English as an Academic Lingua Franca: Language policies ... · Web viewIn the interviews the Norwegian students were mostly unable to provide Norwegian translations for two frequent

Accepted author manuscript. 7 June 2010.Final published version DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.007Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 991–1004

English as an Academic Lingua Franca: Language policies and multilingual practices in a Norwegian university

Ragnhild Ljosland

Centre for Nordic Studies, UHI Millennium Institute, Orkney College, East Road, Kirkwall, Scotland

___________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

Even though Norwegian is the predominant language in almost all sectors of society in Norway, there has been an increasing tendency in the university sector in the recent years to introduce English as a medium of instruction, particularly at the postgraduate level. Using English has for some years been politically encouraged as part of internationalisation efforts, while the questions of who, where and when have largely been left up to the individual university departments and staff. This paper presents a case study of one such university department, which conducts all their teaching through the medium of English. The study asks the questions: In which ways is English being used? Has the department’s English-only policy resulted in English only being used, or are Norwegian and other languages also used in certain circumstances, regardless of the policy? Why did this particular university department choose to make English its official language of instruction? The paper analyses these questions in relation to Joshua Fishman’s theory of linguistic domains, code-switching theory, and Bourdieu’s theory of linguistic capital..

Keywords: English as lingua franca; English as an academic language; Language politics; Domain loss; Code-switching

__________________________________________________________________________

1. IntroductionThe present paper examines the role played by English as a lingua franca in a particular

academic setting. The contribution of the paper is that it offers a close-up view of the ways in which English interacts with other languages in an officially English-medium study programme in an “expanding circle” country (Kachru 1985). Although it may be a “[...] truism that English has become the dominant language of science and scholarship” (Wilson, 2002:1), an official English-medium language policy does not necessarily mean that English is the only language used in everyday interactions in the study programme. Indeed, as Lehtonen et. al. (1999:2) observe:

Tel.:+44 (0) 1856 569300, fax: +44 (0) 01856 879784

E-mail: [email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.007


Embedded in the idea of T[eaching] T[hrough] E[nglish] is that all course-related activities - not only reading requirements - take place in English: lectures are delivered in English, essays are written in English, required reading is in English and exams are set and taken in English. However, it is likely that the reality does not necessarily correspond with the idea. Many learning-related activities are likely to take place in the native language(s) of the students and teachers [...]. Therefore, T[eaching] T[hrough] E[nglish] does not necessarily equal learning solely through English.

A similar finding is made by Tange and Lauring,2009, whose study aims to identify communicative practices emerging from a management decision to implement English as a corporate language in traditionally Danish speaking organisations. Among its main findings is the observation that speakers in such a work environment tend to form clusters based on their linguistic backgrounds (op.cit.). This type of language clustering “ [...] takes the form of informal gatherings between the speakers of the same national language [...]” within the multinational workplace (op.cit.:224).With these observations in mind, the present paper will present findings from the PhD thesis “Lingua Franca, prestige and imagined communities: On English as an Academic Language in Norway. A Case Study in its Broader Context” (Ljosland, 2008). The thesis takes as its starting point a very broad outlook on the theme of English in academia, viewing it as concentric circles of influences or circumstances on various levels: The European, the Scandinavian, and the national Norwegian levels, as well as the university, departmental and individual levels. At the core of the investigation is a case study of one particular university department: the Industrial Ecology department at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway. The case study is, however, situated within a context of language politics and policies at the international and national levels.

1.1 Definitions of terms and literature review

As a research topic, English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) continues to attract attention, and the term itself has developed two distinct, but related meanings. The term itself means “Frankish language” and referred originally to a variety spoken as an auxiliary language along the Mediterranean coast (Swann et. al., 2004:184). Here lies already the beginnings of the two distinct definitions of ELF: On the one hand, a lingua franca simply refers to “any form of language serving as a means of communication between speakers of different languages” (Swann et. al., 2004: 184), whereas English as a Lingua Franca refers to “communication in English between speakers with different first languages” (Seidlhofer, 2005: 339). Academia is one arena where speakers of different languages regularly communicate with one another, be it as lecturers, researchers, students or university bureaucrats. According to Björkman (2008: 36), “[t]he speakers in academia in Europe speak English in lingua franca contexts where English serves as a vehicular language through which speakers from different first-language backgrounds communicate a message, carry out a task, solve a problem etc.” Björkman (op.cit.) further underlines the distinction between “speakers” and “learners” of English in this context. As long as the focus is on contents, and not on form, these language users should be referred to as “speakers” rather than “learners”. This description seems apt in the present case study, as language learning is not an explicitly stated learning outcome of the study programme. The English language is viewed in the case department as a tool, and not as a goal in itself.

On the other hand, ELF has also been studied as a specific variety of English, with a view to its linguistic and pragmatic properties (see for instance Mauranen, 2003). This school of



thought questions the idea of native speakers of English being the ultimate model for correct language use, and seeks to establish the characteristics of ELF independently of English as spoken by native speakers. In this sense of the term, ELF may take a place in the speaker’s mind as a “language for communication” rather than a “language for identification” (House, 2003: 559). In the present paper, the expression English as a lingua franca is not used in this sense of the term. The paper does not seek to establish linguistic characteristics of ELF, but instead examines the interplay between English and other languages used in a setting where several native languages are represented.

Common to both these views of ELF is a focus on language as purely a tool for communication. In the academic setting, this function of ELF is particularly visible within the genre of research publication. A study by Ammon (1998:152) shows that in 1996, 90.7% of all publications in the natural sciences worldwide were in English. This has lead some scientists to question the value of writing in any language other than English in research publications, as English as the most prevalent language best fulfils the need for a common language for disinterested communication of scientific results (see for instance Ystenes, 2004).

English is also becoming widespead as a medium of instruction in higher education in Europe. The perhaps largest study of this matter so far is a survey by Maiworm and Wächter, 2002,covering 1558 European Higher Education institutions from all EU and EFTA countries except Great Britain, Ireland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, but including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. The study is published for the Academic Cooperation Association, promoting the internationalisation of education. This survey finds that as little as between 2 and 4 % of all undergraduate and postgraduate study programmes were delivered in English in 2001-2002, but that numbers were on the increase, with half having been started in 1998 or later. In another European survey, Ammon and McConnell, 2002, do not give overall numbers, but do note a general trend towards increasing the number of English medium courses and an ambition for a continued increase in several countries, including Norway and the Scandinavian countries. Ammon and McConnell also note a tendency for more postgraduate courses to be conducted in English, compared with undergraduate courses, which is also confirmed in Maiworm and Wächter’s study. This observation is also true for the Scandinavian countries, as seen for instance in Gunnarsson and Öhman, 1997, where it is found that in the academic year of 1993-1994 English medium tuition was not very common on the undergraduate level, but, perhaps understandably, more common on the Masters and PhD levels. However, Björkman, 2008, finds that at least in Sweden, the number of undergraduate courses in English has also risen significantly in the later years.Summing up a series of surveys undertaken in all of the Nordic countries, Höglin, 2002, characterises the higher education sector in these countries as being largely national-language medium for the initial one or two terms, after which English is increasingly used and it completely dominates the PhD level. In a specifically Norwegian survey of Masters programmes, Schwach, 2009, finds that 19 % of all such programmes in Norway are officially English medium, encompassing 27 % of student numbers. Furthermore, the number of English medium Masters programmes is on the increase in Norway, and 85 % of the students enrolled in these English medium programmes were Norwegian citizens (ibid.). These figures, however, do not necessarily tell the whole truth, as another important finding in an earlier study by Schwach reports that in addition to courses where English is officially the medium of instruction, English is also often used informally in Norwegian higher education. This happens when a class switches spontaneously to English upon receiving one or more foreign



students, without the course having been advertised as being English-medium in the prospectus (Brandt and Schwach, 2005). Another observation made by Gunnarsson and Öhman, 1997, is that the language disciplines in their study were alone in offering tuition conducted in foreign languages other than English, confirming the status of English as the foremost lingua franca in this setting.

1.2 The political contextThe present study is situated within a political context spanning international as well as the

Norwegian levels. There is a political ambition in Norway to increase the number of English-medium university courses (Halvorsen and Faye, 2006). This is closely tied to the idea of the internationalisation of higher education, which is strongly encouraged by central politicians. Much of the internationalisation efforts are carried out in accordance with the Bologna agreement, which Norway has been among the first countries to implement. As part of these efforts, however, there has been little discussion of language issues. The Bologna declaration of 1999 does not outline how the new goals of academic mobility may be solved linguistically. One may imagine a range of possibilities, from a linguistic diversity approach where exchange students are offered the chance of learning the host country’s language, through combined solutions which incorporate some exposure to the host country’s language with support from a lingua franca, perhaps while making use of the students’ prior knowledge of foreign languages, to a lingua franca approach where English is the common denominator. Rather than discuss several possibilites, the political debate over the Bologna process in Norway has taken it as self-evident that in order to meet the Bologna goals, Norwegian higher education institutions will have to offer a greater number of English-medium courses (Ljosland, 2005). The main focus has been on how to attract more foreign students to Norway. Foreign students can be seen as a valuable resource not just for internationalising the learning experience, but also as valuable for business.

Apart from the obvious gains by adding an international perspective to the university experience, the goal of attracting more international students must also partly be seen against a shift in the university ideal: In the 19th century, the university as an intitution was seen an instrument for nation building, while in the late 20th and early 21st century, the universities have instead taken on characteristics of international businesses that compete against each other (Readings, 1996). According to Naidoo and Jamieson, 2005, “ [...] the reliance on the public university that sees post-compulsory education as a public good is under attack on an almost global scale [...]. [T]his is a global trend that is accelerating under the twin influences of the GATS, which decrees education as a commodity which can be traded globally, and global corporations which are turning these claims into a reality [...] resulting in the gradual commodification of higher education.” (page 44). In this form of competition, offering English medium courses may be a way to better one’s chances.

The Norwegian political debate on this matter may be divided into two sections: Before and after 2005. Prior to 2005, language issues were rarely mentioned in connection with the internationalisation of higher education. Between 2002 and 2005, there was a particularly conspicuous policy vacuum on the national level: In 2002, a paragraph in the Universities and Colleges Act stating that “the language of instruction is normally Norwegian” was repealed by the parliament. At the time, nothing replaced it. At the same time, continual political signals were being given that internationalisation and the increased use of English was desirable (Ljosland 2007). However, no general language policy guidelines existed.Since 2005, however, language issues have been discussed more explicitly. In 2005, the national



language council Språkrådet launched their suggestion for a language strategy, including some thoughts on a strategy for parallel language use within the higher education sector (Språkrådet 2005). Following this, the language question came up in the public debate. Some of this political debate concerns how to protect the Norwegian language from losing out in prestigious social domains such as research and higher education, or more precisely, how to strike a good balance between the use of English and Norwegian in this sector (Simonsen 2005). One branch of the debate, conducted mainly in the newspaper Aftenposten, concerned the future of Norwegian as a language of research publications (see Hagen and Johansen 2006). Here, a certain amount of tension came into view between researchers from subject areas such as history or literature, where there is tradition for publishing more in Norwegian, and subject areas such as the natural sciences and technology, where English predominates the publication statistics. Following 2005, individual higher education institutions started developing their own language policies. The Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions also made a suggestion for a coherent language policy for the sector as a whole. In June 2008, the Norwegian government launched a report to the parliament on language matters (called “Mål og meining” – which is a play with words, meaning both “aim and purpose” and “language and meaning”). In this report, the implications of an emerging language shift from Norwegian to English within areas of higher education is thoroughly discussed, but without reaching any final conclusion beyond a desire for parallel language use. Still, a more solution-oriented, rather than problem-oriented debate would be desirable, along with a focus on possibilities for multilingual solutions, rather than the restricting binary debate on English versus Norwegian.

One of the objectives of the study underlying this paper (Ljosland, 2008) is to establish motivations for initiating English-medium tuition. Coleman,2006, outlines seven such motivations . These are Content- and Language Integrated Learning, internationalisation, student mobility, access to learning and research materials, staff mobility, career opportunities after graduation and the prospect of making money from tuition fees from foreign students. Significantly, Coleman finds that a desire for foreign language learning in itself is not among the most prevalent motivations for English medium tuition, despite Content- and Language Integrated Learning being listed as one of the motivations. The results section below describes motivations found in the present case study of a Norwegian university department for starting up an English medium Master of Science programme. Here, the term Content- and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) will be contrasted with Teaching Through a Foreign Language (TTFL), in accordance with Hellekjær and Westergaard, 2003, the difference being that in CLIL, language learning is part of the proposed learning outcomes, while in TTFL the language is paid no particular attention apart from being used as a tool.

1.3 Theoretical perspectives

In the final discussion section of the paper, the results from the case study will be discussed in relation to three theoretical frameworks: Code-switching theory (Fishman, 1970, Heller, 1988, Auer, 1995); Bourdieu’s (1977, 1991) theory of the economics of linguistic exchanges; and Anderson’s (1996) theory of imagined communities. The intention is to see where these three theoretical frameworks may illuminate each other and the case study at hand.

Fishman, 1970, suggests that code-switching may indicate changing role relationships when moving between sociolinguistic domains. Switching to a different language or linguistic



variety while the interlocutors and place of interaction remain the same may function as an indication that the participants now accentuate a different social role: They are “putting on a different hat”, moving, for instance, from a work-related conversation between employee and manager, to a social conversation between friends, without physical re-location. This is an idea which is also explored by Auer, 1995. Auer distinguishes beteen switching, mixing and fusion, where switching is a strategy where a language switch marks a breaking point in the conversation. Heller, 1988, agrees that code-switching is related to the separation of languages in different sociolinguistic domains, and interprets intra-sentential code-switching as a possible way of neutralising tension at the boundaries of such domains. This paper employs a broad definition of code-switching, including not only switches internal to the speech situation, but also code-switches occurring at a point where the situation changes, in order to be able to consider how code-switching relates to sociolinguistic domains.

A special pattern of code-switching occurs in diglossic speech communities. Here, one distinct variety (H) is reserved for high-prestige situations, while another variety (L) is employed in lower prestige situations (Ferguson 1972). Norway is a society which is often noted for its non-diglossic approach to dialects and standard speech, allowing for a wider use of dialect than in many other countries. A famous study by Blom and Gumperz, 1972, of code-switching behaviour in the small, rural community of Hemnes, in which a diglossic switching pattern between the local dialect and standard speech was reported, has been refuted in Mæhlum, 1996. It has, however, been speculated that the introduction of English into high-prestige areas of the Norwegian society may be a first step towards the development of diglossia (Ljosland, 2007. See also Berg, Hult and King, 2001).

Bourdieu is interested in the ways in which certain ways of using language may function as a form of symbolic capital, convertible to other forms of capital. For a linguistic utterance to be successful, it has to be accepted as legitimate in the social field where it is uttered, and the person making the utterance has to be accepted as a person who has the right to make it. ”Language is not only an instrument of communication or even of knowledge, but also an instrument of power. A person speaks not only to be understood but also to be believed, obeyed, respected, distinguished”, writes Bourdieu (1977:646). Linguistic competence, including the competence to produce utterances that are deemed adequate and legitimate, functions as cultural capital within a certain “market” (op.cit.:649). A “market”, or field, is a social space with certain members in certain membership roles, in this respect resembling a sociolinguistic domain. In order to access the field, one must have certain qualifications and possess the relevant capital forms, including the right linguistic capital. Newcomers are socialised into the conventions of the field, they learn the rules of the game: what is normal, right and adequate, and what is not. Within a field a certain variety achieves hegemony, meaning authority, legitimacy and prestige, while other varieties have a lower status in the field. The present paper will discuss whether Bourdieu’s concepts may shed light on the linguistic situation in academia.

In Anderson’s (1996) theory of imagined communities, communities are imagined because the members indeed imagine that they are part of this particular community even though most of the members have never met and will never meet in person (Anderson, 1996:19). Anderson’s objective is to explain nations and nationalism: What makes people feel that they are part of a nation, and that the nation matters, when they have never met and will never meet most of its other members, and may not even like them if they did? It is the very idea of belonging to it which brings an imagined community into being. Applying Anderson’s theory



on communities other than nations will involve an extension of his ideas onto unknown territory, but may be attempted as it may tie in with Fishman’s, Auer’s, Heller’s and Bourdieu’s ideas.

2. Materials and methodsThe present case study dealt with the Master of Science programme in Industrial Ecology,

offered by the Norwegian University of Technology and Science in Trondheim, Norway. This particular Master of Science programme was chosen for the case study after an initial questionnaire survey in 2004 of 51 departments (all departments excluding modern languages, linguistics and applied linguistics) belonging to this university, yielding a return rate of 82 %. The survey asked the administrative heads of department to indicate language use in undergraduate and postgraduate teaching, course literature and scientific publications, and the degree to which language issues were being discussed in the department. The Industrial Ecology department then indicated that they were at the time planning to reorganise and become an international Master’s programme, with all their tuition in English and no Norwegian medium tuition. The claim on their part that all tuition would be in English from the autumn of 2005 on seemed to make the Industral Ecology department suitable for the case study. The new language policy was put into effect in 2005, with the case study being carried out in the first term of all-English-medium tuition.. This gave an opportunity to be present at the transformational and implementational phase of the department’s language switch.

The staff of the case department at the time of the case study consisted of one programme leader, two members of the managerial team, two part-time administrative officers, two employees of the Life Cycle Assessment laboratory, two postdoctoral researchers, 14 PhD students (who in Norway are considered to be part of the staff and often have teaching duties) and four research assistants. In addition to these, there were established contacts with academic staff from other departments, who would regularly give guest lectures. There were 7 students doing the full Master’s, one of these being from Ghana and unable to speak Norwegian, and 6 being from Norway. In addition, 11 other Norwegian students were enrolled in one or more modules from the Master’s programme, but were studying for a different degree. Six exchange students attended the programme for shorter periods of time (one-two terms). These were native speakers of German, Austrian German and Spanish. All of the students were competent in English, as competence in English at upper secondary school level or the equivalent was among the entry requirements to the course. Some students were also competent in other languages at various levels.

Once contact with the case department was established, the methods employed were mainly in the qualitative research tradition, with some initial support from questionnaires. In the spring term of 2005, which was the term before the language switch, questionnaires were posted to all members of staff in the case department, and also left in a communal pigeonhole for the Masters students. The intention was to get a broad overview of employees’ and students’ opinions about the forthcoming language switch. It also provided an entry point through which to get in contact with informants for qualitative interviews, although further recruitment was necessary for the students, as the new Masters students had not yet arrived at this point in time. This round of questionnaires yielded 9 replies from staff; which is a discouraging 31 % if one does not count the external guest lecturers. Two Master’s students also replied. Because of the impossibility of gaining statistically significant results from such



a small group, the questionnaire was used mainly as a way to get in contact with informants for in-depth, qualitative interviews, and the results of this questionnaire will not be referred to further in this paper.

The research then moved on to qualitative, semi-structured interviews with the management, staff and students from the Master of Science in Industrial Ecology programme. Each interview was between half an hour and an hour long (depending on how talkative the interviewee was) and allowed for spontaneous follow-up questions. As part of these interviews, members of staff were asked to describe which language or languages they would normally use in a range of situations within the department. The students were asked for their reasons for enrolling, whether or not the tuition language played any part in their decision to enroll/ They were also asked to describe their experiences during the first term, as the majority of student interviews took place near the end of the autumn term of 2005. In total, 15 interviews were made with employees and students from the case department:

The programme director, spring 2005. Non-Norwegian, but speaks Norwegian, and was interviewed in Norwegian.

1 lecturer from the ”Life Cycle Assessment” laboratory, autumn 2004 and autumn 2006. Norwegian.

1 PhD student, who is also a lecturer, autumn 2004. Norwegian. 6 MSc students, including 1 non-Norwegian who was interviewed in English, and also

including 1 elected student representative, spring (2)/autumn 2005 (5). One of these students was interviewed twice: once in the spring of 2005 and once at the end of the autumn term of 2005.

3 students from other degree programmes, studying modules from Industrial Ecology, autumn 2005 (Norwegian).

1 non-Norwegian exchange student, autumn 2005, interviewed in English.

Also, two members of the univerity’s managerial team were interviewed, namely the university’s organisation and information director, and a member of the faculty management for the Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology (where Industrial Ecology belongs). Representing the national political level, one member of the Norwegian parliament (Rolf Reikvam, Socialist Left Party) and one member of the Norwegian government (Trond Giske, Labour Party) were also interviewed. In these interviews, the politicians were asked to describe the political discussions which had taken place regarding the Bologna process and its implementation in Norway, as well as general reflections on the internationalisation of higher education and the language issue in relation to this. The interview data was analysed in relation to political documents regarding higher education and language matters on the European and national levels.

In addition to these interviews, the case study also made use of observations. Throughout the first term of English-medium tuition, between September and December 2005, I was present during lectures, lab work and group work. This generally meant one 90 minute lecture and one 2-hour lab work session per week. In addition, occasional observations were made of group-work organised by the students themselves outside of these set hours. The data from this part of the study consists of a total of 1145 minutes of digitally recorded audio tapes, compiled of 405 minutes of lectures, including a few minutes before the start of each lecture and 10 minutes of break time in the middle; 515 minutes of lab work sessions, and 225 minutes of group work following one group of students working together outside of the set



hours of lab work sessions and lectures. In the lab work sessions, it was not possible to capture every conversation on tape, as many people were speaking at once. I instead moved among the students, taking care to spend time with each group. What was not captured on tape was also my general “hanging around” the student and staff areas, engaging in informal conversations. Throughout the observational study, I kept a diary of observations, recording such things as who is friends with who, who is working together, who is from where, etc., which was thought to be relevant at the time. Along with the tapes, I kept notes of who was speaking on the recording, the setting, and any circumstances which would not be audible on the tape. The examples of code-switching discussed below in the results section are taken from the tapes of this observation study.

3. ResultsThe following section will give a brief summary of the positions of four groups: The

department management’s position, the lecturers’ and researchers’ position, and the students’ position.

3.1 The management’s position

The main motivations on behalf of the department management for introducing an English medium study programme and abandoning Norwegian-medium teaching concerned attracting more students from abroad, as seen in Extract 1 below.

(Extract 1)1 Programme director: Så Norge er litt sånn: De må betale folk for å komme hit, og så 1 [Programme director: So Norway is a bit like this: You have to pay people to come, and

then]2 må de betale folk for å dra bort! (laughter) I andre land skjer det ikke. I England ... 2 [you have to pay people to leave again! (laughter) This does not happen in other

countries. In England …]3 Så du har lyst til å dra til Amerika? Vær så god, du får lov til det, ikke sant. Eller3 [So you wish to go to America? Please, you may, right. Or …] 4 England tjener masse penger med folk fra Asia, som betaler store gebyrer for 4 [England makes a lot of money on people from Asia, who pay great fees for]5 utdanningen sin.5 [their education.] 6 Interviewer: Tror du vi kan få en del av den kaka hvis vi går over til engelskspråklig 6 [Interviewer: Do you believe we can have part of that pie if we shift to English medium]7 undervisning på masternivå?7 [tuition on the Master’s level?]8 Programme director: Ja, sikkert. Det er en forutsetning, men det er ikke tilstrekkelig8 [Programme director: Yes, surely. It is a prerequisite, but it is not sufficient just 9 å bare skifte språk.9 [to switch languages.]

The programme director explained that the programme sits in a special niche: A Masters degree in Industrial Ecology is not offered anywhere else in Norway, and indeed only a handful of places in Europe. Offering it in English would therefore open it up to a wider area where there was no other provision of the same kind.. There were also several other reasons for this practice. Some of these reasons concerned financing and positioning within the



university, as an “international” Masters was thought to be more likely to receive funding from the university than just an “ordinary” Masters. Attracting foreign staff was also an issue.

The management also hoped that obtaining the label “international” would help them earn a reputation for quality. Furthermore, English-medium tuition was expected to come in handy for the students, who were to be prepared for an international labour market. Using English was also convenient in terms of the availability of high quality textbooks and other learning resources in English. Finally, there were ideological reasons behind the choice: the study programme’s subject area concerns environmental protection, and is thus “global by nature” as one of the interviewees put it. The department wished their students to be able to contribute to sustainable development in various countries across the globe. All in all, making English the language of instruction simply felt “natural” – it was in the “zeitgeist”.

3.2 The lecturers’ position

The lecturers (most of whom were PhD students, as these are in Norway usually considered to be part of the lecturing team), had mixed feelings about being asked to do all of their lecturing in English. On the one hand, some of them felt that it was the right decition, and that things were going that way ”naturally”, as seen in Extract 2 below:

(Extract 2)1 Interviewer: Hvem var det som tok den beslutningen?1[ Interviewer: Who made the decision?]2 Lecturer, Life Cycle Assessment laboratory: Det var styret ved programmet her, da.2 [Lecturer: It was the programme management.]3 Interviewer: Å ja.3 [Interviewer: Okay.]4 Lecturer: Ja. Men det ligger for så vidt litt sånn naturlig i kortene å gjøre det grepet.4 [Lecturer: Yes. But it lies, in a way, naturally in the cards to make that change.]

This lecturer had actually started conducting his teaching in English before the programme became officially English medium, and considered himself to be quite used to teaching in English already. Despite this, he also said that he found teaching in English to be slightly more difficult that teaching in his mother tongue Norwegian, as seen in Extract 3.

Extract 3:1 Lecturer, Life Cycle Assessment laboratory (second interview): Man blir jo hemma. 1 [Lecturer, Life Cycle Assessment laboratory (second interview): You are restricted.]2 Altså, jeg underviser nok dårligere på engelsk enn jeg gjør på norsk.2 [That is, I think my teaching is poorer in English than it is in Norwegian.]3 Interviewer: Gjør du?3 [Interviewer: Do you?]4 Lecturer: Ja, jeg tror nok det. Jeg tror nok jeg … Altså, man formulerer seg lettere på4 [Lecturer: Yes, I think so. I think I ... That is, you find the words easier in]5 morsmålet sitt enn man gjør på fremmedspråk. Men ikke så veldig mye dårligere. […]5 [ your mother tongue than you do in a foreign language. But it’s not very much poorer.]6 Interviewer: Til tross for at du er veldig vant med faget på engelsk?



6 [Interviewer: Even though you are very familiar with your subject in English?]7 Lecturer: Ja, til tross for det, altså, så blir det at man må tenke seg litte grann mer om når 7 [Lecturer: Yes, despite that, one has to think a bit harder when]8 man snakker engelsk. […] Summa summarum så tenker jeg at det ikke vil være noe stort8 [one is speaking in English. [...] All in all, I believe it will not be a great] 9 pedagogisk tap å gå over på engelsk. For studentene. Men litt vil det jo være.9 [pedagogical loss switching to English. For the students. But it will a bit.]

Despite these concerns, this lecturer was positive to the idea of making the Masters programme English medium. Another PhD student/lecturer, however, was less positive, and expressed her frustration to me spontaneously in an e-mail:

Extract 4:1 Lecturer: Jeg opplever frustrasjonen forsterket i et tverrfaglig miljø som IndEcol hvor vi i1[I experience the frustration [of struggling to express oneself appropriately] as being

amplified in an interdiciplinary environment such as Ind[ustrial] Ecol[ogy] where we in 2 tillegg har behov for å finne et fellesspråk i forhold til fag på tvers av disipliner.2 [addition need to find a common language regarding our subject areas and across

diciplines.

A third lecturer/PhD student said in the interview that his feeling was that most of the lecturing staff were positive towards the change of language (extract 5):

Extract 5:1 Interviewer: Hvordan ble det mottatt da det ble kjent at fra neste år skal alt bli på engelsk 1 [Interviewer: How was it received when it became known that from next year on,

everything will be in English]2 og sånn. Dere som sitter oppå her ... Hvordan var stemninga da?2 [and that. You who are up here ... What was the general feeling then?]3 Lecturer: Jeg tror den var positiv.3 [Lecturer: I think it was positive.]

In conclusion, there seemed to be mixed feelings amonst the lecturing staff. Mixed in with a general positive attitude to becoming an international and English medium programme was a concern for perhaps not being able to lecture as well in a foreign language as in the mother tongue.

3.3 The researchers’ position

The lecturing staff members were also researchers, many of them PhD students and some postdoctoral researchers. From this point of view, their position looks somewhat different. Much of their attension is necessarily turned towards the international research community in Industrial Ecology, as may be seen for instance in the fact that in 2005, 85 % of the department’s written output was in English, according to the Forskdok and Frida databases. This highlights the role English has taken on internationally as the lingua franca of research communication, where the focus is on knowledge transfer rather than involving any social goals. Orally, the staff may be more free in their language choices when communication with each other about research, depending on the language skills and preferences of the people



present. However, English being the dominating written research was also reported to influence the language choice in oral discussions of research, as seen in Extract 6.

Extract 6:1Lecturer, Life Cycle Assessment laboratory: Det kan ha litt med hva vi diskuterer. 1[ Lecturer, Life Cycle Assessment laboratory: It depends on what we are discussing.]2 Om det er fagting, så havner vi ofte inn på engelsk […].2 [If it is related to our subject, we often end up speaking in English.]

3.4 The students’ position

The students displayed mixed reactions to the tuition language becoming English. Some were positive, explaining that the opportunity to develop their language skills in addition to the main contents of the course was an added bonus for them. Some were neutral, saying that most of the course literature and much of the tuition on the postgraduate level in the science and engineering departments normally would be in English anyway, and that the difference compared to officially Norwegian medium programmes would not be great. Some of the Norwegian students, however, were negative, worrying that their post-graduate theses or their exam answers would not be as good as they could have been had they been allowed to write in their mother tongue. The lack of explicitness about language issues and unclarities around what establishing English as the official medium of education would entail led some of the students to feel insecure about whether poor language skills and occasional mixing of Norwegian and English in their written works would affect their marks. The foreign students, on the other hand, were happy to be taught in English. For them it meant that they did not have to spend extra time learning Norwegian before starting their studies – although they did wish to learn more Norwegian in the long run, as long as it did not slow them up in their study progression. Improving their English skills in itself did not seem to have been an explicit motivation for any of the students, but was rather seen as a possible added bonus which the students presumed would come automatically. The study programme did likewise not incorporate any special language training apart from occasional explanations during lectures of words and special terminology. Relating these findings to Hellekjær and Westergaard, 2003, the Master of Science programme in the case study cannot be termed a Content- and Language Integrated Learning programme, as language learning in itself is not part of the degree course’s aims and objectives. Rather it is a Teaching Through a Foreign Language programme, with no special provisions for facilitating language learning.

3.5 Language distribution

The range of situations where language is used as part of the Master of Science study programme spans written and oral media and formal as well as informal situations, and in contrast to the official policy of English being the official language of tuition, day-to-day interactions observed during the observation part of the case study were surprisingly multilingual: several languages were actually in use in the case department. These languages included not only English and Norwegian, but also Spanish and German, owing to the countries of origin of some foreign students.The following is a description of the distribution of these various languages, organised by the variables written versus oral and formal versus informal. Broadly summarised, formal situations tended to be more monolingually English than informal situations. The degree of formality of the context must here be understood as a



continuum running from more to less formal (Swann et. al.2004), where the most formal situations for the students’ part are contexts where they are being observed and assessed, such as oral presentations and exams, as well as written work to be handed in and written exams.

Oral and informal situations often gave occasion for using languages other than English, such as Norwegian, Spanish or German, even though English was also used in this setting. For example, in social conversations, not directly related to studies (by the students) or research or teaching activities (by the staff), a range of languages were used, depending on the linguistic background of the speakers present. An example of such a situation would be department staff and Master students conversing in the common room during lunch breaks. Languages other than English were also often used in oral conversations which were clearly part of a learning activity, but not directly observed or assessed by the lecturer, such as discussions in smaller groups about assignments. Norwegian was also commonly used in situations where the lecturer spoke to one or a small group of students. In these situations the interlocutors and their language skills seemed to be the most salient factors for the language choice. This was, however, not entirely unambiguous. In situations where a small number of people took part, but where the topic of the conversation was related to the subject of their studies, “interlocutors” and “topic” sometimes competed in defining the language choice: If all participants were Norwegian, this would normally be an occasion to speak in Norwegian. However, when the topic was course-related, the conversation sometimes took place in English nonetheless.

Oral and formal situations, on the other hand, usually took place in English. The lecturers gave the lectures English, with the exception of some code-switching into Norwegian, which often involved explanations of the terminology. The number of interlocutors played an important role in oral and formal situations as well: The rule was that plenary speaking would take place in English. The exception to this was when students sometimes asked questions during the lecture in Norwegian anyway, despite the English medium policy and the lecturer speaking in English.

English also dominated in written and formal situations, but Norwegian was not completely excluded even here. As expected from Gunnarsson, 2005, the case department’s publication statistics is dominated by English in publications intended for expert readership, and by Norwegian in publications in media intended for a more general public. The students were instructed to write their post-graduate theses and answers to assignments in English, but the lecturers usually turned a blind eye if students used some Norwegian words here and there in the assignments. Assignment questions, on the other hand, were always given in English only.

A small conflict between students and staff arose regarding the language of examination questions and answers. It started around a month before exam time, when a group of students contacted the module leader for the module of the observation study claiming that since they were not studying for the full International Masters degree, but only taking individual modules from the programme as optional modules while studying for a Norwegian medium degree, they should be allowed to take their exam in Norwegian, in accordance with the university’s general regulations for Norwegian medium programmes. The module leader felt that allowing this would make it unfair for the foreign students, and initially gave the students a negative answer to their request. However, the student representative then pointed out to the module leader that the university’s general regulations say that if the tuition language is not



Norwegian, students have the right to have their exam in the language of tuition in addition to Norwegian. A few days before the exam, the students were informed that those students who were not part of the International Master’s programme would be able to choose whether to take their exam in English or Norwegian, while the students enrolled in the full International Master’s programme would have to do their exam in English. The module leader was, however, not happy with this solution.

In written and informal situations, such as in e-mails, posters and notes, both English and Norwegian were used. In the interview round, a foreign student complained of having to ask others to translate informal, written messages, such as e-mails, from Norwegian to English (Extract 7):

Extract 7:1 Foreign student: There was a theft here, for instance. And a note was sent out. An 2 e-mail was sent out in norsk [Norwegian]. At ... Sometimes when I get messages, I 3 look at it, and I am not very comfortable going for somebody to explain it to me. I 4 feel bothering. But [the secretary] wrote it in ... She just sent me an e-mail, a short 5 translation, that there was a theft here, so maybe when we aren’t in our offices, we 6 should lock it, because somebody can come in.7 Interviewer: Yeah.8 Foreign student: And steal something.9 Interviewer: Does that kind of thing happen often, that you get e-mails in 10 Norwegian?11 Foreign student: Yeah. […]

3.6 Code-switching

Also code-switching was a frequently employed strategy among the participants in the present case study. Some of the code-switches observed in the case study were made in co-occurrence with a change in the situation, and the question is if the switching of linguistic codes can be interpreted as meaningful in any way. The theses proposed by Fishman (1970) that code-switching may indicate the accentuation of different social roles, and by Auer (1995) that code-switching may indicate breaking-points in the conversation, seem suited to explain some of the code-switching observed in the present case study. Indeed, occasionally a transition from an informal to a formal situation would be marked by a switch from Norwegian to English. Situations observed in the study which demonstrated this, were for instance a change from chatting to lecturing, and from joking to a subject-related discussion, as in the following transcript where a group of students, who are all Norwegian except for student E, are working on preparing a presentation (English in bold, translations from Norwegian in square brackets) (Extract 8):

Extract 8:1 Student A: Kan vi bare definere ordet perform? Og så lager vi et lite skuespill om 1 [Student A: Can we not just define the word perform? And make a little play about] 2 LCA? Og så bare er vi ferdig.2 [LCA (Life Cycle Assessment; the name of the module)? And then we’re just finished.]

3 Student B: Ja. (laughter)3 [Student B: Yes. (laughter)]



4 Student A: (laughter)

5 Student B: Skuespill er fint. Det blir jo en monolog, da. For det er én som skal 5 [Student B: A play is good. It will be a monologue, then. Because one person is to] 6 presentere.6 [present it.]

7 Student C: Ja, det blir sånn. (laughter)7 [Student C: Yes, it will be like that. (laughter)]

8 Student A: Da kan de andre spille en person.8 [Student A: The others can act as one person.]

9 Student B: De andre blir statister.9 [Student B: The others will be extras.]

10 Student D: Og så kan noen være karbondioksid og sånn, og.10 [Student D: And some can be carbon-dioxide, and that, too.]

11 Student A: Akkurat.11 [Student A: Exactly.]

12 Student E: Global warming potential.12 [Student E: Global warming potential. (This expression is generally used by the group

as a loan-word in Norwegian too, so what language this utterance is “meant” to be in, is ambiguous.)]

13 Student D: Mm.13 [Student D: M-hm.]

14 Student A: Maybe ... ah. Like, maybe I just download it to ...

The interesting code-switching here occurs in line 14, where Student A suddenly abandons speaking in Norwegian and starts speaking in English, at the same time turning his attention back to the computer and the task at hand. The group subsequently goes back to working seriously with their task again. In doing this, their discussion carries on in English. Student A’s switch from Norwegian to English, along with his attention being turned to the computer, then seems to function as a signal to the rest of the group that the session of informal joking that he initiated is now over, and that it is now time to do some serious work. Another example from the case study takes place in the lecture theatre, where the lecturer is setting up the overhead viewer at the front of the room, while students are finding their seats. The lecturer (who is not Norwegian) addresses one of the students (who is Norwegian) to ask for assistance (Extract 9):

Extract 9:1 Lecturer: Hvor står denne vanligvis?1 [Lecturer: Where does this usually stand?]



2 Student: Hm?2 [Student: eh?]3 Lecturer: Hvor står denne vanligvis?3 [Lecturer: Where does this usually stand?]4 Student: Denne her? Her, ja.4 [Student: This one? Here, yes.]5 Lecturer: Okay. (Pause.) 6 Lecturer: Maybe we should start here? Sorry about the delay, I didn’t remember 7 this morning that there was some manual labour involved in my job today, so I’m a 8 little bit delayed with this. I have forty-nine slides and almost two hours. We will get 9 through it.

In lines 6 through 9, the lecturer, as well as telling the students directly that the lecture is starting, also signals it by looking at the student group and by switching to English.

In such examples as these, where the code-switching coincides with a change in the situation. The question, however, is whether the situation can be said to sort of dictate the choice of linguistic code as Fishman (1970) seems to suggest, or if the code-switching itself rather helps redefine the situation. In the previous extracts the latter interpretation seems more fitting. This seems to fit better with Auer’s (1995) emphasis on code-switching as an organising tool. This kind of pattern was, however, not consistent, as the observed data also includes joking in English and serious course-related discussion in Norwegian. It is therefore not sufficient to say that the language distribution was diglossic or that the topic of conversation dictated the choice of linguistic code in any absolute manner.

Furthermore, code-switching was often used to define who should be included in the conversation, or who the addressees were – or sometimes it was simply a case of preference-related code-switching, governed by what Myers-Scotton (1993:148) has termed “the virtuosity maxim”: “Switch to whatever code is necessary in order to carry on the conversation/accommodate the participation of all speakers present.” However, although everyone present knew English, if the speakers found that they had some other language in common, they would often choose it: German and Austrian students were speaking German together, and Spanish and South-American students were speaking Spanish, while the Norwegian students spoke in Norwegian. A similar pattern of “language clustering” was also observed by Marschan-Piekkari, Welch and Welch, 1999.

A problem that occurred in analysing the data material from the case study, was where to draw the line between code-switching and borrowing. As mentioned above regarding the expression “global warming potential”, subject-specific terminology in English was often used in otherwise Norwegian utterances, as in the following examples:

(Extract 10:)1 Student: Del på kilo per dag ... og gang med dager ... så får du en annual 2 omission.1 [Student: Divide by kilos per day … and times the number of days … and you get an annual 2 omission.]

(Extract 11:)



3 Student: Hva er problemet med fertilizers?3 [Student: What is the problem with fertilizers?]

(Extract 12:)4 Tutor: I stedet for å ha coal power, så har du electric utilities, ikke sant.4 [Tutor: Instead of having coal power, you have electric utilities, right.]

The students in the case department generally displayed poor knowledge of specialist terminology in Norwegian. In the interviews the Norwegian students were mostly unable to provide Norwegian translations for two frequent terms that they were presented with, although they were able to explain the meaning in Norwegian without coining an exact word. When interviewed the students explained that they had not learned the specialist terminology in Norwegian, but only in English. One could argue that this kind of use of English terminology is not code-switching, but borrowing. However, the discussion section below will suggest that this type of code-switching, border lining on borrowing, may also be significant in relation to social membership roles. This is becausespecialist words in English, such as the ones in the extracts above, seem to carry not only a referential meaning, but also a social meaning.

4. DiscussionLanguage carries social meaning in several different ways. A central dimension here is

instrumentalism versus identity. The participants in my study displayed a dualistic attitude by, on the one hand, feeling that language is chiefly a tool of communication, while on the other hand feeling that their mother tongue helps form part of their identity: In the questionnaire survey of the case department, the average response by native Norwegians to the statement “the Norwegian language is part of my personal identity” was 4.5 on a 1 – 5 scale where 1 represents “strongly disagree” and 5 represents “strongly agree”. The statement “It would be better if everyone in the world had one common mother tongue”, on the other hand, received an average of 1.5 (Ljosland, 2008). Language as a tool for communication is what is referred to as the lingua franca use of English: it may be the least costly way to achieve a potentially broad audience. English is not only the official language of the study programme, but also the internationally prevailing language of research in their subject field. On the other hand, for the Norwegian students, the Norwegian language is part of their identity, and the main language for most of their daily interactions outside of the university. This feeling of “being themselves” through Norwegian seems to invite the students to use Norwegian when occasion allows it in the study context too, despite English being the official language.

Relating the findings from the present case study to Bourdieu’s (1977, 1991) theories, mastering the English language, and in particular the special register of the English language connected with academia and with the subject field of industrial ecology, may be seen as linguistic capital, a subcategory of cultural capital. In order to gain access into the academic world, it is crucial to master the “right” linguistic code. Mastering the language then helps towards achieving credibility, being listened to, being included in the expert group and distinguished from non-members of the expert group. Within my case department, academic English, including expert terminology of the field, is the hegemonic language, which holds this function. This is shown, for instance, in the interviews where staff from the case department express that it felt “natural” to make English the language of tuition. The students’ aspiration to becoming members of this expert group therefore means that they, among other



things, need to master their subject field in English. Mastering the language becomes part of enacting this social role.

It is possible, in my opinion, to interpret the conflict which occurred regarding the examination language as a challenge to the linguistic hegemony. Allowing examinations in Norwegian would mean opening the door to getting a degree certifying you as an expert without having shown mastery of the hegemonic code. Allowing exams in Norwegian was, therefore, not unproblematic. However, this is necessarily only part of the story, as concerns over fairness towards international students and the necessary work involved in translating the exam questions into Norwegian were also important considerations.

In Bourdieu’s theory, linguistic capital may be converted into other forms of capital.This is shown at work in the Norwegian academic context when publications in the right journals earn money (economic capital) for the department through a newly introduced system where university departments – and perhaps soon individual researchers – are financially rewarded per publication in certain publication channels. In this system, publication in some journals earns more money than publication in other journals. The creators of the system claim that the ranking of the journals is not language based. However, since English has the hegemony in the field (with the exception of some subject areas), the internalised norms say that for an utterance to be accepted as adequate and worthy of listening to, it should be in English. While the ranking of scientific journals is meant to reflect pure scientific quality, what is counted as high quality partly depends on the doxa, meaning what is taken for granted, routine or normal. This implies using English. In other words, an investment of time and effort in writing a scientific article in English can pay out as financial profit. Another example of how linguistic capital is converted to economic capital is that in the present case study one of the motivations for making the Master of Science programme in industrial ecology English medium was that it would help obtain direct funding from the university.

Linking Bourdieu’s theories to code-switching theory and domain theory, the tendencies of a domain-related distribution of Norwegian in informal situations and English in formal situations may indicate that different languages were used to accentuate different social identities or membership roles. As in Fishman’s (1970) example where the boss and the secretary accentuate their roles as fellow Puerto Ricans by speaking Spanish, while at other times accentuating their professional relationship by speaking English, a similar logic allows the lecturer in Extract 9 to ask in Norwegian as a private individual where the overhead projector should stand, while addressing the class in English as a lecturer a short while later. Making a connection between these observations and the current Scandinavian debate about domain loss, it becomes clear that the idea of precisely how domains are “lost” is in need of clarification and that code-switching theory and Bourdieu’s theories on hegemony may provide some of the necessary theoretical basis. Domains, understood at areas of society such as for instance higher education, are not “lost” overnight due to mysterious globalisation forces. Rather, a domain loss or –gain should be looked upon as the sum total of communicative events within a certain setting (Ljosland 2007). One may then make longitudinal observations of how many of these communicative events take place in one language or the other and the ways in which certain linguistic behaviour is associated with certain social roles. Using Bourdieu’s concepts of hegemony and habitus, where hegemony is understood as authority, legitimacy and prestige and the habitus is a set of learned dispositions that make us inclined to act and react in certain ways, in this instance part of the sociolinguistic competence of the speakers, one can observe whether a certain choice of



linguistic code is more likely or less likely for enacting a certain social role. One can also compare among competing varieties (such as a national language versus English) which variety seems to be more successful within a certain field for inhabiting certain roles. Employing a variety which has hegemony may then be judged as unmarked by members of the field, and thereby have sociolinguistic success. If one makes such observations over a period of time, once could try to map any changes in the linguistic habitus and in what counts as marked or unmarked. Such changes are precisely the basis of “domain loss”.

Returning now to the broad picture of globalisation, Arnett (2002:777) writes that ”[…] as a consequence of globalization, most people in the world now develop a 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.” The students’ use of more than one language, including their code-switching, does indeed seem to support Arnett’s observations. Code-switching such as in extracts 10-11, where utterances are mostly in Norwegian but embed sequences of English which are specifically related to the subject field, may be a way of levelling the boundary between two social roles (Heller, 1988): The speakers may be relieving the tension of being at once “themselves” and at the same time international master students and aspiring experts in industrial ecology. Taking this a step further, one may also speculate that perhaps their bilingualism, their code-switching and their frequent use of specialist terminology in English helps accentuate a separate social identity as international Master of Science students in industrial ecology.

From the position that globalization is a form of interaction between the global and the local, the way that the participants in the present case study use English in order to connect, may be seen in the light of Anderson’s (1996) theory of imagined communities. A chief motivation for making English the official language of instruction in the case department was to connect to an international educational market, and offering their special competence in a wider area. Some of the students were picturing themselves entering an international labour market. For the staff, it was important to make connections with other experts in the subject field in other countries, and this was a motivation for writing scientific articles in English. Pennycook (1994:29) puts it this way: “Language is located in social action and anything we might want to call a language is not a pregiven system but a will to community” (first emphasis in original; last emphasis mine). The field of Industrial Ecology is a discourse community in the sense that its members have a sense of common goals, there is a mechanism for intercommunication among its members through the media of scientific journals, it has its own lexis of subject-specific English-based terminology, and prospective members need to cross a threshold of content and discoursal expertise (Swann et. al. 2004: 85). It is, however, also more than a discourse community, as it does much more than exchange written texts. In this case study, one particular group of people in a university in Norway connects to and contributes to creating several imagined communities. One of these is the international expert group within their subject field. Another is the global environmental protection movement in the general sense. The participants in my study connect to these imagined communities by using the international language of English – while at the same time creating their own local practices and using languages in their own way in their local reality.

5. ConclusionThe reasons behind the increasing numbers of university level courses being taught in English, in countries where English is not a native language, are many and complex. They involve a practical need for international communication, especially when seen from the



researcher’s point of view, but they also involve aspirations, competition and politics on different levels. However, a decision to make a certain course English medium does not necessarily mean that all communication is going to be conducted solely in English. This case study has shown that languages other than English are in fact being used in a number of settings despite the course being officially English medium. These tend to be mainly oral situations where all interlocutors have a language other than English in common, which are also informal in the sense that they are not regulated or assessed, but allow for freer communication.

This paper has attempted to explore whether Fishman’s theory of linguistic domains may be combined with code-switching theory. Although the term “domain” in Scandinavia also usually covers written genres such as scientific publishing, the term in Fishman’s sense is perhaps better applied to oral language use, which the term was originally intended for (Simonsen 2005). Fishman’s theory predicts code-switches at points in the conversation where either the interlocutors, the locale or the topic changes. The present study finds the interlocutors and their language competence or preferences to be a strong factor in determining the language choice where the informality of the situation opens up for anything other than English. However, without determining the language choice categorically, some instances of code-switching reported on in this paper also seem to have a signalling function, indicating to the others present a shift in focus, either in the form of topic (extract 8) or interlocutors and role relationships (extract 9).

Mastering the appropriate language is important in order to win recognition as part of a group, and earning the right to speak/write and be listened to or read within that group (Bourdieu 1977, 1991). What is new compared to the societies that Bourdieu describes is that the imagined communities within academia transcend traditional language borders. ELF therefore emerges with its own internal economy, where the mastery of the appropriate register or lexis of the community is not enough, but also requires the mastery of English itself, or at least some form of ELF which is deemed adequate by more senior members of the community. This may be difficult enough even for lecturers who do master the specialised terminology of the field. In the present case study, it is a threshold which the students must cross, even though the programme is not a Content- and language integrated learning programme, and therefore gives no particular language support. As more university level study programmes become English medium throughout Europe, this is an issue which will at some point have to be addressed.

References

Ammon, Ulrich, 1998. Ist Deutch noch internationale Wissenschaftssprache? Englisch auch für die Lehre an den deutschschprachigen Hochschulen. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.

Ammon, Ulrich, McConnell, Grant, 2002. English as an Academic Language in Europe. Duisburger Arbeiter zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, 48. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern,Brüssel, New York, Oxford, Wien.

Anderson, Benedict, 1996. Forestilte fellesskap. Refleksjoner omkring nasjonalismens opprinnelse og spredning. Spartacus forlag AS, Oslo. Translation by Espen Andersen.

Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen, 2002. The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist 57 (10), 774–783.



Auer, Peter, 1995. The pragmatics of code-switching: a sequential approach. In Lesley Milroy, Pieter Muysken (eds.): One speaker, two languages. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, 115–135. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Berg, E. Cathrine, Francis M. Hult, Kendall. A. King, 2001. Shaping the climate for language shift? English in Sweden’s elite domains. World Englishes, volume 20, number 3, 305-319.

Björkman, Beyza, 2008. ‘So where we are?’ Spoken lingua franca English at a technical university in Sweden. English Today 94, Vol. 24, No. 2, June 2008, pp. 35-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blom, Jan Petter, John J. Gumperz, 1972. Språkstrukturers sosiale betydning: om kodeskifte i et norsk lokalsamfunn. In M. B. Larsen, B. Loman, J. B. Pride, B. Bernstein, R. Agheyisi, J. Fishman, J. P. Blom, J. J. Gumperz: Språksosiologi. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 97-127.

Bourdieu, Pierre, 1977.The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social science information/Information sur les sciences sociales nummer 16, 645–668.

Bourdieu, Pierre, 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Polity Press, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge.

Brandt, Synnøve, Schwach, Vera, 2005. Norsk, engelsk og tospråklighet i høyere utdanning. En pilotstudie om bruk av engelsk i fem fagtilbud ved fire læresteder. NIFU-STEP Arbeidsnotat 18 (2005).

Coleman, James, 2006. English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching 39 (1), 1–14.

Ferguson, Charles A., 1972 [1959]. Diglossia. In Pier Paolo Giglioli (ed.) Language and Social Context: Selected Readings. Penguin, Harmondsworth . 232–51.

Fishman, Joshua, 1970. Sociolinguistics. A Brief Introduction. Newbury House Language Series, Rowley, Massachusetts.

Bjerck-Hagen, Erik Bjerck, Anders Johansen, 2006. Hva skal vi med vitenskap? 13 innlegg fra striden om tellekantene. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Halvorsen, Tor, Faye, Reidun, 2006. Evaluering av Kvalitetsreformen. Delrapport 8. Internasjonalisering. Norges forskningsråd, Rokkansenteret, NIFU-STEP, Oslo.

Hellekjær, Glen Ole, Westergaard, Marit, 2003. An exploratory survey of content learning through English at Nordic universities. In: van Leeuven, C. ,Wilkinson, R. (Eds.), Multilingual Approaches in University Education. Challenges and Practices, Uitgeverij Valkhof Pers, Universitejt Maastricht, Nijmegen, Maastricht, pp. 65–80.

Heller, Monica, 1988. Introduction. In: Heller, M. (Ed.), Codeswitching. Anthropological and Sociolingusitic Perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam, pp. 1–25.

House, Juliane, 2003. English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 (4), 556– 578.

Kachru, Braj, 1985. Institutionalized second-language varieties. In: Greenbaum, S. (Ed.), The English Language Today. Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt, pp. 211–226.

Lehtonen, Tuula, Lönnfors, Pearl, Virkkunen-Fullenwider, Anu,1999. English or not English: that is the question! Teaching through English at the University of Helsinki. Helsingin yliopiston Opintoasiaintoimiston julkaisuja 18 (1999). Yliopistopaino, Helsinki.

Ljosland, Ragnhild, 2005. Norway’s Misunderstanding of the Bologna Process: When Internationalisation Becomes Anglicisation. Conference paper Bi- and Multilingual Universities: Challenges and Future Prospects. Helsinki University 1-3 September 2005. http://www.palmenia.helsinki.fi/congress/bilingual2005/presentations/Ljosland.pdf Accessed 4.6.2010

Ljosland, Ragnhild, 2007. English in Norwegian academia: a step towards diglossia? World Englishes Volume 26 Issue 4, Pages 395 – 410, Blackwell.


http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118534398/issue

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118534398/issue

http://www.palmenia.helsinki.fi/congress/bilingual2005/presentations/Ljosland.pdf%20Accessed%204.6.2010

http://www.palmenia.helsinki.fi/congress/bilingual2005/presentations/Ljosland.pdf%20Accessed%204.6.2010


Ljosland, Ragnhild, 2008. Lingua franca, prestisjespråk og forestilt fellesskap: Om engelsk som akademisk språk i Norge. Et kasusstudium i bred kontekst. PhD thesis, Department of Scandinavian Studies and Comparative Literature, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Marschan-Piekkari, Rebecca, Denice Welch, Lawrence Welch, 1999. In the shadow: the impact of language on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International Business Review, Vol. 8 No. pp. 421–440.

Maiworm, Friedhelm, Wächter, Bernd, (Eds.), 2002. English-Language-Taught Degree Programmes in European Higher Education. Trends and Success Factors. ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education. Lemmens Verlags- and Mediengesellschaft mbH, Bonn.

Mauranen, Anna, 2003. The Corpus of English as Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. TESOL Quarterly 37 (3), 513 – 527.

Myers-Scotton, Carol, 1993. Elite closure as a powerful language strategy: the African case. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 103, 149–163.

Mæhlum, Brit Kirsten, 1996. Codeswitching in Hemnesberget – Myth or reality? Journal of Pragmatics 25, 1996, 749-761.

Naidoo, Rajani, Ian Jamieson, 2005. Knowledge in the Marketplace: The Global Commodification of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. In Peter Ninnes and Meeri Hellstén eds.: Internationalizing Higher Education. Critical Explorations of Pedagogy and Policy, 37–52. Comparative Education Recearch Centre, The University of Hong Kong , Springer.Pennycook, Alastair, 1994. The cultural politics of English as an international language. Language in social life series. Longman, London.

Readings, Bill, 1996. The University in Ruins. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Schwach, Vera, 2009. Masterprogrammer på engelsk i Norge. I bredde og nisjer. NIFU-STEP report 36/2009. Norsk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning , Oslo.

Seidlhofer, Barbara, 2005. Key concepts in ELT. English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59 (4), 339–341.

Simonsen, Dag Finn, 2005. Over the fence – and into English? Reflections on adolescents, academics, linguistic development and language policy in Norway in the early 2000s. In Bent Preisler, Anne Fabricius, Hartmut Haberland, Susanne Kjærbeck and Karen Risager (eds.) The Consequences of Mobility. Roskilde University, Roskilde.

Språkrådet, 2005. Norsk i hundre. Norsk som nasjonalspråk i globaliseringens tidsalder. Et forslag til strategi. Norsk språkråd, Oslo.

Swann, Joann, Deumert, Ana, Lillis, Theresa, Mesthrie, Rajend, 2004. A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Tange, Hanne, Jakob Lauring, 2009. Language management and social interaction within the multilingual workplace. In Journal of Communication Management vol. 13, no. 3.

Wilson, David, 2002. The Englishisation of Academe: A Finnish Perspective – Action Research survey. Jyväskylän yliopiston kielikeskus raportteja 5. University Printing House, Jyväskylä.

Ystenes, Martin, 2004. Norsk vitenskapsspråk = femi treski? In Simonsen, Dag Finn (ed.). Språk i kunnskapssamfunnet. Engelsk – elitens nye latin? Pp. 70–75. Gyldendal akademisk forlag, Oslo.



Ragnhild Ljosland graduated with a PhD in sociolinguistics from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Trondheim) in 2008. Since 2009 she has worked as staff researcher for the Centre for Nordic Studies. This research centre is based in the Orkney and Shetland islands (United Kingdom) and is part of the prospective University of the Highlands and Islands.


Documents

English as an Academic Lingua Franca: Language policies ... · Web viewIn the interviews the Norwegian students were mostly unable to provide Norwegian translations for two frequent