This paper aims to contribute to the study of multilingualism in the workplace by analysing top-down language policies advocating parallellingualism at Denmark’s eight universities. Parallellingualism, a key concept in Nordic language policy, has been suggested as a way to ensure an equitable balance between English and the Nordic language(s) without the former encroaching on the latter. Drawing on theories which consider discourses about language to constitute positioning for or against a particular social, moral or political order (Cameron 2012), the paper contrasts state- and institution-authored university language policies. The overall aim is to understand what the different actors mean when they invoke ‘parallellingualism’. Supplementary data consist of a corpus of newspaper articles on the topic of the use of English and Danish at Danish universities published in the same period as the university language policies. It is argued that while both state and institution-authored policies overtly advocate ‘parallellingualism’ as a guiding principle for managing multilingualism at Danish universities, in the state-authored policies, this seems to mean ‘more Danish’, while in the institution-authored policies it seems to mean ‘more English’. Some underlying ideologies of each of these positions are proposed before the implications for workplace discourse are discussed.
Within the fields of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP), the question of whether English as an Additional Language (EAL) scholars are disadvantaged by the pressure to publish in English continues to be debated. In this paper, I challenge this orthodoxy, raising questions about the evidence upon which it is based. Within a framework of ‘verbal hygiene’, I will argue that the attention accorded to ‘non-nativeness’ may be disproportionate to its significance for publication success. I conclude by proposing some reorientations for researchers and practitioners in the field that encompass non-linguistic structures of inequity.
European universities have, since the late 1990s, undergone dramatic changes centred on internationalisation, harmonisation and competition. This paper is concerned with two specific consequences of these changes and their interrelationship: rankings and Englishisation, the latter defined as an increase in the use of English at universities of nation states where English is not the official language. Despite a recent surge in research into Englishisation, it is not yet clear to what extent current organisational changes inevitably entail an orientation towards both rankings and Englishisation or whether a high rank can be attained without the use of English being increased and vice versa. Using as a case study Denmark's eight universities, this paper examines the relationship between the combined rank on seven well-known ranking lists of each of Denmark's eight universities and the extent to which English is used in them, drawing on recently compiled government statistics. The findings suggest that while there is some evidence in support of a correlation, in that lowerranked universities are, on the whole, less likely to use English than higherranked ones, there are some notable exceptions. It is suggested that the findings may shed light on whether Englishisation at the universities of Northern Europe is best explained in terms of unintended consequences or rational choices.
This paper identifies a particular ‘rapport‐building’ speech style prescribed to call centre workers in four countries – Denmark, Britain, Hong Kong and the Philippines – irrespective of the language being spoken in the service interaction. It then compares Danish and British call centre workers’ compliance with the prescribed speech style and finds that Danish workers adhere significantly less to it than their British counterparts. It is suggested that this is attributable to the predominance of different politeness norms in the two cultures. The paper then discusses the indexicality of the prescribed speech style and argues that it is more commercially than culturally marked, despite the American origin of call centres. Overall, the paper draws attention to inadequacies in the paradigm focusing on the global spread of English, while lending support to recent theoretical suggestions to focus instead on how practices and styles are exported globally and potentially independently of language. Denne artikel identificerer en særlig ‘relationsskabende’ samtalestil som foreskrives til callcentermedarbejdere i fire lande – Danmark, Storbritannien, Hong Kong og Filippinerne – uafhængigt af hvilket sprog der benyttes i serviceinteraktionen. Herefter bliver danske og engelske callcentermedarbejderes brug af den foreskrevne samtalestil sammenlignet, og det vises at danske medarbejdere gør signifikant mindre brug af den end deres britiske modparter. Det foreslås at dette skyldes at der råder forskellige høflighedsnormer i de to kulturer. Artiklen diskuterer derefter indeksikaliteten af den foreskrevne samtalestil, og argumenterer for at den i højere grad er kommercielt end kulturelt kodet, på trods af callcentres amerikanske oprindelse. I sin helhed gør artiklen opmærksom på utilstrækkeligheder i det paradigme der fokuserer på hvordan engelsk breder sig globalt, mens den underbygger nylige teoretiske forslag om i stedet at fokusere på hvordan praksisser og stile eksporteres globalt og potentielt set uafhængigt af sprog.
During the first half of 2017, four scholars who know English‐medium instruction (EMI) well and view it from different perspectives took part in a round‐robin exchange. The forum contributors answered six sets of questions on aspects of EMI: defining terms; learning English in an EMI environment; the political or policy framework; learning a subject in a second language; teachers working in a second language; and EMI and multilingual education. Below is a summary of their answers (a longer version can be found in the online version of this Forum as supplementary content). The questions were devised and the responses edited by Philip Shaw.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.