Language Education Policy in England. Is English the elephant in the room?

This paper offers a critical review of language education policies and the state of language education in England over the last decade (2000-2010), which has been characterised by a bewildering array of initiatives to promote language learning, year-on-year improved grades of school exams, and language education policies showing little coherence. Conversely, both media and student voices on the subject of language learning in the UK reveal high awareness of the UK’s poor performance relative to other EU countries. This picture is interpreted within the context of Global English, proposing that a tacit assumption that English is enough offers a coherent explanation of current practices and policies. Citing economic, cultural and political arguments, the conclusion illustrates the costs to the UK of this dangerous assumption and proposes some strategies that might help to counter complacency towards language learning in the UK

UK language learner motivation in the age of Global English: what motivation is left?

Investigating motivation for language learning in British students, this study offers a rare insight into language learner motivation, comparing motivations in British University students who study languages either ‘on campus’ or as distance learners. Results reveal significant differences in the two student cohorts in several respects, including self image as a language learner and instrumental motivation, as well as background differences relating to amount of target language exposure and contact. Results are evaluated within the currently dominant model of learner motivation and Self Determination Theory). Implications for language learning and teaching in the UK and future research directions in language learning motivation are discussed

‘Spare a thought for the language learner!’ A commentary on Hultgren’s red herring

No abstract

Language policies in Ukrainian higher education : Language in the firing line?

Ukraine has been a site of cyclical conflict over language rights and policies for decades. Similar to Eastern bloc countries, Ukraine in the post-Soviet era saw tensions between the then lingua franca, Russian and the national language, Ukrainian. Already before its independence in 1991, Ukraine launched initiatives to revitalise and modernise their language right after breaking from Soviet rule. Russia’s war against Ukraine has given a significant lift to the popularity and learning of Ukrainian. Regarding English, the nation is starting from a low base even though with a strong decision to join the Western world with its values of democracy, human rights and freedom. Thus, lingo-political tensions in Ukraine include the languages Ukrainian, Russian, English and other European languages. This study asks how Ukrainian Higher Educational Establishments (HEIs) translate the triple language agenda of de-Russification, Ukrainisation and Englishisation into their language policies. It does so by investigating websites and official documents of fifteen universities in Ukraine previously selected for the study by the British Council, using the framework of critical discourse analysis and inductive coding. Results reveal that Ukrainian HEIs focus on Ukrainian and English in their vision and recommended practice, while acknowledging other European languages. The special status of the languages of national minorities is endorsed in many HEIs, but never singling out Russian. Ukrainian HEIs develop their language policies both in compliance with state legislation and with a keen awareness of European standards. Linguistically, westernisation of Ukrainian HEIs strongly favours English as a global language, although other European languages are considered. Concerning the Ukrainian-Russian tensions, we observe increasing initiatives supported both by educational institutions and the population as a whole, to revalidate Ukrainian and limit the use of Russian

Affect in EMI at a German university : Comparing insights from teachers, home, and international students

The introduction of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) has changed higher education enormously in many European countries. This development is increasingly encapsulated under the term Englishization, that is, the increasing dispersion of English as a means of communication in non-Anglophone contexts. Englishization is not undisputed: legal challenges have arisen in several countries. Nor is it uniform; universities across Europe embrace Englishization, but they do so in their own way. In this volume, authors from 15 European countries present analyses from a range of perspectives coalescing around core concerns: the quality of education, cultural identity, inequality of opportunities and access, questions of justice and democracy, and internationalization and language policy. This book will appeal to researchers in applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, educational sciences, and political science, as well as policy makers and people with a concern about the direction of higher education

Bill 7633 on the restriction of the use of Russian text sources in Ukrainian research and education : analysing language policy in times of war

For centuries, Ukraine has been a site of conficts over language rights. During 70 years of Soviet leadership, Ukraine experienced’relentless Russifcation’ (Reznik in Language of confict: discourses of the Ukrainian crisis (pp. 169–191). Blooms-bury Publishing, London, 2020 p. 170). After breaking from Soviet rule, the Ukrain-ian language became an increasingly powerful symbol and means of national iden-tity. Since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the language issues have gained yet more public and political attention. Addressing the urgency, the Ukrainian parliament adopted, in the frst reading, Bill 7633, aiming to restrict the use of any Russian sources in Ukrainian school and academia, a bill that was met with criticism and experienced intensifed debates. This article analyses a range of text sources (both governmental and non-governmental) debating Bill 7633, using Discourse Analysis, and reveals how ‘liberal values’ and ‘lived liberalism’ (Fedirko et al. in Social Anthropol/Anthropol soc 29(2):373–386, 2021) are practiced or vio- lated through problematising or justifying the Bill. Thus, the article contributes to the (recently emerged, i.e. since the start of Russian annexation of the Crimea in 2014) body of research on political and public discourses of the Ukrainian confict (Epstein in Studies in East Eur Thought 74(4), 475–481; Jones, 2020; Lanvers and Lunyova in Eur J Lang Policy 15(1), 25–68; Slobozhan et al. in Soc Netw Anal Min 12(1), 1–12, 2022). Results show a comprehensive range of arguments both for and against Bill 7633 in both governmental and non-governmental texts which is inter- preted as a form of liberalism in fragments (Fedirko in Social Anthropol/Anthropol Soc, 29(2), 471–489, 2021). The conclusion debates the unreserved applicability of western conceptualisation of liberal language policy in the context of war and pro- longed linguistic contestations

'If they are going to University, they are gonna need a language GCSE’: co-constructing the social divide in language learning in England

Despite increasing evidence of the UK language learning crisis, and the social divide between those opting for language study, or not, we know little about the language policies of individual schools might contribute to these phenomena. Little evidence exists on schools’ stakeholders’ views (senior management, language teachers, students) on the purposes for language study, and the relation of such views to language policies, in specific schools. This article reports on interviews and focus groups undertaken in four schools in the north of England, an area with low uptake of language learning beyond the compulsory age. In each school, focus groups with students (aged 13/14), and interviews with language teachers and senior management, were undertaken. Thematic analysis and corpus linguistics analyses were undertaken, using NVivo. Results reveal that students from all school types, including in areas of relative deprivation, rate and value languages. School management, however, may articulate a wide range of possible rationales for languages, but tend to devise and justify their language policy with reference to performance-driven pressures, academic and social background of their schools’ intake, and purported professional aspirations of their students. In this manner, language learning opportunities are shaped by social and academic school characteristics, rather than student preferences, contributing to the social divide in language learning in the UK