: I challenge for language testing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1), 199–202. MEXT 2011. An Interim Report of the Council on Promotion of Human Resource for Globalization Development. Available from: www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ global/110622chukan_matome.pdf (Japanese) www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/global/ 1206011interim_report.pdf (English) [accessed 29 March 2016]. MEXT 2012. Project for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development Appli­ cation Guidelines in FY2012. Availabe from: www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ kaikaku/sekaitenkai/1319969.htm [accessed 29 March 2016]. MEXT 2014. Press release ‘Selection for the FY 2014 top Global University Project’. Available from: www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/afieldfile/ 2014/10/07/1352 218_02.pdf [accessed 29 March 2016]. Murata, K. (ed.) 2016a. Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Con­ texts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Murata, K. 2016b. ELF research – Its impact on language education in Japan and East Asia. In M-L. Pitzl and R. Osimk-Teasdale (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and Prospects. Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 77–86. Murata, K. and M. Iino 2018. EMI in higher education: An ELF perspective. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of ELF. London: Routledge, pp. 400–412. Park, J-K. 2009. ‘English fever’ in South Korea: Its history and symptoms. English Today 25(1), 50–57. Park, K-J. 2009. Characteristics of Korea English as a glocalized variety. In K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and Future Debates. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 94–107. Pitzl, M-L. 2015. Understanding and misunderstanding in the Common European Framework of Reference: What we can learn from research on BELF and Intercul­ tural Communication. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1), 91–124. Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2), 133–158. Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Exploring EMI in higher education 11 Seidlhofer, B. 2016. ELF:English in a global context. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 17–28. Seidlhofer, B. and H. G. Widdowson 2009. Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca. In K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and Future Debates. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp26–39. Smit, U. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Classroom Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Takino, M. 2015. Negotiating the Challenges of Using English in Business Communica­ tion: Listening Narratives of Japanese BELF Users. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The University of Southampton. Wang, Y. 2015. Chinese university students’ ELF awareness: Impacts of language education in China. Englishes in Practice 2(4), 86–106. Widdowson, H. G. 2016. Competence and capability: Rethinking the subject Eng­ lish. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 213–223.

Part I

ELF in higher education – from the perspective of language policies at institutional and governmental levels Jennifer JenkinsThe internationalization of higher education

2 The internationalization of higher education But what about its lingua

franca?

Jennifer Jenkins Introduction This chapter focuses on an aspect of global higher education (henceforth HE) that is often overlooked in the increasingly frequent discussions of the ‘interna­ tionalisation of higher education’, that is, language, more specifically, English, and still more specifically, English in its lingua franca role in HE. It has seemed to me for some years that issues relating to the role of English as the lingua franca of international HE have been ignored for two main rea­ sons. Firstly, language per se is simply not considered important in HE: It is seen merely as the means that enable us to carry out HE’s teaching, research and administrative functions, most often in English in ‘international’ universi­ ties. Scholars outside of language research in general and research into Eng­ lish as a lingua franca (ELF) in particular tend to be unaware of the manifold complexities relating to language use. These include issues such as the role of language in identity, the causes and effects of language ideologies, and the influence of language attitudes, as well as English-specific phenomena such as the gatekeeping function that English performs, and the entire question of whether it is reasonable for an ‘international’ university to teach only in the medium of English rather than in multiple languages (see Jenkins 2015 and Jenkins in press on English within a framework of multilingualism). The prob­ lem, neatly summed up by Pratt (2010), is that “[w]hile many people who think about language are thinking about globalization, the people who think about globalization never think about language. Language has not been a cate­ gory of analysis in the literature on globalization”. We need to think about “the redistribution of linguistic competencies, lingua francas, and the emergence of new heterolingual practices”. Secondly, as is well known, while the internationalization of HE is being achieved primarily in English, there is no desire (and often no awareness of the need) to consider what kind of English this is or should be. The findings of exten­ sive research into ELF are ignored, whereas they should be central to university English language policy and practice (for extended discussion of such findings, see for example, Cogo and Dewey 2012; Mauranen 2012; Seidlhofer 2011). Instead, there is a simplistic assumption that English in its international lingua

16

Jennifer Jenkins

franca role is and should be the same as the English used in its national role within the US and UK especially. This, as Turner (2011) points out, has led to a situation in which we find: the relentlessly remedial representation of language issues in the institutional discourse of higher education . . . the widely circulating deficit discourse for language, along with the dominant representations and conceptualisations of language that have promoted it. The English of its non-native speakers (henceforth NNESs), both students and staff, is widely regarded as deficient to the extent that it differs from certain ‘standard’ versions of native English, leading to issues of fairness and equity for NNESs in university settings and the marginalizing of the vast body of research into ELF in respect of these settings. Ironically, international university settings are, by their very nature, ELF settings par excellence. And as Bailey (2013) argues in relation to the English of international students in the UK: [a]s international students form an ever-growing proportion of the student population in our institutions, we can no longer expect them to ‘fit in’ with a system designed primarily for a home-grown student body. In other words, ‘international’ is incompatible with a ‘national’ approach to English (or anything else for that matter). The same, I would argue, applies to the English language policies of any university elsewhere in the world that proclaims itself as ‘international’. The only difference is that outside the Anglophone settings, the home staff and management are likely to be NNESs them­ selves, and thus to be promoting (although not exemplifying) a monolithic kind of English that is not even local to their own context, but to a distant US or UK one.

Exploring academic English policies and practices in higher education It was concerns over the two issues outlined in the previous section that stim­ ulated the research that I will discuss in this chapter (see Jenkins 2014 for a detailed account of the research). Although I share with many colleagues work­ ing in the field of multilingualism a concern over risks such as domain loss for languages other than English, my focus here will be on issues relating to English itself. More specifically, the research I report explored the kind of English that is required and promoted in global HE, and the extent to which it does/does not reflect the diversity of the institution’s composition, and, in turn, the kinds of English used when the language performs an international lingua franca (rather than a national NES-NES) role.

The internationalization of higher education 17 The project as a whole consisted of the following three main research questions and data sets: Research question

Principal data set

1. What are the prevailing academic English language policies and practices of universities around the world that teach partly or entirely in English medium, in respect of any stated or implicit attachment to native academic English norms? 2. What are academic staff’s dominant beliefs about non-native academic English?

Study of 60 university websites from 23 countries in East/ South-East Asia, Latin America, Mainland Europe, Anglophone countries and Anglophone branches. Open-ended questionnaire study administered to university staff around the world (166 responses from 24 countries). Unstructured interviews (conversations) with 34 international (including EU) students; separate focus group study.

3. What are the perceived effects of current English language policies and practices on international, EU and home students?

The theoretical framework underpinning the research was critical language policy drawing, in particular, on Spolsky’s (2004) ‘components of language pol­ icy’, Shohamy’s (2006) ‘mechanisms between policy and practice’, and Woolard’s (2005) ‘ideologies of authenticity and anonymity’.

The website study We turn now to the research findings, exploring each of the three data sets in turn, and firstly, the university website study. I start with some typical examples of the kinds of discourses I found on the 60 websites I studied. First, two South Korean websites. In both cases, these websites proclaim their global credentials, referring specifically to phenomena such as ‘international exchange’ (Dankook) and ‘international communication abilities’ (Dongseo):

Dankook University We are aiming to establish the prestige of Dankook around the world by securing our image as both a regionally oriented university through ser­ vices and cooperation with communities and a globally oriented univer­ sity by setting up a global network through international exchange and cooperation.1

18

Jennifer Jenkins

Dongseo University The Global English Program offers intensive ESL/EFL education both to specially selected Korean students wishing to improve their interna­ tional communication abilities and to international students wishing to enter a specialized degree but lacking the required level of English proficiency.

However, other parts of both websites reveal that their ‘international’ nature is firmly attached to native English, not to the diverse ways of using English that are more likely to be typical of their NNES members. Dankook, for example, turns out to be ‘an English immersion environment’ in which NNES students receive English conversation lessons from NESs. Meanwhile, Dongseo holds conversa­ tion classes taught by NESs:

Dankook English village is a community at Dankook University designed to simulate an English immersion environment. Invited native English-speaking stu­ dents (interns) will teach and lead small groups of DKU students’ English conversation sessions daily.

Dongseo Through its one-year curriculum, students take 25 hours of intensive English classes. All four language skills are emphasized. . . . Each class is taught by a native English-speaking professor, with special opportuni­ ties for enhancing international understanding being offered through the Global Colloquiums.

Apparently, they see ‘international understanding’ as being enhanced by such means. Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool, a partnership between a Chinese and UK university, likewise talks of its ‘global vision’ and yet goes on to describe its ‘immersion Eng­ lish learning context’ in which students are taught English by (presumably NES) staff who are supplied by the Liverpool partner.

The internationalization of higher education 19

Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool After a few years of study and training at the University, we are confident our students will be equipped with: a global vision, the ability to compete internationally, proactive attitudes and the determination to succeed. Stu­ dents will become international leading professionals in technology and management who have an excellent command of English. A unique immersion English learning context awaits students from around China and abroad at XJTLU. Student motivation and confidence is enhanced while studying English language modules delivered by the ELC for the first two years of their degree program . . . the aim is to ensure that students develop the study skills and the language proficiency that they need to complete a British degree. . . . The English modules that students study are part of programs which have been validated and accredited by the University of Liverpool.

So-called branch campuses (‘branches’ of Anglophone universities, mostly based in the US and UK), as we might expect, are no different in their orienta­ tion to English. For example, the website of Lakeland’s Japan campus describes the branch as follows:

Lakeland Lakeland is a global community, drawing students of varied ages, religious backgrounds, and cultural traditions, from areas around the world, build­ ing community out of the rich diversity of its members, in a climate of civility, respect and free expression.

So far, so admirable. However, when it comes to English, as with the previ­ ous examples, the scenario changes, and the ‘global’ character of the university becomes (North) American:

Lakeland is not a Japanese college – it’s an American college; therefore, students are required to use only English in EAP classes. Moreover, the international atmosphere at LCJ insures that the ‘global language’ of Eng­ lish is being spoken outside the classroom as well.

20

Jennifer Jenkins

The few examples provided earlier are typical of what I found in my study of the 60 websites as a whole. Indeed, the prevailing language policies and practices of universities around the world which teach partly or entirely in English medium can be summed up as follows (adapted from Jenkins 2014): • •

• •

•

there is a widespread and deeply entrenched preference or even requirement for native English; there are no indications that the universities studied value the contribution of their NNES staff and students beyond the vague notion that they provide ‘diversity’ on campus; diversity is explicitly or implicitly not valued in respect of English; EMI is mentioned only in terms of advantages it brings students (e.g. mobil­ ity, global careers), and the content of remedial courses, whereas there is rarely any problematizing of the difficulties for NNES staff and students of being required to operate in a second language, English; And without exception, these universities require NNESs to pass NES-based English language entry tests, often accepting both IELTS and TOEFL, but giving no indication of how they will deal with British/American English differences in practice. Thus, as Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 146) point out, ‘students’ skills in English, and moreover, in a particular sort of English, become a major factor in regulating access to international study’.

However, I did hear of one exception (Ayako Suzuki, personal communica­ tion), although it was too late to include it in the book in which I reported this earlier research. This is the ‘English as a lingua franca program’ at Tamagawa University (see: www.tamagawa.jp/en/highereducation/efl.html) launched in 2013. Tamagawa’s ELF courses aren’t courses about ELF, but are mandatory English courses. Currently, approximately 1000 undergraduate students in the College of Business Administration, College of Arts and Sciences, College of Tourism and Hospitality, and the Department of Comparative Cultures, College of Humanities, participate in the program, and other colleges are expected to follow. The aim is for ‘students to be able to communicate with people all over the world using English as “a lingua franca” depending on the levels and speciali­ ties required for their majors’. The courses, which are conducted in English, are taught by instructors from nine different first languages and from 11 different countries, thus exposing students to a wide range of Englishes. Their approach also means that they ‘hire our ELF teachers not based on whether s/he is a native speaker or not, but on his/her academic credentials, experience in teaching Eng­ lish to speakers of other languages, and intercultural backgrounds’. Unlike most other ‘international’ universities, Tamagawa has thus made an important start in changing their practices in respect of English (see also Oda, this volume).

The staff questionnaire study The second study of my research project involved university staff responses to questionnaires. The questionnaires contained just 10 entirely open questions

The internationalization of higher education 21 which ranged from asking for their views about their institution, to questions about their own practices, to their views of their students’ English, of their understanding of intercultural communication, and what they understood as the implications for English language use of an ‘international university’. I received responses, many of which were long and detailed, from 166 staff in 24 differ­ ent countries, and in this section will explore their responses to just two of the questions: When you assess your non-native English-speaking students’ written work, how far, if at all, do you expect it to conform to native academic English? What are your reasons? (Question 4) In your opinion, what are the implications for the kind of English a university should require of its students and staff if it describes itself as ‘an interna­ tional university’? (Question 9) Many of the response to the question about assessing NNES students’ written work took a traditional approach to written English. Typical examples were: Yes, I expect all written work to conform to the native academic English because academic is a rigid business and I don’t want the students to think that as a non-native they could try what fits them. They just can’t. [Thailand] I expect their English to fully conform to native academic English. I expect to have mastered the language and be able to perform at the level of a native speaker. [Turkey] I expect it [NNESs’ English] to conform entirely to native academic English as (a) it is an English university, and (b) that is the standard expected in science following university. [UK, NES] However, the majority revealed more flexible orientations: I don’t expect them to conform to native academic English completely, because it’s an impossible task for non-English speaking students. [China] [E]ncouragement for further trying in English writing is the focus in this [math­ ematics] class. I won’t care much on whether their works match native aca­ demic English. [Taiwan]. I do not consider conforming to native academic English is the most impor­ tant factor when grading my students’ papers because what is most impor­ tant to me is for them to express their understanding of the content. [UK, NNES] Nevertheless, their flexibility should not be taken to imply that they saw English from an ELF perspective. As was revealed in their responses to other questions, these staff considered their students’ English, where it differed from native Eng­ lish, as incorrect. They simply (and wisely) understood that conveying meaning was more important than conforming to a certain type of English, or felt that

22

Jennifer Jenkins

to do aiming for ‘native-like’ English was impossible and discouraging for their students. Turning to the question asking staff what they saw as the implications for Eng­ lish language use of ‘international’, there were four main kinds of response. In the first case, the notion ‘international’ was seen by some in non-Anglophone contexts as being closely connected with native English, and often also to refer communication specifically with native English speakers. For example: I think a university to describe itself as “an international university” should require its students and staff reach the level of academic English proficiency of giving lectures and presentations, writing and communicating with native speakers freely. [China] A second group of responses focused on the diversity of their university’s person­ nel. Like the first group, however, they took it as given that native English was the language of international higher education. Interestingly, in this example, the respondent seems to have assumed that my question was equating ‘international’ both with NNES students and thence, by (his) definition, a lower standard of English: Should an international university expect a lower standard? No. . . . To be “international” means that students from many backgrounds are enrolled – they will have many native languages. There should be adequate support to them so that they can receive an education of the highest standard of English. [UK] Thirdly, a small minority of respondents were aware that some kind of change seems to be in progress in the way English is used internationally, although most had not heard of ELF as such: We have many international students from other parts of the world as well, so what our university should aim for is an “international” English that reflects features of diverse varieties of English that its members bring to campus. [Japan] Finally, a very small number of respondents equated ‘international’ language-wise with ‘multilingual’, and did not see English as the default language of interna­ tional higher education. For example: For me, an international university should have a policy for multilingualism and multiculturalism. [Greece]

The internationalization of higher education 23 The staff questionnaire findings overall bore many similarities to the website find­ ings, reflecting a number of shared perspective across university management and staff. Firstly, it was almost unanimously taken as a given that English is the language of the internationalization of HE, and therefore that it is the most appropriate language to serve as the common medium of instruction among speakers from different L1s. Secondly, native English, and specifically ‘standard’ North Ameri­ can or British academic English, was widely seen as the most acceptable kind of English. Thirdly, with few exceptions, the staff focused on NNES students as prob­ lems in terms of both language and intercultural communication, whereas they did not focus on NES students as problems in either respect. On the other hand, the NNES staff respondents in both Anglophone and non-Anglophone settings tended, not surprisingly, to have higher levels of awareness than NES staff of the lived experience and difficulties of NNES students studying in English medium.

The international student study The third phase of the research project involved unstructured interviews – or, more accurately, conversations – with international students in a UK university. I chose to speak with international students in an Anglophone setting because the Anglophone world as a whole recruits by far the highest number of international students – over 40% of the world’s total (see Table 2.1) – and its dominance means that English language issues are particularly in need of exploring in relation to these countries. I chose the UK more particularly, even though it does not recruit as many international students as the US, as it is the higher education context with which I am most familiar, and this would enable me to gain richer insights. The partici­ pants were 34 international students, all postgraduate, from across a wide range of first languages and disciplines, although more came from the hard and social sciences than elsewhere. I called the interviews ‘conversations’ as I did not have

Table 2.1 Top 10 destinations for international students (2010) Country

Market share %

International students as % of overall student population

US UK Australia Germany France Canada Russia Japan Spain China

16.6 13.0 6.6 6.4 6.3 4.7 3.9 3.4 2.4 1.8

3.4 16.0 21.2 – – 6.6 – 3.4 3.0 –

Source: Adapted from Times Higher Education (31 January 2013, p. 39)

24

Jennifer Jenkins

prompts and did not have specific questions to ask, simply a general sense of my research questions and focus. Thus, we talked together, discussing our views on university English, co-constructing meaning as we went along. From the data, 40 codes emerged which, after I had merged those with over­ lapping themes, resulted in the following five main themes: • • • • •

Understanding the English of native English speakers Concerns about academic English writing English language entry tests Issues of fairness Orientations to English/ELF

Almost all the participants spoke of their problems understanding NES staff in lectures. In the following example, although I was trying to turn the conversation to the subject of the use of idiomatic language, the Chinese student wanted to talk about lecturers’ jokes:

Exchange 1: understanding the English of NES lecturers S: some of my teachers they use the vocabulary or they use some very difficult vocabulary J: do you think it’s that or do they do things do they use very idiomatic English language (1) sort of what the native speakers know [but S: [mm mm mm yes and some jokes he made and ah ah I can’t UNDER­ STAND and other people ha ha but I don’t know why= J: =yes a lot of students have said that to me that the lecturers tell jokes and [everyone’s laughing S: [Yeah, yeah J: and one of them said so I just laugh [@@@@ S: [@@@@ J: it’s difficult isn’t [it S: [yeah yeah and er I ask my friend why you are laughing and erm [@@@ J: [@@@ they’re pretending (.) they don’t really understand the joke at all S: mmmm Things were no better with NES home students, as the next example provided by a Thai student demonstrates:

Exchange 2: Understanding the English of (NES) home students J: and erm (.) when you’re (1) what (.) do you have seminars? S: Oh: @@ seminars the first year is VERY bad for me very bad because very fast er it it er I think it’s normal problem I mean common problem er for Thai students

The internationalization of higher education 25 J: seminars S: er yes seminar because the British students discuss together and Thai stu­ dents have some problems about listening so they er cannot catch what they say J: so (.) the British students do all the talking? S: OH: they’re talking all the time [@@@ J: [@@@ S: because they’re talking (.) they (feel free) so (.) very fast [. . .] J: so it’s difficult for all the international students (.) do you talk about it together? S: @@@ J: @@@ S: when I talk talk to my Thai friends they told me they’re quiet [@@ they can NOT J: [@@ S: follow er they cannot er: can don’t catch what they say J: [yeah S: [if if they understand but they have to: er: provide the answer sometimes (they’re) very slowly and they talk about another topic @@@ J: @@@ they they’re on the next topic S: yeah J: when you’re @ ready to start the last topic @@ S: yeah @@ oh, don’t laugh This complete lack of awareness and of accommodation skills on the part of the home students is rather different from what Iino and Murata (2013) found in their study of first-year School in International Liberal Studies (SILS) seminars at Waseda. These, they report, are characterized by slow tempo in turn taking, code-switching and other forms of accommodation. This leads Iino and Murata to conclude that ‘the students are careful in making sure that everybody partici­ pates in seminar discussions’ (pp. 92–3). By contrast, some of my UK participants suggested that the NES staff and students needed to attend a course on intercultural communication before they start teaching or studying with international students. Again, almost all the participants expressed concerns about academic writ­ ing. Several mentioned having problems because their lecturers or supervisors were fussy about them not using American spelling (despite the fact that, at that time, the University accepted the American test, TOEFL,2 alongside tests grounded in British English, as evidence of students’ language proficiency). Apparently in some cases, lecturers’ fussiness about avoiding American spell­ ing applies even in university examination situations, as another Thai student describes:

26

Jennifer Jenkins

Exchange 3: British versus American written English S: J: S: J:

all of them they want British one= =British spelling? so (.) in my exams I have to make sure that I put u and put s and not zee and you have enough to think about in an exam I mean if you’re in not a first language if you’re not a native speaker of English doing an exam must be SO difficult= S: =very difficult (.) my first exams I was panic (.) I said oh my god I don’t know what how to deal with this (.) just three questions and I have to write everything down as fast as possible that’s why I feel it’s very difficult Meanwhile, others talked of the narrow rigid expectations of their writing and how these stifle their creativity. This, they often felt, was unfair, as the same was not expected of NES students, which implied that a double standard was at work. For example, an EU student said the following

Exchange 4: constraints on creativity in writing . . . sometimes you know I find that my writing is I find it a bit RIGID and I find it that you know if I am to be very aware and cautious of the fact that I HAVE to use English you know in a in a er: correct grammatical grammati­ cally correct manner then some of my you know that creativity and that you know that DRIVES words you know writing is LOST somehow (.) because I you know it’s about self-constraint and you know self-censorship as well and (.) yeah and (.) when that happens you know I feel like after you know after a while re-reading my my (1) my essay or article I feel like hmm this is sounds like quite RIGID it’s quite rigid yeah [EU student] English language entry tests emerged as a widespread concern. Like many of the participants, this Turkish student highlighted a major conceptual problem among all the so-called international examination boards: that despite the mas­ sive global change in the composition of higher education over the past two decades, they still use native English as the benchmark and assume people learn English in general, and academic English specifically, to communicate primarily with NESs. This is clearly not the case even in Anglophone universities. In fact most of my participants talked of how the British students stay together both inside and outside class, while the international students mix with each other.

Exchange 5: IELTS issues J: and when you get here you spend most of your time with NON-native Eng­ lish speakers S: @@@ yeah J: because that’s an international university so it doesn’t really prepare you for what happens in the university does it

The internationalization of higher education 27 S: . . . when I come here I find some things er maybe a little different yeah it’s different er er er: because like you said it’s VERY international (.) people from India from Poland Greek their their pronunciation their English is a little bit more or less different from native speakers such as Indian I I can hardly understand that before but er it’s much better NOW because I com­ municate with that guy very much every day One of the main problems seems to be that English in higher education is seen, not for what it actually is, i.e. as a tool of lingua franca communication, but as a requirement to imitate the English of certain NESs. But as Suviniitty (2012) points out in respect of the engineering graduates in her own study: Considering the situations in which engineering graduates use English, they most often will interact with NNSs of English in high-stakes situations using language specific to their field of study. After studying in an EMI program, they have mastered the terminology and are able to use English as a tool in various situations. This is the case, regardless of their pronunciation and other non-native features in their use of English. Acquiring native-like Eng­ lish, which is one of the CEFR-criteria, would seem only marginally benefi­ cial for the engineering graduates. Interestingly, the only people to refer regularly to English as a ‘tool of communi­ cation’ in my research were international students. Management and staff seemed to be largely unaware of the concept.

The three studies: overall findings When I compared the findings across the three data sets, it was clear that Turner’s claim of a ‘relentlessly remedial/deficit discourse’ in relation to non-native aca­ demic English was evident across all three studies. While there were universally positive orientations to the idea of diversity on campus, these rarely extended to the English language. Moreover, universities claimed to be preparing students for life in a multicultural world, but did not seem to have considered what this meant in terms of English, let alone other languages. Instead, they seemed to see inter­ nationalization as going hand in hand with English, and more specifically, native English (usually American and British), and to take it for granted that native English was superior to non-native English, a position that NNES management and staff seemed often to be ‘complicit’ in. Where English language was prob­ lematized across the three studies, this was almost always in relation to NNESs. By contrast, there was an almost complete lack of awareness (except among the international students in the third study) that NES students (and staff) often lack intercultural communication skills. Meanwhile, NES management and staff appeared to have little understanding of the difficulties for NNESs of operating in a language other than their first and no sense of linguistic unfairness (for exam­ ple, in expecting NNES students to meet the same requirements, particularly

28

Jennifer Jenkins

regarding deadlines and time limits) as NES students. And in almost all cases, the situation seemed to be worse in Anglophone than non-Anglophone settings.

Looking to the future The findings of my research demonstrate that the phenomenon of ELF is as yet probably unknown to many of those in gatekeeping positions of various kinds in higher education. From an ELF perspective, as Mauranen points out: International academic communities communicate in largely non-native groups. What counts is clarity, effectiveness and contextual appropriateness of communi­ cation. While high academic standards are vital, native-like English is not. (Mauranen, Times Higher Education, Letters, 21 Sept. 2007) But university managements and staff appear to have little understanding of ‘clar­ ity, effectiveness and contextual appropriateness’, and instead to take as a given that native English is by definition clear, effective and appropriate to all global contexts regardless of the vast body of ELF research that shows otherwise. Two groups above all seem to me to be underpinning the native English ideol­ ogy of status quo. The first of these is the large publishing houses, whose style sheets often insist on native English and recommend that NNESs have their work ‘checked by a native English speaker’ before submitting it. And yet, as Seidlhofer points out, there is a lack of evidence to support this requirement: Questions have arisen about the legitimacy of these [ENL] norms, and the extent to which written English (in articles in learned journals, for example) should be subjected to correction to conform to native speaker conventions of use, thus allowing ENL journals to exert a gatekeeping function based not on academic expertise but purely on linguistic criteria whose relevance for international intelligibility has not actually been demonstrated. (2004: 222) The second group underpinning the current native English ideology is the large (so-called international) examination boards such as TOEFL, TOIEC, IELTS and the like. For example, in May 2013, the British Council put out the following press release about IELTS:

A record of two million IELTS tests taken around the world in the last 12 months 28 May 2013 The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) rein­ forces its position as the world’s most popular English proficiency test

The internationalization of higher education 29 for higher education and global migration, with a record of two mil­ lion tests taken around the world in the last 12 months. The two million test figure represents 11% growth in the number of tests taken in the last 12 months and marks the eighteenth year of consecutive growth in IELTS test numbers. The growth in test numbers also reflects the strong growth in the num­ ber of organizations turning to IELTS to meet their needs for lan­ guage proficiency assessment. IELTS is now accepted by more than 8,000 educational institutions, employers, professional associations and governments in 135 coun­ tries around the world.

Far from native English diminishing its hold over higher education, the evi­ dence from IELTS (and we can find similar on the websites of the other large examination boards) is that their hold is increasing. On the other hand, there have recently been incipient signs of change in academic publishing, albeit mainly in respect of publications on ELF. Both the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca and the book series Developments in English as a Lingua Franca (both De Gruyter Mouton) have moved completely away from any native English requirement for prospective contributors. Instead, they say as follows: We see no need to insist on conformity to native-speaker usage for its own sake. . . . We have therefore removed the conventional publisher’s submis­ sion guideline requiring non-native English authors to have their submis­ sions ‘checked by a native English speaker’ and simply ask that authors submit manuscripts written in an English that will be intelligible to a wide international readership. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, Editorial, vol 1, issue 1. Authors and editors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript is writ­ ten in an English that is intelligible to a wide international academic audi­ ence, but it need not conform to native English norms. Developments in English as a Lingua Franca Book Series, Style Sheet. While the content of both is on ELF, and therefore one might expect them not to insist on native English, the prominent way in which the advertise this, and the fact that they offer an alternative that they regard as bona fide rather than ‘tolerating NNESs’ mistakes’ is a promising start. It is to be hoped that other publishers will follow De Gruyter Mouton’s example. And perhaps when they do, and scholars around the world no longer need to write in native English in

30

Jennifer Jenkins

order to get their work published, the ‘international’ examination boards will be forced to look again at their obsession with native English and rethink their own requirements. And when this happens, perhaps we will finally see the diversity of international higher education accepted in terms of language, and will no longer have to ask, ‘but what about its [HE’s] lingua franca?’.

Notes 1 All data extracts are taken from Jenkins 2014. 2 Since 2015, the UK government has stopped allowing TOEFL as evidence of Eng­ lish language proficiency.

References Bailey, C. 2013. Challenges of the first written assignment. In S. Sovic and M. Bly­ thman (eds.), International Students Negotiating Higher Education. London: Routledge. Cogo, A. and M. Dewey 2012. Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A CorpusDriven Investigation. London: Continuum. Iino, M. and K. Murata 2013. We are jun-Japa – Dynamics of ELF communication in an English medium academic context. In WASEDA Working Papers in ELF 2, pp. 84–100. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University. The Poli­ tics of Academic English Language Policy. London: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85. doi:10.1515/eip-2015–0003. Jenkins, J. in press. Not English but English-within-multilingualism. In S. Coffey and U. Wingate (eds.), New Directions for Language Learning in the 21st Century. London: Routledge. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Users. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pratt, M. L. 2010. “You don’t understand the system”: Reflections on language and globalization. Sociolinguistics Symposium 18, Abstracts p. 9. Saarinen, T. and T. Nikula 2013. Implicit policy, invisible language: Policies and prac­ tices of international degree programmes in Finnish higher education. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities. Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 131–150. Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a Lingua Franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shohamy, E. 2006. Language Policy. Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge. Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Suviniitty, J. 2012. English-medium instruction – a friend or a foe. SEFI 40th Annual Conference, Thessaloniki, September 2012.

The internationalization of higher education 31 Turner, J. 2011. Language in the Academy. Cultural Reflexivity and Intercultural Dynamics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Woolard, K. 2005. Language and identity choice in CatalonIThe interplay of con­ trasting ideologies of linguistics authority. Available from:http://escholarship.org/ uc/item/47n938cp [accessed 15 March 2013].

3 Intelligibility, mimicry and internationalization Clarissa Menezes JordãoIntelligibility, mimicry

Localized practices in higher

education, or can the Global

South speak?

Clarissa Menezes Jordão In the context of internationalization of higher education, the English language can be a burden to scholars and students who do not feel this language belongs to them. When learning English as a foreign language in a country such as Brazil, where the national language is Portuguese (also the first language of most of the population), such a burden easily becomes a tool of colonization – colonization both of mouths and minds. In Brazilian higher education, attempts to use English as a medium of instruction have just started, but they are already creating feel­ ings of inadequacy and contributing to construct troubled professional identities among scholars who feel compelled to teach in English for the sake of interna­ tionalization. This is the scenario of this chapter, whose aim is to explore alterna­ tives to mainstream treatments of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in higher education, especially when in the context of internationalization practices. The text that follows will examine how a decolonization process was inten­ tionally developed in an institutional practice geared towards university research professors of different knowledge areas. The course was designed with the aim of tackling professors’ linguistic identity constructions and eventual feelings of uneasiness using English based on a decolonizing discursive perspective. Such practice took place as an extension course to discuss language issues with the participants through the use of English as an international language as a medium for discussion rather than as a medium of instruction. The present chapter will first set the scene where the course was run. As the course coordinator and one of the teachers from a team of three, I will start by describing the epistemological context where English became a problem in our work lives, offering a post-structuralist perspective on language as a way to decol­ onize such space and the identities of Brazilian English-speaking professors. In order to do this, I will briefly map out the local scenario, where English is inter­ twined with the idea of internationalization, and discuss the dual attitudes to this language, which establish tensions in the ways we relate both to (1) the language and its cultural symbolic capital and (2) to the people who are believed to possess such capital. I will also present my take on the relation between modernity and coloniality, based on the perspectives of a Latin American research group called Modernity/Coloniality, integrated by Quijano, Mignolo, Grosfoguel, Escobar and others (Ballestrin 2013).

Intelligibility, mimicry 33 I will then focus on the need to decolonize English, especially English as a medium of instruction, and briefly present some local initiatives and their poten­ tial to disrupt traditional internationalization practices around EMI.

Local tensions: the case of English in decoloniality English is seen in many contradictory ways in Brazilian society. Sometimes its high symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1996) is stressed especially in terms of the superior value people attribute to “native” accents and, along with the accents, to “native” ways of knowing and using English in various domains. English is thus associated to rich countries and receives a positive connotation, extensive to the people who are believed to be the “owners” of this language and its cultural capital. English is the language of globalization and globalization is a window to the world. Knowing English, in this perspective, aggregates value to a person. English and progress, English and civilization, English and develop­ ment. Same old. Nevertheless, such positivity associated with English is challenged by another perception of the impact of its distribution in the world, and of course in Brazil: Globalization, when understood as a neo-colonial practice that increases differ­ ences and relates to neo-liberal politics and imperialistic cultural attitudes, brings to its language, English, negative taints and places its “owners”, the “native” speakers, in the position of colonizers oppressing the world. English and imperi­ alism, English and domination, English and oppression. Same old too. Both views very often inhabit the same individual, informed by the infamous Herderian triad that conceives of language as an autonomous grammatical sys­ tem, corresponding to a neatly bounded world view and a clearly marked culture within a country’s geographical borders (Canagarajah 2013). One country, one language, one culture. This purported one-to-one relation has more recently been challenged and shown to be an abstract construct of linguistics (Harris 2003), but still very much present and made concrete in our social practices (Pennycook 2007), compared in its materiality to another infamous construct, the “native” speaker. Regardless of the side one takes, privileging one view or the other, we need to realize that the two perspectives are based on a similar concept that positions languages as the domain of one specific country, as belonging to one specific cul­ ture and therefore to one specific nation. Or, in a lighter version of the Herderian triad (Canagarah 2013), a view of each language as belonging to more than one specific group of people, but still belonging to some and not to others, depend­ ing on where they were born. This way of looking at languages informs our everyday life and thus refer­ ences our contact with English, producing unequal discrimination according to whether one’s identity is perceived as “native” to English or not. It essentializes categories as “speaker”, “mother tongue” and “language”, to name some, and such reification positions the so-called non-native speakers as illegitimate users of the language, users who will never attain a desirable language proficiency for the simple fact that such proficiency is connected to place of birth: If you are

34

Clarissa Menezes Jordão

not born “in the right place” you will never be able to use language “really” well. Such view is surely imposed by social and cultural beliefs, constituting what Bourdieu (1996) referred to as habitus, that is, as dispositions to think and do things in a certain way rather than another. Be that as it may, this habitus is also self-inflicted by complicity and assimilation, but as a construction, therefore, it can be changed so that “non-native speakers” can be cured of the ever-so-often felt Impostor Syndrome (Bernat 2008). However, looking at languages as the domain of nation-states and expressions of national cultures is not the only possibility. Languages can also be seen as loci for the construction of meanings, as spaces where signification is built, where understandings are created, challenged, rebuilt, regardless of one’s geographi­ cal place of birth. If seen as such spaces, languages become what Geertz (1989) described as “webs of signification” when referring to ethnography: languages are open systems, ever-changing, flexible, processual, always allowing for the con­ struction of more interpretive procedures, conferring ownership to those who use them, independently of their nations, places of birth or residence. This is not to say that cultures are irrelevant to languages, of course. I am problematizing power over languages, challenging the attitude that positions native speaker uses as better than other uses of language, and consequently confers to the former the authority to decide what is right and what is wrong in terms of language use and, consequently, providing the scales against which all users will be measured in ontoepistemological colonial terms. The tension previously described between attraction to the perceived ben­ efits brought by legitimate use of English and repulsion towards its bond to neo-liberal politics and oppressive practices (Pennycook 2017) shows the entanglement of desire and resistance in relation to the English language, an entanglement that can be found all over the world, I believe. Such connections, however, do not need to be accepted uncritically, for there are ways to construct English that position it as not inherent to such attachments. This is the view I privilege in the space of English in practices of internationalization and will be focusing on for the remainder of this text.

Decolonizing modernity: the case of some Brazilian professors Considering decolonial studies in Latin America alongside the work of research­ ers like Canagarajah and Kumaravadivelu, I start from the assumption that there has been an ontoepistemological break in applied linguistics, a break that places language into a different domain from the one set by the Herderian triad. The argument I develop dives into the realm of “post-linguistics” or more recent developments of applied linguistics, loosely referred to here as the “translingual episteme”. To understand the possible relations between applied linguistics and deco­ loniality we need first to understand how modernity and coloniality are joint

Intelligibility, mimicry 35 initiatives, always intrinsically together. Mignolo (2007: 155) states this relation by explaining that ‘modernity’ is a European narrative that hides its darker side, ‘coloniality’. Coloniality, in other words, is constitutive of modernity – there is no moder­ nity without coloniality. [. . .] de-colonial thinking and doing emerged, from the sixteenth century on, as responses to the oppressive and imperial bent of modern European ideals projected to, and enacted in, the non-European world. This means that coloniality does not refer to a historical process, but to relations of power that have been established during such process and remain to date. As Menezes de Souza (2013, oral presentation) put it, “coloniality [. . .] defines which knowledges are valued as knowledge and it establishes who is recognized as a full citizen and who is not”. Modernity is therefore understood as a master narrative, rooted in Europe but projecting local desires as global ideals, such as those of purity, discipline and individualism, for example. These powerful narra­ tives have informed, since at least the Enlightenment years, our social, economic, political and cultural structures, establishing founding concepts like critical rea­ son, nationality and progress. Another important act of modernity was the insti­ tution of hierarchical relations among different knowledges, ways of knowing and those who know. This has been constructed in various dimensions, including race, class, gender, culture and language. Modernity’s binary thinking, expressed in oppositions such as civilization/barbarism, development/under development, rationality/irrationality, the West/the rest, has violently promoted one side of the binaries as superior, and therefore advanced it as something to be desired and envied. Modern linguistics has not been excluded from coloniality, and it promoted its own violence, conceiving languages as neatly separated entities developing on their own, with only occasional and traceable influences from other entities of the same kind. It has established meaning as arising from the idea of norm or grammar, which would be created in and by language structure, by the linguistic system, a system owned by its native speakers. One of the most damaging consequences of this way of conceptualizing lan­ guage, for foreign language teachers, is the centrality it confers to so-called native uses of language, and the positioning of native speakers as the primary (if not exclusive) owners of a language. Languages are thus largely attached to place of birth, and language proficiency to birth certificates. Theories on language teach­ ing and learning based on modernist ontoepistemologies assume languages are circumscribed by national borders, and authority to create, impose and break rules is generally restricted to one’s place of birth. If you do not teach the lan­ guage you were born into, then you are doomed to interlanguage for life, des­ tined to never attain full command of the subject you teach, since this command is reserved exclusively to the native speakers, something you cannot possibly ever

36

Clarissa Menezes Jordão

be. That is, of course, disastrous, since native users are pictured as the super heroes who were naturally born where you, non-native speaker, should eagerly desire to have been born. In other words, native speakers do effortlessly what non-natives are supposed to struggle really hard to never attain – that is, native proficiency. Breaking away from this paradigm that projects modern ideals of purity, property, exclusivity and homogeneity over languages and their users, Harris’s integrational linguistics and Canagarajah’s translingualism, for example, recon­ ceptualize language in much more productive terms, more inclusive and more accepting. For them, in what I loosely refer to as the “translingual episteme”, languages exist in situations of contact, mutually influencing one another – influ­ ence and change are seen as a rule, not as an exception. Meaning then arises from concrete situations of language use, from situated negotiations that take place when people “read the wor(l)d”, as described by Freire and Macedo (1987). In this view, language exists in multimodality, that is, it is one semiotic system among others and it exists in relation, conversing with and connected to other systems, not independently of them. As argued by Canagarajah (2013: 6), texts (including talk) are “meshed and mediated by diverse codes”. This is a view that attributes language ownership to whoever uses the lan­ guage, displacing the centrality of native speakers as norm creators and guard­ ians. I hope it goes without saying that this concept of language opens it up to more democratic participation and agency by language users in general, regardless of their place of birth, therefore also changing the idea of ownership in language.

Decolonizing identities: the case of proficiency as intelligibility One of the main obstacles into building ownership of English among non-native users is related to how proficiency is construed. Traditionally, it takes as its main (if not only) reference what has been described by linguistics as “native uses” or, in other words, “standard language”, whatever is meant by that. Although no one knows for sure how made-up concepts such as “native” and “standard” can still (if ever) be applied to English nowadays (Rajagopalan 2010), distributed as this language is all over the world, they inform language attitudes and thus con­ struct our notions of proficiency in a language. Proficiency is then, in traditional theories of language acquisition, language use that is better when closest to the uses “natives” make of the language, assuming that such users would be the best examples of language use. We rarely see questioned, outside the domain of English as a lingua franca and the like (World Englishes, English as an interna­ tional language, Global English, sociolinguistics, etc.1), the homogenizing view of “native speakers” as constituting one and the same group, or the normalizing silencing of language variation that comes with the idea of a “standard” language use. Even linguists, apart maybe from a few ELF scholars, do not usually ques­ tion the power relations such views establish among language users and how the

Intelligibility, mimicry 37 hierarchization of these users can be a restrictive force for creativity and empow­ erment in language use. Defining proficiency in terms of intelligibility might be useful in order to move away from such prejudiced and limiting ideas about language and language learn­ ers. From this perspective, language practices are localized activities, constructed in each specific interaction. As such, it is the ability to “read the wor(l)d” (Freire and Macedo 1987), to understand the context in which one is producing language, and to take decisions as to how creative or conforming one wants or needs to be, that makes a good language user. We can never forget that there is always a sub­ ject, a someone (or manyones) to judge, to evaluate language use from one’s own perspectives. What I believe is of help here is not the possibility that there is no judgement, or that all language uses are accepted equally by everyone, but instead the necessity to be aware that the judgements we pass and those passed on us are based on specific frames of reference that can be more or less inclusive, more or less accepting of language difference. The notion of intelligibility, therefore, in order to be decolonizing, cannot be conceived in relation to the uses a native speaker supposedly does of the lan­ guage; it cannot be understood in relation to what has been defined as “commu­ nicative competence” – since it is usually too close to native-speakerism ideology (Holliday 2014); it cannot be described as some sort of ideal use that guarantees communication within purportedly homogenous speech communities. The con­ cept of intelligibility cannot be taken at face value, as if it were a neutral, apolitical construct that simply puts aside the power relations involved in perceiving lan­ guage as a social practice. If so, we run the risk of conceptualizing intelligibility as another construct that places “native” uses as quality reference, from the perspective that it is those uses, the “native-like” oriented, that might still be taken as reference to higher levels of intelligibility. In Rajagopalan’s words (2010: 468), “with a concept such as intelligibility nurtured in a context where the so-called native varieties no longer rule the roost, the figure of the native speaker creeps back in, only this time through the back door and that too most stealthily”. He reminds us that intel­ ligible remains an “evaluatory adjective” (id., ibid.) that qualifies a certain way of using language in detriment of others, hierarchizing language use and bringing forward the image of an “evaluator”, that is, someone with the authority to name something as intelligible or not. The problem with the notion of intelligibility is even greater when such authority is eschewed under the discourse of English as a lingua franca, sometimes understood as a label that democratically accepts every language use equally, no matter who, where or what is being done. This is to say that the concept of intelligibility, as I have mentioned before also of native and language, cannot be essentialized, under the risk of repeating the same prejudiced discrimination of other constructs in linguistics. In order for intelligi­ bility to help decolonize non-native uses and users of English, we need to bring power relations to the fore and highlight the fact that intelligibility, as conceptu­ alized by modern scholars such as Rajagopalan, Siqueira and Dewey, to name a few, needs to be analyzed from within specific contexts of practice, from within

38

Clarissa Menezes Jordão

the concrete language spaces where interactions occur amidst power relations, informed by everything people bring to the space, as much as by the space itself. In other words, the idea I am proposing here is that theories of language acquisition and learning are submitted to a digestive process I have elsewhere (Jor­ dao 2011) called epistemophagy in analogy with the Brazilian modernist manifest (Andrade 1995): By digesting knowledge we absorb what can be used for nour­ ishment and excrete the rest. Epistemophagy is thus an anarchic attitude towards relations of fidelity, based on a rhizomatic view of knowing that values instead associations by affinity, which are fluid, processual, transforming. In the anal­ ogy with the digestive process, I am stressing the possibility of transformation of knowledge into what is relevant for those who know, benefiting from what does us good, eliminating what does not. In terms of the notion of proficiency as intelligibility, therefore, it will only do us good if we let go of the centrality of the native speaker and “native uses” (whatever we mean by that) in determining what is high or low, good or bad proficiency. Instead, we can look at language uses as specific practices in their own terms. Different practices can, for sure, share multiple elements or dimen­ sions with other practices but one cannot predict what those will be. The analysis needs to be retroactive; that is, we cannot possibly predict how communication will happen before it actually happens. If we can agree on that, then a good language user is someone who is able to read different contexts and operational­ ize their language resources depending on how their relation to each context is established someone who lives “life in the ongoing present, forming relations and connections across signs, objects, and bodies in often unexpected ways. Such activity is saturated with affect and emotion”, add Leander and Bolt (2013: 22), and “it creates and is fed by an ongoing series of affective intensities that are different from the rational control of meanings and forms” (idem, ibid.). Intel­ ligibility, therefore, besides being a two-way process that depends on all of those involved in the communicative situation (Rajadurai 2007), is also subject to how communicative events unfold, how they are perceived by their participants, how resourceful and localized such participants turn out to be. As far as decolonizing language learning is concerned, then, to learn a lan­ guage can be seen as involving mimicry (Bhabha 1985) rather than imitation: Instead of emulating native speakers and their language uses, learners are more productively expected to creatively explore possibilities of meaning originated in the language uses they encounter. According to Lu and Horner (2013: 30), as post-colonial theories have taught us, mimicry of dominant powers, arts, discourses, and colonizers by the subordinate creates new meanings and new relationships between colonized and colonizer, with the potential to under­ mine the status and distinction of the dominant. (my emphasis) Mimicry, together with intelligibility as reconceptualized here, can help de­ link English ownership from the concepts of nationality and/or place of birth, positioning both native and non-native language users as language makers,

Intelligibility, mimicry 39 de-stigmatizing non-natives as counterfeit subjects eternally doomed to using some sort of interlanguage, fixed in a limbo they can never escape from. The call here is for a change of educational paradigm from modern representa­ tion and explanation (linked to traditional language teaching expectations that have the native speaker construct as reference), to decolonial cultural translation (linked to a perspective focusing on intelligibility and situatedness in communica­ tion, rather than place of birth). “Representation” is here associated to moder­ nity and coloniality, claiming for education and teaching-learning as processes of knowledge transmission, whereas “translation” conceives of literacy practices as meaning-making processes in which teachers and students learn together, Freirean style. The idea of translation is far from the naïve illusion of equalitarian relationships that sometimes can be associated to English as a foreign language theory, for many researchers silence the power relations that do exist even among international students interacting in European university cafeterias (for more, see Rajagopalan 2010). Translation as an educational perspective is aware of social positioning and symbolic power structures involved in every interaction among human beings, but it is also aware that such hierarchization, when essentialized or ignored, is violent and oppressive; however, when such power is perceived as productive, in the Foucauldian sense, people can change its workings and create new ten­ sions every now and then, changing their immediate contexts by exercising their agency and learning to live in movement.

Illustrating decolonial practice: a case of English in professorship I work at a public university in the south of Brazil. In our educational system, “public” means tuition-free: Students do not pay to attend classes and obtain their degrees. The whole process is financed by either state or federal govern­ ments. This is under attack right now, for we recently suffered a coup d’état that instituted a wildly neo-liberal government. But so far this aspect of Brazilian pub­ lic education has not changed. It is within the scenario of public higher education that I am going to mention some language initiatives towards internationaliza­ tion that have been developed locally at my university. The discussion around the need to internationalize our university has created official initiatives in terms of language teaching and learning, especially since 2015, when the language center at the university was commissioned to offer English courses for professors of different postgraduate programs (initiative 1). However, just a few professors could benefit from this, since it was conceived to raise awareness on a personal basis and therefore it needed to be conducted very carefully, with small groups of participants. As the university could not find the means (or the interest) to make it available to more groups, it was discontinued after its second edition. A larger scale strategy was the creation of an Academic Writing Center, where professors and students can write their papers collaboratively, under the

40

Clarissa Menezes Jordão

supervision of English language specialists (initiative 2). Soon after the center was created, the university Research and Postgraduate Studies Office invited the center director to offer a postgraduate course on academic writing in English open for all postgraduate students and professors who wished to join. Its first edition is under way right now, and hundreds of people have registered (initiative 3). We are still to wait for an analysis of this course. Besides those institutional initiatives, there have also been isolated research projects focusing on English in Brazilian higher education developed by indi­ vidual researchers in the areas of academic writing and EMI (initiative 4). In what follows, I will briefly describe these initiatives and comment on what I see as the local perspective on English in the internationalization of higher edu­ cation espoused by each of them.

Initiative 1 – English for internationalization First things first, I will start with the first edition of the first institutional English course offered to professors acting at postgraduate programs.2 Different from the large-scale EMI course that is going on right now, the English for Interna­ tionalization course, as we called it, was offered to a maximum of 20 professors in our highest ranked programs, selected on a first come, first served basis. It was designed as a 40-hour course whose meetings happened mostly intensively at the beginning and end of the 2015 first term, with two-hour quarterly meet­ ings during the term. We also counted on two teachers for the course: myself (a Brazilian teacher of English and postgraduate researcher and professor) and another colleague (a Polish teacher of English acting at undergraduate level). In the second edition of the course I stepped out and another colleague joined the group who was also Brazilian and also a postgraduate researcher and professor of English. The idea of both editions of the course was not to teach English per se, for it assumed that those attending the course were already familiar with the lan­ guage, as they participated in international conferences in English and published in English as well. Their proficiency was therefore taken for granted, as we were not using native-speakerism for scales. According to the course proposal, that was not going to be a course of English as traditionally conceived. The idea is to create an environment where English is used (partial immersion) to discuss actions related to academic activities, such as paper presentations in confer­ ences and seminars, mail exchange with potential foreign partners, planning and teaching classes in English for international and Brazilian students. (Jordão, 2015) So its main aim was to critically reflect about the need and impact of using Eng­ lish in academic activities. Unfortunately, both groups started with 20 professors enrolled but ended with less than half – many justified giving up because they expected a language course instead. To make a long story short, the course was an opportunity for participants who had never reflected about English, native-speakerism, linguistic imperialism,

Intelligibility, mimicry 41 (de)coloniality and (post)modernity, to share their sorrows and satisfactions with English. We realized how complex its presence is in our institutional practices, and how damaging a perceived lack of English can be to our identities as scientists. Most of us complained about how diminished we felt when faced by English users we judged as more proficient than us, for we seemed to refer to the native speaker construct to measure ability, ours and others, using English. The idea of taking intelligibility as a reference rather than place of birth was welcomed with enthusiasm, but we were aware that such perspective, unfortunately, is not the one that regulates interaction in international environments of English language use. I consider this to have been a truly decolonial practice, therefore an ELF prac­ tice as well, in that it problematized the coloniality of our attitudes to English, questioned the position of English in higher education and scientific endeavors in different parts of the world, and mostly challenged the use of standard, native-like uses of English as scales for proficiency. By doing this, according to participants themselves, we managed to raise their self-esteem regarding their knowledge and use of English internationally, by challenging international publishing practices and examining the possibility that they may be driven by other interests than an intelligible use of English, among other course dimensions and activities. That de-essentialization of our identities as Brazilian scientists using English was lib­ erating and self-affirming, and came alongside our awareness that such attitude would not be the rule in the academic world, requiring us to always read each context as new, and decide to adapt or challenge accordingly.

Initiative 2 – Academic Writing Center The idea for the Center (called CAPA) is collaborative writing, where authors get together to help one another understand the practices involved in academic writing, questioning motivations but at the same time complying with the char­ acteristics of the genre, whatever they are perceived to be. Its principal aim is to foster acceptance of articles in international journals, and therefore to instru­ mentalize participants to write according to those journals norms. English lan­ guage postgraduate and undergraduate students who work there are trained in academic writing, certified as reviewers, and work in collaboration with profes­ sors from English and other departments to help authors write and revise their texts. Although the Center grew out of a perceived need for English, the work is now done in a number of languages, especially Portuguese, English and Spanish. At the moment, the greater demand (especially for postgraduate/undergraduate academic production) is in Portuguese. That is an interesting turn in the initial vocation of the Center, showing how local demands can shape institutional poli­ cies, and especially how our researchers seem to be more interested in establish­ ing South-South dialogues, rather than South-North as was initially expected by the policymakers. Adaptive at first sight, the Center can offer writers not only support to help getting their texts designed, developed and accepted for publication, but it can also give rise to moments of reflection about what academic writing entails in terms of text structure and publishing ideologies: Depending on how authors,

42

Clarissa Menezes Jordão

tutors and reviewers interact, a lot of critical work can happen alongside the adjustments of each author’s writing styles to publishing demands. It is impor­ tant to mention that the services offered by the Center are free of charge for members of the University. Many of these services are also free to the external community, though translation and editing are not. Therefore, despite being an initiative to accommodate local uses of English to global notions of quality academic writing, the Center presents the poten­ tial of challenging those notions through providing a rich and diverse field for research on writing practices. By supporting researchers in their need to get published, the Center can simultaneously contribute to their awareness of the global politics of academic writing and publication, helping to raise academics’ self-esteem in relation to their academic language use by showing them that they are not alone trying to fight prejudiced practices that discriminate against different language uses and local genre characteristics when writing in academic genres.

Initiative 3 – EMI transversal course Another initiative of our Research and Postgraduate Studies Office was the crea­ tion, in 2017, of a transversal postgraduate course called Academic Writing in English. This course can be attended by professors and students from any of our postgraduate programs at the university, and it was described, in its proposal, as aiming at “consolidating internationalization initiatives”, “improving writing skills”, and facilitating “the acceptance of articles by our students and researchers in international journals”. According to the call for participation that officially introduced the course to the academic community, having papers accepted inter­ nationally has been “one of the main barriers to universalizing the knowledge produced by our researchers”. It is interesting to relate this statement to the fact that most researchers have been coming to the Academic Writing Center in search of assistance for their productions in Portuguese. Again this initiative, like that of the Center, can be seen as two-folded: depending on how it is developed, it can serve (a) the purpose of colonialism, if it departs from a concept of language as a space of universal structures dictated by disembodied grammar rules and controlled by an abstract notion of norm; or it can serve (b) the purpose of decolonizing our local uses of English, if it takes for reference a concept of language as situated social practice where mean­ ings are seen as performative and contingent, emerging from concrete situations and subject to socio-cultural-political interpretive procedures. As a decolonial practice, such course can stress the powerful forces involved in having a text accepted in an international journal, forces that go beyond the surface of nor­ mative language uses or the illusion of a neutral standard reference for English language uses. In other words, the initiative of offering a course to help improve Brazilian researchers writing skills in English is not in itself a colonial or decolonial practice, but how it is developed might privilege one or the other.

Intelligibility, mimicry 43

Initiative 4 – researching English in internationalization The notion that institutional practices are made concrete by the people who put them in practice, and therefore depend a lot on the embodied materialization of their official descriptions, calls for more research on internationalization and local practices related to how English works in the process. At the present, there are two officially registered research projects being devel­ oped around the issue of English in internationalization at my university. Both are being developed in close interaction with one another, as they are investigat­ ing the same phenomena using similar theoretical viewpoints, especially in terms of languages being conceptualized as localized practices of meaning-making, sub­ ject to ideological, cultural, political and social discourses, and having the poten­ tial to both silence and liberate individuals but in practice contributing more to the realization of one than the other. The group in charge of the two research projects departed from an initial pro­ spective study aiming at mapping local concepts of internationalization and its practices at the postgraduate level at university, concentrating on the perspectives of students and professors about internationalization. This study was based on the data generated from answers to an online questionnaire, analyzed both quantita­ tively and qualitatively. The research group is now preparing interview outlines that focus on specific issues found to be relevant in the first analysis of the participants’ profiles and perspectives, mainly in relation to the concepts of language orienting their views on English in internationalization. The results of the research should be made available by mid 2019.

Final remarks My take on the local perspective on English in the internationalization of higher education is based both on my experience as an insider, local Brazilian professor of English, being subjected and subjecting others to this language and its situated uses, and on an analysis of the practices I see around me, as the ones referred to previously. To me, such practices are constituted from dimensions that at times reinforce the colonialism of English, and at other times deconstruct and resist it, evidencing how entangled adaptation, resistance and transformation can be in our institutional practices. It is not always easy to clearly pinpoint the intentions, motivations, drives and investments behind institutional and individual practices that revolve around English, this language being immersed perhaps more than others in neo-liberal discourses of globalization. Such discourses seem to be insidious and ubiquitous, contaminating all walks of contemporary life. However, closer looks to specific practices can devise resistance and opposition intentionally or unintentionally present in local contexts of oppression. This realization has sustained my practice as a teacher, researcher, professor, scientist, woman, third world citizen, human being, for it brings me confidence that there are alternatives to the epistemic violence of colonialism, that there is resistance to oppression and silencing, and

44

Clarissa Menezes Jordão

there is hope for a decolonial project that, according to the Brazilian educators, Olivia and Candau (2010: 27), proposes an epistemic turn that can produce new knowledges and another symbolic understanding of the world, keeping in sight the coloniality of power, of knowing and of being. Interculturality, conceived in this perspec­ tive, represents the construction of a new epistemological space that includes subalternized knowledges and western knowledges, in a tense relationship, critical and more equalitarian. My hope in writing this text is that I can share with other peoples this hope, contaminating them with the strength necessary to the endeavor of promoting, locally, such epistemic turn and creating spaces of resistance where we can devise and construct more equalitarian practices around English and internationaliza­ tion; spaces where we can act transculturally, translating ourselves and making contact amidst power relations that colonize, but can also decolonize structures of power, knowledge and being. After all, this seems to be what English as a lingua franca should be all about.

Acknowledgement This text is part of a research project supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – CNPq.

Notes 1 I am aware of the different perspectives involved in each of these subareas of inter­ est inside what I am here generalizing as ELF. However, for a matter of scope, in this text I will not go into those differences. Please refer to JORDAO, 2014. 2 A more thorough analysis of this course can be found in Jordão, 2016.

References Andrade, O. 1995. Manifesto Antropófago. In J. Scwartz (ed.), Vanguardas LatinoAmericanas: Polêmicas, Manifestos e Textos Críticos. São Paulo: Iluminuras, Edusp e FAPESP, pp. 142–147. Ballestrin, L. 2013. América Latina e o giro decolonial. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Polít., Brasília n. 11, 89–117, August 2013. Available from: www.scielo.br/scielo. php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-33522013000200004&lng=en&nrm=iso [accessed 31 August 2017]. Bernat, E. 2008. Towards a pedagogy of empowerment: The case of ‘impostor syn­ drome’ among pre-service non-native speaker teachers in TESOL. Elted 11, 1–8. Bhabha, H. 1985. Signs taken for wonders: Questions of ambivalence and authority under a tree outside Delhi, May 1817. Critical Inquiry 12, 144–165. Bourdieu, P. 1996. A Economia das Trocas Lingüísticas. São Paulo: EDUSP.

Intelligibility, mimicry 45 Canagarajah, S. 2013. Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan rela­ tions. New York: Routledge, 2013. Freire, P. and P. Macedo 1987. Literacy: Reading the Word & the World. South Had­ ley: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. Geertz, C. 1989. A Interpretação das Culturas. Rio de Janeiro: LTC. Harris, R. 1990. On redefining linguistics. In H. Davis and T. Taylor (Eds.) Redefin­ ing Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 18–52. Holliday, A. 2014. Native speakerism. Available from: http://adrianholliday.com/ wp-content/uploads/2014/01/nism-encyc16plain-submitted.pdf [accessed July 2017]. Jordão, C. M. 2011. A Educação Literária ao Lado dos Anjos? Por uma Atitude Epis­ temofágica Transformadora das Relações de Poder-saber na Sala de Aula. São Paulo: Blucher. Jordão, C. M. 2014. ILA – ILF – ILE – ILG: quem dá conta? Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada 5(14), 13–40. Jordão, C. M. 2015. Course Proposal. Unpublished document. Internal circulation. Jordão, C. M. 2016. Decolonizing identities: English for internationalization in a Brazilian university. Interfaces Brasil/Canadá. Canoas 16(1), 191–209. Leander, K. and G. Boldt 2013. Rereading ‘A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies’: Bodies, texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research 45(1), 22–46. Lu, M. and Horner, B. 2013. Translingual literacy and matters of agency. In: A. Suresh Canagarajah (ed.), Literacy as Translingual Practice: Between communities and classrooms. New York: Routledge. Menezes, D. S. L. M. T. 2013. International seminar of the Brazil-Canada knowl­ edge exchange project – 2013. Vimeo. Available from: vimeo.com [accessed 1 December 2015]. Mignolo, W. 2007. Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural Studies 21(2–3), 155–167. Olivia, L., F. de and V. M. F. Candau 2010. Pedagogia decolonial e educação antir­ racista e intercultural no Brasil. Educational Review 26(1), 15–40. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/S0102-46982010000100002 [accessed 21 January 2018]. Pennycook, A. 2007. The myth of English as an international language. In A. Pen­ nycook and S. Makoni (eds.), Desinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Cleven­ don: Multilingual Matters, pp. 90–115. Pennycook, A. 2017. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Routledge, p. viii. Rajadurai, J. 2007. Intelligibility studies: A consideration of empirical and ideological issues. World Englishes 26(1), 87–98. Rajagopalan, K. 2010. The soft ideological underbelly of the notion of intelligibil­ ity in discussions about ‘World Englishes’. Applied Linguistics 31(3), 465–470. doi:10.1093/applin/amq014.

4

Researching Englishmedium instruction at Swedish universities Maria KuteevaResearching English-medium instruction

Developments over the past

decade

Maria Kuteeva Introduction Sweden is continuously ranked high among the countries offering Englishmedium instruction (EMI). Over the past decade, the increase in the number of English-medium programmes in Sweden has been very substantial: Accord­ ing to the latest Europe wide survey conducted in 2014, there were 822 EMI programmes compared to 123 in 2007 (Wächter and Maiworm 2014), and this number is likely to have increased since the report was published. Sweden also ranks high in terms of its general proficiency in English (#2 in Europe and in the world, EF English Proficiency Index 2017). In this context, English has undoubtedly occupied an important position in Swedish higher education but, as will be shown in this chapter, its use in higher education and research has not been uncontroversial. The majority of students and lecturers in EMI programmes conducted in nonEnglish-speaking countries use English as a lingua franca, which results in a diver­ sity of Englishes and different understandings of language norms. In this context, both students and lecturers require specific skills to adapt to the multilingual and multicultural audiences, both in spoken interaction and in their writing practices. In addition to the programmes that are officially taught at Swedish universities through the medium of English, the presence of English is also significant in courses offered in languages other than English, due to a substantial amount of course literature in this language (e.g. Bolton and Kuteeva 2012). At the same time, courses officially taught in English can also involve a strong presence of other languages (e.g. Söderlundh 2012), including translanguaging practices. In this chapter, EMI is understood as the use of English for educational pur­ poses carried out outside the English-speaking countries which often involves students and teachers whose first language is not English. English as a lingua franca is understood as the main communicative resource available to students and teachers in a multilingual EMI environment (cf. Jenkins 2015; Smit, this volume), which can integrate the use of the local language (Pölzl and Seidl­ hofer 2006), in this case, Swedish. The chapter reviews previous research con­ ducted on various aspects of EMI in Sweden, starting from language policy and

Researching English-medium instruction 47 its implementation, and then focusing more specifically on educational practices and students’ learning in EMI contexts, including academic writing in English. It will conclude by placing the research reviewed in this chapter in the framework for the study of EMI proposed by Dafouz and Smit (2016) and identifying ven­ ues for further studies.

English in Swedish higher education: parallel language use and its implementation One of the reasons why the use of English – and subsequently EMI – has been so widespread in Sweden has to do with the prominent role of this language in Swedish society, which dates back to the 19th century (O’Dell 1997). English became a major academic language after World War II and is now well established in the Swedish education system, both as a school subject and as an academic lan­ guage in higher education (e.g. Hult 2012; Bolton and Kuteeva 2012; Kuteeva 2011). For example, Hult (2012) describes English in Sweden as a “transcultural language”, a sociolinguistic resource in which global is made local and used for positioning Sweden on the global stage (cf. Pennycook 2007). A recent review of EMI-related research in the Nordic countries (Airey et al. 2017) shows that Sweden has been providing EMI for more than 20 years, with the first survey conducted in 1994 at Uppsala University (Gunnarsson and Öhman 1997) identifying 15% of undergraduate courses and 70% of doctoral courses as being offered through the medium of English. Over the last decade, Sweden has experienced an “unprecedented expansion of EMI” (Airey et al. 2017); for example, in 2014, 28% of all university degree programmes were being offered in English (Salö and Josephson 2014). A large proportion of these programmes are offered at the Master’s level (cf. Bolton and Kuteeva 2012). As will be shown later, the presence of EMI is also subject to clear disciplinary differences and professional orientation of specific programmes (e.g. Kuteeva and Airey 2014). Over the last few years, the Swedish debate on the use of English in higher education has evolved around the issues posed by EMI to students’ learning and teachers’ ability to teach in English (e.g. Swedish National Agency for Higher Education 2010). As the following section will demonstrate, a great deal of research on EMI has adopted a deficit perspective focusing on problems arising from the use of English at Swedish universities. This debate on EMI is part of a larger controversy surrounding the use of English in Swedish academia which dates back to the early 1990s (Salö 2014) and views the increase in EMI as a threat to Swedish democratic ideals, with allegedly negative effects on the Swed­ ish language (e.g. Gunnarsson 2001). The use of English became so frequent in some areas of research and education that it was regulated through legislation and policies aimed to promote and pro­ tect the use of the national language (see the Swedish Language Act (SFS 2009), Nordic Council of Ministers 2007). While the Swedish Language Act (SFS 2009) does not provide any guidelines for the use of EMI, the concept was “parallel language use”, originally introduced in the 1998 Action Programme prepared for

48

Maria Kuteeva

the government by the Swedish Language Council, was developed in order to ensure the use of Swedish across different domains and in order to prevent the increasing use of English (Kuteeva 2011). The concept originally referred to “the choice between different standard language varieties on occasions when choice is possible” (Josephson 2005: 3, translated in Hult and Källkvist 2016, my ital­ ics for emphasis). More recently, parallel language use has been defined as “the simultaneous use of more than one language in one or more domains” (Salö and Josephson 2013: 3, translated in Hult and Källkvist 2016). Parallel language use has been critiqued for being an “unoperationalized politi­ cal slogan” (Kuteeva and Airey 2014) which is meant to represent “a kind of idealized linguistic power balance” (Hult and Källkvist 2016: 59) but in fact pro­ motes two parallel monolingual systems based on standard language use, rather than reflecting a complex multilingual context in which students and teachers find themselves (e.g. Mortensen 2014). Over the last 10 years, the use of English at Swedish universities has been subject to substantial research, some of which has drawn on the concept of parallel language use. However, the concept has been interpreted somewhat loosely in different studies, sometimes referring to having English-language reading materials in Swedish-medium courses or using Englishlanguage slides in lectures given in Swedish. Such studies referred to “parallel lan­ guage environment” (Pecorari et al. 2011), “parallel language education” (Airey 2011), “an English L2 environment” (Pecorari et al. 2011), “parallel-language courses” and “parallel language universities” (Mezek 2013). Although, according to university language policies, both English and Swed­ ish should ideally be used by students and teachers for all educational purposes, this rarely happens in practice in courses involving international students and staff. When the student population is linguistically heterogeneous, the possibil­ ity of finding a common language which is not the language of instruction is unlikely because the shared linguistic repertoire of these multilingual students is often limited to English and/or the local language (see Smit, this volume, for a more detailed discussion). In the context when the vast majority of stu­ dents and/or lecturers are not from the country where education is taking place, English tends to be used as the main academic lingua franca. This situation has been typical of engineering and science faculties in Sweden, particularly at the postgraduate level (Salö 2010), and studies of English as a lingua franca (ELF) in such academic contexts have been conducted. For example, drawing on the data collected at a Swedish technical university, Björkman (2013) shows that little communication breakdown is found in the investigated ELF interactions, despite the occurrence of a wide range of non-standard morphosyntactic forms. Previous research focusing on spoken ELF in academic contexts points towards a reduced importance of standard language norms for effective communication and, in some cases, a trend to construct alternative language norms (e.g. Hyn­ ninen 2016). At the same time, drawing on the analysis of a parallel language use policy and the results of a large-scale survey conducted at another university in Sweden, Kuteeva (2014) shows that the concept of “mother tongue” (Swedish “modersmål”), which is often equated with standard language uses, permeates

Researching English-medium instruction 49 language attitudes of policymakers, students and teachers alike, both with regard to English and to Swedish. Overall, it appears that the creation of university language policies does not solve many of the practical concerns in EMI. Such policies are usually character­ ized by top-down decisions (e.g. Björkman 2014; Kuteeva and Airey 2014; Hult and Källkvist 2016) and tend to be detached from individuals’ linguistic practices and the reality of specific disciplines. This applies not only to Sweden but to other Nordic countries offering EMI courses and programmes (see Airey et al. 2017 for a comparative analysis of language policies in the Nordic countries). Kuteeva and Airey (2014) demonstrate that knowledge structures (Bernstein 1999) and knowledge-making practices have an impact on the way that language in general, and English in particular, is used across different disciplines, which means any “one-size-fits-all” language policy is doomed to fail unless these differences are taken into account. The use of English as an academic language is more frequent in the natural and social sciences compared to the arts and humanities and law, which often rely on linguistic formulations in their knowledge construction and deal with more nationally oriented areas of inquiry. It is also in the humanities that the use of English in education and research is most likely to be questioned (e.g. Bolton and Kuteeva 2012). In addition, the monolingual assumption that the use of English in higher education is homogenous across different formal and informal contexts does not take into account the various spatial dimensions in which students interact (e.g. Tsui 2014). Language ideologies – how different languages are perceived depending on who is speaking – permeate both language policies and the attitudes expressed by students and teachers towards the way English is used and towards multilin­ gualism. Over the last decade, it has been noted that Sweden has a perceived linguistic hierarchy, which places English on top of the pyramid alongside Swed­ ish, followed by major European and Scandinavian languages, and other national minority languages and immigrant mother tongues placed at the bottom of the pyramid (Josephson 2004: 128). As Hult (2012: 246) argues: The representation of immigrant mother tongues in educational policy con­ tributes to the discursive configuration of the local linguistic order for soci­ etal multilingualism, situating immigrant mother tongues on the margins of Swedish society. English and Swedish, in contrast, are at the centre. This means that the previously mentioned linguistic hierarchy reflects a certain bias for a monolingual – or in the case of higher education, parallel-lingual – standard language norm. A recent comparative analysis of university language policies in Sweden and Estonia (Soler, Björkman and Kuteeva 2017) shows that Sweden acknowledges societal multilingualism to a certain extent, particularly with regard to the official ethnic minority languages in the Swedish Language Act (SFS 2009). However, some of the major languages spoken by populations of immigrant background are completely invisible in the university language policy documents (e.g. in

50

Maria Kuteeva

Sweden, Arabic is currently the second-most spoken language (Parkvall 2016)). This situation makes the Swedish case somewhat comparable to the US con­ text (e.g. Garcia, Pujol-Ferran and Reddy 2013), where multilingual students are perceived differently depending on their background: for example, the “prob­ lematic” Spanish Latinos in many community colleges versus “international” stu­ dents who pay full fees at private universities and are perceived to be an asset to higher education. Garcia et al. (2013) argue that this attitude is a result of the US historically “protectionist” stance towards its national language. If the same protectionist stance is maintained in Sweden following the introduction of the Language Act (SFS 2009), it is likely to develop a situation similar to the US, although English – above all, its standard varieties promoted by policymakers – is likely to keep its special status in higher education. At the same time, there is still a big discrepancy between the rapidly changing sociolinguistic landscape and the language policies drawing on the concepts such as “mother tongue” versus “sec­ ond/foreign language” in educational contexts where students are expected to develop their academic literacy. The diversity and fluidity of the English used “on the ground” by students and staff is difficult to regulate through policies. The following section will review the findings of previous research on EMI.

EMI on the ground: students and teachers Earlier research on EMI in Sweden aimed to map out language uses at the uni­ versity in the form of surveys. For example, as shown earlier, Gunnarsson and Öhman’s (1997) study of the language situation at Uppsala University in 1994 provided a basis for the ensuing debate on the use of English in higher education and research. Melander (2005) reproduced their study and showed that the use of English increased across the university. The Swedish Language Council report on the use of English and Swedish (Salö 2010) provided further quantitative data on the increasing use of English, particularly in scientific domains. The results of these surveys were published in Swedish and fed directly into the policy debates mentioned in the previous section. Bolton and Kuteeva (2012) report on the results of a survey conducted in 2009 among 668 academic staff and 4,524 students at a major Swedish uni­ versity. In addition to speakers of Swedish (75% students and 68% faculty) and English (3% students and 8% faculty), many other languages were reported by the study participants as L1s: over 90 languages were reported by the students (e.g. Arabic, Bosnian, Chinese, German, French, Persian, Polish and Russian) and over 30 languages by faculty (e.g. 5% German, 2% Finnish, 2% Spanish as well as Arabic, Danish, Latvian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, among others). Thus, the sample was multilingual but the shared languages were mainly Swedish and Eng­ lish. The survey provided data concerning the use of English at different levels of university education, patterns of language use across different faculties, depart­ ments and disciplines, and attitudes expressed by students and staff towards the use of English in education and research.

Researching English-medium instruction 51 One of the main findings of this survey was that the use of English as an academic language varies substantially across different disciplines and university departments. Thus, a much greater use of English was reported in the Faculties of Sciences and Social Sciences compared to the Faculties of the Humanities and Law (see Figure 4.1). This variation in the use of English was connected to the nature of knowledge construction in different disciplines, which was developed in a follow-up study by Kuteeva and Airey (2014) mentioned in the previous section. Further, the survey identified a significantly greater use of English at the Master’s level compared to undergraduate level. At the same time, it also established very diverse patterns of language use in relation to the discipline studied, the level of instruction, the use of receptive versus productive language skills, in particular with regard to English-language reading materials and visual aids such as PowerPoint slides. Some students found it difficult to switch between different codes: Swedish and English become Swenglish. In addition, mixed languages of Power Point presentations. Sometimes Power Point is in English and the lecturer is talking in Swedish, it is very confusing and difficult to take notes then. (Undergraduate student, Faculty of Social Sciences) Overall, the survey confirmed that in the sciences the use of English is a largely pragmatic reality for students and staff, whereas in the language-sensitive branches

Figure 4.1 Lectures in English across the four faculties Source: Adapted from Bolton and Kuteeva (2012), cited in Kuteeva and Airey (2014).

52

Maria Kuteeva

of the humanities and some social sciences English is often used as an additional language in parallel with Swedish (or, in the cases of modern language depart­ ments, another major academic language). In such contexts, the use of spoken and written English was perceived as problematic when it created major obstacles for discussions and student learning. With regard to the attitudes towards the use of English in education, it was widely recognized as an essential vehicle for international knowledge exchange. At the same time, some students and staff voiced their discontent with the kind of English(es) used at the university. It turned out that the accent was very impor­ tant in the perceptions of language proficiency, both for students and academic staff: Some teachers have very good English but most are quite poor. Many exchange students often have difficulty with English, making it difficult to understand them, and they have trouble keeping up. (Master’s student, Faculty of Science) I also wonder if it is really ok to let e.g. Indian, Pakistani, Arabic, or Russianspeaking researchers to teach. Their spoken English with a terribly strong accent makes it difficult for students to understand what is being said. (Master’s student, Faculty of Social Sciences) Such comments illustrate the challenges that internationalization and the intro­ duction of EMI presents when English begins to be used as a lingua franca in sofar largely monolingual contexts. Returning to the concept of parallel language use, officially stipulated in the university language policy in 2011 (Kuteeva 2014), some comments by the survey participants reinforced the idea of parallel mono­ lingualism, drawing an implicit connection between using academic Swedish as a native language and academic English as a near-native language: Swedish has to be the foremost instrument for academic learning and think­ ing, especially at the undergraduate level. This should be combined with a high level of English language proficiency, possibly achieving what has been referred to in Swedish as ‘parallelspråkighet’ [parallel language use – my translation]. This means that a person should have a strong mother tongue together with a near native language proficiency in English. (Lecturer, Faculty of the Humanities) To sum up, this university-wide survey revealed complex patterns of language use across different contexts and somewhat mixed attitudes towards English in edu­ cation. It appears that a need to achieve a native-like proficiency in English can be seen as a pre-requisite for implementing English-medium instruction. This native-like target is supported by the previously mentioned perceived language hierarchy (Josephson 2004). In this context, the preference expressed by some students and staff for standard native-like English is not entirely surprising. If

Researching English-medium instruction 53 English is used by the local population as a sociocultural resource to position Sweden in international academia (Hult 2012), there may also be a trend to set a local norm for how it should be used by those who do not share the local lan­ guage, in our case Swedish. Pecorari et al. (2011) conducted another large-scale survey involving approxi­ mately 20% of university lecturers in Sweden. Their main focus was on teachers’ objectives and practices related to the use of English-language textbooks in the subject courses taught in Swedish. Their study found that university lecturers considered the use of English-language textbooks as providing a useful oppor­ tunity for incidental language learning but only a small minority of courses were reported to have any specified learning outcome related to English. The addi­ tional comments made by the study participants showed awareness of the benefits and drawbacks of parallel-language practices but indicated no interest in mak­ ing language-learning aims explicit. This finding is in sharp contrast with Airey’s argument that “all teachers are language teachers” (2012: 64) and are responsible for developing students’ disciplinary literacy in the subject they are teaching. As mentioned in the previous section, a great deal of research conducted on EMI at Swedish universities has focused on the issues arising from changing the language of instruction and learning from Swedish to English. For example, studies of students taking EMI physics courses have demonstrated that they asked fewer questions and interacted less with their teachers when the courses were given in English rather than Swedish, and that they spent more effort on taking notes during the lectures instead of focusing on the subject content (e.g. Airey and Linder 2006; cf. Klaasen 2001 – the students in her longitu­ dinal study adapted to EMI after one year). It was found that EMI was not “really” EMI as Swedish-speaking students on EMI courses often formed their own groups and resorted to Swedish during discussions and group work (e.g. Söderlundh 2010, Söderlundh 2012), while international students tended to cluster together and use English as a lingua franca. Pecorari et al. (2011) found that 74% of student participants in their survey self-reported that it was harder to read in English compared to Swedish, and 44% would not choose a text­ book in English (Pecorari et al. 2011). Some of the participants in Bolton and Kuteeva’s survey (2012) found it confusing to blend English and Swedish (e.g. textbooks and/or PowerPoint slides in English but lectures and examinations in Swedish). Research on students’ reading has shown that the majority of biol­ ogy students at a Swedish university needed extra time to complete the same reading test compared to their British counterparts, although the results of the test for both groups were similar (e.g. Mcmillion and Shaw 2008; Shaw and McMillion 2011). Airey (2010) found that the speech rate in students’ presenta­ tions in English was slower but the disciplinary accuracy of the descriptions was comparable to Swedish. In other words, it appears that students can generally cope with EMI but may need more time to achieve the same or similar learn­ ing outcomes compared to programmes conducted in Swedish. However, more research is needed to investigate how students operate in both undergraduate and Master’s EMI programmes.

54

Maria Kuteeva

As far as the teachers who use English as their additional language are con­ cerned, the situation was not found to be homogeneous. For example, 90% of university lecturers at the Faculty of Sciences at Stockholm reported very little difficulty when teaching in English, while 50% of their counterparts at the Fac­ ulties of the Humanities and Law reported that they were better able to “dis­ cuss their subject in Swedish” (Bolton and Kuteeva 2012: 438). Airey’s (2011) study of university teachers’ perceptions of changing the language of instruction from Swedish to English identified a lack of training in teaching in English. His study participants were relatively inexperienced in English-medium instruction and therefore aware of different limitations when teaching in English. Similarly to students, the participants in Airey’s study reported to need more preparation time for the lectures in English and to be less detailed, flexible and fluent during the lectures. It is interesting to note that most of the previously mentioned research has focused on the difficulties experienced by local students and lecturers switching from Swedish to English and the differences between the teaching and learning in L1 and L2. International students and teachers taking part in Swedish EMI programmes have received much less attention, and more research is needed to understand how they operate in formal and informal settings, such as lectures, seminars, group work, student activities, tutorial sessions and so forth. The local context in which students and teachers in EMI programmes find themselves plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality and success of education. In this sense, every educational context will display its own particularities and its “own language regime” (Busch 2012: 520, see also Smit, this volume). For example, Kuteeva, Hynninen and Haslam (2015) investigated the influence of the wider local context on the use of English in an undergraduate EMI programme in business studies at a Swedish university. Drawing on the survey data and follow-up interviews with students, the study analyzed the attitudes towards English expressed by students in relation to the local, Swedish context. Approxi­ mately half of the surveyed students were Swedish (n=30) and the other half international (n=28), which roughly corresponded to the general composition of the student body in the Bachelor’s programme. The study participants’ countries of origin were: Australia, Chile, China, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Geor­ gia, Germany, India, Iran, Latvia, Nigeria, Switzerland/China, Ukraine, the US, Sweden, Sweden/Serbia, Sweden/Bulgaria, Sweden/Ethiopia. This study found that the surveyed students perceived English as the main but not only language used to communicate in academic contexts, and that they would need several languages in their future careers. In the follow-up interviews, Swedish students perceived themselves to be very good at English “as a nation” (Kuteeva et al. 2015: 206, data excerpt 2) and regarded English as “their” lan­ guage. The international students talked about “Swedish English” as a kind of local variety, which was congruent with the survey results in which the students selfreported the naturalness and confidence in the use of English. It seems that these findings support O’Dell’s (1997: 24) depiction of English as “reflect[ing] local, Swedish meanings and values”, as well as Hult’s (2012: 239) characterization of

Researching English-medium instruction 55 English as a transcultural language, as discussed in the previous section. The inter­ view accounts seem to point towards a certain degree of “Swedish” ownership of English (Widdowson 1994; cf. Kuteeva and McGrath (2014) on similar findings in a study of researchers writing for publication). Thus, the local context had an impact on the English used by both students and staff, requiring speakers to adapt their ways of speaking and to use other lan­ guages alongside their lingua franca English. Translanguaging (Garcia 2009), in particular with regard to English and Swedish, turned out to be a common prac­ tice in communication between students and between students and teachers. The interviews with the students revealed that it was “so natural to mix languages, you don’t really recall or remember that you actually started speaking Swedish or English” (Kuteeva et al. 2015: 207, data excerpt 10). These student perceptions were further supported by the observations made during the recordings of the English-medium seminars, in which students tended to use other languages (e.g. Swedish, Finnish and French) alongside English in their small group discussions (cf. Mortensen 2014; Söderlundh 2012). To sum up, the research reviewed in this section shows that EMI presents challenges to students and teachers alike, especially when they are not sufficiently prepared to switch from L1 to English. The difficulties seem to fade away with time. A great deal of this research has focused on Swedish students and lecturers. The international dimension of EMI at Swedish universities has been much less researched, not only from the point of view of incoming international students and staff but also from the perspective of those multilingual students who go through their school education in Sweden. Further studies are needed to see how different kinds of students and lecturers operate in an increasingly diverse multi­ lingual environment and what role English plays in these settings.

Writing in English at the international university Bolton and Kuteeva’s survey (2012) identified academic writing in English as the most challenging language skill for both students and academic staff. Stu­ dents taking EMI programmes in Sweden and elsewhere can be viewed as L2 or ELF users rather than learners of English (Mauranen 2012). The academic writ­ ing courses offered at Stockholm University serve as an example of a “global” EAP pedagogy adapted to the local context. For instance, Master’s and PhD level courses adopt an exploratory approach aimed at raising genre awareness and developing writing skills based on the genre analysis of locally produced sample student texts in comparison to published peer-reviewed research articles in spe­ cific disciplines (see Kuteeva 2013 for a detailed description). The students are expected to act as peer reviewers of each other’s academic texts throughout the course. The local disciplinary practices and institutional requirements also play a role in shaping the production of academic texts by the students. The fact that students draw on the example of locally produced model texts and write their research projects in line with their local departmental requirements results in somewhat hybrid genres (Kuteeva 2017a).

56

Maria Kuteeva

For example, students often need to adapt their writing in English to the spe­ cific requirements of their departments and a general international audience at the same time. This adaptation can be done on the level of rhetorical moves in an academic genre (Swales 1990). Kuteeva and Negretti (2016) conducted an in-depth qualitative analysis of the writing produced by five students from dif­ ferent disciplines, including Helena (pseudonym), a Master’s student of Chinese studies who has Swedish as her L1, has been educated in Swedish and English, and writes in English about her interdisciplinary research. In the writing of her research proposal, Helena clearly displays rhetorical strategies of an advanced L2 user of English. Her introduction reflects her perception of Chinese studies as a field and its multiple research perspectives, and she makes it explicit how her work adds to different bodies of knowledge. She shows how her research intends to fill the previously mentioned gaps. Throughout her proposal, she makes use of argument organization, explicitness in the description of significance and the adoption of concise language in order to enhance communicative effectiveness for diverse audiences and the international research community. As Helena’s case demonstrates, academic writing in English presents additional challenges to students working in interdisciplinary fields. Kaufhold (2017) investi­ gated how two Master’s students of fashion studies and Japanese studies, Eva and Jan (pseudonyms), express and develop their genre knowledge during the same course as Helena and the other participants in Kuteeva and Negretti’s (2016) study took. Kaufhold’s focus was on disciplinarity and genre knowledge develop­ ment. Unlike professional researchers with specific disciplinary background and established identities, the Master’s students in this study had to find their own ways of positioning themselves in their interdisciplinary fields. Eva managed to do that by creating a niche within a subfield of fashion studies, whereas Jan opted for embracing Japanese studies and anthropology. Their positioning choices were connected to the lecturers’ assessment (Eva) and departmental requirements (Jan). Both students also questioned the relevance of a disciplinary community in their writing and negotiated their rhetorical genre knowledge of their heteroge­ neous research fields in the context of the local research contexts of their depart­ ments. Thus, the three previously mentioned case studies illustrate how Master’s students in the humanities learn to adapt their writing in English across different contexts and audiences. It has been argued that university instructors, especially in Anglophone coun­ tries, tend to enforce conventional expectations for academic writing in English (e.g. Jenkins 2014). This is not necessarily the case at universities offering EMI instruction, where EAP teachers are often L2 users of English, proficient in at least two and often more academic languages. These teachers bring in their own similects (Mauranen 2012) and language uses into the classroom even if they do not make a full use of their linguistic repertoires (Busch 2012) in the teaching of academic writing in English. Based on my own experience of teaching and researching academic writing in English and on interviews with colleagues teaching the same or similar courses, a number of specific local concerns emerge in relation to the expectations of

Researching English-medium instruction 57 “quality” in English academic writing and the different understandings of lan­ guage norms by students, their departments and the writing instructors. As shown in the previous section, the idealization of the English native speaker and adherence to a set of standard norms is often an unchallenged assumption among the students and their departments. For example, before the beginning of the previously mentioned Master’s course in academic writing, students are required to send in short statements about the needs and expectations, and these often include general statements such as “to improve my English”, which implies increasing accuracy, learning more synonyms and other aspects related to form. The students’ departments also want a quick fix to language problems at the lexico-grammatical level. The questions of what kind of “standard” is to be applied, and whether British or American spelling should be used, are often raised by both students and their departments. At the same time, the EAP teachers make use of the teaching methods that encourage an exploratory approach to genre analysis with a focus on the rhetorical effectiveness of academic writing. Teachers also allow students to make use of their linguistic repertoires in the construction of English academic texts, and do not micro-manage language uses in the EAP classroom. One teacher even mentioned an occasion when two Swedish students were speaking Japanese when they were doing peer review and discussing their academic texts in English in his EAP class. When asked what kind of English they teach, the interviewed EAP instructors referred to “academic English” or “English for Academic Purposes” (Kuteeva 2017b). No-one mentioned Standard English, or British or American English, or another variety, nor English as a lingua franca. The interview accounts revealed that students found it empowering to focus on academic genres and disciplinary writing conventions and not having to adhere to any native standard (cf. Safakis 2017). At the same time, the teachers reported paying attention to accuracy in student writing, particularly in the context of evaluation and when it impedes the communicative and rhetorical effectiveness of the academic text. Some of their most common corrections concerned the lexico-grammatical features that had been earlier identified as typical of spoken ELF, such as 3rd person -s and the use of articles. It is a common practice among EAP teachers to highlight any issues in students’ academic texts instead of correcting them. The students are thus treated as L2 users of English responsible for taking charge of their writing. Despite being open to allowing students to make a full use of their linguistic rep­ ertoires in the classroom, when it comes to academic texts, there is a threshold of tolerance towards the frequency of non-standard English language uses on the lexico-grammatical level. It must be noted that both the teachers and students mentioned earlier work primarily within the context of the humanities, which tend to be more concerned with language-related issues. The policy of parallel language use recognizes the multilingual context in which higher education takes place but, at the same time, promotes the use of domi­ nant standard varieties of Swedish and English. These two languages are largely perceived as separate, bounded systems (Hult and Källkvist 2016). As demon­ strated in the previous section, the practices of EMI do not exclude the use of

58

Maria Kuteeva

other languages and varieties by students and academic staff. Likewise, the fact that academic writing in English tends to adhere to a set of accepted, although negotiable, norms (Hynninen and Kuteeva 2017) does not imply that students cannot make strategic use of translanguaging practices in their writing. Kaufhold (2018) draws on Busch’s (2012, 2017) model of linguistic repertoire to exam­ ine how Master’s students develop their academic writing across language codes and registers in a multilingual context. Her longitudinal study focuses on two Master’s students, Anna (archeology) and Rebecka (ethnology), whose research is strongly connected to the Scandinavian context and academic writing in Swed­ ish. She shows that students’ linguistic ideologies and their lived experiences of language can enable or restrict their capacity to draw on their varied repertoires. Translanguaging spaces in academic writing are created as the result of collabora­ tion between peers and between writers and institutional frameworks. As mentioned earlier, there are disciplinary differences in the use of English in EMI contexts. Although no studies using the methods similar to the ones men­ tioned earlier have been carried out to examine the academic writing of students in natural sciences and engineering at Swedish universities, some insights can be gained from other types of investigations. For example, drawing on corpusanalytical methods, Malmström, Pecorari and Gustafsson (2016) examined the productive knowledge of English academic vocabulary among students taking Master’s of Science degrees at a technical university. Their data included 80 aca­ demic texts produced by both local Swedish and international students. Using the Academic Vocabulary List (Gardner and Davies 2014), they found that aca­ demic vocabulary items accounted for approximately 20% of all tokens, which is considerably higher compared to previous research. They found no signifi­ cant differences between the vocabulary used by local and international students, both with regard to lexical sophistication and diversity. With regard to the lexical development over two years of study, the study identified very small gains in some areas and no gains in others. Thus, Malmström et al. (2016) problematize the effectiveness of EMI for academic vocabulary development, arguing that EMI per se does not necessarily result in incidental language learning. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the language proficiency of their study participants was already very high when they were admitted in the EMI programme, so the vocabulary gains would be less visible in this student population as they would make progress more slowly and have less knowledge to gain. The findings of Malmström et al. (2016) also question a commonplace perception of Swedish academic staff (and students, as shown earlier) that international students have lower English proficiency compared to local students. They offer a possible expla­ nation that the teacher perceptions are based on an awareness of differences, i.e. that the English used by Swedish students is familiar and its non-standard features go unnoticed whereas the Englishes used by students with other L1s are less familiar and the differences appear to be more salient. If we interpret this finding through the lens of Mauranen’s (2012) concept of similect, it appears that the local similect of English can be perceived as more acceptable than others (cf. also the earlier discussion of English as a transcultural language in Sweden).

Researching English-medium instruction 59 The research reviewed in this section has focused primarily on advanced L2 writers at postgraduate level. Further research is needed to examine how less proficient L2 users of English and less proficient academic writers operate in the EMI contexts of Swedish higher education. The role that Swedish and other languages play in the process of writing and reviewing academic texts in English is of particular interest for gaining a better understanding of how written English functions as a lingua franca in multilingual contexts.

Discussion and conclusion This chapter has attempted to provide a broad overview of the research conducted on EMI in Sweden, although it is by no means exhaustive in the treatment of its different aspects. Dafouz and Smit (2016) have developed a framework to ana­ lyze English-medium education in multilingual university settings (EMEMUS), and, to my knowledge, no study conducted in the Swedish context to date has made use of this framework. However, the research reviewed in this chapter has dealt with different dimensions of the proposed ROAD-MAPPING framework (Dafouz and Smit 2016), including the roles of English, academic disciplines, language management, agents, practices and processes, and internationalization and glocalisation, as well as the discourses surrounding EMI. Dafouz and Smit (2016) place the discourses at the centre of their framework to be viewed as crossroads and points of access to the other components. They view discourse as “a locus of co-construction” (Hüttner et al. 2013: 4) and as “a form of social action” (Dafouz and Smit 2016: 402), with a view that many social practices such as language policy documents, teacher interviews, student exams and so forth are built through discourses. The research dealing with par­ allel language use policy and its implementation reviewed earlier has touched upon the discourses surrounding EMI in Sweden (e.g. Hult and Källkvist 2016; Hult and Källkvist 2016; Soler et. al 2017). The roles of English and its status in relation to Swedish and other languages in EMI have been investigated through surveys and other studies reviewed in sections dealing with English in Swed­ ish higher education and EMI on the ground (e.g. Bolton and Kuteeva 2012), while academic disciplines have served as a point of departure for the argument that no “one-size-fits-all” language policy can cater for the diverse needs of stu­ dents and teachers across the international university (e.g. Kuteeva and Airey 2014). Academic disciplines are also central to the study of academic writing in English in multilingual contexts (e.g. Kaufhold 2017; Kuteeva and Negretti 2016). Language management is an area that has received less attention in the literature so far, although some aspects have been touched upon in the discus­ sion of university language policies (e.g. Björkman 2014; Soler et al. 2017). As shown earlier, some research has been conducted on how students and teachers operate in EMI contexts but the role of agency and the different forms it can take calls for further research. Likewise, the practices and processes in EMI education (e.g. Söderlundh 2012; Kuteeva el al. 2015) have been developing over the past few years and require to be investigated through a theoretical lens that does not

60

Maria Kuteeva

depart from the assumption that monolingual education is the norm. Finally, with the exception of a few studies (e.g. Hult and Källkvist 2016, Soler et al. 2017), internationalization and glocalisation have not been sufficiently discussed in the Swedish context (cf. the work carried out by Danish colleagues, e.g. Fab­ ricius, Mortensen and Haberland 2017). In light of recent sociolinguistic devel­ opments resulting from increased migration, language policies may be adapted to reflect this change. The student population is also likely to diversify as universities in Sweden are striving to implement the policies of internationalization on one hand and widening participation on the other. In this context, English-medium instruction in Sweden and elsewhere is likely to evolve in new directions which will open up venues for further research.

References Airey, J. 2010. The ability of students to explain science concepts in two languages. Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication Studies 45, 35–49. Airey, J. 2011. Talking about teaching in English: Swedish university lecturers’ experi­ ences of changing their teaching language. Ibérica 22, 35–54. Airey, J. 2012. “I don’t teach language”: The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review 25, 64–79. Airey, J., K. Lauridsen, A. Räsänen, L. Salö. and V. Schwach 2017. The expansion of English-medium instruction in the Nordic countries: Can top-down university language policies encourage bottom-up disciplinary literacy goals? Higher Educa­ tion 73, 561–576. Airey, J. and C. Linder 2006. Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden. European Journal of Physics 27(3), 553–560. Bernstein, B. 1999. Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. Björkman, B. 2013. English as an Academic Lingua Franca. Developments in English as a Lingua Franca Series. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Björkman, B. 2014. Language ideology or language practice? An analysis of language policy documents at Swedish universities. Multilingua 33(3–4), 335–363. Bolton, K. and M. Kuteeva 2012. English as an academic language at a Swedish uni­ versity: Parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33(5), 429–447. Busch, B. 2012. The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics 33(5), 503–523. Busch, B. 2017. Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of Spracherlerleben – the lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics 38(3), 340–358. Dafouz, E. and U. Smit 2016. Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for Englishmedium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics 37(3), 397–415. EF English proficiency index 2017. 7th edition. Available from: www.ef.se/epi/. Fabricius, A., J. Mortensen and H. Haberland 2017. The lure of internationalisa­ tion: Paradoxical discourses of transnational student mobility, linguistic diversity and cross-cultural exchange. Higher Education 73(4), 577–595. García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA and Oxford: Basil and Blackwell.

Researching English-medium instruction 61 García, O., M. Pujol-Ferran and P. Reddy. 2013. Educating international and immi­ grant students in US higher education: Opportunities and challenges. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, and J.M. Sierra (eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges (pp. 174–196). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gardner, D. and M. Davies 2014. A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics 35(3), 305–327. Gunnarsson, B.-L. 2001. Swedish, English, French or GIn – the Language Situation at Swedish Universities. In U. Ammon (ed.), The Dominance of English as a Lan­ guage of Science. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 229–316. Gunnarsson, B.-L. and K. Öhman 1997. Det Internationaliserade Universitetet. En Studie av Bruket av Engelska och Andra Främmande Språk vid Uppsala Universitet [The Internationalised University. A Study of the Use of English and Other For­ eign Languages at Uppsala University.] TeFa 16. Uppsala: Institutionen fnglird­ inglipråk, Uppsala universitet. Hult, F. 2012. English as a transcultural language in Swedish policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly 46(2), 230–257. Hult, F. and M. Källkvist 2016. Discursive mechanisms and human agency in lan­ guage policy formation: Negotiating bilingualism and parallel language use at a Swedish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 19(1), 1–17. Hüttner, J., C. Dalton-Puffer and U. Smit 2013. The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16, 267–284. Hynninen, N. 2016. Language Regulation in English as a Lingua Franca: Focus on Academic Spoken Discourse. Boston and Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Hynninen, N. and M. Kuteeva 2017. ‘Good’ and ‘acceptable’ English in L2 research writing: Ideals and realities in history and computer science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 30, 53–65. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Poli­ tics of Academic English Language Policy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85. Josephson, O. 2004. “Ju”: Ifågasatta självklarheter om svenskan, engelskan, ocngli Inngliptheåk i Sverige. [‘Ju’: Contested certainties about Swedish, English and all other languages in Sweden.] Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok. Josephson, O. 2005. Parallelspråkighet [Parallel language use.] Språkvård, 3. Kaufhold, K. 2017. Interdisciplinary postgraduate writing: Developing genre knowl­ edge. Writing and Pedagogy 9(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1558/wap. Kaufhold, K. 2018. Creating translanguaging spaces in students’ academic writing prac­ tices. Linguistics and Education, 45, 1–9. doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.02.001. Klaasen, R. 2001. The international university curriculum: Challenges in Englishmedium engineering education. Doctoral thesis, Department of Communication and Education. Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. Kuteeva, M. 2011. Teaching and learning in English in parallel-language and ELF settings: Debates, concerns and realities in higher education. Ibérica 22, 5–12. Kuteeva, M. 2013. Graduate learners’ approaches to genre-analysis tasks: Variations across and within four disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 84–96.

62

Maria Kuteeva

Kuteeva, M. 2014. The parallel language use of Swedish and English: The question of “nativeness” in university policies and practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35(4), 332–344. Kuteeva, M. 2017a. European perspectives on second language writing. In J. I. Lion­ tas (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. John Wiley and Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118784235. Kuteeva, M. 2017b. Written ELF and EAP: A North European perspective. In K. Murata and M. Konakahara (eds.), Waseda Working Papers in ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) 6. Tokyo: Waseda University, pp. 40–55. Kuteeva, M. and J. Airey 2014. Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: Reflections on recent language policy developments. Higher Education 67(5), 533–549. Kuteeva, M., N. Hynninen and M. Haslam 2015. ‘It’s so natural to mix languages’: Attitudes towards English-medium instruction in Sweden. In A. Linn, N. Bermel, G. Ferguson and C. Hadjidemetriou (eds.), Attitudes Towards English in Europe. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 193–212. Kuteeva, M. and L. McGrath 2014. Taming Tyrannosaurus rex: English use in the research and publication practices of humanities scholars in Sweden. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 33(3/4), 367–389. Kuteeva, M. and R. Negretti 2016. Graduate students’ genre knowledge and per­ ceived disciplinary practices: Creating a research space across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 41, 36–41. Malmström, H., D. Pecorari. and M. Gustafsson 2016. Size and development of aca­ demic vocabulary in English medium instruction. In S. Göpferich and I. Neumann (eds.), Assessing and Developing Writing Skills. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang, pp. 45–69. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McMillion, A. and P. Shaw 2008. The balance of speed and accuracy in advanced L2 reading comprehension. Nordic Journal of English Studies 7(3), 123–143. Melander, B. 2005. Engelska och svenska vid Uppsala universitet – en uppföljning. Text i arbete Festkrift till Britt-Louise Gunnarsson den 12 januari 2005 (pp. 135– 143). Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitet. Mežek, S. 2013. Advanced second-language reading and vocabulary learning in the parallel-language university. PhD thesis. Department of English, Stockholm University. Mortensen, J. 2014. Language policy from below: Language choice in student pro­ ject groups in a multilingual university setting. Journal of Multilingual and Multi­ cultural Development 35(4), 425–442. Nordic Council of Ministers 2007. Deklaration om nordisk språkpolitik 2006 [Dec­ laration on Nordic language policy 2006]. Köpenhamn: Nordiska Ministerrådet. O’Dell, T. 1997. Culture Unbound. Americanization and Everyday Life in Sweden. Lund: Nordic Academic Press. Parkvall, M. 2016. Sveriges språk i siffror. Stockholm: Språkrådet, Morfem. Pecorari, D., Shaw, P., Irvine, A., and Malmström, H. 2011. English for academic purposes at Swedish universities: Teachers’ objectives and practices. Ibérica, 22, 55–77. Pennycook, A. 2007. Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge.

Researching English-medium instruction 63 Pölzl, U. and B. Seidlhofer 2006. In and on their own terms: The ‘habitat factor’ in English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177, 151–176. Safakis, N. 2017. ELF awareness in English language teaching: Principles and pro­ cesses. Applied Linguistics. doi:1 0.1093/applin/amx034. Salö, L. 2010. Engelska eller svenska? En kartläggning av språksituationen inom högre utbildning och forskning [English or Swedish? A Survey of the Language Situation in Higher Education and Research]. Stockholm: Språkrådet. Salö, L. 2014. Language ideology and shifting representations of linguistic threats: A Bourdieusian re-reading of the conceptual history of domain loss in Sweden’s field of language planning. In A. K. Hultgren, F. Gregersen, and J. Thøgersen (Eds.), English in Nordic academia: Ideology and practice (pp. 83–110). Amster­ dam: John Benjamins. Salö, L. and O. Josephson 2014. Landrapport Sverige: Parallellspråkighet vid sven­ ska universitet och högskolor [Parallel language use at Swedish universities]. In F. Gregersen (Ed.), Hvor parallelt: Om parallellspråkgihet på Nordens universitet (pp. 261–322). Copenhagen: TemaNord, Nordiska Ministerrådet. SFS 2009:600 Språklag [Language act]. Shaw, P. and A. McMillion 2011. Components of success in academic reading tasks for Swedish students. Ibérica 22, 141–162. Söderlundh, H. 2010. Internationella universitet – lokala språkval. Om bruket Iv tala­ the svenska i engelskspråkiga kursmiljöer [International University – Local Language Choice. On the Use of Swedish in English-medium course environments]. Skrifter utgivna av institutinglifönglidiska språk vid Uppsala universitet, 83. Uppsala. Söderlundh, H. 2012. Global Policies and Local Norms: Sociolinguistic Awareness and Language Choice at an International University. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 216, 87–109. Soler-Carbonell, J., B. Björkman. and M. Kuteeva 2017. University language poli­ cies in Estonia and Sweden: Exploring the interplay between English and national languages in higher education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Com­ munication 39(1), 29–43. Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swedish National Agency for Higher Education 2010. Om Undervisning på Engelska. Stockholm: Högskoleverket Rapport 2010:15R. Tsui, A. B. M. 2014. English as lingua franca on campus: Cultural integration or seg­ regation? In N. Murray and A. Scarino (eds.), Dynamic Ecologies of Languages Edu­ cation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Developments, Issues and Challenges. New York: Springer, pp. 75–93. Wächter, B. and F. Maiworm (eds.) 2014. English-taught Programmes in European Higher Education. The State of Play in 2014. Bonn: Lemmens. Widdowson, H. 1994. The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28(2), 377–389.

5

English-medium instruction in the Korean higher education context Joo-Kyung ParkEnglish-medium instruction in Korea

From an English as a lingua

franca perspective

Joo-Kyung Park Introduction There has been a significant increase in the number of higher education insti­ tutions in Korea that offer courses and programs through English. Kirkpatrick (2014) noted that the major move towards English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in Europe was motivated by the Bologna Process, the primary aim of which was to standardize university degrees across Europe so as to facilitate stu­ dent and staff mobility and credit transfer. EMI in Korea was initially reinforced by the Korean government’s 2004 Korea Study Project (Byun et al. 2010), the primary aim of which was to attract international students and faculty and to make Korea an education hub in Asia (Oh 2012). The Ministry of Education and Korean universities have been actively promoting ‘Study in Korea’ with a view towards increasing international competitiveness, international exchanges and cooperation. Approximately 30% of courses are taught in English in Korean universities and as of April 2016, there are roughly 104,000 international stu­ dents studying in Korea, among which 63,000 students are in degree programs (StudyinKorea 2017) However, according to the 2017 Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World Uni­ versity Rankings, 29 major Korean universities ranked between 300 and 400 in the area of internationalization, more precisely, the ratio of international faculty and students. The result called out the need of a further increase in the number of EMI courses as well as improvement in the living conditions for foreigners in Korea (Y. Kim 2017). However, as English is not a first language for the majority of university professors and students in Korea, this innovative language policy has brought in controversies not only in its educational effects but also in the stakeholders’ attitudes towards EMI and its prospects. This chapter aims to analyze the current state of EMI in Korean universities from an English as a lingua franca (ELF) perspective (Jenkins 2000, 2007; Kirkpatrick 2011, 2014, among others) and to make some suggestions for a future direction of EMI and language policy in higher education context in Korea and other countries and regions.

English-medium instruction in Korea 65

EMI in Korea According to Kirkpatrick (2014), there are different pathways and sources for the promotion of EMI in regional universities in East and Southeast Asia: Firstly, universities from English-speaking countries have set up campuses in Asia, pro­ moting themselves as providing an English-medium education (see also Jenkins 2014). The second source of EMI programs in higher education in the region is through partnerships which universities from English-speaking countries form with regional universities or ‘providers’. The third source of EMI programs are regional universities themselves, and these constitute by far the greatest num­ ber. EMI in Korea has also undergone similar pathways. Firstly, Incheon Global Campus, a national project established by the Korean government and Incheon Metropolitan City, hosted State University of New York Korea in 2012, George Mason University Korea, Ghent University Global Campus and The University of Utah Asia Campus in 2014. The purpose of this ‘all in English’ global campus is to innovate the education system of Korea and to nurture the next generation of global leaders in the fields of education, economics, industry, culture and arts (IGC 2017). The second source can be found in the TESOL field. Starting with Sookmyung Women’s University in Seoul, which established a TESOL program with inter­ national standards in collaboration with the University of Maryland, Baltimore County in 1997 (Sookmyung 2017), numerous Korean universities now offer a joint TESOL or TESOL MA program with their partner universities in Inner Circle countries. Other examples are The Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Students (CAMPUS) in Asia Program and the Industrialized Coun­ tries Instrument–Education Cooperation Program (ICI-ECP). The CAMPUS in Asia Program is for promoting global expertise in East Asia supported by the Ministry of Education of each nation, Korea, Japan and China. Three univer­ sities in these countries, one from each, have joint courses and programs for dual degrees or short-term student exchanges (CAMPUS Asia 2017). ICI-ECP refers to EU cooperation with Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Republic of Korea in the field of higher education and vocational education and training (EACEA 2017). Lastly, the greatest number of EMI courses are offered by local universities themselves in Korea in two different types: Firstly, several top-notch universities have established special liberal arts colleges or a Department of International Studies and so on. The EMI courses in these colleges and departments are for international and English-proficient domestic students, and is taught mainly by English-speaking domestic and international faculty (E. Kim 2017); Second, ‘English-only’ classes are offered for general Korean university students and taught mostly by Korean faculty whose first language is Korean, in which they are more likely to deliver their expertise more efficiently than in English. The second type of EMI courses has brought in more issues and concerns than the first one and will be considered mainly in this chapter.

66

Joo-Kyung Park

A comprehensive discussion on EMI in higher education in Korea has been provided by E. Kim (2017). According to her, Korean universities started offer­ ing EMI classes in the 1990s1 and the number has significantly increased since the mid-2000s (ibid.: 55–56). The major changes and development in EMI in Korean universities include the following: •

•

•

A drastic change has been made in the number of EMI courses. Driven by the 2004 Korea Study Project mentioned earlier, the ratio of EMI classes in university classes doubled or tripled between 2005 and 2010. For example, consider 4% to 15% at Seoul National University and 6% to 29% at Yonsei University (C. Kim, Yi and Kim 2006; Pae 2011). Various measures have been used for the expansion of EMI classes: For a degree, students must take some numbers of English-only courses, for instance, five to 10 in Korea University and five in Hanyang University; all newly hired professors must teach all their courses in a foreign language or English for three to five years after employment (Seo 2014); financial incen­ tives and reduction of teaching hours have been provided to the professors who offer EMI (D.-H. Kim 2010). Engineering schools have led the trend of EMI policy in Korean higher education. In 2006, KAIST adopted an all-out EMI policy that dictated all courses be conducted in English. In 2010, POSTECH was offering 88% of undergraduate classes and 95% of graduate classes in English (Cho 2012). Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST) and Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST) have offered all their classes in English since their establishment in 1992 and in 2009, respectively (S. Yu 2011). Both GIST and UNIST are now taking further steps by declaring the adoption of a campus-wide policy of English as an official language (Chong 2015, cited in E. Kim 2017).

Two main factors have contributed to the expansion of EMI in Korean universi­ ties: the Korean government’s thrust and universities’ efforts for internation­ alization. The Korean government has driven globalization of higher education through the Study Korea Project. Launched in 2004, it has led to a drastic increase in the international student population in universities. The number jumped from 16,832 in 2004 to 83,842 in 2010, well surpassing its initial target of 50,000. The number in 2011 stood at 89,537 and the majority of foreign students were from China with 57,783, followed by Japan with 3,876 and Mongolia with 3,333 (Oh 2012). In 2006, within two years of introducing the Project, the number of EMI classes in universities grew to 2.2% of the 410,000 total courses (Byun et al. 2010). The Study Korea 2020 Project aims at increasing international students up to 200,000 by the year 2020 and decreasing outbound students by increasing EMI courses and establishing more international schools in Korea (KAIE 2013). Universities’ internationalization efforts have been made, firstly, to rise in the rankings. ‘International competitiveness’ or ‘internationalization’ index has become a crucial criterion used by the Korean government to evaluate Korean

English-medium instruction in Korea 67 universities and select recipients of government funds for various projects. The internationalization index includes the ratio of international students and fac­ ulty, and EMI courses. Moreover, the domestic and international rankings that give great weight to internationalization created pressure on the Korean universi­ ties to increase EMI courses. Adopting an internationalization index including the ratio of EMI classes in 2006, the JoongAng Daily rankings in particular has served as another thrust for expanding EMI courses and programs in Korean higher education context (E. Kim 2017). Another purpose was to offset the con­ tinuous decline in the number of Korean university entrants due to the nation’s falling birthrate (S. H. Park and Song 2013, cited in E. Kim 2017). However, the majority of international students are from non-English-speaking countries including China, Japan and Mongolia as mentioned earlier. Chinese students in particular account for more than half of the entire international student body in many universities (H. Chung 2016). Chinese-medium classes in some universities have been offered to facilitate the learning of those students who are not profi­ cient enough in English and in Korean, either. Under these circumstances, it is questionable if EMI courses in Korean universities actually contribute to attract­ ing international students to study in Korea or not. Pursuing an EMI implementation is not only for boosting internationalization but also financial stability of the universities and the nation. Kirkpatrick (2014:6) pointed out, “Perhaps, the key motivation for many universities is financial: uni­ versities hope to be able to make money out of the fees that both local and inter­ national students will pay for the apparent privilege of having an EMI tertiary education”. He summed up that the number of universities throughout East and Southeast Asia that are offering courses in EMI is constantly growing and one would expect these numbers to continue to grow, as universities in the regions seek to internationalize – and thus offer more EMI courses – and attract more international students – and thus more fees. Like many other regional universi­ ties, those in Korea also seem to follow this scheme, which has brought up lots of issues and concerns. Now I will discuss the issues and concerns that have emerged regarding EMI policy in Korean higher education context from an ELF perspective. There isn’t very much an ELF perspective incorporated so far in the government’s policy documents and in the implementation of its policy, as will be discussed in more detail later. The first issue concerns with the effectiveness of EMI policy, whether this policy empowers the stakeholders as expected. The second issue considers the use of Korean and code-switching in ‘English only’ EMI courses. The third issue is about the prospects and directions of EMI in higher education institutions in Korea.

Effectiveness of EMI? EMI has been adopted as a way of boosting ‘international competitiveness’ or empowering Korean university students by enhancing their English skills as well as content knowledge, and training them to become professionals who can work

68

Joo-Kyung Park

in diverse domestic and global workplaces. However, many studies as well as numerous newspaper columns, anecdotes, and public opinions on the Internet and social media have shown that EMI in Korean universities is highly con­ troversial. The problems and challenges regarding EMI in Korea seem to be interconnected and function all together, more often than not, disempowering students and faculty rather than empowering them. These can be discussed from the two major points: 1) policy implementation; 2) lack of English proficiency and confidence. Firstly, undemocratic implementation of EMI has caused lots of problems (E. Kim 2017). Education in Korea has been controlled by the Korean government throughout the history of the nation and thus the education policies are mainly top-down, affected by political and economic situations inside and outside of Korea. Universities have to cope with the government-driven changes and devel­ opment in education policies in order to raise their rankings and secure financial support from the government. They also adopt and implement new policies such as EMI in an undemocratic manner, without consulting students and profes­ sors nor giving proper consideration to their language and teaching capabilities for EMI (E. Kim 2017), and without much time to prepare, either. The abrupt and aggressive implementation of EMI has caused university students who lack English proficiency and confidence under so much pressure and led them to very unfortunate incidents such as suicides.2 Secondly, as indicated earlier, insufficient English abilities of both students and professors have been cited as the most detrimental factor in EMI in Korean higher education context. The students’ lack of English ability led to their limited academic achievement in EMI classes (H. Park 2006; Jin and Shin 2011), having made students not prefer EMI or feel much difficulty in EMI courses (S. Cho and Hwang 2013; E. Kim et al. 2016). In addition, it needs to be noted that Korean university students thought their English abilities were not sufficient (E. Kim et al. 2016). Not only their English competence but also their confidence level creates a critical issue. The same issue of confidence has emerged in the implementation of Teaching English in English (TEE) in Korean elementary and secondary English class­ rooms, a policy of an obligatory use of classroom English being adopted in 2001. The rationale behind TEE is that teachers’ use of English would provide more input and foster communicative interaction with students, and thereby ultimately lead to communicative competence required in the global society of today (Lee 2007, cited in Park and Kim 2014). However, the research findings and media survey results on the implementation of this policy showed that it has not been carried out in its full scale though the teachers perceived TEE as effective for a majority of tasks. It was due to the fact that many Korean EFL teachers do not have enough English proficiency and confidence in their English ability (SungAe Kim 2002; Sung-Yeon Kim 2002). TEE in Korean elementary and secondary schools has undergone an almost identical path to that of EMI in higher educa­ tion, in terms of unilateral, mandatory implementation and lack of English profi­ ciency and confidence on both the parts of students and instructors.

English-medium instruction in Korea 69 The majority of professors in Korean universities are Korean nationals whose first language is Korean, in which they are more likely to perform more efficiently than in English. Insufficient English ability caused both professors and students to feel awkward and difficult in EMI classes. This, in turn, resulted in the lack of interaction between the students and the professor (Ha 2011), complaints from international students (M. Yun 2014), and lack of feedback on students’ works and poor classroom management (S.-Y. Hwang 2013). Another issue is English with or without a Korean accent used by Korean stu­ dents and professors. “The ‘English’ in EMI or the English-only policy is almost always based on a native speaker model” (Kirkpatrick 2014: 9). It is exactly the case with EMI in Korea, and, more precisely, ‘the English’ here is American Eng­ lish. Kym and Kym (2014) showed that when the instructor is a native English speaker (NES) or an English speaker with native-like proficiency, the students are more likely to be satisfied with EMI classes and comprehend the content more easily. Seo (2014) reported that a student interviewee complained about unintel­ ligibility of professors’ ‘Konglish.’ However, a Korean instructor could be a good role model for students if he or she is equipped with a high level of English profi­ ciency and professional content knowledge (Kym and Kym 2014). Kwon (2001, cited in Park and Kim 2014) argued that ‘Konglish’ or Koreanized English is not to be stigmatized as a bad language but to be used with some strategy to make it intelligible to other English speakers. Kyung-Ja Park (2009, cited in Park and Kim 2014) further claimed that it is only a matter of time before Korea English or KE3 will serve the purpose of glocalized English. Overall, the two factors, the top-down mandatory implementation and the major players’ insufficient English competence and confidence, separately and jointly, have made EMI in the Korean higher education context ineffective and even disempowering. Where there is no concern with their level of English profi­ ciency for and preference of EMI courses, the students and faculty are forced to ‘sink or swim’. Kirkpatrick (2014: 6) stated that “forcing students (and staff) to use a language which is not their first and in which they are unlikely to have as great a level of proficiency may seriously disadvantage students”. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case with EMI in Korean higher education context.

The use of Korean and code-switching in EMI classes It is common to find that, where English is the medium of instruction, the policy that only English should be used in class is enforced. It is equally common to find that, in practice, there is frequent use of the L1 in the classroom (Kirkpatrick 2014). EMI in Korean higher education context means English only but L1 or Korean is frequently used by both professors and students in EMI classrooms, which has been controversial. On the one hand, it has been identified mainly as a problem and criticized as a debilitating factor of EMI policy (S. Cho and Hwang 2013; E. Kim et al. 2016 and more). The use of L1 was seen as a poor choice made by some professors due to their insufficient English ability (see, for exam­ ple, E. Kim 2017). Code-switching was also often considered as language mixing

70

Joo-Kyung Park

simply caused by insufficient target language proficiency not as a natural bilingual behavior in bilingual contexts, which can facilitate the target language and con­ tent learning as well (Cook 2008). These negative attitudes towards the use of L1 and code-switching might have resulted from the ‘English only’ EMI policy, under which those who use Korean or code-switch between English and Korean in classes are forced to feel guilty and evaluated poorly about doing ‘forbidden’ things. The problem is exacerbated when Korean is not a first or shared language among all the students in the class. Indeed, the use of Korean by Korean students and professors was criticized by international students who could not compre­ hend and were excluded from the class interaction (see, for example, J. Kim et al. 2014). On the other hand, studies show benefits of the use of L1 and code-switching in classrooms (Barnard and McLellan 2014; Littlewood and Yu 2011; Macaro 2009). The use of L1 can help make the content comprehensible. Skinner (1985, cited in Macaro 2001) argues that some first language use can facilitate connec­ tions between the target language and prior knowledge and ideas already devel­ oped in the first language. Ellis (1994) also claims that judicious and theoretically principled first language use can facilitate the target language intake and thereby contribute to the target language learning. “Rather, therefore, than limiting students with the insistence on English-only, multilingual students should be encouraged and allowed to use their linguistic resources in the course of their studies” (Kirkpatrick 2014: 9). A recent survey study of E. Kim et al. (2016) showed that the majority of the students in three leading engineering schools in Korea preferred Korean-medium instruction over EMI and did not find EMI beneficial for their English ability. Nevertheless, most of the survey participants believed that EMI should be maintained but with changes in the schools’ manda­ tory policies. In addition, the students in all three schools believed that L1 should be used to facilitate their learning even in EMI settings.

Prospects and directions of EMI As discussed earlier, EMI in the higher education context in Korea has been highly controversial and has lots of unresolved issues. Nevertheless, there seems to be a general consensus about the importance of and the need for EMI and its further expansion. E. Kim (2017: 59–61) provided the assorted suggestions and recommendations for the improvement of EMI in Korean higher education, which can cater to those problems and challenges discussed earlier. Firstly, stu­ dents and professors should be able to choose EMI after consideration of their own language capabilities and preferences. At the same time, effective support systems need to be established in order to help those students and professors whose English proficiency is insufficient for EMI courses acquire a proper level of English ability and continuously develop their language and teaching abili­ ties. Kirkpatrick (2014) claimed that English language proficiency is a constantly ongoing process and all universities which insist on EMI programs must ensure that they also provide systematic ongoing English development courses which are

English-medium instruction in Korea 71 integral to a student’s degree. Various support systems have been suggested in a great deal of studies: language programs for preparing students for EMI classes (Chang et al. 2017; S. Cho and Hwang 2013), faculty support programs for their linguistic and pedagogical development (Cho 2012; E. Kim and Shin 2014), language center for providing both students and faculty with necessary help and assistance (E. Kim and Shin 2014), to name a few. (See E. Kim 2017 for a more detailed discussion of the various support systems.) More effective and diverse teaching methods and learning environment for EMI classes are needed in order to help students in EMI class acquire more in-depth content knowledge as well as the target language ability (S. Cho and Hwang 2013; S.-Y. Hwang 2013). S.-Y. Hwang (2013) suggested that EMI be introduced to students in later years, as they need to build a solid founda­ tion for their learning in their earlier years through Korean-medium instruction. However, it will be even better to let students choose when to take EMI courses depending on their own need and preference, promoting students’ ownership of their own learning.

Conclusion Despite all the issues and concerns discussed earlier, there is no doubt that the regional government’s and universities’ pursuit of internationalization will be continued; this, in turn, will demand a further increase of EMI courses and pro­ grams in order to attract international students who serve as significant resources for higher international rankings and financial stability. Korea has been and will continue to be a strong advocate of EMI policy in higher education context as well as TEE in elementary and secondary schools. The 2015 Revised Korea’s National Curriculum states clearly that English as an international language (EIL) or lingua franca (ELF)4 is the most widely used language for international communication between people who have dif­ ferent language backgrounds. It is a must-have skill to meet the changes in the era of globalization and knowledge information, and to play a leading role in international society. However, it is not clear whether the role of ELF is clearly understood. For example, the 2015 English textbook writing guidelines show a different perception of ELF. It is stated that English expressions (in the text­ book) should be the ones in standard varieties currently used in English-speaking countries and that are natural and authentic (MOE and KICE 2015). ‘Standard varieties’ means, in practice, American English, which has been a single model of English taught in Korea since it was adopted as the standard English during the First National Curriculum period (1955–1962) (Moon 2005, cited in Park and Kim 2014). Furthermore, English Program in Korea (EPIK), a Korean govern­ ment program to recruit NES teacher assistants, requires the applicants “to be a citizen of a country where English is the primary language; must be citizens of one of the following countries: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, or South Africa” (EPIK 2017). (See Park 2008, for an in-depth discussion of EPIK).

72

Joo-Kyung Park

These three major English-related government policies show that there is a discrepancy between the curriculum rhetoric and the pedagogical and social practices from an ELF perspective. Education and language policymakers (and/ or government officials) in Korea seem to have a deep-rooted faith in NESs or ‘Native-speakerism’ (Holliday 2004) and not to have a proper understanding of ELF. A mono model approach has been favored by a majority of Korean teachers and students (Ahn 2017). Even with a gradual change in their attitudes towards English varieties, Korean students and teachers still prefer American English as an instruction model because of the power (and the prestige) that the speakers have (Park and Jang 2015). It has not been long since Korean researchers and educators started to pay attention to ELF. Unlike its neighboring countries such as China and Japan, no professional association or special interest group of ELF exists yet in Korea. Not many studies have discussed EMI in Korean higher education context from an ELF perspective. EMI and ELF have been dealt with as separate issues in research and publications. As shown earlier, studies on EMI largely examined the students’ and instructors’ beliefs and perceptions of EMI and its effects on the students’ target language and content knowledge development. Those on ELF are mostly on the students’ and teachers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards English varieties, pronunciation in particular, and the speakers (Ahn 2014; Park 2008, 2012; Park and Jang 2015 and more). The ELF teaching contexts in Korea in the literature largely refer to English language teaching classes, rather than content-based EMI classes. However, the ‘English’ in both lines of studies refers to an NES English or American English in particular, not a pluricentric one. Most of the Korean stakeholders may understand the definition of EIL or ELF, but not acknowledge the rapid diversification of English and the develop­ ment of an increasing number of varieties of English (Sharifian 2014), let alone accept them as equally legitimate ones. Perhaps, it is mainly due to the fact that the majority of Koreans do not live in a densely multicultural context and have not experienced many international and multicultural interactions and transac­ tions. However, the nation is becoming a multicultural society. According to the Department of Justice, as of May 31, 2015, there are approximately 1.8 million foreign visitors and residents, 3.6% of the total population in Korea. The tradi­ tional approaches in ELT that focus on developing fluency in one or two varieties of English no longer prepare learners for facing the sociolinguistic reality of the use of the language in the 21st century (Sharifian 2014). Therefore, a change is urgently needed. Korean universities have concentrated on the quantitative expansion of EMI, overlooking some of the critical problems that it has (E. Kim 2017). In order to make EMI a benefit, not a disadvantage, improvements should be made in EMI methods and support systems for both students and professors. But also, and more importantly, a proper awareness and understanding of ELF needs to be raised among all the Korean stakeholders through educational programs or systems which can help them develop more positive attitudes towards English

English-medium instruction in Korea 73 varieties particularly those spoken by so-called non-native speakers including their own, Korea English, and accept a pluralistic model of English language (Kirkpat­ rick 2011; Ahn 2017). Then their sociolinguistic and educational practices need to be adjusted to meet the global changes in many fields, including the implemen­ tation of EMI and language policy, teacher recruitment, classroom instruction, materials development and more. More research needs to be conducted on EMI from an ELF perspective. Further, ELF researchers and educators need to have more frequent dialogues with policymakers, government officials and educational administrators in order to ensure that the benefits of the changes be shared by all the members of society, although changes are often made by only those ‘in power’.

Notes 1 If we include English language courses taught in English or Teaching English in English (TEE) courses, the beginning of EMI in Korea can be traced back to the 1960s, when US Peace Corps volunteers started to serve in Korea. Strickland (2010) said, “US Peace Corps volunteers were in Korea from 1966 to 1981. The first groups came as English teachers at all levels, middle school to col­ lege, although the early focus was on filling the gap in high schools, where the absence of native English speakers was felt most keenly. Very few Koreans had ESL training at that point, and the college Volunteers addressed that lack.” They taught English language skills all in English, speaking and writing in particular but some content courses as well. In addition, some universities offered English only courses taught by some visiting scholars from English-speaking countries, including those from USA through the Fulbright Program, or family members of American diplomats or soldiers or GIs. When I was in college in the late 1970s, I was taught English Syntax by a Volunteer, English conversation and writing by GI’s wife, and American Poetry by a visiting scholar from Yale University all in English. However, very little or no literature can be found on these courses from an EMI perspective. 2 Four KAIST undergraduate students committed suicides in the spring of 2011. As the KAIST reform strategies, President Suh Nam-pyo pursued English-only policy in 2006 with the punitive tuition policy depriving underperforming students of tuition-free status. These two policies were blamed for the students’ deaths (No 2016) and brought in the president’s resignation before the end of his term of presidency ended. In the fall of 2011, the school eased its EMI policy, and students have been able to take some courses in English or Korean (E. Kim 2014, cited in E. Kim 2017) 3 Kyung-Ja Park proposed to use the term ‘Korea English’ (KE) rather than either Korean English or Konglish. “KE refers to the spoken English used by most edu­ cated Korean speakers when communicating internationally as well as intra-nation­ ally. It has common cores of normative English with Korean traits and nuances in pronunciation, lexicon, syntax and discourse, distinct from other types of English. This variety of English is called ‘glocalized English’ (GlcE)” (K. Park 2009:94, cited in Park and Kim 2014). 4 The Korean word ‘gukjeeoroseoui yeongeo’ used in the National Curriculum liter­ ally means ‘English as an international language (EIL).’ However, it can be and is translated as ‘EIL’, ‘ELF’ or ‘EIL/ELF’, which are often used interchangeably along with World Englishes (WE) in the literature published inside and outside of Korea (Choi 2007; Jenkins 2007; Park 2012; Seidlhofer 2004, among others)

74

Joo-Kyung Park

References Ahn, H. 2014 Teachers’ attitudes towards Korean English in South Korea. World Englishes 33(2), 195–222. Ahn, H. 2017. Attitudes to World Englishes: Implications for Teaching English in South Korea. New York: Routledge. Barnard, R. and J. McLellan 2014. Codeswitching in English Medium Classes: Case Studies and Perspectives from East Asian Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Byun, K., H. Chu, M. Kim, I. Park, S. Kim and J. Jung 2010. English-medium teach­ ing in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education 62(4), 431–449. CAMPUS (The Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Students) Asia 2017. Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Students in Asia. Avail­ able from: www.campusasia.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=menuandwr_id=115 [accessed 5 September 2017]. Chang, J-Y, W. Kim. and H. Lee 2017. A language support program for Eng­ lish-medium instruction courses: Its development and evaluation in an EFL setting. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 20(5), 510–528. Cho, D. W. 2012. English-medium instruction in the university context of Korea: Tradeoff between teaching outcomes and media-initiated university ranking. The Journal of Asia TEFL 9(4), 135–163. Cho, S. and S. Hwang 2013. Consideration of current state of college-level English medium instruction and exploration of future direction: With a special reference to students’ perception and satisfaction classified as their English proficiency level. Studies in Modern Grammar 71, 175–194. Choi, K. 2007. A study on students’ attitude towards world Englishes and non-native English teachers. English Teaching 62(4), 47–68. Chong, C. 2015. Ulsan Gwagidae-Ulsan Gwagiwon doenda (Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology renamed and restructured) (8 January 2015, DongA Ilbo (Daily)). Available from: http://news.zum.com/articles/18910544 [accessed 5 September 2017]. Chung, H. 2016. Universities hit for compromising quality education for money (18 May 2016, Korea Times). Available from: www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/ nation/2016/05/181_205003.html [accessed 15 September 2017]. Cook, V. 2008. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (4th ed.). Lon­ don: Routledge. EACEA (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency). 2017. About the EU-ICI ECP Programme: Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Republic of Korea. Available from: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/bilateral_cooperation/eu_ici_ecp/ index_en.php [accessed 5 September 2017]. Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. EPIK (English Program in Korea). 2017. Job description: Eligibility. Available from: www.epik.go.kr:8080/contents.do?contentsNo=62&menuNo=296 [accessed 25 September 2017]. Ha, M.-J. 2011. EFL Learners’ willingness to communicate in the EMI college classes. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 27(4), 27–53.

English-medium instruction in Korea 75 Holliday, A. 2004. The dangers of native-speakerism and cultural Chauvinism in TESOL. Plenary talk presented at the 2004 Asia TEFL International Conference, Seoul, Korea, 5–7 November. Hwang, S.-Y. 2013. Engineering majors’ perception of EMI courses. Modern English Education 14(3), 203–235. IGC (Incheon Global Campus) 2017. Incheon Global Campus, the best global education hub in Northeast Asia. Available from: www.igc.or.kr/ [accessed 7 September 2017]. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language: New Models, New Norms, New Goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University. London and New York: Routledge. Jin, S.-H. and S. Shin 2011. Effects of English competence, motivation, achievement, and self-confidence on learners’ satisfaction and effects of EMI. Journal of Engi­ neering Education Research 14(6), 16–23. KAIE (Korean Association of International Educators) 2013. Study Korea 2020 Pro­ ject: 2013–2020. Available from: www.jafsa.org/uploads/20131127KAIE-JAFSA1. pdf [accessed 4 September 2017]. Kim, C., H. Yi and Y. Kim 2006. Daehak yeongeo ganguiui geuneul – junbi andwen busil sueop [Shadows of English-medium instruction in universities – unprepared, inadequate classes]. (26 June 2006, The Kyunghyang Shinmun). Available from: http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=102&oid= 032&aid=0000182403 [accessed 20 September 2017]. Kim, D.-H. 2010. A critical approach on the extension of lecture in English at col­ leges. Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education 22(1), 38–51. Kim, E. G. 2014. Korean engineering professors’ views on English language educa­ tion in relation to English-medium instruction. The Journal of Asia TEFL 11(2), 1–33. Kim, E. G. 2017. English medium instruction in Korean higher education: Chal­ lenges and future directions. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys and I. Walkinshaw (eds.), English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Asia-Pacific: From Policy to Pedagogy. Dortrecht: Springer, pp. 53–69. Kim, E. G., S. Kweon and J. Kim 2016. Korean engineering students’ perceptions of English-medium instruction (EMI) and L1 use in EMI classes. Journal of Multilin­ gual and Multicultural Development 38(2), 130–145. Kim, E. G. and A. Shin 2014. Seeking an effective program to improve communi­ cation skills of non-English-speaking graduate engineering students: The case of a Korean engineering school. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 57(1), 41–55. Kim, J., B. Tatar and J. Choi 2014. Emerging culture of English-medium instruction in Korea: Experiences of Korean and international students. Language and Intercultural Communication 14(4), 441–459. doi:10.1080/14708477.2014.946038. Kim, Sung-Ae 2002. A critical reflection on the ‘teaching English through English’ classes in the Korean context. English Teaching 57(4), 315–346. Kim, Sung-Yeon 2002 Teachers’ perceptions about teaching English through Eng­ lish. English Teaching 57(1), 131–148.

76

Joo-Kyung Park

Kim, Y. 2017. Guknae daehak samdae sukjaeneun ‘hyeoksinjeok yeongu·sogyumo gangui·gukjehwa’ [The Three Tasks for Korean Universities: Reforming research, Reducing Class Size, and Internationalization] (8 June 2017) Available from: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/06/08/2017060800213. html[accessed 20 September 2017]. Kirkpatrick, A. 2011. English as an Asian lingua franca and the multilingual model of LT. Language Teaching 44(2), 212–224. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000145. Kirkpatrick, A. 2014. The language(s) of HE: EMI and/or ELF and/or multilingual­ ism? The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(1), 4–15. Kwon, O. 2001. Teaching English as a global language in the Asian context. Paper presented at the KATE 2001 Conference, Ewha Womans University, Korea, 29 June. Kym, I. and M. H. Kym 2014. Students’ perceptions of EMI in higher education in Korea. The Journal of Asia TEFL 11(2), 35–61. Lee, Jong-Hee. 2007. Issues of EFL educational practice in Korea: A conceptual pro­ posal for an alternative. English Language & Literature Teaching 13(3), 41–56. Littlewood, W. and B. Yu 2011. First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching 44(1), 64–77. Macaro, E. 2001. Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal 85(4), 531–548. Macaro, E. 2009. Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom. In M. Turnbull and J. Dailey-O’Cain (eds.), First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 35–49. MOE (Ministry of Education) and KICE (Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evalu­ ation) 2015. Gaejeong gyoyukgwajongae ttareun gyokwayong doseo pyeonchan yuei­ jeomgwa geomjeonggijun [Coursebook Writing Guidelines According to the 2015 New Revised Curriculum]. Seoul: MOE & KICE. Moon, Eun-Kyung 2005. A historical research on English textbooks in the formation stage of contemporary educational system in Korea. Foreign Languages Education 12(3), 245–269. No, D. 2016. Eleven suicides in six years: What’s going on at KAIST? (25 July 2016, The Kyunghyang Shinmun). Available from: http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_ view.html?artid=201607251827247&code=710100#csidxa9e48012a650d288cb 9eb344830ff32 [accessed 23 September 2017]. Oh, K. 2012. Korea aims to double foreign students by 2020 Available from: www. koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20120430001012 [accessed 20 September 2017]. Pae, C. 2011. Sibobun hangungmal yoyak utjimotal daehak yeongeo gangui (15 min­ ute summary in Korean-laughable English-medium classes at universities). (1 June 2011, Money Today) Available from: www.mt.co.kr/view/mtview.php?type= 1&no=2011052310465134790&outlink=1 [accessed 20 September 2017]. Park, H. 2006. The effectiveness of English-mediated courses with engineering stu­ dents. The Journal of English Education 33, 86–119. Park, J. 2008. EPIK and NEST-NNEST collaboration in Korea revisited. English Language and Literature Teaching 14(4), 141–160. Park, J. 2012. Korean college students’ perceptions of teaching English pronuncia­ tion for international communication. Studies in English Education 14(2), 30–53. Park, J. and S. Jang 2015. Korean pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of teach­ ing the pronunciation of English as an international language. Paper presented at 2015 ALAK International Conference, Seoul, Korea, 11 September.

English-medium instruction in Korea 77 Park, J. and M. Kim 2014. Teaching English as an international language in Korean context. In M. Roby and R. M. Giri (eds.), The Pedagogy of English as an Inter­ national Language: Perspectives from Scholars, Teachers, and Students. Dortrecht: Springer, pp. 47–64. Park, Kyung-Ja. 2009. Characteristics of Korea English as a glocalized variety. In K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and Future Debates. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 94–110. Park, S. H. and Song, Y. 2013. Internationalizing higher education in Korea: Univer­ sity and government responses. Koreanische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftswissenschaften 31(2), 29–43. Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 209–239. Seo, E. 2014. 2014. Miguk salda wannunde yeongeo gangui modara deukkesseoyo (I can’t understand EMI classes (at Korean universities) although I used to live in the US). (20 October 2014, Pressian). Available from: www.pressian.com/news/arti­ cle.html?no=121068 [accessed 25 September 2017]. Sharifian, F. 2014. Teaching English as an international language in multicultural contexts: Focus on Australia. In M. Roby and R. M. Giri (eds.), The Pedagogy of English as an International Language: Perspectives from Scholars, Teachers, and Stu­ dents. Dortrecht: Springer, pp. 35–46. Skinner, D. 1985. Access to meaning: The anatomy of the language learning connec­ tion. Journal of Multicultural Development 6(2), 369–389. Sookmyung 2017. Why SMU TESOL? Available from: http://tesol.sookmyung.ac.kr/ community/tesol_contents.php?pageid=102010 [accessed 5 September 2017]. Strickland, D. 2010. The Peace Corps in Korea. (22 April 2010). Available from: www. korea4expats.com/news-peace-corps-in-korea.html [accessed 2 September 2017]. StudyinKorea 2017. Higher education in Korea. Available from: www.studyinkorea. go.kr/en/overseas_info/allnew_higherEducation.do [accessed 2 September 2017]. Yu, S. 2011. “Urin yeongeo ganguiron manjok motanda” – aye yeongeo gongyonghwa ch’ujinhaneun daehaktdeul [“We are not satisfied with English-medium instruction only” Universities are promoting the adoption of a campuswide policy of English as an official language]. (23 February 2011, Chosun Ilbo (Daily)). Available from: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/02/23/2011022300164. html [accessed 25 August 2017]. Yun, M. 2014. Ulsangjitneun woegugin hagu – urihakkyo yeongeo gangui hyeonju­ soneun [Unhappy international students—problems of English medium instruction at KAIST]. (20 May 2014, KAIST Shinmun). Available from: http://times.kaist. ac.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=2727 [accessed 10 September 2017].

6

EMI (English-medium instruction) in Japanese higher education Masakazu IinoEMI in Japanese higher education

A paradoxical space for global

and local sociolinguistic habitats

Masakazu Iino Introduction An increasing number of universities in Japan, as well as in East Asia, have been introducing English-medium instruction (EMI) programs and courses in recent years. English, once used as a medium of instruction in the nation-building stage during the Meiji era (1868–1912) in Japan to import modern technologies and knowledge from the advanced Europe, is now playing a new role in the contem­ porary context, such as to compete in the deeply globalizing academia and to produce “global human resources” (MEXT 2011). Universities are called upon to advance international engagement of research and education, to increase the international mobility of students, and to employ foreign researchers and teachers in order to achieve a higher ranking in the world university league (Murata and Iino 2018; Park, this volume). This chapter reviews the medium of instruction policies in the higher educa­ tion, focusing mainly on cases from Japan. For example, series of the govern­ mental-level policies, such as G30 (2008) and the Top Global University Project (2014), have accelerated the introduction of EMI programs and courses among major universities throughout Japan and had a large influence on the sociolin­ guistic habitat, including students’ preparations for the university entrance exam, their national identity, as well as pedagogical and administrative operations in the university community. So far, although studies regarding EMI in Japan are growing (e.g., Bradford 2013; Bradford and Brown 2017; Brown 2015; Brown and Iyobe 2013; Hino 2017; Iino and Murata 2013, 2016; Morizumi 2015; Toh 2016), they are still at an early stage and few of them are investigated from the perspectives of language policy (cf. Kedzierski 2016). The choice of medium in higher education institutions (HEIs) is a matter of “status planning” (see Hornberger 2006), one of the most fundamental decisionmaking processes to shape a society. The recent spread of English has invited epistemological discussions in the applied linguistic field such as “linguistic impe­ rialism” (Phillipson 1992), criticizing “the uncritical acceptance of English hav­ ing a ‘natural’ right to be the default language, and a blind belief in English as a ‘lingua franca’ ” (Phillipson 2006: 357), built on the critical social theory of

EMI in Japanese higher education 79 “hegemony” (Gramci 1971). The “linguistic imperialism” discourse has been consumed widely by Japanese scholars who reiterate similar “critical” discussions regarding the over-emphasis of English education (e.g., Kasuya 2000; Saito et al. 2016). Ryuko Kubota, for example, describes such policy as neo-liberal and neo­ colonial movements (Kubota 2015). Nevertheless, the recent discourse of pro­ moting EMI is widely believed to produce “global human resources” among the mainstream elite members at the policy level, however vague and imaginary a construct may be, while the “E” of EMI has not been critically examined from an ELF perspective (see Murata and Iino 2018). Other trends, to overcome the previously mentioned dead-end criticism, accept English as a lingua franca in academic settings (ELFA) (e.g., Jenkins 2014; Mau­ ranen 2012) as a fact of academic life in the contemporary world, deconstructing the dichotomy of the native and non-native English speakers from an English as a lingua franca (ELF) perspective. Jenkins then retheorized ELF into a new phase (ELF 3), namely “English as a Multilingua Franca,” which is defined as “multilin­ gual communication in which English is available as a contact language of choice, but is not necessarily chosen.” (Jenkins 2015b: 73). Seidlhofer (2011: 19) sees “native-speaker language use is just one kind of reality,” as did Trudgill (1999: 122), who says, “standard English is a purely social dialect.” The decentralized, as opposed to the Inner Circle (Kachru 1992) and localized English uses are also recognized and legitimized in the sociolinguists/applied linguists’ groups such as “World Englishes” (e.g., Jenkins 2003, 2015a; Kirkpatrick 2007), “English as an International Language” (e.g., Smith 1983) and “Asian Englishes” (e.g., Kachru 2005), as an effort to deprive the ownership of illusionary “native speakers,” who “should no longer be considered the true custodian of the English language” (Widdowson 1994: 385). In the series of policy documents proposed by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT), there has been no argument so far regarding the nature of the “E” of EMI in the Japanese context from an ELF perspective. The positive “washback effect” (Baily 1996) driven by EMI in HEIs onto English education in the elementary and secondary education seems overly stated, and the struggles and dilemmas that participants in EMI programs, both academic staff and students are now facing, seem understated. A close look on the ontological and epistemological challenges of EMI in East Asia’s higher educa­ tion (e.g., Tsou and Kao 2017 for Taiwan; Kedzierski 2016; Park, this volume, for Korea) is thus called upon to re-examine not only the language use per se but also the social influences infused by EMI.

Ontological meanings of the EMI policy in Japan EMI for modernization EMI in Japanese higher education was adopted in the early days of modernization in the Meiji period. In those days, English, along with other European languages such as French and German, played an important role in importing advanced

80

Masakazu Iino

technologies and ideas to build a modern nation. Foreign professors were invited as oyatoi gaikokujin kyoshi (invited foreign teachers), and conducted EMI in newly established elite universities. However, towards the end of Meiji, particularly after Japan’s victory over the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), a strong sense of nationalism and independence from West­ ern influence was manifested. For example, Shigenobu Okuma, the founder of Waseda University, stated the independence of scholarship, from the government as well as Western influence, as one of the founding principles of the university in 1897 during his speech at the 15th anniversary of the university, and empha­ sized the importance of Japanese as the medium of instruction, using textbooks written in Japanese (Shima 2003: 34). He criticized the unconditional worship of Western civilization after the Meiji restoration, including such an extreme idea as to make English a national language (e.g., Arinori Mori, the first Minister of Education in 1885). The nationalistic movement before WWII and the massifica­ tion of higher education during the booming economy period in the 1960s and 1970s have led Japanese-medium instruction to be taken for granted in all subject areas and all over Japan. In a few exceptional cases, EMI programs and courses were introduced by Christian missionary schools, such as International Christian University and Sophia University in Tokyo, after WWII in a relatively small scale, mainly for foreign students and Japanese returnees (Sophia University, n.d.).

EMI as an economic policy: globalization of economy and human resources After the collapse of the so-called bubble economy in the 1990s – almost a cen­ tury after the Japanization movement as stated earlier – Japanese industries and the government pushed the educational institutions to prepare for the globalized economy by improving English education, being conscious about other Asian nations’ policies intensifying English education and EMI. Malaysia, for example, is marketing a transnational higher education model with twinning programs with Oceanian countries, inviting students from ASEAN neighboring countries, China, and Muslim regions such as Middle East, Africa, and South Asia (Yoshino 2014). English education became recognized as a significant part of economic capital (see Funabashi 2000). Although there has been no scientific evidence to prove the link between economic growth and the people’s English ability so far (see Terasawa 2015), English has been occasionally blamed as a cause for Japan’s sluggish economy due to the lack of political and business leaders with sufficient English proficiency, particularly after the booming discourse of English as an official language (or as a second official language) in the early 2000s (Funa­ bashi 2000). English, in this regard, is playing a major role of economic policy under the wide-spread slogan, fostering “global human resources (gurobaru jin­ zai)” at all levels of education, and constitutes an important “linguistic capital” (Bourdieu 1977) or an ornament value even at an imaginary level. In contrast to the policy discourse, it is pointed out that many Japanese companies are not necessarily ready to employ “highly skilled foreign professionals (kodo gaikoku

EMI in Japanese higher education 81 jinzai),” (see Iwasaki 2015a), resulting in many international EMI graduates moving to postgraduate programs in the Inner Circle HEIs or working for nonJapanese companies, as discussed later in the chapter.

EMI for global university competition: ranking up by increasing inbound and outbound student mobility The global university rankings, such as Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) and QS World University Rankings (QS), both of which were first pub­ lished in collaboration in 2004, shocked not only the university stakeholders but also many policymakers in the government and industry. Safeguarded by the Japanese language wall, the Japanese HEIs had their own domestic league table, largely based on the selectivity (measured by the standard deviation, called hensachi) of the applicants at the entrance examinations, which has been rather stable over time, particularly at the top-brand universities. Because of the eroding (or missing) status of Japanese universities in such global rankings, in comparison to other universities in the Asian region, it became an urgent political agenda to enhance the international status by inviting more international students and fac­ ulty members on campus, which matters significantly in calculating “points” to boost the rankings with an international outlook.1 Although there are alarming voices questioning the validity of such rankings which are overly in favor of Eng­ lish-medium universities in Inner Circle settings in general (e.g., Kariya 2017) and are perpetuating the neo-colonial ideologies (e.g., Kubota 2013, 2015) as well as linguistic imperialism and hegemony, many policymakers think they have no choice but to join the race, with the rule of the game being set by outer authorities. The current prime minister Shinzo Abe and his policy planning coun­ cil in 2013 proposed an aggressive plan for hiring foreign teachers (plus, Japanese teachers with a Ph.D. earned outside Japan and/or with teaching experiences outside Japan) to replace retiring Japanese teachers (see Council for Revitaliza­ tion of Education, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet 2013; Kariya 2017). In addition to the previously mentioned political and reputational reasons, the decline of the young population and the massification of higher education can be pointed out behind the internationalization of HEIs in Japan at a macro level. The financially struggling universities that are over capacity are being affected by the demographic change and need to fill the gap with foreign students, wrapped with an international look. While there are approximately 700 universities in Japan, this chapter mainly focuses on those HEIs selected by the governmental initiatives for the Global 30 (G30) project, which is highlighting the point at issue among series of governmental initiatives. In 2008, the Japanese government initiated the project to promote the EMI programs and courses by selecting 13 universities with special funding, although some universities had already started EMI programs both at the undergraduate and the graduate levels before the pro­ ject (see Murata and Iino 2018). The project was called “ryugakusei 30 man nin keikaku (the plan to invite 300,000 international students to Japan by 2020),” the main purpose of which is to increase the enrollment of students from abroad.

82

Masakazu Iino

EMI was chosen as a means to achieve such a goal by facilitating international applicants for the admission processes, without requiring any prior Japanese lan­ guage proficiency. In addition to the policy goal to increase the number of foreign students in Japanese HEIs, another complex purpose is to improve global education for Japanese students. EMI was expected to immerse Japanese students in English, hence preparing them to study abroad during their undergraduate programs. As accelerated by the European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of Univer­ sity Students (ERASMUS) project and the Bologna declaration in the late 20th century in Europe, student mobility has been promoted as a means of fostering global citizenship and employability for their future, as well as a measurement of internationalization in the global university rankings (see Jenkins, Kuteeva, and Smit, this volume). English has been thus chosen as a lingua franca in major Asian HEIs as in Europe. In China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, opportunities to learn Chinese are also considered an additive attraction for international students. In all cases, such policies are binding HEIs by allocating funding and reputation (see Park and Wang, this volume). The major premise described earlier is to have the enough members or candi­ dates who are capable enough to function in EMI in non-Anglophone countries or regions. In other words, the EMI model in higher education, particularly in Japan, is highly selective elite oriented, since English is not used in everyday life, and ordinary Japanese students are not exposed to English outside the English language class as a foreign language (EFL) throughout their education. The fol­ lowing section will examine recent efforts to produce such future candidates for EMI at earlier stages of their English education.

Feeding EMI English test reforms for university admission English is largely functioning as a parameter of academic achievement in the screening processes for higher education in Japan as well as in other Asian regions. Nevertheless, many Japanese people are not satisfied with English edu­ cation, particularly the practical skills for communication they had received, and are questioning the effectiveness of English education in formal schooling. Although they often realize that they do not actually use English in their daily lives, they are inescapable from the educational and occupational screening sys­ tem based on their English scores, and the recent neo-liberal dominant discourse of “global human resources” or “global talents” imaginarily linked with the English capability (Kubota 2015). For Japanese people in general to gain high scores, the language, regardless of Japanese or foreign languages, is believed to be something prescribed and “given” by the authority, and people tend to accept the game result of big tests such as the Center Test (the national center test for university admission, 575,967 applicants, 2017, about a half of the same age group members sit for this exam every year) for the university entrance. In

EMI in Japanese higher education 83 this game of competition, the fixed rule of English tests such as grammatical and phonological correctness derives mostly from the hyper-normative American native model “as given” after WWII, and students are linguistically and psycho­ logically bound by native-speakerism (Houghton and Rivers 2013, Murata and Iino 2018). While universities being funded through G30 or Super Global Universities projects to start EMI programs as seen earlier, high schools are also preparing students to be accepted by such programs at tertiary level. The “teaching English through English” method, CLLIL, and new types of admission tests with lis­ tening and speaking components are examples intended to improve the English education at secondary level as an effective feeding system. The Super Global High School program, initiated in 2014, supported 56 high schools that empha­ size not only English education but also various types of international education such as dispatching students as volunteers to developing nations (see Butler and Iino 2017). In addition, elementary schools are officially introducing English as a subject at the fifth grade in 2020 after having started English “activities” in 2011 (see MEXT 2017a). In order to increase the potential number of future students of EMI, entrance examination reforms are now being discussed with a high hope of “washback effect” (MEXT n.d.). For example, in 2018, the four skill–based commercial tests, such as TOEFL and EIKEN, will be partially introduced for Japanese students in one of the most competitive EMI programs in Tokyo. Many other universities or programs also adopt such four skill–based tests as an option to replace the current test or to add extra points. The conversion table of different types of test scores was suggested by MEXT (2017b), but the decision on how to calculate and how to use the score is totally up to each undergraduate program. For example, in the MEXT table, EIKEN level 1 is listed to be equivalent to 110–120 in the TOEFL iBT score. However, at an EMI program at Waseda University, the same EIKEN level 1 as well as TOEFL iBT 95 or above is given a full mark (15 points as part of 100 points), the rest of which (85 points) is evaluated by the in-house written test. If other types of commercial tests such as IELTS, GTEC, TEAP, Cambridge, EIKEN, and TOEIC are included as a measurement of English ability, how to convert different types of scores in calculating a total score of an entrance exam is questioned, where even “one point” difference leads to “in” or “out” at a high-stakes exam. Furthermore, these tests are considered to be capable to judge the practical use of English, speaking skill in particular. The listening test was introduced almost a decade ago in many university entrance exams, including the Center Exam, but the speaking test has never been a part of the large-scale screening processes in history in Japan. The introduction of speaking tests using commercial tests will cause (or already has caused) serious issues. “The earlier, the better” belief, particularly on the pho­ nological aspects of language acquisition (see Butler 2015) had influenced both policy planners and parents so that the early input of “native-like” pronunciation is believed as a key to success in English tests (i.e., to sound like a native speaker).2 For example, Hakubun Shimomura, the then-minister of MEXT (2012–2015),

84

Masakazu Iino

emphasized the importance of hiring ALT (Assistant Language Teachers) of ENS as follows: 特に小学生の段階では、ネイティブスピーカーから教わることが大 切だと思います。語学は音楽的な感覚で身.につける部分もあります。 初めて英語にふれる小学生には、発音があまりうまくないジャパニー ズイングリッシュよりも、正しく美しいネイティブスピーカーの発 音が望ましい。 Especially at the elementary level, it is important to learn from native speakers. Language is, in a sense, acquired just like music. For elementary school students, who first learn English, the correct and beautiful pro­ nunciation produced by native speakers is more desirable than Japanese English with bad pronunciation. (Shimomura 2015, interview comment cited in ALC 2015. p. 138, translated by the current author) This type of native-speakerism is largely unmarked in the Japanese political dis­ course and supported by the general public. The following section will examine potential problems caused by the recent implementation of English education reforms.

Potential problems with a one-size-fits-all approach As seen in the previous section, English is regarded as an important academic barometer rather than a simple tool for communication. Reading skill has been highly prioritized for students’ test preparation. A study of MEXT (2015) showed that high school students’ average scores for reading and listening were in the range of the A2 level in the CEFR scale, but their writing and speaking sections scored too low to be measured with statistical significance. In order for Japanese students to improve their output skills, they need “space” to practice their knowledge of English. Since there is almost no opportunity to use Eng­ lish in daily life, a space for practice needs to be artificially created somewhere in educational settings, just as a piano student needs space and a teacher to get feedback to sound better. In higher education, there are more authentic spaces available such as EMI and study abroad programs in recent years, but, paradoxi­ cally, to get in such programs, high school students are expected to achieve high scores in the full four skills. Many scholars, including the Japan Association of National Universities (2017), expressed their concerns including the standard and the measurement, the consistency of the curriculum, the influence of socio­ economic status (SES) on opportunities to practice output skills, especially speak­ ing skill, and the conversion of different types of test. How people speak (or do not speak) depends largely on their cultural norms, and it has been one of the core issues discussed in the fields of sociolinguistics and SLA (e.g., Hornberger and Mckay 2010). Speaking is a performative act, just like a music performance. The so-called native speakers’ linguistic and behavioral norm will become even

EMI in Japanese higher education 85 more salient for Japanese students if tested to mimic a native speaker, without questioning much about the embedded power inequality in the game.

Participants left out in the periphery EMI programs in Japan so far have attracted candidates as evidenced in their popularity during the admission processes. However, when jun-Japa students with no prior experience of living abroad (the term being an emic categorization among students, “jun” literally meaning “pure” in Japanese), with a high English score based on the English as a foreign language (EFL) scale, enter an EMI pro­ gram, they are typically shocked to experience their linguistic “minority” status in the classroom, compared to other types of students such as international students (ryugakusei), returnees (kikoku), and graduates of international schools (intaa) (see Iino and Murata 2016 for detail). Jun-Japa is identified as a protection gear to show their inner conflicts between their lack of confidence in communicative effectiveness in actual ELF communicative situations and their perceived high self-esteem and confidence proved by the successful entrance examination in EFL contexts (ibid.). They form a folk belief that they can compete better if they study in Japanese. Although jun-Japa students comprise more than half of the student enrollment, they initially place themselves in a powerless position. They are afraid of speaking in class, largely because they do not speak like native speakers. The emic term jun-Japa used among Japanese students in an EMI program might be their implicit resistance towards assimilation expectations in such contexts. Many of them successfully finish the EMI program, with a one-year study abroad requirement, and find desired jobs in internationally operating companies and organizations. However, about a quarter of students do not finish the program in four years (which is not necessarily higher a number compared to other Japanese programs) and struggle to survive in the environment of EMI. They sought their own strat­ egies on how to easily get credits and to get good grades. One student in an interview mentioned, “I chose Japanese professors’ classes with a large num­ ber of students, even if I was not particularly interested in the field, because I did not have to speak English in class” (translated by the author), showing that the immediate rewards, as in the term “credit” surpasses the long-term or expected educational needs otherwise delivered in English. Some students found their comfortable positioning as a periphery learner in the community of practice (Wenger 1998). Kano (2016) showed several cases of Japanese students who did not necessarily fit in the EMI environment and how they coped with the language and identity management, overcoming a serious mental and adjustment disorder (Kano 2016). Iino and Murata (2016) also found a similar challenge expressed by a jun-Japa student: “[I] would’ve contributed more in Japanese” (p. 120). Although EMI in the undergraduate school is an artificially created space for “practice,” it is also a very “real” place for their sociolinguistic habitat for a sub­ stantial period of life. Applicants need to be well informed about what to expect out of EMI and how to be better prepared well in advance. The orientation at

86

Masakazu Iino

the beginning of the program is also of paramount importance (see also Murata and Iino 2018).

EMI and university management outside classrooms EMI has also influenced the sociolinguistic habitat on campus beyond class­ rooms. For example, hiring qualified professors and office staff members, who are bilingual/multilingual at least in English and Japanese, is considered the most challenging task to make EMI successful in Japan.3 In 2013, the education revitalization committee (kyouiku saisei jikkou kaigi), an ad-hoc special advising committee appointed by Prime Minister Shnzo Abe, reported that universities are recommended to hire “foreign” professors to take over the retiring “baby­ boomer generation” Japanese professors (Council for Revitalization of Educa­ tion, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet 2013). The term “foreign” here includes not only foreign nationals who hold non-Japanese passports but also Japanese passport holders who have graduated and earned a Ph.D. from foreign institutions, or who have conducted teaching or research activities over a year (i.e., even those who have spent their sabbatical leave overseas over a year) (Kariya 2017). As seen in the “language requirement” advertised for teaching positions in EMI programs/courses in a private university in Tokyo, varying degree of non-English abilities are expected depending on the field and the duties (exam­ ples taken from the job advertisement for EMI teaching positions): 1 2 3 4

Teaching experience and interests. Include the description of the experience of teaching in English. (physics) Applicants should have competence in English and Japanese. (comparative literature) A demonstrated ability to teach in English and Spanish. (Spanish area studies) Ability to teach in English, and ability to conduct administrative duties both in Japanese and English. (international education) (translated by the author)

Professors teaching in public universities usually have an earlier forced retirement age than private universities, and many of them, who have proven themselves competent in the previous position, are oftentimes hired by EMI programs of private universities. In any case, the policy recommendation reflects an urgent need to hire those who are capable to teach in English and who are familiar with globally competitive research environment. Bilingual office staff members were also in high demand after the new funding installment by MEXT. They became in charge of daily communication in Eng­ lish with international applicants, students, their parents, and partner university staff members, in the form of email, telephone, and face-to-face communication. Many of them were hired from outside universities on a contract basis, usually for five years, which typically matches the funding period. Universities in the metro­ politan area are seeking similar qualifications of staff members and those who are

EMI in Japanese higher education 87 employed in such projects tend to move to another university after the expiration of their contract. As EMI is a device to invite foreign students, many universities have invested in building new international dormitories, some of which have Japanese students cohabitating as dorm-mates. Japanese universities in urban settings traditionally did not provide accommodation for Japanese students. Zhewen (2017) illus­ trated the dynamic language choice of a private university international dormi­ tory manager in Tokyo. According to her, the dormitory has a bilingual policy in Japanese and English, as illustrated in the linguistic landscape, such as informa­ tion and warnings on the bulletin board. Thus, the Japanese dormitory manager with “functional” English ability was hired. However, the manager intentionally avoids using English and switches to Japanese when she has to demonstrate her institutional power as a manager, including reprimanding students for breaking a dormitory rule, particularly with “native English speakers” (Zhewen 2017:67). As seen earlier, EMI is not just a pedagogical challenge in classroom, but it has a large influence on university governance, including hiring practices, promotion processes, the choice of language in the faculty meetings, and dormitory manage­ ment. The epistemological challenges of globalization in the local sociolinguistic habitat are thus experienced as a byproduct of EMI.

EMI as a shared experience in Asia Limited scale of EMI in Japan In the past decade or more, governmental policy, tactfully harmonizing with the needs of global business leaders and university managers, set a trend of EMI in Japan. In 2008, there were only seven universities that had undergraduate programs where students could graduate with EMI only (1.0% of all universities in Japan). The number rose to 20 in 2012 (2.7%). The number of universities with partial introduction of EMI also rose from 190 universities (26.3%) in 2008 to 241 (32.4%) in 2012 (MEXT 2014 in Iwasaki 2015a). However, it should be noted that the number of students studying in EMI programs is so limited that only 1% to 4% of each university are participating in non-degree EMI pro­ grams (Brown and Iyobe 2014), and a far lower number of jun-Japa students are enrolled in degree programs. The situation of EMI degree programs in Japan, despite the growing number, shows different levels of volume and intensity from many parts of Europe4 and Asia.

Paradoxical fear of eroding Japanese identity in EMI: English as an additive language A senior manager in charge of the global advisory department of a major Japanese bank said, “English is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition to be a successful global talent” (personal interview, 14 August 2017). Only when inter­ national students finally reach the job-hunting stage do they realize that Japanese

88

Masakazu Iino

companies are still looking for students with high Japanese skills and behavioral codes. Returnees and international students typically struggle to get an offer for future executive-candidate positions in Japan unless they have achieved high profi­ ciency level of Japanese, such as J-1 or N-1.5 Although the majority of students in the Japanese EMI programs, namely the Northeastern Asian (Japanese, Chinese, and Korean) students, do not use English as their first language, English is used as ELF and often considered as the sole lingua franca in the EMI context in Japan, particularly during the admission processes. However, it has been pointed out that Japanese business sectors require a high level of Japanese proficiency for university graduates, regardless of their language backgrounds, in order for them to work with Japanese colleagues and clients in Japan, as also pointed out by Iwasaki: Unless the job is so specialized, the far most important qualification is Japa­ nese language skills. According to our research, at a company which has been hiring a large number of foreign staff members, the secret of success is to hire people with Japanese skills. (Iwasaki 2015b: 44, translated by the current author)6 In other words, English is an additive qualification for jun-Japa elite members as well as many international employees on top of the solid foundation of under­ standing the Japanese way of conducting business, particularly in terms of work­ ing for Japanese companies. EMI, for various types of students, has an important mission in the contemporary context, but needs constant improvements on the way to match the needs in reality. The proposed policy simultaneously includes how to maintain the Japanese identity in the wave of “internationalization.” The Council (Council on Promo­ tion of Human Resource for Globalization Development 2011) released a simpli­ fied definition on “global human resource” as those with the following qualities: 1 2 3

Linguistic and communication skills. Self-directed and positiveness, a spirit for challenge, cooperativeness, and flexibility, a sense of responsibility and mission. Understanding of other cultures and a sense of identity as a Japanese. (English translation appeared in Yonezawa 2014: 39, emphasis added by the current author)

To put the previously mentioned concept into practice, particularly regarding the third “identity issue,” MEXT released “English Education Reform Plan corre­ sponding to Globalization” in 2013, to “enrich educational content in relation to nurturing individual’s sense of Japanese identity(focus on traditional culture and history among other things).” Examples of such activities include the increase of Japanese language (i.e., Kokugo for Japanese students) class hours, empha­ sis on classical Japanese, inclusion of more modern literature, teaching of tradi­ tional cultures (e.g., Soroban (abacus), Kimono, Japanese musical instruments,

EMI in Japanese higher education 89 Budo (martial arts)), history education, moral teaching). The seemingly con­ servative and retrospective idealization of the Japanese “big C” (Steele 1989: 154) manifests a fear of losing the Japanese identity. The undergoing curriculum reform outside English education is a nationalistic reaction to the promotion of internationalization. Unlike the northern European higher education,7 EMI is still a paradoxical space for the local and foreign participants whose native language is not English in Japan, and who need to balance the imposed Anglo linguacultural norms and the local values and practices. Although EMI in the higher education as well as studying abroad experiences is often viewed as the most advanced training devices to foster “global human resources” at an undergraduate level, such emphasis on English as a medium of instruction is also criticized as “English (i.e. the ‘E’ of NES) –Only” orientated (see Murata and Iino 2018), perpetuating English imperialism and hegemony in Asia (e.g., Kubota 2015), particularly when not seen from an ELF perspective, which incorporates a multilingual paradigm of participants. Japanese students are simultaneously expected to maintain and to even strengthen their national identity through various linguistic, cultural, and history education. English, in this context, is positioned as an additive skill to the uncompromised national character, rather than something to replace the existing local codes. In order to develop sustainable EMI programs in Asia, the diverse linguistic and cultural resources that the participants bring in need to be fully recognized and mobilized as effective resources and capabilities in all academic activities. The EMI habitat in Japan, considering almost 90% of the foreign stu­ dents coming from the non-Inner Circle countries/regions, provides them with commonly shared sociolinguistic experiences reflecting the current global reality they live in, be it enlightening or frustrating.

Conclusion EMI in the contemporary Japanese context is still at an early stage, and it may be too early to conclude that EMI is actually producing more competent “global human resources” than before and has a significantly different social influence than Japanese-medium instruction (JMI). Global talent is expected to be effec­ tively fostered through EMI and study abroad programs at the most advanced level in higher education. The new wave of EMI programs, mostly established in the early 2000s, have rigorously increased the number of international students during just over a decade and have diversified students and professors in Japan to a certain extent. In addition, EMI, serving both international and Japanese stu­ dents, has another mission to boost the world ranking and reputation, measured by Anglo-phone scales, the result of which is yet to be seen. Nevertheless, the current “go for English” trend in Japan, topped with a new slogan to prepare for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games, has been perpetuated by the dominant dis­ course of “globalization” in business and higher education, significantly influenc­ ing the life of many Japanese people.

90

Masakazu Iino

A significant washback effect is also expected to improve the English education in general, if universities and their admission tests change. To pump up candi­ dates with English capability, various efforts have been undertaken recently such as introducing English in the formal education at the elementary school level, conducting more CLIL classes in high schools, and adopting four skill–based tests such as TOEFL in the screening processes. The proposed policy is geared towards putting much more emphasis on practical, especially speaking, abilities to feed EMI, and the candidates are expected to be equipped with “usable” English. However, English, being a barometer for their high-stake academic screening, has still been an unnegotiable system based on the so-called American native model in Japan. The EMI program participants in Japan, as well as policymakers and the general public have not critically investigated the “E” of EMI. What’s missing in this picture of English as a panacea is the fact that most Japanese companies, situated in Japan, are seeking candidates with a high level of Japanese, English being seen as an additive language rather than a sole medium of business communication. EMI, in this regard, needs to be redefined, whether to position “E” as the only medium or one of many linguistic resources in aca­ demic settings. Questions still remain regarding what is happening in globally situated business settings. For this matter, more studies are needed in the real business contexts and the recruitment policies of Japanese as well as multinational companies (see Konakahara, Murata and Iino 2017). It is called upon to further examine EMI from an ELF perspective to better reflect the multilingual reality and to better serve the next generation.

Notes 1 For example, the ‘international outlook’ points of the world university ranking (Times Higher Education, 2017) show that top British and US universities have scores such as 94.5 (Oxford) and 92.4 (Cambridge), 85,6 (MIT), and 77.9 (Har­ vard), whereas Japanese universities have low scores such as 30.6 (Tokyo), 28.0 (Kyoto), and 32.4 (Waseda). 2 In the current model, the language requirement for entrance examination com­ prises both Japanese and English. Japanese for the Japanese people is called Kokugo, i.e., the national language, and includes modern/classical Japanese (koten) and Chinese classical literature (kanbun). English textbooks are officially screened by the governmental authority, and tests often includes identifying a correct accent based on the American “standard” English. There is virtually no discussion regard­ ing the variety of English. The so-called standard American English or GA (General American) is taken for granted as the model for Japanese learners (Tanabe 2003). For others, including foreign students and returnees, for example, in the case of typical EMI programs in Japan, there are different types of screening processes, similar to those of the US universities. TOEFL/SAT scores or other globally rec­ ognized tests are reviewed. Japanese proficiency is not required for EMI program admission processes. While Japanese-medium programs require candidates to sub­ mit a Nihongo (Japanese for foreigners) exam score, which is different from Kokugo (Japanese for Japanese people) as mentioned earlier, EMI, in fact, opened the door to much wider candidates from around the world. As a result of different screening criteria, the average English performance at the initial stage tends to differ accord­ ing to students’ language backgrounds.

EMI in Japanese higher education 91 3 In Taiwan, professors who teach in English receive incentives to do so in the form of additional salary and less teaching load (interview with Professor W of an EMI program in Taiwan, 6 January 2017), while most Japanese universities have an ‘egalitarian’ pay scale of ‘seniority system’. 4 English as a lingua franca has been “accepted as a fact of life in European higher education (e.g., Jakobsen 2009 in Mauranen 2012, see also Kuteeva and Smit this volume). 5 In contrast to the widely supported social discourse on English as a crucial tool for global communication, there is, in fact, still little opportunities to use English for Japanese people. According to Terasawa (2015), using the survey data of the JGSS (Japanese General Social Surveys) study (2002, 2003, 2006, 2010), those who said they used English “often” for business is only 1%, and “sometimes” is 5.1%. The former president of Microsoft Japan also said in his best-selling book (Naruke, 2011) that English is not necessary for 90% of Japanese people. A recent business newspaper article showed that 62% of Japanese business people are dispatched to Asian countries (Nikkei, July 18, 2016). Kubota (2015) questions the premise of using English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle (Kachru, 1985) saying that the instrumentality of English is “overly emphasized (kadaishi sareteiru)” (ibid., p. 32, see also Kubota, 2011). She continues that, domestically, the percentage of foreign residents in Japan is only 1.6%, the largest group coming from China and Korea, followed by Brazilian, Filipino, and Vietnamese, where English is not used as a lingua franca with Japanese people. She criticizes recent policy discourses accepting and spreading English as neo-colonialism, a new stage in the post-colo­ nial linguistic dominance. 6 Iwasaki (2015b) also points out that even among Danish and German companies, in which English is an official corporate language, the local language skills of the host country come to be considered as “very important” during the job interviews (Danish Industry Foundation, “Integrating Global Talent,” September 2012: 30, OECD, “Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Germany,” OECD Publishing, 2013: 113–114, cited in Iwasaki 2015b: 45). 7 Wächter (2008) said, “What once created frustrations is today viewed as a nor­ mal condition.’ (cited in Mauranen (2012: 237) to describe the EMI situation in northern Europe’s higher education.

References Baily, K. M. 1996. Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in lan­ guage testing. Language Testing 13, 257–279. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Formal qualifications and occupational hierarchies: the relation­ ship between the production system and the reproduction system. In E. J. King (ed.), Reorganizing Education: Management and Participation for Change. Lon­ don: Sage. Bradford, A. 2013. English-medium degree programs in Japanese universities: Learn­ ing from the European experience. Asian Education and Development Studies 2(3), 225–240. Bradford, A. and H. Brown (eds.) 2017. English-Medium Instruction in Japanese Higher Education: Policy, Challenges and Outcomes. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Brown, H. and B. Iyobe 2014. The growth of English medium instruction in Japan. In N. Sonda and A. Krause (Eds.), JALT 2013 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT. Brown, H. 2015. English-medium instruction in Japan: Discussing implications for language teaching. JALT Postconference Publication – JALT 2015, 419.

92

Masakazu Iino

Butler, G. Y. 2015. Eigo gakushu wa hayaihodo yoinoka [The earlier, the better for English education?]. Tokyo: Iwanami shinsho. Butler, G. Y. and M. Iino 2017. Global leadership training for high school students in Japan: Are global leadership competencies trainable, universal, and measurable? In S. Choo, D. Sawch, A. Villanueva and R. Vinz (eds.), Educating for the 21st Century: Perspectives, Policies and Practices from Around the World. Singapore: Springer, pp. 153–170. Council for Revitalization of Education, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet 2013. University Education and Global Human Resource Development for the Future (Third Proposal) [Provisional translation]. Available from: www.kantei.go.jp/jp/ singi/kyoikusaisei/pdf/dai3/ [accessed 31 December 2017]. Council on Promotion of Human Resource for Globalization Development 2011. The Interim Report. Available from: www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/shitu/san­ gaku/1301460.htm [accessed 2 January 2018]. Funabashi, Y. 2000. Aete eigo koyogoka ron [English as a second official language]. Tokyo: Bunshun shinsho. Gramci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Hino, N. 2017. The significance of EMI for the learning of EIL in higher educa­ tion: Four cases from Japan. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys and I. Walkinshaw (eds.), English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Asia-Pacific. Cham: Springer, pp. 115–131. Hornberger, N. 2006. Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In T. Recent (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 24–41. Hornberger, N. and S. McKay (eds.) 2010. Sociolinguistics and Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A. and D. J. Rivers (eds.) 2013. Native-Speakerism in Japan: Inter­ group Dynamics in Foreign Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Iino, M. and K. Murata 2013. We are jun-Japa: Dynamics of ELF communication in an English medium academic context. Waseda Working Papers in ELF, 2, 84–100. Iino, M. and K. Murata 2016. Dynamics of ELF communication in and Englishmedium academic context in Japan: From EFL learners to ELF users. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualiza­ tion, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 111–131. Iwasaki, K. 2015a. Nihon ni okeru gaikokujin ryugakusei yuchisaku [The policy on inviting foreign students to Japan]. RIM 15(58), 1–38. Iwasaki, K. 2015b. Nihon kigyo no jinzai gurobaruka ni muketa kibishii michinori [Dif­ ficulties the Japanese industry faces for globalizing employees]. RIM 15(59), 29–53. Japan Association of National Universities 2017. ‘Kodaisetsuzokukaikaku no shin­ chokujokyo nitsuite’ ni taisuru iken [An opinion responding to ‘the processes of secondary to tertiary education links reform’]. Available fnglisww.janu.jp/ nophiaigen/20170614-wnew-teigen.html [accessed 14 June 2017]. Jenkins, J. 2003. World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. Oxon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Poli­ tics of Academic English Language Policy. Oxon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015a. Global Englishes: A Resource Book for Students (3rd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015b. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85.

EMI in Japanese higher education 93 JGSS 2002, 2003, 2006, 2010. Japanese General Social Survey. JGSS Research Center. Available from: http:/nglishaishodai.acophialish/index.html [accessed 28 August 2017]. Kachru, B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English lan­ guage in the outer circle In R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press, pp. 11–30. Kachru, B.B. (ed.). 1992. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures (2nd edn.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B. 2005. Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Uni­ verisity Press. Kano, R. 2016. Research on learning experiences in an English Medium instruction (EMI) setting of a Japanese university: Sense of belonging and learning through com­ munity of practice. Master’s thesis. Graduate School of International Culture and Communication Studies, Waseda University. Kariya, T. 2017. Okkusfodo karano keisho [Alarming from Oxford]. Tokyo: Chuokoron­ shinsha. Kasuya, K. 2000. Gengo hegemoni (linguistic hegemony). In Gengo Teikoku Shugi (Lin­ guistic Imperialism). Tokyo: Fujiwara shoten, pp. 276–277. Kedzierski, M. 2016. English as a medium of instruction in East Asia’s higher educa­ tion sector: A critical realist cultural political economy analysis of underlying logics. Comparative Education 52(3), 375–391. Kirkpatrick, A. 2007. World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Konakahara, M., K. Murata and M. Iino 2017. From academic to business settings: Changes of attitudes towards and opinions about ELF. In K. Murata and M. Konakahara (eds.), Waseda Working Papers in ELF 6, 129–147. Kubota, R. 2011. Immigration, diversity, and language education in Japan: Towards a glocal approach to teaching English. In P. Seargeant (ed.), English in Japan in the Era of Globalization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 101–122. Kubota, R. 2013. ‘Language is only a tool’: Japanese expatriates working in China and implications for language teaching. Multilingual Education 3(4). Available from: www.multilingual-education.com/content/3/1/4. Kubota, R. 2015. Guroobaruka Shakai to Gengo Kyoiku, Kuritikaru na Shiten kara [Language education in an era of globalization: Critical perspectives]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MEXT 2011 Sankangaku ni yoru Guroobaru Jinzai no Ikusei no tame no Senryaku [Project for promotion of global human resource development]. Available from: www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/_icsFiles/afield­ file/2011/06/01/1301460_1.pdf [accessed 31 December 2017]. MEXT 2015. Available from: www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/sho­ tou/106/shiryo/1356067.htm [accessed 28 August 2017]. MEXT 2017a. Shogakkou gaikokugo katsudo gaikokugo kenshuu gaido bukku [Guide­ book for elementary school foreign language activities and learning]. Available from: www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1387503.htm. [accessed 1 January 2018].

94

Masakazu Iino

MEXT 2017b. Available from: http://4skills.jp/education/index.html#new [accessed 28 August 2017]. MExT n.d. Daigaku nyushi ni gaibu shiken o donyusuru genjitsuteki houhou [Practical approaches to introduce external tests to the university admission]. Available from: www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/102/102 . . . /1348945_01. pdf [accessed 28 August 2017]. Morizumi, F. 2015. EMI in Japan: Current status and its implications. Educational Studies 57, 119–128. Murata, K. and M. Iino 2018. EMI in higher education: An ELF perspective. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 400–412. Naruke, M. 2011. Nihonjin no 9wari ni Eigo wa Iranai [90% of Japanese people do not need English]. Tokyo: Shodensha. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press. Phillipson, R. 2006. Linguistic imperialism. In T. Recent (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 346–361. Saito, Y., K. Torikai, Y. Otsu, H. Erikawa and M. Nomura 2016. Gurobaru Jinzai Ikusei no Eigo Kyoiku o Tou [What is “Global Human Resource Development” and How Is It Related to English Language Education?]. Tokyo: Hituzi shobo. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shima, Y. 2003. Waseda Daigaku Shoshi [The history of Waseda University]. Tokyo: Waseda University Press. Shimomura, H. 2015. An interview with Shimomura, Hakubun, Minister of MEXT. Tenkanki o Mukaeru Nihon no Eigo Kyoiku Guroobaru Jinzai Ikusei no Yukue [A turning point of English education in Japan and the future of fostering global human resources]. In ALC (ed.), Gurobaru kyoiku o kangaeru [Thinking about global education]. Tokyo: ALC Press. Smith, L. 1983. Readings in English as an International Language. Oxford: Perga­ mon Press. Sophia University n.d. www. fla.sophia.ac.jp [accessed 31 December 2017]. Steele, R. 1989. Teaching language and culture: Old problems and new approaches. In J. E. Alatis (ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguis­ tics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 153–162. Tanabe, Y. 2003. Korekara no Gakko Eigo [School English in the future]. Tokyo: Waseda University Press. Terasawa, T. 2015. Nihonjin to Eigo no Shakaigaku [Sociology on the Japanese and English]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Toh, G. 2016. English as Medium of Instruction in Japanese Higher Education. New York: Palgrave. Trudgill, P. 1999. Standard English: What it isn’t. In T. Bex, and R. J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge, pp. 117–128. Tsou, W. and S. Kao 2017. English as a Medium of Instructoin in Higher Education: Implementations and Clasroom Practices in Taiwan. Singapore: Springer. Yonezawa 2014. Japan’s challenge of fostering ‘global human resources’: Policy Debates and Practices. Japan Labor Review 11(2), 37–52. Yoshino, K. 2014. Eigoka Suru Ajia [Englishizing Asia]. Nagoya: Nagoya University Press.

EMI in Japanese higher education 95 Wächter, B. 2008. Teaching in English on the rise in European higher education. International Higher Education 52, 3–4. Wenger, E. 1998. Community of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Widdowson, H. G. 1994. The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28(2), 377–389. Zhewen, Z. 2017. Language management in international student dormitories in Japan: Exploring the language policy and student expectations in a multilingual con­ text. Master’s thesis. Graduate School of International Culture and Communica­ tion Studies, Waseda University.

Part II

ELF in EMI settings – attitudes, identities and classroom practices Ute SmitClassroom discourse in EMI

7

Classroom discourse in EMI On the dynamics of multilingual practices Ute Smit

Introduction While English-medium instruction (EMI) is not a new phenomenon, what is indeed new about it is the rapidity and the scale of its implementation worldwide, especially in Expanding Circle (Kachru 1992) countries where English does not have a historical foothold and where higher education has largely relied on the respective majority or national languages. In the case of Europe, the consolida­ tion of the European Higher Education Area since the turn of the millennium has triggered the expansion of university programmes fully taught in English. As established in a wide survey in 27 European countries in 2014, approximately 8000 such English-taught programmes were registered, which amounted to a more than tenfold increase since the first survey in 2002 (Wächter and Maiworm 2014). As convincingly argued by various scholars over the last decade (e.g. Cole­ man 2006; Mauranen 2012; Murata 2016; other contributions in this volume), this unprecedented Englishization of HE must be seen in close connection with the comprehensive forces of internationalising HE in general (Maringe and Fos­ kett 2010), on the one hand, and, on the other, the ever-strengthening role of English as main lingua franca in the academic world. In view of these recent developments in tertiary education worldwide, it is not surprising that applied linguistic research has invested concerted efforts in analys­ ing EMI (Wilkinson 2017). The continuously growing literature offers a myriad of (critically) analytical accounts, which are utterly impressive in their diversity of research angles and analytical approaches, as they range from the macro-level of (supra)national language policies to micro-level concerns, such as stakeholder beliefs and classroom practices (e.g. Bradford and Brown 2018; Doiz, Lasagabas­ ter, and Sierra 2013; Dimova, Hultgren, and Jensen 2015; Valcke and Wilkinson 2017; Wilkinson and Walsh 2015). It is the latter to which this chapter attempts to contribute. More precisely, and benefitting from the recently fast-growing literature on educational trans­ languaging and code-switching (Creese and Blackledge 2010; Lin 2013; Söder­ lundh 2013), the focus is on the multilingual practices of a particular, highly international student cohort enrolled in an EMI hotel management programme (HMP) in Vienna, Austria and investigated in depth in an ethnographic study

100

Ute Smit

(Smit 2010). As typical of such settings, English functions as medium of instruc­ tion and as the group’s lingua franca, but is complemented in dynamic ways by the other languages shared by some of the participants, most notably by Ger­ man as the local language (Mortensen 2014). Besides describing the functional breadth of code choice in translanguaging episodes, the triangulated data base, consisting of a longitudinal classroom corpus, lesson observation notes and inter­ views with all participants, sheds light on a so-far little researched aspect, namely the dynamic development of educational translanguaging and its contingencies on factors such as time, content subject and educational interaction format. Before introducing the study and presenting the findings, the next section offers a focussed discussion of multilingual practices in EMI classroom discourse.

EMI classroom discourse and multilingual practices Given the diversity of EMI educational realities and research interests, let us begin by clarifying that the present object of enquiry is classroom discourse. This excludes from the ensuing discussion other discourse events such as teacherstudent consultations (as discussed in House 2014) and student group work sessions outside the classroom and without teacher monitoring (Komori-Glatz 2017). Furthermore and fitting to the understanding of ELF as “generat[ing] multilingual environments” (Hülmbauer 2013: 53), this chapter is concerned with truly international learner groups and thus multilingual educational settings in which the respective teachers and students share English as the only group language. As this stands in clear contrast to educational settings where partici­ pants share the main educational language and English as second language, the growing literature into the bilingual practices observable in content and lan­ guage integrated learning (CLIL), content-based instruction (CBI) or immer­ sion educational settings, while highly interesting in itself (e.g. Cahyani, Courcy, and Barnett 2016), is not directly applicable here. The focus on multilingual practices, finally, indicates that the interest here is on the respective cultural coconstitutive ways of interacting (Leung and Street 2012: 9) that develop and are enacted in a particular HE space that comes with its “own language regime – its own set of rules, orders of discourse, and language ideologies – in which linguis­ tic resources are assessed differently”. (Busch 2012: 520). Furthermore, such practices draw on and at the same time shape the participants’ multilingual lin­ guistic repertoires, understood holistically as “contain[ing] all the accepted ways of formulating messages” (Gumperz 1964: 138) of all varieties in question. As further elaborated in Busch’s (2012: 521) poststructuralist reading, this implies for the concept of interactional repertoire that “languages and codes are not understood as a ‘Ding an sich’ (Kant) but rather in relation to one another” and that the repertoire as well as the meanings the speakers attribute to their varie­ ties are “linked with personal experience and life trajectories [. . . and . . .] are subject to change”. In combination with a sociocultural understanding of learning (Wertsch 1992), such a reading of interactional repertoire puts into relief the dynamic

Classroom discourse in EMI 101 complexity with which international students and teachers engage in their inter­ actional practices. To allow for learning as an individual as well as social process, the actors draw on their individual multilingual repertoires while at the same time and within the institutional constraints and language regime developing their shared repertoire and discursive practices. The thus multi-layered and intricate use of individual and shared repertoires as relevant and necessary feature in suc­ cessful learning has recently been discussed from the angle of ‘translanguaging’, broadly defined as “the ability of multilingual speakers to shuttle between lan­ guages, treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system” (Canagarajah 2011: 401) or, for short, “bilingual performance” (Creese and Blackledge 2015: 26). Within education, however, translanguaging has been suggested as a bilingual pedagogy (Lewis, Jones, and Baker 2012) supporting multilingual learners in their language and content learning, as well as their devel­ opment of multilingual awareness. Centrally, these suggestions aim to give the learners’ L1 a more prominent role in teaching and learning practices, resulting in bilingual forms of classroom discourse, thereby overcoming the wide-spread monolingual ideology still entrenched in most formal education (Gogolin 2013). While a multilingual ideology is surely relevant for international EMI groups as well, their reduced shared repertoire can be expected to have a direct impact on their interactional practices featuring either English alone or in combination with various first and second languages. From an educational perspective, this means that the supportive nature of the first or other languages can only be capitalised on interactively if shared by at least one other participant. In view of the com­ plexity of classroom discourse, comprising “multiple parallel interactions between different speakers weaving in and out of each other” (Moore and Nikula 2016: 228), the multilingual practices of an international student group will be contin­ gent on its many L1-related subgroups and on classroom activity type, such as whole class versus pair or group work. Sociolinguistically speaking, the importance of the changing constellation of participants is nothing new, but a central ingredient of the functional take on code-switching (CS). Since Gumperz (1982), code-switching has been under­ stood as “contextualization cues to signal a shift in the frame or footing [. . .] of the current interaction” (Lin 2013: 200), thus indicating stages in the ongo­ ing “negotiation of different role-relationships and the associated sets of rights/ obligations” (ibid.), which draws on the multilingual resources shared by the interactants in question. In other words, CS practices rely centrally on the con­ stellation of codes shared, further characterised by kind and degree of language proficiency. In instances of insertional CS, for instance, the multilingual practices combine a clearly dominant code with words from other codes (Auer 1998), in which interactants can have highly varied proficiency levels; a fact reflected in studies on code-switching in ELF. While in cases of shared multilingualism in English and other languages, alternational code-switching “of larger chunks (i.e. grammatical constructions)” (Backus 2015: 24) has been observed (Pietikäinen 2014), prototypical ELF scenarios (i.e. those where English is the only shared language) come with English-based interaction that is additionally characterised

102

Ute Smit

by “elements uttered in another language than English” (Klimpfinger 2009: 353). The other languages range widely, but next to the L1s of participating sub­ groups, tend to include the language(s) of the environment or the local language (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006). Such translanguaging practices in ELF, combining English with other languages shared by (some of) the interlocutors, have been identified as fulfilling various functions, which can roughly be categorised as sup­ porting the discourse processes of interaction structuring, of meaning-making, and as referring to or signalling culture (see also the next section). In addition to generally valid conversational considerations of multilingual lan­ guage use, recent classroom discourse research has focussed on multilingual prac­ tices as generally supportive of the educational and communicational endeavours in pursuit of teaching and learning (Creese and Blackledge 2010; Lewis, Jones, and Baker 2012). In post-colonial settings, Ferguson (2003) describes CS as fulfilling three pedagogical functions: (a) constructing knowledge, (b) managing the classroom activities and student behaviour, and (c) engaging in interpersonal relations. Looked at from a functional linguistic perspective, CS thus fulfils idea­ tional and interpersonal functions and, additionally, also textual ones in terms of marking transitions, topic shifts or distinguishing between everyday and sub­ ject-specific registers (Lin 2013, 202; see also House 2014). While many studies have been undertaken to reconfirm such a positive account of translanguaging in education, Lin’s (2013: 12–14) critical account identifies the weaknesses of the research so far, outlining various ways in which ‘classroom CS research’ should go in the future: she suggests to widen the methodological range and to challenge the present theoretical understanding, by for instance designing interventionist and longitudinal studies and by widening the angle to other semiotic modes and the pedagogies of the relevant classrooms. The latter point clearly reverberates with the tenets of the ‘translanguaging’ approach and its firm grounding in peda­ gogy (Cahyani, Courcy, and Barnett 2016). In content- and language-integrated learning settings, for instance, Moore and Nikula (2016) investigate the use of the respective local language as strategy when orienting either to ‘language in content’ or to ‘flow of interaction’. With the focus on science university-level teaching, Mazak and Herbas-Donoso (2014) analyse the combined use of Eng­ lish (L2) and Spanish (students’ L1) across all modes, including teaching materi­ als, in terms of the support these practices offer to the learning process. This brief overview of the translanguaging and code-switching literature on multilingual educational practices has three implications for the present study. Firstly, multilingual practices come with a strongly dynamic character, potentially developing over time, which is reflected in the long-term perspective adopted in this study, made possible by a longitudinal data base (Lin 2013). Secondly, while the literature on translanguaging offers revealing insights into its communica­ tional and educational potential, its primary focus is on bilingually stable learner groups with learners and teachers sharing two languages. As indicated earlier, this differs fundamentally from international EMI students for whom English often is the only shared lingua franca, thus reducing the supportive potential of trans­ languaging to the level of small groups or individuals. This consideration leads to the third implication, which concerns the methodological take chosen here.

Classroom discourse in EMI 103 Translanguaging research and its communication-cum-pedagogical focus seems to go together with a reduced interest in the linguistic considerations typically at the heart of code-switching research. The latter, on the other hand, places most interest on the kind and way codes are formally and functionally integrated in the flow of communication and what implications this can have on language variation and change, thus potentially side-lining pedagogical and wider communicational concerns. When attempting to approach multilingual practices from a broader angle, it seems therefore appropriate to understand translanguaging and codeswitching as complementary approaches (Cahyani, Courcy, and Barnett 2016; for a different take see García and Wei 2014). As this is the path taken in this study (for the methodology see the next sec­ tion), the brief literature review of relevant EMI research takes an inclusive approach to multilingual classroom practices. Overall, international EMI student groups have been found to create a multilingual environment in which code choice is flexible, dynamic and context specific (Söderlundh 2012), “dependent on moment-to-moment interactional contingencies for speaker designation and participation” (Nevile and Wagner 2008: 168). While English is obviously very important, local languages also “play significant roles in academic core activities” (Mortensen 2014: 426), particularly in small groups engaging in work in- and outside the classroom (Komori-Glatz 2017). Other first and second languages are used as well, especially in side talk and in informal situations (Ljosland 2011). In classroom main talk involving the teacher and the whole learner group, on the other hand, English has been found to be the by far dominant code, with other languages used sparingly for single words and phrases (Gotti 2015: 100) and usually flagged or signalled by metalinguistic comments (Söderlundh 2012: 94). Most of such code-switches draw on the local language, thereby reconfirm­ ing its privileged position among the languages other than English (LOTEs). Based on her ethnographic study in a Swedish EMI programme, Söderlundh (2012: 101) describes the dynamics of language choice in the classroom as three competing patterns of local norms. Most fundamentally, everybody should use the language all understand, while the local language has a special position, also for its L2 speakers. If a student needs to use the local language for a contribution, however, the teacher allows this, but pays tribute to the first pattern by translating the student contribution into English. In his interview study with selected teach­ ers at a community college in New York, Lasagabaster (2016) identifies a similar pedagogical concern as central motivation to support translanguaging. While the use of various languages might require extra time and different teaching strate­ gies, it is recognised as a constructive way in allowing students to contribute to the educational process irrespective of language proficiency. Apart from the learning benefits and reminiscent of the code-switching research sketched earlier, multilingual practices reveal a range of communicational func­ tions and social roles. In an ethnographic study at a Norwegian university, for example, English signals expertise and credibility, reflecting the participants’ “bicultural identity, in which part of their identity is rooted in their local culture while another part stems from an awareness of their relation to the global culture” (Ljosland 2011: 1002). More generally speaking, such analyses offer insights into

104

Ute Smit

the interactional orders enacted in situation-sensitive multilingual practices and in how far the latter “index wider policy contexts and wider ideologies of language” (Saxena and Martin-Jones 2013: 290). While a similar role-distribution and func­ tional breadth of English, LOTEs and German as local language can be expected from the EMI situation described in the next section, this longitudinal study (Smit 2010) complements extant research in that it offers insights into the long-term developments in the multilingual practices of one group of international students.

The study Setting and data set With the aim to offer ‘thick data’ on EMI classroom discourse, this study accom­ panied one cohort of students enrolled in an international hotel management programme (HMP) for the whole duration of their studies in the first decade of this century.1 Situated at a tourism college covering upper secondary and higher education rather than a university, the HMP was different from other EMI courses in vari­ ous regards (Smit 2010, ch. 4). Firstly, as a four-semester course leading to a diploma it was work oriented, but accepted as first half of a bachelor programme at other HEIs. Secondly, it offered highly intensive education, with more than 35 compulsory contact hours every week in subjects covering practical skills (e.g. cooking), management (e.g. hotel management), business administration (e.g. hotel operations) and general business concerns (e.g. human resources). Thirdly, the whole cohort of 28 students took almost all classes together. In contrast to many EMI settings where students follow largely individual paths through their university days, moving in and out of different group constellations at a quick rate, thereby forming what Mortensen (2014: 438) identifies as a “transient multilin­ gual community”, the high intensity in classroom time allowed the HMP students to develop their “classroom community of practice” (Smit 2010: 8–11) of all par­ ticipants mutually engaged in pursuing their joint educational enterprise and devel­ oping their shared repertoire drawing on English as their lingua franca and other languages.2 At the same time, the HMP displayed typical EMI features, begin­ ning with a top-down monolingual language policy of English as sole medium of instruction. Furthermore, the teachers were all experts in their fields, which included international professional careers in tourism for most of them, and, as Austrians or English native speaker expatriates, highly proficient in at least English and German. The student group was multilingual, comprising fourteen L1s and a further eight L2s. In contrast to the teachers one-fifth of the students had no pro­ ficiency in German at the beginning of the HMP, with the other four-fifths com­ prising German L1 and L2 speakers at different levels of proficiency. English, of course, was the only shared language, but, as typical of ELF, students and teachers self-reported different levels of proficiency and types of language use experience. Of the rich data set collected during the ethnographic study (Smit 2010, ch. 3.2) this chapter will mainly use the interactional data set or ‘classroom corpus’, comprising 44 lessons spread over 12 subjects and three semesters.3 The emic

Classroom discourse in EMI 105 data set, including extensive field notes, interviews with all participants and two questionnaires filled out by all students at the beginning and end of the HMP, will only be drawn upon occasionally when illustrating participants’ views on using their multilingual resources. As given in Table 7.1, the classroom corpus totals 32.3 full hours or almost 305,200 words and falls into four parts, three of which make up the longitudinal subcorpus of 33 lessons chosen from three emi­ cally established critical phases: T1: the first two weeks of getting to know the HMP and its social agents T2: the second half of the first semester as the period after familiarisation but before the first exams T3: the third semester, which followed on the obligatory three-month work placements in tourism businesses Most of the lessons were traditional in nature (Cazden 2001), largely consisting of teacher-whole class interaction with students having roughly as many turns as the respective teacher (see Table 7.1, column ‘S turns in %’), but taking up a clearly smaller share of the interaction (see Table 7.1, first three cells in column ‘S words in %’). This longitudinal corpus is complemented by a data set of 11 lessons, taken from the subject ‘Presentations and Communication’ (P&C) in the second semester. Reflecting the subject’s focus on work-related interactional skills and abilities, these lessons are characterised by a remarkably higher percentage of student talk, making up almost half of all words spoken in class (see Table 7.1, fourth cell in column ‘S words in %’).

Steps of analysis With the research focus on the multilingual classroom practices in the HMP, the analysis combines a holistic, translanguaging understanding of the international students drawing on their multilingual resources in jointly developing their class­ room-based multilingual repertoire with a functional approach to code choice in classroom discourse. The unit of analysis is therefore each interactional sequence that includes the use of more than one language, with the ‘new language’ etically established (for examples see Table 7.2, last column). In view of Auer’s (1998) reminder that the status of a new code should also reflect the participants’ emic

Table 7.1 Interactional data set

T1 T2 T3 P&C Total

Lessons

Minutes

Turns

S turns in %

Words T+S

S words in %

12 10 11 11 44

554 436 469 480 1,939

4,004 4,053 2,513 3,805 14,375

55.1 56.2 57.7 58.1 56.7

80,303 68,140 79,222 77,518 305,183

14.0 25.0 18.0 46.4 25.7

Table 7.2 Functions of LOTE instances in main talk (for transcription conventions, see Appendix) Function

Description

in aid of understanding:

Speaker engages in translanguaging to help the meaning-making process, either by drawing on LOTE for finding the fitting word or phrase;

lexical gap (speaker-oriented)

comprehension check, clarification device (addresseeoriented) referring to or signalling culture

proper names (subcategory) task/topic marker

or by supporting listener comprehension.

Speaker makes cultural allusions, incl. local region (Vienna, Austria) and professional and subjectrelevant concerns (e.g. Austrian legal terms); by doing so, the speaker can also signal aspect of cultural identity. As a subcategory: German proper names are used instead of the English equivalents. LOTE is used as a discourse organisational device, e.g. beginning or ending a teaching activity.

emotional intensity

The use of LOTE indicates a heightened level of emotion, incl. engaging in humour.

addressivity (expressed by code choice)

The code choice selects who is being addressed, given that the possible group of addressees includes speakers of various languages.

Extract (exemplifying the function)

1. T: but at some stage I have an Umleitung . er (.) what do we call that in English? 2. S. the what? T: breakage (1) Bruch 3. T: we we lost the Nationalfeiertag we lost the national day this year

4. S: in semester break I went to Kärnten [Carinthia] to ski 5. T: I don’t know if the colleague has started with you with the organisational charts (1) bitte [please] start with the (xx) of a hotel 6. S: (.) then we have the (1) legilegiti- @ ( ich weiss auch nicht wie’s geht ) [I don’t know how to say this] 7. T: hmm? S1: there is the A380 presentation oder was ? [or what; directed to S2] S2: yeah

Classroom discourse in EMI 107 views, the present analysis also draws on the participants’ ideas on code choice revealed in informal conversations and interviews. Additionally, interactional flag­ ging and metalinguistic comments on language choice are taken as indicators of participants’ awareness of using a new code.4 As to be expected from the EMI classroom setting, the corpus does not include instances of all the languages the participants listed as their L1s and L2s, but is restricted to English as their lingua franca and medium of instruc­ tion, German as local language, and a few instances of those other L1s shared by at least two students, viz. (in alphabetical order) Chinese, Greek, Hindi and Korean. Reflecting the distribution of these languages, sequences of mul­ tilingual language use were identified by tagging the corpus for instances of languages other than English (LOTE). This was done in various rounds by a group of students trained as transcribers and the researcher. With the LOTE instances thus established, they could first be submitted to a basic and descrip­ tive quantitative analysis. More importantly, they were then used as anchor points of bi- and rarely multilingual sequences (i.e. topic-specific stretches of discourse combining two or more codes). These sequentially established ‘translanguaging episodes’ form the basis of the functional analysis (see the next section). The second implication of the classroom setting is the identification of two major speech situations as establishing different multilingual practices: ‘main talk’ as characterised by teacher-whole class interaction versus ‘side talk’ that takes place next to the main classroom activity and includes either a few stu­ dents or the teacher and one or two students (Ehlich and Rehbein 1986). Given the seldom use of student-oriented activities in the 100 lessons observed for the ethnographic study (Smit 2010: 94), the few instances of group work will be discussed jointly with side talk. As, furthermore, the data collection method of using a single taping device did not allow for the recording of parallel strands of group work or of main and side talk, the interactional data base is not exhaus­ tive in this regard, but, in combination with the detailed observational notes taken in all lessons, can be regarded as exemplary of the multilingual nature of side talk. The functional analysis of the main talk, on the other hand, relies mainly on the classroom corpus. As the ELF setting rules out recently established translan­ guaging functions because of their precondition of generally shared bilingualism in English and German (Moore and Nikula 2016), the functions established here draw on the code-switching literature reviewed in the previous section (Cogo 2012; Gotti 2015; Klimpfinger 2009; Lin 2013; Seargeant, Tagg, and Ngam­ pramuan 2012). As reflected in the relatively small number of functions introduced in Table 7.2 and in view of the research interest to describe translanguaging from a longitu­ dinal perspective, the aim here is not to be as detailed as possible (for such an approach see Gotti 2015), but rather to identify the most salient functions ful­ filled by multilingual practices in the HMP classroom.

108

Ute Smit

Findings and discussion In pursuit of the research interest of this study, the findings will be described and discussed by first focussing on multilingual practices in side talk before turning to translanguaging in main talk. The latter will be approached from a quantita­ tive angle, complemented by an in-depth qualitative analysis of selected extracts illustrating certain functions and developments.

Code choice in side talk and group work As indicated earlier, the group work and side talk captured in the classroom cor­ pus and described in the lesson observations revealed multilingual practices with students and teachers regularly drawing on all languages with more than one speaker. While the data base does not allow for quantitative estimates, it includes exemplary episodes, such as Extracts 8 and 9. The former is taken from one of the few extensive group tasks, which required student groups to spend about 20 min­ utes on discussing financial problems, and describes the language choice of two groups. With one group member not competent in the L1 of the other students (indicated in italics in Extract 8), English functioned as the only lingua franca. Nonetheless, the respective L1s were occasionally used by those competent in them, thereby narrowing down their addressees and possibly also signalling their social identities. Extract 9, on the other hand, stands for many side exchanges in that it depicts the use of German between the hotel operations teacher and a stu­ dent engaged in her individual problem-solving activity. By resorting to the local language, it might be assumed that the teacher indexed the wider social order (Saxena and Martin-Jones 2013), but seeing that German was their shared L1, this code choice can also be read as enacting their default mode of communica­ tion (House 2014). More generally, translanguaging as a reflection of shared linguistic reper­ toires was not only observed regularly in pair or small group communication, but it was also evaluated positively by most teachers. Group work, for instance

Extract 8 Financial management

group 1: group 2:

Nationality of group members

Codes used in group work

2 Indian + 1 Austrian student 2 Austrian, 1 German + 1 Korean student

English and Hindi English and German

Extract 9 Hotel Operations 1

T

2

S

hm ? das zweite ? (.) versuchen Sie’s selbst [the second? (.) try it yourself] ja ja [yes yes]

Classroom discourse in EMI 109 Extract 10 Hotel operations teacher (interview) 1 2 3

T

the nationality-based groups form automatically [. . .] when doing case studies it is important and okay that they form their own groups

Extract 11 Student (interview) 1 2 3 4

S

If there was somebody else in the class from [home country] maybe I tend to want to speak more [L1] with them. so, I don’t really have a problem. but when it’s group work I think we all should be able to speak English

was seen to profit from grouping students per nationality, and thereby L1 (see Extract 10). HMP side talk can thus be described as at least partially exploit­ ing the participants’ linguistic repertoire for communicational and educational purposes. Where such practices could cause problems, however, is illustrated in Extract 8 insofar as the group-specific language choice potentially excluded one group member from some of the content-related discourse. Interestingly, this was also the most serious complaint some HMP students raised in interviews and infor­ mal conversations (see Extract 11); an issue reflected in Söderlundh’s (2013) EMI classroom-based observation of Swedish teachers translating Swedish contributions into English, thus providing access to the information to all participants. Complementing such synchronically established evaluations, however, the lon­ gitudinal dimension of this study offers information on changes with time: In contrast to the first semester when in particular those students not proficient in German strongly objected to the use of German in on-topic talk, the bythen established classroom community of practice in the second year of stud­ ies revealed a remarkably different evaluation, respecting translanguaging as an integral characteristic of the group, paired with the general trust that LOTEs would be used inclusively rather than exclusively and that communication rel­ evant to all relied mainly on English as their lingua franca (Smit 2010: 125–130). In other words, addressivity, understood here as code choice “shaped by the communicative expectations of the (imagined) addressee” (Seargeant, Tagg and Ngampramuan 2012: 515), was identified as an important criterion for the HMP community of practice. In view of its important educational role, this can be expected to be particularly conspicuous in classroom main talk.

Translanguaging in main talk As HMP main talk consisted predominantly of teacher-whole class interaction and English functioned as the group’s only lingua franca, it is unsurprising to find their main talk remarkably monolingual: the classroom corpus includes a total of 356 LOTE tags, all of which identify German, thereby reconfirming the

110

Ute Smit

Table 7.3 Communicational functions of translanguaging (frequencies across parts of corpus)* Function

T1

T2

T3

P&C

Total

1. in aid of understanding compensating 7 (8.72) 11 (16.14) 15 (19.93) 2 (2.58) 35 (11.47) lexical gaps for comprehension 2 (2.49) 9 (13.21) 2 (2.52) 0 (0.00) 13 (4.26) & clarification 2. referring to or 2 (2.49) 9 (13.21) 16 (20.20) 18 (23.22) 45 (14.75) signalling culture (incl. subcategory proper names) 3. other task/topic marker 3 (3.74) 1 (1.47) 0 (0.00) 2 (2.58) 6 (1.97) emotional intensity 1 (1.25) 4 (5.87) 1 (1.26) 9 (11.61) 15 (4.92) selecting addressee 1 (1.25) 1 (1.47) 3 (3.79) 0 (0.00) 5 (1.64) Totals 16 (19.92) 35 (51.36) 37 (46.70) 31 (39.99) 119 (38.99) *The numbers in brackets are the relative frequencies, weighted per 100,000 words.

afore-established privileged position of the local language. Combined with the basic statistics of the corpus (see Table 7.1), this roughly means one occurrence of German in every 850 words or five minutes. As LOTE tags tend to co-occur in the corpus, the number of ‘translanguaging episodes’ is considerably lower and totals 119 (see Table 7.3), statistically translating into one such episode in 2,560 words or every quarter of an hour.5 When turning to the episodes themselves, the first striking characteristic is the uniformity of how German features in main talk: with very few exceptions (e.g. Table 7.2, Extract 6) the episodes are largely in English and include Ger­ man words or short phrases (e.g. Table 7.2, all other extracts). In other words, the translanguaging episodes in this corpus can be classified as insertional codeswitching (Auer 1998).6 Taking a functional perspective, the analysis yielded first the five categories introduced earlier (see Table 7.2). All episodes were then categorised iteratively according to their most salient function. The resulting quantitative distribution of episodes per function and corpus part is presented in Tables 7.3 and 7.4, but requires two clarifications: Firstly, the tables include absolute and, in brackets, relative frequencies. Secondly, the frequencies reflect various interpretative stages of identifying episodes and allocating main commu­ nicational functions, which means that they should be understood as rough esti­ mates hinting at tendencies rather than firmly established frequencies. Apart from the overall functional distribution across the four parts of the corpus, Table 7.3 contains two findings worth commenting on. There is the dif­ ference between the totals for T1 and the rest (last row, marked in italics), which shows clearly that the first subcorpus covering the introductory two weeks of

Classroom discourse in EMI 111 the HMP contains markedly fewer translanguaging episodes than the rest. This seems to indicate that lacking familiarity favoured an almost exclusive use of English for classroom main talk, reflecting its explicitly specified role as medium of instruction as well as its communicational function as only lingua franca. With the participants getting to know the school, Vienna and, probably most importantly, one another, however, their main talk showed decidedly more German insertions. The longitudinal nature of the corpus is also at the core of the second finding: As marked in bold print, the cultural function of translan­ guaging is drawn upon more frequently with time progressing from T1 to T2 (both in the first semester) and then to the second and third semesters (P&C and T3, respectively). To provide more substance to this potential development, the relevant episodes have been analysed in-depth from a qualitative perspective (see below). Further insights can be gleaned from the quantitative description of the data set, especially when including the distinction between teacher and student talk. As well established in the literature (e.g. Christie 2002; Walsh 2011), classroom discourse is fundamentally characterised by the different social roles teachers and students take on and in how far these influence their participatory roles in class­ room interaction. For this end, Table 7.4 reveals how many of the German inser­ tions recorded in the corpus were produced by students (see ‘in student talk’ per function). As these are generally few, the table presents the data only for the three broad functional categories ‘understanding’, ‘culture’ and ‘other’, with the latter combining the functions listed under (3) in Table 7.3. As the frequencies for T1, T2 and T3 show, students uttered few German insertions overall, most conspicu­ ously so in the introductory phase where a single instance could be found. For the main talk described here, this means that teachers did not only produce threequarters of all classroom talk (see Table 7.4), but also between practically all and three-quarters of all German insertions.

Table 7.4 Information of Table 7.3, rendered in three broad functional categories Function (broad category)

T1

1. under­ standing (overall) in student talk 2. culture (overall) in student talk 3. other (overall) in student talk Total in student talk

9 (11.21) 1 (1.25) 2 (2.49) 0 (0.00) 5 (6.23) 0 (0.00) 16 (19.92) 1 (1.25)

T2

T3

P&C

Total

2 (2.58)

48 (15.73)

6 (8.81) 4 (5.05) 2 (2.58) 9 (13.21) 16 (20.20) 18 (23.22)

13 (4.26) 45 (14.75)

20 (29.35) 17 (21.46)

2 (2.94) 6 (8.81)

3 (3.79) 11 (14.19) 4 (5.05) 11 (14.19)

16 (5.24) 26 (8.52)

2 (2.94) 2 (2.52) 9 (11.61) 35 (51.36) 37 (46.70) 31 (39.99) 10 (14.68) 9 (11.36) 22 (28.38)

13 (4.26) 119 (38.99) 42 (13.76)

112

Ute Smit

Extract 12 Presentations and Communication (a role-play exercise)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

T S SS S T S T

[to student with her hand in the bag] not so hard (that’s) not so hard. (.) that’s also a nice one ? [picks object others had before] nicht schon wieder [not again] [returns object to bag to pick a new one] okay and now choose an item rh rhm [clears her throat] okay stand up and tell us what exactly you’re trying to do here (with it)

The big exception in this regard is the P&C part of the corpus, that is, the main talk recorded in the second-semester subject ‘Presentations and Communi­ cation’ (Table 7.4, figures in bold). Not only was the otherwise strongest func­ tional category (‘understanding’) the least frequent one here, but it was also the students who accounted for the larger share of German insertions. This reversal in relations can be traced to various factors: Besides the teacher being one of the two native English speakers, the subject took place in the second semester, thus shaped by students familiar with each other and the HMP more gener­ ally. Arguably more important, however, was the subject itself and its explicit focus on student speaking activities in the plenum or in small groups, which was also acknowledged in splitting the whole class in two parallel groups of about 14 students each (the corpus includes lessons from both groups). The resulting student-centeredness is reflected in the comparatively many instances of trans­ languaging (in side and main talk), and particularly so as some of them revealed functions otherwise rarely attested, such as ‘emotional intensity’, exemplified in Extract 12. As part of a role-play exercise a student picks a surprise object out of a bag (line 1), which she must then promote to the other students acting as poten­ tial buyers. As the objects included, for instance, a plastic toy fish or a set of keys, the task required creativity and spontaneity. The German exclamation for “not again” in line 3 underlines the speakers’ surprise and a degree of heightened emo­ tions rarely witnessed in any of the traditional, teacher-directed lessons included in the other three subcorpora. Overall, the P&C translanguaging episodes show that multilingual practices are contingent on subject specificities. Another such influencing factor is the lon­ gitudinal development from T1 to T3, which the next section will topicalise with the focus on the episodes revealing ‘referring to or signalling culture’.

The dynamics of cultural references in main talk A careful reading of the respective 45 episodes shows that the difference between the critical phases T1, T2 and T3 is more than simply a quantitative one. To begin with, the introductory phase includes only two episodes, which are, fur­ thermore, interactionally different from later ones. As can be seen in Extract 13, the German insertion is flagged and explained, thus revealing that the teacher

Classroom discourse in EMI 113 Extract 13 Front Office Management (T1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

T

like we said, Austria is paying quite well for top management positions uh: with regard to line positions we have a so-called Kollektivvertrag [collective agreement] well we which is uh: which is worked out by the hh by the hotel organisation of Austria, they work out a Kollektivvertrag and by the union, where they say this is what you have to pay, but most hotels pay above this rate because it’s very low

Extract 14 Human Resources Management (T2) 1 2 3 4

S

ah but this is a two or three star hotel (where we spent). We also visit like er erm Hilton or whatever, bus stop, U-Bahn [underground] stop and this tram stop, everything stop there. best location you can find.

Extract 15 Financial management (T2) 1 2 3 4 5

T

you make a Sachertorte you make er (1) I don’t know Schwarzwälder Kirch- Kirschtorte [Black Forest cherry cake] what else i don’t know (.) you you make seven – you make ten dif ferent types of cake. (1) you want to know how much overhead to put on each cake. why ? (.).

acted upon her awareness of the ELF nature of the student group. Furthermore, this extract could also be interpreted as supporting the speaker in overcoming a lexical gap rather than referring to local culture. The reason for not doing so is that the German term in question here appears in the corpus at later stages, too, thus hinting at its persistent relevance to the HMP. Two months later in the course (at T2), culturally oriented translanguaging looks quite different. It is firstly used by teachers and students and relates mainly to the local visible culture. In Extract 14, for instance, a Chinese student uses the German word to refer to the Viennese underground, or in Extract 15, the finan­ cial management teacher uses German cake names to build up his next topic. As an English L1 speaker with advanced German after years of residence in Vienna, this smooth translanguaging surely reflects his bilingual competence. At the same time, and in combination with other such extracts (see e.g. Table 7.2, Extract 3) such practices arguably signal culture in the sense that they index the speaker’s hybrid identity (Auer 2005). In addition to referring to the local culture, the Austrian law teacher repeatedly uses Austrian legal terminology in her teaching (e.g. Extract 16), thereby engag­ ing in culturally motivated translanguaging of a different kind. As an Austrian specialist in law with a self-reported average English language proficiency, such German insertions can simply reveal her lexical gaps in ELF (and are categorised as such). At the same time, national law is a particularly localised discipline and

114

Ute Smit

Extract 16 Austrian law (T2)

1 2 3 4 5 6

T

just the same thing as I told you last time. the Austrian ahmm constitution calls it Gesetzesvorbehalt [legal reservation], so if the national law. (1) is much more dense than the international one, you can keep your national law. (.) so it’s very (.) difficult to say yes we accepted the human rights. (2) they are accepted nearly in each country all around the world. (3) okay. (1).

Extract 17 Financial management (T3) 1 2 3

T S T

4 5 6

S T

it is a mcdonald’s restaurant. okay. (.) so it’s a franchise yes it’s a franchise is it a company, is it Ges.m.b.H. [pty limited] ? yeah yeah, so financial statements are available. (1) prepared in accordance with Austrian law. (.)

comes with its own terminology; such insertions can thus also be interpreted as signalling subject-specific cultural aspects and indexing the teacher’s expert iden­ tity (Saxena and Martin-Jones 2013). Almost a year later, the references to culture developed further, in the sense that the mere referencing of widely known aspects of local culture was comple­ mented by translanguaging revealing more specific local (subject) culture knowl­ edge. In Extract 17, which is taken from a longer exchange, students working on a group project for a different subject ask their financial management teacher for expert input. To provide this, the teacher requires more business-relevant information on the Viennese hospitality establishment in question and asks for the type of business at hand, using the German term, rather than the English one (line 3). Interestingly and in contrast to similar exchanges in the first semester, he does so without flagging or commenting on the insertion. As the German term is taken up successfully in the exchange, it can be understood as integrated in the shared repertoire of the classroom community of practice. While a more precise linguistic description of the ‘HMP repertoire’ would require a different study and data base, its Austrian localisation finds further sup­ port in other translanguaging episodes from T3. Besides German insertions, they exemplify other bilingual practices, such as Extract 18 depicting the by-then com­ munity internally established loan translation of the German term for ‘wrong-way drivers’. The teacher comment in this extract is directed to the researcher as outsider to the group and follows on using the loan-translated in-group notion while revising the information gained in a joint visit to a Viennese radio studio. Such instances of in-group translanguaging can also be read as signalling a developing HMP group identity, standing in juxtaposition to episodes expressing individual social identities, such as Extract 19 taken from the P&C subcorpus.

Classroom discourse in EMI 115 Extract 18 Public Relations (T3) 1 2 3

T

yesterday we said ghost driver [as loan translation of Geisterfahrer [wrong-way driver] but everybody knew what we were talking about

Extract 19 Presentations and Communication (T2) 1

T

2 3–10 11

S1

12

T

13

SS

S1

do you consider yourself a Wienerin ? [Viennese] NO NO NEVER [. . .] yeah @@@ i bin ka Wienerin [I’m not Viennese] I married a Wiener Mann [Viennese man] @@@@

Here, the German word for ‘Viennese’ is employed to signal the local culture, by the teacher in terms of closeness (lines 1 and 12) and by a student to express her emotional distance, clarifying that she does not consider herself Viennese (line 11, see also line 2). In sum, the longitudinal analysis has uncovered different kinds of cultural ref­ erence expressed in the translanguaging episodes at different points in time. On a note of caution in view of the limited data base, these findings seem to hint at a developing bilingual shared repertoire used in the classroom discursive practices of the HMP, combining cultural aspects of the local surrounding as well as of the profession and its donor academic disciplines. This interpretation confirms the general understanding of ELF communication as multilingual (Jenkins 2015) and as integrating especially the local language (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006). Most importantly, the long-term data base has offered first ideas about the trajectory with which the HMP community integrated cultural terms and notions from less to more specific in their classroom practices, thus offering first empirical insights into the dynamics along which a specific EMI community can develop its locally and academically situated multilingual repertoire.

Conclusions Based on the ethnographic study of an international, English-medium hotel man­ agement programme (Smit 2010), this chapter offered a detailed discussion of classroom discourse from the point of view of multilingual practices and how they develop over time. While English plays a dominant role true to its function as the group’s only lingua franca, the participants enrich their ELF classroom talk by also bringing in German as the local language and other first languages in dynamic patterns. To analyse those in a linguistically and educationally sensitive

116

Ute Smit

way, this study introduced a methodology that argues for bridging the divide postulated between translanguaging and code-switching (García and Wei 2014) by combining the discursive assumptions of the former (Moore and Nikula 2016) with the sociolinguistic categories of the latter (Lin 2013). The thus-established 119 ‘translanguaging episodes’ in the classroom corpus (of 44 lessons amount­ ing to more than 300,000 words) display different communicational functions, employed contingently for educational purposes. Revealing the traditional nature of the lessons in question, the distinction between main talk and side talk turned out as fundamental, with translanguaging in side talk being more varied in terms of languages used and code alternation patterns employed. Given the limited data available on side talk and group work, however, the interpretation on student-directed talk remains limited and prelimi­ nary, awaiting future studies to focus mainly on multilingual practices in studentdirected talk (Komori-Glatz 2017). Where the present study can offer revealing insights is with regard to teacher-directed main talk. To begin with, the analysis showed that, by inserting words and phrases of the local language into English, translanguaging turned out to be relatively homogeneous in kind, displaying only insertional code-switching. As this stands in contrast to extant translanguaging studies in education that focus on bilingual learner groups and report on all forms of code alternation (Mazak and Herbas-Donoso 2014), this finding might point to a characteristic of multilingual practices in EMI classroom main talk. Provided the respective student group is international, the shared practices draw on Eng­ lish as only shared lingua franca extended by those selected linguistic features of other codes that are likely to be available to all participants, thus revealing the generally shared recognition for the fundamental aim of educational discourse to be inclusive of all learners. When it comes to the functional breadth recorded in the data, three findings offer further-reaching implications. Firstly, the frequent employment of the func­ tion of ‘in aid of understanding’ underlines the discursive prominence placed on co-constructing meaning-making, which has repeatedly been reported as central to classroom discourse (Mortimer and Scott 2003; Walsh 2011) as well as to ELF interactions (Björkman 2013; Mauranen 2012; Seidlhofer 2011). Therefore, its relevance in this study cannot be a mere co-incidence, but must be an indica­ tion of the ELF nature of the EMI classroom talk, in which translanguaging is employed to help the meaning-making process along. The second finding worth commenting on is the fact that the translanguaging patterns of the fourth subcorpus P&C were different from the rest as regards functional spread as well as increased student translanguaging. Since, in contrast to the other three subcorpora, this one consisted of lessons taken from one sub­ ject only, it seems reasonable to argue for a subject-sensitive way of engaging in multilingual practices. In other words, multilingual practices are intricately interlinked with the specificities of the respective academic subject and learner groups; a contingency that should be kept in mind when analysing and interpret­ ing translanguaging practices (Dafouz and Smit 2016).

Classroom discourse in EMI 117 Finally, the longitudinal nature of the study reported on here has offered empirical findings on the dynamics of how the multilingual practices developed with time, thus supporting previous calls for long-term translanguaging research (Lin 2013). As exemplified in the multilingual practices referring to or signalling culture, an analysis of the developing group culture of an EMI commu­ nity requires thick data that covers the whole duration of the programme. In addition to the interactional data largely focussed on here, comparable stud­ ies should in future also include detailed and multi-layered emic data (Morton 2012), thereby gaining access to the participants’ folk linguistic views on their translanguaging, on the one hand, and, on the other, to their evaluations of the respective educational trajectories. Overall, the longitudinal micro-level investigation of EMI classroom talk dis­ cussed in this chapter has thrown light on the ways in which a truly international student group engages in changing multilingual practices, thereby shaping their localised ELF repertoire.

Appendix Transcription conventions

(.) (2) exte:nsion cut off wo. ? , CAPITALS @ [. . .] (xxx) Text [text] [text]

pause shorter than a second pauses, timed in seconds noticeable extension of a syllable or sound cut off word or truncated speech falling intonation rising intonation level intonation stressed syllables, words laughter deletion of text inaudible speech, ‘x’ stands for approximately one syllable German insertions English translation added explanations

Notes 1 The vague indication of time is used to preserve the students’ and teachers’ anonymity. 2 The phrases in italics represent Wenger’s (1998) defining characteristics for com­ munities of practice. 3 All lessons were audio-taped with a portable MD recorder and two microphones on a tripod, professionally mounted and adjusted for maximum coverage of the respective classrooms. The classroom corpus is larger than the one included in Smit (2010). 4 What would have been illuminating but could not be done for practical reasons was Pietikäinen’s (2014) a posteriori analytic step to have participants rate potential code-switches in the transcripts, thus providing their emic views on the status of the codes. 5 Although the corpora contain different speech events and genres and are thus not directly comparable, Klimpfinger’s (2009) study is interesting in this context. In the VOICE corpus of then 700,000 words, she found 2,184 instances of codeswitching or one instance every 321 words, i.e. code-switching was clearly more frequent than in the present corpus.

Classroom discourse in EMI 119 6 While such insertions have been widely discussed in the literature, partially question­ ing their very status as code-switches (for a summary of the discussion, see Stell 2015), functionally informed approaches have always recognised their relevance to bilingual practices (Auer, Moyer, and Muysken 2014), such as Backus (2015) arguing that “the motivations for insertional code-switching are worth investigating more”.

References Auer, P. 1998. Introduction: Bilingual conversation. In P. Auer (ed.), Code-Switch­ ing in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. London: Routledge, pp. 1–24. Auer, P. 2005. A postscript: Code-switching and social identity. Journal of Pragmatics 37(3), 403–410. Auer, P., M. Moyer and P. Muysken 2014. Connecting approaches to code-switching in West Africa. International Journal of Bilingualism 18(4), 447–454. Backus, A. 2015. A usage-based approach to code-switching: The need for reconcil­ ing structure and function. In G. Stell and K. Yakpo (eds.), Code-Switching Between Structural and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 19–37. Björkman, B. 2013. English as an Academic Lingua Franca. An Investigation of Form and Communicative Effectiveness. Boston and Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Bradford, A. and H. Brown (eds.) 2018. English-Medium Instruction at Universities in Japan: Policy, Challenges and Outcomes. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Busch, B. 2012. The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics 33(5), 503–523. Cahyani, H., M. de Courcy and J. Barnett 2016. Teachers’ code-switching in bilin­ gual classrooms: Exploring pedagogical and sociocultural functions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–15. Canagarajah, S. 2011. Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strat­ egies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal 95(3), 401–417. Cazden, C. B. 2001. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cogo, A. 2012. ELF and super-diversity: A case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2). Christie, F. 2002. Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective. London and New York: Continuum. Coleman, J. A. 2006. English-medium teaching in European higher education. Lan­ guage Teaching 39(1), 1–14. Creese, A. and A. Blackledge 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal 94(1), 103–115. Creese, A. and A. Blackledge 2015. Translanguaging and identity in educational set­ tings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35, 20–35. Dafouz, E. and U. Smit 2016. Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for EnglishMedium Education in Multilingual University Settings. Applied Linguistics 37(3), 397–415. Dimova, S., A. K. Hultgren and C. Jensen (eds.) 2015. English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education. Boston and Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.) 2013. English Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ehlich, K. and J. Rehbein 1986. Muster und Institution: Untersuchungen zur schulis­ chen Kommunikation. Kommunikation und Institution 15. Tübingen: Narr.

120

Ute Smit

Ferguson, G. 2003. Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: Functions, attitudes and policies. AILA Review (16), 38–51. García, O. and Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Educa­ tion. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gogolin, I. 2013. The ‘monolingual habitus’ as the common feature in teaching in the language of the majority in different countries. Per Linguam 13(2). Gotti, M. 2015. Code-switching and plurilingualism in English-medium education for academic and professional purposes. Language Learning in Higher Education 5(1). Gumperz, J. J. 1964. Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist 66(2), 137–153. Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Language and Social Identity. Studies in Interactional Sociolin­ guistics 2. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. House, J. 2014. Managing academic institutional discourse in English as a lingua franca. Functions of Language 21(1), 50–66. Hülmbauer, C. 2013. Frthethin and without: The virtual and the plurilingual in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(1), 47–73. Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85. Kachru, B. B. (ed.) 1992. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Klimpfinger, T. 2009. ‘She’s mixing the two languages together’ – Forms and func­ tions of code-switching in English as a lingua franca. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 348–371. Komori-Glatz, M. 2017. English as a business lingua franca in multicultural student teamwork: An EMEMUS study. PhD Thesis. University of Vienna. Lasagabaster, D. 2016. Translanguaging in ESL and content-based teaching: Is it valued? In D. Lasagabaster and A. Doiz (eds.), CLIL Experiences in Secondary and Tertiary Education. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 233–258. Leung, C. and B. V. Street 2012. English in the curriculum: Norms and practices. In C. Leung and B. V. Street (eds.), English: A Changing Medium of Instruction. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 1–21. Lewis, Gwyn, B. Jones and C. Baker 2012. Translanguaging: Developing its con­ ceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation 18(7), 655–670. Lin, A. 2013. Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguis­ tics Review 4(1), 195–218. Ljosland, R. 2011. English as an Academic Lingua Franca: Language policies and multilingual practices in a Norwegian university. Journal of Pragmatics 43(4), 991–1004. Maringe, F. and N. Foskett 2010. Introduction: Globalization and universities. In Felix Maringe and Nick Foskett (eds.), Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education. Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Continuum, pp. 1–16. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mazak, C. M. and C. Herbas-Donoso 2014. Translanguaging practices at a bilingual university: A case study of a science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 18(6), 698–714.

Classroom discourse in EMI 121 Moore, P. and T. Nikula 2016. Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore and U. Smit (eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 211–233. Mortensen, J. 2014. Language policy from below: Language choice in student pro­ ject groups in a multilingual university setting. Journal of Multilingual and Multi­ cultural Development 35(4), 425–442. Mortimer, E. F. and P. H. Scott 2003. Meaning Making in Secondary Science Class­ rooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Morton, T. 2012. Classroom talk, conceptual change and teacher reflection in bilin­ gual science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education 28(1), 101–110. Murata, K. (ed.) 2016. Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Con­ texts. Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Nevile, M. and J. Wagner 2008. Managing languages and participation in a multilin­ gual group examination. In H. Haberland, J. Mortensen, A. Fabricius, B. Preisler, K. Risager and S. Kjaerbeck (eds.), Higher Education in the Global Village. Cultural and Linguistic Practces in the International University. Roskilde: Roskilde Univer­ sity, Department of Culture and Identity, pp. 149–174. Pietikäinen, K. S. 2014. ELF couples and automatic code-switching. Journal of Eng­ lish as a Lingua Franca 3(1), 1–26. Pölzl, U. and B. Seidlhofer 2006. the on their own terms: The ‘habitat factor’ in English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Lan­ guage 177, 151–176. Saxena, M. and M. Martin-Jones 2013. Multilingual resources in classroom interac­ tion: Ethnographic and discourse analytic perspectives. Language and Education 27(4), 285–297. Seargeant, P., C. Tagg and W. Ngampramuan 2012. Language choice and addressiv­ ity strategies in Thai-English social network interactions. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16(4), 510–531. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smit, U. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Classroom Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Söderlundh, H. 2012. Global policies and local norms: Sociolinguistic awareness and language choice at an international university. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2012(216). Söderlundh, H. 2013. Language choice and linguistic variation in classes nominally taught in English. In H. Haberland, D. Lonsman and B. Preisler (eds.), Language Alternation, Language Choice and Language Encounter in International Tertiary Education. Multilingual Education. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 85–102. Stell, G. 2015. Towards an integrated approach to structural and conversational codeswitching through macrosociolinguistic factors. In G. Stell and K. Yakpo (eds.), Code-switching Between Structural and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 117–138. Valcke, J. and R. Wilkinson (eds.) 2017. Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Wächter, B. and F. Maiworm (eds.) 2014. English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education. The Stay of Play. Bonn: Lemmens Medien. Walsh, S. 2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge.

122

Ute Smit

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cam­ bridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (ed.) 1992. Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Per­ spectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson, R. 2017. Trends and issues in English-medium instruction in Europe. In K. Ackerley, M. Guarda and F. Helm (eds.), Sharing Perspectives on EnglishMedium Instruction. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 35–75. Wilkinson, R. and M. L. Walsh (eds.) 2015. Integrating Content and Language: From Theory to Practice: Selected Papers from the 2013 ICLHE Conference. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

8

Enacting an ELF-informed English-medium instruction curriculum Patrick NgELF-informed English-medium instruction

An autoethnography Patrick Ng Introduction In recent years, there has been a surge in universities offering English-medium instruction (henceforth EMI) in the educational context of Japan. In response to the call by politicians to cultivate students with English skills to participate in the global market, many universities in Japan have embarked on an EMI programme (Ng 2016). In 2009, I was recruited as an international faculty staff member to teach English to Japanese students at a university in Northern Japan. On the first day of my class, I introduced myself as a teacher from Singapore. I told them about my English learning experiences in my early school years and explained the different linguistic repertoires in different domains of my life – English for teach­ ing and communicating with family members at home, Mandarin and several Chinese dialects when communicating with relatives from Singapore, and conver­ sational Japanese when dining at a Japanese restaurant. Seeing that the class was eager to “devour” every bit of information about me, I continued to share my overseas study experiences in New Zealand and narrate my experiences in using English to interact with people from different nationalities and cultural back­ grounds. I could sense that a majority of students were surprised to learn about my multilingual identity; some were fascinated with my overseas experiences. As I was eager to “size up” my students, I then instructed the class to reciprocate with a self-introduction. After the “ice-breaking,” I then proceeded to explain the course outline. Following this, I instructed students to turn to a unit in their textbook, “Endangered Species.” I told the class that the first discussion topic would revolve around endangered species and assigned students the following questions as a warm-up activity: The panda is an endangered species – what does that mean? Should we care if pandas die out? Initially, there were some discussions but, after barely less than a minute, the class became as quiet as a cemetery. The silence was uneasy – I did not expect such a response in an oral communication class! I tried to contain my disappoint­ ment – perhaps the class could not understand the word “endangered?” After a short explanation of the word, I slid in another question: Have you read about the “Toki” (an endangered bird in Japan)?

124

Patrick Ng

To my amazement, the question performed its magic – a few students began to mumble some words; some students appeared to show some interest while others tried to search for information from their cell phones. I was glad that my ques­ tion could finally spark some response from the class. As I inched nearer to listen to some discussions, I was surprised that students were actually articulating their views in Japanese! After a few observations, I could sense that my students have difficulties discussing a topic in English. No matter what I said or did to encour­ age them to interact in English, the response would always be the same – students would inevitably lapse into Japanese. I began to realize that teaching English in an EMI programme at my new workplace is very different from teaching English in Singapore. During the next few weeks, I began to ponder what I should do to move my teaching forward. That was my first experience teaching English to the ichinensei (first-year students) in a Japanese university. At this juncture, it is important to explain the EMI programme in my teaching context. Although some other universities in Japan have implemented various forms of EMI programmes, in my university, EMI is used broadly to refer to the use of English as a lingua franca whereby domestic first-year Japanese students attend classes entirely in English. As stated in the university official website, the main reason for the implementation of the EMI policy is to meet the “globali­ sation” agenda of the university. To provide students an “authentic” English language experience, the EMI classes are decided to be conducted by English “native-speaking” teachers, and the programme focuses on academic and com­ municative skills aimed at developing students’ English skills for writing reports, delivering oral presentations and study abroad programmes. Accordingly, I was the first EMI teacher from the Outer Circle when I started teaching in my cur­ rent university. In 2007, I came to Japan to teach English at a Japanese university in South­ ern Japan. I am Chinese, male, born and raised in Singapore. After obtaining a Certificate in Education at the former Institute of Education (currently the National Institute of Education), I taught English for three years at a local pri­ mary school. I then decided to pursue a degree in linguistics at a local university in New Zealand. After obtaining my degree, I continued to pursue a Master’s in English Studies at the National University of Singapore. After completing my study, I applied and was offered a full-time teaching job as a communication skills lecturer in an engineering school at a local university. Subsequently, I was persuaded by my dean to enroll in a postgraduate programme offered by the University of Leicester in the UK. How did I end up teaching English in Japan? In 2006, I came to Japan for a conference in Fukuoka. After the conference, an American professor from a private university in Southern Japan invited me to a teacher recruitment interview and, after two hours of intensive “grilling,” the team of interviewers felt that I fit the bill for the post of senior English lecturer at their university. Subsequently, I was offered a teaching contract to teach English at a language centre in the university. After two years, I applied and was recruited as an assistant professor by my current university.

ELF-informed English-medium instruction

125

Sifakis (2014) reminds us that although the pedagogical implications of ELF have been mentioned in the literature in English language teaching, there is still a need for a general framework for ELF teacher education that informs practitioners about ELF matters. In this chapter, I adopt an autoethnographic approach to explain my transformation and development as an ELF practitioner in a Japanese university. As a genre of writing and research, autoethnography seeks to generate insights not only on oneself but the way one’s own experi­ ence is shaped by society and culture (Ellis and Bochner 2003: 209). In addi­ tion, autoethnography values the self as a rich repository of experiences, and acknowledges that knowledge is based on one’s location and identity (Canaga­ rajah 2012). The autoethnography approach is favoured for this study because it allows me to deconstruct and engage in a critical examination of my beliefs and position as an ELF educator in an ELF-informed EMI classroom envi­ ronment. Data collection for this study is based on class observations of stu­ dents’ learning experience on specific ELF-informed class activities. To make my analysis more explicit, I adopt an analytical autoethnography to engage with theories and research findings (Anderson 2006). As Anderson (2006, p. 1) observes, the analytic autoethnographic approach refers to research in which the researcher is committed to developing theoretical understandings of broader social phenomena. According to Anderson (2006, p. 378) there are five key features of analytic autoethnography: (1) complete member researcher (CMR) status, (2) analytic reflexivity, (3) narrative visibility of the researcher’s self, (4) dialogue with informants beyond the self, and (5) commitment to theoretical analysis. Through an analytical autoethnographic approach, this chapter examines the following questions: 1 2 3

How do local teachers in Japan understand and interpret the meaning of an ELF-informed EMI pedagogy attitudinally and methodologically? In what ways does an ELF-informed EMI pedagogical paradigm influence their professional practice? What are the factors that shape the professional identity of ELF-informed EMI practitioners in a Japanese university?

In the sections that follow, I explain my local teaching context. Next I explain my teaching philosophy. From there, I proceed to explain my transformation as an ELF practitioner and how an ELF-informed EMI pedagogical paradigm influences my classroom instruction. I then discuss the various factors that shaped my professional identity as an ELF practitioner. From there, I jump into the various challenges I experienced in creating a pedagogical space for ELF in my classroom instruction. I then follow with some suggestions on how teacher education programmes should aim at helping local teachers develop a professional identity when adjusting pedagogically to an ELF-informed EMI teaching paradigm.

126

Patrick Ng

My teaching context I teach in a rural university located in Northern Japan. The university opened in December 2009 and operates as a public university. It comprises two faculties: the Faculty of International Studies and Regional Development and the Faculty of Human Life Sciences. It is a fairly small university with a student population less than one thousand. Except for some students who have lived or studied abroad in English-speaking countries, most students have little or no experience commu­ nicating with English speakers. Since its establishment, the university has pursued an aggressive EMI curricular policy as a way to “internationalise” the university. All first-year students were required to fulfil certain hours of EMI classes. To pro­ mote the EMI programme, the university also hired several English teachers from the US, UK and Canada. Although there were several existing Japanese teachers of English, I was the only NNEST (non-native English-speaking teacher) hired by the university. I was assigned to teach the following subjects: core English, business English, project English, oral communication, study abroad, academic writing and thesis supervision.

My English learning experiences and my teaching philosophy I started learning English at the age of 7 when my parents enrolled me in an Eng­ lish-medium school. In school, I studied all subjects in English except the mother tongue subject (Chinese) from elementary to high school. During my first two years in elementary school, I struggled to understand my teachers’ instructions in English but gradually managed to “catch up” in English through sheer hard work and determination. My teachers were all Singaporeans. In English class, we had grammar lessons, reading comprehension, spelling, dictation, extensive reading, newspaper reading activities, writing, listening and speaking. As a Singaporean, I had many opportunities to communicate in English in my daily socialization experience. I have used English to communicate with my classmates, colleagues and friends from different ethnic communities – Malay, Indian and Eurasian. I also had a lot of opportunities to interact in English with international students during my overseas study in New Zealand. I am fully convinced that English is indispensable for communication in the globalized world. My teaching practice is rooted in the philosophy that a university education should encourage a lifelong love for learning. I try to cultivate in my students a love of the English language and culture from a cross-cultural perspective. I believe that an effective teacher should be student centred and yet able to facilitate diverse learning opportunities in the classroom. Since there is a continuum of students in a class, I try to inte­ grate all four skills of reading, speaking, listening and writing in my instructional practices. To make my lessons more interactive, I also blend traditional methods with multimedia approaches by using YouTube videos, DVDs and audios in my teaching. One of the subjects that I enjoyed teaching in the EMI curriculum is oral communication. As a teacher who had previously taught English communication

ELF-informed English-medium instruction

127

skills, I was delighted to be assigned an oral communication class. Based on the placement test, students enrolled in this class were considered students with “advanced” English skills. Capitalizing on my years of teaching communication skills, I felt it would be a “breeze” for me to teach the class. However, after teach­ ing several other classes for several weeks, I observed that a majority of ichinensei had entered the university with little knowledge of English communicative skills; they were not properly trained in communicative English in their senior high schools and they were hesitant to communicate in English in class. From inter­ views with English teaching professors at several universities, I also learnt that a majority of Japanese junior and senior high schools tend to focus on the teaching of English to prepare students for the 入試 (university entrance examination). When I asked a colleague about my students’ previous English learning experi­ ences, I was informed that the English curriculum in the Japanese junior and senior high school tends to be teacher centred. I also learnt that junior and senior high school English teachers usually adopt a grammar translation and audio-lin­ gual approach in their classroom instructions to prepare students for the univer­ sity entrance examination. However, as an English teacher and an ELF speaker, I want my students to be able to speak and communicate with me in English; I was fully convinced that I should help students understand that the purpose of learning English is to function in communicative English in the real world. To enhance my understanding of students’ difficulties in speaking English, I decided to conduct a survey designed to assess students’ communication skills in English. Students were instructed to indicate whether they agree or disagree with several statements in the survey, such as: I am often the one who initiates communication in groups I feel nervous when I stand up to speak before a group I often have ideas that I like to explain to other people I instructed students to choose three statements that apply to them and write some reasons for their response on a piece of paper without disclosing their iden­ tity. One student wrote: I am afraid to tell people about my opinion because I do not know whether my opinion is acceptable to others. Several students wrote similar responses: I often feel anxious and nervous about speaking in front of others. Another student attributed the lack of vocabulary as a major reason for refusing to converse with others in English. At the end of the lesson, it dawned on me that a fear of making mistakes in communication was a major reason why my students hesitated to speak English in class. After a few discussions with several students, I became aware that there is a deeper underlying reason for students’ reluctance to

128

Patrick Ng

communicate in English. Due to the Japan English Teaching (JET) programme, native English-speaking teachers from Inner Circle countries are recruited to teach English in Japanese junior and senior high schools. As a result of the popu­ larity of English as an American or British language in Japanese schools, there is a pressure for Japanese students to speak a “native” variety of English. As Honna (2008: 146) reported, the “nativist” goal is a main reason why many Japanese are ashamed to speak English unless they can speak it like an American. I gathered that a majority of the first-year students may have “fossilized” an attitude that their own “Japanese-accented English” has no communicative viability. As Naoki, a first-year student in my core English class puts it: In Japan, only American English is taught to us. We have little opportunity to hear other Englishes. So we usually are ashamed of using our own English. On one occasion, I polled the class: How many of you think Japanese English should be used for international communication? I was surprised that only two students raised their hands to approve the use of their own Japanese-accented English. Convinced that a homegrown variety of English will help my students develop confidence in English, I told students not to underestimate their Japanese-accented English but to be proud of it as a legiti­ mate variety of English for communication. However, my attempt to convince students of the communicative viability of Japanese-accented English was largely unsuccessful. As Honna (2008) explains, the “nativist” goal in English learning among Japanese students has created a sense of inferiority and shame in speak­ ing their own accented Japanese English. Like Korean students trapped under a feeling of inferiority and anxiety when learning English (Park 2012), my students often frame their English communicative skills in terms of embarrassment. But as a teacher of English and a Singaporean who “lives and breathes ELF,” I was determined to help my students become confident users of English. But several questions came to mind: Under what circumstances would my students be willing to communicate in English? How can I encourage students to be communicative in English? How should I eradicate the myth that English is functionally learnt to com­ municate with native speakers of English? I also had other troubling questions about teaching some English subjects in my new teaching environment for which I could find no satisfactory answers.

My transformation to an ELF practitioner In 2009, I decided to give a lecture series entitled “Language Use in a Multi-Linguis­ tic Society: A Singaporean’s Perspective.” Speaking in my strong Singapore English

ELF-informed English-medium instruction

129

accent, I explained why English plays an important role as a lingua franca connecting different ethnic groups in present-day Singapore. I also shared how local Singapore­ ans appropriated English for use with other non-native users of English in the Asso­ ciation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region. After my lecture, students were instructed to write their comments and reflections in their journal. I was taken aback when Ryo, a student in my oral communication class, wrote in his journal: For many people like me, speaking two languages need much effort. In fact, I have studied English for many years but I can’t use English naturally. After listening to this lecture, I strongly feel the importance of studying language. From now on, I will study English harder than before. It was a defining moment for my teaching! I was pleasantly surprised that Ryo took no issue with my Singapore English accent but was motivated to improve his spoken English skills. Several students also wrote similar remarks about how it is important for Japanese students to acquire English communicative skills for international communication. I was greatly encouraged to know that there are students who have a strong desire to improve their English skills to connect with the wider English-speaking world. As part of the EMI curriculum, the university also offers various English study abroad programmes. In August 2011, I organized a one-week English study abroad programme to Singapore to help students understand life in a multira­ cial society. I arranged for students to visit different cultural heritage sites and places of attraction in Singapore. I also approached the students’ union from the National University of Singapore to help arrange a meeting for my students to meet international students’ representatives from different countries such as China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore speaking their own varie­ ties of English. During the meeting with students’ representatives from differ­ ent Asian countries, I was pleasantly surprised to see that even the most passive and shy Japanese students were happily engaged in a conversation with other students’ representatives even though some of them were not fluent in English. I realized that as my students became immersed in a real communicative con­ text with both local and international students, they began to “loosen up” and, despite their limited English proficiency, they quizzed the students’ representa­ tives on every aspect of their lives – studies, examinations, leisure and living in Singapore. When the students returned from Singapore, I asked them to write a reflection about the programme. One of them wrote about his experience: The power of Singapore is coming from language. Singapore can be multi­ cultural and a great economy because Singaporeans can speak English as a common language. I realized I should also practice more and improve my English skills in order to communicate with many people. I was pleasantly surprised by students’ reflections on their Singapore experience as I had informed participants that the overall objective of the study abroad programme was merely to expose students to life in a multicultural society.

130

Patrick Ng

In 2011, I organized the second Singapore study abroad programme with similar objectives and travelling itinerary. When the students returned from Sin­ gapore, they reflected on their Singapore experience. Many students wrote that they could understand the importance of English in the Singapore linguistic land­ scape – in particular, its role as a lingua franca for interethnic communication among the different ethnic groups in Singapore. One student, Risa, wrote: Also, we visited Nanyang Technological University. Then we had opportuni­ ties to discuss with the professors and students about some issues in English. As Singapore is a multiracial society, we could communicate with Singapore students from different races. For example, we spoke to Singapore students who are Chinese, Malay and Indian background. We also communicated with international students from other countries such as China and India etc. But they used English with us. The variety of English is quite different type of English we had known. However, we could understand their English and they too had no difficulties in understanding our Japanese English. Another student, Reiko, wrote about her meeting with a Chinese student from mainland China: In my visiting, one of university student made the biggest impression about English. She is an exchange student from China. She is a “genuine” Chinese which means she does not come from an English-speaking country. Her parents are Chinese and she used to live in China but she can speak English fluently like it is her first language. She also studies Japanese. I was really impressed. After the trip, I felt I needed to study English more to survive in a multicultural society like Singapore and in other countries around the world. It was encouraging for me to observe that my students were greatly motivated to learn English through their interactions with university students’ representatives in Singapore. Sensing that the meeting with the students’ representatives pro­ vided “a natural ELF setting” which offers a potentially rich opportunity for lan­ guage learning, I combed every literature to deepen my understanding on the use of English as a lingua franca in the Japanese context. I was surprised to learn that “native English is not the most relevant for Expanding Circle countries whose speakers learn English for (genuinely) international uses” (Honna 2008; cited in Jenkins 2009: 54). As I “soaked up” the literature on English as an international language and its relevance to Japanese students as a language of wider communi­ cation with other non-native speakers of English, I became fully convinced of the need to enact an ELF teaching pedagogy in my classroom instruction. To adjust pedagogically to an ELF world, I decided to comb the literature on the teaching of ELF. From the literature, I realized that ELF is in essence, “a means of communication in English between speakers who have different first languages” (Jenkins 2009: 41). I also found out that the occurrence of misun­ derstanding is rare in ELF communication (Seidlhofer 2004). I also learnt that

ELF-informed English-medium instruction

131

ELF has attracted much attention and a number of publications have focused on specific varieties of English in Asian contexts (Murata and Jenkins 2009). To adjust to an ELF-informed EMI teaching paradigm, I decided that it is impor­ tant to help my students develop confidence in their accented Japanese English. Being aware that a majority of my students experience a high level of anxiety in communicating in English, I became sensitive to the importance of a “user­ friendly” and “low-stress” classroom environment and tried to foster a “can-do” attitude among students. I learnt from the literature that proficient ELF speakers employ code-switching to signal solidarity or to project their multilingual identi­ ties (Jenkins 2009). To create “a safe and inclusive” language learning environ­ ment, I encouraged code-switching. I told students: As far as possible, share your ideas to your friends in English but if you think it’s too difficult to say everything in English, try using some Japanese words. As explained by Jenkins (2009), ELF speakers constantly use code-switching to signal solidarity with their interlocutors and to project their own identities. In class, I frequently reminded my students that code-switching is a common lin­ guistic practice adopted by proficient ELF speakers. To develop their confidence in speaking English, I showed students YouTube videos of fluent ELF speakers such as the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and Nirmal Ghosh. I ech­ oed Professor D’Angelo’s (personal communication 2014) observation that “although many non-native English speakers in expanding circles may have a different linguistic reality from those in the Inner or Outer circle, they can con­ duct business at the highest levels in English with other English users.” I also resonated with Widdowson (1994) that ELF caters to the needs of my students in their learning of the English language – from a foreign language impossible to master to a language that is familiar and real. I realized that the “beauty” of ELF is that it removes the necessity for students to conform to an exonorma­ tive orientation to English norms and encourages students to be engaged with the language. As an ELF educator, I believe it is important to help my students identify with the language by emphazing the pragmatic and functional use of English. To make students responsive to lingua franca manifestations of the English they would encounter in real-life communication in the international setting, I explained how English currently functions as a working language for both intranational and international communication in ASEAN. I also felt it was neces­ sary to expose students to World Englishes after reading Kirkpatrick’s (2007) suggestion that it is important to help students realize the role that prejudice can play in making judgements about different varieties of English. To eliminate students’ prejudice against their Japanese-accented English, I exposed students to Singapore and Malaysian English speakers’ use of different sentence-final par­ ticles such as “lah” and syntactic reduplication such as “Cheap, cheap cheap.” I then drummed into students the necessity to be flexible and sensitive to differ­ ent accents and ways of using English in different communicative contexts.

132

Patrick Ng

To instill confidence in oral speaking, I used a video “Success with oral presen­ tation” that features non-native speakers in fluent English and challenged my stu­ dents to improve their own communicative competence in English. I also showed students YouTube videos of students from non-native English-speaking countries engaging in debates. For example, I showed “The Arena” (a debate-style televi­ sion programme in Singapore) to help students position themselves as judge and arbitrator of English usage, and to identify themselves with a broader commu­ nity of English speakers (Bokhorst-Heng et al. 2010). My students were greatly inspired when they saw Asian students in other countries using English to engage in debates or discussions of global issues. In their journals, they wrote that they were greatly motivated to improve their English skills after watching the video. To expose my students to other non-native variety of English, I designed assign­ ments that allowed my students to tap resources from various Asian media web­ sites such as Channelnewsasia, CCTV and NHK. I also showed various online newspapers in the Asian region (Times of India, Asiaone.com, The Bangkok Post, etc.). Through exposing my students to all these websites, I also expanded the literary networks of my students. I observed that, by the end of the first semester, some of my students began to feel more at ease with their Japanese-accented English – a strong signal that they perceived that an American-accented English is no longer relevant to their com­ munication needs. I have since become more convinced that I need to expose students to authentic ELF communicative contexts to engage them in meaning­ ful experiential learning of English (Ng 2014).

Developing a professional identity as an ELF practitioner: reflections and discussions To answer the question: “What are the factors that shape the professional identity of an ELF-informed EMI practitioner in a Japanese university?,” I reflected on the paths I took to become an ELF practitioner. I realized that it was my stu­ dents’ desire to use English for international communication and their interest in developing a hybrid global identity that provided me with a strong motivation to adopt an ELF teaching strategy. As Eriko, a ichinensei in my oral communication course, puts it: We normally have only American or British English speaker as ALT teacher in school in Japan. So we only have exposure to these kinds of English. But there are a lot of kinds of English exist all over the world. However, as a non-native English teacher (henceforth NNEST), I resonate with Canagarajah’s (2012) observation that I can never be accepted as “an insider to the professional community of the native English teachers” and share their assumptions and practices. Initially, I was overwhelmed by a sense of inferiority as “NNEST” and struggled to establish a professional legitimacy at my workplace. There were times when

ELF-informed English-medium instruction

133

I had doubts on my own professional identity: Am I really valued by students at this university? How do administrators perceive me as an English teacher? I was fortunate to draw support and encouragement from other ELF/World Englishes scholars (Professor Nobuyuki Hino, Professor Aya Matsuda, Professor James D’Angelo and the late Professor Larry Smith) who assured me that my pres­ ence as a user of English from the Outer Circle provides Japanese students with valuable linguistic and cultural experiences. I also benefitted from attending ELF conferences and seminars in Japan and overseas. From listening to ELF scholars and experts, I learnt about the fallacy of a monolithic, native-speakerist ideology in English language teaching and the affirmation of plurilingualism as a potential resource for both language teaching and language learning. I align with Lin’s (2013: 525) perspective that language learning and teaching should be concep­ tualized “as having both teachers and students engaged in the fluid co-creation of diverse language resources appropriate for situated social practices that are meaningful to both parties.” The knowledge that I gathered also helped to affirm my identity as “a multilingual English teacher” in my workplace. My colleagues (Japanese English teachers and native English teachers) gradually realized that I have other identities and research interests that made me different from them. My dean appreciated and viewed me as a teacher who could provide a bilingual/ multilingual perspective to English teaching issues. My multilingual identity also allows me to play the role of a language broker who dares to challenge the domi­ nant assumptions of language teaching and learning from a monolingual lens. My students were the most crucial factor in sustaining my professional legiti­ macy as an ELF practitioner. I believe I could create an emancipatory awareness of linguistic ownership in English among my students through my classroom instructions. In class, I straddled various roles: a “multilingual English teacher,” “a friend,” “a counselor,” “an encourager” and “an empathiser” in students’ struggle to improve their English skills. My students also appreciated me because I was able to motivate them to improve their spoken English through my exhor­ tation to “stay hungry” in learning English. Occasionally, it was heartwarming to receive encouraging comments from students that showed the impact of my teaching: I’ll promise to keep my affiliations with English for a long time.

Thank you for your teaching.

I will be hungry for more English. Thanks Patrick! It has been a great semester

with you.

One of my greatest challenges in creating a pedagogical space for ELF in my classroom instruction is persuading students to embrace a sense of linguistic own­ ership in English. I resonate with Kohn (2015: 55) that most of my Japanese learners are “Faustian creatures” striving for an externally given Standard English role model but yet desperately wanting to develop their “own” creatively con­ structed English. Kohn asserts that it is important to help non-native students become “owners of English” to help them determine the future development

134

Patrick Ng

of the language. Similarly, Widdowson (1994) called for an endonormative approach to the teaching of English and cogently argued that “real proficiency is when you are able to take possession of the language, turn it to your advantage, and make it real for you” (Widdowson 1994: 384). One way I tried to incor­ porate an endonormative creative construction dimension of human learning in my classroom instruction is through exposing students to the use of English in Singapore. I explained to students how Singlish could co-exist with a Standard Singapore English variety among local Singaporeans. Despite the government’s insistence that Singlish is a “corrupted form of English” and lacks legitimacy, younger generations of Singaporeans have no qualms in considering Singlish as a mark of their national identity and thus claim ownership of the language. Although I tried to cultivate a positive attitude towards their accented Japa­ nese English, I observed that there are still many students at the university who conceptualize an American-accented English as “Authentic English” or “Correct English.” Thus as Lin (2013) reminds us, it is important for teachers to help students resist an essentialized view of language as stable, standardized, mono­ lithic discrete entities but to see language learning as an opportunity to mobilize various semiotic resources to achieve situated practice as well as identities (Lin 2013). However, fostering a “healthy” attitude towards their Japanese-accented English remains a daunting task due to a deeply rooted “native-speakerism” ide­ ology in the Japanese educational context. I was worried that my openness to my students’ use of a Japanese-accented English may be at odds with the explicit orientation to native English at the institutional level. In addition, when high school students enter university, a majority have already acquired a bias that Eng­ lish is functionally learnt to interact with native speakers of English and tend to treat their own Japanese-accented English with little prestige or communicative valency. As an ELF educator, I have found it rather challenging to change stu­ dents’ mindset that all varieties of Englishes have equal status or legitimacy and “English is the property of users, native and non-native speakers alike” (Flow­ erdew 2015: 14–15). Another challenge in helping my students embrace the use of English as a lin­ gua franca is the difficulty in redefining the use of English as an opportunity for real-life communication in the sociolinguistic context of Japan. Japan has been described as an Expanding Circle country where English “does not have the sta­ tus of an official language, does not function as a lingua franca and is not a relic of colonisation” (McKenzie 2008: 269). It is true to say that unlike users in the Outer Circle countries such as India or the Philippines, a majority of Japanese students’ contact with English is usually a reflection of the English taught in EFL classes, as this is where students have most intensive contact with the language (Hino 2012). Many of my students had told me that it is difficult for them to improve their communicative competence in English as they hardly have a chance to interact in English outside the classroom. Realizing that many of my students will not have much opportunities to use English in their sociolinguistic environ­ ment, I constantly exhort them to be attentive to lingua franca manifestations of English that are available in the videos or movies they watch. I reminded them

ELF-informed English-medium instruction

135

that a majority of English interactions in modern day are between L2 speakers and bilingual speakers of English who use a rich linguistic repertoire to signal their personal identity and social relationship (McKay 2011) in ELF communications.

Conclusion In this chapter, I adopted an autoethnographic approach to explore the paths I took to create a pedagogical space for an ELF-informed EMI curriculum in a Japanese university. Turning the critical lens on my own teaching experiences, I examined how my professional identity as an ELF practitioner is shaped in rela­ tion to the social and academic life in a Japanese university. The results of my study showed that an ELF-informed pedagogical paradigm to teaching has a positive effect in motivating students to embrace English as an important language for intercultural and international communication. However, a fear of making mis­ takes in communication and a deep-seated native-speakerist ideology at the insti­ tutional level poses a challenge for the teacher to enact an ELF-informed teaching paradigm. In addition, teachers also find it difficult to establish a professional identity as an ELF practitioner due to the pervasive native-speakerist ideology. Teacher education programmes should evolve a post-native, multilingual model for ELF-aware teachers and give more prominence to the use of lingua franca as a viable goal for learners (Blair 2015). There is also a need for teacher education programmes to fill the gap on how teacher preparation can help local teachers take on empowering identities as legitimate professionals. To do this, it is important to explore a local teacher’s multilingual or bilingual identity as a starting point in extending their professional development in their workplace. In this regard, the recent formation of an ELF Special Interest Group in Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET) is a step in the right direction to help local teachers gain voice negotiability in their own community of practice (Wenger 1998).

References Anderson, L. 2006. Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35, 373–395. Blair, A. 2015. Evolving a post-native, multilingual model for ELF-aware teacher education. In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds.), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 89–101. Bokhorst-Heng, W.D., R.Rubdy, S. L. Mckay, and L. Alsagoff. 2010. Whose English? Language ownership in Singapore’s English language debates. In L. Lim, A. Pakir, and L. Wee (eds.), English in Singapore. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 57–90. Canagarajah, S. 2012. Teacher development in a globalised profession: An autoeth­ nography. Tesol Quarterly 46(2), 258–279. Ellis, C. S. 2009. Revision: Autoethnographic Reflections on Life and Work. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Ellis, C. S. and A. P. Bochner 2003. Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materia. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 199–259.

136

Patrick Ng

Flowerdew, L. 2015. Adjusting pedagogically to an ELF world: An ESP perspective. In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds.), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 13–34. Hino, N. 2012. Endonormative models of EIL for the expanding circle. In A. Mat­ suda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Lan­ guage. Multilingual Matters: New York, pp. 28–43. Honna, N. 2008. English as a Multicultural Language in Asian Contexts: Issues and Ideas. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Jenkins, J. 2009. Exploring attitudes towards English as a lingua franca in the East Asian context. In K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Con­ texts. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 40–58. Kirkpatrick, A. 2007. World Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kohn, K. 2015. A pedagogical space for ELF in the English classroom. In Y. Bayy­ urt and S. Akcan (eds.), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 51–68. Lin, A. 2013. Toward paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies: Building pluri­ lingual pedagogies from the ground up. Tesol Quarterly 47(3), 521–545. McKay, S. 2011. English as an international lingua franca pedagogy. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Volume 2. New York: Routledge, pp. 122–139. McKenzie, R. M. 2008. The complex and rapidly changing sociolinguistic position of the English language in Japan: A summary of English language contact and use. Japan Forum 20(2), 267–286. Murata, K. and J. Jenkins 2009. Global Englishes in Asian Contexts. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Ng, P. 2014. Local Contextual Influences on Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge Schol­ ars Publishing. Ng, P. 2016. English-medium instruction in Japanese universities: Policy implemen­ tation and constraints. Current Issues in Language Planning 18(1), 57–67. Park, J. 2012. English as border crossing. In Vaughan Rapata-hana and Pauline Bunce (eds.), English Language as Hyra: Its Impacts on Non-English Language Cultures. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 208–220. Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 209–239. Shohamy, E. 2013. A critical perspective on the use of English as a medium of instruc­ tion at universities. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English Medium Instruction at Universities. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 196–213. Sifakis, N. C. 2014. ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: A transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(2), 315–333. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Widdowson, H. G. 1994. The ownership of English. TESOl Quarterly 28(2), 377–389.

9

Internationalization and the growing demand for English in Japanese higher education Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola GallowayInternationalisation and English in Japan

Undertaking doctoral study in

English

Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola Galloway Introduction English, the world’s lingua franca, has become the “operating system for the global conversation” (British Council 2013: 5). As the dominant language in a variety of domains, there is an ever-increasing demand to acquire proficiency in English. For many, English is a tool for global mobility, a gatekeeper to knowl­ edge, a prerequisite to career success, and for many nations, it is seen as essen­ tial for economic development and modernization. In the academic domain, it has become a “shared (. . .) language of advanced education” (Brumfit 2004: 166) and in the context of higher education, it has often become synonymous with moves to internationalize. The internationalization of higher education has become a global trend and higher education institution (HEIs) around the globe are promoting internationalization policies. Internationalizing the curricu­ lum takes many forms, and in non-Anglophone contexts; this has often resulted in both the expansion and introduction of English-medium instruction (EMI). EMI, defined as “The use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (Dearden 2014: 2), has seen a rapid growth in HEIs across several continents. The most significant increase has been reported in Europe, where the number of EMI programs grew by more than 1,000 per cent between 2001 and 2014 (Wächter and Maiworm 2014). This growth has been accompanied by a growth in research on EMI implementation conducted in this context (e.g. Björkman 2010; Costa and Coleman 2013; Dimova, Hultgren and Jensen 2015; Jensen and Thøgersen 2011; Tange 2010). EMI has also been gradually gaining momentum on other continents, including Asia (e.g. Bradford 2016; Brown 2014; Byun et al. 2011; Hamid et al. 2013; Tsuneyoshi 2005; Wong 2010). However, compared to other contexts, research investigating the implementation of EMI in this context is still scarce. The mixed methods study reported in this chapter aimed to investigate three academic staff and three PhD students’ conceptualizations of EMI in a Japanese

138

Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola Galloway

HEI, as part of a bigger study conducted by Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri (2017). The chapter begins by discussing the benefits and challenges facing the implementation of EMI in non-Anglophone countries. It then reports on a case study of a Japanese HEI. Japan is a relevant context to investigate this issue as it is a country which not only has a long history of striving to increase the diversity of the student population and compete in the domestic and global higher educa­ tion market, but one which has recently experienced a notable increase in EMI providing HEIs (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017). At the same time, as previously noted, most of the studies on EMI have, to date, been conducted in Europe. Although EMI is, indeed, a growing global phenomenon, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Thus, implementing EMI courses and programs should take various contexts into account, as it is not clear whether, and to what extent, the existing research findings from Europe or other contexts may be applied to Japanese higher education (HE) (Bradford 2016).

Benefits and challenges of EMI in non-Anglophone contexts In non-native English-speaking contexts, EMI is often seen as a way of improving students’ English proficiency and content learning at the same time (e.g. Aguilar and Rodriguez 2012; Wong 2010), critical thinking and cognitive development, and, ultimately, enhancing their academic performance and increasing employ­ ability (e.g. Chapple 2015). It has also been argued to provide access to cutting-edge knowledge, help generate income from additional (and often higher) tuition fees paid by international students, increasing staff and student mobil­ ity, and increasing employability of graduates (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017). The benefits of EMI can be divided into those which benefit the staff and/or students at a more personal level, and those which contribute to national and institutional long-term goals and agendas (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Hu, Li and Lei 2014). The latter, which are among the main driving forces of implementing the approach in a variety of HEIs worldwide, include increasing the graduates’ employability, increasing the nation’s competitiveness in global markets, attracting international staff and students to the university, and, thus, raising the universities’ international rankings (e.g. Bradford 2016; Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Hu 2007; Kuwamura 2009; Wilkinson 2013). At the more personal level, EMI has been reported not only to have positive effects both on students’ English acquisition and content learning (e.g. Aguilar and Rodriguez 2012; Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Park 2007; Tatzl 2011; Wong 2010), but also to have a variety of other benefits, including improving cross-cultural understanding and global awareness; (. . .) foster­ ing creative thinking; enriching and enhancing cognitive skills and emo­ tional development; helping students score higher on standardized tests, and enhancing career opportunities. (Chapple 2015: 3)

Internationalisation and English in Japan 139 Among the “personal benefits” that Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri (2017: 23) discuss are also: better access to international conferences, being able to publish in academic journals, increased access to better jobs (both domestically and abroad), and being able to participate in multilingual and multicultural communities. However, notwithstanding the somewhat idealistic view of EMI emerging from the literature, a number of studies have produced results that not only raise concerns about the effectiveness of the approach for language and content learning, but also reveal a variety of challenges to the successful implementation of EMI. Firstly, the benefits that EMI is expected to have on an individual level have been questioned. The most recurrent challenge emerging from these stud­ ies seems to be both staff members’ and students’ insufficient English command in the cases where English is not their mother tongue (e.g. Ball and Lindsay 2013; Beckett and Li 2012; Doiz et al. 2013; Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Hu and Lei 2014; Tange 2010; Wilkinson 2013). In the case of academic faculty, this has been shown to affect both language and disciplinary learning, as the non-native English teachers’ often limited English competence may result in their resorting to the use of their mother tongue or simplifying the course con­ tent in English (Hu and Lei 2014; Tange 2010). Teachers’ English competence has also been reported to influence their ability to address students’ needs and provide explanations of difficult concepts (e.g. Hu and Lei 2014; Sert 2008), and influence the delivery of lectures in English (e.g. Thøgersen and Airey 2011). While these findings may be based on a definition of proficiency in adherence with “native” English norms, (self-assessed) English competence may have det­ rimental effect on the teachers’ self-perceptions and professional identity, as they may often find themselves being “at the interface between institutional demands and students’ expectations” (Tange 2010: 141) and not always able to respond to both. Similarly, English proficiency has also been reported to affect students’ classroom participation, understanding of lectures, ability to effectively study the content and, ultimately, their general attitudes towards EMI, at least in the coun­ tries where English is not considered the official or co-official language (e.g. Doiz et al. 2013; Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Hu and Lei 2014; Tsuney­ oshi 2005; Webb 2002). These challenges have been classified as “linguistic” (Bradford 2016: 341) or “language-related” (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017: 24) challenges. Lan­ guage, however, is only one factor in implementing EMI policy and a number of other “challenges” have been identified in the literature. Bradford (2016), for example, also distinguishes between “cultural” and “structural” challenges (p. 342), which Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri (2017) refer to as “nationality/ culture-related” and “institutional/organizational” challenges (p. 24), respec­ tively. The former include possible challenges resulting from differing back­ grounds and learning traditions, which may give rise to misconceptions about teaching and learning styles and tutor-student relationships in the classroom. Such differences in beliefs or expectations may influence classroom dynamics, sometimes resulting in negative evaluations of instructors’ teaching skills, and of the overall effectiveness of EMI (Tange 2010). This mix of lingua-cultural and

140

Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola Galloway

educational backgrounds may also have a negative effect on the international staff members by invoking a sense of being the outsiders imposing their culture on the students (Bradford 2016). The second group of challenges, “structural” (ibid.) or “institutional/organizational” (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017) chal­ lenges, include the issue of students’ English language assessment, teacher train­ ing (which often fails to prepare the instructors to teach in such settings), the amount of support provided both to staff and students, and the challenging task of recruiting and retaining suitable teaching staff (Bradford 2016; Chapple 2015; Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Tsuneyoshi 2005). These chal­ lenges also include insufficient training in intercultural communication and “few pedagogical guidelines [being available] for effective EMI teaching and learning” (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017: 8). Apart from the aforementioned lan­ guage-related, institutional/organizational and nationality/culture-related chal­ lenges, Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri (2017) also discuss “Materials-related challenges” which may result from the “[ir]relevance of the content class mate­ rials for a given context and [from] the level of English required to study with these materials” (p. 26). Notwithstanding the increasing evidence base of both the challenges and ben­ efits of implementing EMI, these results need to be treated with caution. Firstly, concerns have been raised that implementing EMI is aimed at achieving insti­ tutional goals, such as attracting international staff and students to the univer­ sity, and, thus, raising the universities’ international rankings, at the expense of the quality of content and language learning (Macaro 2015; Tange 2010). Sec­ ondly, the very categorization of challenges is debatable. For example, whether the culture-related aspects of EMI listed earlier have to, indeed, be treated as challenges is an issue open for debate (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017). Scholars who are in line with Phillipson (1992; 2008) and support the theory of linguistic imperialism and raise concerns about the global spread of English as being the evidence of “Anglo-American hegemony” (Modiano 2001: 339) and the powerful oppressing the weak are critical of EMI. Concerns have been raised that EMI may pose a threat to the students’ overall sense of their “identity” with regard to their cultural belonging (Shohamy 2013) or them not using, and not being educated through, their mother tongue (Smith 2004). In addition, research within the field of Global Englishes has highlighted ambivalence of the very concept of proficiency in English today and the relevance of “native” Eng­ lish norms for those learning English in today’s globalized world (Galloway and Rose 2015; Galloway 2017). The growing body of Global Englishes research showcasing how the language functions as a global lingua franca is providing an increasing body of evidence that English as a lingua franca (ELF) is used in rather different ways to what is taught in the “traditional” classroom. Further­ more, the discussions of the aforementioned language-related challenges which see the teachers’ code-switching, or resorting to their mother tongue in com­ munication with the students, as a sign of insufficient English proficiency (e.g. Hu and Lei 2014; Tange 2010) are also evidence of a monolingual ideology that does not value the use of the speakers’ entire multilingual repertoire to

Internationalisation and English in Japan 141 negotiate communication. While this communication strategy, otherwise known as a compensatory strategy, may indeed be adopted to compensate for linguistic limitations, it may also be used by the speaker to cater for his/her interlocutor’s insufficient language command, rather than his/her own (Maleki 2010). Addi­ tionally, code-switching may serve the purpose of explaining difficult grammati­ cal items or developing better rapport by creating a sense of solidarity, and has been increasingly seen as an asset, rather than limitation (e.g. Björkman 2014; Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Ma 2011). Therefore, the teachers’ use of their mother tongue in the EMI classroom should not be taken as evidence for a lack of proficiency in the language, but may be related to their beliefs about what is necessary, and acceptable, when teaching through the medium of Eng­ lish. More studies are needed within the field of EMI that draw on the increasing body of work within the Global Englishes paradigm that showcases the irrel­ evance of “native” English-speaking norms for both English language learning and teaching as well as EMI. Moreover, the existing studies have neither consid­ ered nor explored the students’ beliefs about the role of English in the globalized world, their self-positioning as users of the language or, most importantly, their conceptualization of EMI itself. A question remains, therefore, as to what extent the perceived benefits of EMI, for example, “improving cross-cultural under­ standing”, “enhancing academic progress”, or “helping students score higher on standardized tests” (Chapple 2015: 3), are merely a reflection of beliefs about the superiority of English promoted through education policy, large-scale stand­ ardized tests, etc. Such beliefs may stem from the dominance of English in the academic domain and, of course, the use of English proficiency to determine academic and career success in many contexts. This was the case in Hu and Lei’s (2014) case study of a Chinese university, for example. Interviews with five teach­ ers and 10 students revealed that both groups were aware of a number of benefits of EMI, arguing that it offered “better educational opportunities in the West” (p. 559, emphasis added). Finally, although some studies investigating stake­ holders’ attitudes towards EMI have been conducted in Japan (Chapple 2015; Jon and Kim 2011; Tange 2010; Tsuneyoshi 2005), research is still scarce com­ pared to empirical evidence gathered from European institutions. There are still “not many studies [that] have focused on the ground-level (mis)alignment between EMI as policy and the actual experiences, and attitudes, of key stake­ holders, namely students and faculty” (Hu 2009: 3), particularly in this context. Although arguments both in favor of, and against EMI, which are outlined in this chapter, have been put forward based on the initial findings, they have, argu­ ably, been made prematurely, for it is fair to say that the growth in EMI programs has outpaced research (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017). It is particu­ larly unfortunate that although a growing number of scholars investigating EMI implementation in various contexts engage in discussions of possible benefits and challenges of EMI, surprisingly little attention (although exceptions include, for example, Iino and Murata 2016) has been given to the students’ perceptions of this instructional approach (Po-yung Tsui and Ngo 2017). This includes their conceptualizations of EMI and their general understanding of the very purpose of

142

Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola Galloway

having this instructional approach. Since it is not clear how they define EMI and what they believe its purposes to be, it is difficult, for example, to interpret the available findings related to their supposedly positive (e.g. Costa and Coleman 2013) attitudes towards it. It is also important to compare staff members’ and students’ beliefs about EMI to ensure that both groups are clear about its pur­ poses and, thus, the expectations towards each other. Understanding such indi­ vidual beliefs may help to maximize the value of EMI for these individuals. An investigation into their experiences, expectations and, possibly, challenges with regard to EMI could form the basis for a needs analysis that would ultimately ensure that the program equally benefits them and the institutions where they are based. It would also help to ensure that both of these groups of stakeholders are clear about the purposes of EMI and their own roles in it. To sum up, to consider both staff members’ and students’ conceptualizations of EMI is a crucial prerequisite for investigating its implementation in a given context. It is not possible to interpret the participants’ beliefs about benefits and challenges of EMI without getting to know these subjective perceptions. After all, one’s evaluation of the effectiveness of a certain pedagogical tool is strongly based on his/her understanding of what its purpose and intended outcomes are. The study reported on in this chapter was an attempt to address these subjective evaluations of EMI by investigating the participants’ concep­ tualizations of it.

Design The study reported here forms part of a larger study sponsored by the British Council (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017). The aim was to explore the implementation of, the driving forces behind, and stakeholders’ conceptualiza­ tions of EMI in China and Japan using questionnaires (579 students at 12 univer­ sities, and 28 staff members at eight universities), interviews (28 staff members and 18 students from six universities) and focus groups (four staff members and four student focus groups from four universities). The study also aimed to reveal insights into the use of ELF in the academic domain and the impact of the growth of EMI on teaching practice, teacher training and the overall student experience. In this chapter, we report on an additional three interviews with three PhD stu­ dents, not included in the main study, and four academics in one Japanese uni­ versity to provide some insight into the larger study. We focus on staff members’ and students’ conceptualizations of and experiences with EMI. The three PhD students were all based in the Graduate School of Education. Although some professors teach their courses in English, this is not an official EMI faculty and, therefore, students had varying degrees of exposure to English. Additionally, while the school requires all English education major MA students to submit their dissertations in English, the PhD students can choose whether they write their thesis in Japanese or English. While the majority of the classes are conducted in Japanese, a limited number of classes are taught in English and use English materials (observed in this study). Three professors were also from this

Internationalisation and English in Japan 143 school, where they are not required to do so but teach some of their classes in English voluntarily. On the other hand, the professor from the Graduate School of International Culture and Communication Studies is required to teach all of his courses in English in principle. Data was collected at a top-tier private university in Japan. As a Global 30, and subsequently Type A Super-Global University, the university is a leading institu­ tion in Japan’s internationalization process. There are numerous EMI programs across the entire university and, in 2009, it was selected to be part of the Japa­ nese Government’s Global 30 (MEXT 2012) university project, an initiative that aimed to select 30 universities for internationalization. In the first five-year cycle, 13 top-tier universities were chosen. The goals of the project included expand­ ing programs taught through the medium of English, increase the number of international students, provide opportunities for international students to learn Japanese and promote international cooperation through the establishment of international offices. This university, however, has long been leading the trend in the internationalization process, with the first EMI program being introduced more than two decades ago. However, the Global 30 project, and the subse­ quent Super-Global project, have provided more funding for internationalization efforts (MEXT 2012). Interviews were conducted by one of the authors in May 2016 after establish­ ing initial contacts with The School of Education. The school, which prides itself in having provided teacher education training for over 100 years, at present offers five master’s and two doctoral majors. Although The School of Education is not officially an EMI faculty, some professors do conduct a small number of seminars in English. This university also established one of the first writing support cent­ ers in Japan. The aim of the center is to offer students at all levels guidance and support in relation to academic writing, as well as to enable them to take control of their own development through recognizing and correcting problematic areas in their writing.

Data analysis procedures The interviews were first transcribed and then analyzed with NVivo 10 to ena­ ble the researchers to effectively manage the data by coding and sorting it, and explore it in detail by means of a range of available tests, queries, and tools for visualizing various relationships and patterns within the text. Thematic analysis of the participants’ responses was conducted separately for students’ and teachers’ responses, which were treated as separate “cases”, constituting a process known as “within-case analysis” (Bazeley 2013). Within each data set, the participants’ responses were coded in order to sort the data and inspect common trends and patterns and, thus, to determine the emerging themes based on the frequency with which given codes occurred. These themes were then explored through cross-case comparisons, or cross-tabulating the results of the student and staff interviews. Based on this “cross-case analysis” (ibid.) the thematic framework discussed in the following section was developed.

144

Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola Galloway

Results Although the selected students were all doing their PhDs, they mainly talked about their undergraduate experiences with EMI or the experience of Japanese students studying in EMI in general. They discussed in brief the driving forces of EMI, which they believed to be linked to academic requirements of presenting at conferences and submitting articles in English, as well as the universities’ efforts to internationalize by both sending students abroad and attracting international students. The dominant themes that emerged during the student interviews were, how­ ever, “benefits of EMI” (mentioned five times throughout two interviews) and “challenges of EMI” (mentioned 17 times throughout all three interviews). Although, consistent with some previous findings, the participants expressed awareness of benefits of EMI for themselves and for the university at the theoreti­ cal level (e.g. Costa and Coleman 2013; Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Hu and Lei 2014; Tong and Shi 2012), they seemed more concerned about several possible challenges that could hinder the effective implementation of this type of instruction. This was evident in the percentage of data collected from each student participant that was covered by the accounts of practical challenges, as compared to the accounts of positive experiences or benefits related to EMI, as demonstrated in Table 9.1. The analysis of the interview data related to benefits and challenges of EMI revealed that the participants perceived both in terms of what was labeled “Per­ sonal” and “External” benefits and challenges. This classification was at the basis of the developed thematic framework presented in Figure 9.1. This focus on challenges related to EMI reflected the findings of the broader study, which revealed that although the students shared predominantly positive and optimistic attitudes towards EMI and recognized a number of benefits of this instructional approach on a theoretical level, on a practical level they associated EMI implementation with certain issues and problems (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017). Therefore, as this was the main finding of the larger study, the following subsections present and discuss specifically the challenges and benefits of EMI as indicated by the interviewed students, and complements these findings with the teachers’ perspectives.

Table 9.1 Results of a coding query comparing the coverage of the accounts of chal­ lenges with the accounts of benefits of EMI Participant

Benefits of EMI (% of all data)

Challenges of EMI (% of all data)

Student A Student B Student C

18.92% 22.28% 0%

28.83% 25.39% 40.96%

Figure 9.1 Thematic framework

Large class sizes

Teachers' pedagogical and cultural background

Lack of collabora on between support classes and content teachers

Insufficient support for students

External challenges

Challenges

English language-related difficul es

Personal challenges

Being able to par cipate in interna onal conferences

Being able to publish in academic journals

Personal benefits

Benefits

Sending Japanese students abroad

A ac ng interan onal students to Japanese universi es

External benefits (i.e. benefits for Japanese universi es)

146

Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola Galloway

Benefits of EMI Personal benefits Personal benefits of EMI in general, as well as of their own situation of doing a PhD in English, that the participants recognized were the benefits for their career enhancement (i.e. the easier access to world’s knowledge and the global academic market) by being able to read and write academic journals and participate in international scientific conferences. These perceptions are both in line with the ideal view of EMI, as outlined in the literature, and with the previous findings that suggested that students are aware of the benefits that EMI has to offer (e.g. Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Hu and Lei 2014).

External benefits The external benefits were those related to the benefits of EMI at the institu­ tional level, namely the benefits for the Japanese universities and education sys­ tem (Hu 2007; Kuwamura 2009; Wilkinson 2013). The students were aware of the universities’ goals of both attracting international students and sending their students abroad, as explained by Student A: The university realizes the importance of English. Students need to increase their English proficiency in all skills. Another reason is studying abroad; both for Japanese students to study abroad and international students coming to Japan. Universities need international students. Thus, the students were aware of both the benefits that EMI has for their career and how this matches the universities’ aims to internationalize at the higher level.

Challenges of EMI External challenges Based on the combination of their own experiences with EMI, their current expe­ riences of writing a PhD thesis in English, and their beliefs about, and knowl­ edge of, the Master’s students’ experiences, the participants discussed a group of challenges that resembled the challenges previously discussed in the literature (e.g. Bradford 2016; Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Tsuneyoshi 2005). The “external challenges” were related to various institutional and environmen­ tal constraints and independent of individual “agency”, or the capacity to con­ trol one’s situation through conscious and independent decisions and actions (Barker 2005). This type of challenge resembled some issues that both Brad­ ford (2016) and Tsuneyoshi (2005) referred to as either “cultural” or “struc­ tural” challenges, and Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri (2017) as “Institutional/ organizational” and “Nationality/culture-related” challenges. These included:

Internationalisation and English in Japan 147 insufficient language support provided to students by the university (n=3), lack of collaboration between content and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) teach­ ers (n=2), the teachers’ pedagogical and cultural background being at odds with the requirements of the diverse sociolinguistic environment of the EMI program (n=2), and large class sizes (n=1). With regard to the additional language support offered by the university, all three student participants raised concerns as to the relevance and sufficiency of the provided support for students’ needs. In this case, one student was talking about her own experiences while doing a PhD and the other two seemed to be talking about students in general. Although Student A, who was the most “sat­ isfied” among them, explained that she could count on her PhD supervisor to help, she expressed concerns about the usefulness of the available writing support center, a support service provided in the university to help those students sub­ mitting assignments in English, justifying these doubts with the fact that “some students [later] pay native [English] speakers to correct their papers”. Student B also expressed a critical opinion of the writing support center, stating that “the time [there] is limited and it consists of designing the thesis”. Similar to Student A, although Student B was not satisfied with the additional linguistic support the university offered, he noted that he could rely on his supervisor who was willing to offer help. These opinions about the additional language support offered to students were in line with findings of the larger study (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017), which revealed that students were often critical of such support, even though they were not always fully aware of all the available options. The second “external” challenge, also found in the larger study (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017), was the lack of collaboration between content staff and EAP teachers, which resulted in the students’ feeling that their needs are not sufficiently addressed. The students in the larger study were all undergraduate students and, therefore, comments related to their instructors rather than super­ visors. In this study, Student A felt “lucky” to have a PhD supervisor who had both “skills in content and academic writing”, but she was not convinced that other students were offered this kind of “relevant” support. Although not speci­ fying whether she was talking about her graduate or undergraduate classes, or support provided by the writing center, Student C believed that the EAP content was not relevant to students’ needs and noted a lack of collaboration between EAP and content lecturers. She explained: I do not think the professors are co-operating with the support classes. I feel they should collaborate with each other. The lecturers and supervisors encouraged me to take classes, but they were not linked. Similarly, one of the content teachers, Professor A, who works both in the Gradu­ ate School of Education and the School of Education, admitted that the “bridge courses”, or the undergraduate year 1 and 2 compulsory EAP classes offered to all students within The School of Education, were not sufficient for students. However, as she only followed with a statement that “it takes a while”, it was

148

Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola Galloway

not entirely clear whether she was suggesting that there is a scope for developing and improving these courses, which had only started in the year the interviews were conducted, or whether it takes a while for students to improve their English competence. Earlier in the interview, she did point out that, “outside of school they don’t have a chance to use English (. . .) their school education was gram­ mar based and it’s difficult for them to change their mindset”, implying a belief that language-related challenges stem from previous education and exposure to and use of the language and are not solely related to university support systems. However, all three lecturers who commented on the available language support agreed that both the institutional and personal support was extensive and tailored to their needs. Professor B did point out, however, that it was a newly established program and “we will have to see” how effective it was going to be, even though “the teachers seem positive”. When talking about this support, the lecturers were referring to courses for undergraduate English majors, which consist of com­ pulsory and optional courses aimed at improving English proficiency. They also referred to additional peer support from experienced students who had studied abroad. The lecturers were also confident that the content teachers in different subject areas are aware of some issues related to second language acquisition, and Professor A noted that they had had training on this topic. They also help their students in various ways, including assigning them separate writing and present­ ing tasks to improve their English, or code-switching when difficult content was being discussed. Additionally, the teachers did not seem to share the students’ concerns about the lack of collaboration between the EAP class teachers and content teachers. From the staff interviews it was not clear, however, whether such collaboration existed and, if so, to what extent. When asked about contact with EAP teachers, Professor A responded only: “Yes, I know several faculty members who teach bridge courses” at undergraduate level. It should be pointed out, however, that only one of the professors interviewed, Professor C, worked in an EMI faculty, and supervisions of PhD students in the Graduate School of Education are usu­ ally conducted in Japanese. Thus, although they were being asked about the general EMI policy in the university, their own current positions and experience with this may have influenced their comments. The third group of external challenges that the students reported were those related to the teachers’ educational and cultural traditions and background, which did not necessarily match those required by this new sociolinguistic land­ scape of the internationalized university (e.g. Bradford 2016; Hu and Lei 2014; Tange 2010). These closely resembled the “cultural challenges” described by both Tsuneyoshi (2005) and Bradford (2016), as well as Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri’s (2017) “nationality/culture-related” challenges. In short, the students (n=2) felt that Japanese staff were often not equipped in skills necessary for EMI or for supervising PhD students in English. Student B, for example, expressed concerns that in Japan “most professors [are] over 60 years of age”, “only have a Master’s degree” and, thus, “do not know much about PhDs”. However, he believed that the professors at his university “got their PhDs overseas, so they

Internationalisation and English in Japan 149 [were] knowledgeable”. Student B’s statement arguably reflects one of the find­ ings of the larger study, namely that the participants equated a Western model of education with an adequate model of education, regardless of the context in which it was implemented (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017). Moreover, Galloway, Kriukow, and Numajiri (ibid.) have argued that since the participants seemed to perceive EMI predominantly as an instructional approach aimed at teaching them English, as opposed to teaching through English, they seemed to assume the superiority of native English-speaking teachers over local teachers. Similar to Student B, those participants of the larger study who did believe that their Chinese or Japanese teachers were adequately trained linked this to them having spent time studying and/or working overseas. Student C also referred to Japanese lecturers’ inadequate pedagogical skills to conduct classes in Eng­ lish. The problem was not to do with their academic qualifications, but with their teaching style, which was not seen as appropriate for an internationalized classroom. She believed that, unlike in Western countries where “the lecturers conduct lectures interactively, (. . .) in Japan they only transmit knowledge”. She added that they need more instruction on “cultural elements” of teaching in their training, as from her experience, students could not keep up with lecturers who did not give them opportunities to ask questions. It is important to note, how­ ever, that these comments refer to undergraduate-level EMI, as there are very few lectures at graduate level, and PhD level in particular, at her institution. Interestingly, the topic of limited interaction between lecturers and students was also raised by one of content teachers, Professor D from the Graduate School of Education. She stated, however, that “Japanese students are quiet and they are unfamiliar with exchanging their opinions”, indicating that the lack of inter­ action in EMI classes may be more related to the students than the teachers. Professor D, who teaches several courses in English, was the only member of staff interviewed who explicitly stated that she found implementing EMI dif­ ficult. She noted that it was difficult for students to “change their mindset” from the grammar-based instruction they had received prior to entering the university to this new and more interactive approach expected in an EMI course or pro­ gram. The other two staff members also seemed to recognize potential prob­ lems with adapting to the new “interactive classrooms”, but they talked about them “hypothetically” and discussed staff members “in general”, rather than their own problems. Professor C, from the Graduate School of International Culture and Communication Studies, believed more support was needed for professors to be able to shift from traditional teacher-centered approach to teaching to a more learner-centered teaching style, and Professor B, from the Graduate School of Education, expressed her concern that “being able to speak at conferences [was] different to communicating with students”, noting that it was challeng­ ing for Japanese teachers to use English to communicate content knowledge. This supports the claims that “there are few pedagogical guidelines for effective EMI teaching and learning” (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017: 8) and is in line with the “structural” (Tsuneyoshi 2005) or “institutional/organizational” (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017) challenges previously discussed in the

150

Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola Galloway

literature. The lack of trained and qualified staff has also been found in Chap­ ple’s (2015) study of EMI implementation. It has been argued, in fact, to be the problem in the majority of contexts where EMI has been implemented (Dearden 2015, Tsuneyoshi 2005). Tsuneyoshi (2005), for example, has argued that “find­ ing faculty who [are] both willing and able to present lectures in English” (p. 80) was one of the biggest challenges of implementing EMI. While the faculty mem­ bers in this current study were all educated to a doctoral degree in the Inner Circle higher education institutions, as noted, some felt that they lacked training on how to deliver instruction specifically in EMI contexts.

Personal challenges While the external challenges were those not linked to the participants’ individual agency, the personal challenges were those precisely resulting from their quali­ ties or abilities. In the case of the interviewed students, the only personal chal­ lenge for all three of them was their limited self-assessed English competence, which resembled the previously discussed “linguistic challenges” in Tsuneyoshi’s (2005) taxonomy and the findings from a broad body of previous research into EMI and its challenges (e.g. Chapple 2015; Doiz et al. 2011; Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Hu and Lei 2014). Also all three students talked about their own challenges of writing a PhD in English, rather than expressing a generalized view of Japanese students’ ability to cope with EMI, and believed that it was diffi­ cult and required high level of English proficiency. As previously noted, linguistic challenges that students face in EMI programs are the most frequently found practical challenges of this educational approach (e.g. Ball and Lindsay 2013; Beckett and Li 2012; Doiz et al. 2013; Hu and Lei 2014; Tange 2010; Wilkinson 2013), and have been argued to result in difficulties with understanding lectures and, thus, limited participation in classroom interaction (Webb 2002), problems with time management (Tsuneyoshi 2005), or, ultimately, increased likelihood of dropping out (Selzer and Gibson 2009). It is important to note here, however, that similar problems also apply to students pursuing their PhD’s in Inner Circle countries (Jenkins, this volume) and, thus, should not be viewed as applicable exclusively to EMI contexts (Murata and Iino 2018).

Discussion and conclusion The aim of this current study was to gain insights into the students’ conceptual­ izations of and experiences with EMI. The focus was specifically on PhD students from one HEI reported in the larger study (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017) in order to address the gap in research devoted to this group of students’ experiences with EMI. The study also responded to the lack of research tak­ ing stakeholders’ (i.e. staff members’ and students’) conceptualizations of EMI into consideration (although exceptions include Galloway, Kriukow, and Numa­ jiri 2017 and Po-yung Tsui and Ngo 2017). Thus, although the existing stud­ ies provided important insights into these stakeholders’ experiences with EMI,

Internationalisation and English in Japan 151 their attitudes were not always straightforward to interpret due to lack of clarity regarding their understanding of what EMI is and what purposes it aims to serve. Finally, to date, there has been little research comparing staff members’ and stu­ dents’ attitudes towards and beliefs about EMI within one specific institution (although exceptions include Botha 2013). The results both supported previous findings from the existing literature on the topic and brought attention to previously under-researched issues. Firstly, the interview data confirmed that students tend to be aware of the various ben­ efits and driving forces of EMI (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Hu and Lei 2014). They realized the universities’ motivations for introducing EMI, understood how this instructional approach may benefit the universities and the country in the long run, and had a clear vision of their own role in this pro­ cess by recognizing that a prerequisite for achieving these long-term goals was their own professional success stemming from access to the globalized academic and professional market (Wilkinson 2013). Thus, the participants generally held positive attitudes towards EMI (Costa and Coleman 2013; Tong and Shi 2012). Secondly, this study confirmed many of the previously reported chal­ lenges to EMI (e.g. Bradford 2016; Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Tsuneyoshi 2005), including those related to perceived English language dif­ ficulties, to staff members’ and students’ cultural and pedagogical backgrounds, or to the organization and management of the course. The findings also shed a new light on the notion of structural challenges which remains to be both one of the most problematic and the least researched issues related to EMI (with some notable exceptions including Bradford 2016; Chapple 2015; Hu and Lei 2014). As Chapple (ibid.) argues, implementing EMI is a complex and demanding process that requires a great deal of attention and needs to be skillfully incorporated into the way a given institution functions to be its inte­ gral part, as opposed to being merely an “add-on” (p. 8). From the available secondary data (i.e. the information on the university’s website), as well as from some of the collected data, it was evident that this university does offer a range of courses aimed at supporting its students in EMI, particularly at undergradu­ ate level, and considering that not all HEIs have such an extensive support program (which was evident in Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017), the options at this university in fact appear impressive. However, the data suggests that the problem was not in a number, or lack of additional support classes, but in their content and how relevant to the students’ needs it was. The students expressed their concerns about the effectiveness and relevance of these classes and commented on the discrepancy between the language used and needed in the lectures and in the content of the support courses. As previously noted on several occasions, the majority of the staff members’ and students’ accounts were referring to undergraduate courses, as opposed to doing a PhD in English. Although it is not possible to make generalizations on the basis of this relatively small sample, based on the results of the larger study, Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri (2017) made the same suggestions, which indicates that this is an issue to consider in future studies.

152

Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola Galloway

Another issue that emerged was the important role of the very conceptualiza­ tions of EMI that the study aimed to investigate, and a number of separate beliefs constituting these conceptualizations. These included the participants’ general beliefs about what EMI is, what it encompasses, as well as who should deliver the content knowledge in EMI courses and how this should be done. These beliefs differed between staff and students interviewed in this study. When speaking about cultural challenges, for example, it was evident that the classroom dynamic was at risk because of these differing views; while teachers believed that “Japanese students are quiet and (. . .) unfamiliar with exchanging their opinions”, the stu­ dents believed that it was the lecturers’ responsibility to “encourage students to ask questions” and that it was the lecturers who lacked skills to “conduct lectures interactively” and to successfully deliver content knowledge in a suitable way for an internationalized classrooms. Such seemingly small differences in views may in fact heavily affect classroom dynamics, as well as the students’ perceptions of the teachers’ teaching ability and, as a result, of the effectiveness of a given EMI course in general. Regarding the question of who should teach such courses, it was evident that the students perceived Japanese lecturers as less skilled than their “Western” counterparts. This belief was implicitly communicated in statements such as Student A’s positive comment regarding her Japanese professors, whom she believed to be more competent because of the fact that they had been educated oversees. This confirms that, at least to some extent, there exist some views that Western teaching traditions are intrinsically “better” and, arguably, that native English-speaking teachers are more qualified to teach. It is also noteworthy that while both the students of this study and some literature discussed earlier in this chapter attribute communication strategies such as code-switching or paraphras­ ing to non-native teachers’ insufficient command of English and, thus, their ina­ bility to deliver content knowledge in English (e.g. Hu and Lei 2014; Sert 2008), the teachers in this current study mentioned using these strategies to assist students with understanding difficult concepts. The use of the students’ L1 does not equate to a lack of English proficiency, and this study highlights that the strategic use of the students’ language is often to assist them to comprehend the subject matter. Needless to say, these differing conceptualizations of EMI (cf. Murata and Iino 2018) and what it should encompass may prove very problematic for both staff and students, and may ultimately hinder the higher level (institutional or national) goals related to the internationalization of higher education. The dif­ ferences in viewing the teachers’ role in the classroom, or misinterpreting their efforts to aid the students’ understanding as a sign of their limited English com­ petence or teaching ability, for example, may influence students’ evaluations of the overall quality of a given course and, ultimately, their decision to drop out. It may also influence students’ learning, as students’ “trust” and accept feed­ back from those perceived as knowledgeable and competent in a given domain (Mercer 2011). These differing conceptualizations of EMI may also result in the instructors’ feelings of anxiety and stress, affect their self-confidence and, as a result, their general self-image and a sense of professional identity (Tange 2010).

Internationalisation and English in Japan 153 Teachers, constantly finding themselves in between the students’ expectations and the institution’s requirements, are arguably “the group of university employ­ ees most deeply affected by internationalization” (Tange 2010: 141). Thus, it is equally important to ensure both the students’ and the teachers’ well-being, and to address this issue in future research. This study concludes that more dialog is needed among the stakeholders (i.e. staff members and students) of EMI providing HEIs in order to ensure that the conceptualizations of EMI across these stakeholders are clear and consistent with each other. As the findings have demonstrated, the lack of understanding both between students and teachers, as well as between the content teachers and the English language teachers, may have a negative effect on the overall evaluation of the effectiveness of the course, including the evaluation of the course instruc­ tors’ teaching ability. It is surprising that although understanding these various conceptualizations is arguably one of the most crucial prerequisites in order to successfully deliver, or more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of a given EMI program by ensuring the validity of the participants’ responses, this topic has been widely overlooked and under-estimated in the literature. We conclude with a call for more research.

References Aguilar, M. and R. Rodrıguez 2012. Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15, 183–197. Ball, P. and C. Lindsay 2013. Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education: Learning from a specific context. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English-medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 44–61. Barker, C. 2005. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage.

Bazeley, P. 2013. Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies. London: Sage.

Beckett, G. H. and F. Li 2012. Content-based English education in China: Students’

experiences and perspectives. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education 7, 47–63. Björkman, B. 2010. So you think you can ELF: English as a lingua franca as the medium of instruction. Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication Studies 45, 77–96. Björkman, B. (2014). An analysis of polyadic English as a lingua franca (ELF) speech: A communicative strategies framework. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 122–138. Botha, W. 2013. English-medium instruction at a university Macau: Policy and reali­ ties. World Englishes 32(4), 461–475. Bradford, A. 2016. Toward a typology of implementation challenges facing Englishmedium instruction in higher education: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education 20(4), 339–356. British Council 2013. The English Effect: The Impact of English, What It’s Worth to the UK and Why It Matters to the World. Available from: http://www.british­ council.org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/english-effect-report.pdf [Accessed 10.02.2017].

154

Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola Galloway

Brown, H. (2014). Contextual factors driving the growth of undergraduate Eng­ lish-medium instruction programmes at universities in Japan. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 50–63. Brumfit, C. 2004. Language and higher education: Two current challenges. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 3, 163–173. Byun, K., H. Chu, M. Kim, I. Park, S. Kim and J. Jung 2011. English-medium teach­ ing in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education 62, 431–449. Chapple, J. 2015. Teaching in English is not necessarily the teaching of English. International Education Studies 8(3), 1–13. Costa, F. and J. A. Coleman 2013. A survey of English-medium instruction in Italian higher education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16, 3–19. Dearden, J. 2014 English as a Medium of Instruction – A Growing Phenomenon. Lon­ don: British Council. Dimova, S., A. K. Hultgren and C. Jensen (eds.) 2015. English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra 2011. Internationalisation, multilingualism and English medium instruction. World Englishes 30(3), 345–359. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01718.x Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and J. M. Sierra (eds.) 2013. English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Galloway, N. 2017. Global Englishes and Change in English Language Teaching: Atti­ tudes and Impact. London: Routledge. Galloway, N., J. Kriukow and T. Numajiri 2017. Internationalisation, higher edu­ cation and the growing demand for English: An investigation into the English medium of instruction (EMI) movement in China and Japan. ELT Research Papers. ELT Research Papers 17 February. Galloway, N. and H. Rose 2015. Introducing Global Englishes. London: Routledge. Hamid, M. O., H. T. M. Nguyen and R. B. Baldauf, Jr. 2013. Medium of instruction in Asia: Context, processes and outcomes. Current Issues in Language Planning 14(1), 1–15. Hu, G. 2007. The juggernaut of Chinese – English bilingual education. In A. W. Feng (ed.), Bilingual Education in China: Practices, Policies and Concepts. Clev­ edon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 94–126. Hu, G. 2009. The craze for English-medium education in China: Driving forces and looming consequences. English Today 25(4), 47. Available from http://doi. org/10.1017/S0266078409990472 Hu, G. and J. Lei 2014. English-medium instruction in Chinese higher education: A case study. Higher Education 67(5), 551–567. Hu, G., L. Li and J. Lei 2014. English-medium instruction at a Chinese university: Rhetoric and reality. Language Policy 13(1), 21–40. Iino, M. and K. Murata 2016. Dynamics of ELF communication in an Englishmedium academic context in Japan: From EFL learners to ELF users. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Concep­ tualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 111–131. Jensen, C. and J. Thøgersen 2011. Danish university lecturers’ attitudes towards Eng­ lish as the medium of instruction. Ibérica 22, 13–34.

Internationalisation and English in Japan 155 Jon, J. -E. and Kim, E. -Y. (2011). What it takes to internationalize higher education in Korea and Japan: English-mediated courses and international students. In J. D. Palmer, A. Roberts, Y.-H. Cho and G. S. Ching (Eds.), The Internationalization of East Asian Higher Education (pp. 147–171). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Kuwamura, A. 2009. The challenges of increasing capacity and diversity in Japanese higher education through proactive recruitment strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education 13(2), 189–202. Ma, L. P. 2011. Strengths and weaknesses of NESTs and NNESTs: Perceptions of NNESTs in Hong Kong. Linguistics in Education 23, 1–15. Macaro, E. 2015. English medium instruction: Time to start asking some difficult questions. Modern English Teacher 24(2), 4–7. Maleki, A. 2010. Techniques to teach communication strategies. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 1(5), 640–646. Mercer, S. 2011. Towards an Understanding of Language Learner Self-Concept. Dordrecht: Springer. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). 2012. Higher Education in Japan. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Higher Education Bureau. Modiano, M. 2001. Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL, ELT Journal 55(4), 339–347. Murata, K. and M. Iino 2018. EMI in higher education: An ELF perspective. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. New York: Routledge, pp. 400–412. Park, H. 2007. English medium instruction and content learning. English Language and Linguistics 23, 257–274. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2008). Lingua franca or lingua frankensteina? English in European integration and globalisation. World Englishes 27(2), 250–267. Po-yung Tsui, A. and Ngo, H. 2017. Students’ perceptions of English-medium instruction in a Hong Kong university. Asian Englishes 19(1), 57–78. Selzer, M. and I. Gibson 2009. Preparing Japanese students for English-medium instruction in international studies: Methodology and practice in the IIIS interna­ tional public service program. Ritsumeikan Journal of International Studies 22(1), 127–140. Sert, N. 2008. The language of instruction dilemma in the Turkish context. System 36, 156–171. Shohamy, E. 2013. A critical perspective on the use of English as a medium of instruction at universities. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 196–210. Smith, K. 2004. Studying in an additional language: What is gained, what is lost and what is assessed? In R. Wilkinson (ed.), Integrating Content and Language: Meet­ ing the Challenge of a Multilingual Higher Education. Maastricht: Universitaire pers, pp. 78–93. Tange, H. 2010. Caught in the Tower of Babel: University lecturers’ experiences with internationalisation. Language and Intercultural Communication 10(2), 137–149. Tatzl, D. 2011. English-medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of applied sciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges. Journal of English for Aca­ demic Purposes 10, 252–270.

156

Jaroslaw Kriukow and Nicola Galloway

Thøgersen, J. and J. Airey 2011. Lecturing undergraduate science in Danish and in English: A comparison of speaking rate and rhetorical style. English for Specific Purposes 30, 209–221. Tong, F. and Q. Shi 2012. Chinese-Englishnalysedl education in China: A case study of college science majors. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilin­ gualism 15, 165–182. Tsuneyoshi, R. 2005. Internationalization strategies in Japan: The dilemmas and pos­ sibilities of study abroad programs using English. Journal of Research in Interna­ tional Education 4, 65–86. Wächter, B. and Maiworm, F. 2014. English-Taught Programs in European Higher Education. The State of Play in 2014. Bonn, Germany: Lemmens. Webb, V. 2002. English as a second language in South Africa’s tertiary institutions: A case study at the University of Pretoria. World Englishes 21, 49–61. Wilkinson, R. 2013. English-medium instruction at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 3–24. Wong, R. 2010. The effectiveness of using English as the sole medium of instruction in English classes: Student responses and improved English proficiency. Porta Lin­ guarum 13, 119–130.

10 ‘English’-medium instruction in a Japanese university Mayu Konakahara et al.‘English’-medium instruction

Exploring students’ and

lectures’ voices from an ELF

perspective1

Mayu Konakahara, Kumiko Murata,

Masakazu Iino

Introduction This chapter investigates university students’ and lecturers’ attitudes towards English-medium instruction (EMI) and ‘English’ used in EMI classes in a Japa­ nese university from the perspective of English as a lingua franca (henceforth, ELF). With the acceleration of globalization, English is increasingly used as a lingua franca among people from diverse linguacultural backgrounds in a range of international settings. This trend is also observed in the context of Japanese ter­ tiary education, where EMI is increasingly promoted by the government, aiming to internationalize universities by attracting more international students as well as to make Japanese students ‘global’ human resources (MEXT 2011, 2014, see also Iino, this volume). The actual conditions of EMI as well as the use of ‘English’ in EMI classes, however, are not yet explicitly discussed, in particular, by taking into account participants’ views and the role of ELF in the globalized world (except Jenkins 2014, Smit 2010). Accordingly, this research aims to explore students’ and lecturers’ voices in EMI classes from an ELF perspective on the basis of the qualitative analysis of questionnaire responses of the participants. Two types of research sites, which differ in the status of implementation of EMI, were selected for the purpose of the research: an EMI faculty and two nonEMI faculties. The former faculty adopts an EMI policy and conducts almost all academic content classes at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels in Eng­ lish. In the latter faculties, only several instructors offer academic content classes in English on a voluntary basis – in the academic year of 2015, when the pre­ sent research was conducted – otherwise the major medium of instructions being Japanese. For the sake of simplicity, we will call the former an EMI programme (EMI-P) and the latter an EMI course (EMI-C). In addition to the status of the EMI policy, the EMI-P and the EMI-C differ in linguacultural diversity in their student population and faculty members. Although the majority of students and

158

Mayu Konakahara et al.

instructors in both types of faculty are Japanese with varying degree of experi­ ences in using English (or rather ELF) because of differences in their educational backgrounds and overseas experiences, those in the EMI-P are more linguacul­ turally diverse than those in the EMI-C. For example, in the academic year of 2015, when the current research was conducted, approximately 30 per cent of students in the EMI-P were from various countries/regions, largely from nonEnglish-speaking Asian countries such as China and Korea. In the EMI-C, on the other hand, less than 2 per cent of its students were international, and thus its environment was relatively homogeneous. In a similar vein, one-third of the faculty members in the EMI-P were from 10 different non-Japanese countries, while only a few members in the EMI-C were international. Moreover, the EMI-P officially adopts a one-year study abroad policy – this is not the case in the EMI-C – and thus enhances diversity particularly in terms of its students’ study abroad destinations and the possibility of being exposed to ELF communication and acquiring additional languages in addition to their first languages and ‘Eng­ lish’. The present research was carried out in these two different types of faculties and explored how the different EMI and linguacultural environments affected students’ and lecturers’ attitudes towards and opinions about EMI and ‘English’ used in EMI classes from the perspective of ELF. In the following sections, we will first review previous research into EMI. This includes a brief review of background to EMI research and definitions of EMI. After introducing respondents and method of the present research, the findings regarding the two aspects, namely the respondents’ attitudes towards EMI and those towards ‘English’ used in EMI classes, will be discussed.

Previous research into EMI Background to EMI research EMI programmes and courses have recently increased drastically or are still increasing the world over due to the acceleration of globalization, which was led first by European countries triggered by the ERASUMS project and strength­ ened further by the Bologna declaration2 (1999, Björkman 2011, 2016, Coleman 2006, Cots, Llurda and Garrett 2014, Dafouz and Smit 2016, Doiz, Lasagabas­ ter and Sierra 2011, 2013, Hynninen 2012, Jenkins 2014, this volume, Kuteeva, this volume, Ljosland 2011, Mauranen 2012, Seidlhofer 2010, Smit 2010, this volume, Smit and Dafouz 2012). On the other hand, EMI is also becoming popular in Asian contexts. In par­ ticular, the ASEAN nations are ahead of other Asian nations in conducting EMI programmes, their official language of communication being English. The ten­ dency is even stronger in the former British colonies such as Brunei, Singapore and Malaysia, albeit not being limited to them (Kirkpatrick 2010, 2012). East Asian countries such as China and Korea also started promoting EMI in the late 1990s together with the introduction of English education at primary level, being very responsive to the trend of globalization and the mobility of future

‘English’-medium instruction

159

workforce (see, for example, Butler and Iino 2005, Hu 2005, 2009, Hu and McKay 2012, Iino 2010, this volume, Park, J-K. 2009, this volume, Park, K-J. 2009, Wang 2015, this volume). The Japanese government started promoting EMI approximately 10 years after China and Korea did so by introducing the Global 30 Project (MEXT 2011; see also Hino, this volume, Iino 2012, this volume, Iino and Murata 2016, Oda, this volume), in which 13 designated universities were provided with special funding from the government to start running EMI programmes and courses to attract more international students as well as making their home students get used to communicating in ‘English’. The policy was expanded recently by the introduc­ tion of yet another big project entitled the Top Global University Project, which selected 37 universities (Top Type, 13 and Global Traction Type, 24) in total and provided them with substantial funding for the implementation of EMI programmes, courses and other related matters in order to ‘enhance the interna­ tional compatibility and competitiveness of higher education in Japan’ (MEXT 2014: 1). However, in the government’s policy documents, the nature of the E (English) in EMI is never explicitly discussed, although they clearly state the importance of ‘English’ to educate students to be competitive in the globalized world. It is thus assumed that there is just one ‘English’, which is the ‘E’ of native speakers. Under these circumstances, there is great necessity for closely examining and assessing the reality of EMI situations with qualitative surveys in order to inves­ tigate what is actually happening in these situations, how and to what extent students are benefiting from EMI, and what should be done or improved to make them globally minded citizens in a real sense. This is what we are aiming to explore in this chapter by introducing the findings of the current research. How­ ever, before doing so, some definitions of EMI and a brief review of the research field will be discussed in the following sections.

Definitions of EMI: from an ELF perspective EMI has not necessarily been explicitly defined by many of EMI scholars (e.g., see Dafouz and Smit 2016, Doiz, Lasagabaster, and Sierra 2013, Björkman 2016, Shohamy 2013). When definitions are given, they superficially appear straight­ forward. For example, Dearden (2014: 2, 4), who surveyed EMI situations in 55 countries around the world with support from the British Council, defines it as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English’. This definition, however, is not necessarily appropriate for the aim of the current research for two reasons. First, it does not take an ELF perspec­ tive into consideration and thus the ‘E’ of EMI is solidly and without any doubt based on native speakers’ ‘E’. Second, her definition is slightly narrow, if we consider the increasing tendency of English being used in diverse situations as a medium of instruction the world over (see Murata and Iino 2018). Murata and Iino (2018) argue that the following situations should also be taken into account:

160

Mayu Konakahara et al.

(1) teaching in English medium in the environment where students and instruc­ tors mostly share the same linguacultural backgrounds, (2) teaching in English medium in English-related departments, and (3) EMI situations in English as a native language (ENL) international universities, where the majority of students are often from overseas, particularly at graduate level (e.g., Jenkins 2014, this volume). Of these, the first two situations are particularly related to the current research, which examined EMI in a Japanese university setting. Another point to be noted in Dearden’s (2014: 4) definition is clear demarca­ tion between EMI and content and language integrated learning (CLIL). While EMI does not have a clear objective of language teaching/learning, CLIL simul­ taneously has a language and content-teaching/learning objective, although it is similar to EMI when CLIL’s target language is English in that it focuses on content teaching via the English language. It is thus worth noting here that CLIL is not limited to English (see Smit and Dafouz 2012), other languages are also being taught through CLIL. The two, however, might not be clearly demarcated as the questionnaire results of students’ and lecturers’ survey in EMI situations to be introduced later in the chapter indicates. Taking the above mentioned characteristics of EMI in mind, we define EMI in this chapter, along with Murata and Iino (2018), as ‘English-medium instruction conducted in the context, where English is used as a lingua franca for contentlearning/teaching among students and lecturers from different linguacultural back­ grounds albeit not exclusively so’ (p. 404). Here, however, the phrase ‘albeit not exclusively so’ is important, as, to quote from Murata and Iino (2018:404) again, EMI is used widely in so called ‘EFL’ countries in a traditional term, where it is primarily introduced to attract international students as well as home stu­ dents who want to have more exposure to globally used English as a lingua franca while residing in their own home countries. This is applicable, in the EMI situations, such as China, Korea and Japan (see D’Angelo, this volume; Hino, this volume; Hu 2005, 2009; Hu and McKay 2012; Iino 2012, Iino and Murata 2016, Park, J-K 2009, this volume; Park, K-J 2009, Wang 2015). Having briefly defined what is meant by ‘EMI’ in this chapter, we now move on to specific issues emerged in our research on EMI, focusing, in particular, on the participants’ voices based on questionnaires administered to both students and faculty members.

The study Methods For the purpose of this research, online questionnaires, which mainly consist of open-ended questions, were administered to students and lecturers in an EMI fac­ ulty, where all academic content classes at both undergraduate and postgraduate

‘English’-medium instruction

161

Table 10.1 Details of eight types of questionnaires

Student questionnaires

Lecturer questionnaires

EMI-C

EMI-P

15 items + background questions (Japanese and English versions) 18 items + background questions (Japanese and English versions)

13 items + background questions (Japanese and English versions) 17 items + background questions (Japanese and English versions)

levels are basically conducted in English (EMI-P), and those taking or conduct­ ing EMI content classes in two non-EMI faculties (EMI-C). For data collection, Google Forms was used to create the questionnaires in order to collect responses efficiently, but paper-based questionnaires were also prepared to improve con­ venience on the part of respondents. In total, eight types of questionnaires were produced, targeting students and lecturers in each of the faculties where the state of implementation of EMI classes differs, as mentioned earlier. Different ques­ tion items were set for EMI-C students and EMI-P students, as was also done for lecturers, which resulted in creating four types of questionnaires. In addition, not only Japanese versions but also English versions of the same questionnaires were produced so that international students and lecturers could also answer. Table 10.1 summarizes the details of the eight types of questionnaires. Both student and lecturer questionnaires were administered from the end of October to the beginning of November 2015. The student questionnaires were distributed to students either by one of the authors or lecturers conducting EMI classes. As for the lecturer questionnaires, both an e-mail containing a link to the online questionnaires and paper-based questionnaires were distributed to lectur­ ers so that they could choose either of the ways. As a result, 115 students – 76 and 39 students, respectively, in the EMI-C and EMI-P faculties – participated in the survey. As for the lecturer respondents, only six lecturers, four in EMI-C and two in EMI-P, participated in the survey. Table 10.2 shows a breakdown of the details of student respondents in terms of their years, home countries and first languages by the targeted groups. The data were mainly analyzed in their contents (Schreier 2012). The focus of the present analysis will be on the students’ responses due to the limited number of responses collected from the lecturers. The lecturers’ responses will be supple­ mentarily presented and discussed where appropriate. In the analysis, subject codes are used to keep the anonymity of the student respondents. The codes consist of six types of information: 1) the code of their faculty (i.e., EMI-C or EMI-P), 2) the number of respondents in their faculty, 3) their year, 4) nationality, 5) first language, and 6) the experience of staying abroad followed by the information on the names of countries and the number

162

Mayu Konakahara et al.

Table 10.2 Student respondents’ year, home countries and first languages by targeted groups Home country (L1)*

Year** U1

EMI-C

EMI-P

Total

JP(jpn) US(eng) N/A(n/a) Total JP(jpn,tha) JP(jpn) CN(chi) HK(can) KR(kor) PH(eng) SG(eng) CA(can) N/A Total

0 1 7

U2

U3

U4

U5+ M1

29

27 1

12

2

3

29

28

12

1 3

3

16

4

1 2 1 1 13 13

Total M2

0 29

N/A 1

0 1

1

1 17 45

D

0

1

1 1

1 5 17

0 3

1 4

1 1

2 2

0 1

74 1 1 76 1 28 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 39 115

* Country codes were used to represent the names of the respondents’ home countries, and the first three letters of the names of their first languages (but ‘jpn’ was used for the Japanese language). ** U, M and D in the year columns respectively stand for undergraduate, master and doctoral students.

of years they stayed in each country. For example, the subject code ‘EMI-C18­ U3-JP(jpn)-Y_SE1’ means the 18th EMI-C student, who is in her/his third year, originally from Japan, uses Japanese as her/his first language, and has one-year experience of staying in Sweden (see the notes in Table 10.2). As for the lec­ turer respondents, the type of their faculty and the number of respondents in their faculty preceded by ‘L’ indicating lecturers are used as subject codes (e.g., EMI-C-L3). In the following section, the findings of the present research will be presented and discussed.

Findings and discussion In this section, the findings regarding attitudes towards EMI and then those towards ‘English’ used in EMI classes will be presented and discussed.

Attitudes towards EMI By and large, both students and lecturers show fairly positive attitudes towards EMI. Table 10.3 shows the students’ responses to the question inquiring about their agreement or disagreement with EMI (EMI-C-Q2, EMI-P-Q2).

‘English’-medium instruction

163

Table 10.3 Students’ dis/agreement with EMI (EMI-C-Q2, EMI-P-Q2) Response alternatives

EMI-C

EMI-P

Agree To some extent agree I would rather disagree I disagree (Japanese should be used as medium of instruction) Total

39 29 7 1

51.3% 38.2% 9.2% 1.3%

24 12 3 0

61.5% 30.8% 7.7% 0.0%

76

100.0%

39

100.0%

As can be seen in the table, approximately 90 per cent of the students in each group agree with EMI. In a similar vein, four of the six lecturers agree with EMI, and two of them agree with it to some extent. It was found, however, that the students and the lecturers differ in reasons for agreement with EMI. While the students tend to focus more on language learning, and this tendency is more prominent among the EMI-C students, the lecturers tend to focus on content teaching/learning, paying attention to stu­ dents’ acquisition of subject-specific knowledge and academic literacy given the objective of EMI. The following are examples of the students and the lecturers’ comments.

Examples of the students’ comments: •

[I take EMI classes because] EMI leads to improving English ability.3 「英語力の向上につながるため」(EMI-C-Q2: EMI-C 26-U2-JP(jpn)-N)

•

[I take EMI classes because] I can acquire communication ability in English. 「英語でのコミュニケーション能力を身につけられるから」(EMI-P­ Q2: EMI-P3-U1-JP(jpn)-Y_US2)

An example of the lecturers’ comments: •

[I conduct EMI classes] because textbooks we use are written in English, and I think that it is useful for students, particularly for their future, to learn terminologies and subject-specific knowledge in English. 「使用している教科書が英語であること、また英語で専門用語や専門知識 を学ぶことは将来的に学生にとって役立つことであると考えるから」 (EMI-C-L3)

As can be seen in the above mentioned comments, the students focus more on language learning regarding EMI classes as an opportunity to improve their

164

Mayu Konakahara et al.

own English ability. This tendency is widely observed in their responses to the questions inquiring about reasons for taking EMI classes (EMI-C-Q1) and favourable attitudes towards EMI (EMI-C-Q2, EMI-P-Q2), as well as advan­ tages of EMI (EMI-C-Q11, EMI-P-Q10). As shown earlier, the lecturers, on the other hand, value the acquisition of subject-specific terminology and knowl­ edge through EMI, focusing more on content learning. Having briefly reported on the difference between the lecturers and the students, we will now elaborate differences found among the student populations. First, as briefly mentioned earlier, the focus on language learning is more prominent among the EMI-C students than the EMI-P students. This tendency is evident, for example, in their motivations for choosing the EMI class or programme. The EMI-C students’ top two motivations for choosing EMI classes are 1) their interest in the content of the EMI class and 2) their desire for improv­ ing English ability (EMI-C-Q1; multiple-choice questions). The majority of the EMI-P students, on the other hand, cite the following two points as motivation for choosing the EMI programme: 1) compulsory one-year study abroad within their four-year undergraduate programme, and 2) studying content-specific sub­ jects in English while studying in Japan (EMI-P-Q1; multiple-choice questions). While this difference is, at least partially, owing to the different implementation status of EMI in each group, it also suggests that the improvement of English ability is a primary objective for the EMI-C students, their interest in content being a pre-requisite. The EMI-P students, on the other hand, are more aware of the benefit of the content-learning of EMI, language improvement being a secondary objective. In addition, the close examination of both the EMI-C and EMI-P students’ responses has revealed a qualitative difference between their opinions, although they both cite the improvement of their English ability as advantages of taking EMI classes. That is, while many of the EMI-C students value the opportunity to be exposed to English through EMI, EMI-P students value the opportunity to use English more. The following are some examples of such comments from the EMI-C students: •

[EMI] expands the opportunity to be exposed to living English. 「生きた英語に触れる機会が増える為」(EMI-C-Q1:EMI-C63-U4-JP(jpn)-N)

•

[Through EMI,] I can be exposed to professional English. 「専門性のある英語に触れられる」(EMI-C-Q2: EMI-C23-U2-JP(jpn)-N)

•

[EMI has] the advantage that I can be exposed to English on a daily basis. 「普段から英語に触れることができるというメリットがある」( EMI-C-Q11: EMI-C44-U2-JP(jpn)-N)

It should be noted here that these comments are made by Japanese students with no study or stay abroad experience. This suggests that EMI is a very good

‘English’-medium instruction

165

opportunity for them to ‘be exposed to English’. On the other hand, the EMI-P students value the opportunity to use English, as these examples show: •

We can use English through [EMI] classes. 「 授 業 を 通 し て 英 語 を 使 う こ と が で き る 」 ( EMI-P-Q2: EMI-P27-D-JP(jpn)-Y_MY4)

•

Using English as a tool to do something leads to learning practical English. 「英語を何かを行う上でのツールとして使うことは実用的な英語を学ぶ ことに繋がると考えるから」(EMI-P-Q2: EMI-P5-U1-JP(jpn)-N)

These comments suggest that the EMI-P students evaluate the opportunity to actively use English through EMI at their faculty, where the whole programme is conducted in English. It is worth noting here that the demand for EMI seems high among the EMI-C students. In response to the question inquiring about their willingness to actively take EMI classes if there are more options of classes (EMI-C-Q12), the majority of the students answer positively (see Table 10.4). As can be seen in Table 10.4, 93.4 per cent of the students, including those who have selected ‘It depends on contents of class’, answer that they would like to actively take EMI classes. Moreo­ ver, the further analysis has revealed that the EMI-C students have a strong desire to actually use English through EMI. This is evident in the comments on teaching styles, which take discussion in EMI classes positively, as these examples show: •

I can keep my interest if there is discussion after a lecture. 「講義の後にディスカッションがあると最後まで飽きない」(EMI-C­ Q4c: EMI-C65-U2-JP(jpn)-N)

•

I think that exchanging opinions with other students is good because I can look at things from various viewpoints. 「他の生徒と意見を交換するによって様々な視点で物事を考えられるこ とができるのでいいと思う」(EMI-C-Q4c: EMI-C68-U2-JP(jpn)-N)

Table 10.4 EMI-C students’ willingness to actively take EMI classes (EMI-C-Q12) Response alternatives

f

%

Yes It depends on contents of class. No I want to avoid taking them. N/A Total

21 50 4 1 76

27.6% 65.8% 5.3% 1.3% 100.0%

166

Mayu Konakahara et al.

As observed in the above mentioned comments, the EMI-C students value the opportunity for discussion, during which they can actually use English. These find­ ings indicate that the demand for EMI is fairly high among the EMI-C students. In relation to this point, teaching styles used in EMI classes are reported to largely depend on class sizes. While lecturing is mainly used in EMI large-class lectures, discussions and students’ presentations are more frequently introduced in small-sized seminars (EMI-C-Q4). This suggests that it is also important to exploit a range of teaching styles on the one hand and adjust the size of classes on the other hand. Another striking difference between the EMI-C and EMI-P students is that the latter have more diverse opinions about EMI than the former. While the EMI-C students, as discussed earlier, primarily regard EMI as the opportunity to improve their English ability, the EMI-P students are more aware of other benefits of EMI ascribing them to the rich international environment of the faculty (its details will be shown later). This is observed, for example, in the following comments: •

By learning in English, we can obtain not only ideas based on Japanese perspectives, but also those based on foreign perspectives from international members. 「英語で学ぶことによって日本人による日本的なアイディアだけでなく、国際 的なメンバーと海外からの視点も踏まえて学ぶことができるから」 (EMI­ P-Q2: EMI-P18-U3-JP(jpn)-Y_SE1)

•

I can listen to international students’ talk and know diverse culture through it. 「留学生の話も聞け、多様な文化を知ることができる」(EMI-P-Q2: EMI-P3-U1­ JP(jpn)-Y_US2)

Here, the students value the opportunity to listen to various opinions and views based on linguacultural diversity of students and staff. Moreover, some of the EMI-P students, international students in particular, state the important role of English in the globalized world as one of the benefits of EMI, as these examples show: •

•

‘English is the main language used for business and is also spoken in the most number of countries compared to other languages’. (EMI-P-Q2: EMI-P34-U1-SG(eng)-Y_MY2,SG16) ‘English level of Japanese will be greatly improved. I[t] is more common to use English in their life that may even boost the growth of tourism as well as other business corporations’. (EMI-P-Q10: EMI-P39-U1-HK(can)-N)

It is interesting to note that the above mentioned comments are made by inter­ national students from Singapore and Hong Kong, where English is frequently used as a lingua franca among people with diverse backgrounds. As briefly mentioned earlier, one of the reasons for more diverse opinions being found among the students in the EMI-P faculty than those in EMI-C faculty is its rich international environment. While the ratio of international students in the

‘English’-medium instruction

167

EMI-C faculty remains less than 2 per cent, that in the EMI-P faculty is about 30 per cent of the student population of the faculty. The same observation is applica­ ble to the respondents of the current questionnaires. As shown in Table 10.2 pre­ sented earlier, all the EMI-C students except two are native speakers of Japanese. In the case of the EMI-P faculty, while the majority of the students are native speakers of Japanese, some students have diverse backgrounds, for example, hav­ ing both Japanese and Thai as first languages or coming from various countries in Asia such as Korea, China, the Philippines, Singapore and Hong Kong. In a simi­ lar vein, linguacultural diversity of international faculty members is greater in the EMI-P faculty than the EMI-C. While there are only a few international lecturers in the EMI-C faculty, one-third of the faculty members are from overseas in the EMI-P faculty. Although 15 per cent of them are from the Inner Circle (Kachru 1985, 1992), the rest of them are from the Outer and Expanding Circles such as China, Korea, Malaysia and France (see also Murata, Iino, Konakahara forth­ coming). In addition, given that one-year study abroad from the sophomore to junior years is compulsory in the EMI-P faculty, the EMI-P students actually use English in linguaculturally diverse environments more than the EMI-C students. This leads to the EMI-P students’ diverse, positive opinions about EMI. Having discussed the attitudes towards EMI, we will now focus on how stu­ dents perceive ‘English’ used in EMI classes in the next section.

Attitudes towards ‘English’ used in EMI classes This section discusses the findings regarding students’ attitudes towards ‘English’ used in EMI classes, focusing particularly on classmates’ and lecturers’ English. The results have revealed that similar to the attitudes towards EMI, the EMI-P students have more diverse opinions about ‘English’ than the EMI-C students. Given the high ratio of international students and faculty members introduced earlier, the EMI-P students have more opportunities for being exposed to diverse English. This leads to their greater awareness towards the ‘English’ used among them. We will first discuss the findings of the attitudes towards classmates’ English. Some of the EMI-P students assess it positively, valuing intelligibility and com­ municative effectiveness over ‘correctness’ and ‘native’-like accents. The follow­ ing are some examples of such comments: •

•

There are a lot of returnees in [the EMI-P] with extremely good Eng­ lish. And for most of the students here, we can have conversations smoothly even though we may have some grammar mistakes. (EMI-P-Q6: EMI-P39­ U1-HK(can)-N) Those who say they have never been abroad to study are sometimes hard to understand but usually no problem in making communication or talking. (EMI-P-Q6: EMI-P32-U1-KR(kor)-N)

Although the above mentioned EMI-P students still subconsciously judge their classmates’ English from the perspective of English as a native language,

168

Mayu Konakahara et al.

they focus more on communication. It is interesting to note that both of the above mentioned comments are made by international students, and show similarity to the positive comments on linguacultural diversity of the students and faculty members introduced in the previous section. Furthermore, as shown in the following examples, one Japanese student even explicitly values the opportunity to be exposed to diverse English: •

Although their English is diverse depending on their backgrounds, it is a good opportunity to be exposed to diverse English. 「バックグラウンドによって英語は様々だが、色々な英語に触れられるとい う意味で良い」(EMI-P-Q6: EMI-P18-U3-JP(jpn)-Y_SE1)

Not all the students positively assess diverse English of their classmates, how­ ever. As can be observed in the following examples, some of the EMI-P students downgrade accented English, regarding it as difficult to understand: •

It is often difficult to understand [what the classmates said] because they speak English in different accents depending on their mother tongues. 「母国[sic]によってアクセントや発音のくせが違うため、話が理解できないこと がしばしばある」(EMI-P-Q6: EMI-P5-U1-JP(jpn)-N)

•

It is sometimes difficult to understand [classmates’ English] due to differ­ ences in pronunciation depending on their backgrounds. 「出身による発音の違いなどで分かりにくいときはある」(EMI-P-Q6:EMI-P24­ U3-JP(jpn)-Y_IT1)

These comments on the other hand simultaneously suggest that it is important to provide students with the opportunity to be exposed to diverse English in EMI and even in English language teaching settings because they will have many opportunities to be exposed to such English in their actual international com­ munication in today’s globalized world. Some of the EMI-C students, too, assess their classmates’ English positively, valuing intelligibility more than correctness, and thus show ELF-oriented attitudes to some extent. The following are some examples of comments which value intelligibility: •

Although [their English is] Japanese-accented, we can communicate. 「日本語なまりではあるけれど、意思疎通はできている」(EMI-C-Q7: EMI-C9­ U3-JP(jpn)-N)

•

I feel people who try to convey their message have more English ability even if [their English is] not correct. 「正しくなくても伝えようとする人の方が英語力があるように感じる」(EMI-C-Q7: EMI-C30-U3-JP(jpn)-N)

‘English’-medium instruction •

169

Although their English is not correct, we can understand each other. 「正しくはないが、お互い言いたいことは理解できる」（EMI-C-Q7: EMI­ C38-U3-JP(jpn)-N)

In the above mentioned examples, while each of the comments is positive as a whole, the expressions such as ‘Japanese-accented’ and ‘not correct’ imply that the respondents subconsciously judge their classmates’ English from the perspec­ tive of native-speaker norms. On the other hand, the majority of the EMI-C students evaluate their Japanese English negatively. The following are examples of such comments, which downgrade Japanese-accented English: •

There are many classmates who speak Japanese English and do not try to correct it. This may be because they have few opportunities to talk with foreigners. 「日本語英語の人が多く、それを直そうと努力しない人が多い気がす る。恐らく、外国人と英語で話す機会が少ないからだ思われる」 （EMI-C-Q7: EMI-C63-U4-JP(jpn)-N)

•

Their pronunciation is bad. Those who grew up in Japan have bad pronunciation. 「発音が悪い。日本で育った人は発音が悪い人が多い」(EMI-C-Q7: EMI-C7­ U4-JP(jpn)-Y_CN12)

•

Some classmates speak heavy Japanese English. It is sometimes difficult to understand them. 「日本人英語が過ぎる子もいる。たまにわかりづらい」(EMI-C-Q7: EMI­ C22-U4-JP(jpn)-N)

Similar to the prior examples, it is obvious that the comments like ‘do not try to correct it’ and ‘pronunciation is bad’ are made with reference to the pronuncia­ tion of native English speakers, based on which the students have learned Eng­ lish at secondary school level. Given the small number of international students in the faculty, the majority of the EMI-C students have fewer opportunities to be exposed to diverse English in EMI than the EMI-P students. This results in assessing Japanese-accented English negatively on the basis of native-speaker norms, which they have been learning. This suggests that there is an urgent need to provide students with the opportunity to listen to diverse English as well as to actually use English in such context in order to correspond to diversity in the globalized world they are likely to face in the future. In addition, the analysis of the EMI-C students’ comments on their classmates’ English has raised methodological and contextual issues in running EMI courses. That is, it has revealed that the students, in the first place, have few opportunities to communicate with their peers in English.

170 •

Mayu Konakahara et al. Students do not use English. 「学生が英語を使うことはない」(EMI-C-Q7: EMI-C37-U4-JP(jpn)-N)

•

I do not know [about classmates’ English] because there are few opportuni­ ties to speak in English among classmates. 「自分たちで英語を発する機会はあまりないのでわかりません」(EMI­ C-Q7: EMI-C68-U2-JP(jpn)-N)

•

My classmates do not speak English. We always speak in Japanese. 「クラスメイトは英語を話さない。常に日本語で話す」(EMI-C-Q7: EMI­ C69-U3-JP(jpn)-N)

As discussed in the previous section, the EMI-C students desire the opportunity for discussion in EMI classes. This in turn implies that currently they do not necessarily have such opportunities.4 Having this in mind, the above mentioned comments suggest that it is necessary to make it natural for the students to hold discussion in English. This could be made possible by increasing the number of international students from various linguacultural backgrounds and/or letting international teaching assistants participate in discussion in class. Lecturers’ English, on the other hand, is evaluated differently by the students in the two types of faculty. The EMI-C students assess it positively, regarding it ‘intelligible’ – it has to be noted, however, that we cannot overgeneralize this finding because the majority of the responses were collected from one particu­ lar class. The EMI-P students, in contrast, particularly the third-year students who have just returned from one-year study abroad in English- and non-English­ speaking countries, evaluate lecturers’ English negatively (see also Ball and Lind­ say 2013, Gundermann 2014, Kuteeva, this volume, Ljosland 2011). Such an evaluation is made with reference to the pronunciation of native English speakers, and it can be divided into two types: (1) lack of English ability and (2) difficulty of understanding accented English. The following are some examples of each type of comments:

Examples of comments pointing out lack of English ability •

Some lecturers are obviously not good at English, which makes sometimes difficult to understand contents [of the class]. 「明らかに英語が苦手な先生もいて、よく内容が理解できないこともある」 (EMI-P-Q5: EMI-P12-U3-JP(jpn)-Y_IE1）

•

It depends on lecturers. Some of them are not familiar with using English. 「担当教員による。英語が不慣れであるという印象を受ける教員もいる」 (EMI-P-Q5: EMI-P20-U3-JP(jpn)-N)

‘English’-medium instruction

171

Examples of comments stating the difficulty of understanding accented English: •

Some lecturers speak English that is difficult to understand. I guess it is because of their accents. 「分かりにくい教授もいる。訛りのせいであるかと思う」(EMI-P-Q5: EMI-P22-U3-JP(jpn)-Y_US7,SG1)

•

While it is easy to listen to native speakers’ English, it is very difficult to understand English spoken by other professors, Japanese ones in particular, due to their heavy accent. 「英語のネイティヴスピーカーによる英語は聞き取りやすいが、それ以 外の日本人の教授による英語はアクセントが強く、非常に理解に苦 しむ」(EMI-P-Q5: EMI-P17-U3-JP(jpn)-Y_US6,IT1)

As discussed earlier, returnees’ English, namely ‘native’-like or near ‘native’-like English, is assessed positively in the case of the evaluation of classmates’ English. The orientation to native-speaker norms seems to become even stronger in the case of the evaluation of lecturers’ English. As shown in the previously men­ tioned examples, this tendency is particularly noticeable among returnees who are familiar with ‘native’ English. Although further research needs to explore whether lecturers’ ‘accented’ English actually impinges on students’ under­ standing of course contents, or if it does, what aspects can foster or hamper their understanding, the students’ severe evaluation of lecturers’ English can be ascribed to different roles that lecturers and classmates play in class. That is, lecturers deal with academic contents in lectures, which are more important and need more time to explain than students’ exchange of opinions during pres­ entations and discussion. It can be considered that this difference leads to the stronger orientation to native-speaker norms, which in turn results in the severe negative evaluation. On the other hand, international students at both the undergraduate and post­ graduate levels of the EMI-P show positive attitudes towards lecturers’ English. The following are some examples of such a comment: • •

It is generally understandable. Some of it may not be correct English but the point comes across. (EMI-P-Q5: EMI-P38-U4-CA(can)-N) Most of [EMI-P] professors’ English is very fluent, so I never had difficulties understanding. Some professors sometimes had difficulties lecturing in Eng­ lish but it was never too hard to understand. I think their fluency can be dif­ ferent depending on their backgrounds, but it more depends on their efforts put in to prepare for lectures. (EMI-P-Q5: EMI-P33-U1-KR(kor)-Y_US1)

In the above mentioned examples, the emphasis is put on the ‘understanding of contents’ rather than linguistic forms like accents on the basis of native-speaker

172

Mayu Konakahara et al.

norms, which can be regarded as ELF-oriented opinions. It is noteworthy that, as stated earlier, all the comments are made by international students. This suggests that these students have a high degree of understanding of and tolerance towards diverse English. The severe evaluation among the returnees and the third-year students who have just come back from study abroad, on the other hand, implies that although it is necessary to investigate in what environment they stay and study abroad, a mere exposure to diverse English cannot necessarily enhance their understanding of and tolerance towards diversity.5 One of the possible solu­ tions for this problem is to provide students with the opportunity to deepen their understandings of ELF and World Englishes by holding an orientation programme for newly enrolled students and/or for those departing for study abroad.

Conclusion This chapter has investigated students’ and lecturers’ attitudes towards EMI and ‘English’ used in EMI classes from the perspective of ELF in two types of faculty (i.e., EMI-C and EMI-P), which differ in the status of the implementation of EMI classes as well as linguacultural diversity in their students and faculty mem­ bers. The analysis of questionnaire responses has revealed qualitative differences between students and lecturers as well as those between the two different student populations. With regard to attitudes towards EMI, both the students and the lecturers agree with EMI. Yet while the lecturers focus more on content-learn­ ing/teaching, the students focus more on language-learning. The latter tendency is more prominent among the EMI-C students, although their interest in content is a pre-requisite. In addition, the EMI-C students not only value the opportunity to be exposed to English through EMI but also show a strong desire to actually use English during discussion in EMI classes. The EMI-P students, on the other hand, are more aware of different benefits of EMI, language improvement being a secondary objective. These include not only content-learning but also gaining various views through discussion and being aware of the role of English in the world, both of which can be ascribed to the rich international environment of the faculty. Moreover, the EMI-P students also value the opportunity to actively use English through EMI, given that the whole programme is conducted in English. In a similar vein, the EMI-P students show more diverse attitudes towards ‘Eng­ lish’ used in EMI classes than the EMI-C students. While the EMI-P students value intelligibility and communicative effectiveness over ‘native’-like ‘correct­ ness’ of classmates’ English or explicitly values the opportunity to be exposed to diverse English, some of them downgrade Japanese-accented English and regard it difficult to understand. Lecturers’ English, on the other hand, is evaluated nega­ tively from the perspective of native-speaker norms particularly by the EMI-P students in their third year, who have just returned from study abroad. Some of the international students in the faculty, in contrast, show ELF-oriented attitudes, valuing understanding of contents more than ‘native’-like accents. The major­ ity of them, however, is subconsciously constrained by native-speaker norms and thus evaluates their classmates’ Japanese-accented English negatively. In addition,

‘English’-medium instruction

173

the EMI-C students’ comments on their classmates’, while some of them value intelligibility of their classmates’ English, English also reveal that they do have few opportunities to talk in English with their classmates (see Murata and Iino 2018). What the findings suggest for the effective implementation of EMI is that it is necessary for the EMI-C, in which only several EMI classes are conducted at least at the time of this research, to enhance diversity of students and faculty members (see also Hino, this volume). This not only sets up an actual scene of using ELF but also creates an environment of developing students’ global perspectives as well as their tolerance towards diverse English. In addition, teaching styles need to be carefully considered when conducting EMI classes in both EMI-C and EMI-P. As pointed out by many respondents in this research, there are few opportunities for exchang­ ing opinions particularly in large-class lectures. Given that it is important to devote sufficient time to questions and answers as well as discussion in order to ensure and enhance the students’ understanding of academic contents, not only should the size of the class be reduced but also more group discussions should be introduced in EMI classes in order to produce a natural setting of ELF interactions in class. Finally, further research should explore how EMI classes are conducted in ELF in a more detailed manner. In particular, actual interactions between lecturers and students as well as those among students in EMI classes need to be explored by analyzing classroom interactions collected through classroom observation and recordings of classes. This enables one to explore the detailed negotiation pro­ cesses of transactional and interactional purposes of talk in EMI classes, including how students’ understanding of academic contents can be ensured.

Notes 1 The present research is funded by the Institute for Advanced Studies in Education, Waseda University and partially by the JSPS funding No. 26284083. 2 The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999, www.magna-charta.org/resources/ files/text-of-the-bologna-declaration, accessed 29 March 2016 3 All comments made in Japanese are translated by the current authors. 4 According to the similar surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017, their opinions have slightly changed due to the curriculum reform introduced in the department. 5 In the analysis of their interview data, however, Iino and Murata (2016) show an opposite tendency among their interviewees. Further research is necessary to explore this issue.

References Ball, P. and D. Lindsay 2013. Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education. Learning from a specific context. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol and Buffalo: Multilingual Matters, pp. 44–61. Björkman, B. 2011. Pragmatics strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicate effectiveness? Journal of Pragmatics 43(4), 950–964. Björkman, B. 2016. English-medium instruction and English as the lingua franca in Higher Education in central and northern Europe. In M.-L. Pitzl and R.

174

Mayu Konakahara et al.

Osimk-Teasdale (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and Prospects. Con­ tributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Berlin: De Gruyter Gruyter Mouton, pp. 57–68. The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. Available from: www.magna-charta.org/ resources/files/text-of-the-bologna-declaration [accessed 29 March 2016]. Butler, Y. G. and M. Iino 2005. Current Japanese reforms in English language educa­ tion: The 2003 ‘Active Plan’. Language Policy 4, 25–45. Coleman, J. A. 2006. English-medium teaching in European higher education. Lan­ guage Teaching 39(1), 1–14. Cots, J. M., E. Llurda and P. Garrett 2014. Language policies and practices in the internationalization of higher education on the European margins: An introduc­ tion. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35, 311–317. Dafouz, E. and U. Smit 2016. Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for Englishmedium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics 37(3), 397–413. Dearden, J. 2014. English as a Medium of Instruction – A Growing Global Phenom­ enon: Phase 1. London: The British Council. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra 2011. Internationalisaiton, multilingualism and English-medium instruction. World Englishes 30(3), 345–359. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.) 2013. English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gundermann, S. 2014. English-medium instruction: Modelling the role of the native speaker in a lingua franca context. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Freiburg. Hu, G. 2005. English language education in China: Politics, progress, and problems. Language Policy 4, 5–24. Hu, G. 2009. The craze for English-medium education in China: Driving forces and looming consequences. English Today 25(4), 47–54. Hu, G. and S. L. McKay 2012. English language education in East Asia: Some recent developments. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33, 345–362. Hynninen, N. 2012. ICL at the micro level: L2 speakers taking on the role of lan­ guage experts. AILA Review 25, 13–29. Iino, M. 2010. Language idealism and realism in globalization: Exploring homogeneity beliefs in Japan. In V. Vaish (ed.), Globalization of Language and Culture in Asia: The Impact of Globalization Processes on Language. London: Continuum, pp. 61–81. Iino, M. 2012. Eigo de tsunagu sekai no koto kyoiku: SILS no kesu o chushin ni [English as a lingua franca connecting higher education in the world – a case from SILS, Waseda University]. Waseda Working Papers in ELF 1, 33–41. Iino, M. and K. Murata 2016. Dynamics of ELF communication in an English-medium academic context in Japan – from EFL learners to ELF users. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 111–131. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University – The Politics of Academic Language Policy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Kachru, B. B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press, pp. 11–30.

‘English’-medium instruction

175

Kachru, B. B. (ed.) 1992. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures (2nd ed.). Chi­ cago: University of Illinois Press. Kirkpatrick, A. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A Multilingual Model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. 2012. English in ASEAN: implications for regional multilingualism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33(4), 331–344. Ljosland, R. 2011. English as an Academic Lingua Franca: Language policies and multilingual practices in a Norwegian university. Journal of Pragmatics 43(4), 991–1004. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MEXT 2011. An interim report of the council on promotion of human resource for globalization development [グローバル人材育成推進会議 中間まとめ]. Avail­ able from: www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/global/110622chukan_matome.pdf (Japa­ nese) www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/global/1206011interim_report.pdf (English) [accessed 29 March 2016]. MEXT 2014. Press release ‘Selection for the FY 2014 top Global University Project’ [平成26年度「スーパーグローバル大学創成支援」採択構想の決定について]. Available from: www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/1352218.htm (Japanese) www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/ 10/07/1352218_02.pdf (English) [accessed 29 March 2016]. Murata, K. and M. Iino 2018. EMI in higher education: An ELF perspective. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 400–412. Murata, M., M Iino and M. Konakahara forthcoming. Realities of EMI practices among multilingual students in a Japanese university. In J. Jenkins and A. Mau­ ranen (eds.), Linguistic Diversity on the International Campus. Oxon: Routledge. Park, J-K. 2009. ‘English fever’ in South Korea: Its history and symptoms. English Today 25(1), 50–57. Park, K-J. 2009. Characteristics of Korea English as a glocalized variety. In K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and Future Debates. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 94–107. Schreier, M. 2012. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. London: Sage. Seidlhofer, B. 2010. Lingua franca English: The European context. In A. Kirk­ patrick (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. London: Routledge, pp. 355–371. Shohamy, E. 2013. A critical perspective on the use of English as a medium of instruction at universities. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristaol: Multilin­ gual Matters. Smit, U. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Classroom Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Smit, U. and E. Dafouz 2012. Integrating content and language in higher education: An introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research prac­ tices across Europe. AILA Review 25, 1–12. Wang, Y. 2015. A case study of the role of English in a Chinese university. Waseda Working Papers in ELF 4, 209–218.

11 Identity and pragmatic language use among East Asian ELF speakers and its implications for Englishmedium education Yoko NogamiIdentity and pragmatic language use

Yoko Nogami Introduction Since the mid-1990s, studies on the identity of second language (L2) learners have flourished and gained more attention in recent years in applied linguistics (see Block 2007 for the overviews). Research on the identity of L2 learners con­ tributes to understanding an L2 learner as an individual who has multiple, fluctu­ ating identities rather than as a mass with different variables. Identity refers to a sense of who people are and how they relate to the world (Norton 2000). In other words, identity is ‘reflective self-images constructed, experienced, and communicated by the individuals within a culture and in a par­ ticular interaction situation’ (Ting-Toomey 2005: 217), which ‘derive(s) from family, gender, cultural, ethnic, and individual socialisation process’ (ibid.: 212). The common position taken up in the recent research on identity is from a poststructuralist view that looks at identity as multifaceted and socially constructed. Identity changes over time, and therefore it is seen as a site of struggle. Every human being has desires and basic needs to be positively identified in accordance with their own cultural and ethnic group membership in any intercultural com­ munication episode. Identity is about ‘the sense of being acknowledged; a deep desire for association’, ‘a profound desire for protection, for security, for safety, for surety’ (West 1992: 21). Taking on such a poststructuralist view on identity, many researchers have explored how L2 learners’ identities are constructed and negotiated in the situ­ ated L2 learning environment such as in an adult migrant context (Norton 2000), in an adolescent migrant context (Block 2006; McKay and Wong 1996), a study abroad context (Jackson 2008), a teacher training context (Duff and Uchida 1997), and in an academic context (Morita 2004). These earlier studies have mainly investigated the opportunities for learners to speak with native speakers of the ‘target’ language but not with non-native speakers of the language. Moreo­ ver, their research goal was often to investigate the learners’ accommodation to the ‘target’ lingua-cultural norms and socialisation to the host culture. This does not seem to reflect a context where English is used as a lingua franca (ELF), for instance, academic context where ELF plays a role of the medium of instruction (EMI). Therefore, L2 English speakers’ identities need to be understood under

Identity and pragmatic language use 177 the current global and local use of English as a lingua franca, which the present study intends to bring to light. Furthermore, less known is what identity ELF users bring to their actual ELF communication. Several scholars have found how L2 learners’ interlanguage pragmatic use is affected by their subjectivity1 (e.g. Ishihara 2006; Iwasaki 2010; Shardakova 2013; Siegal 1996), revealing that even proficient L2 learners did not always follow the ‘target’ lingua-cultural pragmatic norms, and their subjectivity was key for their linguistic behaviour and behind their choices of not to conform to the native speaker norms. On the other hand, there are no specific ‘norms’ regarding ELF communication because ELF speakers are of multilingual and multicultural backgrounds and they negotiate what is acceptable usage accord­ ing to every communicative situation (Hynninen 2016). Thus, there arises the importance of investigating linguistic practices through ELF with attention to the expression of speaker’s identities. Accordingly, drawing on the earlier studies on identity and subjectivity of L2 learners and their relationship to learners’ pragmatic language use, this chapter will discuss the issues of identity and their relation to ELF speakers’ pragmatic language use, in particular, Japanese ELF users’ choices of expressions to deliver pragmatically relevant messages depending on various sociocultural settings. The present study focuses on how Japanese ELF speakers construct identities and how different identities are related to their pragmatic language use in ELF communi­ cation, informed by questionnaire surveys and follow-up interviews. The focus of the inquiry is centred upon the participants’ perspective (i.e. the ELF users’ narratives on their experience of English language learning and engagement in ELF communication). From the findings and discussion of the present study, the author will consider educational implications in Japanese higher education, in particular, with interest in EMI settings.

Background On identity in English as a lingua franca A growing number of ELF research has started to appreciate that ELF commu­ nication is relevant to ELF speakers’ identity construction (e.g. Baker 2009; Jen­ kins 2007; Virkkula and Nikula 2010), rather than merely serving communicative purposes (House 2003). For instance, in the investigation of identity and culture in a Thai context, Baker (2009) highlighted that identity and culture are not pre-conceptualised or defined notions, but something constructed and recon­ structed during the course of the social interaction through ELF (Baker 2009). This perspective of culture and identity that is dynamic and fluid, and sometimes appears contradictory, is important to understand how ELF users communicate ‘in diverse and transitory’ ELF situations (ibid.: 9). Baker’s ethnographic research on seven English language users in a Thai university challenges the direct correla­ tion between target language and target culture, which was the implicit principal concept in intercultural communication research. In Baker’s research context,

178

Yoko Nogami

English was used primarily as a lingua franca for intercultural communication and was a compulsory subject in schools and higher education, which is similar to the Japanese context. His participants told of their ambiguous and conflicting atti­ tudes towards English use and culture in relation to it. For instance, even though they saw NSE norms such as pronunciation as adequate standards, they showed tolerance to adapting English use to local needs (e.g. code mixing), and they valued local varieties of English. Baker discussed that ELF embodied the mean­ ing of its users’ surrounding context in which it was used (ibid.: 18), and culture concerning the complexities of global and local use of English. He, furthermore, reported that Thai speakers of English changed and set limits to L2-influenced behaviour when speaking English to fit their own context; in other words, they took a situationally specific ‘third place’ (Kramsch 1993) or moved in between local, national, and global cultures. Liminal (i.e. creating something new through a transitional state: Rampton 1995), hybrid, dynamic (i.e. not static) and insitu (i.e. emerging locally) characteristics of culture are manifest in ELF users’ identities. Meanwhile, Virkkula and Nikula (2010) investigated how Finnish students’ identity changed during their study abroad in Germany where their main medium of communication was English (i.e. ELF). This qualitative inquiry, based on the participants’ narratives in the interviews, demonstrated changes of the students’ identities before and after their cross-cultural encounters through ELF. Before studying abroad, the students focused their views on their deficiency in their English language skills by referencing the NSE norm for correctness. At the same time, having had a general view of English as a language for communication with non-Finns, they were aware of lack of access to English outside classrooms in the home country. After the students studied abroad, however, their concerns for correctness of forms diminished, and their views changed to a celebration of success in English communication for daily survival. Moreover, access to English speakers from other parts of the world enabled them to develop collective ‘we Finns’ versus other ELF users (e.g. Germans), and they realised that ‘we Finns’ have fewer obstacles in learning English compared to other nationals. This reali­ sation facilitated the emergence of a new norm in their minds for comparison as an English user in the ELF-speaking world. Iino and Murata (2016) reported similar transition of university students’ identi­ ties in an EMI setting in a Japanese university. According to their study, identity of jun-Japa (local Japanese students who have almost no previous experience of living abroad) was transformed from EFL leaners to ELF users during their four-year EMI undergraduate course. Having been confident as EFL learners, they lacked confidence in ELF capability (Widdowson 2016). They, at the beginning, showed orientation to correctness based on NSE norms, but then attempted to break out the ingrained NSE based communicative values and constructed ‘Japanese flavoured ELF com­ munication’ (Iino and Murata 2016: 127) through their participating and learning in the EMI programme. In this way, L2 English users often gain new resources for identity building through ELF encounters, which benefit them to construct a new identity as users of ELF rather than as unsuccessful learners of English (Virkkula and Nikula 2010: 268–270; see also Iino and Murata 2016).

Identity and pragmatic language use 179

Sharedness as commonality and issues of identity in ELF In ELF communication, where both variability and stability are intertwined, shared non-nativeness (Hülmbauer 2009), or sharedness (Nogami 2013), is one aspect of a stable component. According to Hülmbauer (2009), there are several facets that are shared equally among ELF speakers. Firstly, ELF users quite often share non-native English-speaking or second language (L2) English speakers’ status. This, in turn, makes them multilingual communicators in intercultural communication. Secondly, they share a similar learner history as they learn addi­ tional language different from their L1. Thirdly, ELF speakers similarly use ELF in strategic ways (Cogo 2010; Klimpfinger 2009; Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006), and through such use of strategies, ELF speakers commonly aim at mutual intel­ ligibility. In other words, ELF speakers understand that ELF linguistic construc­ tions can differ from NSE norms. Nogami (2013) further examined such ELF speakers’ orientation to com­ monality in ELF is linked with the speakers’ identity construction. Her study revealed that ELF users appreciate what they share with other ELF users and the collaborative features of ELF talk. This then leads to a positive influence on ELF speakers, creating sense of security and comfort in ELF interactions. In her study, the sense of sharedness occurs when Japanese L2 English users recognise their status as an English user, and when they deem to share the status with other non-native speakers of English (NNSE) around them. They see that NNSEs are on the same ground in the globalised world where English has become a com­ mon language; in other words, they see an equal and balanced power relation with other NNSEs. The sense of being equal provides them with comfort and security as English users, which eventually influences their performance in ELF interaction. They can express their ‘true self’ during ELF interactions with oth­ ers of equal power relation, without being constrained socio-psychologically. She concluded such a positive socio-psychological influence on ELF speakers helped them identify themselves positively and create legitimacy as ELF speakers, thus endorsing their identity that is salient in a given situation (Nogami 2013; see also Ting-Toomey 2005). The earlier research helps us understand how the use of ELF can be a site of identity construction in various contexts. Further investigation on issues of identity would benefit more when associated to actual ELF use. Therefore, the present study aims to link issues of ELF users’ identity and, in particular, their pragmatic use of ELF.

Identity, pragmatics, and ELF The link between the L2 learners’ identities/subjectivities and their decisionmaking in pragmatic use of L2 have been well documented in second language acquisition research (e.g. Ishihara 2006; Iwasaki 2010; Siegal 1996). The earlier studies provided different individuals’ personal anecdotes depicting identities and subjectivities as factors for their resistance to conforming to the pragmatic norms of the target language.

180

Yoko Nogami

Meanwhile, several ELF studies linked the strategies of ELF users to an expres­ sion of identities. For instance, strategies such as code-switching enable ELF interlocutors to achieve mutual understanding and to perhaps signal their cultural identity (Cogo 2009; Klimpfinger 2009. Also, the integration of L1 communica­ tive norms into ELF conversation was discussed as a marker of speakers’ identity (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006). Nevertheless, having touched upon the issue of identity, extensive investigation on the potential link between identity and lin­ guistic strategies from a participant’s perspective has not been conducted. In other words, whether ELF speakers are indeed expressing their identities with the use of such strategies is an unknown territory. Thus, there is a need for research investigating the link between pragmatic aspects of use and ELF speakers’ expres­ sion of identity from the participants’ perspectives, which may provide further informed perspectives to understand the connection. Such need is especially important because ELF research counters the monocentric view of English based on norms of NSE, and it puts an emphasis on the phenomenon of accommodation for mutual intelligibility (e.g. ELF pho­ nology by Jenkins 2000; convergence strategies by Cogo 2009). At the same time, it supports users of English in learning and using their local sociolinguis­ tic repertories, no matter where they are situated in, as long as communication problems are not caused with other speakers of English from different linguacultural backgrounds (Jenkins 2006, 2007). Research on ELF calls for ‘the need for a pluricentric rather than monocentric approach to the teaching and use of English’ (Jenkins 2006:173), which can facilitate learners and any speakers of English to contemplate on their own varieties of English use as sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic reality. Adopting this standpoint to EMI settings in higher education is especially relevant, because of ever-expanding globalisation in aca­ demic institutions in many parts of the world (Jenkins 2014), including Japan. An EMI academic community can be regarded as an ELF discourse community, where ELF is dynamic outcomes of and resources for communication (Mauranen 2003) as well as it being used in the process of communicative negotiation. It is therefore important for students in the community to feel that they can express their identities and can comfortably be themselves using ELF (Mauranen 2003: 517). Thus, work on ELF is of significance to consider general educational goals for EMI education as well as speakers’ language rights (Mauranen 2003). Bearing these in mind, I will now move to the explanation of methodology followed by the discussion of the findings.

Method and data The participants were 15 Japanese L2 English users, some of who were residing outside Japan and the others were living in Japan at the time of the data collec­ tion (late 2009 to early 2010). Regardless of their experience of living/studying abroad, they had various experiences of engaging in intercultural communication in English to some extent outside formal language classrooms (e.g. intensive summer courses where the medium of instruction/communication was English,

Identity and pragmatic language use 181 Table 11.1 The background information of the participants in the questionnairebased interview study* Data collection method

Participants Age Gender Location Status (pseudonyms)

QuestionnaireTakako based interview Hitomi

20

F

Japan

20

F

Japan

Nina

20

F

Japan

Mutsumi

21

F

Japan

Fuyuka Hiromi

23 20

F F

UK Japan

Umi

20

F

Japan

Yoshito

27

M

UK

Kaori

21

F

UK

Tae

30

F

Japan

Naofumi

29

M

Japan

Yoriko

21

F

UK

Motoya

22

M

UK

Takeo Tomomi

26 22

M F

UK UK

BA 3-yr student BA 3-yr student BA 3-yr student BA 3-yr student MA student BA 3-yr student BA 3-yr student PhD student BA 2-yr student English teacher PhD student

Location and length of studying abroad Australia, 2 mos Canada, 6 mos 0 0 UK, 1 yr+ 0 Canada, 1 yr UK, 3 yrs 6 mos UK, 4 yrs UK, 18 mos UK, 2 wks Australia, 1 mo, Malaysia, 2.5 yrs UK, 7 mos

BA 4-yr (exchange student) BA 3-yr UK, 3 yrs student LLM student UK, 6 mos BA 3-yr UK, 3 yrs student

*The information was correct at the time of data collection.

using English as part of job). An overview of the participants’ background infor­ mation is given in Table 11.1. In order to approach the relationship between the participants’ pragmatic choices and their identities in a systematic way, questionnaire-based inter­ viewing was conducted. This method involved administering three question­ naires (1. a background information survey, 2. an English elicitation task, and 3. a Japanese elicitation task2) and a follow-up semi-structured interview with each participant. The language elicitation tasks (one in Japanese and the other

182

Yoko Nogami

in English) employed the form of discourse completion test (DCT),3 where the participants were asked to fill in the form in the way they would respond orally to a particular communicative situation (e.g. requesting, complaining, and refusing). Each scenario was carefully designed to elicit somewhat long responses to see how the speaker manipulates linguistic expressions depend­ ing on the situations. The scenarios were designed based on previous stud­ ies on cross-cultural pragmatics such as Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), Trosborg (1995), and Tanck (2004). In the present study, my participants were asked to respond to each scenario in both cases of when they would speak to a NNSE (either an East Asian or a West European ELF speaker) and when they would speak to a British interlocutor (i.e. NSE). More specifically, for several question items, they were asked to fill in their responses addressing an East Asian ELF speaker and a British NSE, and for the rest of the question items, they were asked to respond when addressing a West European ELF speaker and a British NSE. The participants’ responses to all the questions were treated as prompts for the interview to draw out their perspectives on the English language, its use, and their identities. Specifically, regarding their responses on the English elicitation task, participants were asked to provide reasons for their pragmatic choices. The data gathered in each interview were the foci of the current analysis and treated as the participants’ individual narratives of their lived experiences of Eng­ lish language use and learning. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. After reading participants’ interview transcripts numerous times, the coding scheme was developed and the data were organised accordingly. They were ana­ lysed qualitatively with an interpretive approach (Miles and Huberman 1994) to reveal the participants’ perspectives, which came mainly from the users’ depic­ tions of their experiences as well as their perceptions.4

Findings Discourse of us versus them Within construction of sharedness among ELF speakers (Nogami 2013), one thing commonly arises in the interviews is the participants’ collective perspective as East Asian ELF speakers. The data suggest that the participants hold both conscious and subconscious views of us and them. They see themselves as Asians collectively along with other Asians (i.e. us), and see British and Europeans col­ lectively as them in the globalised English-speaking world. Some participants explicitly explained this awareness. For instance, Takako said that Europeans, including the British, are ‘lumped together. It’s after all, like Asia, or Western countries’. Similarly for many of the participants (eight out of the 15 interview­ ees), Occidentals were seen as one big group that is different from us. Some other participants implicitly referred to Occidentals to signify the differences of us and them. Hitomi, and Takako referred to Westerners as ‘mukoh no hito’

Identity and pragmatic language use 183 and ‘acchi no hito’ (‘people of the other side’ or ‘other people’), and some oth­ ers (e.g. Hitomi, Mutsumi, and Yoriko) referred to them as ‘foreign’, ‘foreign­ ers’, ‘Europeans’, and ‘foreign countries’. Moreover, this dichotomy of the us and them discourse appeared in the participants’ narratives even more implicitly. Mutsumi’s account shows the differentiation of the grouping of Asia and other foreign countries, which she refers to as Western countries: ‘Well, like in Japan and Asia, the distance between teachers and students is a bit far, but well if it’s in foreign countries, it is closer. Such as, you can call me by the [first] name’ (emphasis added). Yoriko similarly describes how differently people would respond to the same situation with an emphasis on differentiating Europeans and Asians including Japanese: Well, if it were Japanese, no Japanese would say so. Like, this is not tasty. But things often happen like, I’m told “I cannot eat this” when I serve Japanese food. Well, after all, I think it’s a difference between Japanese and foreigners. Asians eat everything [I serve] with a compliment. Yeah, with some respect. But Europeans or people from other countries say very clearly [if they don’t like the food]. (Yoriko interview) Naofumi tells of his experience in Australia and in the UK as a language student for a short time, which included the discourse of us versus them in the same manner: N: Well, we often gathered up among peer-Asians. It wasn’t easy to meet native speakers. I: Ah, both in the UK and Australia? N: Yeah, right. Only instructors were native speakers etc. but most of students were Asians. I: Yeah, right. N: I made friends with peer-Asians. Like. Yeah. Well, right, [. . .] I: [Why] do you think you tend to gather with Asians during the studying abroad? N: Right. Well, this side might have prejudice but the people of the other side are, yeah, both in the UK and Australia. (Naofumi interview, emphases added)5 His subconscious choice of words such as ‘peer-Asians (ajiajin dohshi)’ to refer to himself and other Asian students and ‘people of the other side (mukoh no hito)’ to refer to European English speakers depicts the discourse of us versus them.6 Such awareness of us and them was enhanced by experiences of the division between the us-group and the them-group during his stay in their countries.

184

Yoko Nogami

It seems that the awareness of us versus them is prevalent when the Japanese L2 English users participate in intercultural communication. This awareness appears to be reinforced by their lived experience in the communities where they are situated at present or in the past. Furthermore, the us versus them discourse was found in the participant choices of pragmatic language used in intercultural com­ municative settings to which I will now turn.

Pragmatic choice in East Asian ELF The data further reveal that the combined factors of the participants’ perception of sharedness among ELF speakers (Nogami 2013) and perception of the us ver­ sus them dichotomy give them a more robust orientation to sharedness among East Asian ELF speakers. Such a robust sense of sharedness with East Asian ELF speakers is often informed in terms of sharing a similar ‘culture’ and ethnicity with East Asians and, accordingly, it appeared to greatly influence the partici­ pants’ pragmatic choices towards East Asian ELF speakers. Table 11.2 demonstrates robust sharedness and how such a strong sense of sharing is reflected in the participants’ own pragmatic choices.7 Table 11.2 shows that more than half of the participants deliberately chose different pragmatic choices when addressing an East Asian from when addressing a British inter­ locutor. Almost all of the reasons behind their intended pragmatic choices were related to the discourse of sharedness with East Asian ELF speakers. In what follows, I will present some examples of the participants’ pragmatic choices8 elicited by the questionnaire and their reasoning explained in their respective interviews. Firstly, I present Mutsumi’s pragmatic choices in English where she requests that her supervisor reschedule a prearranged meeting. Addressing a British inter­ locutor, she said the following: Good afternoon, ****** (Supervisor’s name). I’m really sorry I made an appointment to meet you but I can’t carry out an engagement. So could you change the day to meet? (Mutsumi Questionnaire A, No. 1. To British) On the other hand, addressing an East Asian interlocutor, she said, Good afternoon, *****. Thank you for making time for me. I made an appointment to meet and talk about my project on XX, but I’m really sorry, I had an another appointment on same day with my friends. She is going to move this town so I want to meet her. . . . Would you change the day to meet? (Mutsumi Questionnaire A, No. 1. To East Asian) The main difference between the two pragmatic choices is the absence (top) or presence (bottom) of the specific reason why she needs the meeting rescheduled.

Umi

√

Sojourning in the UK

√

√

CAN, 6 0 mos √

0

√

√

UK, 3 yrs 6 mos √

UK, 1 yr+

UK, 7 UK, mos 3 yrs

√

√

UK, 4 yrs

UK, 6 UK, mos 3 yrs

Takako Hitomi Nina Mutsumi Yoshito Fuyuka Yoriko Motoya Kaori Takeo Tomomi

UK, 2 wks; CAN, 1 yr AUS, AUS, 1 mo; 2 mos MYS, 2.5 yrs √ √

Naofumi

Note: ‘√’ indicates that the participant made differences in pragmatic choices.

Difference in √ pragmatic choices between Asian and British √ Difference in pragmatic choices between European and British

Participants Hiromi Tae (pseudonyms) Location and 0 UK, length of 18 studying abroad mos

Living in Japan

Table 11.2 Summary of participants’ L2 English pragmatic choices

186

Yoko Nogami

In this regard, she explained in the interview why she addressed the British inter­ locutor in this way: Well, it’s really my image toward Europeans and Americans. [I thought] it might sound better if I have said things straightforwardly. [. . .] Well, it’s again my image towards them, but British people seem to say “OK, I got it.” even though I don’t explain the circumstances I’m under. So, I didn’t include [the reasons]. If I have said something longer, they would have been irritated. (Mutsumi interview) Her pragmatic choice to a British interlocutor was based on what she perceived as NSE lingua-cultural norm; that is, she has to express herself straightfor­ wardly.9 Also, her comment suggests that she groups British, Europeans, and Americans together as them, which is also linked to her conforming to the per­ ceived NSE lingua-cultural norm. She also indicates that choosing to express straightforwardly and not providing a rationale for the request is because she suspects a negative reception of the message by someone she identifies as them. Conversely, as for her pragmatic choice to an East Asian interlocutor, she explained the reason for her pragmatic choice, indicating it derived from her lived experience. During the summer course, an Asian student had a homestay at one of my [Japanese] friends’ [home], and one day I paid a visit. Then, I realised he/ she was really similar to Japanese, and was modest. So I thought I should say things modestly when interacting [with Asians]. I made differences in my responses by taking [such realisation] into consideration. [. . .] In the case of talking to Asians, I thought they might accept [me] if I stated a reason clearly. (Mutsumi interview) Based on her recent experiences of meeting English speakers from all over the world, she particularly appreciated cultural closeness with East Asian ELF speak­ ers (see Iino and Murata 2016 and Tsuchiya 2013 for similar accounts by their participants). Based on such experience, when addressing an East Asian ELF speaker, she adopted her pragmatic choice to sound polite, which is similar to how she would speak in Japanese. Also, she assumed the East Asian interlocutor’s positive reception of her message in contrast to the negative assumptions she made on when addressing a British speaker. Similarly, Takako intentionally made differences in her choice of pragmatic lan­ guage use when addressing British and East Asian interlocutors. The following is the example from complaining to a flatmate who has been noisy late at night, she addressed a British interlocutor as shown in the following extract: Can you spare me a few minute? Do not feel bad about what I’ll say from now on. Did you remember our promise that we don’t make noise after 11

Identity and pragmatic language use 187 pm? You know what I mean? I’m talking about your behavior recently. Please don’t break our promise, and we need mutual understanding about it. (Takako Questionnaire A, No. 2. To British) In comparison with the pragmatic choice addressing an East Asian interlocutor, What’s up with you recently? You do something at night. As we promised that we don’t make noise after 11 pm, can you keep that? ‘Cause I’ve been tired, I need rests. Don’t feel bad. (Takako Questionnaire A, No. 2. To East Asian) Both pragmatic choices may sound harsh and explicit; however, in the version addressing the British interlocutor, she plainly indicates the flatmate’s ‘unaccep­ table behaviour’ by referring to the fact of making noise, followed by the con­ ventionally direct form of request ‘please don’t break our promise’. Conversely, in the East Asian version, the request is slightly indirect using conventionally indirect request: ‘can you keep that [the promise]?’ Takako explained in the interview that she deliberately made the East Asian version less direct with the intention of showing deference towards the East Asian interlocutor. She explained as follows: T: Ah, all is said and done; it is like in a roundabout way to Asian people. Like “Oh? Anything wrong?” I chose to say in an implicit way leaving the inter­ locutor sense what I really want to say. I: You said it’s because the other end is an Asian. Why is it? T: All is said and done, when speaking [to them], I have had an impression that Japanese and Asians are almost similar, so that’s why. I: In actual life, some of your friends are Malaysian and Korean. T: Friends, yes. I feel it when I speak to them. So, [my response] is like English translation of what I would say to a Japanese person in Japanese. (Takako interview)10 The previously mentioned examples of the participants’ pragmatic choices and their reasoning showed that they made deliberate choices to show their deference when addressing an East Asian. Conversely, later, I will present two examples in which the participants explained why they chose to sound frank in order to show friendliness to an East Asian English speaker. The first example is Fuyuka’s prag­ matic choice when complaining to a flatmate about hearing noise late at night. To a British interlocutor, she said the following: Hi, sorry to disturb you, but can we talk for a bit? I wonder if you could turn down the volume of your music . . . As we made our rule that no making noise after 11 pm and in somehow your music could be heard in my room and I couldn’t concentrate on my work . . . so if you could, please turn down the volume . . . ? Thanks! (Fuyuka Questionnaire A. No. 2. To British)

188

Yoko Nogami

Now, compare this to the pragmatic choice made when addressing an East Asian interlocutor: Hi, can I come in? I wondered if you could make your music a little bit quiet. (Fuyuka Questionnaire A. No. 2. To East Asian) The difference between the two pragmatic choices is apparent in terms of their respective lengths. To an East Asian interlocutor, Fuyuka only uttered the head act (i.e. the main complaint act); on the other hand, to a British interlocutor, she told the rationale (e.g. prearranged rule and her study) in detail. In the interview, she explained why such obvious differences were made, revealing that she posi­ tions herself as a powerless NNSE against a somewhat powerful NSE (for simi­ lar participants’ accounts about Japanese L2 English users’ inferiority complex against NSEs, see Iino and Murata 2016), which became the main reason for her pragmatic choice to a British interlocutor: The communication partner is a native speaker, so I don’t know if I can make myself understood in English. So I say everything I want to say for one go. And then I thought it would be the end of the world if the other end would fight back. So, for the present, I’m like ‘PLEASE’, and being modest. (Fuyuka interview) She, as a defenceless NNSE in her eyes, did not want to face a backlash by the NSE interlocutor after her complaint and therefore she did not leave any room for an interactional exchange with a British interlocutor. On the other hand, she explained why she decided to speak to an East Asian interlocutor as she did: As I said earlier, by all means, Asians, they have similar culture to us, so I make friends with Asians easily. So, I say things with the light touch like “Can you lower (the volume)?” When I was here 2 years ago as an exchange student, I had a British flatmate. We had lived together for half a year, but hopelessly we couldn’t be friends. So I thought it’s impossible even though I try hard to be friend with her. Such things led me to think that if I have a British student in the same flat, I would try so hard that I get tired and get sick of it. So, I’d rather stay with Asians. [. . .] Asian will probably understand [me]. So I say things very short, I suppose. (Fuyuka interview) Fuyuka’s decision-making was triggered by the sense of cultural closeness with Asian ELF speakers. The unpleasant experience of trying and failing to be friends with the British flatmate (i.e. them) reinforced the sense of closeness with Asian students surrounding her at that time. Asian ELF speakers are those whom she can be at ease with and are therefore regarded as trustworthy. Thus, she could assume that Asian ELF speakers would understand what she says and means during the interaction. At the same time, her story highlights the necessity for NSEs to develop further competence in intercultural communication or to acquire ELF as

Identity and pragmatic language use 189 an additional mode of communication (Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey 2011), consid­ ering academic institutions in higher education have become increasingly multicul­ tural with increasing numbers of students from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds (see Jenkins, this volume). All the students need to acquire ‘communicative capa­ bility’ (Seidlhofer 2011; Widdowson 2016); that is, capability for effectively using the language by exploiting its communicative potential and employing whatever linguistic resources available to them (Seidlhofer 2011: 197–202). These examples from the data showed that the participants’ deliberate prag­ matic choices reflected their emotional closeness and perception of cultural and ethnic similarities with East Asian ELF speakers, which was sometimes rein­ forced by the discourse of us versus them. By postulating on the cultural close­ ness between Japanese norms and East Asian norms, some participants applied their L1 Japanese pragmatic norms to ELF usage to show deference and mutual respect. In some other cases, sharedness with East Asian ELF speakers let the participants use more frank and straightforward linguistic expressions, which manifested their desire of building up solidarity and friendliness with their East Asian peers. Moreover, the findings indicated that the participants expressed their assumption of a successful and desirable reception of the message by the East Asian interlocutor. On the other hand, when East Asians are not concerned in the interaction, their assumption of how their message is interpreted by (nonEast Asian) speakers of English was somewhat pessimistic. In those cases, they frequently hoped only for effectiveness and intelligibility rather than trying to build rapport with the interlocutor. These findings suggest that the Japanese L2 English users’ desire to build interpersonal relationships with East Asian ELF speakers was stronger than with non-East Asian ELF speakers. Lastly, there was no clear evidence in the data to indicate interrelationship in the patterns between the participants’ deliberate pragmatic choices and their rea­ soning behind them. Each participant seemed to change their pragmatic language use for different reasons depending on the context and interlocutors’ background (including lingua-cultural background, social status, and social distance). There were more individual differences in what factors appeared more salient when making their pragmatic choices in a given situation. In some cases, interviewing revealed that the participants chose the same pragmatic language use regardless of interlocutor’s lingua-cultural background in a same scenario; but their rea­ sons for the pragmatic choices sometimes differed considerably depending on the interlocutor’s lingua-cultural background. Such accounts also provided insights into how identities are negotiated in ELF communication.

Discussion Recognition of cultural groups in relation to others and construction of cultural identity How the participants described us versus them represents the Self and the Others in the discourse of Others (i.e. Bakhtin 1986). The awareness of Self is shaped and reinforced by the awareness of Others (Baker 2009; Bakhtin 1986; Jackson

190

Yoko Nogami

2008; Virkkula and Nikula 2010) and formed the basis for the cultural group­ ing among ELF speakers. Others were Westerners who are less familiar to and ‘different’ from the participants. Many participants did not seem to appreciate members of Others as ELF speakers as much as they did East Asian English speakers. This was mainly due to their limited experiences in communicating with European ELF users, thus their comments in the interviews were mostly based on their experienced knowledge on British or American speakers of English. Even though the participants did not group West European ELF speakers and British NSEs entirely together,11 they often categorised West European ELF speakers and British (i.e. NSE) collectively as Others who bear somewhat distant ‘culture’ to themselves. In relation to ELF, sharedness among ELF speakers can be commonality (Hülmbauer 2009), however, it could also be a product of self-other differentia­ tion within ELF speakers with different cultural assumptions. The robust sense of sharing or cultural affinity with East Asian ELF speakers highlights traditional values, beliefs, and ethnic traits, the history of foreign language education and beliefs about their similar usage of English among East Asian ELF speakers, which arose from the participants’ experiences in participating in ELF communi­ cation with them. Thus, it represents culture as something emergent in situ and fluid, but not as a pre-conceptualised and fixed notion (Baker 2009). A cultural group is described by Norton (2000: 19) as ‘members of a group who share a common history, a common language and similar ways of under­ standing the world’. The findings of my study prompt me to propose that the ‘common language’ that Norton (2000) refers to can be extended to how speak­ ers use ELF rather than only their first language, in particular, in intercultural communication. With a sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers, the par­ ticipants constructed cultural identity in relation to ELF as one level of the mul­ tiple identities that signifies emotional significance to and a sense of belonging to the larger cultural group (Ting-Toomey 2005: 214). As Fuyuka’s narrative dem­ onstrated, many participants revealed their emotional security and comfort dur­ ing ELF interactions with East Asian interlocutors (for similar comments about Japanese students’ preference or ease in ELF discussion, see Tsuchiya 2013 and in EMI setting see Iino and Murata 2016). Such psychological effects with cul­ turally similar others in intercultural communications result in the maintenance of positive identity (Ting-Toomey 2005). This suggests that the individual’s cul­ tural identities were intact in such communication with the members of the same cultural group (i.e. East Asian ELF speakers). However, there is a potential danger that the members of the cultural group might fall into ethnocentrism because of the amount of emotional security which is offered in communication with this cultural group.12 As a result, it may lead to irrational fear of other cultural groups or unfamiliar others (Ting-Toomey 2005) even in ELF communication. In order to prevent such potential peril, they need to be cautious about not being overtly concerned about cultural groups, and develop competence in acknowledging and appreciating their own and others’ ‘culture’ in the community of ELF users. In fact, ELF users often

Identity and pragmatic language use 191 actually participate in the ELF community of practice (Kalocsai 2014; Seidlhofer 2007) that cannot be associated with any fixed national lingua-cultures or the ‘our culture’ – ‘their culture’ dichotomy (Baker 2011: 210). In order for Japa­ nese ELF users to develop such competence, they need to be exposed more to various types of ELF communication that people of diverse lingua-cultural back­ ground participate (Iino and Murata 2016). On balance, cultural groups relat­ ing to ELF communication signify a hybrid community or third place (Kramsch 1993) where the common means of communication is ELF and where speakers can bring global, local, and individual orientations into communication (Baker 2009; Phan 2008, 2009).

Negotiation of cultural identity and negotiation of pragmatic language use The participants’ choices of pragmatic language use can be interpreted as their accommodation behaviour to ensure mutual intelligibility in ELF communica­ tion. When addressing a West European ELF speaker, many participants decided to accommodate to the perceived NSE norms because they understood that West European ELF speakers would carry similar lingua-cultural norms to that of NSEs.13 Considering the participants’ accounts further, lack of experienced knowledge on West European interlocutors’ lingua-culture often prompted them to follow NSE norms, which was a safe strategy for delivering their intention effectively. When addressing East Asian ELF speakers, the participants accom­ modated to what they perceived as ‘Asian ways’ of ELF use. In other words, they diverged from the perceived NSE norms when addressing East Asian ELF speak­ ers. Based on the strong sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers, many participants deliberately chose pragmatic language use, which they understood to be different from the NSE norms. When they are in a situation where the inter­ locutors are members of the same cultural group, the participants explained their deliberate pragmatic choices as attempts to build interpersonal relationships, at one time by displaying deference as well as camaraderie and friendliness, and at another time by signifying shared cultural identities. The participants tended to desire interpersonal connection with East Asian ELF speakers to build meaningful personal relationships for the maintenance of cul­ tural identity. Realisation of such shared goal in ELF communication represents the participants’ ELF competence (Kalocsai 2011: 131). However, they were ready to sacrifice the opportunity for establishing close interpersonal relation­ ships to ensure intelligibility when addressing the unfamiliar Others in ELF com­ munication. On the other hand, when addressing East Asian ELF speakers, the participants went further than just ensuring intelligibility to promoting solidarity and signalling cultural identity through their choices of pragmatic language use. Even though the present study did not draw linguistic data from authentic ELF interactions, the findings suggest that through their deliberate choices of pragmatic language use, the participants were negotiating different identi­ ties depending on various social situations. The participants appeared to take

192

Yoko Nogami

advantage of the hybrid and fluid nature of ELF in terms of pragmatic language use by focusing on a range of functions of communication (e.g. ensuring intelli­ gibility, fostering solidarity, and indexing cultural identity) and their interlocutors as people with different lingua-cultural backgrounds. Moreover, the participants’ deliberate ELF pragmatic choices can be appreci­ ated as a display of Japanese ELF speakers’ creative abilities drawn from shared­ ness and understood as a marker of their multilingual/multicultural repertoire. Such creativities in ELF pragmatics could be argued as the potential emergence of ELF cultural practice among East Asian ELF speakers. Further investigations are needed, however, to determine if there may be patterns of social interactions through ELF in East Asia shaped by people’s shared cultural values (Kirkpatrick 2010), thus co-constructing a mutual practice.

Conclusion and implications for EMI in Japan Delving into the Japanese L2 English users’ pragmatic choices in the ELF set­ tings and the reasons behind their choices, the present study has revealed that the participants’ identity works through their English use in the ELF context. This indicates that ELF communication is a place where ELF speakers construct and negotiate different identities (Baker 2009; Jenkins 2007; Phan 2008, 2009; Virkkula and Nikula 2010), which represents ELF users’ sociolinguistic rights to freely express themselves. The participants’ pragmatic choices can be regarded as a social phenomenon that is dependent on context, in which voice and identity are key concerns, and may well exemplify ELF speakers’ accommodating behav­ iour according to communicative environment they are situated in. This brings to light what kind of resources may be used and produced through an EMI aca­ demic community in Japanese higher education. Mauranen (2003: 518) says, ‘particular discourse communities using ELF might plausibly develop their own norms of use, that is, standards of what is acceptable, comprehensible, and adequate for efficient communication more or less spontaneously’. Such discourse community includes academic community using EMI in Japanese higher education. As part of drive for ‘internationalisa­ tion’ of Japanese academic education endorsed by the Japanese Ministry of Edu­ cation, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT), offers of EMI courses for local Japanese students and international students have been promoted. Also, the majority of international students studying in Japanese universities are from Asian countries such as China, Vietnam, Nepal, and Korea (MEXT 2015). In fact, top nine countries of the origin of international students in Japan are Asian countries. Considering the large population of students with Asian background in the context, it is inevitable that self-regulatory mechanisms would operate in shaping the communicative practice in this kind of emerging academic com­ munity (Mauranen 2003: 518). When it comes to pragmatic language use in particular, it reflects speakers’ social values and moral code which have something to do with their identity (Morizumi 2009). Thus, preferred pragmatic language use would be different from NSE norms in EMI courses in Japanese academic

Identity and pragmatic language use 193 context. Accommodation to the contextual language use may reflect Japanese dis­ cretion, modesty, and respect for seniority (Kirkpatrick 2010; Morizumi 2009), which brings cohesion to the community and marks their identities (Mauranen 2003: 519), cultivating ELF communication with a Japanese or Asian flavour (Iino and Murata 2016:127). Further research on EMI in Japan will be needed to find out what kind of linguistic practices are created and employed collectively among ELF users in the community; nevertheless, it seems clear that conformity to NSE norms would not be relevant for ‘internationalisation’ of higher educa­ tion in Japan. It is important to realise Japanese EMI specific use of ELF in the context, which may well be ‘the point of departure for establishing standards for teaching and assessment’ (Mauranen 2003: 518–519). Lastly, I would like to conclude this chapter by stating some limitations of the present study. The linguistic data gathered in the present study do not represent ‘actual’ use of ELF pragmatics, they were however intended to demonstrate the essence of how speakers’ identity influences their pragmatic choices in ELF, or in other words, how speakers negotiate their identities through ELF use. It is how­ ever also possible that the design of the questionnaire items (such as delegating interlocutors as East Asian, West European or British) influenced how the partici­ pants responded to the questionnaires. Nevertheless, post-questionnaire inter­ viewing revealed that the pragmatic choices presented here are made deliberately by the participants, who provided clear reasoning for their choices as shown in the examples presented in this chapter. Further investigation using more ‘natu­ ralistic’ linguistic data (i.e. naturally occurring interaction) with follow-up inter­ views would complement the findings of the present study, revealing a range of speaker/hearer identity negotiations that determine which particular pragmatic forms are utilised and negotiated at any particular point in a given interaction.

Notes 1 Subjectivity denotes ‘one’s view and perception of the world composed of indi­ vidual dispositions such as values, beliefs, morals, feelings, and personal principles’ (Ishihara 2006: 88). This is a crucial concept in understanding how identity is constructed (Block 2009: 219). The difference between ‘identity’ and ‘subjectiv­ ity’ is that the former is more permanent and the latter is more ephemeral (Block 2009). These terms are often used interchangeably in second language identity research. 2 This questionnaire was carried out in order to compare similarities and differences in the participants’ pragmatic choices in the two languages and to further investi­ gate the reasons for their pragmatic choices in the interview. The reason why the Japanese questionnaire was given to the participant after the English question­ naire was to minimise linguistic transfer from the first language to the second language. 3 Meanwhile, it is necessary to mention drawbacks of employing DCT in linguistic research. Firstly, any aspect of authentic conversation such as a turn-taking sys­ tem, conversational organisation, conversational features of speech such as pauses, paralinguistic or non-verbal elements in communication (e.g. tone of voice and facial expressions) cannot be observed in a written questionnaire (Kasper 2000). Second, it is difficult to understand how much the written elicitation responses

194

4 5 6

7

8 9

10 11 12 13

Yoko Nogami

can represent what the respondents would actually say in spontaneous conver­ sation. In order to overcome such shortcomings of the application of written DCT, role-play or oral DCT has often been employed in cross-cultural research because it can overcome some limitations of the written elicited task, i.e. lack of elements of conversational interaction. However, the employment of role-plays or DCT would be problematic in the present study because of the practicality of hiring conversational partners representing a different social status (e.g. profes­ sor, stranger, and friend) with different lingua-cultural backgrounds (e.g. British, East Asian, and West European), and how I would choose such representatives. Therefore, I decided to implement a written DCT. It was more important to understand how each participant perceived each interlocutor with a different background and how their perception appeared to influence their identity as Eng­ lish users and their pragmatic choices. Moreover, the aim of the present study was to explore the participants’ identity work by investigating how they explain their linguistic behaviour rather than how they would behave linguistically in more authentic conversation. All interviews were conducted in Japanese and later translated by the author. The translation was validated by a bilingual colleague for accuracy and interpretation. This may be due to the fact that peers are mostly Asians in EFL settings. Even though, in this excerpt, Naofumi uses the expression, ‘people of the other side (mukoh no hito)’ referring to British and Australians whom he met during his study abroad, the other part of his interview transcript revealed whether those people are NSEs or NNSEs was not relevant for his choice of the expression. Seeing British and West Europeans together as them seems to explain why my data did not show much difference in the participants’ English pragmatic choices addressing Britons as opposed to West Europeans. When there are differences, for example, Hiromi explained it was because of her ‘selfish image that I have to say softer to West Europeans’; Umi accounts for her feeling of closeness and friendliness to West Europeans because of her experience of staying in Spain but lack of experience speaking to a British person; and Yoshito explained that West Europeans are non-native speakers whose culture he is uncertain of. As noted in the methodology section, the participants’ linguistic samples shown in this chapter can differ from what they would say in real-life interactions. The perception of norms expressed by participants were often to be explicit and assertive, in particular, a) to use direct head act (i.e., the main speech act), b) non­ chalant about private matters as reasoning, and c) less conscious about age and status differences in terms of linguistic politeness. This was often contrasted with collective, hierarchical Japanese socio-cultural norms that prefer indirect linguistic expressions and honorific language. With regard to the difference in the presence or absence of ‘Can you spare me a few minute?’, she explained the difference was made ‘by chance’, thus not intentionally. They generally regarded British people as NSEs not ELF speakers (Nogami 2011). It also should be noted how the participants recognised the cultural group may be resulted from their rather stereotypical idea on differences in Asian and Western values based on their limited experience. These findings were discussed in more detail elsewhere (Nogami 2011).

References Baker, W. 2009. Language, culture and identity through English as a lingua franca in Asia: Note from the field. The Linguistics Journal 4, 8–35.

Identity and pragmatic language use 195 Baker, W. 2011. Intercultural awareness: Modelling an understanding of cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca. Language and Intercultural Communication 11(3), 197–214. Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. (V. McGee, Trans.). Austin: Texas University Press. Block, D. 2006. Multilingual Identities in a Global City: London Stories. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Block, D. 2007. Second Language Identities. London: Continuum. Block, D. 2009. Identity in applied linguistics: The need for conceptual exploration. In V. Cook, and L. Wei (Eds.), Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Language Teach­ ing and Learning, Vol. 1. London: Continuum, pp. 215–232. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and G. Kasper 1989. The CCSARP coding manual. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 273–294. Cogo, A. 2009. Accommodating differences in ELF conversations: A study of prag­ matic strategies. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 254–273. Cogo, A. 2010. Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of prag­ matic strategies. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 254–270. Duff, P. and Y. Uchida 1997. The negotiation of sociocultural identity in post-sec­ ondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 31(3), 451–486. House, J. 2003. English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguiatics 7(4), 556–578. Hülmbauer, C. 2009. ‘We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you will understand’: The shifting relationship of correctness and effectiveness in ELF communication. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publish­ ing, pp. 323–347. Hynninen, N. 2016. Language Regulation in English as a Lingua Franca: Focus on Academic Spoken Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Iino, M. and K. Murata 2016. Dynamics of ELF communication in an Englishmedium academic context in Japan: From EFL learners to ELF users. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualiza­ tion, Research and Pedagogic Implications. London: Routledge, pp. 111–131. Ishihara, N. 2006. Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms: Learner subjectivity and foreign language pragmatic use. In Subjectivity, Pragmatics Use and Instruction: Evidence of Accommodation and Resistance. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pp. 86–113. Iwasaki, N. 2010. Style shifts among Japanese learners before and after study abroad in Japan: Becoming active social agents in Japanese. Applied Linguistics 31(1), 47–71. Jackson, J. 2008. Language, Identity, and Study Abroad: Sociocultural Perspectives. London: Equinox. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

196

Yoko Nogami

Jenkins, J. 2006. English pronunciation teaching and second language speaker iden­ tity. In T. Omoniyi and G. White (eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Identity. London: Continuum, pp. 75–90. Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Poli­ tics of Academic English Language Policy. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Jenkins, J., A. Cogo and M. Dewey. 2011. Review of developments in research into English as a Lingua Franca. Language Teaching 44(3), 281–315. Kalocsai, K. 2011. The Show of interpersonal involvement and the building of rap­ port in an ELF community of practice. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins (eds.), Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 113–137. Kalocsai, K. 2014. Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca: A Study of Erasmus Students in a Central European Context. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Kasper, G. 2000. Data collection in pragmatics. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Cultur­ ally Speaking. London and New York: Continuum, pp. 316–341. Kirkpatrick, A. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A Multilingual Model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Klimpfinger, T. 2009. “She’s mixing the two languages together” – Forms and func­ tions of code-switching in English as a lingua franca. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 344–371. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford Uni­ versity Press. Mauranen, A. 2003. The Corpus of English as Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. TESOL Quarterly 37(3), 513–527. McKay, S. L. and S. C. Wong 1996. Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Invest­ ment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immi­ grant students. Harvard Educational Review 66(3), 577–608. MEXT 2015. Heisei 27 nendo gaikokujin ryugakusei zaiseki jokyo chosa tou ni tsuite. Available from: www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ryugaku/__icsFiles/afield­ file/2016/04/08/1345878_2.pdf [accessed 19 October 2016]. Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Lon­ don: Sage. Morita, N. 2004. Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly 38(4), 573–603. Morizumi, M. 2009. Japanese English for EIAL: What it should be like and how much has been introduced. In K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and Future Debates. London: Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 73–93. Nogami, Y. 2011. Japanese L2 English users’ second language identities and pragmatic use in relations of power and culture. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Essex, UK. Nogami, Y. 2013. Negotiation of second language identities in shifting power rela­ tions: Voices of Japanese L2 English users. Hiroshima Journal of International Studies 19, 93–112. Norton, B. 2000. Identity and Language Learning. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

Identity and pragmatic language use 197 Phan, L. H. 2008. Teaching English as an International Language: Identity, Resist­ ance and Negotiation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Phan, L. H. 2009. English as an international language: International students and identity formation. Journal of Language and Intercultural Communication 9(3), 201–214. Pőlzl, U. and B. Seidlhofer 2006. In and on their own terms: The ‘habitat factor’ in English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177, 151–176. Rampton, B. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents. New York: Longman. Seidlhofer, B. 2007. English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In S. Volk-Birke and J. Lippert (eds.), Anglistentag 2006 Halle Proceedings. Trier: Wis­ senschaftlicher Verlag, pp. 307–318. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shardakova, M. 2013. ‘I Joke You Don’t’: Second language humour and intercultural identity construction. In C. Kinginger (ed.), Social and Cultural Aspects of CrossBorder Language Learning in Study Abroad. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 207–238. Siegal, M. 1996. The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguis­ tic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics 17(3), 356–382. Tanck, S. 2004. Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: A comparison of native and non-native English speakers’ production. Available from: www.american.edu/cas/ tesol/pdf/upload/WP-2004-Tanck-Speech-Act.pdf [accessed 15 April 2011]. Ting-Toomey, S. 2005. Identity negotiation theory: Crossing cultural boundaries. In W. B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing About Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 211–234. Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Tsuchiya, K. 2013. Behaviours in ELF: Analyzing interruption sequences in discus­ sions in and EAP course. In K. Murata (ed.), Waseda Working Papers in ELF 2, 59–83. Virkkula, T. and T. Nikula 2010. Identity construction in ELF contexts: A case study of Finnish engineering students working in Germany. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20(2), 251–273. Widdowson, H. 2016. Competence and capability: Rethinking the subject English. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. London: Routledge, pp. 213–223. West, C. 1992. A matter of life and death. October 61, 20–23.

Part III

ELF in EMI settings – policy, practice and pedagogy Ying WangRole of English in internationalisation

Focus on case studies

12 The role of English in the internationalisation of Chinese higher education A case study of English-medium

instruction in China

Ying Wang Introduction Higher education internationalisation is gaining its momentum in China. The National Outline for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Develop­ ment (2010–2020) (hereafter the Outline) posits internationalisation as a key ele­ ment in Chinese education development planning. It encourages Chinese higher education institutions to 1) increase international communication and coopera­ tion at different levels and in different aspects, 2) introduce and import highquality educational resources, and 3) carry out student exchange in collaboration with higher education institutions from other countries. Following the Outline, Chinese higher education institutions take actions to engage in internationalisa­ tion, with the slogan of ‘going global’ upheld. Internationalisation is well recognised by scholars as local institutions’ ‘reac­ tion to globalisation’ (e.g. Naidoo 2006, Altbach and Knight 2007, Lumby and Foskett 2016: 95). As Altbach and Knight (2007: 290) note, globalisation is ‘the context of economic and academic trends that are part of the reality of the 21st century’. This context features ‘a set of social processes that appear to transform our present social condition of weakening nationality into one of globality’ (Steger 2009: 10, original italics) and poses challenges to the work in political, economic, cultural, intellectual and various other sectors of society. The internationalisa­ tion of higher education is thus applauded as a process of dealing with the trend of globalisation and evokes ‘the policies and practices undertaken by academic systems’ and individuals (Altbach and Knight 2007: 290; Naidoo 2006). In this way, internationalisation as a buzzword in the discourse of higher education today tends to be actualised through various activities such as international stu­ dent and staff recruitment, student and staff exchange programmes, international programmes and curricula, international research agendas, to name just a few. As all sorts of internationalisation activities undoubtedly require some medi­ ums of communication, English arises as an incomparable lingua franca for inter­ national communication in the world today. In particular, the use of English for instruction is seen as an important index of internationalisation in some contexts, even in the situation where instructors and students share first languages other than English (e.g. Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2013; Choi 2010; Hu 2015;

202

Ying Wang

Yang 2002). However, the phenomenon of English as a lingua franca (ELF) as both a cause and an effect of globalisation has attracted burgeoning research interest, which has consequently been transforming our understanding of ‘what is the thing called English’ (Seidlhofer 2011: 1). That is, based on the recogni­ tion of the expanding ownership of English, the new understanding of English challenges a traditionally exclusive focus on native English and calls for a response from the education policy and practice with regard to English. In this context, this chapter sets out to investigate the role of English in edu­ cational policy and practice in China’s higher education internationalisation, focusing on a Chinese university’s case. The purposes are to understand issues associated with the role of English in Chinese higher education internationalisa­ tion from a perspective informed by the research on ELF and add to the con­ tribution to understanding English in higher education internationalisation in a global context.

Background The university under examination in this chapter is one of the privileged universi­ ties under the authorisation of the Ministry of Education in China with the cre­ dentials to recruit international students and provide international programmes. It is located in a middle-scale city, which attracts tourists from all over the world due to the Three Gorges hydroelectric project by the Yangtze River in the vicin­ ity. As a first-tier university, it enjoys comparatively good education resources in China and a strong position in the study of hydropower and hydroelectric engi­ neering as well as other relevant subjects. The university attracts international stu­ dents who are mainly from South Asia and South-East Asia to join various degree programmes. Other international students from other contexts come to study in this university due to student exchange programmes as part of the university’s internationalisation project. To support their studies in this university, interna­ tional students can apply on the basis of competition for funding provided by the China Scholarship Council in line with the Outline which explicitly offers sup­ port to students from developing countries. Chinese teaching staff work on the international programmes in the university. International teaching staff consist of members from various linguacultural backgrounds scattered in different dis­ ciplines, although most of them worked on foreign language study programmes mainly oriented towards Chinese students.

Understanding English in EMI English-medium instruction (EMI) is one of ‘tangible outcomes of internation­ alisation’ in higher education worldwide (Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2013: xvii). English as a powerful language is widely learned and therefore allows inter­ national students to learn course content via the medium of English in education contexts where usually other L1s than English are means of instruction (Shohamy 2013, this volume). The adoption of EMI, nonetheless, is controversial. It raises

Role of English in internationalisation

203

a concern with the uncertainty as to how academic content can be successfully taught and learned through the medium of English as a second language (L2). Tange (2010: 137), for instance, points out that the requirement for Danish lec­ turers to conduct English-medium teaching undermines ‘the quality and quantity of classroom communication’. International students are found to evaluate Dan­ ish lecturers with a ‘focus on benchmarking in the university system’ and leave lecturers to ‘fear that an exposure of their linguistic inadequacies will affect their status and opportunities within the faculty’ because ‘there is no “prestige” in admitting to bad English’ (Tange 2010: 144). Shohamy (2013) also takes issue with the English-medium assessment. In her view, it is difficult to tell whether low achievement results from language skills or knowledge gaps when the assess­ ment of content learning is conducted in L2 English. In addition, EMI is often seen as an indicator of the hegemony of English that marginalises other differ­ ent languages (e.g. Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 2010). Saarinen and Nikula (2013), for instance, claim that the heterogeneity of students’ languages and cultures is often invisible in internationalisation, with EMI reifying Anglophone monolingualism. Shohamy (2013) warns that the reliance on English in assessing students’ academic achievement can cause inequality among students who attach different values to English and who have different language backgrounds. What’s more, EMI could have negative effects on the social structure from a critical soci­ olinguistic perspective (e.g. Hu and Alsagoff 2010). In discussing EMI in China, Hu and Alsagoff (2010) put forward that the extent to which EMI is actualised in educational settings correlates with the range of educational resources across dif­ ferent regions of China. That is, the promotion of EMI in China could intensify the imbalanced distribution of educational resources and even affect the pursuit of social equality. Three alternative ways of understanding the status and role of English around the globe today offer alternative insights into the said concerns. First, accepting NNESs’ agency can contribute to a different understanding. Phillipson (2001) criticises English for serving globalisation rather than the world’s people. For him, the spread of English goes with linguistic imperialism to fuel capitalism and marginalise NNESs’ interests and rights of languages (Phillipson 1992). This perspective positions English as a threat to multilingualism and multicultural­ ism. In this line, Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson (2010) denounce English as a ‘murderer’ of linguistic diversity along with economic globalisation. Against this position, House (2003) argues that NNESs’ choice for ELF should be respected. She (ibid.: 560–561) challenges the view of English as a threat to multilingualism and argues that the ‘politically correct’ views on multilingualism seem to ‘imply that ELF users do not know what is in their interest’. This view lends support to NNESs’ agency in the process of the spread of English. The diverging posi­ tions remind us of Widdowson’s (2003) distinction between the distribution of English and the spread of English. That is, while the former has the connotation that NNESs are merely subject to the impacts of the spread of English and act­ ing as the receivers of what the Anglophone centre delivers, the latter implies the role of NNESs’ agency and choice in the process of spread of English. Taking

204

Ying Wang

into consideration NNESs’ role in the adoption of EMI thus offers an alternative insight into the issue of English in EMI. Second, a considerable body of research on ELF phenomenon points to the question of which English or whose English (emphasised by Seidlhofer 2003, 2011). In this line, Jenkins (2015a) uses the notion of Global Englishes to problematise the exclusive focus on native English and emphasise the diver­ sity of English. It aligns with the argument for the ownership of English by all those who use it and puts native English speakers (NESs) and NNESs on equal footing. As the notion of Global Englishes implies, English should not be taken for granted as the English (emphasised by Widdowson 2003). That is, ELF integrates with multilingualism and values the role of NNESs in the change and shaping of English (e.g. Mauranen 2012). In the analysis of the dilemma between English as a ‘murderer’ of multilingualism and English as a language choice for the European Union (EU) language policy, Seidlhofer (2003) points out that the assumptions about the hegemonic status of English connect with the ideology that native English represents the rubric of English. By question­ ing this ideology, she urges to treat ELF as inclusive rather than exclusive of multilingualism in order to address the EU language policy dilemma. Likewise, the consideration of the issue of English in EMI would benefit by asking which English or whose English. Third, a developing perspective proposed in Jenkins’s (2015b) work on ‘repo­ sitioning’ ELF in relation to multilingualism is helpful. As Jenkins’s (2015b: 51) states, the ‘repositioning’ is ‘evolutionary rather than revolutionary’ from the perspective that integrates ELF and multilingualism as discussed earlier. Pro­ ceeding from the promise that ELF communication evokes ELF users’ mul­ tilingual repertoires, which inevitably include their knowledge of English, she proposes to reconsider the relationship between ELF and multilingualism con­ versely from the mainstream view. For her, ELF is a major part of ELF users’ multilingual repertoire rather than ELF includes multilingual elements. Whereas the mainstream perspective on ELF explains how ELF users make use of mul­ tilingual repertoire to enable ELF communication, Jenkins (2015b) further engages with the issue how multilingual nature of ELF is enacted in different multilingual encounters. In this sense, the conceptual discussion of ELF in rela­ tion to multilingualism (Jenkins 2015b) acknowledges the operation of English together with other L1s in intercultural communication and has implications for the concern that other L1s are marginalised in the EMI endeavour (e.g. Shohamy 2013). The alternative understandings of English informed by the ELF research, therefore, urges us to rethink the issues of English in EMI in terms of which/ whose English and the relationship between English and other languages relevant to various local contexts. The critical analysis of English would optimistically help to empower non-native English-speaking lecturers and students in their intercultural experience. It would help to shift their focus to content learning from worrying about ‘bad English’ that would have negative impacts on ‘their status

Role of English in internationalisation

205

and opportunities’ (see the earlier discussion of Tange’s study). It opens the pos­ sibility that English can work with other languages to reduce the tension on teaching resources.

Methodology Case study is a qualitative research method, as an umbrella covering a few submethods (Gillham 2000). The sub-methods used in the present study include documents, observations and interviews to allow for triangulation. The docu­ ments include university documents available in both the university’s online media and print circulation. Classroom observations are employed to examine how language is used in practice and, further, whether language practice in class­ room settings aligns with language expectations revealed in university documents that promote the university’s internationalisation. Interviews are adopted to understand possible convergence or divergence between the understanding of English in documents and the interpretation of English in classroom practice, and between what is specified in documents and what is actualised by teachers and students. Importantly, interviews allow for the investigation into teachers’ per­ ceptions of language issues for classroom purposes and those for the university’s overall purpose of internationalisation. The present study has three data sets retrieved through three different research tools. The first set includes university website, programme brochures, staff per­ formance evaluation documents, university advertisements, university bulletin boards, university recruitment materials, and so on. The interview data are con­ tributed by four Chinese teachers. Each interview lasted between 45 minutes and 75 minutes, depending on the interviewees’ interest in the interview conversa­ tions with the researcher and the information that they would like to share with the researcher. Interview participants were recruited among Chinese teachers on various disciplinary programmes designed to attract international students, such as microbiology, hydropower and economics, operations management, and Chi­ nese culture, because I was interested in teachers, students and class contents from courses other than English language ones. Understanding the interaction between Chinese teachers and international students offers insights into Chinese teachers’ work in response to the university’s language practice and language policy, although understanding the interaction between international staff and international students would deserve another study. The third data set records classroom observation. The focus was on one interviewed Chinese teacher’s classroom practice. Nine hours of classroom observation on six sessions alto­ gether were video recorded. The class group included 14 international students who were recruited by the studied university in Bangladesh and therefore shared Bangladesh as their first language. They were in their first year of study in the uni­ versity. They were asked to give permission to be recorded. They showed interest in the research project and willingness to participate. What follows will present the data analysis in detail.

206

Ying Wang

Document analysis Document analysis shows what is overtly specified in the university’s educational policy regarding language choice. In general, the university appears to value both Chinese and English in internationalisation initiatives. The programme book­ let, entitled Prospectus for International Students and designed for the purpose of recruiting international students, provides information first in Chinese and then in English. The booklet explicitly reads that language used for instruction is ‘Chinese/English’ on most programmes oriented towards international students, for example, civil engineering, hydraulic and hydroelectric engineering, and tour­ ism management. The information on given programmes, for example, often includes an English-medium paragraph like this: As qualified, candidates are expected to become internationalised applicationoriented professionals with high-quality professional knowledge, which can pro­ mote the development of the society, economics, technology, culture and take part in international competition. This paragraph spells out the objectives of given programmes. As Chinese is par­ alleled with English as a medium of instruction, it is inferable that Chinese and English are equally regarded as suitable for the purposes of internationalisation and preparing international students for international communities and interna­ tional job markets. Notably, only one international programme assigns English as the only medium of instruction in the booklet. The programme is entitled Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, attracting international students, among whom Indian and Nepalese stu­ dents have consisted of the majority. The university proudly states in the book­ let that ‘more than 250 Indian students and 100 Nepal students’ have received degrees on this programme and subsequently passed their own countries’ qualifica­ tion examinations. This message gives an impression that the university is willing to highlight its capacity of providing EMI, despite the importance attached to Chinese. The examination of how language is used in various media of the university offers insights into implicit language policy in terms of the university’s position on language choice. There are both Chinese and English versions of information on the university website. Usages of English are likely to be non-native-like and transparent in delivering messages. For example: You are welcome to join into ISA. Please contact with us. (http://eng.ctgu.edu. cn/info/1065/1063.htm). The history of CTGU can be dated back to 1946, while the bachelor education started from 1978, and the postgraduate and international student educa­ tion began from 1996. (http://eng.ctgu.edu.cn/info/1044/1001.htm) A webpage (http://eng.ctgu.edu.cn/info/1065/1063.htm) introducing the International Students Association allows for some understanding of the use of

Role of English in internationalisation

207

language. All students who are involved in the Association appear to be non­ native English-speaking international students. As they are representatives of international students of the university, it is possible to infer that the university’s international student profile is non-native English dominant. It is, therefore, pos­ sible that the purpose of communicating with non-native English-speaking inter­ national students who are targets of the university recruitment and enrolment has impacts on the use of English in terms of what is acceptable and what is not. In a nutshell, document analysis seems to show the university’s consideration of international students’ multilingual needs, as it accepts different language choices and forms which are available to both staff and students to make interna­ tional students happy with their experiences in the university.

Interview analysis The interview data highlight the role of English in international programmes provided to international students but suggest little space for Chinese on relevant programmes. Four interviewed teachers shared the view that English was neces­ sary for international programmes oriented towards international students. They reported their use of English on international programmes and their narratives of teaching experience revealed a shared belief that international programmes should give priority to English, while Chinese cannot satisfy the need for interna­ tional communication. For example, Extract 1 T4: I use English in class. The students are required to learn some Chinese, but their Chinese is not enough for them to manage the programme. Moving further to make sense of language practice on international programmes, I found that the interviewed teachers have a shared focus on meaning-making while not bothering to analyse forms of English. None of the interviewed teachers had ever thought of native English or NESs unless I mentioned native English intentionally in order to probe their reaction to a reference to native English norms. Unanimously, the interviewed teachers rejected the relevance of reference to native English norms for international programmes. This is particularly revealing in the teachers’ evaluation of student assignments and assessment, with the marking criteria having reportedly nothing to do with a reference to native-like English. For example, Extract 2 R: Do you see English as a criterion in marking students’ assignments or their exam papers? T2: I never marked up or marked down because of their English. They are expected to grasp the knowledge, as long as they got the knowledge points written down in their papers, they will get the marking points.

208

Ying Wang

Despite positive attitudes towards the supporting role of English on interna­ tional programmes, the interview data do not suggest that teachers applauded this language choice on international programmes, revealing a complex picture of language practice, which highlights a few issues in the implementation of EMI in China. First, EMI poses challenges to some lecturers that Chinese-medium instruc­ tion does not. As mirrored in earlier works on EMI in European contexts (e.g. Kuteeva 2014; Tange 2010; Wilkinson 2013), those challenges mainly include time cost, English proficiency, and a sense of humour. T1 contributed her story on this issue. Although she could manage the communication of her discipli­ nary content in English, teaching on EMI courses involved more investment of time and effort but less fun than Chinese-medium instruction. She felt that she underperformed in English as she could have lively stories to help her students to make sense of theories if using Chinese for instruction. She was not happy that her identity as an interesting lecturer became invisible as she could not integrate stories, jokes and real-life experience in her teaching. Second, EMI affects disciplinary development to some extent in the university. As also reported in earlier works on EMI in European contexts (e.g. Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2013), a dilemma exists between disciplinary competence and language proficiency. In the current study, language is reported to serve as a precondition for the eligibility to lecture on international programmes. According to the interview data, teachers who are not considered to be good in English were not given opportu­ nities to teach on international programmes. There is a reported mismatch between what teachers liked to teach and what the university assigned them to teach. In this sense, both expert language users and non-expert language users were caught in the dilemma. Take T2 for example. For T2, who was a competent user of English, Eng­ lish was surprisingly not an advantage, but a burden, which restricted his pursuit of disciplinary interests. He expressed his view as follows: Extract 3 T2: Yes, I can teach in English, but what I can teach in English is not my decision, the program is planned by the program leaders [. . .] then I was chosen to teach on the EMI course [. . .] There’re actually not many teachers who can use English to teach in this university. If all teachers could teach in English, there would have been different criteria for the selection of course teachers. English would not necessarily have been considered as the major criterion. Because many teachers aren’t selected no matter how strong they are in their subjects and how suit­ able they are for the courses, they are not selected only because they can’t teach in English. A counterexample is T4. He was proud that he could teach disciplinary sub­ jects in English. He was more excited talking about English than his disciplinary subjects.

Role of English in internationalisation

209

Extract 4 T4: I have one PhD student from Ethiopia and we talk in English. I teach an international student group on the Economics and Public Manage­ ment programme. And the Foreign Languages College also invited me to give talks to their students. I have a special way of learning English. I wonder whether my special way of learning English can be promoted and developed into some teaching method. I’m working on it. It seems to be surprising that T4, a professor from economics studies background, is interested in developing English learning methods. Given the influence of Eng­ lish across different disciplines, however, T4 seems to have every good reason to take pride in his ‘special way of learning English’ to the extent that he hopes to develop it further to benefit more people. His pursuit in this direction – as he said, ‘I’m working on it’ – reveals his confidence in the need for English learning methods by more people and his pleasure in the achievement brought by his Eng­ lish. That he seems to put the cart before the horse serves as the evidence of the importance attached to English by some content teaching staff members in gen­ eral. Despite different attitudes towards English in relation to disciplines between T2 and T4, what is common is the role of English in distracting academic staff from their first disciplines due to the university’s need for EMI. Third, Chinese instructors believe in the necessity of developing international students’ competence in the Chinese language. Despite the emphasis on English, the interview data also surface a belief that international students should learn Chi­ nese for their interest. There are three reasons offered by those who believed in the need for Chinese. First, China is a place where only ‘so-so’ English can be learned but is a right place to learn Chinese. Second, the university should project its iden­ tity associated with Chinese culture which has strong connections with Chinese but not English. This belief is clearly stated on the standing point of the university, while how international students perceive their language needs is not considered. It is worth noting that the belief in the importance of promoting Chinese culture and Chinese language is also recognised by the university, as there is a module entitled ‘Chinese Culture’ oriented towards international students. Interestingly, however, international students are keen on the module for their purpose of settling down in the local context other than appreciating Chinese culture. T3 was a teacher of Chinese culture and gave information on the module: Extract 5 T3: Chinese culture is very broad and we can only introduce to the students some superficial culture things, such as festivals, customs, and Chinese char­ acters. But I found that the students are most interested in the information about where they can find nice things to eat, and where they can find inter­ esting things to do. They are interested to know about the city and sometimes I just feel that they just wanted to know some tourist information.

210

Ying Wang

As T3 points out, the ‘Chinese Culture’ module offers insufficient knowledge of Chinese culture and only helps international students with basic language skills that they need for everyday life in China. While international students only seem to be interested in tourist information, it is difficult to expect international stu­ dents to develop sufficient knowledge of Chinese to cope with academic stud­ ies through the support provided by the university. Other interviewed teachers reported having a very limited use of Chinese by international students. For example, in T1’s narrative, students occasionally did code-switch between Eng­ lish and Chinese when they communicated with the teachers. However, the use of Chinese was often related to relatively relaxing content. For example, when T1 talked about fermentation in biochemistry class and drew on examples of fermented food, students switched to Chinese in response commenting on the food as to whether it was 好吃 (tasty) or not. Thus, the feasibility of teachers’ expectation to change to Chinese for disciplinary studies is yet to be investigated. To sum up, the interview analysis clearly reveals a few conflicts. One is between university policy and language practice in terms of language choice. University pol­ icy sees the value of Chinese and English on international programmes, but teach­ ing and learning are made possible through English as a medium of instruction. The second is between the top-down allocation of teaching load and bottom-up needs by teachers. This conflict relates to the need on international programmes for language proficiency and content knowledge, both of which are not necessar­ ily at the disposal of the same teachers. The third relates to a concern for Chinese culture. The university and teachers have the wish to promote Chinese culture and language. Students are focused on how to accommodate local culture so as to make most of their learning and life experience in the university. To put differently, universities and teachers have needs in ideological terms, but students focus on their practical needs.

Classroom observation data Classroom observation offers opportunities to observe students’ participation in international education in terms of how they use and perceive language choice in the learning process. I recorded six sessions on the module ‘Operational Manage­ ment’ taught by T2 in one single semester. Each session lasted 90 minutes. The first time I entered his classroom, I introduced myself to students in T2’s class group and made it clear that I would sit in the corner of the class. I asked whether the students would agree to my recording and they all agreed. The class group included 14 students, although two or three students often missed the class. I had chats with some of the students during session breaks to know that the university recruited them together from Bangladesh. As a group of Bangladeshi students on the same programme, they mingled together in class and after class. They expressed their willingness to make friends with Chinese students and Chinese lecturers. This might explain why they showed their cooperation in my classroom observation activity.

Role of English in internationalisation

211

The observed group created a multilingual setting of learning. In observed ses­ sions, T2, a Chinese lecturer, taught in English and communicated with Bangla­ deshi students in English. When students were asked to work on group activities, English was used as a major medium of communication and Bengali was rarely used. Occasionally, students made jokes with each other with a few Chinese words inserted in their utterance. For example, ‘很好’ (very good), ‘没问题’ (no problem), ‘是这样’ (that is it). The observation highlighted students’ preference for English in classroom communication. A typical example is students’ insistence on using English when T2 suggested that they could help each other to make sense of difficult concepts by using Bengali to communicate with one another. Extract 6 (T2 noticed that one student was a bit confused with the idea that he just passed on) T2 (looking at S1 who is next to the confused student): Could you explain to your friend what is operational cost? S1: (smiling and hesitating) T2: You can explain in Bangladesh. S1: (still hesitating) T2: Come on, help your friend, you can tell him in Bangladesh. S1 (smiling at the confused student): I want to explain it in English. T2: Oh, ok. Despite the teacher’s suggestion, S1 explicitly indicated his preference for English rather than the first language that he shared with ‘the confused stu­ dent’. While it is yet to understand S1’s motivation to insist on the use of English, there could be a few reasons. First, S1 might be more comfortable with the use of English in explaining challenging concepts, given the learning process where English is often used for the input of knowledge; second, S1 hopes to have his understanding checked by the teacher by using English to include the teacher in the community; third, S1 tries to use English as often as possible to enhance his English skills. While the observation does not pro­ vide opportunities to probe into the reasons in particular and future research can be done to pursue in this direction, the importance attached to English by students in general might offer some understanding on students’ language preference. This reminds me of another classroom example, as presented in what follows. At the end of the first session on the module, T2 sought student feedback on the course in order to understand what needs to be done to make future sessions more suitable for the students. While generally positive and informal, student feedback was centred on English:

212

Ying Wang Extract 7 S1: (smiling) You’re a good teacher. Your English is good. Your lecture is interesting. S2: Err, your lecture is good. I can understand your lecture. S3: Yes, your English is good. I can understand. S4: Yeah, it is good, it is good. S5: Yeah, it is good to study in English.

It was possible that students had impacts on each other so that the students who spoke later might have followed up with the ideas of those who spoke earlier. It was also possible that the students might have found easier to comment on English than content teaching. The students’ interest in English is visibly con­ nected with their focus on the accessibility of T2’s teaching through English as the medium of instruction. It is particularly in S1’s comment that the priority is given to English when evaluating T2’s teaching. S5’s view that ‘it is good to study in English’ converges with S1’s insistence on using English discussed earlier to confirm an interest in English. In short, classroom observation offers insights into student participation in EMI and student reaction to language choice. Wilkinson (2013) points out that students on EMI programmes often have three concerns including disciplinary competence, teaching competence, and language competence. The classroom observation in the current study highlights a concern for English language com­ petence among the international students. Nonetheless, no evidence is found in classroom observation to suggest that good English is associated with nativelike English. This converges with the findings from document analysis and interviews.

Discussion A messy picture is unfolded with regard to the language management in the uni­ versity’s internationalisation process through the examination of English in three aspects including university policy concerning EMI, teacher perspective on EMI and student reaction to EMI. The university’s education policy regards Chinese as equally useful as English in its internationalisation initiatives. Both Chinese and English are explicitly assigned as mediums of instruction on international programmes. The status planning of Chinese is reflected in the courses provided to international students of Chinese culture and of Chinese language learning, which serve the purpose of assimilating them into the Chinese culture. None­ theless, the actual language practice in classrooms does not fully support the university’s language status planning but emphasises the role of ELF in contrast with the marginal use of Chinese in international classroom communication. The focus on the pragmatic value of language is evident in that different languages are generally accepted as useful linguistic resources and the use of English suits the purpose of accommodating to international students. While acting as the

Role of English in internationalisation

213

negotiators between university policy and student needs, teachers appear to be contradictory and inconsistent. On the one hand, they engaged with the EMI process; on the other hand, they perceived difficulties and challenges in the hope to switch to Chinese-medium instruction (CMI). The debates on EMI in non-native English contexts inevitably involve the issue of culture and national identity (e.g. Ha 2013). A major concern is that the internationalisation of higher education with English at its heart is subject to ‘the hegemony of Western theoretical knowledge and the dominant role of English’ and inevitably leads to non-native English countries’ ‘academic dependency and Western superiority’ (Ha 2013: 164; Choi 2010). Although no evidence is found to support a concern with English as a threat to Chinese culture and identity, the Chinese university and teaching staff promote Chinese culture with the hope that CMI can be adopted among international students when they are ready, holding a strong belief that Chinese can help international students to cope with the competitiveness in international job markets. That is, while the role of ELF is acknowledged, there emerges a desire to promote the status of Chinese in inter­ national communication and in international communities. The desire converges with ‘the fast-growing scholarly interests in Chinese as a global language’ – as indicated on the website of the journal Global Chinese (www.degruyter.com/ view/j/glochi) and China’s endeavours to promote Chinese worldwide. An influential Chinese project known as the Confucius Institute makes a statement on its website (www.hanban.edu.cn/confuciousinstitutes/node_7537.htm) that the Confucius Institute strives to ‘promote the development of multiculturalism around the world and contribute to the construction of a world in harmony’. As an educational institution within China’s educational system, the university echoes the national dedication to contribute to the multilingualism in the global arena and its confidence in the role of Chinese in this pursuit. Notably, the belief in the role of Chinese in global multilingualism accommo­ dates with the acknowledgement of multilingual reality within China and the call for the need of experts in different modern languages for the development of Chinese economy. As explicitly indicated on the website of the Ministry of Edu­ cation of the People’s Republic of China, ‘there are more than 130 languages and more than 30 written languages in our country’ (www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/ s5990/201506/t20150610_189893.html). Some key universities specialising in developing multilingual experts provide various programmes of different mod­ ern languages, for instance, Arabic, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, to name just a few. Different language programmes provided in different private educational institutions also attract students from different walks of life. In addi­ tion, articles calling for the training and education of multilingual experts are pub­ lished in the media (e.g. http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/html/2017-06/08/ nw.D110000renmrb_20170608_2-17.htm). Thus, the promotion of Chinese among international students seems to converge with the forces resisting the pre­ dominance of English around the world. Education practice in the university in the current research seems to signal a departure from traditional attachment to native English norms. As far as many

214

Ying Wang

ELF scholars are concerned, the sociolinguistic fact of ELF use revealed through an ELF perspective is often neglected in many places, with monolingual native English bias still influential (e.g. Leung 2013). As Jenkins (2009: 11) argues, ‘the “fascination” with RP continues to this day’. Seidlhofer (2011: 42) points out that ‘what we are faced with is the claim that a national standard language should be valid not only within a particular country but globally’. The ‘national standard language’ in Seidlhofer’s words points to Standard English, which results from language regulations in native English-speaking communities. While the discus­ sion of the controversy of Standard English in native English-speaking contexts is beyond the scope of this chapter, the attempt to use Standard English to regulate ELF users’ sociolinguistic behaviour is epidemic in many places and thus subject to criticism from scholars adopting an ELF perspective. Adopting an ELF per­ spective, I find it difficult to discern from the data an attachment to native Eng­ lish norms in the university’s educational policy and practice. Rather, focus on meaning-making is clearly visible in the data. Teachers are confident in students’ English and their evaluation criteria have nothing to do with native-likeness. In classroom observation, no evidence points to a concern for native-likeness and the communication among classroom participants was smooth. This case study thus suggests an irrelevance of NESs’ authority for the approach to English in the internationalisation of the given university. While not explicit, a disconnec­ tion of English from native English norms seems to be hidden in educational policy and practice. That is, English is described in terms of its practical function and its pragmatic value for those who are involved in EMI practice in the current research. The approach to English in EMI in the Chinese university is thus different from the approach to English in English language education in China. As Wen (2012) points out, English teaching continues to be oriented towards native English in China. The ‘E’ in ELT is often institutionalised to target at native English norms, with Chinese universities playing an important role in reinforcing the importance of native English (Wang 2015). The ‘E’ in EMI, however, supports the learning of subjects and decentralises the notion of English as the language exclusively owned by native English speakers. This echoes studies (e.g. Murata and Iino 2017, Smit 2017) on EMI in other contexts which share a tendency of ELF practice in EMI, adding evidence to the expanding ownership of English among global users of English and challenging what Widdowson (2003:37) describes as the ‘custody’ of English by elite native English speakers. In addition, Wang and Wen’s (2017) study on Chinese university students on EMI programmes which prepare those students for overseas learning experiences reveals that those students tend to be open-minded towards various forms of English that enable effective communication and regard native English norms as disparaging in their beliefs of what makes good English. Put together, studies on EMI in China point to the decentralisation of native English and an acceptance of various forms of English that accommodate to learning and teaching experiences. To recap, the role of ELF emerges in the university’s internationalisation in three fundamental ways. First, English is recognised as a communicative

Role of English in internationalisation

215

instrument in internationalisation initiative. Second, English is acknowledged to be compatible with Chinese and other languages to contribute to multilin­ gualism. Third, a focus on meaning-making surfaces and adds to the argument that NESs’ norms are irrelevant for NNESs who use English for their own pur­ poses. Some challenges arise to the role of English from teachers’ perspectives. In particular, teachers’ professional identities are undermined in a few ways. First, teaching becomes less enjoyable for teachers when they cannot express what they can use Chinese to express; second, research interests were not fully respected and teaching load is decided according to their English proficiency; third, teach­ ers are evaluated in terms of their English rather than their disciplinary expertise. The university seeks to promote Chinese as a global language, which might resolve the teachers’ dilemma associated with the role of ELF. It is uncertain, however, whether international students can manage their studies through Chi­ nese as a medium of instruction on international programmes provided by the university. The spread of English has enabled the acquisition of English – although in different versions due to ELF users’ influences on the change of English (Mau­ ranen 2012) – on a global scale and given rise to the role of English in interna­ tional communication. Nonetheless, the emerging desire to promote Chinese as a global language urges our deliberation of the future of English in relation to other global languages in response to the call for multilingualism worldwide.

Conclusion This chapter has examined the role of English in a Chinese university’s inter­ nationalisation initiative by looking into institutional documents, teachers’ nar­ ratives and international students’ classroom experience. The university adopts an inclusive manner to accept different languages and different Englishes in the internationalisation of higher education, which has EMI at the core. The EMI initiative not only accommodates to international students’ needs to develop their disciplinary knowledge but also parallels with the promotion of the Chi­ nese language associated with Chinese culture and Chinese identity. The interac­ tion between university policy, teacher participation and international student involvement reveals the challenges underpinning the implementation of the EMI project. Those challenges include EMI teachers’ competence in English, inter­ national students’ competence in Chinese, and the balance between English and disciplinary capacity. These challenges request the thinking of staff support to carry out EMI and the rethinking of expectation for international students to develop Chinese competence to cope with CMI.

Acknowledgement Thanks to Liverpool University Press for their permission for my re-use of the data (in extracts 1, 3, 6, 7) that I used in Wang, Y. 2017. Language policy in Chinese higher education: a focus on international students in China. European Journal of Language Policy 9(1), 45–66.

Appendix Transcription conventions1

, [. . .] UTTERANCE [utterance] @ Utterance-utterance R T1, T2, . . . S1, S2, . . .

Continuing pitch contour Material omitted Emphatic utterance (i.e. with raised pitch or volume) Author’s clarification or elaboration Laughter Utterance being interrupted Interruption Researcher Teacher 1, Teacher 2, . . . Student 1, Student 2, . . .

Note 1 I adopt the convention that is used in Wang (2017).

References Altbach, P. G. and J. Knight 2007. The internationalisation of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3/4), 290–305. Choi, P. 2010. Weep for Chinese university: A case study of English hegemony and academic capitalism in higher education in Hong Kong. Journal of Education Policy 25(2), 233–252. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra 2013. English-Medium Instruction at Uni­ versities: Global Challenges. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Gillham, B. 2000. Case Study Research Methods. London and New York: Continuum. Ha, P. L. 2013. Issues surrounding English, the internationalisation of higher edu­ cation and national cultural identity in Asia: A focus on Japan. Critical Studies in Education. 54(2), 160–175. House, J. 2003. English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4), 556–578. Hu, G. and L. Alsagoff 2010. A public policy perspective on English medium instruc­ tion in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 31(4), 365–382.

Role of English in internationalisation

217

Hu, L. 2015. Exploring policies, practices and orientations towards English as a medium of instruction in Chinese higher education. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Southamp­ ton: University of Southampton. Leung, C. 2013. The ‘social’ in English language teaching: Abstracted norms versus situated enactments. Journal of English as a Lingua franca. 2(2), 283–313. Lumby, J. and N. Foskett 2016. Internationalisation and culture in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1), 95–111. Jenkins, J. 2009. (Un)pleasant? (In)correct? (Un)intelligible? ELF speakers’ percep­ tions of their accents. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publish­ ing, pp. 10–36. Jenkins, J. 2015a. Global Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. London and New York: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015b. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85. Kuteeva, M. 2014. The parallel language use of Swedish and English: The question of ‘nativeness’ in university policies and practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multi­ cultural Development 35, 332–344. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Murata, K. and M. Iino 2017. EMI in higher education: An ELF perspective. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, and M. Dewey (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxon and New York: Routledge, pp. 400–412. Naidoo, V. 2006. International education: A tertiary-level update. Journal of Research in International Education 5(3), 323–345. The National Outline for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Develop­ ment (国家中长期教育改革和发展计划纲要) Available from: www.china.com.cn/ policy/txt/2010-03/01/content_19492625_3.htm [accessed 20 July 2014]. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. 2001. English for globalisation or for the world’s people? International Review of Education 47(3/4), 185–200. Saarinen, T. and T. Nikula 2013. Implicit policy, invisible language: Policies and practices of international degree programmes in Finnish higher education. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Uni­ versities: Global Challenges. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters, pp. 131–150. Seidlhofer, B. 2003. A concept of international English and related issues: From ‘real English’ to ‘realistic English’? Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available from: www. serwis.wsjo.pl/lektor/1783/R21%20Seidlhofer%20International%20English.pdf [accessed 1 September 2014]. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shohamy, E. 2013. A critical perspective on the use of English as a medium of instruction at universities. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters, pp. 196–212. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and R. Phillipson 2010. The global politics of language: Mar­ kets, maintenance, marginalisation, or murder? In N. Coupland (ed.), Handbook on Language and Globalisation. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 77–100.

218

Ying Wang

Smit, U. 2017. Beyond monolingualism in higher education: A language policy account. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, and M. Dewey (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxon and New York: Routledge, pp. 387–399. Steger, M. 2009. Globalisation: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tange, H. 2010. Caught in the tower of babel: University lecturers’ experiences with internationalization. Language and Intercultural Communication 10, 137–149. Wang, Y. 2015. Chinese university students’ ELF awareness: Impacts of language education in China. Englishes in Practice 2(4), 86–106. Wang, Y. 2017. Language policy in Chinese higher education: A focus on interna­ tional students in China. European Journal of Language Policy. 9(1), 45–66. Wang, Y. and Q. Wen 2017. English as a multi-lingua franca and language ideolo­ gies in China. The 10th Anniversary Conference of English as a Lingua Franca. Helsinki. Wen, Q. 2012. English as a lingua franca: A pedagogical perspective. Journal of Eng­ lish as a Lingua Franca 1(2), 371–376. Widdowson, H. G. 2003. Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkinson, R. 2013. English-medium instruction at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multi­ lingual Matters, pp. 3–26. Yang, R. 2002. Third Delight: The Internationalisation of Higher Education in China. New York: Routledge.

13 Designing CELFIL (content and ELF integrated learning) for EMI classes in higher education1 Nobuyuki HinoDesigning CELFIL for EMI classes

Nobuyuki Hino Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the prospects of developing pedagogy for helping students in higher education to learn English as a lingua franca (ELF) through English-medium instruction (EMI) (Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2013; Murata 2013; Shohamy 2013). EMI refers to content courses, such as sociology, economics, or biology classes taught in English, rather than ones solely aimed at English language teaching (ELT). While examples analyzed in the pre­ sent chapter are mostly taken from Japan, it is assumed that many of the findings may be applicable to other countries as well. As in much of the rest of the world, EMI in higher education has recently been on the increase in Japan. This trend is expected to be further enhanced by the Japanese government’s funding policy to prioritize the universities introducing EMI into their curricula, as evident in the governmental initiative in 2014 for appointing “super-global universities,” which listed the promotion of EMI as one of the three major conditions for eligibility.2 What is the significance of those EMI courses from ELT perspectives? With­ out doubt, EMI not only reduces linguistic obstacles for many international stu­ dents but also has a potential as an opportunity for Japanese students to acquire proficiency in English. As to linguistic aspects, ELF scholars have recently been looking into the use of ELF in EMI classes (e.g. Gotti 2014; Iino and Murata 2013; Jenkins 2014; Kirkpatrick 2014; Mauranen 2012; Smit 2010) in which local students often study alongside international classmates of various nationali­ ties, whose majority (including the instructors) are non-native speakers of Eng­ lish. However, while the linguistic and sociolinguistic realities in EMI have been investigated, there have only been limited discussions, though with some excep­ tions (e.g. Dalton-Puffer and Smit 2013; Iino and Murata 2016), on the need for devising pedagogical methodologies for dual-purpose courses in content and ELF. While research projects on ELF pedagogy are now becoming popular (e.g. Bayyurt and Akcan 2015), they have been conducted mostly on ELT courses rather than on content and language integrated learning (CLIL) (Coyle, Hood and Marsh 2010; Watanabe, Ikeda and Izumi 2011) in EMI.

220

Nobuyuki Hino

Building on Hino (2015) in which I presented a preliminary analysis of the topic, the present chapter argues that ELF researchers should work towards the development of a new approach for EMI in higher education, in collaboration with instructors of EMI courses in various fields of discipline. Such pedagogy may be called content and ELF integrated learning (CELFIL) (Hino 2017a, 2017b), drawing upon the concept of CLIL. In comparison with what Smit (2013) calls “implicit ICELF (Integrating Content and English as a Lingua Franca),” which takes place “independently from explicit ICL3 support or language learning aims, when and if English functions as the lecturers’ and learners’ lingua franca as well as their (future) professional language” (ibid.: 25. Parenthesis in the original), CELFIL may in turn be rephrased as “explicit ICELF,” where EMI classes are intentionally re-designed to facilitate the learning of ELF. The notion of ELF that I employ for CELFIL is more or less in line with the concept put forth by “the ELF school” (e.g. Jenkins 2007, 2014; Mauranen 2012; Seidlhofer 2011; Widdowson 2012, 2015) with an emphasis on the fluid, dynamic, and even multilingual nature (Jenkins 2015) of ELF. However, the ELF in CELFIL is also blended with the concept of English as an international language (EIL) proposed initially by Smith (1976), along with indigenous Japa­ nese philosophies of “International English” (kokusai-eigo) represented by Kuni­ hiro (1970) and Suzuki (1975), as a reflection of my own stance towards ELF. The term ELF in the present chapter is defined as “English for communication between those from different linguacultural backgrounds.” Cultural aspects are emphasized in this definition, while also including the core factor found in many definitions of ELF (e.g. Jenkins 2007; Seidlhofer 2011) that participants do not share the same first language. It may be added that the incorporation of ELF into CLIL could have wider implications, as it also relates to macrolinguistic issues such as the dilemma between multilingualism and the dominance of English (Dalton-Puffer and Smit 2016). However, this chapter chooses not to explore such aspects, but will mainly focus on the issues of classroom pedagogy.

EMI as an opportunity for learning ELF Although it is only recently that ELF in EMI began to attract many research­ ers’ attention, EMI classes in higher education already functioned as a place for learning ELF during the infancy of EMI in Japan in the 1980s. On a radio ELT program in Japan in 1989 entitled “Let’s Read and Think” (English for Millions) for which I served as the lecturer, I interviewed Professor Benito M. Pacheco, Fil­ ipino scholar of civil engineering who was teaching one of the pioneer graduate EMI courses at Tokyo University. He talked about how Japanese students in his class learned English from him, and even more importantly, from international students. His contribution to the textbook for this radio ELT program reads: It’s funny but my Japanese students in engineering frequently have to teach me their language. In turn they say they are also learning English from me, and from the many non-Japanese students here. (Pacheco, in Hino 1989: 133)

Designing CELFIL for EMI classes 221 Most of the international students, as well as the professor from the Outer Circle in World Englishes (WE) terminology (Kachru 1985), are non-native speakers of Eng­ lish. As shown in this example, there have long been valuable chances in EMI classes for Japanese students to learn to communicate in ELF through authentic interactions with ELF users from diverse linguacultural backgrounds. It is high time that these opportunities should be fully exploited for ELF education, instead of letting them pass merely as an incidental by-product of EMI. CELFIL is an effort in this direction.

Diversity of EMI environments There are various types of EMI classes in higher education, depending on a range of factors such as teacher profiles, student demographics, disciplinary content, academic levels, and venues. For example, Table 13.1 shows some of the EMI classes that I have observed4 or taught. In addition to those of Japan, it includes a university in Taiwan which shares the East Asian Expanding Circle environment. The five factors interact with one another to produce a variety of EMI situa­ tions in terms of pedagogical as well as sociolinguistic aspects. For instance, classes such as #1 and #5, both offered at one of the aforementioned “Super-Global Table 13.1 Profiles of EMI classes in higher education researched in the present project Teacher

Students

Content

Level

Venue

Graduate (Master)

Japan

Education Education

Undergrad Undergrad

Japan Japan

4

Local

Japanese art history

Undergrad

Japan

5

Local

Ocean engineering

Graduate (Master)

Japan

6

International (Expanding Circle) International (Outer Circle) International (Inner Circle)

International (Outer and Expanding Circle) and local Local International (Expanding Circle) and local International (Expanding Circle) and local International (Outer and Expanding Circle) and local Mostly local, with a few international (Expanding Circle) Local

Applied linguistics

2 3

Local (with an Inner Circle TA) Local Local

Algebra

Undergrad

Japan

Asian studies

Undergrad

Japan

Japanese literature

Undergrad

Japan

English literature

Undergrad

Taiwan

1

7 8

9

Local

International (Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circle) and local Mostly local, with a few international (Expanding Circle)

222

Nobuyuki Hino

Universities,” are examples of EMI classes that the Japanese Ministry of Educa­ tion typically seems to envisage, particularly with respect to the mixture of local students and varieties of international students. Those classes indeed embody the kind of EMI environment mainly discussed in this chapter, but they certainly do not represent the whole, as evident in classes such as #2 and #7. Although I will not go into further discussions on the taxonomy or typology of EMI classes, it should be kept in mind that a diversity of situations, especially from ELF per­ spectives, actually exist in what has been simply referred to as “EMI in higher education.”

EMI classes as a community of practice in ELF Class #1 in the table is one of my own classes at a national university in the Kansai region, a Master’s level course entitled “Education in language and cul­ ture,” which I teach in English. This is my self-initiated EMI class, though the university also has official EMI curricula in its various sectors, such as a graduate EMI program in biotechnology, undergraduate EMI programs in human science (psychology/sociology/education) and in technology, and a short-term under­ graduate student exchange program. In Japanese universities, as with #2 (a private university in the Tokai region) and #7 (a municipal university in the Hokuriku region), EMI classes consisting only of Japanese students are by no means uncommon. My graduate EMI class also used to be comprised largely of Japanese students. However, it has attracted international students from various departments for the past few years since the launch of a campus information system on available EMI classes. While classes such as #2 and #7 can still be useful for ELF education in their own ways, enrollment by international students is what makes EMI courses par­ ticularly significant for the learning of ELF (Hino 2004). In regard to the fluid and dynamic nature of ELF emphasized in recent ELF studies (e.g. Cogo 2012; Jenks 2014; Seidlhofer 2011), there is a strong need for teachers to engage their students in authentic ELF interactions. Since rules for intercultural communica­ tion in such fluid and dynamic ELF interactions are extremely difficult to general­ ize, a large part of them must be learned in-situ through actual experience. Drawing on the concept known as the “community of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991), I envisioned in 2003 a construction of such an optimal environ­ ment for the learning of ELF or EIL5 in university classroom situations – “an English class which consists of Japanese students, non-native English speaking students from overseas, native English speaking students, and the teacher as the leader constitutes a community of practice in EIL” (Hino 2003: 75). However, there are major obstacles to the realization of this vision for many undergradu­ ate ELT classes such as those at my university because of the limited number of international students in the regular ELT curriculum (Hino and Oda 2015). On the other hand, EMI classes, rather than ELT courses, have promising potential in this respect, regardless of the fact that the learning of English is not the primary goal of EMI courses. For example, in the fall semester of 2013, my

Designing CELFIL for EMI classes 223 graduate class had four students from Japan, joined by one each from Thailand, Laos, and mainland China, along with a Ph.D. student from the US as the teach­ ing assistant (TA). In Fall 2014, this class had seven students from Japan, five from mainland China, three from Germany, and one each from Iran and Papua New Guinea, also with the American TA. In both of these classes, the diversity of the student population provided a ground for building a community of practice in ELF. A salient aspect of this community of practice in ELF is that the American TA, the only native speaker of English in the class, also learned in this environment how to communicate in ELF as much as he assisted the other participants. As the classic tenet by Smith (1978) holds, learners of EIL, unlike those of English as a second language (ESL), include native speakers of English. Based on a project in the US, Kubota (2001) has also argued for the importance of helping native speakers of English to learn to communicate with speakers of WE.

Authenticity of ELF in EMI classes The lack of authenticity in many undergraduate ELT classes, mentioned ear­ lier, is a serious limitation for ELF education, especially when it concerns peer interaction. When most students share their first language (i.e. Japanese in our present example), even if the teacher manages to succeed in motivating the students in interacting with their classmates in English, the sort of English that grows out of such situations may not be internationally intelligible. After all, extremely heavily Japanized English, which would not be understood in inter­ national settings, can be most communicative between Japanese compatriots. The students should try to produce internationally communicative Japanese English (e.g. Hino 2012a, c),6 but there is no way for them to test the inter­ national intelligibility of their English as long as all of their interlocutors are fellow Japanese. The presence of international students is a crucial factor in this regard. In my graduate class, even when interaction occurs only between Japanese students, they are aware that their international classmates are listening to the discus­ sion, with a realization that their English, no matter how Japanese it may be, is required to be comprehensible to the non-Japanese participants.

The need for CELFIL (content and ELF integrated learning) The presence of international students in class does not automatically guarantee that the learning of communicative skills in ELF will take place. For instance, although many ESL courses at American universities consist of non-native speak­ ers of English from a diversity of backgrounds, we cannot expect those classes to produce competent ELF speakers. They are literally ESL classes, targeted at preparing the students for communication with native speakers of English in the American context.

224

Nobuyuki Hino

There is a need to develop a new pedagogical approach for enhancing the learning of ELF in EMI, a methodology that may be called CELFIL as men­ tioned earlier. In this section, some of the issues in CELFIL as a dual-purpose pedagogy, chiefly based on my experiences and observations, are classified into two categories – basic conditions for implementing CELFIL and methodological considerations in devising CELFIL.

Conditions for implementing CELFIL Several important conditions need to be met for a successful implementation of CELFIL at Japanese universities, including awareness-raising and interdepart­ mental collaboration discussed in the following subsections.

Raising awareness in ELF With the prevalent native-speakerism at universities (Houghton and Rivers 2013; Jenkins 2014), the reality is that the dominance of non-native speakers among the participants in EMI is not really seen as a positive asset. This tendency is typically represented by the words of a professor of a major EMI program at a Japanese university, who described, in my informal interview (December 2013), the Englishes produced by non-native English-speaking international students as “strange English.” Raising awareness in the significance of ELF among stake­ holders of EMI courses is of essential importance as a premise for the successful implementation of CELFIL. Likewise, the value of non-native speakers of Eng­ lish as instructors of EMI courses should be recognized by considering the ques­ tion “Is the E in EMI a native speaker E?” (Kirkpatrick 2014: 9). Here is an episode in my graduate class (Class #1) that points to the impor­ tance of raising students’ awareness in de-Anglo-Americanized ELF in CELFIL. After a few weekly sessions in Fall 2014, one of the international students candidly expressed her disappointment by saying, “As far as the learning of English is con­ cerned, I am not getting anything so far.” She had started taking my class in the second semester, and therefore had not had a chance to study the concept of ELF covered in the first semester (spring semester).7 Certainly, as long as the target is native speaker English, this class must have appeared less than ideal, with its focus on small group discussions among non-native speakers of English, led by a profes­ sor who spoke distinctly “Japanese” English. Then, I explained to her that “the learning of English” in this class actually lay in the intercultural experience of inter­ acting with a diversity of ELF users that required active practice in communication skills in ELF. With this bit of guidance, in my observation, she seemed to begin to understand the basic philosophy of ELF that the whole class was based upon.

Interdepartmental/interdisciplinary collaboration My graduate class may actually turn out to be a rare case for CELFIL, as it is taught by an EIL/ELF researcher. For the majority of professors who teach EMI

Designing CELFIL for EMI classes 225 courses, collaboration with ELF experts will be essential for the implementa­ tion of CELFIL. In fact, as Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2013) point out, cooperation between ELT experts and non-language specialist instructors is a key to successful EMI. This is even truer when the EMI is intended for CLIL, as in CELFIL. It is akin to the interdepartmental collaboration for the teaching of English for specific purposes (ESP) that has been underway for some time (e.g. Fukui, Noguchi and Watanabe 2009). Though not restricted to university classrooms, Richards and Rodgers (2014) describe the difficulty in collaboration between language teachers and content teachers, stating that “team-teaching proposals involving language teachers and subject-matter teachers are often considered unwieldy and likely to reduce the efficiency of both” (ibid.: 133). Indeed, as often experienced by those involved in ESP education, cooperation with faculty members from other departments, in the form of team-teaching or other modes of collaboration, is by no means an easy task, particularly at many traditional Japanese universities where departments operate independently of each other. Still, such efforts will be unquestionably indispensable for CELFIL. In my experience, for example, observing Class #5 listed earlier, a Master’s class in ocean engineering in the School of Engineering at my university was a very rare chance, but proved highly productive. I fortunately gained this opportunity when I found by coincidence that one of my former students in the Graduate School of Language and Culture happened to work as a staff in a program that involved a Japanese professor of engineering who was given an educational award by the university president for his EMI practices. I made an inquiry to the former student if there was any chance that I could be allowed to observe the professor’s class, and then my long-cherished dream of observing a science or technology EMI class finally came true. Observing Class #5, coupled with a brief interview with the professor of ocean engineering, led to a discovery that various significant activities were going on in an effort to help students with the learning of English in spite of the fact that it was not an ELT class. For example, in this lecture-style graduate EMI class with 28 Japanese students and four international students, the Japanese professor dis­ tributes detailed lists of vocabulary words and phrases useful in the field of ocean engineering. He also gives a quiz at the beginning of every class session on those vocabulary words and phrases in addition to questions on the theory of ocean engineering itself. Through his international experiences in the academic circle, the professor who was raised and educated in Japan is familiar with difficulties that non-native speakers of English (Japanese students especially) are likely to face, and is very eager to help his students in their academic endeavors in English. In my hope to make a bit of contribution to his class as an instance of small collaboration, I suggested to the professor of ocean engineering that he should be aware that his English demonstrated in class is also valuable as a production model of ELF for the students, especially as a model of Japanese English for inter­ national communication (Hino 2012a) for Japanese students. Indeed, as some professors of content classes are seriously concerned with how their students’

226

Nobuyuki Hino

command of English could be improved, there is ample room for language edu­ cation experts to assist them in their pedagogical efforts. Moving from the general administrative aspects mentioned previously, the next section discusses basic principles for developing appropriate CELFIL methodol­ ogy for each particular classroom situation.

Methodological issues in designing CELFIL The following six factors, among others, are to be taken into methodological considerations for CELFIL, which include both macro and micro aspects.

Local educational traditions and the need for intercultural pedagogy One of the significant findings of applied linguistics research during the past few decades has been the importance of locally appropriate pedagogy (e.g. Bow­ ers and Widdowson 1986; Henrichsen 1989; Hino 1992; Holliday 1994; Kern 2000; Matsuda 2012; McKay 2003), as it concerns the social and cultural values embedded in each educational context. This aspect deserves attention also for EMI in higher education in Japan, where pedagogy for EMI tends to be regarded as inextricably linked to methodologies employed in American university classes for American students. In fact, in my experiences and observations, if you go to a faculty development seminar on EMI for Japanese universities, you are often simply introduced to how courses are taught at universities in the US. A Japanese professor administering an EMI program at a major national university in Japan explained his policy on this point, in my informal interview (April 2014), say­ ing that he accepts Anglo-American university pedagogy as “the de-facto global standard for English-medium courses in higher education” (in Japanese, trans­ lation mine). This view can be debatable from the standpoint of the present chapter. However, this issue of cultural compatibility with local educational traditions is also highly complicated in light of the diversity of the student population in many EMI classes. For instance, while it is often counter-productive for Japanese stu­ dents to eliminate Japanese translation from classrooms, not only for pedagogical and sociolinguistic reasons (e.g. Cook 2010; Widdowson 2014) but also due to historical factors (Hino 1992), what about international students who do not suf­ ficiently understand the local language? In fact, this becomes an issue in seven of the nine classes (except for #2 and #7) in the earlier example list. Likewise, even if student-centered teaching is not exactly compatible with the Confucian tradition of East Asia (Beckett and Zhao 2016), what about international students from other parts of the world, such as Europe and America? With respect to the plurality of educational traditions among the students in many EMI classes, the need for intercultural pedagogy in CELFIL should be highlighted. Such pedagogy would not be attributable to one static model but would require a certain negotiation among the participants of EMI classes for each particular situation.

Designing CELFIL for EMI classes 227 As much as appropriate methodology is culture-specific, it is also disciplinespecific. The latter aspect is discussed in the next section.

Methodology appropriate for each content area What methods and techniques are generally usable for CELFIL across different content areas, or specific to each subject? In what ways should the methodology be the same or different, for instance, between philosophy classes and chemistry classes? ELF researchers, as language specialists, usually have only limited access to classrooms in content subjects, especially to those in science and technology. To find answers for these questions, interdepartmental and interdisciplinary col­ laboration mentioned earlier will be of essential importance. Each academic discipline has its own pedagogical traditions. For example, group work has not been commonly practiced in mathematical science. In fact, in my observation research, classes #5 (theories of physics in ocean engineering) and #6 (algebra) were also lecture classes. Katsuhiro Uno, a professor of Osaka University and an expert on mathematical education, endorsed this view in my interview (May 2016) by saying, “group work has largely been uncommon in university mathematics classes both in general education and science-major cur­ ricula” (In Japanese, translation mine). In regard to higher education in Taiwan, Tsui (2016) also reports that teachers of statistics are generally not very interested in doing group work in their classes. Thus, in this case, it is important for instructors of EMI classes in subjects such as mathematics, whether they are team-taught with ELF experts or not, to care­ fully come up with some pedagogical strategy before introducing a method for which group work is an essential component. For a CELFIL method to be suc­ cessful, a certain degree of compatibility with those discipline-specific traditions needs to be ensured.

Student demographics Different methodologies should be used in accordance with the student demo­ graphics for each class. In terms of the definition of ELF, presented earlier, as English for communication between those from different linguacultural back­ grounds, some EMI classes constitute an authentic ELF environment with stu­ dents from a diversity of linguistic and cultural backgrounds, while others only comprise local students. In the former, methods that employ peer interaction can naturally engage students in authentic ELF tasks. On the other hand, students are not always motivated to use English in the latter. Dalton-Puffer (2011) describes, though not in specific reference to higher education, what normally occurs in CLIL classrooms where students share their first language: Even though CLIL classrooms are widely considered as motivating, the actual commitment of participants to using the target language seems to vary enormously. Student behavior during group work has often been used as a

228

Nobuyuki Hino measure in this respect, the most common observation being that students immediately switched to the L1 once they were among themselves. (ibid.: 191)

The above quotation matches my own observation of EMI classes in general, with or without CLIL orientations. For example, in small group discussions in Class #9 (undergraduate English literature class in Taiwan) listed earlier, groups with at least one international student were observed to have discussions in Eng­ lish, while groups composed only of Taiwanese students were found to do the discussion task in Chinese. This tendency is simply natural in terms of authentic­ ity, or the lack thereof, for using English. Student demographics are a key factor in designing CELFIL, a method of CLIL for helping students in EMI classes to learn both content and ELF, suited for each particular class situation.

Manner of scaffolding One of the difficult points for the CELFIL teacher is the appropriate manner of “scaffolding”; that is, when and how to lend support to the students in their learning of content and ELF. This problem is evident, for example, in small group discussions mentioned earlier. Although I am critical of the fact that a small group discussion tends to be practiced in all modes of higher education today with little reflection on its rationale, it should certainly be an important activity for many cases of CELFIL as an opportunity for training vital interactive skills in ELF such as accommodation (Jenkins 2000) and negotiation of meaning (Seidlhofer 2009). For this goal, I make sure that each group has some international diver­ sity. That is, while the majority of students in my graduate class come from Japan and China, an arrangement is made so that there will be no “Japanese-only” or “Chinese-only” group. However, from my experience in the graduate class, an attempt to provide stu­ dents with a chance for practicing ELF skills in small group discussions is likely to result in simply letting the students “learn-by-doing” without sufficient feedback by the teacher. While the issue of proper scaffolding can be a problem in small group discussions in any subject, this is all the more so in CELFIL with regard to the complexity of its dual focus on content and ELF. A technique that I have developed for CELFIL, presented in the next section, is one effort towards a solution for this problem.

“Approach, method, and technique” for CELFIL What does CELFIL actually look like? As a framework for the description of pedagogy, three layers of methodology known as “approach, method, and tech­ nique” will be employed in this section, adapted with modifications from the clas­ sic work by Anthony (1963). Although a more popular paradigm for pedagogy today is “approach, design, and procedure” by Richards and Rodgers (1982, 2014), the former is opted here in favor of its simple focus on “how to teach,”

Designing CELFIL for EMI classes 229 when the latter entails the whole package of education including such aspects as syllabi and materials. If the word “methodology” may be adopted as a cover term, the analytical framework “approach, method, and technique” offers a stratified view of “meth­ odology” from abstract to concrete. An “approach” is the most abstract, refer­ ring to the conceptual foundation of a methodology. A “method,” used in this chapter somewhat differently from Anthony (1963), points to basic components of classroom management for putting the philosophical “approach” into peda­ gogical practice. Though also slightly changed from Anthony’s original defini­ tion, a “technique,” as the most concrete stage of a methodology, is an actual activity based on the “method.” When observers visit a classroom, what they see in front of their eyes are techniques. In this section, an example of class­ room methodology for CELFIL, under construction in my current project, is presented in accordance with this framework.

An approach (or approaches) for CELFIL Though there could be various different standpoints for CELFIL, my own approach for CELFIL is as follows, integrating the viewpoints of ELF, WE, and EIL with the basic philosophy of CLIL at the same time. We learn a language effectively when we deal with meaningful content in the language, as argued early by Widdowson (1978), which is also true with ELF. ELF is interactively and collaboratively constructed in-situ as a “variation” (Widdowson 2015), though also built upon each speaker’s “variety” (Kachru and Smith 1985) whether it is an institutionalized variety of the Outer Circle or a performance variety of the Expanding Circle (Kachru 1980).

Methods for CELFIL Methods for CELFIL need to vary, depending on each specific EMI environ­ ment. Presented in the following list is just one version, chiefly based on my teaching experiences, combined with my observations of other EMI classes: 1

2

The instructor (professor) teaches a subject in English with a certain degree of awareness of the concept of ELF, or with a support from an expert (or experts) in ELF education. The collaboration with an ELF teacher (or teach­ ers), though often difficult in reality, may take place inside and/or outside the classroom, that is, in the form of team-teaching and/or assistance in such aspects as the syllabus, materials, and tests. For input, the students are exposed to the ELF used in academic contexts. For output, the instructor helps the students to produce acceptable ELF for academic contexts, where, as shown by studies on English as a lingua franca in academic settings (ELFA) (Mauranen 2012, 2016), communicative needs often make conventional native speaker norms irrelevant both in linguistic and pragmatic domains.

230 3

4

5

Nobuyuki Hino Corrections on the students’ oral English are mainly made in the form of recast, though occasionally with explicit explanation, based on the accept­ able usage (not only linguistically but also sociolinguistically) of spoken ELF in academic contexts. Corrections on the students’ written English are also made in accordance with the acceptable usage of academic ELF. The criteria draw upon research results on ELFA such as Mauranen (2012, 2016) as well as on the instructor’s experience as an ELF user in academic situations. Again, the important point is that models are not restricted to native speaker usages. The instructor’s feedback, including corrections, with regard to the content should be made as “comprehensible input,” in a more general sense than in the controversial theory by Krashen (e.g. 1985), so that it may help the students to improve linguistic proficiency as well as content knowledge. In classes with internationally diverse students, opportunities for peer inter­ actions are frequently provided to practice communication skills in the authentic ELF environment where participants come from different linguacultural backgrounds.

Techniques for CELFIL Activities in my graduate CELFIL class thus far are mainly lectures, student presentations, whole-class discussions, and small group discussions (including “OSGD” explained later). Group presentation projects, practiced in EMI classes #4 (Japanese art history) and #8 (Japanese literature), can also be useful. Other possible activities for CELFIL include interactions outside of class with the use of e-learning platforms such as Moodle. An example of CELFIL techniques which has grown out of my reflective prac­ tice in the graduate class (usually with a little more or less than 15 students) is what I call observed small group discussion (OSGD) (Hino 2017c), pronounced “Osgood.” In OSGD, one small group is set up, and all other students sit around the group to observe their discussion. This activity is aimed at the learning of conversational skills in ELF including such strategies as accommodation, nego­ tiation of meaning, turn-taking, and even code-switching (or “translanguaging” from the latest ELF perspectives) (Cogo 2016). The basic procedure for OSGD is as follows: 1

2 3 4

The instructor organizes one small group (preferably consisting of interna­ tional diversity), and have other students surround the discussion group and observe their discussion. The discussion continues 10 to 15 minutes. Observers pay attention to a range of aspects, from the content of the discus­ sion to the use of communication strategies. After the discussion/observation session, the instructor leads a wholeclass discussion, in which the discussants and the observers together reflect on the content of the discussion as well as the use of communication

Designing CELFIL for EMI classes 231 strategies. The instructor provides appropriate feedback in the wholeclass discussion. In ordinary small group discussions, it is difficult for the teacher, when moving around to watch several groups one after another, to offer proper feedback at a right timing. This problem often results in an unfortunate “sink-or-swim” situa­ tion, forcing students themselves to figure out how without sufficient guidance. OSGD is a pedagogical attempt to best help the students to acquire communi­ cative skills in ELF, combined with the autonomous learning of conversational strategies through their observations. For instance, OSGD practice in my graduate class (#1, applied linguistics) in 2015 provided an opportunity for learning manners of clarification. Clarification as a process of the negotiation of meaning is a vital ELF skill, since ELF inter­ action, which takes place between those who come from diverse linguacultural backgrounds, is where participants find it especially important to make efforts to avoid misunderstanding. Firstly, an expression commonly taught in ELT in Japan for clarifying the inten­ tion of one’s interlocutor is “What do you mean by～?” (or simply “What do you mean?”). The following is an example of its use, from an OSGD in Class #1:

Example 1: C: People from Asia, they have this kind of attitude, or this kind of habit to do this kind of thing. Although their peers . . . peers come to Japan, they also have this attitude, I think, to make good friends to campus people. J: OK, what do you mean by “good friends”? C: Yeah, “good friends”? J: Yeah. C: I don’t think . . . ah, “good friends” . . . (C = Chinese student, J = Japanese student) The question “What do you mean by ～?” is so broad that it gives a lot of bur­ den to the interlocutor. In Example 1, in my observation, the Chinese student appeared to find the question even a little intimidating, which hampered the continuation of the discussion. In contrast, Example 2, from an OSGD in the same class, shows a more sophis­ ticated way of clarification, which I took up in a subsequent whole-class discus­ sion as a good sample.

Example 2: J: If they want to use, if the Japanese students want to apologize, they can, but it’s also important that Americans don’t go . . . [inaudible]. I: Haha, you mean, letting the Japanese students know that?

232

Nobuyuki Hino

J: Know, and let them choose which way they could say. I: You mean, letting the Americans . . . ah . . . . letting the Japanese students say I’m sorry in any case they want to? Is that what you are implying? J: It depends on who you are talking to, of course. I: I see. (J = Japanese student, I = Iranian student) The question “You mean ～?” (or “Do you mean ～?”), which is much more specific than “What do you mean by ～?,” makes it easier for the interlocutor to respond. In Example 2, the Iranian student, who is experienced in international communication, helps the discussion to smoothly go on by suggesting possible answers for her interlocutor with the use of “You mean ～?” The significance of OSGD is that the students can learn from actual examples such as these, by generating or observing them in small group discussions, com­ bined with the reflections on those experiences in whole-class discussions. According to feedback from students in Class #1, OSGD thus far seems to be serving its intended purpose. The following are responses from two of the stu­ dents to my questionnaire, “Do you find the series of OSGD (Observed Small Group Discussion) useful for improving your skills for communicating in English as an International Language?” (December 2015): I find it very useful. When I am an observer, I can pay attention to commu­ nication strategies. . . . Then, when I am a discussant, I can use the commu­ nication strategies that I have learned from my observations. (A Japanese student. In Japanese) [B]y serving as an observer, I was able to learn what strategies I should use, how I may express my opinions, and so on. When I served as a discussant again in OSGD in today’s class, although I was still nervous, I was able to do the discussion task, by using the knowledge that I have acquired as an observer. (A Chinese student. In Japanese) The synergic learning resulting from serving both as an observer and a discussant is one of the strengths of OSGD, as revealed in the above responses. OSGD is one example of useful activities for utilizing EMI classes for ELF education, while this technique itself could also be employed for other pedagogi­ cal purposes. Further efforts should be made to come up with more techniques for CELFIL.

Conclusion This chapter has discussed the prospects of designing a methodology, named CELFIL, for teaching content and ELF in an integrated manner in EMI courses, when EMI in higher education is on the rapid rise across the world including Japanese universities.

Designing CELFIL for EMI classes 233 Among various approaches to devising a new pedagogy, I suggest that we work towards the development of CELFIL by way of reflective teaching or reflective practice (Freeman and Richards 1996; Richards and Lockhart 1994; Richards and Farrell 2005 cf. Richards and Hino 1983). Reflective teaching is a way of improving a teacher’s classroom practice by employing various measures including journals, video-recording, questionnaires, peer observations, and peer discussions. Though traditionally considered to be for teachers’ individual devel­ opment, reflective teaching can also contribute to the devising of new teaching methods, as in the case of IPTEIL (Integrated Practice in Teaching English as an International Language) (Hino 2012b; Hino and Oda 2015). In fact, the results of action research through reflective practice can be effectively shared with other teachers, as proven successful in projects such as JACET (2007) in the area of university ELT, leading to further progress in pedagogy. International students’ participation is not the only factor that makes EMI classes an ideal place for learning ELF. As is evident in our years of experience in the content-based approach since the 1980s (e.g. Mohan 1986) or even from the late 1970s (Widdowson 1978), language learning is likely to occur in a most efficient manner when meaningful content is dealt with. Although it may seem ironic that the best environment for ELF education is often found in EMI classes rather than in ELT courses, it actually is only natural in light of the nature of lan­ guage learning. That is, learning language through content enhances motivation (Widdowson 1978) as well as cognition (Richards and Rodgers 2014). In addi­ tion, such a holistic approach is practical and realistic when the language model is unspecified, as with fluid and dynamic ELF. It is to be noted here that the present chapter has chosen not to make a clear distinction between EMI and CLIL. As Murata, Iino and Konakahara (2017) point out, the distinction between these two key concepts is not necessarily clear­ cut despite their different aims, partly because students often expect to improve their English skills by taking EMI classes. Furthermore, some instructors for EMI courses, as with the professor of engineering in Class #5, consciously and consci­ entiously endeavor to help their students with English, even though their exper­ tise lies in disciplines other than ELT. In the three-layered framework employed for this chapter, the concept of CEL­ FIL belongs to the level of “approach” that should be open to various “meth­ ods,” in which multiple “techniques” (such as OSGD) may be practiced. It is hoped that CELFIL, an approach to make the most of EMI classes for the learn­ ing of ELF, will be put to classroom practice in creative manners through col­ laborative efforts by educators and researchers across different fields of discipline.

Notes 1 This research has been partially funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) JP24520700, 2012–2014 and JP15K02678, 2015–2017. I am grateful to Mr. Simon Yu for helping me with proofreading.

234

Nobuyuki Hino

2 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. www.mext.go.jp/b_ menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/09/26/1352218_01.pdf (Last retrieved on September 13, 2016) 3 ICL stands for “Integrating Content and Language” or “Integration of Content and Language.” 4 Several of these classes have been observed in collaboration with Setsuko Oda (Kinjo Gakuin University). 5 In some contexts, a subtle distinction may be made between the two concepts, ELF and EIL, as the latter has long been under the influence of the WE paradigm, although it is not made to be an issue for the present chapter. 6 In recent ELF studies, with their focus on “variation” rather than “variety” (Wid­ dowson 2015), concepts such as “Japanese English” tend to be de-emphasized (cf. Jenkins 2015). However, it is my position, under the influence of traditional Japanese philosophy of international English since Saito (1928), that the notion of “Japanese English” still has pedagogical significance for ELT in Japan, though certainly with its own limitations. 7 At the beginning of the second semester, I gave a copy of one of my papers on the learning of EIL/ELF to those students who missed the first semester. However, just providing one article to read, with no adequate follow-up, thus proved to be far from sufficient as a make-up measure.

References Anthony, E. M. 1963. Approach, method, and technique. English Language Teaching (presently titled as ELT Journal) 17(2), 63–67. Bayyurt, Y. and S. Akcan (eds.) 2015. Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Beckett, G. and J. Zhao 2016. Deweyan student-centered pedagogy and Confu­ cian epistemology: Dilemmatic pragmatism and neo-patriotism? In C. Chou and J. Spangler (eds.), Chinese Education Models in a Global Age. Singapore: Springer, pp. 265–277. Bowers, R. and H. G. Widdowson 1986. Debate on appropriate methodology. In R. Webber and T. Deyes (eds.), Appropriate Methodology in ELT: A Report on the Dunford House Seminar14–24 1986. London: The British Council, pp. 6–10. Cogo, A. 2012. ELF and super-diversity: A case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2), 287–313. Cogo, A. 2016. Conceptualizing ELF as a translanguaging phenomenon: Covert and overt resources in a transnational workplace. In K. Murata (ed.), Waseda Working Papers in ELF 5, 1–16. Cook, G. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching: An Argument for Reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coyle, D., P. Hood and D. Marsh 2010. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C. 2011. Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 182–204. Dalton-Puffer, C. and U. Smit 2013. Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching 46(4), 545–559. Dalton-Puffer, C. and U. Smit 2016. Content and Language Integrated Learning and ELF. In M-L. Pitzl and R. Osimk-Teasdale (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and prospects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 235–244.

Designing CELFIL for EMI classes 235 Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra 2013. Future challenges for Englishmedium instruction at the tertiary level. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 213–221 Freeman, D and J. C. Richards 1996. Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Fukui, K., J. Noguchi and N. Watanabe (eds.) 2009. ESP-teki bairinguaru wo mezashite: Daigakueigokyoiku no saiteigi [Towards ESP bilingualism: Redefining university English education in Japan]. Osaka: Osaka University Press. Gotti, M. 2014. Explanatory strategies in university courses taught in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(2), 337–361. Henrichsen, L. 1989. Diffusion of Innovations in English Language Teaching: The ELEC Effort in Japan, 1956–1968. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Hino, N. 1989. Let’s Read and Think. English for Millions 44(15), 132–139. Hino, N. 1992. The yakudoku tradition of foreign language literacy in Japan. In F. Dubin and N. A. Kuhlman (eds.), Cross-Cultural Literacy: Global Perspec­ tives on Reading and Writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents and Prentice Hall, pp. 99–111. Hino, N. 2003. Teaching EIL in Japan. In Proceedings: First Conference on World Englishes in the Classroom. Chukyo University, pp. 67–78. Hino, N. 2004. “Eigo ni yoru senmonjugyo” no gengobunkatekisokumen: Koku­ saieigo no tokushitsu wo chushin ni [Sociolinguistic aspects of English-medium instruction in higher education: With a focus on the features of English as an inter­ national language]. Presentation at the Faculty Development Seminar Kokusaiteki­ sutandado ni Kanattta Jugyo towa [For classroom practice compatible with the international standard], Osaka University, Japan, 23 February. Hino, N. 2012a. Endonormative models of EIL for the Expanding Circle. In A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Lan­ guage. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 28–43. Hino, N. 2012b. Participating in the community of EIL users through real-time news: Integrated Practice in Teaching English as an International Language (IPTEIL). In A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 183–200. Hino, N. 2012c. Negotiating indigenous values with Anglo-American cultures in ELT in Japan: A case of EIL philosophy in the Expanding Circle. In A. Kirkpatrick and R. Sussex (eds.), English as an International Language in Asia: Implications for Language Education. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 157–173. Hino, N. 2015. Toward the development of CELFIL (Content and ELF Integrated Learning) for EMI classes in higher education in Japan. In K. Murata (ed.), Waseda Working Papers in ELF 4, 187–198. Hino, N. 2017a. Training graduate students in Japan to be EIL teachers. In A. Mat­ suda (ed.), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language. Bris­ tol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 87–99. Hino, N. 2017b. The significance of EMI for the learning of EIL in higher educa­ tion: Four cases from Japan. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys and I. Walkinshaw (eds.), English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Asia-Pacific: From Policy to Pedagogy. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 115–131. Hino, N. 2017c. Tabunkakyosei no tame no kokusaieigo-kyoiku [EIL education for multicultural symbiosis]. In Y. Imao, Y. Okada, I. Koguchi and N. Hayase (eds.),

236

Nobuyuki Hino

Eigokyoiku Tettei Rifuresshu: Gurobaruka to 21-seikigata no Kyoiku [Completely refreshing the teaching of English: Globalization and education for the 21st cen­ tury]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, pp. 2–13. Hino, N. and S. Oda 2015. Integrated Practice in Teaching English as an Interna­ tional Language (IPTEIL): A classroom ELF pedagogy in Japan. In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds.), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 35–50. Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Houghton, S. A. and D. J. Rivers (eds.) 2013. Native-Speakerism in Japan: Inter­ group Dynamics in Foreign Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Iino, M. and K. Murata 2013. We are jun-Japa: Dynamics of ELF communication in an English medium academic context. In K. Murata (ed.), Waseda Working Papers in ELF 2, 84–100. Iino, M. and K. Murata 2016. Dynamics of ELF communication in an English-medium academic context in Japan: From EFL learners to ELF users. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 111–131. JACET Jugyogaku-kenkyukai (ed.) 2007. Kotokyoiku ni Okeru Eigojugyo no Kenkyu [A study on English classrooms in higher education]. Tokyo: Shohakusha. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Poli­ tics of Academic English Language Policy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85. doi:10.1515/eip-2015–0003. Available from: www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/eip.2015.2.issue-3/eip-2015-0003/ eip-2015-0003.xml [accessed 13 October 2016]. Jenks, C. J. 2014. Social Interaction in Second Language Chat Rooms. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kachru, B. B. 1980. Models for new Englishes. TESL Studies 3, 117–150. Kachru, B. B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30. Kachru, B. B. and L. E. Smith 1985. Editorial. World Englishes 4(2), 209–212. Kern, R. 2000. Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. 2014. The language(s) of HE: EMI and/or ELF and/or multilingual­ ism? The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(1), 4–15. Krashen, S. D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman. Kubota, R. 2001. Teaching World Englishes to native speakers of English in the USA. World Englishes 20(1), 47–64. Kunihiro, M. 1970. Eigo no Hanashikata [English works for you]. Tokyo: Simul Press. Lave, J. and E. Wenger 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Designing CELFIL for EMI classes 237 Matsuda, A. 2012. Teaching materials in EIL. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu and W. A. Renandya (eds.), Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an Interna­ tional Language. New York: Routledge, pp. 168–185. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauranen, A. 2016. English as a global lingua franca: Changing language in changing global academia. In K. Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Busi­ ness Contexts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 29–46. McKay, S. L. 2003. Teaching English as an international language: The Chilean con­ text. ELT Journal 57(2), 139–148. Mohan, B. A. 1986. Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Murata, K. 2013. Introduction: Researching ELF in academic contexts. In K. Murata (ed.), Waseda Working Papers in ELF 2, 1–9. Murata, K., M. Iino and M. Konakahara 2017. EMI (eigo o baikai to suru jugyo) ni okeru “kyotsugo to shite no eigo” no shiyo no genjohaaku to ishikichosa, oyobi eigokyoiku eno teigen [An investigation into the use of and attitudes toward ELF (English as a lingua franca) in EMI (English-medium instruction) classes and its implications for English language teaching]. Waseda Review of Education 31(1), 21–38. Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers 1982. Method: Approach, design, and procedure. TESOL Quarterly 16(2), 153–168. Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers 2014. Approaches and Methods in Language Teach­ ing. (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. and T. S. C. Farrell 2005. Professional Development for Language Teachers: Strategies for Teacher Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. and N. Hino 1983. Training ESOL teachers: The need for needs assessment. In J. Alatis, H. H. Stern and P. Strevens (eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1983. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 312–326. Richards, J. C. and C. Lockhart 1994. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Class­ rooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saito, H. 1928. Saito’s Japanese-English Dictionary. Tokyo: Nichieisha. (Reprinted in 2002. Tokyo: Nichigai Associates). Seidlhofer, B. 2009. Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes 28(2), 236–245. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shohamy, E. 2013. A critical perspective on the use of English as a medium of instruction at universities. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 196–210. Smit, U. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education. A Longitudinal Study of Classroom Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Smit, U. 2013. Learning affordances in Integrating Content and English as a Lingua Franca (‘ICELF’): On an implicit approach to English medium teaching. Journal of Academic Writing 3(1), 15–29.

238

Nobuyuki Hino

Smith, L. E. 1976. English as an international auxiliary language. RELC Journal 7(2), 38–53. Also In L. E. Smith (ed.) 1983. Readings in English as an Interna­ tional Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 1–5. Smith, L. E. 1978. Some distinctive features of EIIL vs. ESOL in English language education. The Culture Learning Institute Report, June, 5–7 and 10–11. Also In L. E. Smith (ed.) 1983. Readings in English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 13–20. Suzuki, T. 1975. Tozasareta Gengo, Nihongo no Sekai [A closed language: The world of Japanese]. Tokyo: Shinchosha. Tsui, C. 2016. EMI faculty development programs in Taiwan. Paper presented at the 2016 International Conference on English Education, Shih Chien University, Taipei, Taiwan, 23–24 April. Watanabe, Y., M. Ikeda and S. Izumi 2011. CLIL: Jochi Daigaku Gaikokugo-kyoiku no Aratanaru Chosen [New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University] Vol. 1. Genri to hoho [Principles and methodologies]. Tokyo: Sophia University Press. Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. 2012. ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Jour­ nal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1), 5–26. Widdowson, H. G. 2014. The role of translation in language learning and teaching. In J. House (ed.), Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Basingstoke, Hamp­ shire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 222–240. Widdowson, H. G. 2015. ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(2), 359–372.

14 Expanding ELF-informed EMI in Japanese higher education James D’AngeloExpanding ELF-informed EMI

A case study of actual graduates’

needs

James D’Angelo Introduction As higher education becomes a more global entity, universities around the world compete for the best students, scholars and funding in order to improve their reputation, as seen through various measures of world rankings (Bjorkman 2008, Kalocsai 2013). As a result, there is greatly increased border-crossing within higher education – a tenfold increase in English as the medium of instruction (EMI) programs between 2002 and 2014 (Wächter and Maiworm 2014, Byun et al. 2011, referenced in Smit and Kuteeva this volume) – as universities are less defined by what country they are in, their main language of instruction, or the nationality of their students, but more by what one can accomplish there. Among those schools that wish to increase their international ‘footprint’, hav­ ing strong course offerings with EMI in a variety of disciplines, is a crucial step: both for attracting students and faculty from overseas, and for preparing one’s own students to become global human resources (Smit, this volume, Murata, this volume, inter alia). This trend is in many cases being promoted in a topdown manner, by government policy and industry pressure to create globally competitive human resources (MEXT 2011, Smit this volume, Murata 2016, this volume). In this type of context, the recent and steadily growing research into the paradigm of English as a lingua franca (ELF) provides strong support for how institutions and students can be most effective in achieving their EMI goals, and where educators’ priorities should be placed in terms of ‘English proficiency’ (Widdowson 2014). This chapter will focus on the case of Chukyo University in Nagoya, Japan, and explore the implications for other contexts around the globe. After provid­ ing background information on the context in which the university competes, we will look at actual research data. As one component of a larger study for the author’s doctoral work, qualitative surveys were conducted with graduates from the Department of World Englishes (DWE) over its first 10 years. The actual needs for English in their workplaces and broader lifestyles are investi­ gated, revealing that a native-speakerist view of English is no longer of great relevance. The data supports many of the points often made by ELF scholars regarding English today, which will be discussed in greater detail here. One of the

240

James D’Angelo

key findings of the study is that within Japanese universities, having a two-track approach – with ‘Honors’ and ‘Mainstream’ programs – is in practical terms the best way to meet our students’ needs. While the data are based on one institu­ tion, the chapter proposes that many of these findings may be applicable to other Kachruvian Expanding Circle settings, and calls for further research in this area by scholars in these settings.

Background The university in general Chukyo University was founded in 1954 as part of the expansion of the Japa­ nese higher education sector (McVeigh 2002). The University in general attracts above-average students, and is currently ranked by one well-known website as 124th out of 727 four-year institutions in Japan, which would place it in the top 17% of Japanese universities (4International). As such, it presents an opportunity to look at the internationalization efforts and potential for second-tier Japanese universities to join in the global trend towards conducting EMI (see Murata, this volume). Chukyo currently has 11 faculties with undergraduate and graduate programs, and 13,500 undergraduate students at two campuses. From its inception, the university was internationally minded, due to the strength of its Faculty of Sports Science: the first private department in Japan to offer a doctoral program in Athletics from 1987 (Chukyo 2014:4). As of 2014, Chukyo could proudly claim to have produced 50 Olympians. The university first established its own ‘International Center’ in 1986, and was the first Japanese university to join the International Student Exchange Program (ISEP) in 1995. In recent years the university has gradually increased the number of direct sister school relationships, primarily in Inner Circle contexts in the US and Australia. In addition, Chukyo now offers year-abroad study in Australia, the UK, Finland, Korea, Austria, Germany, Turkey, Italy and France (D’Angelo 2015). In these various settings, and with students from those countries who come to Chukyo as well, there is increasing opportunity for true ELF communication compared with 10 years ago, when the communication would have been mainly Inner Circle-toExpanding Circle only, when American exchange students were dominant. This provides a more level playing field for all participants, and accommodation to the NS variety is no longer the most important key to success. The importance of this point will be seen later in the chapter, when we look at the graduates’ data, with regard for the nature of the contexts they find themselves in, in their workplace interactions. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in a situation such as ours, the number of international students from various L1 backgrounds is small compared to the number of Japanese students, so we are not dealing with ‘a truly interna­ tional learner group’ such as Smit studies in Vienna, but something more similar to the CLIL or CBI environments she outlines (Smit, this volume). In the one-year exchange program, Chukyo students are mixed in with the reg­ ularly matriculating students at the host institution in content-based coursework

Expanding ELF-informed EMI 241 in various fields, and thus must achieve a score of at least 500 on the paper-based TOEFL test, and 550 for some of the more select schools, if they are to realisti­ cally have a chance to handle the sophisticated readings and lecture content in a true EMI program. As EMI becomes a global phenomenon, the need for defin­ ing such threshold levels is stressed as one of the key questions needing to be answered, in a special report sponsored by the British Council, written by schol­ ars in the EMI Oxford Center (Dearden 2014). In spite of the NES perspective of Dearden, we must still be aware that such tests will be used by institutions around the world, until something better is available. For those students who may be unable to reach this threshold, Chukyo has also managed to develop relationships with 15 overseas institutions for ‘Semester Abroad’ programs, which are more ESL/EFL-based, in which students study English language four-skills coursework, and some culture-based classes. These programs are widely used by lower level students and those from faculties where English is a minor subject, and can provide a valuable stepping stone for those who wish to later apply for year-long exchange status.

The Department of World Englishes – theoretical underpinnings The DWE offers the most extensive EMI coursework at Chukyo. Efforts are also made within the Department of International Liberal Arts and the Depart­ ment of Management, to introduce a certain degree of EMI content, but this is much less than the DWE and will not be a focus of this chapter.1 The College was founded in 2002,2 replacing the former Department of English Language and Literature. The DWE hosted Singaporean World Englishes scholar Paroo Nihalani as a visiting scholar for the entire 2002 academic year, and he provided a valuable connection to Braj B. Kachru and Larry E. Smith – cofounders of the World Englishes and English as an international language (EIL) paradigms, respectively. Through these important alliances, we made a commitment to looking for new approaches to English and English teaching, that were in alignment with a pluralistic view of language. While the DWE includes ‘World Englishes’ in its name, this has also implied a willingness to incorporate wisdom from work in EIL, as well as ELF as it emerged with more intensity and clarity in the first decade of the 2000s to the present (Jenkins 2007; Seidlhofer 2009, 2011a). In this chapter, the importance of ELF to an Expanding Circle context such as Japan is highlighted, and the data section will help to demonstrate this. Scholars around the world, especially those in Expanding Circle contexts – whether it be mainland Europe, East and Southeast Asia, South America, or the Middle East – are currently deeply involved in theorizing ways in which insights from EIL and ELF can be incorporated in the classroom (Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2013, Wilkinson, 2017). This is still very much a work in progress, and in many ways ‘an uphill battle’ vis-à-vis entrenched native-speakerist views (Houghton 2012). Yet through works such as this volume, with contributions from researchers shar­ ing a similar pluricentric view of English, practical ways of designing English

242

James D’Angelo

curriculum which prepare students for the global use of English are beginning to emerge.

Specifics of EMI and English proficiency Within the context of EMI, it is important for an Expanding Circle context such as Japan to consider the overall needs of one’s institution, as well as the needs of its students. At DWE, the majority of our students wish to use English in their future careers, and Chukyo itself wishes to expand its number of international students, as alluded to earlier. Nevertheless, one must keep in mind that the greater majority of students will work for Japanese corporations – even if assigned to the international section of these organizations – so they will also be required to be very proficient in Japanese reading and writing (see Iino, this volume). As a result, of the 124 credits needed to graduate, 44 must still be taken within the School of Liberal Arts, whose offerings are exclusively in Japanese. In addition, among our elective classes, those taught by Japanese professors are predominantly taught in Japanese (D’Angelo 2012). The fact that the DWE is not a totally EMI program means that the full-time non-Japanese students tend to be Chinese or Philippine nationals who have high enough Japanese language proficiency to suc­ ceed in these classes taught in Japanese. All students from Europe or Inner Circle Western countries come for just one semester or one year. Our majors have a range of coursework conducted in English. They must complete 24 required English skills classes (oral communication, reading, pres­ entation, writing, computer skills); the required ‘Singapore Seminar’ and threeweek study tour; the ‘Introduction to World Englishes’ class; a second-year seminar on either England, the US, the Philippines, France or Zambia; and cer­ tain elective classes, including ‘New Management Trends’, ‘Global Economic Trends’, ‘Language and Culture’, ‘Language Variation’, their third/fourth­ year seminar if taught by a non-Japanese professor, and an elective in ‘Early English Education’. While several of the previously mentioned classes can be considered to be informed by a WE-perspective, such as the ‘Introduction to World Englishes’ or the ‘Singapore Seminar’, many are taught by NS practitioners who, while all excellent teachers, may have a fairly strong NS bias. The 24 English skills classes, while mainly conducted in English, would not fit into a broader definition of EMI as practiced in Europe, since these are basic language classes, rather than classes in a particular content discipline. Students make significant progress in their TOEIC scores between the first and third year, with average scores rising from 540 to 630 in the second year, and to 695 in the third year. Usually several students are over 900, and as many as 20 of the 96 students per class year exceed 800 on the TOIEC. For overseas study, where the TOEFL is the measuring stick, in the year 2013, 48 Chukyo students who desired to go on one-year overseas study scored over 500 on the paper-based TOEFL. Of these, 42 were from the DWE. While not all our students wish to spend a year overseas, the data reveals that roughly one-third of DWE students have it within their reach to do an EMI, content-based, year abroad. If semester

Expanding ELF-informed EMI 243 abroad students are factored in, following the Autumn 2015 reorganization of the CWE into three majors, for the author’s ‘World Englishes Career Major’, in 2016 a remarkable 33 out of 58 second-year students embarked on either semester or one-year study abroad, leaving fewer than half their counterparts still in Japan! This type of trend truly demonstrates the ‘transnational attraction’ outlined by Edgar Schneider (Schneider 2014a) and is a trend among other Asian and European universities as well. Although not all of our students are capable of competing in an overseas EMI program, the numbers indicate that a large percentage of them are, which is impressive for a school such as Chukyo, and indicates that more and more Japa­ nese students may be reaching such a level in coming years (D’Angelo 2011). Yet it is mainly those majoring in English who can do this, whereas in a European university, those majoring in Management, International Relations, Computer Science, or Natural Sciences may also be able to do so. The other two new majors within our department also offer a similar proportion of EMI classes, and almost as high a percentage of second-year students who go abroad. One drawback that the numbers do not reveal is the extent to which our students may be able to effectively participate in classroom discussions in the global classroom. In the author’s own third-year seminar class in autumn 2014, there were six American exchange students, and 10 Japanese students. The desks were set up in a typical rectangular horse-shoe, and the Japanese students were stunned by the degree to which the Americans openly debated one another across the rectangle, and they actually began laughing at how outspoken the Americans were. They had never seen anything like this in all their years of school. Murata and Iino (2014) support this observation in their experiences at Waseda University, where in the School in International Liberal Studies (SILS), which is fully EMI with a high percentage of foreign students, the Japanese students – who are among the most highly proficient English students in Japan – also are shocked at the outspokenness of their international classmates. The Japanese, who were very confident upon being accepted to the program, go through a period of culture shock, and gravitate towards the fringes of the classrooms, rarely speaking out. It is only after they have spent the mandatory sophomore year overseas and then return, that they begin to feel comfortable speaking out and expressing themselves in front of their international peers. Thus for Japanese students in general, this is a hurdle which must be overcome if they are truly to participate in international discussions. In more recent classes, the author has had several students from Italy and Austria, and found these students to be more reticent than American students, although still being more comfortable about expressing their opinions than Japanese. Several students from Finland also have been in my ‘New Management Trends’ class in recent years, and were in fact found to be more knowledgeable and outspoken than their American or Austral­ ian classmates. So for Japanese students, and perhaps also for those in other Asian contexts, although they may be used to a teacher-fronted classroom in which the teacher is not questioned, in a globalized classroom, discussion is encouraged in most parts of the world, and we must prepare our students to engage in a more active and interrogative style (King 2013).

244

James D’Angelo

The ELF factor and EMI For some years after founding the Department of World Englishes, it was not easy to convince students of the value of a variationist approach to English (D’Angelo 2012). World Englishes as a theory, while ‘inclusive’ of a context such as Japan, is nevertheless rather weak when one considers international aspects of English. WEs research tends to focus on describing features of Outer Circle varieties such as Nigerian or Philippine English, and the domains for which it is used intranationally there. In terms of international or inter-varietal implications, most of the work in WEs had concerned the issue of ‘international intelligibility’ done by Smith or Nelson (Smith and Rafiqzad 1979; Smith and Nelson 1985). This shortcoming was to some extent addressed by work in EIL, but it was not until the emergence of ELF as a paradigm that real attention was paid to Expand­ ing Circle contexts and their need for English. This is the reason why we see WEs scholars such as Hino and D’Angelo in Japan, Bayyurt in Turkey, Sifakis in Greece, and Llurda in Spain moving into ELF research. At the same time, one does not see Philippine, East African or Indian/South Asian scholars with similar interest in ELF, although a few WE scholars have begun to consider the relevance of ELF (Pakir and Low 2017). For a context such as Japan, ELF can provide key insights into how to build a truly international university. While not by any means limited to Europe, this phenomenon may be seen in the type of interactions and collaboration going on in various EU contexts which are very ‘ELF-like’, thus these may be among the best ‘laboratories’ – with a growing focus on EMI – to see what will be the shape of globally minded international universities of the future (Bjorkman 2013, Kalocsai 2013, Kuteeva, this volume). Data in general (Japan Times 2014) reveal that the number of Japanese students who are going to study overseas is decreasing – in 2011 the figure was 59,501: down 31% (also down for the seventh consecutive year) from the 2004 peak. Nevertheless, the trend towards EMI at those institutions which are able to offer it, holds promise that although a majority of Japanese students may never become proficient enough in English to go head-to-head with a range of international students in EMI settings (as perhaps defined by the TOEFL or IELTS baselines required for entry into such a context), a larger percentage of Japanese graduates than in the past, will in fact reach such a level. This will be an asset to Japan and Japanese organizations, as well as for international organizations looking to interact effectively with Japan. These Japanese graduates will be those who are strong ELF users in the future. The following quali­ tative data study attempts to explore how to better prepare such ELF-aware EMIcapable students in Japanese higher education.

Research data Rationale Having founded the DWE in 2002 (Sakai and D’Angelo 2005), the author dedi­ cated himself to having a deeper knowledge of research in the field of EIL and World Englishes. Being mainly classroom practitioners and applied linguists from

Expanding ELF-informed EMI 245 an Expanding Circle context, fellow scholars in the World Englishes commu­ nity in Japan looked to me to provide insight into the relevance of World Eng­ lishes to ELT, classroom pedagogy and curriculum design. This is because, in the Outer Circle contexts such as Singapore, the Philippines, or Nigeria, English is not looked at as a subject to be learned, but as something already established as the primary medium of education in all levels of schooling. As Sridhar and Sridhar state, ‘Outer Circle varieties of English are not “on their way” to being something else’, (Sridhar and Sridhar 1992: 94)3 while in the Expanding Circle, Japanese English, Finnish English, or Turkish English are better described as ‘similects’ (Mauranen 2012), in which users do share a certain number or com­ mon features and tendencies, rather than codifiable varieties. Englishes in the Expanding Circle are much more ‘emergent’ and less stable than those in Kenya, the Bahamas, or Sri Lanka. Hence from the perspective of WE, and its implications for pedagogy, I became dedicated to making a contribution to this area. But it also became increasingly apparent that for the Expanding Circle, while World Englishes did much to raise awareness of the variation of English around the world and that native speakers are now far outnumbered by non-native speakers (NNS), work by scholars in EIL (Smith, McKay, Sharifian and Matsuda), and in ELF (Jenkins, Seidlhofer, Mau­ ranen), made it necessary to look beyond the WE paradigm for new approaches to English pedagogy based on a pluricentric model. I thus framed my doctoral research (D’Angelo 2016) within the term coined by Bolton (2012), ‘the World Englishes Enterprise’, which incorporates EIL, ELF and Developmental World Englishes in a broader interpretation of the model – since these various para­ digms all contribute to a better portrayal of reality. A further reason for the study was to explore ways in which EIL or ELF-informed approaches to language study could help make Japanese students more competitive with those in Inner, Outer and other Expanding Circle settings.

Methodology In order to best see the type of university English curriculum which could meet the needs of DWE students – and potentially those in similar institutions both in Japan and elsewhere – three key data sets were gathered. By triangulating the three sets, it was hoped that a reliable understanding of the current needs of DWE graduates – and the degree to which the curriculum and teaching was effective in meeting those needs in preparing the students for their future – could be gained. The three sets of data are: 1.) An open-ended qualitative questionnaire of DWE graduates (n=44) from 2006–2014 regarding their current needs, and assessment of the education they received vis-à-vis those needs; 2.) An open-ended qualita­ tive questionnaire of DWE full and part-time teachers (n=21) regarding their views on English teaching in general, and specifically with regard to the Japan context, as well as their awareness of the WE, EIL and ELF paradigms; and 3.) A series of classroom observations (n=17) of those teachers’ actual classes taught in the DWE.

246

James D’Angelo

While the triangulation of all three data sets gives the fullest picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the DWE, a full analysis would go well beyond the scope of this chapter. We will thus focus primarily on the graduates’ data here. The graduates’ data is the most important of the three data sets, since it estab­ lishes the needs that the curriculum must meet. It consisted of an open-ended qualitative questionnaire of 28 questions (see Appendix 1), and yielded very rich data. The questionnaire is divided into six thematic sections: Section 1 includes questions on demographics and experiences prior to entering the DWE, section 2 includes questions relating to the graduates’ attitudes upon entering the DWE and its curriculum, section 3 includes questions on graduates’ attitudes towards WE, section 4 includes questions on the graduates jobs and lifestyle after gradu­ ating, section 5 contains questions on their post-graduation assessment of the curriculum, and section 6 focuses on suggested curricular improvements. The surveys were sent to 50 graduates, of whom 44 returned it. The basic method of contacting the graduates was via SNS of students familiar to the researcher, and this was combined with aspects of ‘snowball sampling’ (Atkinson and Flint 2004), in which the original contacts provided suggestions of other students from lower proficiency groups. Effort was made to balance graduates by their incoming proficiency group, although the participants do lean slightly towards the higher end. Table 14.1 lists the respondents by incoming proficiency level as based on the Michigan Test: Table 14.1 Graduate participants by incoming proficiency group* Peer group

A (highest)

B

C

D

E

F (lowest)

Respondents

17

7

5

7

5

3

*For these groups, scores on the Michigan test would vary from year to year, but usually ranging from low nineties/upper eighties for group A, down to the low forties in group F.

Once the responses were gathered, they were printed and read, and highlighted to do pre-coding of the data to bring out interesting or commonly expressed responses. (Saldana 2013: 19) The data was then input to an Excel spreadsheet in order to better compare answers. In order to gain a clearer idea of the most common answers and to identify broader categories, the responses were then put into thematic clusters (Saldana 2013). These clusters allow one to see the overall range of responses, and to also quantify the data to some extent. The codification was confirmed by another rater to establish reliability, and any minor disagree­ ment were accounted for, or slight adjustments were made.

Discussion and findings This was a very in-depth open-ended survey, which was designed to allow the graduates to express themselves freely in a dialog which could help the researcher understand their attitudes towards their experiences while they were students in the DWE, their needs for English after graduating, and to be able to reconcile

Expanding ELF-informed EMI 247 what the DWE provides – with those actual needs. With such an in-depth instru­ ment, it is difficult to obtain and process a large number of responses – and dif­ ficult to get a perfect spectrum of the type of students the DWE enrolls. Still, the participants do represent a wide sample of graduates, and the opinions they express have a consistency which can allow several conclusions to be drawn.

Demographics and experiences prior to entering the DWE For many of the students who replied, Chukyo DWE was not their first choice, but from its inception, the DWE had a novel concept, that was effectively com­ municated to high school students and subsequently, the department gained a brand image which placed it as one of the more attractive English programs in central Japan. The students mainly come from local Aichi Prefecture, but DWE also draws students from neighboring Mie, Gifu and Shizuoka Prefec­ tures, demonstrating that Chukyo is a regional if not national university. The graduates in general did not come from specialized English-medium programs in their high schools, but approximately one-third had some form of English learning prior to the mandatory English education, which started in middle school for most of them. The DWE’s stress on learning practical English, and having two required three-week overseas study programs, including Singapore, was attractive to the majority of the students in this sample, and a large reason for choosing to matriculate. In addition, the intensive nature of our program, stressing practical, real-life English was a great attraction, in contrast to some local programs, which may have been more theoretical or literature-oriented. As is stressed in ELF studies, the graduates were interested in becoming users of English, in contrast to the detached, exam-driven way in which English is customarily taught in Japanese secondary schools. The DWE’s peer support system and English-only Learning Support Wing were also mentioned as attrac­ tions. The peer support system is one in which after incoming first-year students are divided into groups by proficiency level, each cohort is assigned an advisor from among the full-time faculty, and this cohort takes all of their skills classes together, forming strong bonds. The Learning Support Wing is an EnglishOnly environment with computers, office staff, and part-time faculty members where students can come to practice their English (often having lunch with overseas exchange students), and get help on writing and presentation assign­ ments from full and part-time faculty.

Graduates’ post-graduation assessment of the curriculum Most students found four-skills classes to be very useful in their later careers, especially the DWE’s five semesters of presentation classes, and five semesters of oral communication. Whether needing to present in English or Japanese, the experience of standing up in front of large audiences was often cited as highly useful. There was however, considerable dissatisfaction expressed with the read­ ing program, as not preparing them for the one-year EMI study abroad pro­ grams, or the type of reading they would need to do on the job. While extensive

248

James D’Angelo

reading via ‘graded readers’ – the paradigm adopted by the coordinator of the DWE reading program – can be quite valuable as a way to improve students’ general (including oral) fluency, and familiarity with fundamental grammatical relationships and common collocations, the responses from the graduates indi­ cate that a more rigorous/intensive reading curriculum would better prepare them for global competition at university and the workplace. This may be one area where communicative language teaching (CLT) is too widely/uncritically applied in Japan – especially by NS practitioners – in the sense that conversational fluency is prioritized over tackling more difficult vocabulary and content mate­ rial, within the Japanese ‘English Conversation Ideology’ (Lummis 1976, Kachru 2003). A popular mantra of the Extensive Reading community – is that the books students choose to read should be ‘easy and enjoyable’. It is also held that the student should know 98% of the words on a page, and can thus guess the mean­ ing of any unknown words from context (Waring 2015). While this may develop a certain liking among students for such reading, they tend not to rise above level 3 graded readers (roughly equivalent to the third grade of primary school for native speakers), and those who go overseas often mentioned this leaves them ill-prepared for academic reading in EMI courses. Lack of academic/business vocabulary clearly seems the most common prob­ lem, which may be a reflection of how broad a vocabulary one needs to be effec­ tive in a language, but also may indicate, as seen in graduates’ comments about the Reading program in the DWE, that elevating the amount of academic and technical/business reading in the department is necessary. This indicates a very important need, especially if EMI is to be instituted more widely in Japanese universities. The graduates express a consistent need for what may be termed ‘discipline-specific support’: a form of English for specific purposes (ESP), as seen in the answers to Question 28: ‘We need to learn specific field in English’, and ‘Even if I can speak English, it doesn’t help unless I have something to talk’, and ‘English is just a tool to communicate, but DWE put too much emphasis on the communication, not the content’. ELF here dovetails with EMI, since as Sei­ dlhofer (2011b) and Jenkins have stressed (Jenkins 2011), Latin was the lingua franca of scholarship until the 16th century or beyond, so the most sophisticated work is often done in the lingua franca. The student’s comments mentioned pre­ viously corroborate this, as he expresses that a basic four-skills curriculum, with native speaker teachers focusing on communicative language teaching, leaves s/ he behind in the competition with international students. It is important to note here, however, that ELF theory does not necessarily entail sophisticated work automatically. But to prepare students for the type of work they will be required to do in mixed EMI classes in international settings – or high-level programs in Japan – it is the ability to negotiate content materials and to successfully com­ municate using ELF with students from many linguacultural backgrounds, which must be placed in a position of priority. One seemingly surprising result was that the ‘Outline of World Englishes’ class was felt not to be of value. For the first eleven years of the program this was given lecture-style in Japanese, to all DWE freshmen. While some of the more intellectu­ ally oriented students found it stimulating, the majority felt the material was quite

Expanding ELF-informed EMI 249 dry, and did not allow opportunity for interaction, partly because the first half of the course was devoted to Old, Middle and Early Modern English, which students found hard to relate to their lives. The class in now given mainly in English with some Japanese support for scaffolding, and after the first several weeks the content moves into Outer Circle contexts, and includes EIL and ELF in the final weeks. Students are given interactive worksheets, and seem to find the class the ‘eye­ opener’ it should be – in fact must be – for a department modeled on WE/ELF.

Graduates’ attitudes towards WE Most graduates gained a good – if not particularly deep – understanding of WE, and in their working lives, came to appreciate that a pluralistic, realistic view of English was more helpful to them than a native-speakerist view of Eng­ lish. At the same time, their understanding of WE is more aligned to an ELF concept, where graduates feel less pressure about making errors, and confident to use their own English as a common means of communication with people from all over the world: in most cases, other NNSs. They realize successful communication is a two-way process of co-constructed meaning, and gradually become familiar with different accents, ways of communicating, and cultural aspects of their international friends and business associates: something which they may have been less attuned to in the undergraduate days. Several students responded that at first they had trouble understanding the English of their Indian or Vietnamese trading partners at work, but gradually became quite used to their varieties. Another student mentioned her preference for America and American culture, but that upon her first visit to her company’s overseas partner’s offices in Taiwan, fell in love with Taiwanese culture. Other students mentioned a need for being quite strong in their e-mails and negotiations with European work colleagues. All of these responses demonstrate the reality that our interactions will not be primarily with NS users of English, and have impli­ cations for all Expanding Circle contexts. This may be quite different from the way the Expanding Circle is customarily viewed within WE theory, where it is a ‘performance variety’ people use in few domains, and not commonly for written interaction.4 (Kachru 1982) The gradu­ ates report that being competent at reading documents and writing e-mails is at least as important as good speaking skills, which indicates that the curriculum should not favor speaking over text. For these graduates, their Expanding Circle English is of great use, and it is no longer relevant whether Expanding Circle varieties are ‘codifiable’ or not, in an ELF world (D’Angelo 2013). This reveals one of the main reasons that this chapter argues for a new, broader concept of WE that complements ELF.

Views on electives and suggested curricular improvements Among their departmental or general liberal arts elective classes, students showed a clear preference for those related to cultural studies – and study of human/ global issues, or practical business matters. They seem much less interested in

250

James D’Angelo

classes which they have trouble connecting to their own lives or perceived future personal/career needs. As Graduate 40 mentioned, they ‘Want to be English speakers, not English scholars’. They value overseas study opportunities, espe­ cially those that allow for extensive interaction with people from other countries, and which are long enough to allow for real improvement in their English, and extensive opportunities to learn about foreign cultures and people. Particularly notable was that many of the graduates had little memory of the electives (22 total classes required over four years) they took in the Department of Liberal Arts, beyond those such as ‘Gender Studies’, ‘Peace Studies’, ‘Cross-Cultural Communication’, and in some cases a second foreign language such as German or Chinese. (Ironically, those students who had been on one-year EMI study abroad programs greatly valued their classes in ‘Native American Culture’, ‘Hospitality Management’, ‘Marketing’, ‘19th Century Women Writers’, etc.) In Japan, stu­ dents often have to take 12 or more different courses in the same semester, each offered once a week, and this spreads their attention too thinly. In most US- or European-based programs, students took only four or five courses concurrently. If Japan is to move to a more EMI-based form of education, the pattern of very large lecture classes offered once per week seems in need of reconsideration.

Graduates’ jobs and lifestyle after graduating Over half of the former students who replied to the survey instrument use Eng­ lish in their work; 46% of the respondents have in the past, or do currently, work in the international section of their companies. A very important finding was that – as expected by the demographics of English use today – the majority of the people they dealt with via spoken or written forms of communication were not from Inner Circle NS contexts. They deal regularly – in ELF – with customers and coworkers in Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Italy, Australia, South Africa, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong. Many graduates men­ tion that they may deal with people in as many as 10 different countries. They seem to manage well, but do mention that the accent of certain Asian varie­ ties is at times hard to follow, or certain cultural misunderstandings do occur. One student also expressed that some European business associates were very tough negotiators. These responses indicate that ELF-informed education in making opportunities for students to interact with those from a variety of coun­ tries, as well as teaching speech/illocutionary acts (refusing, clarifying, inviting, summarizing) and negotiation/accommodation strategies, may be much more important than teaching for grammatical accuracy and native-like pronunciation (Bjorkman 2008: 35). Among those who have not needed English for their work, the majority still have a desire to actively use it to interact with people from around the world. A full 88% reported using English for SNSs to keep in touch with international friends, and for overseas travel on a frequent basis. Hence, the relevance of the transnational attraction, transcultural engagement, and what is termed here ‘world mindedness’ (D’Angelo 2016), is very prevalent among these young

Expanding ELF-informed EMI 251 adults, and seems to transcend the issue of their being from an Expanding Cir­ cle context. This trend has been identified by scholars such as Edgar Schneider (2014a) among others, who formerly did not recognize Expanding Circle varie­ ties of English,5 but have been inspired in their recent work to come to terms with this global expansion of English (Schneider 2014b). The types of successes and problems these graduates have experienced in their working and personal lives indicate that the insights gained from pluralistic para­ digms of English in the world today, from WE, EIL and ELF, as well as recent trends towards EMI, can be of crucial value in improving what already works well in Expanding Circle English curricula to provide students with an even better education for their futures. Thus the graduates’ responses, as summarized here, provide concrete ideas for how to improve not only the DWE curriculum, but would likely be applicable to other Asian contexts similar to Japan (Korea, China, Thailand, Cambodia, etc.), and to regions such as Southern Europe or the Mid­ dle East (Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Saudi Arabia).6 If such a curriculum can better meet the workplace needs expressed by future graduates, this supports the argument that a WE/EIL/ELF-informed curriculum can be more effective than prior nativist/CLT practices which tended to be widely and uncritically applied in Expanding Circle contexts. The data indicates a split between those who work with English and those who don’t. While there are exceptions, the data also indicate that those students who started with low proficiency, or who did not rise in proficiency group by the start of the third year, were much less likely to use English in their work. This may support the conclusion that not all DWE students will reach a level of English where they can work effectively with it. For this reason a two-tiered form of education may be most logical: having an ‘Honors’ and ‘Normal’ track. Such a system could be designed to allow for some crossover of students who make rapid progress in the first or second year, or vice versa, to allow for flexibility and fairness. But to truly prepare a certain percentage of students to interact in ELF and EMI on a world-class level, a rigorous content-based curriculum is called for, and it is impossible to do this with too wide a range in proficiency. The DWE already functions in this way to some extent, where skills classes in the first two years are streamed according to proficiency levels, and the university also offers skills-oriented ‘semester abroad’ programs for those students unable to reach the TOEFL requirements of one-year EMI overseas programs. Nevertheless, the EMI elective offerings within the DWE are open to all proficiency-level students, which results in professors having to lower their expectations in terms of reading, critical thinking, and discussion. This results in a lack of rigor in these impor­ tant EMI classes within the DWE. The Chairperson of another major within the DWE, the ‘English Area Cultural Studies’ major, has attempted for several years to establish an Honors track – where only students with the strong desire and a high level of proficiency could enter – within his major for just this very reason. Unfortunately, the Japanese full-time faculty felt that this would be viewed as giving special treatment to certain students, or be embarrassing to other students who could not enter the Honors track. This problem is not limited to the Japan

252

James D’Angelo

context, but is widespread, and is related to English proficiency not only of stu­ dents, but of faculty as well.

Conclusion In this chapter I have provided background on the DWE and its main programs in order to situate the empirically oriented research data in a setting from which certain conclusions about improving such a program can be drawn. While the questionnaires given to graduates form only one corner of the full data gathered in my larger project, they give strong indication that graduates were in general satisfied with the offerings of the department. However, this satisfaction must be tempered by the fact that for those with the ambition and ability to truly become English-using global human resources, the program aims too low, and graduates feel rather ill-prepared for handling the academic work in EMI-based universities in North America, Australia and mainland European contexts such as Austria, Italy and Finland. If other Expanding Circle countries (especially outside the case of Northern Europe) are following a similar model to Japan’s, where in the majority of institutions English is still viewed as a ‘foreign’ language, native­ speakerism is common, and CLIL or EMI is less stressed than more traditional four skills-oriented programs, a similar lack of preparation for entering EMI pro­ grams overseas will occur. The British Council/EMI Oxford study of EMI in 55 countries found that such problems exist in a variety of countries (Dearden 2014). In addition, through the author’s own inquiries to other Expanding Cir­ cle scholars in contexts similar to Japan (i.e. outside of northern Europe), in Brazil, Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey, it was found that EMI is often conducted only at the graduate level of study, or in a limited way among undergraduates (Llurda, Sifakis 2017a, Bayyurt: p.c. 2017). To improve such an Expanding Circle program and prepare students more fully, a two-tier system is recommended, in which those with the desire to spend a year in overseas EMI programs be placed in a more demanding content-based program taught in English medium, with an ELF perspective of flexibility and cooperation among all participants. This program that would include the type of reading required overseas, while those who have lower proficiency and aims, be placed in a mainstream course. This two-tier approach would be effective not only in Japan, but in a wide ranges of Expanding Circle contexts. Effective implementation of such a program also requires an enlightened faculty who see the benefits of EMI. Even within the DWE, there are Japanese faculty members who are resistant to overemphasizing English. Non-Japanese and Japanese faculty must work together to design the most suitable programs for their own unique type of students. It is clear that a skills-based NS-oriented English program is no longer in step with the reality of Global English today. As mentioned earlier, the conclusions found here are likely to have implications for other Expanding Circle contexts across Asia, Europe and elsewhere. Scholars working on ELF and EMI in other Expanding Circle contexts need to join together, and conduct similar research into the best way to internationalize our institutions of higher

Expanding ELF-informed EMI 253 learning to help our students take advantage of the great opportunities, and dif­ ficult demands, of a globalized world. The network already exists in the ELF field, where scholars from Turkey, Greece, Spain, the UK, Italy, Japan, Brazil and other countries are most actively engaged with the pedagogical implications of ELF, and EMI is a very important cornerstone of what they investigate (Sifakis 2017b). Through closer collaboration and an expansion of this group, a synergy can be created in which ELF helps to strongly influence scholarship on EMI, as we work together to create ‘educated’ users of English, who can successfully tackle academic work in English, rather than be relegated to perennial ‘learner’ status, and be effective human resources in the global business world, since as highlighted by Jenkins 2014, academia and business are the two primary domains where ELF commonly comes into play.

Appendix 1 Graduates’ survey Narrative inquiry – questionnaire for graduates of Chukyo DWE

J.F. D’Angelo, July 2013 This questionnaire is part of my doctoral research regarding curriculum design. Your name and data will be kept private. The name will help me in case I need to contact you to ask any further questions. The purpose of this questionnaire is to develop better English curriculum at the university level in Japan, not only regarding Chukyo. It is OK to be critical of DWE, since the purpose is to improve it; please feel free to be very honest. Since it has been a few years since you gradu­ ated, please try to refresh your memory of your classes and experiences. Thank you for your help! Name: _______________________ Year of graduation: May 20___ Gender M/F Original Peer Group: ___ 3rd year Class Group: _____ Hometown ____________ 1 Did you study English earlier than junior high school (in school or private)? If so explain a bit, including if you spent time overseas. 2 Was your junior/senior high school English learning ‘typical’, or did your school have any special English program? 3 What was your reason for choosing to come to Chukyo ‘Kokusai Eigo Gakka’ (DWE)? Was it your first choice? 4a What were your future goals regarding English just as you started university? 4b As a freshman, did you have any clear idea of the type of job you wanted to do? 4c What motivated you the most with regard to your English learning in your first, 2nd and 3rd years? Please refer to each year. 5 Before graduating, what aspects of our program did you feel were most or least useful? Please explain. 6 Before graduating, what aspects of our program did you feel were least use­ ful? Please explain. 7a What is the meaning of ‘World Englishes’ in your opinion? Which parts of the curriculum gave you some understanding of the meaning of the concept? 7b Does your understanding of World Englishes theory have any effect on how you think about your own use of English? 8 By the time you began job-hunting, had your expectations for using English in your future changed, as compared with when you were a freshman?

Expanding ELF-informed EMI 255 9 What is the current industry in which you work? Please tell me about the size of your company, and what type of international business it may have: 10a Are you involved in an international part of your company? If so, has this been from the start, or did you later move into an international section? 10b Does your company have any type of TOEIC or other test standards for working in the international section? 11 Do you use English in your personal or social life outside of work? How often (including use of social media such as Facebook), and in what situations? 12 Do you use English, or have you used English in the past, for your job? If no, do you think you will have a chance to use English in the future for your job? 13 If you do or have used English for your job, is it both written and spoken, or one more than the other? 14 Who are the people with whom you use English for your job? From what countries? 15 What types of work needs to be transacted in English (including spoken – face to face or via telephone/Skype, written, or translation)? 16 Describe your successes and problems with using English for your work: 17 If you have communication difficulties using English for your personal or business needs, which areas cause the problem: Pronunciation? Vocabu­ lary/Grammar knowledge? Differences in communication style? Cultural differences? 18 How do you overcome such difficulties? 19 If you use English, is it mainly in Japan, or overseas? 20a If you use English for your personal or work life, what part of the curricu­ lum were useful for you? 20b Which parts of the curriculum could have been changed or improved to help you with your English needs? 20c What motivates you now to use English? How do you see yourself as an English user ten years in the future? 21a In your English skills classes, what style of teaching/learning did you like or not like? (For example: doing pair/group work, or working alone?) 21b For other elective content classes – ‘kyotsu kamoku’ (women’s studies, peace studies, psychology, etc.) you took – are there some other types of classes that would have been more useful to you, or were you in general satisfied? 22 What elective classes in our department were most useful for you related to the job you do now? (Such as Oceania Studies, Intercultural Communica­ tion, Australian Literature, Sociolinguistics, Business Translation, etc.) 23 What elective classes in our department were least useful for you related to the job you do now? 24 Can you recommend any type of elective classes within our department that should be added to the curriculum? 25 In general, do you feel that the balance between English and Japanese classes was good at Chukyo, or do you recommend some change?

256

James D’Angelo

26 Do you continue to study English or improve your English? How do you do this and why? 27 Any other comments you would like to make: about the English learning experience you had or your use of English in the workplace now? Thank you so much for your cooperation!

Notes 1 Please consult D’Angelo 2014 (listed in the references) for a more complete discus­ sion of EMI within those two departments of the university 2 The College of World Englishes (CWE) is made up of the DWE, and the Depart­ ment of British and American Cultural Studies – which has a more Inner Circle approach to English. 3 Much of world Englishes research had to that point, and continues to be, mainly interested in documenting phonological and morpho-syntactic features of relatively stable Inner and Outer Circle varieties of English used for intra-national purposes. 4 Kachru defined a ‘performance variety’ as one which did not have a written tradition. 5 As one example, the well-known journal English World-Wide, of which Schneider was the editor-in-chief for many years, did not accept articles related to Expanding Circle contexts, and the world map on their cover design only highlighted in blue the traditional Inner and Outer Circle contexts. 6 In much of Northern Europe: Holland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, etc. there is already a very high level of English and large number of pro­ grams offered entirely in English-medium (see Kuteeva this volume).

References Atkinson, R. and J. Flint 2004. Sage Research Methods: Snowball Sampling. Available from: http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-social-science. research-methods [accessed 15 November 2016]. Bayyurt, Y. 2017. Personal communication, 6 August 2017. Bjorkman, B. 2008. ‘So where we are?’ Spoken lingua franca English at a technical university in Sweden. English Today 24(2), 35–41. Bjorkman, B. 2013. English as an Academic Lingua Franca: An Investigation of Form and Communication Effectiveness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Bolton, K. 2012. The World Englishes Enterprise. Hong Kong, SAR: Keynote address, The 18th Conference of the International Association for World Englishes, City Universtiy of Hong Kong, 11 December 2012. Byun, K. H. Chu, M. Kim, I. Part, and J. Jung 2011. English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education 62(4), 431–439. Chukyo University 2014. English Language Pamphlet, 41p. D’Angelo, J. 2011. What nearby models can Japan Consider in the era of globalized higher Education? Journal of College of World Englishes, 14. D’Angelo, J. 2012. WEs-informed EIL curriculum at Chukyo: Towards a functional, educated, multilingual outcome. In A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of English as an International Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 121–139. D’Angelo, J. 2013. Japanese English? Refocusing the discussion. Asian English Stud­ ies 15, 99–124.

Expanding ELF-informed EMI 257 D’Angelo, J. 2014. Nurturing EMI in broad-based Japanese Higher Education: The case of Chukyo University. In K. Murata (ed.), Papers from the 4th Waseda ELF Workshop. Tokyo: Waseda. D’Angelo, J. 2015. Editorial. Asian Englishes 17(2), 1. D’Angelo, J. 2016. A broader concept of world Englishes for educational contexts: Applying the ‘WE Enterprise’ to Japanese higher education curricula. Unpublished PhD thesis, North-West University Library, Vaal Triangle Campus, South Africa. Dearden, J. 2014. English as a medium of instruction – a growing global phenom­ enon. Special British Council Report. Available from: www.teachingenglish.org.uk [accessed 24 August 2017]. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds.) 2013. English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 4International: College and Universities. Universities in Japan 2015 Ranking. Avail­ able from: www.4icu.org/jp/ [accessed 26 November 2016]. Houghton, S. 2012. Native Speakerism in Japan: Intergroup Dynamics in Foreign Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Japan Times 2014. Number of Japanese studying abroad down seventh straight year. Available from: www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/03/25/national/ [accessed 10 July 2015]. Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2011. Question and Answer Plenary Panel with B. Seidlhofer and A. Mau­ ranen. ELF4, Hong Kong Institute of Education, 28 May 2011. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University. Abing­ don, Oxon: Routledge. Kachru, B. 1982. The Other Tongue. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B. B. 2003. World Englishes in the classroom: The Japanese context. In D’Angelo and French (eds.), Proceedings: First Conference on World Englishes in the Classroom. Nagoya: Fujinari Press, pp. 5–22. Kalocsai, K. 2013. Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca: A Study of Students in a Central European Context. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. King, J. 2013. Silence in the Second Language Classroom. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Llurda, E. 2017. Personal communication. August 10, 2017. Lummis, D. 1976. Ideorogi to shite no eikaiwa [English Conversation as Ideology]. Tokyo: Shobunsha. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McVeigh, B. 2002. Japanese Higher Education as Myth. London: M.E. Sharpe. MEXT 2011. An interim report of the council on promotion of human resource for globalization development. Available from: www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ global/1206011interim_report.pdf (English). Murata, K. (ed.) 2016. Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Con­ texts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Murata, K. and M. Iino 2014. Japanese students’ changing views of communicative competence through ELF experiences. Paper delivered at the 7th International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, The American College of Greece, 5 September 2014.

258

James D’Angelo

Pakir, A. and E. L. Low 2017. ELF at 10: Impact and Influence on Related Disci­ plines and Scholarship. Panel convenors, 10th Conference of English as a Lingua Franca. University of Helsinki, 15 June 2017. Sakai, S. and J. D’Angelo 2005. A vision for English in the expanding circle. World Englishes 24(3), 323–328. Saldana, J. 2013. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles: Sage. Schneider, E. 2014a. Asian Englishes – into the future: A bird’s eye view. Asian Eng­ lishes 16(3), 249–256. Schneider, E. 2014b. New reflections on the evolutionary dynamics of world Eng­ lishes. World Englishes 33(1), 9–32. Seidlhofer, B. 2009. Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 28(2), 236–245. Seidlhofer, B. 2011a. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. London: Oxford. Seidlhofer, B. 2011b. Panel on English as a Lingua Franca: The Fourth Interna­ tional Conference of English as a Lingua Franca (with J. Jenkins and A. Mauranen). Hong Kong Institute of Education, 28 May 2011. Sifakis, N. (Convener) 2017a. ELF awareness in English language teaching: Bringing together teaching and practice. Colloquium 8 (panel), with Y. Bayyurt, L. Caval­ heiro, M. Dewey, S, Kordia, E. Llurda, L. Lopriore, S. Siqueira, and P. Vettorel. ELF10 Conference, Helsinki, 14 June 2017. Sifakis, N. 2017b. Personal Communication, 12 August 2017. Smith, L. and C. Nelson 1985. Intelligibility of English: Directions and Resources. World Englishes 4(3), 333–342. Smith, L. and K. Rafiqzad 1979. English for cross-cultural communication: The Question of intelligibility. TESOL Quarterly, 13(3), 49–58. Sridhar, S. N. and Sridhar, K. 1992. Bridging the paradigm gap: Second language acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English. In B. Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 91–107. Wächter, B. and F. Maiworm (eds.) 2014. English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education: The Stay of Play. Bonn: Lemmens Medien. Waring, R. 2015. Extensive Reading Homepage. Available from: www.robwaring. org/er [Accessed 8 November 2015]. Widdowson, H. 2014. The pragmatics of ELF variation. Special Lecture deliv­ ered at the 4th workshop on English as a lingua franca. Waseda University, 14 November 2014. Wilkinson, R. 2017. Trends and issues in English-medium instruction in Europe. In F. M. Helm, M. Guara and K. Ackersley. Sharing Perspectives on English-Medium Instruction. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

15 Beyond Global English(es)

Masaki OdaBeyond Global English(es)

University English program in transition Masaki Oda

Introduction This chapter will discuss a challenge of a Japanese private university which has recently transformed its English as a foreign language (EFL) program to English as a lingua franca (ELF) program. With an advancement of studies in English as a lingua franca, more researchers are producing related studies than they used to do a few decades ago. While it was a common sense in ESL/EFL teacher trainings in the 1980s in which ‘native speaker’ competence was considered as the goal the learners were supposed to achieve (e.g. Harmer 1983), we rarely hear applied linguists openly say that all learners should achieve ‘native speaker’ competence in recent years. If we get closer to English language classrooms, however, many teachers still seem to believe that ‘native speaker’ competence is what their students should achieve. Needless to say, the students have no choice but to follow what their teachers define as a pathway to ‘successful’ experience in learning English. At the International Conference of The Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET) held at the University of Kyoto in September 2013, there was a special poster session sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT). In this session, universities were asked to display posters on their English language programs for develop­ ing ‘global citizens’. Eighty-four institutions participated in the poster session. While some institutions focused on English programs targeted at particular departments, we were able to see that many universities attempted to establish campus-wide English programs most of which were independent of academic departments. A casual observation of these posters told us that there were par­ ticular keywords or phrases which reflected ideology behind the programs. The keywords or phrases were as follows: Learning English in ‘English only’ environ­ ment, Native English-speaking teachers, Learn authentic English, Small classes, Study abroad programs, Computers/audiovisual equipment, Unified curriculum, and Standardized tests (TOEFL, TOEIC, IELTS). As discussed in Yamagami and Tollefson (2011), many universities stress how their English program leads the students to the right pathway to success by emphasizing advantages in career building as a result of studying English in their programs. In other words, the

260

Masaki Oda

discourse of ‘Globalization-as-opportunity’ (Yamagami and Tollefson 2011) was intact among many of the institutions participated in the poster session. Many of them have attempted to distinguish their programs from others by describing their programs as, with colorful adjectives such as, ‘global’, ‘innovative’, and/ or ‘multicultural’, which coincide with the examples presented in Yamagami and Tollefson (2011). It should be noted that the posters were not necessarily produced by ELT pro­ fessionals. Instead, some of them were produced by admission offices and thus their priority was to get students’ attention to increase the number of applicants. This is especially true for many mid- or small-sized private universities, including the university I am going to talk about. The focus of this chapter, therefore, is on how the university has tried to overcome the gap in beliefs between ELT profes­ sion and the discourses of the general public. The chapter is divided into three major sections. After the introduction, I will give a brief overview of higher education in Japan, followed by a discussion on the relationship between beliefs of ELT professionals about ELT as well as those of the general public. This is necessary for readers to understand the arguments to follow. I will then present a case of a mid-sized private university in Japan which has recently established the Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) to offer its students a campus-wide English language program. I will discuss pos­ sible difficulties institutions may often face, based on our own experience. Finally, I will conclude the chapter with some suggestions on transition between general ELF courses and more content-oriented EMI courses.

Higher education in Japan According to the latest official statistics published by MEXT at the time of writ­ ing, there are 777 four-year colleges and universities in Japan (MEXT 2017). The figure includes 86 national institutions, 91 public institutions, and 600 pri­ vate institutions. Students become eligible for taking entrance exams for col­ leges or universities at the age of 18. In 1994, the population of 18-year-old was 1.86 million, while 20 years later in 2014, it became 1.18 million (Cabinet Office, Government of Japan 2014). In other words, it declined by around 36% in the past twenty years. If this continues, the number of applicants for each insti­ tution becomes fewer and fewer. Therefore, many institutions, especially those small- or mid-sized private institutions and/or those outside the large metropoli­ tan areas need to consider strategies to attract applicants. As I reported elsewhere (Oda 2005), foreign language programs, particularly English, is often used to attract applicants’ attention. Then, what kind of English language programs are attractive to students? In addition, those strategies employed by institutions have changed over the years. Apparently, there is a gap between beliefs about ‘ideal’ ELT of those of us who are in the ELT profession and the discourses of the gen­ eral public. As discussed earlier, the institutions align the position of their foreign language programs with the discourse of ‘Globalization-as-opportunity’ (Yamagami and

Beyond Global English(es) 261 Tollefson 2011) not necessarily because they have solid philosophical beliefs, but to give their potential applicants an impression as if the institutions are working seriously in order to meet the demands of the society. The beliefs about ‘ideal’ ELT among the ELT professionals have also shifted over the years. Consequently, the goal of ELT at universities in Japan has gradually changed. This was par­ ticularly significant after 1990 when the rapid growth of the Japanese economy since the 1960s came to an end. The government has issued several policies cor­ responding to the discourse of ‘Globalization-as-opportunity’, highlighting the importance of English for Japanese people. According to Stewart and Miyahara (2011), these policies prioritize English ‘in the name of globalization, the shift to more communicative language teaching reflected in school teaching and test­ ing’ (p. 62). Stewart and Miyahara (Ibid.) continue that these policies have been reflected on further emphasis on English in exchange of a ‘cut in provision of other languages’ (Ibid.), and an emergence of departments and/or programs which emphasize communication and culture. ELT professionals, especially those of us who specialize in applied linguistics, have also experienced the shifts in ideology concerning English many learners consider as the model. For a long time, native English speaker (NES) competence had been considered the model the learners are expected to achieve at the end of an English language course. However, the validity of native-speaker model as a goal of English language course was questioned when the profession began to focus more on ‘appropriateness’ than ‘accuracy’, ’function’ than ‘form’. In addi­ tion, more applied linguists questions the native speaker model as the goal of English language course with the emergence of different views of English such as World Englishes (WE) (see Kachru 1982) and more recently English as a lingua franca (ELF) (see Seidlhofer 2011). Despite the increasing piece of evidence to support the argument against the native speaker model as the goal of English language courses, however, the voice of the ELT profession has not been strong enough to convince institutions to review their existing foreign language programs, including English, and initiate necessary reforms.

Conflicting beliefs about ELT In Oda (2014), I have talked about the relationship among learner beliefs, public discourse and ELT. From the case study which involved interviews of students on their reflections of learning English, it was found that their beliefs had been influenced largely by those of their parents’ at early stages. Teachers’ influence had played a major role in the formation of learners’ beliefs during their school years, and the mass media had also gradually increased their influence. As they grew, they began to be exposed to the mass media constantly in their daily life. By the time they complete secondary education, some of them rely more on the mass media as a source of information and their beliefs are formulated with its strong influence. The discourses of ELT are already prevalent among the general public and constantly reinforced by a growing number of the learners who accept

262

Masaki Oda

them without any criticism. For example, we often encounter statements such as ‘Ideal teachers are native speakers’ or ‘English should be taught in English only’ in our daily life, even though they are not necessarily confirmed scientifically. However, some institutions are taking advantage of these discourses of ELT, and these statements commonly appear in promoting materials of English language programs, including those of higher education institutions, regardless of the fact that these claims correspond with ‘the native speaker fallacy’ and ‘the monolin­ gual fallacy’ which Phillipson (1992: pp. 185–199), more than two decades ago, problematized in his discussion of the creation of ELT profession in the 1960s in relation with linguistic imperialism. In other words, a majority of the learners still believe these claims. Japanese higher education institutions, especially private institutions, strategically use these statements plausibly by taking advantage of the prevailing discourse of ‘Globalization-as-opportunity’ (Yamagami and Tollefson 2011) to attract their potential applicants, displaying their English language pro­ grams as their ‘attention getters’. Regardless of whether or not such superficial strategies can be legitimated, we first need to be aware of how English language programs at universities and/or colleges are perceived by the general public in order to use the English language program as an ‘attention getter’ to attract applicants. In addition, we have to study carefully if there is any gap between the perception on ELT by parents and subsequently that by children. Furthermore, in most cases, parents pay their children’s educational expenses, and thus they are likely to be actively involved in the selection of an institution. In other words, parents’ beliefs could at least be equally important in selecting institutions their children apply for admission. The issue I have to raise here is that, the conflicting beliefs on learning Eng­ lish between learners and other stakeholders, and ELT professionals seem to be large. In addition, the institutions need to attract their potential applicants and thus use their best available strategies to achieve their goals. While it is ideal for each institution to establish a program with a solid theoretical foundation, it is also important for them to carefully take the conflict in beliefs into consideration as it would potentially become an obstacle when they try to establish English language programs. Bearing this conflict in mind, the next section will discuss the steps we have taken so far to carry out our reform plan.

Establishing a university ELF program In this section, I will present the readers a case of Tamagawa University, a midsized private university in Tokyo, Japan, which has established a new ELF-aware program. The university has eight different colleges, and a total enrollment of full-time students is about 7,000. In 2010, its Executive Board decided to reor­ ganize and centralize the operation of its English language program. Considering the various conditions stated in the previous sections, the university formed a committee to plan its new campus-wide English program in 2011. This was a top

Beyond Global English(es) 263 down order coming from the Executive Board. The committee was called the English as a foreign language (EFL) committee when it started. This alone reflects the prevailing belief among the university administrators about the goal of learn­ ing English in the institution. The committee consisted of administrators, ELT professionals, including administrators and classroom teachers, and other special­ ists in academic affairs and curriculums. After a year of discussion, it was agreed that we would centralize the English program by establishing a unit to handle it. The unit would be independent from any of the eight colleges at the university, each of which was administrated its own English program. While the committee’s task was to establish an English language program, it had to take various factors into consideration. In other words, the program would have to be innovative, and distinctive from those in other institutions. Yet, it would have to be attractive to potential applicants. Needless to say, the com­ mittee had to face several difficult choices. Given the time frame as well as the recourses available, the committee decided to prioritize the items to be done for the years to come. There are three key areas: 1) the goal of the program, more specifically, what we expect our students to achieve at the end of the program; 2) the teachers, in other words, what kind of teachers are needed for students to achieve the goal; and 3) the recruitment, in other words, how we recruit the type of teachers who help train our students achieve the goal effectively. In the following sections, I will discuss each of the areas in detail. We have also agreed and thus told the university that the project will not end at the establishment of the program. Although the priorities were given to the three areas mentioned previously at the outset, we will see the estab­ lishment of the initial program just as a step.

The goal of the ELF program For many years, decisions about English (or any other foreign language) pro­ grams were made by each institution. No systematic mandatory quality control process takes place as far as the authority such as the MEXT has initially approved their establishment. While secondary schools have to follow the national curricu­ lum guideline known as the Course of Study in addition to prepare students for entrance examinations for universities and colleges, English language programs in higher education do not have an established common goal. This would nega­ tively affect both students and institutions. From students’ points of view, it is not usually clear what they are expected to achieve, unless they major in English and/or they have a clear instrumental motivation to master English, for example, for their future career. Teachers as well as administrators at each institution also try their best to meet the students’ needs. However, it is often the case that they cannot figure out exactly what the students want, consequently, they tend to rely on discourses formulated by the mass media. In other words, both a majority of students and administrators may end up believing such discourses of ELT with­ out any criticism.

264

Masaki Oda

One solution that many institutions are likely to come up is to establish ‘nativespeaker’ competence as a goal. In fact, it was apparent from the posters displayed at the JACET International conference mentioned earlier that many institutions especially private ones use it as an ‘attention getter’ to attract applicants, despite the fact that it does not reflect the situations in which many of the Japanese stu­ dents are likely to use English in the future. For some time, linguists have been aware of the fact that English is a widely learned and used language, even though Chinese and Hindi/Urdu have more native speakers (see, Graddol 2006). In fact, there are more regular users of Eng­ lish as a second or foreign language than those who use it as their native language (see Kachru 1982). Approximately four out of five people with whom we are likely to interact in English are so-called non-native speakers (see Graddol 2006). Therefore, it is not necessarily appropriate for Japanese students to learn English aiming at achieving ‘native-speaker’ competence of English. Yet, we rarely see any Japanese institutions which specifically address the issue and transform their programs accordingly, which corresponds with what Seidlhofer (2011) states as follows: Specific proposals addressing the question as to just what might constitute learning goals instead of the increasingly questioned native-speaker model are scarce. (p. 13) Admittedly, there are lots of issues to consider, but we first decided to establish a program to challenge the prevailing assumption that the native speaker model is ‘the’ learning goal. In addition, we have decided to change the name of the committee from EFL committee to ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) committee to reflect our direction.

Teacher recruitment and the native speaker versus non-native speaker dichotomy In order to achieve the goal of the committee, we needed to look for teachers who understand the goal of our program and its theoretical foundation. The univer­ sity already has its general requirements for its academic staff (e.g. a postgraduate degree and a substantial number of publications and conference presentations). In addition, each academic discipline has to specify additional requirements. As with the case of most Japanese universities, we usually recruit university academic staff on JREC-IN portal (https://jrecin.jst.go.jp/) administrated by Japan Science Technology Agency. It lists hundreds of university teaching posi­ tions, including ELT positions. To our surprise, however, we see lots of English language teaching positions which require ‘native speakers’ or ‘native speaker competence’ as though they are equivalent to academic credentials like an MA or Ph.D. At the same time, there is a prevailing assumption among potential appli­ cants that these positions are for ‘native speakers’ by default, and thus are hesitant

Beyond Global English(es) 265 to apply for them. A similar attitude was also observed among some ELT profes­ sionals in the university as well. There is nothing wrong with a teacher being a native speaker, however, it does not necessarily qualify one as a good teacher. The ELF committee, therefore, established a clear hiring policy of instructors in reference to ‘native speaker–non­ native speaker’ distinction. After several revisions, we came up with a description ‘expert users of English’ as requirement, following Rampton (1990). This move was not enough. While ‘native speakers’ continued to apply for the positions, we often received inquiries requesting us to clarify if ‘non-native speak­ ers’ were really eligible to apply. Therefore, we added a footnote which states that whether or not the applicant is a native speaker is not important at all. Although this should be a common sense in the profession, we faced the reality that a majority in the ELT profession did not think so by default. The most remarkable change in the population, however, was the increase in applications from those who are neither native speakers nor a Japanese national. No matter how highly qualified, they had often been overlooked as they were not ‘native speakers’ of English. Nevertheless, it turned out that the teachers from this group would help us shape the new ELF program.

Additional requirements for hiring teachers ELF classes are conducted in English most of the times. However, we do not prohibit the use of Japanese (and/or other languages), for clarification. Before we started our ELF pilot program in the 2012 academic year, we had often heard about the cases in which an instructor was not able to determine if a student failed to respond to his/her questions simply because of the lack of proficiency in English or the lack of knowledge about the subject. Very often, monolingual EFL teachers consider it as the lack of English proficiency, and thus penalize the stu­ dent for having not achieved the expected standards. In contrast, those instruc­ tors who have experience in learning foreign languages beyond the intermediate level usually try to figure out if it is due to the lack of proficiency in English or the lack of knowledge about the subject, and determine what to do next. The lack of exposure to English has been considered a major cause of inef­ fectiveness of ELT in Japan, and a few years ago, MEXT revised its national guideline Course of Study (2008) for upper secondary schools by adding a clause that ‘in principle’ classes should be conducted in English only (see. MEXT 2009: 5). While we agree that we need to provide the maximum opportunity for our students to use English in and out of classroom, it does not necessarily mean that we should stop taking advantage of the knowledge the students have acquired through their mother tongue (or other languages they have previously acquired) by prohibiting its use. Needless to say, the committee determined that monolin­ gual English-speaking teachers would not meet the needs of our ELF program. In the end, the committee came to the conclusion that it would require appli­ cants to have had experience in learning a foreign language beyond intermediate level. While it is impossible for us to check their proficiency, we thought that

266

Masaki Oda

it would show our potential applicants what we expect from them, and subse­ quently eliminate applications from those who have never had substantial experi­ ence in learning a foreign language.

Inauguration of the Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) In April 2014, Tamagawa University established the Center of English as a Lin­ gua Franca. It was perhaps the first university language teaching unit in Asia with ELF in its name. After two years of pilot programs, including trials and errors, the center began to offer English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) courses to five of the eight colleges in the university. The total enrollment in 2014 was around 1,800. The program was further expanded in 2015 with 2,500 enroll­ ments from all eight colleges (with an exception of two departments). In the 2016 academic year, there were 11 full-time instructors (including three who were co-appointed with other colleges) and nearly 30 part-time instructors. What is noteworthy about the teaching staff is that it is truly a multicultural team; teachers are from different parts of the world and have 14 different first lan­ guages. About 50% of them are native speakers of English, all of whom have experience in living in the regions in which English is not a dominant language and/or learning a foreign language beyond intermediate level. While it is pos­ sible for us to say that our students enjoy being exposed to different varieties of English, we do not want them to distinguish among the varieties based solely on geography, for example, American English or Indian English. We would like them to be exposed to different types of English as it is the case in the real world, and find out what is important for them to communicate with someone in Eng­ lish as a ‘lingua franca’. Originally, each class met twice a week for 100 minutes each, and a total of 30 classes per semester. In the 2017 academic year, nearly one-third of the classes meet four times a week for 50 minutes each, and a total of 60 classes per semester. While we need to study which format is more beneficial for the students, the lat­ ter format can provide the students with more constant exposure to English as a Lingua Franca. In either format, the students are also required to spend at least 400 minutes each week outside the class for preparation and various assignments, including extensive reading (ER). Tutor services with multilingual English speak­ ers with about 15 different first languages are also provided for those in need. As a result of course evaluation, a majority of the students who enrolled in the program indicated that they were satisfied with the program (see Okada et al. 2015 for details).

Changes and challenges – issues of assessment In this chapter, I have talked about the establishment of a university ELF pro­ gram in Japan with an example of the program provided at the Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) at Tamagawa University. I have focused particularly

Beyond Global English(es) 267 on what a mid-sized private university has done to inaugurate the program under various constraints. As discussed in Okada et al. (2015), the program has received positive evaluation from the teachers and students. The center does not only administrate the English program but also conduct various research projects in order to promote programs in English as a lingua franca to other institutions. Now that we have had a good start, we have ‘at least made a start in changing [our] practices in respect of English’ as mentioned in Jenkins (2014: 20, also see this volume). Therefore, we also need to make our best effort to provide ELFaware environment within the university. The target not only includes students but also the academic and administrative staff. There are various challenges we have to face in the next few years. First and foremost, there is an issue of entrance examinations. Many of the students enter the university by taking an entrance examination in which they are evaluated based on native speaker models. While the university is fully aware of this con­ tradiction, it is difficult to make a rapid change in entrance examinations because we may lose potential applicants for our degree programs most of whom have prepared for the current examination system. The evaluation of the students’ performance is also an issue. In order to dem­ onstrate the effectiveness of the new ELF program, we are often requested to present the scores of ‘standardized tests’ such as TOEIC, TOEFL, regardless of the fact that these tests do not necessarily measure what our program is aim­ ing at. However, this is something we are not able to avoid, particularly because presenting standardized test scores would be ‘interpreted by the public as a sign of a serious and meaningful attitude towards education’ (Shohamy 2000: 39, see also this volume). It serves as a significant attention getter, particularly for midsized private universities, and thus we need to find a way to make the students and other stakeholders to become aware how to interpret the scores in context. In line with the discourse of ‘Globalization-as-opportunity’, many companies require TOEIC® Listening and Reading test scores as a prerequisite for employ­ ments, despite the fact that the test is designed to measure receptive skills of English in business context. As the employment records for graduates serve as another major attention getter, the institutions often include ‘TOEIC preparation’ as a key word to get attention from their potential applicants. Regardless of whether one knows what the test actually measures or not, the washback effects of these tests serve as strong instrumental motivation for students to learn English. In addition, we need to be aware of the fact that most of these tests are developed on native speaker mod­ els. Therefore, the test is not an appropriate instrument for measuring proficiency of the students enrolled in our ELF program. Given the fact that TOEIC® Listening and Reading test scores are regarded as a ‘pass’ to show one’s English proficiency to the general public, it is necessary for us to consider how to make the best use of the scores in our ELF program, rather than totally avoiding them. Recently, CEFR (the Common European Framework of Reference for lan­ guages) was introduced to ELT in Japan, and attempts have been made to adopt its CAN-DO descriptors as a reference for evaluation. (e.g. CEFR-J in Tono, ed. 2013). In addition, some institutions have developed their own CAN-DO

268

Masaki Oda

lists specifically designed for their programs. However, we often see the cases in which institutions are unconditionally ‘adopting’ the descriptors of the CEFR rather than ‘adapting’ them to the contexts of higher education in Japan (see Pitzl 2015). We are also working on developing our own CAN-DO list for our ELF classes. Pitzl (2015) points out that the CEFR descriptors have been criti­ cized from an ELF perspective, particularly because some of them refer to ‘native speaker’ competence as the model to be achieved. Pitzl (ibid.) states: Among the issues that most noticeably demand our attention are the explicit native speaker orientation in some CEFR descriptors and the near-native ide­ als associated with the highest reference level C2 called Mastery. (p. 98) In the same manner, McNamara (2012) also states that the descriptors used in the CEFR assume ‘native speaker’ competence and ‘the responsibility for success­ ful communication is held to lie entirely with the non-native speaker’ (p. 200). As discussed earlier, program administrators are often asked to refer to stand­ ardized test scores, and more recently, to the CEFR framework as a referent point in order to describe the learners’ proficiency. In this respect, Tamagawa is not an exception. Yet, we still need to fine tune our existing framework for describing language proficiency in order it to be used for our ELF program. Furthermore, we need to be cautious for not making it a CAN’T DO list. That is, a checklist to find fault with the students’ performance and penalize them for not having attained ‘native speaker’ competence. This includes whether or not we assign a required textbook if we need a unified test for all the classes at the same level. Currently, we assign a required textbook for each level, though teachers have freedom on how to deal with it as far as s/he follows the minimum requirements defined by the program. Yet these textbooks are published mostly by international publishers and are designed based on native speaker models. Accordingly, this is another issue we have to solve to make the goal of our program more coherent.

Conclusion With the long list of the issues to be considered in the years to come, we need to strategically implement the concept of ELF awareness to our program step by step. As Bayyurt and Sifakis (2017: 7) state in their discussion on EIL aware teacher education, we too do not aim at changing the perspectives of the stake­ holders overnight. Instead, we need to make our effort to constantly provide our students with relevant information about the role of English in the world, and expose them to the varieties of English in different communicative contexts. This would lead to their awareness of the importance of setting ELF as a goal of English language programs at our university, and the approach is also applicable to other Japanese universities and colleges as well as those in other parts of the world in a similar situation.

Beyond Global English(es) 269

References Bayyurt, Y. and N. Sifakis 2017. Foundations of an EIL-aware Teacher Education. In A. Matsuda (ed.), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Lan­ guage. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 3–18. Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, The. 2014. 18 sai jinko to Koto kyoiku kikan eno Shingakuritsu no suii [18 year old population and the change in advancement Rate to higher education] Available from: http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/tyousakai/ kihon5/siryo6-2-7.pdf/ [accessed 5 May 2015]. Graddol, D. 2006. English Next. London: The British Council. Harmer, J. 1983. The Practice of English Language Teaching (1st ed.). London: Longman. Jenkins, J. 2014. The internationalization of higher education. But what about its lingua franca? WASEDA Working Papers in ELF 3, 15–31. Kachru, B. B. 1982. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures (1st ed.). Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press. McNamara, T. 2012. English as a lingua franca: The challenge for language testing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1), 199–202. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology, The. 2008. Course of Study for Upper Secondary School. Tokyo: MEXT Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology (MEXT), The. 2009. Kotogakko Gakushu Sido Yoryo Kaisetsu Gaikokugo hen, Eigo hen [An explanation of course of study for upper secondary schools]. Available from: http;//www.mext. go.jp/ [accessed 5 May 2015]. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology (MEXT), The. 2017. Heisei 28 nendo Mombu Kagaku Tokei Yoran [The 2016 Statistical Direc­ tory on Education and Sciences] Available from: www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/ toukei/002/002b/1383990.htm [accessed 20 December 2017]. Oda, M. 2005. Internationalization or Self-Colonization: The Discourse of Student Recruitment at Japanese Universities. Paper presented at Bi-and Multilingual Uni­ versities-Challenges and Future Prospects Conference, University of Helsinki, Fin­ land, September 3. Oda, M. 2014. Reconditioning the conditions for second language learning: Social conditions and learner motivation. In K. Sung and B. Spolsky (eds.), Conditions for English Language Teaching and Learning in Asia. New Castle upon Tyne: Cam­ bridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 105–126. Okada, T., B. Milliner, E. Ogane, A. Leichsenring, M. Imai, T. Cote and P. McBride 2015. A Report of the Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) for Academic Year 2014–2015. The Center for ELF Journal 1, 9–24. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pitzl, M-L. 2015. Understanding and misunderstanding in the Common Euro­ pean Framework of Reference: What we can learn from research on BELF and Intercultural Communication. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1), 91–124. Rampton, M. B. H. 1990. Displacing the ‘native speaker’ ELT Journal 44(2), 97–101. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shohamy, E. 2000. The Power of Tests. Harlow: Longman.

270

Masaki Oda

Stewart, A. and M. Miyahara 2011. Parallel universes: Globalization and identity in English language teaching at a Japanese university. In P. Seargeant (ed.), English in Japan in the Era of Globalization. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 60–79. Tono, Y. (ed.) 2013. Eigo Totatsu Mokuhyo Sihyo CEFR-J Gaido bukku [The CEFR-J Handbook: A Resourse Book for Using CAN-DO Descriptors for English Language Teaching. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten. Yamagami, M. and J. W. Tollefson 2011. Elite Discourses of Globalization in Japan: The Role of English. In P. Seargeant (ed.), English in Japan in the Era of Globaliza­ tion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 15–37.

16 Critical language testing and English lingua franca

Elana ShohamyCritical language testing

How can one help the other? Elana Shohamy

Introduction This chapter contextualises the theory of English lingua franca (ELF) with that of critical language testing (CLT), and addresses the gap that exists between updated and current definitions of English language proficiency and the methods used to assess it. ELF research (Seidlhofer 2011; Jenkins 2012 and others) refers to English lan­ guage variation which demonstrates that the goal of reaching ‘native’ English pro­ ficiency for learners and users of English is not achievable by most learners but also not necessary. Users of ELF do not ‘leave their first languages behind’ when they use English as other language components play extremely important roles in the use of the English language in multiple skills, domains and contexts. As to language testing and assessment, the ‘what is being tested’ is central for designing tests which are useful and valid. It is surprising therefore that language testing as a field over­ looks and ignores ELF and does not include it in the new and current definitions of English while the native variation of English continues to serve as ‘the’ only criterion for judging the quality of English. The main argument here is that this needs to change and English tests in this day and age must incorporate the ELF construct and its unique characteristics as described by ELF research so to create tests which have high construct validity. If ELF is considered a valid construct in teaching and uses, it should also be possible to use it as a proficiency criterion that is substantially different from the current practices where native varieties continue to be used by powerful institutions in designing English tests as well as by policymak­ ers, principals and teachers who make high-stakes decisions about people based on these tests. Further, given that tests are powerful devices which have strong effects on learning, teaching, self-concept and identity, using tests which do not match the current ELF construct means that ELF will not be recognised in schools as part of teaching and use as research has shown that tests have substantially more impact on learning than official curricula (Cheng 2004; Shohamy 2001a).

Critical language testing The above described phenomenon is directly related to the theory of CLT as its main goal is to pose questions about tests, raise doubts and challenges about

272

Elana Shohamy

them and strive to reform and change tests so that they are more valid, fair and just. The theory of CLT has been around for more than two decades and it is based on a list of principles that focus on the uses of tests in education and society, making effort to make tests more democratic and inclusive. It originates from the enormous and unlimited power of tests (Shohamy 2001a; Menken 2008, 2010). These principles bring about questions such as: How are tests used in education and society? What are their reasons and agendas (explicit and implicit)? What are the reasons for introducing tests and what consequences do they bring about for individuals, education and society. (Shohamy 2001b, 2001a) This is a short list for a substantially longer list of questions that emerge from the enormous power of tests which is manifested from the re-definition of language knowledge and referring to the changes that tests can bring about. For example, tests have a strong impact on teachers’ views about what learning consists of, espe­ cially referring to external tests which are designed and administered by central bodies like Ministries of Education and national examination boards. The power of tests can determine also the future of people (Blackledge 2009; Shohamy 2009), not only in schools but also in society and at the workplace as in the cases of adult immigrants being tested in the new language as requirement for obtaining citizen­ ship or residence in the new country (Eades 2009; Extra, Spotti and Van Avermaet 2009; McNamara and Shohamy 2008). Additional criticism about tests as part of CLT relates to the implicit (of ‘hidden’) goals of introducing language tests as these are often based on ideologies rather than on realities of language use. For example, it is often the case that decision-makers and policy designers introduce tests as they have specific goals that, given their power, motivate test takers to change their behaviour to match the tests’ goals and study only what is required on the test. Tests are also known to create uniformity among people, especially immi­ grants who want to integrate into the new society and motivate them to drop their family languages even at home in order to fit it and assimilate. In such situations, decision-makers believe that standard English, that which is used by native speakers is the key for achieving that goal, or that it is a guarantee for keeping certain people marginalised as these goals are often not realistic. After all, acquiring standard lan­ guage is not always possible, especially given the short time allocated to learning a new language to high level of proficiency. Thus, tests are used as tools for ideology and to present un-realistic goals such as ‘native’ proficiency. CLT then raises serious questions and challenges about language tests, their intentions, content, strategies and impact. It challenges the enormous power of tests, examines their impact, their cost, ethicality, equality and social justice, and claims that testers and users have the responsibility to become engaged in chang­ ing and transforming the way language tests are constructed and used, and dis­ covering the hidden agenda for the introduction of tests.

Critical language testing 273

Connecting ELF with CLT The focus that is made in this chapter on the recognition in ELF as a ‘legitimate’ variation implies that when it comes to English language tests the construct of ELF differs from that of the native variation (Seidlhofer 2011; Jenkins 2012) and hence needs to be addressed as such, as ELF is more realistic for learners than English as an L-1; yet, native variety is still idealised by parents, teachers, students and policymakers. When we connect the notion of ELF with CLT the following questions emerge: •

• • •

•

• • • •

• • • • •

Do the English tests we use reflect the most updated and current views of ‘what it means to know a language’ for all in plural, multilingual societies? (ELF, translanguaging, bi-multilingualism, etc.)? Do we construct tests in ways that they incorporate research findings of lan­ guage learning and use by non-native speakers? Is it appropriate – ethical, fair – to use ‘the native speaker’ as the goals and criteria for determining the quality of ELF? Is it valid to design English language tests which are based on definitions and agendas provided by central agencies who have ideologies for introducing tests so that they can affect washback and teaching practices? Do English tests include all components that contribute to performance on tests beyond language per se (e.g., communication, negotiations, pragmat­ ics, fluency etc.)? Do we open language tests to be monitored by society, critiqued and sanctioned? Do English tests relate equally to all learners/users – immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers and other marginalised populations? Is there a match between the items and tasks used on a test and the construct being measured? Is there evidence that success or failure on English tests relate to decisions made based on tests results? Residence? Citizenship? Asylum seekers? Accept­ ance to higher education? Employment? Do language testers follow their responsibility to design and adopt English tests according to ethical and professional considerations? Is it fair to compare language proficiency of second language learners to those of natives? Are second language learners/ELF users capable of acquiring ‘native’ lan­ guage proficiency and do they need to? Do language tests reflect realistically the length of time it takes to acquire a second language? What happens to self-image, identity and even actual language performance on tests when test takers know that what is expected from them is ELF and not native language?

274

Elana Shohamy

The main components of language tests Three main components make up the design of tests, and these are related to our discussion here: one is the ‘what’, known as ‘the construct’ or the ‘trait’; the second is ‘the how’, or ‘the method’ referring to strategies of assessment, and the third is the impact, referring to the consequences and effects that tests have on knowledge, uses, learning ethicality, and justice, known also as ‘wash­ back’. (Messick 1994; Cheng 2004; Shohamy and Hornberger 2008; Menken 2010). As to the trait, this addresses the question of what is the very language that will be assessed so that mastery of that language will provide evidence of the person’s language quality. This is very relevant to the case of ELF since it poses deep questions about the very knowledge that should be included on tests or ‘make up’ the tests. The second component, the method, aims to iden­ tify the specific procedures and strategies that are used to assess the trait; these include multiple choice items, various performance tasks and other ways which are known in the literature to be useful for assessing the trait that had been pre­ viously defined. The third component, the impact, relates to the consequences that tests have on individual tests takers, educational systems and often society as a whole (Messick 1994; Shohamy 2001a, 2006; Cheng 2004). It is often the case that even a well-defined trait which utilises high-quality and reliable testing methods can still end in negative consequences for the test takers, for schools and the educational system. Thus, the call made here is to introduce ELF as a central trait in English tests; this is backed up by extensive research with its unique characteristics showing that ELF consists of specific English in its own right and these characteristics need to be incorporated and manifested into language testing and assessment. As of now, tests are still based on the notion of the native speaker as the ideal criterion for language quality. This is in contrast to the view that ELF, an accepted variation of English, should be used as a target of knowledge emerging from its status as a lingua franca. The major advances in language testing over the past decade cre­ ated adjustments mostly on ‘the how’ (i.e., statistics, data analysis, scores, ratings scales), but no advances in matching these test methods to the new definitions of language as described here and elsewhere. As to the third component relating to consequences, this is related directly to the earlier discussion that CLT questions the uses and consequences of tests for individuals and society at large.

Unique features of language in the current era While the emphasis in this chapter is on ELF, it is important to state that other constructs originating from similar sources have been introduced in the past few years. These refer to ‘translanguaging’ (Garcia and Wei 2014) ‘bi-multi-languag­ ing’, hybridity, and multi-modality. Common among all these are the de-con­ struction of traditional language construct of correct, accurate, native-like and standardised language. Testers then are faced with new challenges of these new views of language as consisting of various types of diversities. The following are

Critical language testing 275 unique features of language which are applicable to the changes in the construct, whether ELF, translanguaging, multiligualism or hybridities, multi-modality and others (taken from Shohamy 2006): •

• • • •

•

•

•

Language is dynamic, energetic, diverse, fluid and constantly evolving; no fixed boundaries, creative, but rather open, resulting in fusions, hybrids and ‘non-native’ varieties. Language is not static, rather it is negotiated, interacted and mediated in attempts to make meanings, to communicate, to create contact (or avoid it). Language is manifested ‘beyond words’, via multi-modal forms of images, signs, music, clothes, food and other ways of ‘languaging’. Language competence is perceived nowadays as multilingual, multi-modal, codes, dialects and modalities which exist harmoniously. Language knowledge often implies transition among different skills and lan­ guages: speak in one language, read in another, discuss in the third and often switch ‘codes’. Language is not limited to what people say but also to how they choose to represent themselves in the ecology via signs, personal cards, names, graffiti and other forms of linguistic landscapes. Language is also uniquely personal – ‘my language is not yours’, even within the same language, in terms of voice, sound, rhythm, young-old, malefemale, choice of words, etc. These features result in new and creative mixes of accents, words, tones, spellings, sounds, intonations, voices, as well as codes, icons, images, sounds, constructed harmoniously.

Still, when it comes to tests and assessment, these features are ignored as tests are used for other agendas such as to impose ideological monolingual agendas and practices and standardisation of national languages. Take, for example, some major tests used in the US such as No Child Left Behind, the Common Core, citi­ zenship tests which are used in many European countries as criteria for residence acceptance. All these assess national languages in their standardised form and do not accept variations. Language tests are high-stakes encounters which continue to assess English (or other national languages) in their native form and refuse to accept the construct of ELF or any other less standardised language variations. Most tests use standardised rating scales as the main tools for judging the qual­ ity of the language; rating scales such as the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), American Council of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) become instrumental in perpetuating uniformity based on homogenous monolingual constructs. The CEFR is a global tool used extensively in many contexts beyond just Europe (i.e., Asia, South/Central America and elsewhere) to define and cat­ egorise of levels of language proficiency in all situations and in most languages according to six categories. The CEFR is known to affect teaching methods, materials, textbooks, testing, accreditation systems, and learning, in and out of classrooms, a new accepted way to view language (Fulcher 2004). Governments

276

Elana Shohamy

adopt the CEFR, no questions asked, and view it as the ultimate definition of language proficiency. Huge financial resources are spent on buying prestigious tests and textbooks that claim to align/fit/match/link to the CEFR. Reputable institutions such as ETS rush ‘to link’ their tests to the CEFR, realising that fail­ ing to do so will result in loss of sales, profits and prestige. The CEFR is a com­ municative and appealing tool for multiple stake holders, especially politicians, governments and other decision-makers. In many situations the criteria included in the CEFR replace high-quality local criteria which have been in place in the past as the CEFR is viewed as a ‘mega’ tool, as big as ‘the English language’ supported by governments, testing agen­ cies. Not surprisingly, the most frequent use of the CEFR is with the English lan­ guage, along with the goal of reaching the highest level of language proficiency. As we can observe even the highest level of the CEFR defines it as a ‘native vari­ ety’ and does not recognise ELF as it emerges in ELF research. See, for example, description of the C-2 level, the highest one of the CEFR levels. It is clear that the level that is presented here refers to a very high level like that of a native speaker and not to an ELF user. ELF researchers should be able to create a similar scale that is based on the features that ELF users can do on their highest level. C2 – Mastery Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing argu­ ments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself sponta­ neously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in the most complex situations. The CEFR is a finite system that has become a form of identity, an ideology, a common ‘language’ to define the world. Thus, saying someone is A-1 or B-2 on the CEFR brings about a common language, a familiar meaning, an assigned category, an identity. When two languages are assessed, this is done in total sepa­ ration, each language at a time, with separate scores, and not in the multilingual fluidity, or translanguaging as mentioned earlier. One is penalised for bringing in words from the ‘other’ languages. Indeed test takers are penalised for their L-1 use while this is so in spite of the fact that immigrants and minority groups and second language learners continue to use, rely, depend, trust, their L-1 for a very long time, if not for life. ELF users rely and build on their L-1 and other sources, especially in interpretations of content. It should be noted that the changes are currently taking place in the definitions of the CEFR in order to incorporate lan­ guage variations into the score and especially L-1 via mediations and translations. It is important to note in observing the scales how ELF is presented as a problem and not as a language that is appropriate. In fact many features of speaking utilise accents, code-switching from the L-1 which care all are part of the repertoire of ELF, similarly, are grammar, lexicon, word order, discourse, pragmatics, etc. In writing as well, L-2 learners continue to bring in features of their L-1 or another

Critical language testing 277 language they have learned before they acquired English, yet always feel their ELF is not good enough and therefore always seek ‘a native English speaker’ to edit their article, especially in the case of writing academic journal articles which still require standard English and do not recognise ELF. In reading as well, it is often the case that comprehension of texts requires additional knowledge – con­ textual information and terminology given unique context.

Test accommodation A common practice in recent years has been the use of ‘test accommodation’; these are based on the realisation that L-2 learners continue to use their L-1 and hence are being granted help until they become like the ‘native speakers’ (Abedi 2004; Abedi and Lord 2001). Yet, the real agenda behind that policy is to per­ petuate the goal of the need to acquire L-2 and overlook the L-1, which is not valued especially in contexts of immigration of children in schools, in spite of the fact that language learners continue to employ their L-1s, and that is part of their expanded language repertoire. Ignoring the L-1 of second language learn­ ers and ELF users results in invalid tests and low performance of language users as they may never acquire the new language in its ‘natives form’. Demanding native variety is a form of discrimination that can never be overcome. The use of test accommodations gives students the illusion that they can get there, while the reality is not so.

Evidence through data In this section are sets of data that emerged from different research studies that provide supporting evidence to the arguments made earlier. The results presented in Figures 16.4, 16.5 and 16.6 are taken from a large-scale study of immigrant students coming to Israel and enrolled in schools; it was national study so the sampling was done of all students in three levels of schools, grades 5, 9, and 11, and students immigrated in different points in time (Levin, Shohamy and Spol­ sky 2003; Levin and Shohamy 2008). In Figures 16.1a and 1b we can learn that the messages delivered on signs include not only written words but also images and graphs. Indeed, one looks at language broadly along multi-modality and multilingualism (i.e., words, pictures, photos and graphs which are instrumental in interpretations of the signs’ messages). Meaning is created based on multiple sources. In Figure 16.2, we can observe the diverse types of Englishes which are con­ stantly being created in dynamic and personal ways, resulting in various type of ELF as these words do not have meaning in English, they are in fact Hebrew words utilising English letters. The name of the street on top of the sign is in Hebrew, the lower part is in English letters, yet it is Hebrew words transliterated. This points to the variety of Englishes which represents some type of hybridity. This phenomenon adds another dimension to the notion of pure language as these represent in fact two languages, or hybrids, fusions, images and various

Figure 16.1a A bilingual sign, Japanese English

Figure 16.1b A bilingual sign, Japanese English

Critical language testing 279

Figure 16.2 A bilingual sign, Hebrew English, English is transliteration of the Hebrew

mixes of English with L-1s, L-2s and L-n, flowing over local, regional and transnational spaces. In Figure 16.3, we learn how certain languages – here is Arabic – are erased from the public spaces, and hence pointing to the deeper meaning of language as a political symbol. Figures 16.4 and 16.5 point to the length of time it takes immigrant students to acquire academic language in schools (Levin, Shohamy and Spolsky 2003; Levin and Shohamy 2008). Specifically, for students who immigrated from the former Soviet Union in the 9th grade, it takes nine to 11 years to reach similar level of academic language as those born into Hebrew. This means that during all these years those students could not interpret full meanings of what was delivered in Hebrew. One can assume that if the texts to be presented in Russian, their home language, they would do better, as is displayed in Figure 16.4. The students who immigrated from Ethiopia and whose languages are Amharic or Tigrinya, did not arrive at similar levels of those who were born into Hebrew during their school years. In Figure 16.5, we can see how two groups of immigrants from the former Soviet Union for whom Russian was their first language performed on a mathematics test. We can see here that those students who were tested in a bilingual version of Hebrew and Russian performed significantly higher than those who were tested in Hebrew alone, pointing to the fact that students continue to rely

Figure 16.3 Name of a street in three languages: Hebrew (on top), Arabic (erased) and English transliteration

Figure 16.4 Length of time it takes for two immigrant groups to acquire a language (Source: Levin, Shohamy and Spolsky 2003)

Critical language testing 281

Figure 16.5 Comparison of scores on Mathematic test presented in two versions: monolingual Hebrew vs. bilingual version (Hebrew-Russian) according to years of residence (Source: Levin, Shohamy and Spolsky 2003)

on their home languages and this bilingual format helps them get higher grades on the test (Shohamy 2011). In Figure 16.6, we can observe a writing test in English for Hebrew native speakers – the task was to write a recipe of how to bake chocolate chip cookies. It can be seen in the text of a student that Hebrew words were used along English in all the places they did not have the English words. This shows that the use of L1 serves a useful strategy in delivering information, and it results in a higher score on the writing tests. These data then provide some more empirical evidence to support the arguments made in this chapter. The chapter will end with a list of initial proposals for ways of assessing ELF that can be used for other translanguaging and multilingual assessments.

Preliminary proposals Initial proposals of ELF/bilingual translanguaging tests can be adopted as follows: 1 2

Using academic-content texts in ELF. Writing in ELF but focus on message, hybrids.

Figure 16.6 A writing test in English for Hebrew native speakers

Critical language testing 283 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reading in L-1 but processing in ELF. Discussing a text in one language orally based on texts in ELF. ELF rubrics/rating scales relating to different domains. Group tests consisting of role plays using ELF, multiple languages, interpre­ tation, translating, translanguaging, etc. cognitive work on language and content processing. Test mediations in two languages referring to the use of a L-1 of the students to interpret the ELF texts.

As to ELF specifically, the vast amount of research on ELF should be chan­ nelled into the development of ELF tests, and rating scales and rubrics. These findings are instrumental in developing the testing construct that can be used for the quality and especially noticing the differences between ELF and native English.

Questions and challenges In the spirit of CLT, many questions need to be addressed as the use of ELF assessment would be a revolutionary way of thinking of assessment in a non­ native variation. The move from the native variety as the ‘it’ to the acceptance of English variations, would require a lot of work in convincing others about it. As is the case today, convincing the public at large about the existence of ELF is still controversial, let alone the issue of ELF testing and assessment and the need to create tests which are geared towards ELF users. Testing institutes are not in a hurry to adopt such changes, although there are beginning to be initiatives at testing institutes such as Educational Testing Service in the US. Here are some of questions, out of a much larger pool that should be posed about the topic: 1 2 3 4 5

What are the differences between ELF and other language variations such as ‘translanguaging’ and bi-multi-lingual and multi-modality? How are these manifested with regard to the different competences in the different phases of language proficiency and use? How do different L-2 users utilise L-1, L-2 and L-3 in production versus processing? What criteria can be used for ‘good ELF’? Is it hierarchical? Sporadic? Holistic? How is ELF manifested when test takers are encouraged and not penalised, to utilise their L-1 or other strategies (images) of free expression?

This chapter is a preliminary attempt calling for the need to match the testing procedure with ELF; it is the large amount of research about ELF that should feed into specific initiatives to develop ELF tests to match this new construct. It is only when there will be tests of ELF that recognition of ELF (and the variety of other non-native varieties) will be accepted and used. The powerful role that tests have also means that at times, the power of tests need to be utilised so to

284

Elana Shohamy

shift the view of people about non-standard homogenous forms. Such a shift will result in higher levels of construct validity and the realistic need of English users. Current tests serve the system; they are not based on how languages ARE used, but on how some think SHOULD be used. Hence, we are looking forward to the development of creative ways for applying ELF and other broader contextual traits that will include a fuller repertoire of individuals’ and groups’ languages. These will be more ethical, create a better impact and expand our understanding of language repertoires which are appropriate for this world in this day and age. It should be noted that early initiatives in the assessment of multilingualism are beginning to take place. For example, as of the end of 2018 new definitions of the CEFR scale include language transfers, interpretations and translations. As to ELF, Jenkins and Leung (2018) describe such initiatives with regard to ELF. These initiatives provide early signs of the acceptance of ELF as a legitimate con­ struct that requires assessment procedures which reflect it.

References Abedi, J. 2004. The no child left behind act and English language learners: Assess­ ment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher 33(1), 4–14. Abedi, J. and C. Lord 2001. The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Meas­ urement in Education 14(3), 219–234. Blackledge, A. 2009. As a country we do expect: The further extension of language testing regimes in the United Kingdom. Language Assessment Quarterly 6(1), 6–16. Cheng, L. 2004. The washback effect of a public examination change on teachers’ perceptions toward their classroom teaching. In L. Cheng and Y. Watanabe with A. Curtis (eds.), Washback in Language Testing: Research Contexts and Methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 147–170. Eades, D. 2009. Testing the claims of asylum seekers: The role of language analysis. Language Assessment Quarterly 6(1), 30–40. Extra, G., M. Spotti and P. V. Avermaet (eds.) 2009. Language Testing, Migration and Citizenship: Cross-national Perspectives. London: Continuum. Fulcher, G. 2004. Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and harmonization. Language Assessment Quarterly 1(4), 253–266. Garcia, O. and L. Wei 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Educa­ tion. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jenkins, J. 2012. English as a Lingua Franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal 66(4), 486–494. Jenkins, J. and C. Leung 2018. Assessing English as a lingua franca. In E. Shohamy, I. Or and S. May (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 7: Lan­ guage Testing and Assessment. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 103–118. Levin, T. and E. Shohamy 2008. Achievement of immigrant students in mathematics and academic Hebrew in Israeli school: A large-scale evaluation study. Studies in Educational Evaluation 34(1), 1–14. Levin, T., E. Shohamy and B. Spolsky 2003. Academic Achievements of Immigrants in Schools. Report submitted to the Ministry of Education (in Hebrew). Israel, Tel Aviv University.

Critical language testing 285 McNamara, T. and E. Shohamy 2008. Language tests and human rights. Interna­ tional Journal of Applied Linguistics 18(1), 89–95. Menken, K. 2008. English Learners Left Behind: Standardized Testing as Language Policy. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Menken, K. 2010. No child left behind and English language learners: The challenges and consequences of high-stakes testing. Theory Into Practice 49(2), 121–128. Messick, S. 1994. The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessment. Educational Researcher 23, 13–23. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shohamy, E. 2001a. The Power of Tests: A Critical Perspective on the Uses of Language Tests. London: Longman and Pearson Education. Shohamy, E. 2001b. Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing 18(4), 373–391. Shohamy, E. 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge. Shohamy, E. 2011. Assessing multilingual competencies: Adopting construct valid assessment policies. Modern Language Journal 95(3), 418–429. Shohamy, E. 2018. Critical language testing. In E. Shohamy, I. Or and S. May (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 7: Language Testing and Assess­ ment. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 441–455. Shohamy. E. and H. H. Nancy (eds.) 2008. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 7: Language Testing and Assessment. Dordrecht: Springer.

Index

academic vocabulary 58 academic writing 55–59 Academic Writing Center 41–42 American Council of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) 275 American written English 26 applied linguistics 34–36, 78–79 British written English 26 Center for English as a Lingua Franca 266 China: case study of EMI in 201–216; classroom observation data of case study of EMI in 210–212; debates on EMI in 212–215; interview data of case study of EMI in 207–210; methodology of case study of EMI in 205–207; promotion of EMI in 158–160; role of ELF 212–215; staff members’ and students’ conceptualizations of 141–150; students in EMI-P 158; transcription conventions 216; understanding English in EMI 202–205 Chukyo University case study: background to research 240–244; demographics and experiences prior to entering Department of World Englishes 247; Department of World Englishes 241–242; discussion/ findings 246–252; ELF factor and EMI 243; graduates’ attitudes towards WE 249; of graduates from 239–253; graduates’ jobs and lifestyle after graduating 250–252; graduates’ post-graduation assessment of the curriculum 247–249; graduates’ survey 254–256; methodology

245–246; rationale 244–245; research data 244–252; specifics of EMI and English proficiency 242–243; university in general 240–241; views on electives and suggested curricular improvements 249–250 classroom discourse: code choice in side talk and group work 108–109; dynamics of cultural references in main talk 112–115; functions of LOTE instances in main talk 106; interactional data set 105; multilingual practices 100–104; study analysis 105–108; study on 104–117; study setting and data set 104–105; transcription conventions 118; translanguaging in main talk 109–112 code-switching 69–70, 99, 101–103, 107, 116, 131, 140–141, 148, 152, 180, 230, 276 coloniality 34–36 Common Core 275 Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) 267–268, 275–276 content and ELF integrated learning (CELFIL): approach(es) for 229; “approach, method, and technique” framework for 228–232; concept of 219–220; conditions for implementing 224–226; designing for classes in English-medium instruction 219–233; interdepartmental/ interdisciplinary collaboration 224–226; local educational traditions 226–227; manner of scaffolding 228; methodological issues in designing 226–228; methodology appropriate

Index for each content area 227; methods for 229–230; need for 223–233; need for intercultural pedagogy 226–227; raising awareness in ELF 224; student demographics 227–228; techniques for 230–232 content and language integrated learning (CLIL) 100, 219–220 content-based instruction (CBI) 100 critical language testing (CLT): connecting ELF with 273; ELF and 271–284; evidence through data sets 277–281; main components of language tests 274; proposals of ELF/bilingual translanguaging tests 281–283; questions and challenges 283–284; test accommodation 277; theory of 271–272; unique features of language in the current era 274–277 Dankook University 17–18 decoloniality 33–36 decolonial practice: Academic Writing Center 41–42; EMI transversal course 42–43; English for Internationalization course, 40–41; English in professorship 39–43; researching English in internationalization 43 Dongseo University 18 English as a foreign language (EFL) 39 English as a lingua franca in academic settings (ELFA) 79 English as an additive language 87–89 English as an international language (EIL) 71, 220 English for Academic Purposes (EAP) 19, 55–57, 147–148 English for Internationalization course, 40–41 English language teaching (ELT): conflicting beliefs about 261–262; cooperation between ELT experts and non-language specialist instructors 225; lack of authenticity in 223; radio program 220–221 English-medium education in multilingual university settings (EMEMUS) 59 English-medium instruction course (EMI-C) 157–158

287

English-medium instruction (EMI): for academic vocabulary development 58; alternatives to mainstream treatments of 32–44; authenticity of ELF in classes 223; background to research 158–159; benefits and challenges of EMI in nonAnglophone contexts 138–142; benefits of EMI in non-Anglophone contexts 144, 146, 151; challenges of EMI in non-Anglophone contexts 138–142, 144, 146–150; in China 201–216; classes as community of practice in ELF 222–223; classroom discourse in 99–118; definitions of 159–160; designing CELFIL for classes 219–233; diversity of environments 221–222; as economic policy 80–81; enacting ELF-informed curriculum 123–135; expanding ELF-informed in Japan 239–256; for global university competition 81–82; identity and pragmatic language use among East Asian ELF speakers and its implications for 176–193; implementation of 151, 172–173; in Japan 78–90, 137–173, 192–193; in Korea 64–73; language policies/ practices at international universities 20; for modernization 79–80; previous research into 158–160; recent discourse of promoting 78–79; staff members’ and students’ conceptualizations of 141–150, 152–153; researching at Swedish universities 46–60; transversal course 42–43 English-medium instruction programme (EMI-P) 157–158 English tests 82–84 English used as a lingua franca (ELF): authenticity in EMI classes 223; construction of cultural identity 189–191; definition of 220; definitions of EMI from perspective of 159–160; developing professional identity as practitioner 132–135; EMI as an opportunity for learning 220–221; EMI classes as community of practice in ELF 222–223; establishing university program 262–266; expanding ELF-informed EMI in Japan 239–256; identity and

288

Index

pragmatic language use among East Asian speakers 176–193; identity in 177–180; of international higher education 15–30; language policies/ practices at international universities 20; pedagogical implications of 125, 130–131; pragmatic choice in East Asian 184–189; pragmatics 179–180; raising awareness in 224; recognition of cultural groups in relation to others 189–191; role in Korea 71–73; sharedness as commonality and issues of identity 179; teaching context 124, 126; teaching philosophy 126–128; transformation to practitioner 128–132; us versus them discourse 182–184 ERASMUS project 82, 158 Global Englishes 140–141 hegemony 81, 140 identity: construction of cultural identity 189–191; in ELF 177–180; negotiation of cultural identity 191–192; pragmatics and 179–180; sharedness as commonality and issues of 179; us versus them discourse 182–184 integrational linguistics 36 intelligibility 36–39 International English Language Testing System (IELTS) 20, 28–29 Japan: additional requirements for hiring teachers 265–266; case study of graduates from Chukyo University 239–253; conflicting beliefs about ELT 261–262; construction of cultural identity 189–191; doctoral study in EMI 137–153; EMI and university management outside classrooms 86–87; EMI as a shared experience in Asia 87–89; EMI as economic policy 80–81; EMI for global university competition 81–82; EMI for modernization 79–80; enacting ELF-informed Englishmedium instruction curriculum 123–135; English test reforms for university admission 82–84, 88–90; establishing university ELF program 262–268; fear of eroding Japanese

identity in EMI: 87–89; feeding EMI 82–86; findings regarding attitudes towards EMI 162–167; findings regarding attitudes towards ‘English’ used in EMI classes 167–172; goal of the ELF program 263–264; higher education in 260–261; identity and pragmatic language use among ELF speakers 180–193; inauguration of Center for English as a Lingua Franca 266; issue of entrance examinations 267; issues of assessment for establishment of university ELF program in 266–268; limited scale of EMI in 87; native speaker versus non-native speaker dichotomy 264–265; negotiation of cultural identity 191–192; negotiation of pragmatic language use 191–193; ontological meanings of EMI policy in 79–82; participants left out in the periphery 85–86; pragmatic choice in 184–189; problems caused by implementation of reforms 84–85; promotion of EMI in 159–160; recognition of cultural groups in relation to others 189–191; student performance evaluations 267–268; students in EMI-C 160–173; students in EMI-P 160–173; teacher recruitment 264–265; university English program in transition 259–268; us versus them discourse 182–184 Korea: EMI in 65–73; EPIK 71; expansion of EMI in universities 72–73; government policies 71–73; implementation of EMI in 67–69; implementation of TEE 68, 71; pathways and sources for promotion of EMI in universities 65–67; promotion of EMI in 158–160; prospects and directions of EMI 70–71; role of ELF 71–73; students in EMI-C 158; use of Korean and code-switching in EMI classes 69–70 Lakeland 19 language ideologies 49 language ownership 36 language policies/practices: international student study 23–27; in Korea 67–69, 71–73; staff

Index questionnaire study 20–23; website study 17–20 languages other than English (LOTE) 104, 106, 107 language tests 274 linguistic imperialism 40, 78–79, 81, 140, 203, 262 mimicry 38–39 modernity 34–36 multilingual practices 100–104 native English speaker (NES): British versus American written English 26; language policies/practices at international universities 20; understanding English of home students 24–25; understanding English of lecturers 24 native speakers 35–36, 264–265 No Child Left Behind, 275 non-native speakers (NNESs) 16, 20, 36, 264–265 non-native speakers of English (NNSE) 179 parallel language use 47–50 pragmatics 179–180, 191–193 proficiency 36–39, 141

289

ROAD-MAPPING framework 59 sharedness 179 study abroad programmes 129–130 Sweden: academic writing in English 55–59; comparative analysis of university language policies in 49–50; parallel language use and its implementation 47–50; researching EMI at universities 46–60; research on student/teacher language uses at universities 50–55; Swedish Language Act 47, 49 Teaching English in English (TEE) 68 test accommodation 277 translanguaging 46, 55, 58, 99–103, 105–115 translation 39 translingualism 36 us versus them discourse 182–184 writing skills 26 Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool 18–19