NAVIGATING IDEOLOGY, IDENTITY, AND EMOTION IN THE CONTEXT OF ENGLISH-MEDIUM HIGHER EDUCATION: ZOHRA’S STORY By Bethany Zulick A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages – Master of Arts 2022 ABSTRACT NAVIGATING IDEOLOGY, IDENTITY, AND EMOTION IN THE CONTEXT OF ENGLISH-MEDIUM HIGHER EDUCATION: ZOHRA’S STORY By Bethany Zulick There is a growing prevalence of English-medium instruction (EMI) at universities around the world as a result of globalization and the internationalization of higher education. Although the English language is often the main language of these institutions, research shows that the local language often occupies an important position within these institutions. This linguistic environment places international students who do not speak the local language in a vulnerable position, and they may face exclusion from social settings or have less access to some aspects of academic life as a result. The present study examines how ideology, identity, and emotion interact in one international student’s journey through her first year at an EMI institution in Kyrgyzstan as she navigates language use within the institution, cultivates her multilingual repertoire, and creates a place for herself in the institutional community. The findings of the study revealed how the focal participant, Zohra, was influenced by monolingual ideologies, viewing the institution as a primarily English-only space and attempting to uphold these norms through her own language use. Like other international students, Zohra also reported experiences of exclusion through the use of the local language, positioning her as an outsider and provoking a range of negative emotions in response. Zohra leveraged her strong English skills and strategically used the local language to construct a positive identity for herself as a full member of the university community. She also engaged in an iterative process of reflection as she compartmentalized her personally held language ideologies and managed her negative emotions surrounding language use to facilitate her adjustment to the university. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This completion of this project was only possible with the help of many contributors and supporters. First, I must express my gratitude to the students who participated in this study. Without their willingness to share their experiences and insights with me so candidly, this research project never would have been possible. I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Peter De Costa, for introducing me to research on ideology, identity, and emotion in language education and for guiding me through the research and writing process. Dr. Debra Hardison, my second reader, also provided valuable feedback on drafts of this project, and I would like to thank her for her attention and expertise. Finally, I must thank my partner for his constant support and encouragement throughout this process. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 What is EMI: Definitions, Monolingual Conception, and Multilingual Reality ......................... 2 The Tension Between Policy and Practice in EMI ..................................................................... 3 Kyrgyzstan: The Setting of the Present Study ............................................................................ 6 The Outline of the Present Study ................................................................................................ 9 Chapter One ...................................................................................................................................11 The Presence of Languages Other than English in EMI Institutions ........................................ 11 The Functions of Languages Other than English in EMI Settings ............................................ 12 The Impact of Ideologies on Language Practices in EMI ......................................................... 15 Situating International Students at EMI Institutions in Non-Anglophone Settings .................. 19 The Effects of International Student Marginalization: Identity, Agency, Ideology and Emotion………………………………………………………………………………………..22 Theme 9: Ideology ................................................................................................................. 29 Theme 7: Identity ................................................................................................................... 30 Theme 10: Emotion ................................................................................................................ 31 Chapter Two...................................................................................................................................32 Context ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 36 Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................................................... 36 Zohra ......................................................................................................................................... 38 Researcher Positionality ............................................................................................................ 40 Chapter Three.................................................................................................................................43 Findings and Discussion............................................................................................................ 43 The Influence of Zohra’s Personally Held Language Ideologies: Her Ideal Vision of BU ...... 44 EMI Should be English-only .................................................................................................. 44 Negative View of Multilingual Practices ............................................................................... 45 American = English-Only...................................................................................................... 46 Impact of language ideologies on Zohra’s views of language use on campus ......................... 47 Impact of language ideologies on Zohra’s language practices ................................................. 50 The Impact of Zohra’s Identity and Emotions: Fighting to be Seen and Heard ....................... 52 Exclusion and Identity Positioning ........................................................................................ 53 Emotional Distress ................................................................................................................ 57 The Impact on Zohra’s Identities and Emotion on her View of Language Use on Campus .... 58 The Impact of Zohra’s Identities and Emotion on Her Language Practices ............................. 59 Zohra’s Process of Reflection, Emotional Regulation, and Compartmentalization ................. 63 iv Chapter Four ..................................................................................................................................67 Implications and Conclusions ........................................................................................................67 Limitations .....................................................................................................................................74 APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................76 Appendix A - Student Interview 1 (All Participants)................................................................ 77 Appendix B - Student Interview 2 (All Participants) ................................................................ 79 Appendix C - Student Interview 3 (All Participants) ................................................................ 81 Appendix D - Student Interview 4 (Kanykei and Alexander) ................................................... 82 Appendix E - Student Interview 4 (Zohra)................................................................................ 83 Appendix F - PYP Instructor Interviews ................................................................................... 85 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................89 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Student Participants………………………………………………………………….36 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Map of Kyrgyzstan ……………………………………………………………………6 Figure 2 – The Douglas Fir Group’s transdisciplinary model of SLA…………………………..27 vii Introduction English medium instruction (EMI) is a model of education in which “the English language [is used] to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English” (Macaro, 2018, p. 1). This model of education exists around the world and throughout all levels of education (Macaro, 2018). EMI is especially common in higher education, where its prevalence has increased substantially since the year 2000 (Galloway, 2020). Given the status of English in the world as a lingua franca – especially in the realms of academia and international business – and the forces of globalization, we should expect that EMI programs at all levels of education will continue to proliferate. In higher education, EMI is closely linked to the process of internationalization (e.g., Baker & Hüttner, 2017; Galloway et al., 2020). As part of the process of internationalization, more and more students are leaving their home countries to pursue higher education abroad (OECD, 2014). In a shift from earlier trends, more students are attending international universities in non-Anglophone countries (see Galloway, 2020 for a summary). Given this rising trend in higher education, it is incumbent upon the applied linguistics research community to understand the unique experiences of international students at transnational EMI universities. Research on this topic has begun, but there are calls for further investigation (Sung, 2021a). Given (1) the wealth of research that has problematized the ‘E’ in EMI, which will be reviewed in what follows, and (2) the highly diverse and multilingual university community, international EMI universities would be better understood as multilingual universities. Gu (2013), a scholar who has contributed to research on international universities and to research on international students in these settings, writes: 1 …the multilingual university is a site full of struggle in relation and in response to the governmental ideology surrounding multilingualism, the public discourse emphasizing the use of English, and the diverse language ideologies held by different linguistic and cultural groups…. The university campus thus becomes the site of complex ideological stances and subtle negotiations of identities. (p. 224) The present study takes this excerpt as its point of departure. Although English may be dominant, international EMI institutions are often highly multilingual environments, and this multilingualism is influenced by complex social factors and systems of power. Research on international students in these settings has shown that they face a unique set of challenges related to language use. To further research on this topic, the present study will examine how ideology, identity, and emotion interact in one international student’s journey through her first year at an international EMI institution in Kyrgyzstan as she cultivates her multilingual repertoire and creates a place for herself in the institutional community. There were three student informants who participated in this study, but only the international student, Zohra, will be taken up as the focal participant. What is EMI: Definitions, Monolingual Conception, and Multilingual Reality First, it is necessary to lay out a precise definition of EMI and differentiate it from other related types of education. Macaro (2018) places types of language education on a continuum with content-oriented on one side and language-oriented on the other. English as a foreign language would be placed at the far end of the continuum on the language-oriented side, while EMI would be placed on the far end of the content-oriented side. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) would fall approximately in the middle of the continuum, leaning toward the content-oriented side. It is true that EMI is often conceived of (by governments, institutions, and individuals) as a way to boost English skills (Hu & Lei, 2014; Jiang & Zhang, 2019; Macaro, 2018; Wächter & 2 Maiworm 2014; Wannagat, 2007). Yet paradoxically, EMI curricula often do not contain explicit language learning goals. Importantly, in many cases, EMI content instructors typically do not have a language teaching background or certification (Macaro, 2018; Wannagat, 2007). This stands in sharp contrast to systems like CLIL, which require instructors to hold both language and content certifications. Judging by the term ‘English medium instruction’ alone, it would seem that the question of language use in these settings is cut and dried, and that there is no room for languages other than English within EMI. Yet, research around the world has shown that language use in EMI is variable within and across institutions and countries (e.g., Galloway, 2020). Some EMI programs or courses are designed to use bi- or multilingual instructional techniques (e.g., Galloway, 2020; Muguruza et al., 2020). Despite this great diversity in the way EMI programs are implemented, there is a prevailing normative view that EMI means English-only. Take for example this extract from Galloway’s (2020) report on EMI, Although language policies may mandate English-only teaching in some EMI contexts… EMI is not necessarily always English-only. In fact, EMI implementation varies with respect to how much and in what format English is used (or expected to be used) in the course curriculum (p. 30). Here, Galloway frames the notion that EMI programs are or ought to be English-only as a commonly held expectation that needs to be debunked. As will become clear through what follows, this normative view of EMI is complicated by the real policies, ideologies, and language practices that exist in different EMI institutions, which sometimes are in concert with this norm and sometimes stand in stark opposition to it. The Tension Between Policy and Practice in EMI Now I will turn briefly to the literature on language policies in EMI to gain an understanding of how EMI programs are conceptualized by those who design them. Although 3 language policies are not under examination in the present study, an overview of the existing literature on this topic is necessary to gain a fuller picture of the EMI context. This brief exploration of language policies will expose the tension that often exists in EMI institutions caused by the complexities and contradictions surrounding language use, and it will set the stage for further discussion of the issues faced by international students as they adjust to this linguistic environment. Let us first examine some examples of how EMI programs are conceived through policy documents. These may be top-down policies at the national level that propose an English-only vision of EMI (e.g., Galloway et al., 2020), while in other cases these policies may exist at the institutional level. For example, a comparative study of EMI universities in Thailand, Austria, and the UK (Baker & Hüttner, 2017) found that the university websites at all three sites stipulated only English as the official institutional language. Following Jenkins (2014), we should understand university websites as a type of policy document, in that they present the public face of the university and are produced by university officials. Hillman et al. (2021) revealed similar findings at an international branch campus in Qatar, where the university website stated that the curricula were identical to those of the flagship campus and that courses were taught in English. However, there was a lack of more specific guidelines for language use in the other policy documents the researchers examined. And in Turkey, Karakas (2016) found that university policies mandated an English-only classroom environment. Again, as stated above, there are some programs whose policies explicitly outline the EMI program as a bi- /multilingual space. There are still other institutions with no official policies outlining which languages or language varieties are to be used (e.g., Mortensen, 2013), or the policies that exist may be so unclear that they provide no real guidance (e.g., Galloway et al., 2020). In the absence 4 of official policy guidance, decisions surrounding language use fall to individuals. These examples of policies (or lack thereof) demonstrate that language policy in EMI is far from consistent. Each institution and nation must be examined contextually to understand if their policies uphold monolingual English norms or if they grant more latitude. What is certain is that even at the policy level, the question of whether EMI means ‘English only’ is murky in many contexts, and it will continue to become more so. It has been well documented in the literature on language policies and practices in EMI that despite any monolingual norms or policies, multilingual practices are often present in EMI institutions around the world (Baker & Hüttner, 2017; Baker & Hüttner, 2019; Galloway et al., 2020; Graham et al., 2021; Karakas, 2016; Kuteeva, 2020; Moore 2016; Mortensen, 2013; Söderlundh, 2013). The following quotation is illustrative of the multilingual nature of many international EMI programs and universities. … internationalized study programmes at European universities cannot adequately be described as ‘English medium’, quite simply because the linguistic reality of such programmes is more complex than that. Although it may remain latent and is certainly often overlooked, linguistic diversity lies at the heart of university internationalization. (Hazel & Mortensen, 2013, p. 4) As seen in this excerpt, Hazel and Mortensen argue that even though English has become the lingua franca of internationalized higher education and is often the medium of instruction in these institutions, English is by no means the only language in these settings. The status of English as the primary language in these settings papers over a complex, diverse multilingual reality. Although this passage is geared toward the European context, it is true of many EMI settings. The professors and students who come together at EMI universities bring with them a diverse array of language competencies which are not easily compartmentalized and kept out of the processes of teaching, learning, and community-building. EMI universities are, of necessity, 5 multilingual spaces. As we move forward in examining the situation of international students in these settings, it is crucial to bear in mind that multilingual practices in EMI are not necessarily equally distributed among all languages. And, as will be shown later, this unequal distribution among languages can sometimes create tensions and divisions in the university community. Kyrgyzstan: The Setting of the Present Study Figure 1 – Map of Kyrgyzstan from the Joint Research Centre, ECHO, European Commission, licensed under CC BY 4.0 This study examines one EMI university in Kyrgyzstan, which is in Central Asia and was once part of the Soviet Union. In order to understand the context more deeply, a brief overview of the history of the country and its language policies is necessary, although a thoroughgoing analysis of national policy is beyond the scope of the present study. Kyrgyz and Russian were both recognized as official languages of the region in the original 1929 constitution, but the 6 period of Soviet occupation would bring heavy russification to the country (Mambetaliev, 2019). While the Kyrgyz language was taught in schools during Soviet times, most ethnic Europeans living in Kyrgyzstan had low levels of proficiency in Kyrgyz despite their language education policies (Orusbaev et al., 2008). Furthermore, translated materials were more readily available in Russian, and Russian was the lingua franca within the USSR. Russian thus became the preferred language of education for Kyrgyz elites because of the opportunities it offered (Orusbaev et al., 2008). Kyrgyzstan gained its independence in 1991, which ignited a renaissance for the Kyrgyz language. As of 1993, the constitution instituted Russian as the official language and Kyrgyz as the state language, and the president of the country is required to be bilingual (Mambetaliev, 2019). The differences between the official and state language are difficult to define, which Mambetaliev acknowledges. There are laws in Kyrgyzstan which are aimed at fostering Kyrgyz- Russian bilingualism while preserving Kyrgyz. One law, passed in 2004, requires official signage marking geographical features, street names, or regions to be written in Kyrgyz, while those marking businesses or organizations must be bilingual and use a uniform font size so that one language does not overshadow the other (The Law on the State Language, 2004, cited in Mambetaliev, 2019). However, the Law on the official language of the Kyrgyz Republic, which was passed in 2000, designates Russian as the lingua franca for communication across ethnic groups within Kyrgyzstan and as the language that provides access to the education, culture, information, and technology of Russia and other former-Soviet states (Orusbaev et al., 2008). Although Kyrgyz and Russian have been enshrined as the two state languages by law, it is important to note that Kyrgyzstan is a multiethnic and multilingual nation, and Uzbek, Tajik, Turkish, and German are also spoken (Orusbaev et al., 2008). 7 According to Mambetaliev’s survey data, the majority of the population in Kyrgyzstan is at least bi- if not multilingual, but the majority also support having only Kyrgyz as the official language rather than both Russian and Kyrgyz. The issue of bilingualism is quite contentious in Kyrgyzstan (Orusbaev et al., 2008). Ethnic Kyrgyz feel a strong sense of pride and protectiveness over the Kyrgyz language, while ethnic Uzbeks and Russians feel that their languages are underrepresented (Orusbaev et al., 2008). Current laws, detailed above, outline the function of Kyrgyz and Russian in Kyrgyz society. However, the Russian language continues to dominate in media, internet resources, printed materials, and academic publications (Orusbaev et al., 2008). Both historically and today, Russian is more commonly preferred in large urban centers, while Kyrgyz and other languages tend to be spoken in smaller cities and in rural parts of the country (Orusbaev et al., 2008). Kyrgyzstan’s education system is also multilingual. In Kyrgyzstan overall, Kyrgyz- medium schools are the norm. As of 2008, there were 2,071 secondary schools in Kyrgyzstan, and of these, 1,360 were Kyrgyz-medium (Orusbaev et al., 2008, p. 489). There were 509 secondary schools offering Russian-medium or mixed, using Russian as well as another language for instruction (Orusbaev et al., 2008). It is noteworthy that in the capital, Bishkek, where the present study is situated, Russian-medium schools make up the majority (Mambetaliev, 2019; Orusbaev et al., 2008). Still, regardless of the medium of instruction, a law was passed in 2003 which dictated that “In all educational institutions the study of Kyrgyz, Russian and one of [sic.] foreign languages is obligatory” (The Law on Education, 2003, cited in Mambetaliev, 2019, p. 54). Higher education institutions in Kyrgyzstan are also multilingual, providing instruction in Russian, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, English, Turkish, and Arabic (Orusbaev et al., 2008). However, the analysis of higher education in Kyrgyzstan seems to suggest a more dominant role for Russian in 8 comparison to the other languages, especially in the social sciences, sciences, and computer science (Orusbaev et al., 2008). Despite the multilingual nature of education in Kyrgyzstan, there is still a perception that knowledge of Russian language and literature is a marker of educational prestige, and many people seek education and employment in Russia (Orusbaev et al., 2008). And, as reviewed above, Russian continues to dominate certain spheres of life in Kyrgyzstan. Taken together, it seems that while the importance and prevalence of the Kyrgyz language has increased since the country’s independence, Russian continues to occupy an important niche in the language ecology of Kyrgyzstan. The student informants in this study reported that English and Russian were the most common languages used in their experience at the focal university. They reported that Kyrgyz was used very little at the university and never for official purposes. While the language ecology of Kyrgyzstan is highly complex, the present study will refer to Russian as the local language, as the student informants reported this to be the dominant language in their experience. This also seems to be supported by the research presented above, which indicated that Russian is more commonly spoken in large urban centers such as Bishkek and is the primary language of academia in Kyrgyzstan. The Outline of the Present Study The present study seeks to understand the experiences of one international student attending an EMI university in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Specifically, the study will examine how ideology, identity, and emotion influenced the way this student viewed language practices at the university as well as the student’s own language practices. As alluded to above, the language practices of EMI universities tend to be multilingual, although there is great complexity across contexts. As will be demonstrated in what follows, the local language of EMI universities’ host countries often occupy an important role as the secondary institutional language. Adapting to 9 such an environment is especially challenging for international students because they must adapt not only to a new educational environment, but also to the way the local language, which they may not speak, is used within the institution. The present study will begin with a review of the relevant literature in Chapter One that (1) lays out findings regarding the language practices that have been documented at EMI institutions around the world, (2) the impact of language ideologies on language practices in EMI, and (3) the unique situation of international students in these settings and the impacts to their identities caused by the use of the local language. Chapter One will conclude with the theoretical framework that will be used for analysis in this study. Chapter Two will detail the methodology used for the study, along with a description of the focal university and a portrait of the focal participant. Chapter Three will present the study’s findings and discussion, and Chapter Four will offer conclusions and potential implications of the present study. 10 Chapter One The Presence of Languages Other than English in EMI Institutions As described above, international EMI universities are multilingual spaces where a number of languages are represented. However, the dominant local language often plays an especially important and visible role (Baker & Hüttner, 2017; Hazel & Mortensen, 2013; Mortensen, 2013; Söderlundh, 2013). In their study of international EMI universities in the UK, Austria, and Thailand, Baker & Hüttner (2017) write, …while in keeping with previous research… there is a strong position of English as a lingua franca in group cohesion, this should not be overstated and the local languages are given some room as secondary lingua franca or language learning targets and other L1s have a role (p. 512). This excerpt describes the multilingual realities of EMI. Baker and Hüttner caution against the assumption that English functions seamlessly as a lingua franca in EMI settings. Although it may not be as dominant as English in EMI settings, the local language occupies an undeniably powerful position relative to other languages. While they acknowledge that other languages play a role, it is only the local languages that function as a secondary lingua franca and desired learning target for students. Other research conducted in EMI settings around the world supports Baker and Hüttner’s (2017) findings, indicating that the local language plays a role in administrative matters, academic settings, and social situations (Graham et al., 2021; Hillman et al., 2019, 2021; Mortensen, 2013; Söderlundh, 2013; Sung, 2021a, 2021b). One representative example of this phenomenon comes from a study of an international branch campus in Qatar. Hillman et al. (2021) found that Arabic was used in signage throughout the campus and was also used in certain areas of the university’s websites, mostly the admissions section. Thus, Arabic is used by the university as a marketing tool and as a way to communicate with prospective students and 11 their parents (Hillman et al., 2021). Other languages that are common among the international student body, such as Urdu, are notably absent (Hillman et al., 2021). Hillman et al. argue that this demonstrates a preference on the part of the institution for Arabic-English bilingualism, although many languages are represented on the campus. Söderlundh provides another example of the importance of the local language from the Swedish context. She found that the local language is used as an ‘unofficial medium of instruction’ (Söderlundh, 2013, p. 91) in interactions between instructors and students who share Swedish as their first language. In addition, Söderlundh reported that unlike other languages represented at the university, Swedish was used to varying extents in whole-group settings. Other studies (e.g., Hillman et al., 2019, 2021; Sung, 2021a, 2021b) that have examined multilingual practices in EMI settings have found that the local language is sometimes used in academic settings by professors. It is also noteworthy that several studies of attitudes towards multilingualism in EMI have framed their investigation around the use of local languages (e.g. Graham et al., 2021; Paulsrud, Tian, &Toth, 2021). One could interpret this framing as a tacit acknowledgment that the local language plays a larger part in multilingual practices than do other languages. Together, these aforementioned examples demonstrate the significance of the local language in many EMI university contexts. The local language often seems to occupy a special status as an unofficial institutional language. And hence, when we discuss multilingual practices in EMI, it is important to note that the local language is granted comparatively more power than other languages. Let us now turn to a brief examination of the precise ways in which languages other than English are used in EMI settings. The Functions of Languages Other than English in EMI Settings The extent to which languages other than English are used in classes is highly variable, depending on policies, course structure, the professor’s beliefs, and the makeup of the class. 12 There are accounts in the research (e.g., Galloway et al., 2020; Hillman et al., 2019; Söderlundh, 2013) that show that professors within the same institution differ widely in their language use with some professors reporting that they use only English and others reporting more liberal mixing of languages. It seems to be the case that if a professor uses a language other than English in class, it is likely the local language. This trend is reflected in the research reviewed below, although there may be cases of a professor who speaks another language that is shared by some members of the class. Some professors cite the potential exclusion of international students and also the violation of university policy as reasons to use only English in academic settings and avoid the use of the local language (Galloway, 2020; Graham et al., 2021; Karakas, 2016). Yet, the research shows that despite these concerns, it is not altogether uncommon for the local language to be used for various purposes in class. One of the primary purposes for which the local language is used in classes is to reinforce content and ensure students’ understanding (Galloway, 2020; Galloway et al., 2020; Hillman et al., 2019; Karakas, 2016; Muguruza et al., 2020). The local language is sometimes also used for organizational purposes or classroom management (e.g., Hillman et al., 2019; Söderlundh, 2013). Finally, some professors use the local language for more pragmatic purposes, such as telling jokes or establishing rapport with students (e.g., Graham et al., 2021; Hillman et al., 2019). Importantly, in several of the studies reported above, the professors engaged in multilingual practices in spite of institutional language policies. For example, in Karakas’s (2016) study in Turkey, although the university had policies that stipulated only English as the official language of the institution, a majority of instructors who were surveyed believed that it was useful to use Turkish in the classroom. Relatedly, in Hillman et al.’s (2021) study, a professor who regularly told jokes in Arabic was reprimanded by the administration after students who did not 13 understand Arabic filed a complaint. After being reprimanded, the professor continued to use Arabic to tell jokes but was careful to always translate what was being said to avoid future problems (Hillman et al., 2021). Students also use other languages to create meaning and support their learning, both inside and outside of class. These multilingual practices are not limited to the local language and can include other languages, too. Students may use other languages during classes in (a) private asides (Baker & Hüttner, 2019), (b) small group work (Baker & Hüttner, 2019; Kuteeva, 2020; Moore, 2016; Sung, 2021b), and (c) social and extracurricular settings (Baker & Hüttner, 2019; Hazel & Mortensen, 2013; Sung, 2021b). Again, there is variation across contexts in the extent of students’ multilingual practices. One interesting counterexample comes from a study of an EMI university in Denmark, in which students engaged in multilingual practices but also skewed heavily toward maintaining a monolingual English norm. Even when all members of a group spoke Danish, researchers observed an interaction when one student corrected the others, admonishing them to adhere to the English-only policy (Mortensen, 2013). In this case, the researcher concluded that the students’ strong preference for English-only communication was driven by their personally held language ideologies. The diversity in language practices among professors and students reported above and the dissonance between policy and practice reveal the shifting nature of language use in EMI settings. As students move from one context to another or, indeed, one classroom to another, they must navigate and adapt anew to language use in these settings. However, this process of navigation and the choice to use one language or another do not occur freely or in a vacuum devoid of meaning. As demonstrated, the local language occupies a powerful position relative to other languages, which means that the distribution of multilingual practices is not always evenly 14 balanced. It also means that students who speak the local language might have greater access to some aspects of university life than other students might; we will return to this matter below when we consider the experiences of international students in EMI institutions. Furthermore, language use is laden with meaning because it indexes various ideologies (Rosa & Burdick, 2016) and identity positions (Creese & Blackledge, 2015). Mortensen’s (2013) case study clearly shows an example of how language ideologies can influence language use. In the following section, I will continue to describe the impact of language ideologies on language practices. I then address the impacts of identity and emotion specifically as they have been studied in international students in EMI institutions. The Impact of Ideologies on Language Practices in EMI Language ideologies are systems of belief that govern how we value languages, how we explain our use of languages, and how languages index social categories (Rosa & Burdick, 2016). To put a finer point on this definition, Rosa and Burdick (2016) write that language ideologies can be understood as, “…central mediating forces through which language is made meaningful in culturally specific ways…” (p. 108). Language ideologies load languages with shades of meaning and value that color our uses and conceptualizations of language. Language ideologies surrounding what EMI means (i.e., if it ought to be English-only or if there is room for other languages) and the use of other languages in that context have some bearing on how people navigate language use within the international university setting. Some individuals’ personally held ideologies uphold the EMI means English-only norm. One such example is monolingual ideologies, which posit that “languages are developed and should be used in separation from one another” (Moore, 2016, p. 27). The language ideologies that individuals hold come to be expressed in their actions and in their language practices. One 15 way that this ideology can be expressed is through individuals’ conception of the institution. For example, although there was no official language policy at the Danish university in Denmark where Mortensen’s (2013) study was sited, posters were put up around campus that read ‘I Want You to Speak English’. According to Mortensen, these posters demonstrated that strong English monolingual ideologies pervaded the campus. An extension of this position can be manifested in curricular course design. Moore (2016), for example, argued that professors who adopt an English-only course design are influenced by monolingual ideologies. Sometimes monolingual ideologies combine with ideologies that associate English with certain countries, as in the case of an American international branch campus in Qatar, where some instructors linked a perceived mandate to use only English with the fact that their institution is ‘American’ (Hillman et al., 2019). Another way monolingual ideologies could prevail is in people’s beliefs about language learning. For example, some people believe that mixing languages in class would have an adverse effect on the English learning process by (1) causing confusion among students as they switch from one language to another (Graham et al., 2021), or (2) leading students to use their first language as a crutch (Fang & Liu, 2020). Other types of language ideologies also contribute to upholding English-only norms. Song (2019) found that students at an international EMI university in China viewed English as a ‘natural’ lingua franca and expected only English to be used in the classroom. A similar belief was expressed by professors at an international branch campus in Qatar, who believed that English was the language of STEM1 (Hillman et al., 2019). These positions index language ideologies that frame English as the language of academia or as 1 Science, technology, engineering, and math 16 the international language, thus granting English outsized power in comparison to other languages. In contrast to monolingual ideologies, some scholars in the established literature on ideologies in EMI report multilingual ideologies. A multilingual ideological conception of EMI affirms the value of other languages (not exclusively English) for meaning making and the construction of knowledge (Paulsrud, Tian and Toth, 2021). In particular, translanguaging, which refers to the strategic use of one’s entire linguistic repertoire simultaneously to create meaning (García, 2009), is commonly associated with this ideological stance. Multilingual ideologies can be seen through professors’ and students’ professed attitudes and beliefs. One very clear example of this ideological position comes from Fang and Liu’s (2020) study of an EMI university in China. students believed translanguaging was natural for multilinguals, appropriate in their context, necessary for language and content learning, and that it increased their confidence in the classroom. Another example could be drawn from Graham et al.’s (2021) study of student attitudes toward multilingual practices at an international university in Qatar. These students had a positive view of instructors and students using Arabic in classes and indicated that they found this practice both acceptable and helpful. Other students explained that using Arabic in classes was useful for understanding new concepts. One student remarked, “It doesn’t matter what language is used if the point can be reached” (Graham et al., 2021, p. 9). The students in this study also reported that Arabic helped build relationships with their peers and the instructor. Graham et al. concluded that overall, the students on the Qatari campus tended to favor “English as a medium of instruction rather than the monolingual model” (p. 10). The views of the students in both Fang and Liu (2020) and Graham et al. (2021) clearly align with multilingual ideologies in that the students did not believe that keeping languages separate was inherently a better way to 17 use languages. Rather, they saw value in using both English and Arabic simultaneously in their learning process for various purposes. And, furthermore, they conceive of the EMI university space not as an English-only one but as one where multiple languages have value. Similar viewpoints valuing multilingualism were found in several other studies, although in some cases, not all stakeholders were in agreement about this (e.g., Galloway et al., 2020; Karakas, 2106; Sung, 2020) The research presented above paints the EMI institution as one characterized by linguistic tensions. There may be tension between languages, as at the university in Qatar, where English and Arabic dominated to the exclusion of other languages represented at the institution (Hillman et al., 2021). There may be tension between language policies or unofficial norms that construct EMI institutions as English-only spaces and the multilingual reality of the way language is used by administrators, professors, and students who operate within these institutions. At times, individuals and the institutions come to be at loggerheads, as in the example of the professor in Qatar who was reprimanded for using Arabic to tell jokes (Hillman et al., 2021), or the example of professors in Turkey, who, despite monolingual English policies, believed in the pedagogical benefits of using Turkish to foster learning (Karakas, 2016). There may also be conflict within and between individuals. As stated above, professors teaching in seminar rooms next door to each other might use language in the classroom differently. Language ideologies are then also added to this mix of conflicting policies and practices. For some individuals, like the students in Mortensen’s (2013) study, this creates an internal conflict: because of monolingual ideologies they believed they ought to use English in academic spaces despite sometimes engaging in multilingual practices themselves. It is within this complex linguistic atmosphere that international students at EMI institutions find themselves. They are impacted by all of these 18 layered and sometimes contradictory factors as they navigate the EMI university space and attempt to find a place for themselves. The next section will take up their unique experiences specifically and introduce the additional complicating factors of identity and emotions in their experiences of multilingualism in EMI institutions. Situating International Students at EMI Institutions in Non-Anglophone Settings International students, who often do not have the local language as their first language, are in a unique situation, perhaps more precarious in comparison to their local peers. They must navigate the various contexts and ways in which different languages are used in the university, and they must also negotiate a place for themselves within the institutional community and beyond in the larger society. As they wrestle with these complexities, international students may be influenced by language ideologies, and many must fight against being positioned as an outsider and experience a range of emotions associated with this negative positioning. Of course, there is variation among international students regarding how they react to language practices in their institution. Research has shown, for example, that some students adjust easily to the multilingual environment of EMI (e.g., Graham et al, 2021). However, as noted earlier, the literature reveals that international students tend to share certain views, experiences, and struggles in relation to multilingualism in EMI. One commonality is that international students seem to be more likely than their local peers to view EMI as strictly English-only. Or, at the very least, they see a larger role for English in their institution than their peers. In a survey of student attitudes toward Arabic use at an EMI university in Qatar, Graham et al. (2021) found that students whose first language was not Arabic tended to rate professors’ use of Arabic in class as unhelpful. This is in contrast to their peers who have Arabic as their first language who clearly rated professors’ use of Arabic in the 19 classroom as helpful. Although this rating was the only one that reached the threshold of statistical significance, non-Arabic speakers’ survey findings revealed lower ratings of Arabic use across the board (Graham et al., 2021). Similarly, international students in Japan, whose first language was neither English nor Japanese, preferred an English-only approach in academic settings significantly more than their local Japanese speaking peers and international students who have English as their first language. These international students showed significantly more disapproval toward the use of their own language in academic settings than either of the other groups of students (Galloway et al., 2020), which demonstrates the strength of their commitment to EMI as an English-only space. In other research, Sung (2020, 2021b) found that international students in Hong Kong tended to express the belief that EMI should be English-only. These students indicated that monolingual English should prevail both in academic settings and other mixed-language environments, citing issues of fairness as their reasoning. Hence, it appears that international students’ preference for a monolingual environment sometimes also extends beyond the academic realm. In a study that examined students’ expectations of language use at a university in Hong Kong where English was used as a lingua franca, Gardner and Lau (2018) found that international students were more likely to believe that English was necessary for interacting with their classmates and for social settings more generally. The above findings suggest that international students are more likely than their peers to cling to a monolingual view of EMI. As shown in the review of relevant literature in the previous section, international students are certainly not alone in taking an ideological position that constructs EMI institutions as monolingual English spaces. What is unique about international students are the additional reasons for their beliefs. It will be shown below that international students might adopt a 20 monolingual position in response to negative experiences in connection to the use of the local language in EMI settings. Notably, numerous studies have shown that some international students experience marginalization and do not have the same social and academic opportunities as their peers because of a language barrier. Studies of universities in Hong Kong (e.g., Gardner & Lau, 2018; Sung, 2021b) have shown that international students struggled with limited friendships with local students who were unwilling to use English in social situations. These Hong Kong-based studies also found that the options available to international students for extracurricular options were limited because of the language barrier. In some cases, international students were excluded in small-group work when local students insisted on speaking Cantonese (Sung, 2020, 2021b). Thus, some international students in EMI settings lose out on academic and social opportunities because of their lack of understanding of the local language. In addition, some studies in the Swedish EMI context have also revealed how languages can create divisions among students and potentially marginalize some international students (e.g. Kuteeva, 2020; Söderlundh, 2013). Kuteeva (2020), for example, found that at a Swedish EMI university, the majority of translanguaging that took place involved shuttling between English and Swedish. The importance of the local language, in combination with standard language ideologies that reified British English as the most preferred variety, created an ‘elite’ group of students who had mastered both these codes. These ‘elite translinguals’, as Kuteeva describes them, installed themselves as regulators of other students’ language use. The elite group of students preferred to work together and tended to exclude other students according to their perceived language proficiency and language variety. Söderlundh (2013), who conducted EMI 21 research at a Swedish university, also found that Swedish-speaking students and international students tended to form different groups for small group work and discussions. The Effects of International Student Marginalization: Identity, Agency, Ideology and Emotion As a result of the marginalization they may face, some international students thus experience struggles with their identities and negative emotions. At a basic level, some students report feeling offended when the professor uses the local language in class or reported that they found this rude (e.g., Söderlundh, 2013; Sung, 2021b). The perception that the use of the local language is offensive or rude indicates that a norm has been violated or a line has been crossed. These students may have expected English to be used, and they feel slighted when confronted with the use of another language. Some students reported more intense feelings of isolation arising from the use of the local language in class. Consider, for example, this quote from a student in Qatar, “Since I can’t understand the language well, I wouldn’t be able to understand the professor when he/she is teaching or feel like I’m part of the class when he/she makes a joke or if he [sic] is trying to find ways to explain things” (Graham et al, 2021, p. 10). This student’s perception of the professor’s language use clearly goes well beyond rudeness. For her, the use of the local language brings about feelings of alienation, which is indicated by the student’s comment that she did not feel like she was part of the class. These feelings of alienation thus index the threat to the student’s identity that is posed by the use of the local language. Because she does not understand the professor’s explanation or is not in on the joke, her position as an insider in the class is threatened. This phenomenon of alienation has also been observed in other studies. For example, Sung (2021a) compared the identity negotiations of two international students in Hong Kong. This study demonstrates that it is not only access to the local language, but also students’ 22 backgrounds, access to other resources, agency, and language ideologies that influence their identity negotiations. The context was an international liberal arts university in Hong Kong. Although it was an EMI institution, there was some use of Cantonese by instructors. Local Hong Kong students used Cantonese among each other, while Mandarin was used between local students and those from mainland China. Sung’s study is crucial in illuminating the experiences of international students in EMI institutions and reminds us that each student faces a different process of adjustment to the multilingual EMI environment, depending on their background and the context in which they find themselves. The study contrasted the cases of Lily and Vivien. Particularly noteworthy and relevant to my study is Sung’s description of how Lily was able to leverage an insider position for herself within the institution and construct a positive identity in class and among her peers because of her positive view of the local language and multilingualism and because she had greater access to English and Cantonese. This stood in sharp contrast to Vivien, who faced greater struggles in constructing a positive identity. In a similar vein, my study (1) underscores the critical role played by the local language in EMI settings in providing access to academic and social opportunity, and (2) shows a clear example of how language practices index ideologies, identities, and power structures. Put simply, the stakes are high for international students as they navigate the multilingual practices of their institutions. Other EMI research has also revealed some ways that international students can push back against their exclusion. One way to assume a better position is for international students to learn the local language. One student in Kuteeva’s (2020) study, for example, was able to learn Swedish relatively easily, as her first language was German. By learning Swedish and participating in the Swedish-English translanguaging practices that were common at her university, she was able to join the group of ‘elite translinguals’ and referred to Swedish as a 23 kind of “secret hidden language” that they shared (Kuteeva, 2020, p. 296). In the case of this student, access to the local language afforded her in-group status that provided her with greater opportunities for learning and social interactions than her peers without access to Swedish. The experience of this student was similar to Lily’s in Sung’s (2021a) Hong Kong study described earlier. Furthermore, other students may insist that their peers use English and attempt to enforce English-only norms. For example, in Hazel and Mortensen’s (2013) study of informal social interactions on a Danish EMI campus, they observed an international student using humor to tactfully correct his peers’ language use and ask them to switch from Danish to English to include him. Overall, the investigation into the experiences of international students in the context of international EMI universities is only just burgeoning. Sung (2021a) writes, Little is known about international students’ language experiences in contexts where English is not the dominant language of communication in wider society. Accordingly, it is important to investigate how international students navigate their transnational studies in a multilingual yet non-English-dominant university context and negotiate their identities.” (p. 765) As higher education becomes increasingly internationalized, and as more students pursue their studies transnationally (OECD, 2014), it is crucial for researchers and practitioners to understand how international students are impacted by the complex multilingual environment of EMI universities, and also how they adjust to and develop multilingual competence in these settings. Understanding these elements of the international student experience can guide universities in providing adequate support to international students and creating an inclusive multilingual space. Finally, student emotions have not been explicitly examined as a factor influencing multilingual practices and views of language use in EMI, although oblique references to emotion have been consistently present in the research so far on this subtopic, as demonstrated in the 24 literature reviewed above on international students’ perceptions of language use and feelings of exclusion. Indeed, there is a recognition of this gap in the research. As a consequence, Graham et al., (2021) call for the investigation of international students’ emotion, writing, “Given the findings of international student discomfort in this study, future research may be needed to further examine these negative feelings of isolation and look for ways to help them cope in an increasingly multilingual university landscape…” (p. 11). Building on the recent developments in EMI research, the present study will take up a case study of one Afghan student at an international liberal arts university in Kyrgyzstan. The aim of the study is to contribute to the developing understanding of international students’ experiences surrounding multilingual practices in EMI, and to account for the gap in the research by explicitly examining emotion as a factor influencing multilingual practices. The research questions that guided my study are as follows: RQ1 What are the student’s personally held language ideologies, and how do these influence her views of language use on campus and her own language practices? RQ2 How do the student’s identities and emotions influence her views of language use on campus and her own language practices? The study seeks to understand how ideologies, identity, and emotion combine to impact this students’ perception of and adjustment to multilingualism within the institution as well as her own multilingual practices during the first year of her studies. I will explore these questions through the Douglas Fir Group’s theoretical framework to which I turn next. 25 Theoretical Framework: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Language Learning and Teaching The Douglas Fir Group, comprised of a group of leading applied linguists, has developed a transdisciplinary framework for the study of second language acquisition (SLA). The group contends that SLA has previously tended to focus on the linguistic and cognitive factors that impact language learning and neglected other factors. In their framework, the group brings together insights from various disciplines to also account for social factors that affect language learning, such as ideology, identity, and investment, as well as the unique impacts of globalization, technology, and mobility in our multilingual world (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016). Although they do not expect those in the field of SLA to apply the whole framework as written to all research projects, they urge us to think broadly about how the complex factors outlined in their framework all play a role in the cultivation of a multilingual repertoire. It may seem counter-intuitive to apply this theoretical framework, which is designed to investigate language teaching and learning, to EMI, which generally does not make language acquisition its primary goal. However, it is undeniable that a great deal of language learning goes on in EMI settings in both official and unofficial capacities. Multiple studies (e.g., Baker & Hüttner, 2017; Graham et al., 2021; Sung, 2021b) have indicated that students view EMI as a way to improve their English language proficiency. As EMI courses typically do not explicitly address language learning goals, we should assume that this language development results from immersion and students’ independent study. As stated earlier, other studies have revealed that international students may (1) view the local language as a learning target (Baker & Hüttner, 2017), and (2) endeavor to learn it in order to communicate better with their peers or achieve in- group status both in academic and social settings (e.g., Kuteeva, 2020; Sung, 2021a). Thus, EMI institutions clearly contribute in multiple ways to students’ multilingual development. This study 26 will operate under the understanding that multilingual development in an EMI institution takes place both in academic and social settings and includes English and the local language as significant learning targets for students. Crucially, this understanding of multilingual development is in line with the Douglas Fir Group’s framework, which does not limit its conception of language acquisition to formal classroom environments. Figure 2 – The Douglas Fir Group’s transdisciplinary model of SLA (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 25) Before specifying how this framework will be applied to the present study, it is necessary to briefly explain the framework depicted in Figure 2. The framework illustrates a range of 27 forces that are at play in language learning and teaching and the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels at which they operate. Importantly, these three nested spheres, while distinct, mutually influence each other, “…each [level] exists only through constant interaction with the others, such that each gives shape to and is shaped by the next, and all are considered essential to understanding SLA” (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 25). The micro-level of social activity is the space where language use and language learning take place. This sphere describes interactions between individuals and the range of meaning-making resources and cognitive and emotional capacities that individuals employ in these encounters. It is through repeated meaning-making encounters that individuals hone their multilingual repertoires. Emotional capacities are not included in the diagram; however, this is included in the explanation of the micro-level of social activity2. At the meso-level, we find institutions and communities as well as social identities. Institutions and communities are influenced by a particular context’s broader social forces, including the values of economics, culture, politics, and religion. As individuals construct social identities within these institutions and communities, their language learning will be differentially constrained by their identities. At the macro-level, we find overarching ideologies that exist across a society and that assign certain values to various languages and the language learning process (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016). In their explication of the framework, the Douglas Fir Group (2016) outlines ten themes, which arise from the three interrelated spheres depicted above. The present study will focus on three of these themes, which address the impacts of ideologies, identity, and emotion on 2 “As shown in Figure 1, we see L2 learning as an ongoing process that begins at the micro level of social activity (the smallest concentric circle), with individuals recruiting their neurological mechanisms and cognitive and emotional capacities and engaging with others in specific multilingual contexts of action and interaction, resulting in recurring contexts of use that contribute to the development of multilingual repertoires.” (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 24). 28 multilingual development, however. It is to each of these themes then I turn next as I also summarize the impacts of each theme as described by the Douglas Fir Group. Theme 9: Ideology Theme 9 of the framework states Ideologies Permeate All Levels (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 33). The authors quote Kroskrity (2010) and argue that language ideologies are often related to the value systems of both individuals, social groups, and nation states3. They argue that language ideologies: • influence language policies that “exist at the individual, family, community, state, and national levels” (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 33), governing how languages are used, valued, and the extent to which they are taught. • sometimes working on concert with other ideologies, influence the way individuals value certain languages or language varieties and the pursuit of language learning in general as well as the opportunities for language education that they encounter at institutions such as schools • can influence, for the better or the worse, the way individuals engage in language learning and their identities as language learners. The above arguments place the influence of language ideologies not only in the outermost macro sphere, but also at the meso-level of communities and institutions, and at the micro-level of individuals. Although they may be invisible, language ideologies have a hand in determining the nature and availability of language education as well as the relationships of individuals to 3 “Language ideologies are especially significant to the endeavors of multilingual learning because ‘beliefs, feelings, and conceptions about language structure and use […] often index the political economic interests of individual speakers, ethnic and other groups, and nation states’ (Kroskrity, 2010, p. 192). Thus, ideologies influence the access, investment, and agency into a new language that learners may or may not (be able or willing to) exert.” (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 33). 29 language learning as a pursuit and to themselves as language learners. For the purposes of the present study, I will focus primarily on how language ideologies exist at the level of individuals. A fuller understanding of the landscape of language ideologies in the institution and in Kyrgyzstan as a whole is beyond the scope of this project. Theme 7: Identity Theme 7 states Language Learning is Identity Work (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 31). As mentioned previously, identity exists on the meso-level of sociocultural institutions and communities. The authors define identity as, “aspects of L2 learners’ personhoods that are defined in terms of ways in which individuals understand their relationship to the world” (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 31). Identity impacts language learning in that a learner’s social identity, both in terms of the way learners conceive of themselves and the identity categories ascribed to them by others, affects their interactions with others, their access to community membership, and, ultimately, their opportunities for language learning. The Douglas Fir Group writes, ... depending on their perceived or ascribed race, ethnicity, gender, or social class, some L2 learners may find that the opportunities they have access to for language learning and for participation in their communities are limited or constrained by the ways in which they are positioned by others, while other L2 learners may find their opportunities to be abundant and unbounded. (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 32). Learner identity will play a major role in the present study, as we see the focal participant grapple with the limitations of her identity as an Afghan international student and fight to assert an identity that will make her fully seen and heard in her community. 30 Theme 10: Emotion Theme 10 of the framework states that Emotion and Affect Matter at All Levels (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 36). The authors first argue for the importance of emotion and affect at the neurobiological level and the connection between emotion and cognition. Most crucial for the present study is their assertion that “language learning is also an affectively driven process, that is, a process that is experienced (and reflected upon and expressed and talked about, with different degrees of emotion) as an interrelational, socially co-constructed phenomenon” (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 36). This is to say that language learners reflect on and have emotions surrounding their language learning experiences. The emotions do not just occur incidentally but help to guide the process of multilingual development. Emotion may motivate a learner to continue pursuing language learning, or it could create a stumbling block. The Douglas Fir Group also argues that emotion is intimately connected to “identity, agency, and power” (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 36). Thus, going forward in my analysis of the present study, identity and emotion will often be analyzed jointly as factors that drive and illuminate one another. 31 Chapter Two Context The focal university, which will be given the pseudonym Bishkek University (BU), is a well-established EMI institution in Kyrgyzstan, which has existed since the late 1990’s. In 2008, a partnership with a liberal arts college in the US was forged. Through this partnership, students at BU in select degree programs graduate with a diploma from the US partner college. On its website, BU defines itself as an international liberal arts university. The website also proudly displays the numerous partnerships the university has with organizations and institutions abroad as well as the high-profile organizations and universities where graduates have found employment or continued their studies after graduation. Following Jenkins (2014), the university website can provide us with insights into the overt and covert language policies of the institution. In the case of BU, the university website content can be accessed in English and Russian, but the admissions page is trilingual in English, Russian, and Kyrgyz. According to the university website’s Mission, Values, and Goals page, instruction and academic work are carried out principally in English, and most courses are offered in English. Other than this statement, I was not able to find a more specific language statement describing how various languages are to be used and by whom. Based on this statement, however, it seems that while English plays a dominant role in academics at BU, it is not the only permissible language. The phrasing of the above statement on language use implies that there is room for other languages to co-exist at this institution, but the nature and extent of the use of other languages remains unclear. One possible interpretation could be made from the fact that students must take (1) two semesters of Russian and two semesters of Kyrgyz as part of their general education 32 requirement, and (2) a state exam on Kyrgyz language and literature as a condition of graduation. Additionally, my personal experience and student interviews revealed that the university sends out some official emails in a bilingual format (English and Russian). Based on the university website, the language requirements, and the bilingual emails, we can tentatively conclude that while English is the dominant language of the institution, Russian (and, to an extent Kyrgyz) are sanctioned by the university and used for official purposes. Accounts from the student informants’ own experiences at BU (including classes, clubs, events, and social settings) are consistent with the above findings. When she considered language use at BU in terms of percentages, in both official and non-official settings, Zohra believed that English was used roughly seventy percent of the time, and Russian was used roughly thirty percent of the time (Zohra, Interview 4). Alexander also indicated that he believed he uses about seventy percent English and thirty percent Russian, however, he was characterizing his own patterns of language use (Alexander, Interview 4). Kankykei differed in her assessment of the breakdown of languages at BU, which she characterized as roughly eighty percent English, ten percent Russian, and five percent each of Kyrgyz and Persian (Kanykei, Interview 4). However, she clarified that Russian, Kyrgyz, and Persian were used primarily in social situations (Kanykei, Interview 4). When asked about language use in official university settings, she said that it is “100 percent English” save for some emails sent by the registrar’s office (Kanykei, Interview 4). Yet, Kanykei’s own characterization of language use at BU is inconsistent. At other points, she said that she has used Russian when communicating with her academic advisor (Kanykei, Interview 4) and also that at least one of her professors regularly uses Russian during instruction (Kanykei, Interview 2 Follow-up). 33 Within classes, the student informants reported a range of practices, including monolingual English (Alexander, Interview 4; Kanykei, Interview 2 Follow-up), occasional use of Russian for clarification (Alexander, Interview 4; Zohra, Interview 4), and “English slash Russian” (Kanykei, Interview 2 Follow-up). It is important to note that all the students in Kanykei’s class where “English slash Russian” was used were Russian speakers (Kanykei, Interview 2 Follow-up), which may point to professors’ awareness of how their language use could exclude non-Russian speaking students. Relatedly, Alexander and Zohra also indicated that if professors used Russian, they generally did so tactfully by following up any Russian explanation with an English one (Alexander, Interview 4; Zohra, Interview 3). It was noteworthy that Zohra identified a distinction between language used by the institution and those only used by students. She described how students from Turkey use Turkish amongst themselves, but that “[…] but it’s like, the professors don’t specifically talk to them in Turkish. […] we don’t receive any email in […] Turkish language, or the events are not in Turkish” (Zohra, Interview 4). To be clear, this characterization of language use is purely anecdotal and limited to the perceptions of the three student informants. For this reason, although these characterizations provide some insight into the context, it is not possible to say with certainty whether they are accurate. I would add, however, that based on my experience at BU, the language breakdown described by the students generally aligns with my perceptions. Still, bearing these caveats in mind, these findings do support those in the literature reviewed above, which suggested (1) that the local language plays a significant secondary role in international EMI institutions in both official and non- official settings and (2) that language practices vary within the institution, e.g., between classrooms. 34 The university population comprises a diverse group of students, faculty members, and administrators. According to the available figures on the university website and elsewhere, there are approximately 1,300 students enrolled at the university representing 19 countries (University Fairs, n.d.) Students from outside of Kyrgyzstan make up approximately 43% of the student population (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2021). It should be noted that some of these international students are Russian speakers, as some of them come from Russia or from countries in Central Asia where Russian continues to play various roles in society. For instance, Russian is a co-official language in Kazakhstan (Sabitova & Alishariyeva, 2015), a common second language in Uzbekistan (Wei & Kolko, 2005). And, in Tajikistan, Russian-medium schooling is common, and Russian is a mandatory class for children attending Tajik- and Uzbek-language schools (Khudoikulova, 2015). In addition, BU offers scholarships specifically for students from Afghanistan, and Afghan students currently make up the largest subpopulation of international students. The faculty population is made up of 195 local instructors and 58 international instructors (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2021). BU requires prospective students to pass admissions exams. The university produces their own entrance exam, which assesses math, English proficiency, and writing. Alternatively, students have the option to take the SAT or the ACT plus writing and the TOEFL or IELTS exam to meet the entrance exam requirements. The university also sets a minimum score requirement, and individual departments can set their own score requirements. Students who receive satisfactory scores on these exams are able to enter the university directly. The university offers a preparatory year program (PYP) that offers intensive preparation in English, Math, and Russian and aims to develop students’ overall academic and critical thinking skills. However, attending the PYP is not a precondition of admission to the university. 35 Participants Four participants were initially recruited to participate in the study. The goal was to assemble a group of participants who represented a variety of ethnic and language backgrounds to reflect the diversity of the student body. These participants were selected with the help of the preparatory year program director, who was able to identify students who fit these criteria and who were reliable, motivated, and good communicators in English. Ultimately, one student withdrew from the study, leaving three remaining participants. In keeping with the personal nature of the study, the participants chose their own pseudonyms. Their demographic information is presented in the table below. The study began as a broader exploration of the impacts of ideology and identity on students’ language practices in EMI settings. As the study progressed, it became clear that Zohra, an Afghani female student, would be the focus of the study because her experiences as an international student pointed to important areas of investigation in the field of EMI research. Table 1 - Student Participants Languages Language Home Name Age Gender spoken at used in Major Country home schooling Kyrgyz, Business Kanykei 18 Female Kyrgyzstan Russian Russian Administration Russian, Software Alexander 18 Male Kyrgyzstan Russian Uzbek Engineering International Zohra 20 Female Afghanistan Dari Dari Business Law Data Collection and Analysis This study takes a qualitative case study approach (Gass & Mackey, 2012) with the goal of illuminating the unique experiences and perspective of one international student. A case study seeks to exemplify larger issues in SLA through the close, extended study of a small number of individuals or even just one individual (Gass & Mackey, 2012). Although this intensive focus on a limited number of participants may make the findings of case studies difficult to generalize, 36 they provide a rich, fine-grained analysis of the research issue at hand that can (1) crystallize theoretical concepts in concrete experiences, and (2) reveal insights that could inform future research in the field (Gass & Mackey, 2012). The present study began as a multiple case study, but was eventually narrowed to a single case study of Zohra. As is typical of qualitative research, the study took an interactive approach that allowed the direction of the study to change in response to findings arising from student interviews. It was through these interview findings that the topic of the study was narrowed to the ideologies, identities, and emotions of international students. The present study takes its cue from other case study research in EMI, namely Sung’s (2021a) case study contrasting Lily and Vivien, which was described in the literature review. Like Sung’s study, the present study has sought to illuminate the unique views, experiences, and practices of the focal participant surrounding language use at the focal university. However, because I chose to take up emotion as an explicit point of analysis, which had not been previously done in EMI research, the present case study is exploratory in nature. Data collection for this study began in the Spring of 2021 and concluded in January 2022. A number of data sources were collected, which are enumerated below: • A survey of students in the preparatory year program to gather their demographic information, the languages they speak, their reasons for attending BU, and their future plans • Syllabi from two instructors in the preparatory year program • Information and policies stated on the university website • One writing assignment from each of the student participants including instructor feedback 37 • One 1-2 hour individual semi-structured interview with two faculty members of the preparatory year program to gather background information about the university and about classroom language practices. • Four 1-2 hour individual semi-structured interviews with the three student participants to gather information about their experiences as students, language practices, and views about language use All interview protocols are available in the appendix. The semi-structured interviews with Zohra are the main data source for this study. This is because of the nature of the research questions, which regard her personal beliefs and language practices. The interview data collected from the other two participants and the other data sources were used to corroborate my focal participant’s (Zohra’s) characterizations of the university and provide additional contextual information from their perspectives. The interviews were transcribed and then analyzed thematically in accordance with the research questions, following a process of inductive coding and an iterative process of re-coding (Gass & Mackey, 2012). Zohra Over the course of our interviews, Zohra and I discussed her background, her reasons for choosing to attend BU, and her plans for the future. She described herself as a motivated student who loves school and learning (Zohra, Interview 1) and a leader among her peers (Zohra, Interview 4). She first started studying English as a school subject in tenth grade and quickly realized that she enjoyed the language. With her English skills, she was able to attend an international youth leadership camp in eleventh grade and return as a counselor in twelfth grade (Zohra, Interview 1). She credits English with “[bringing] many many positive changes in [her] life” (Zohra, Interview 1). She went on to explain how English has allowed her to travel, 38 network, win a scholarship to study abroad, and seize her independence (Zohra, Interview 1). Her older sister also attended BU, and her sister’s positive experience was the main reason she chose to attend this university, too (Zohra, Interview 1). She emphasized that attending BU would allow her to become independent, meet students from other countries, go on exchange programs, and learn Russian (Zohra, Interview 1). She wrote in her journal about her dreams of attending BU and even drew a picture of herself carrying a backpack and a laptop standing in front of the university (Zohra, Interview 1). She reported that her dreams of attending BU motivated her to work hard to realize her goals (Zohra, Interview 1). She did not consider attending any universities except BU (Zohra, Interview 1), and she also indicated that attending an English-medium university was important for her (Zohra, Interview 3). In the future, she aims to earn a master’s degree in economics from an English-medium university abroad (Zohra, Interview 1). However, Zohra’s path to studying at BU was not always easy, and she encountered resistance from friends and family members who disapproved of her desire to study abroad (Zohra, Interview 1). Despite their disapproval, she pushed on with her plans to study at BU. Zohra has a positive view of Bishkek and of BU. In our first interview, she spoke at length about the relief she has experienced living in Bishkek where she has more freedom than she did at home. She described the oppressive circumstances that she has experienced since she was a young girl in Afghanistan, being forced to wear a chador and being unable to go into the city alone (Zohra, Interview 1). When I asked her how she felt when she moved to Bishkek, she said, “I felt free. I felt comfortable because no one judged me. No one judged me because of my appearance. No one did. Because the one that I am, who I am and how I am. So I really really love everything in Bishkek” (Zohra, Interview 1). She expressed equally warm feelings about her 39 classmates (Zohra, Interview 1; Zohra, Interview 4) and the university, referring to the “[BU] family” and praising the university for valuing diversity and Afghan culture (Zohra, Interview 4). In keeping with the theoretical framework outlined in Chapter One, the present study will examine how Zohra’s personally held language ideologies along with her identities and emotions influenced her views of language practices at BU as well as her own language practices. As we go forward in discussing and analyzing her experiences, it is important to remember that Zohra dreamed about studying at BU for a long time and fought hard to get there. It is also important to remember that despite some struggles, her experience at BU has been overwhelmingly positive. She consistently spoke highly of the university and of her classmates, and she views the university as a place where she can be free and independent. Researcher Positionality In conducting research for this study, I have made a concerted effort to consider how my own biases and preconceptions could impact my work. I am a White woman who grew up in the American Midwest. English was the only language spoken in my household, and both of my parents hold master’s degrees. It was a foregone conclusion that my brother and I would both attend college when we grew up. Because I grew up a White, monolingual English speaker with access to valuable cultural capital through my parents’ educational backgrounds, I have found a place already prepared for me in the educational institutions, jobs, and social spaces I have entered. That is, I was able to seamlessly enter new spaces with the tacit assumption that I would be an insider and that my race and language variety would be perceived positively. The gravity of this fact was lost on me until I lived overseas, where, outside of the cultural milieu I had always taken for granted, I was confronted with my privilege. Although I was not in the racial majority and only spoke the local languages poorly, I once again found a place prepared for me 40 in the countries I visited because of the positive perceptions of White Americans. Despite my struggles to communicate and lack of awareness of local customs, people were uniformly kind and helpful to me, and they were excited to hear where I was from. On many occasions, my status as a White American afforded me preferential treatment and unearned access to various spaces and services. Thus, although Zohra and I share the experience of living abroad independently as young women in our twenties, I am acutely aware of how our experiences contrast. At every turn, my experience was made easier by prevailing power structures. Ultimately, nobody is better suited to tell this story than Zohra herself. I have endeavored to understand Zohra and her experiences on her own terms and to draw conclusions that reflect her experiences authentically. For the 2016-2017 academic year, I was an English instructor in BU’s preparatory year program (PYP). During this time, I became familiar with the local context and the workings of the university and built relationships with other faculty members and administrators. I have my own impressions of the university community and memories of language practices in some areas of university life. My experiences there helped to guide me in forming my research and interview questions, and they also allowed me to corroborate some of what interviewees reported about the university. Most importantly, I was able to rely on my former colleagues and supervisor for assistance in initiating and carrying out the study. My work at BU also shaped the design of the study. My affiliation with the PYP led me to select participants from that segment of the student body because my former supervisor could help me orchestrate this process. Although I do bring an insider perspective of a kind to this study, there are significant gaps in my knowledge and experiences. I have direct knowledge only of the policies and practices that existed among PYP instructors during the time I was there. These policies and practices may have changed since my 41 relatively brief employment. As a PYP instructor, I was not privy to the policies and practices of undergraduate instructors, and I have little direct knowledge of student life outside of class. My experience of the university was also circumscribed by my role and by my positioning as a native English-speaking, White, American instructor. I moved through the university with a degree of comfort and authority granted to me by my positioning, and my experiences at the university and my impressions of it have been conditioned by this. 42 Chapter Three Findings and Discussion Let us briefly recall the research questions that guided this study: RQ1 What are the student’s personally held language ideologies, and how do these influence her views toward language use on campus and her own language practices? RQ2 How do the student’s identities and emotions influence her views toward language use on campus and her own language practices? The findings of the present study align with the research in the field presented above in Chapter One, but they also open some avenues of inquiry that have not yet been adequately explored. Like other international students in transnational EMI settings, Zohra held a strong view of BU as a monolingual English space, and she experienced emotions of alienation, sadness, and anger in conjunction with her positioning as an outsider as a non-Russian speaker. The present study offers new insight into how Zohra grappled with her language ideologies and her emotions surrounding language practices, and how these changed over time as she adjusted to BU. These findings add greater qualitative texture to the work that has already been done on views of language use and language practices among international students in EMI. They also shed new light on the internal reflective work international students may engage in as they navigate the linguistic complexities of EMI settings. The findings and discussion will be presented in the following way. I will take up each of the research questions that guided this study and present the findings that relate to each part of the research questions. For example, RQ1 consists of three parts: (1) What are the student’s personally held language ideologies? (2) How do these influence her views of language use on campus? And (3) How do her language ideologies influence her own language practices? RQ1 43 will be dealt with first, beginning with an exploration of Zohra’s personally held language ideologies that lead her to believe that EMI ought to mean English-only, to hold a negative view of multilingual practices in some instances, and to conflate American with English-only. Then, the influence of these language ideologies on Zohra’s view of language practices at BU will be explored. The findings and discussion related to RQ1 will conclude with an exploration of how Zohra’s personally held language ideologies guide some aspects of her language practices at BU. The exploration of RQ2 will begin with findings related to how Zohra’s identities and emotions were affected by language use at BU. Then, it will move on to an analysis of how Zohra’s identity positioning and emotions influenced her view of how language ought to be used. Finally, it will show how Zohra’s identity positioning and emotional experience motivated her to use language in particular ways to foster inclusion and create a place for herself within the BU community. The findings and discussion section will conclude with an analysis of how Zohra’s managed her emotions and her expectations of how language ought to be used, and how her positions changed over time. The Influence of Zohra’s Personally Held Language Ideologies: Her Ideal Vision of BU RQ1 What are the student’s personally held language ideologies, and how do these influence her views toward language use on campus and her own language practices? EMI Should be English-only Multiple studies (e.g., Galloway et al., 2020; Graham et al., 2021; Sung 2020, 2021b) have found that international students in EMI settings around the world are more likely than their peers who speak the local language to believe that EMI should be English-only. Zohra’s beliefs conformed to this pattern, and she expressed the position that EMI means English-only numerous times over the course of our interviews. In Interview 3, we discussed how much emphasis she 44 placed on the fact that English is used at BU. She indicated that this was of utmost importance to her and that she initially believed the institution would be “100 percent English” (Zohra, Interview 3). She added that she spent a great deal of time studying English in preparation for attending BU. Zohra also believed “if [she did not] know English, or if [she did not pass the TOEFL], [she could not] study in BU” (Zohra, Interview 3). While it is true that BU has an English proficiency requirement, which was outlined above, the way Zohra phrased her response seems to indicate that she placed great importance on the TOEFL and on English language proficiency as an arbiter of admission to BU. Her expectation was that BU would be absolutely English-only, and she seemed to view language use in a binary way. That is, she did not initially see room for other languages in academic contexts within the university. Zohra seemed to believe that attaining a passing score on the TOEFL for admission to BU meant that students would be able to use only English throughout their studies. Negative View of Multilingual Practices Zohra further explained her ideological position when she took the stance that only one language at a time (OLAT) is appropriate. OLAT is the notion that only one language should be used for communication and meaning making at any given time, and it is based on a negative view of language mixing (Wei & Wu, 2009). In Interview 3, Zohra expressed strong support for OLAT and indicated a critical view of translingual practices. She again brought up the fact that all students at BU have passed the TOEFL exam and questioned why professors should feel the need to translate into Russian, given that students have proven their English proficiency. She further solidified her position by imagining herself as a Russian-speaking student, saying “[…] if my professors translate things in Russian, so why should I focus on English? Why should I learn new words in English? Because I already know that the professor will provide me Russian words 45 as well. […] Like make students lazy or something.” (Zohra, Interview 3). In this exchange, Zohra showed a strong preference for OLAT, positioning monolingual practices as the ‘right’ way to use language and condemning multilingual practices for creating ‘lazy’ students. Based on the above findings, it is clear that Zohra conceived of BU as a strictly English- only space, and she held a negative view of multilingual practices in academic contexts. What is notably absent from her statements here is the idea that mixing languages is natural for many multilinguals, as students in Fang and Liu’s (2020) study indicated. Thus, Zohra’s beliefs seem to align more with monolingual language ideologies, which were defined in Chapter One. Monolingual ideologies conceive of languages as fundamentally separate, impenetrable entities (Moore, 2016). OLAT could be characterized as a type of monolingual ideology (Wei & Wu, 2009). Zohra is certainly not alone in viewing EMI settings as strictly monolingual. Her remarks are reminiscent of those from students in Denmark who sought to maintain monolingual norms as a result of monolingual language ideologies (Mortensen, 2013). Other studies of EMI settings have found that some individuals find the use of multiple languages to be detrimental, just as Zohra does. Graham et al. (2021) revealed that some stakeholders believed that the use of multiple languages would cause confusion among students, while Fang and Liu (2020) found that some individuals believed mixing languages would lead students to use their first language as a crutch. American = English-Only Zohra’s conviction that BU should be English-only is also supported by an ideology that equates American with English-only. As Zohra and I were discussing the reasons why she believed monolingual practices were the most appropriate, she cited the fact that BU is an American institution as one of her reasons on multiple occasions. It is noteworthy that the other 46 two student informants made similar statements (Alexander, Interview 2; Kanykei, Interview 2) In our third interview, Zohra and I discussed the significance she attributed to the university’s status as an American institution. Before attending BU in person, she ascribed much more significance to this fact and believed that it meant “everything is in English” (Zohra, Interview 3). After attending in person, however, Zohra no longer believed the university fit into her conception of an American institution. She said, “[…] I think it shouldn’t be [called an American university]. […] But if I say [American-Russian university] I can provide a good explanation of this university.... Like I can tell the audience or people […] who wants to come to [BU] […] that, yes, Russian is also needed.” (Zohra, Interview 3). What is particularly striking about Zohra’s comments here is not only that she believes the Americanness of the institution means that it will be an English-only environment, but that deviations from this ideal monolingual picture in some way delegitimize the university. That is, it seems that a multilingual university is not really an American university in her eyes. Zohra expressed a preference for native-speaker norms in Interview 2. At the same time, she reported that clear communication was more important to her than adhering to native speaker norms, although sounding like a native speaker was still an ideal that she strived to achieve (Zohra, Interview 2). Interestingly, however, native speaker norms did not figure prominently in our further discussions of language practices. She did not appear to be attached to the use of any particular variety of English at BU, but rather to a more general English-only environment. Impact of language ideologies on Zohra’s views of language use on campus This brings us to the second part of RQ1, where we consider how the ideologies discussed above filter into Zohra’s views of how language is used at BU. In Interview 2, we discussed language practices at BU at length. She described negative experiences in one of her 47 PYP classes in which the professor frequently used Russian to address only one student in the class (Zohra, Interview 2). After she recounted this incident, we went on to discuss other potential language practices to gain a better understanding of her opinion of how languages should be used at BU. I asked her how she would feel if Persian were also used in the classroom. Her response incorporated the ideological conflation of American as English-only, saying “[…] So if it was like that […] First of all, I would change the name of the university. I wouldn’t put [American university]. But […] [American-Persian-Russian university]. […] I feel it’s unfair, even if the teacher let me to talk in Persian.” (Zohra, Interview 2). Her statement about how these language practices would be unfair will be addressed later, as this is connected to her identity and emotion. The main point here is that she objected to potentially incorporating further multilingual practices on ideological grounds, repeating the notion that multilingual practices would require a change in the status of the university. This same ideology conflating English- only and Americanness appeared later when Zohra called for the implementation of policies that would enforce English-only practices. She said that because the university is an American institution, only English should be allowed in class (Zohra, Interview 2). Zohra’s comments above echo those of interviewees in Hillman et al. (2019), in which instructors cited the fact that their institution is an American one as a reason why they should use only English. The ideology that monolingual practices are more beneficial than multilingual practices also resurfaced in her views on language practices at BU. In Interview 4, when we were discussing her language practices in social situations, I asked Zohra whether she thought it would be better for her to speak Russian in social situations or for everyone to default to English. She replied, “Of course English.” (Zohra, Interview 4). She reiterated that BU is an American institution, that all classes are conducted in English, and that using only English in social 48 situations would help with students’ English learning. When I asked for clarification, she repeated that the main reason she thought only English should be used in social situations is to support students’ language learning (Zohra, Interview 4). Zohra’s comments here manifest the language ideologies that were discussed above, namely OLAT and the normative view that equates American with monolingual English. At some points, however, Zohra’s views of multilingual practices in academic settings softened. In response to my question in Interview 3 about whether there could be anything positive about using other languages in class, she agreed that engaging in side talk in other languages to support content learning was acceptable (Zohra, Interview 3). This stood in stark contrast to earlier conversations when Zohra said that she believed students should only use English in their classes (Zohra, Interview 2). I asked her about this apparent change in her point of view, and she told me that the reason for this shift was the modality of the classes (Zohra, Interview 3). Whereas her PYP classes had all been online because of the pandemic, her undergraduate courses were in person. She found the use of other languages for side talk in face- to-face class to be less disruptive because students can quietly whisper to one another, whereas this is not possible in a video call (Zohra, Interview 3). Also in Interview 3, Zohra expressed a more accepting view of undergraduate professors occasionally using Russian in classes. In part, this was because of a difference in how professors went about incorporating Russian. While she felt that the PYP professor was showing one student preferential treatment, she felt her undergraduate professors handled the situation more tactfully. She remarked, “Instead, professors try to make sure if one of the students understood or not, but also she already translate the word in English as well. It's like, say the word in English first and say it in Russian again. And just to make sure that students understood.” (Zohra, 49 Interview 3). In Interview 4, Zohra expressed an even more accepting view of multilingual practices in the classroom. She reported that although Russian was not used overwhelmingly in her classes, professors “regularly” use Russian to address students (Zohra, Interview 4). In contrast to her previous rejection of these practices, Zohra stated that she was accustomed to the use of Russian (Zohra, Interview 4). Although she had conceived of BU as a monolingual space, and although her personally held language ideologies led her to make certain judgements about how language ought to be used, Zohra could exercise her agency to critically reflect on her beliefs. As she gained more experiences at BU, Zohra was prepared to integrate this new information and rethink some of her previous positions. Impact of language ideologies on Zohra’s language practices Now, part three of RQ1 will be examined, which regards how Zohra’s personally held language ideologies influenced her language practices. Zohra’s language ideologies led her to engage in primarily monolingual practices in academic university settings. In Interview 1, when we were discussing the purposes for which she used the various languages in her repertoire, she remarked, “For English, I use it for my academic parts. […] because I study in [BU] in [an American university], so I should use this language. I cannot talk in Persian in this university.” (Zohra, Interview 1). Once again, we see Zohra’s strong commitment to a monolingual environment and her adherence to ideologies linking American with English. She holds these beliefs so strongly that she feels that she is not allowed to use her native language for academic purposes, which again sets up a binary view of language use. She also reported that she believed she should primarily speak English in small group work, even if her groupmates all spoke Persian (Zohra, Interview 2). She explained that some use of Persian would be acceptable for questions or clarification, but that because this is an academic situation, English is the most 50 appropriate language (Zohra, Interview 2). Thus, we see that like the students in Denmark in Mortensen’s (2013) study, Zohra’s monolingual language ideologies pushed her to adhere to monolingual practices and actively avoid using her first language in the context of university settings. In later interviews, Zohra reiterated her position that English should be used for academics at BU because she believes it is the best way to enhance her language learning. She explained that while she used resources in Persian to support her content learning in math classes in the PYP, she essentially never did this for English coursework in the PYP because she believed that doing so would help to improve her English skills (Zohra, Interview 2). She repeated the same belief in our third interview, adding that using languages other than English would be a hindrance and make her work take longer (Zohra, Interview 3). She also stated that she tried to use English in academic situations even when she is speaking with another Afghani student because speaking only English would benefit her language learning process (Zohra, Interview 3). Here again, Zohra’s ideological position that privileges monolingual practices over multilingual practices is evident. Because she seems to view monolingual practices as more beneficial, she strives to use only English in her academic work. Although Zohra did soften some of her ideological positions regarding what kind of language practices are acceptable at BU, it seems that this renegotiation of her position did not affect her own language practices. She tended to remain steadfast in her belief that English was the most appropriate language for her to use in academic contexts. However, in the following section when the findings for RQ2 are explored, we will see that her language practices were more complex than they appear here. The above findings demonstrate the principle set forth by The Douglas Fir Group (2016) that ideologies matter at all levels, including the level of individual language use and social 51 practices. Before coming to BU, Zohra had been exposed to prevailing language ideologies that exist across contexts. She internalized these ideologies as part of her own belief system surrounding language learning and appropriate language use. These internalized ideologies structured Zohra’s perception of BU as an institution, leading her to assume that language would be viewed in a binary fashion and that only English would be used within the university. Her personally held language ideologies also guided her use of language in her interactions with others, leading her to avoid using Dari – even with other Afghanis – to conform to patterns of language use that she believed were required of her in the context of an American EMI university. However, these findings also demonstrate that one’s personally held language ideologies do not determine future views and language practices absolutely. With the passage of time and the accumulation of new information and experiences, some of Zohra’s stances on language practices changed. These findings also show how individuals’ personally held ideologies can be multiple and complex. The findings presented above showed that Zohra’s commitment to a general monolingual ideology that frames languages as fundamentally separate entities was shot through with other related ideologies, such as those that frame monolingual language practices as superior for language learning and those that conflate Americanness with monolingual English. Zohra’s ideological positions were contradictory in that despite relaxing her view of others’ classroom language practices, she persisted in her belief that she should strive to use only English in academic settings. The Impact of Zohra’s Identity and Emotions: Fighting to be Seen and Heard RQ2 How do the student’s identities and emotions influence her views of language use on campus and her own language practices? 52 Zohra’s identities and emotions complicate her ideological conception of BU as a monolingual space. At times, the alienation she felt in response to the use of Russian reinforced her monolingual ideologies and gave her more reason to believe that BU should be an English- only university. At other times, however, the need to adapt to the institution by constructing an insider identity led her to strategically incorporate Russian into her multilingual repertoire. To adequately contextualize RQ2, it is necessary to show how language practices on campus impacted Zohra’s sense of identity and her emotions. Exclusion and Identity Positioning Zohra felt alienated and sometimes experienced intense negative emotions in situations when Russian was being used. These negative feelings and sense of being an outsider were the strongest at the beginning of her time at BU. In our second interview, Zohra talked passionately about how one of her PYP professors would consistently use Russian in class. She explained that the class was made up of about ten Afghani Persian-speaking students and about three Russian- speaking students. Her professor’s language use made her feel insecure, and she reiterated several times that she felt like she was not a member of the class (Zohra, Interview 2). Initially, she also blamed herself for her inability to understand her professor (Zohra, Interview 2). She expanded on this experience later in the interview, saying several times how “upset” and “bad” she felt (Zohra, Interview 2). She also recounted her thought process, saying, “Oh my God, what should I do?’ I was like, thinking, thinking about learning Russian. I was like, okay, it’s my problem, I should understand Russian.” (Zohra, Interview 2). And she clarified that while she harbored no resentment toward the Russian language or her need to learn it, she found it unfair when “the leader of the class […] [chooses] someone and [talks] in another language.” (Zohra, Interview 2). Because she reiterated several times how upset she felt, I would infer that there is a 53 great deal of hurt behind what she defined as feeling “upset” or “bad”. Additionally, her statement, “Oh my God, what should I do?”, telegraphs a sense of desperation and anxiety. She also clearly expressed a sense of inequity by saying that the professor’s use of Russian was unfair. This sense of unfairness has also appeared in other studies that examined international students’ view of language practices in EMI settings (e.g., Sung, 2020, 2021b). Furthermore, in Interview 2, Zohra reported that the university sends some official emails in Russian. She had an intense negative reaction to this experience, saying: We receive a lot of emails. But why they do it in Russian only sometimes? This is a question in my mind. You know, I was -- I was thinking to message or to email [the president of the university] to change the name of the university. […] I was like, really mad. I was really upset in the beginning. I was like, checking. Okay, this is an email from [BU], but it's in Russian. […] We have Google translator, but I’m a student at the university, and it's [an American university]. Why they are sending me email in Russian? (Zohra, Interview 2) Zohra’s remarks above demonstrate how her experiences of exclusion sometimes intermixed with her ideological conceptions of the university. The emails in Russian made her feel excluded from the university community, and they also flew in the face of her conception of the university as an English-only institution. It is also notable here that the emotional response this incident elicited was not sadness or insecurity, but anger, and, specifically, anger directed at the administration. In this instance, Zohra’s anger made her want to get in touch with the highest authority possible to register a complaint. Her desire to get in touch with the president of the university reveals the intensity of the anger and sense of injustice that Zohra was experiencing as a result of feeling excluded by these emails. Her anger may also be a reflection of how her expectations of how the university ought to work were not being met and how her personally held language ideologies were being undercut. That is, the set of norms that she believed ought 54 to exist within BU were being violated, and she wanted to register this anger with someone in authority who could set the situation right (in her eyes). Zohra reported another difficult experience during freshman orientation week that left her feeling alienated from the group and deeply upset. Although most of the orientation program was conducted in English, she and another student informant reported that the team-building portion of orientation was conducted primarily in Russian (Alexander, Interview 3; Zohra, Interview 3). Unlike her PYP experience, this occurred in-person on campus, which may account in part for the greater intensity of the emotions that Zohra experienced. The group was playing a scavenger hunt-style game that involved working as a team to interpret clues around the university campus. Zohra told me she was excited to play and that she loves games like this. She attempted to take an active role in her team, but she found she was unable to because she did not speak enough Russian. The way she recounts this experience is quite evocative, and it is worth quoting at length: How about me? Maybe I can be someone who can read the code and tell my group members. First, I was like, trying to be someone who can take the note and who can do something. You know, even the volunteers, they were explaining in Russian! In the first level […] I said, please speak in English, too. At least please translate it for us. [...]You know, I didn’t understand anything from the game, anything. I was just following, running behind everyone. I didn’t do anything. […] I said again, please, can you tell me why everything is in Russian? Or the game is in Russian? What should I do? I don’t understand Russian. I’m also in the group. What should I do? They were just explaining me that it’s okay. It’s okay. And I was very, very sad, very upset. I even cried. It made me really upset. I was thinking like, I’m not in that group. I’m not playing. (Zohra, Interview 3) We can imagine this situation, with Zohra physically separated from the rest of the group, running behind them and attempting to be included in the game by asking to use English but meeting with resistance. Her reiteration of the phrase, “Maybe I can be someone who...” shows 55 that in this moment, she was trying to assert an insider identity among her peers as a valued member of the group. The emotional weight of her exclusion from the group is also clear here as she recounts how this experience caused her to cry. In Interview 4, we talked briefly about this experience again, and she added that this incident made her feel like she was not part of the BU community (Zohra, Interview 4), which further underscores the negative impact of this experience on her identity formation. Zohra also experienced alienation and exclusion in informal social situations. In Interview 4, she described a situation in the student dormitory in which she wanted to join a group of her classmates who were playing a game. She asked to join, and they were happy to have her play. However, once she joined the game, she realized they were using Russian. She recalled, “I felt like why I'm here? Maybe they don't want me to play the game.” (Zohra, Interview 4). Although her classmates invited her to stay, she decided to leave the game and go home. She said she “did not feel confident” to play the game in Russian, and she had the sense that the rest of the group wanted to continue in Russian rather than English (Zohra, Interview 4). In the experiences recounted above, Zohra was denied in-group membership in situations where Russian was being used, and at times she experienced emotional distress as a result of this exclusion. Her experiences call to mind the words of another international student from Chapter One who said, “Since I can’t understand the language well, I wouldn’t be able to understand the professor when he/she is teaching or feel like I’m part of the class [emphasis added] when he/she makes a joke or if he [sic] is trying to find ways to explain things” (Graham et al, 2021, p. 10). Indeed, the literature review in Chapter One revealed that international students in many different EMI contexts may (1) feel alienated or struggle to fit in (Gardner & Lau, 2018; Sung, 2020, 2021b), (2) perceive the use of the local language instead of English as rude (Söderlundh, 56 2013; Sung, 2021b), or (3) face exclusion from some academic situations in which the local language is being used (Kuteeva, 2020). Zohra’s experiences expand our understanding of this phenomenon by adding a clearer picture of the emotions that students may experience in conjunction with the use of the local language. Emotional Distress These experiences of exclusion are not just fleeting moments of discomfort. For Zohra, these experiences caused significant distress, making her feel insecure and blame herself for her lack of understanding, and feel deep hurt and anger toward the institution. Zohra also reported that this distress was sometimes protracted. For example, in Interview 2 after we discussed her adverse experiences with one of her PYP professors, Zohra remarked, “[…] I'm afraid about future. To be honest, I have stress about this. I'm afraid if I have professors in the future who is speaking Russian.” (Zohra, Interview 2). It is important to note that Interview 2 occurred during the summer between her PYP year and the start of her freshman year. This remark reveals that Zohra experienced some level of ongoing stress as a result of her experiences of exclusion. Thus, these findings suggest that some international students in EMI settings contend with significant emotional distress as part of their experience of language practices. For these students, their intense emotions may present an additional obstacle to overcome in order to adapt to the linguistic atmosphere of their university and find a place for themselves within that community. As will be shown below, Zohra engaged in significant reflective work to manage her negative emotions as part of her process of adapting to the multilingual environment of BU. At this juncture, let us revisit RQ2, which can be broken down into its subparts: (1) How do the student’s identities and emotions influence her views on language use on campus? And (2) How do the student’s identities and emotions influence her own language practices? Having 57 laid out the way Zohra’s identity and emotions were affected, we can return to part one of RQ2 to examine how Zohra’s adverse experiences of exclusion directly influenced her views regarding language use on campus. The Impact on Zohra’s Identities and Emotion on her View of Language Use on Campus Zohra’s statements that it is unfair to use other languages in classes is directly related to her experiences of exclusion, which were described in the previous section. Zohra expressed this sense of unfairness in our final interview (Zohra, Interview 4). In our second interview, she also indicated that she would find it unfair if the situation were reversed and the teacher were using Persian instead of Russian (Zohra, Interview 2). She made the same point in Interview 4 and explained that other students might feel alienated by this (Zohra, Interview 4). Thus, Zohra is extending empathy towards her fellow students based on her own experiences of exclusion and believes that using English only would ensure a fair environment. Her stance on language use is similar to that of the international students in Galloway et al. (2020). Galloway’s study examined an EMI institution in Japan, and it found that international students, whose first language was neither Japanese nor English, favored an English-only environment so much so that they disapproved of the use of their own first language more strongly than other groups of students. Zohra’s comments present a potential reason for why the international students in Galloway et al.’s study took this stance. Perhaps they, too, were concerned about the welfare of other students. In our final interview, I asked Zohra how she thought the university could improve the situation of international students at BU. She explained current language use in official settings at BU, which is primarily English but also sometimes shuttles between English and Russian, makes “students feel like they’re separated […] from each other” (Zohra, Interview 4). She 58 attributed this separation to the fact that it feels like there are two languages at BU rather than one (Zohra, Interview 4). To remedy the situation, she called for the university president to make a rule that professors should only use English in the classroom and that non-academic university activities, such as orientation, should also be English-only (Zohra, Interview 4). She emphasized that the student body is not only made up of Russian speakers, and that using Russian in official capacities is “disrespectful” to non-Russian speaking students (Zohra, Interview 4). She concluded by saying, “Maybe [BU] can do something that bring everyone together, not separate them because of the language.” (Zohra, Interview 4). Taking her above statements together, it is clear that in addition to her ideological reasons, part of her commitment to an English-only environment stemmed from her own experiences of exclusion. She believed an English-only environment would be fairer and more respectful to international students like her. She also wanted to prevent other students from suffering the same negative emotions and positioning, which is why she also rejected my suggestion that Persian could be used as well. For her, using only English would create an environment in which no group of students would receive what she perceives to be preferential treatment, and all students would be respected as members of the community. The Impact of Zohra’s Identities and Emotion on Her Language Practices Let us now turn to the second part of RQ2 and explore the findings related to how Zohra’s identities and emotions impacted her language practices. Just as Zohra’s experiences of exclusion led her to view an English-only environment as the most fair and inclusive, these adverse experiences guided her language practices in a similar way. Zohra strived to adhere to an English-only set of linguistic practices, especially in mixed groups of students. She explained that if she were working on a small group project with only other Persian speakers, she would 59 strive to use primarily English but would find it acceptable to use some Persian for clarification of English terms (Zohra, Interview 2). However, if there were students from other language backgrounds in the group, she would only use English as a matter of respect for her classmates (Zohra, Interview 2). She also added that deviating from English-only practices in a mixed group could “hurt” the students in the group who did not share her first language (Zohra, Interview 2). At another point, Zohra added that she only uses Persian at BU when others are not around to avoid a situation in which non-Persian speaking students could misinterpret their conversation and laughter as being directed at them (Zohra, Interview 3). It is clear that in addition to her ideological positions that constructed BU as an English-only space, her adverse experiences of exclusion also influenced her language practices. She seemed to view it as incumbent upon herself to engage in language practices that would not alienate others. Notably, Zohra was motivated by her positioning as an outsider to use language to forge a positive identity for herself at BU. One way she did this was by combining her strong English abilities with her leadership skills. Zohra self-identified as a leader among her peers, and she has sought out leadership opportunities since her teens (Zohra, Interview 1). In our final interview, she explicitly connected her English abilities with her leadership skills, explaining that it was her knowledge of English that allowed her to attend an international youth leadership camp and also to attend BU. She said, “I think English somehow was the reason for me to learn leadership or to empower my leadership skills…” (Zohra, Interview 4). Zohra became involved in a variety of extracurricular activities on campus, one of which is an English talking club for students from other universities in Bishkek. As the talking club teacher, Zohra reported that she felt “really happy” when she helped the participants learn and feel more confident in speaking English 60 (Zohra, Interview 4). She also explained that she incorporated leadership activities that she learned at her leadership camp into the speaking group (Zohra, Interview 4). In addition to her work with the talking club, Zohra is a leader among her peers at BU when it comes to academic work. She reported that she sometimes helped her classmates with essays and with questions about text comprehension (Zohra, Interview 4). In those moments, Zohra felt a range of positive emotions, including feeling “proud”, “honored”, and “really happy” to be viewed as someone who can offer help (Zohra, Interview 4). Using English in this way helped her to combat the negative positioning she had experienced in other situations. Much like Lily (Sung, 2021a), Zohra strategically used her strong English abilities to create an empowering identity as a student leader and as someone with valuable knowledge to share. Forging this identity for herself not only provided her with more advantageous positioning, but it also replaced the negative emotions she had experienced with highly positive ones, thus relieving Zohra of some of the distress she experienced. Another way Zohra overcame her positioning as an outsider was by incorporating Russian into her multilingual repertoire in order to participate more fully in some academic and social spaces. Interestingly, these multilingual practices are in conflict with the preference for monolingual practices that she expressed at other times. The first example of her multilingual practices came from her PE class, which is required at BU. Zohra reported that her PE instructor spoke very little English, and that the class was conducted primarily in Russian. Russian- speaking students in the class were tasked with translating for their classmates who did not understand. Zohra felt it took a lot of time in class for the students to translate the teacher’s instructions, and so she addressed the teacher in Russian to indicate that she could understand and wanted to participate in Russian. The teacher was pleased, and Zohra said, “I was feeling so 61 good. And happy that I could understand, and my professor doesn't need to waste time on just translating everything” (Zohra, Interview 3). Zohra also believed that Russian would be valuable in classes other than PE. She reported that she has practiced her Russian so that when it is used in other classes for clarification, she would be able to understand what is being said and thus feel included in this aspect of the classroom discourse (Zohra, Interview 4). In addition to using Russian to construct an insider identity in academic settings, Zohra used Russian strategically in social situations to make friends and demonstrate her openness to others. These findings are interesting because, as reported above, Zohra also told me that she felt it would be better for BU students to only use English in social situations to foster language learning. When I asked her about the purposes for which she uses Russian outside of classes, she indicated that she uses Russian “when [she tries] to make friends” (Zohra, Interview 4). She explained how when she is talking with students who she knows speak Russian, she initiates the conversation using Russian greetings. She explained her reasoning for this in the following way in Interview 4: Zohra: And I think it's like, letting them to know that yes, I'm trying to communicate with you or I'm trying to be friends with you. […] Bethany: Definitely. And so, it, like, shows that you're open to them. Zohra: Yes. (Zohra, Interview 4) Zohra also indicated that she wanted to continue learning Russian in order to facilitate her social interactions at BU. She told me about a classmate of hers who is ethnically Afghani but who grew up in Bishkek and is fluent in Russian. She noticed that most of her classmates are friends with this student, and she attributed this to the fact that he knows Russian. She remarked, “most of my classmates, they're close to him because he knows Russian, and I think they were -- they 62 feel more confident to be friends with him.” (Zohra, Interview 4). Indeed, Zohra also aspired to use Russian more often in social situations with other BU students because she believed she would be more “welcomed” if she used Russian and also because it would allow her to communicate with a greater proportion of the student body (Zohra, Interview 4). These strategic decisions on Zohra’s part show that while she may believe that an English-only environment would be preferable, she is acutely aware that Russian is key to her social life at BU and to her identity positioning as an insider in the student body. Zohra used her Russian skills strategically to combat the negative emotions and positioning as an outsider that she had experienced. In doing so, she gained access to greater academic and social opportunities. This is notably similar to some students at a Swedish EMI institution who learned Swedish in order to participate in the English-Swedish translingual practices that were common at their institution (Cueva, 2020). Zohra’s experience also parallels that of Lily’s, who strategically incorporated Cantonese into her language practices in order to gain social currency and acceptance (Sung, 2021a). Zohra’s Process of Reflection, Emotional Regulation, and Compartmentalization An interesting finding that emerged from this study is the ongoing process of reflection that seemed to be involved in Zohra’s adoption of Russian as part of her multilingual repertoire. For example, following her particularly distressing experience during orientation week when she was excluded from a team-building game, Zohra remarked: Zohra: I also wanted to email the President [of BU]. I wanted to make sure that things are not going good. Because international students -- no difference where you are from if you're international if you're from America, Afghanistan […] you don't understand, you don't feel comfortable. You don't feel like this is the university I study and I'm one part of it. Yeah, one part of [BU] Family. So it's like, you don't feel comfortable at all. Bethany: So do you still feel that way? Like you don't feel comfortable? 63 Zohra: Um, so I feel comfortable. I feel uncomfortable sometimes for sure. But I try to be flexible. I am like accepting things happening. I think the change is needed. But it takes a lot of time. Yeah. So if the university start to bring some changes, which is needed, it takes a lot of time. So I said I better to change me. I'm an individual, but [BU] is like a university. […] So I said, okay, yeah, I will be flexible. (Zohra, Interview 3) In the wake of her adverse experiences during orientation, Zohra was indignant – so much so that she wanted to contact the president of the university to register a complaint and advocate for herself and other international students. It is important to note that Interview 3 occurred a couple of months after orientation week, so Zohra had already had time to reflect on her experience. Despite her anger about orientation and her desire for a change in university practices, she was aware that the process of institutional change is slow. She resolved that it would be better for her to be flexible and learn to accept the existing language practices at BU. Zohra made similar comments about the need to be flexible in connection with her PE class, which was conducted in Russian. She was surprised that there were classes at BU in which the professor spoke very little English but came to accept this as a normal feature of the university (Zohra, Interview 3). Again, she resolved to be flexible and make an effort to use more Russian (Zohra, Interview 3). As previously reviewed, these efforts to be flexible and use more Russian also extended to Zohra’s social life, where she hopes to use even more Russian in the future to further facilitate her social relationships and group belonging. Thus, Zohra seems to have compartmentalized her view that BU ought to be English-only in order to adopt this more flexible position that would better facilitate her belonging. Zohra’s process of accepting the existing language practices at BU involved her working to overcome her negative emotions. This process of overcoming her negative emotions is suggested by the above interview excerpt, where Zohra says that she feels uncomfortable 64 sometimes but is trying to be flexible and accept the situation. Zohra made similar comments in Interview 4. She recounted an experience she had when she felt excluded socially, and I asked her what emotions she experienced in response. While previous experiences like this had caused Zohra significant emotional distress, on this occasion, she seemed quite stoic, saying, I'm not sad anymore. Because I feel like I don't […] want it to be as one of one of my weakness [emphasis added] […] I think about it too much and then I cannot continue other lessons. I just go to university and then I come back. It's just fine. Maybe they are not comfortable to speak in English. Most of the time, maybe they are interested to speak in Russian. So I cannot say anything. And they are majorities. I'm the minority. So yes, I'm used to it. And it doesn't make me sad. (Zohra, Interview 4) With this remark, Zohra showed high levels of emotional awareness and control. This interview occurred during winter break after her first full semester as an undergraduate at BU, giving Zohra ample time to reflect on her experiences. She seems to have purposefully distanced herself from her negative emotions surrounding exclusion from the group because she did not want these emotions to burden her or pose an obstacle to her studies at BU. It is also important to note that this emotional awareness did not only develop later in Zohra’s time at BU. In an early interview, after describing her distress surrounding the use of Russian in one of her PYP classes, she remarked, “I don’t hate Russian. I love Russian. I didn’t hate learning new -- new language. But I don’t like it when, […] when the professor, especially the leader of the class, is choosing someone and talking in another language” (Zohra, Interview 2). Here, Zohra carefully managed her emotions by separating her negative feelings about language practices in her class from the Russian language itself. Although she did not describe it in detail, this kind of emotional control and self-reflection would require substantial internal work to achieve. Recall the Douglas Fir Group’s theoretical model, which was pictured in Figure 2. At the micro-level of the individual, we find language practices and interactions with others along with 65 emotion. Agency, social identities, and institutions exist at the meso-level. It is also important to note again that the nested spheres of the Douglas Fir Group’s model are interlinked and exert influence on one another. The way Zohra has purposefully shifted her language practices to gain acceptance at BU and managed her emotions to facilitate this process demonstrate the influence of the meso-level on the micro-level. That is, driven by her need for a positive social identity and acceptance within her community, Zohra made agentive decisions to reorient her perspective on BU by compartmentalizing her ideological positions to accept its multilingual language practices, managing her emotions, and strategically incorporating Russian into her repertoire to forge a place for herself in the community. While other studies have highlighted how international students make strategic use of the local language to construct an insider identity, these agentive processes of self-reflection and internal work were not captured. It is important to highlight this internal work because it was a crucial factor in Zohra’s ability to facilitate her community belonging at BU. Her internal work allowed her to continue on her multilingual journey and find positive ways to construct an insider identity rather than accepting alienation, rejecting Russian, and stagnating. Recall the excerpt from Gu (2013), which defined the multilingual university as a “site of complex ideological stances and subtle negotiations of identities” (p. 224). The present study has attempted to unravel some of these intricacies through Zohra’s experience within the context of BU, and it has also attempted to gain insight into how Zohra dealt with the complex multilingual environment of her EMI institution. The findings uncovered by this study have potential implications for future research in the field as well as for students and instructors at EMI institutions. I will now turn to the consideration of these potential implications. 66 Chapter Four Implications and Conclusions The present study contributes to the growing body of work concerning the experience of international students attending EMI universities in non-Anglophone countries. Previous research has suggested that there is significant variation in the policies in place to guide language practices at such universities (Baker & Hüttner, 2017; Galloway et al., 2020; Hillman et al., 2021; Karakas, 2016; Mortensen, 2013) as well as in the on-the-ground language practices that characterize these institutions (e.g., Galloway, 2020; Galloway et al., 2020; Graham et al., 2021; Hillman et al., 2019; Karakas, 2016; Mortensen, 2013). Indeed, Baker and Hüttner (2017) argued that even though English may be the primary language used in these institutions, the local language plays an important secondary role. Numerous studies have supported this assertion, showing that the local language is used for a variety of purposes in EMI settings, including group work, clarifying terms, building rapport, and classroom management (e.g., Galloway, 2020; Galloway et al., 2020; Hillman et al., 2019; Karakas, 2016; Muguruza et al., 2020; Söderlundh, 2013). Based on the information received from the student informants and the policy documents that were examined, the language practices at BU seem to be in line with these research findings. The university website and available syllabi do not outline strict English-only policies necessarily, but they do position English as the primary language of the institution. Considering both official and non-official university settings, Kanykei, Alexander, and Zohra, characterized English as the primary language used at BU followed by Russian. There was also variation in the classroom language practices reported by the students, ranging from more strict English-only practices to a consistent shuttling between English and Russian. The student informants also described how English and Russian were both used at various times for official university 67 purposes and for communication with the administration. Thus, while English is the main language of the institution, Russian plays an important role in university life as the local language that is dominant in academia. As has been shown in the preceding chapters, the choice to use one language or another is not a neutral decision: language use indexes ideologies (Rosa & Burdick, 2016), power structures, and identity positions (Creese & Blackledge, 2015). Multiple studies have documented the struggles that international students who do not speak the local language may face as a result of the complex linguistic environments of international EMI institutions (e.g., Graham et al., 2021; Hazel & Mortensen, 2013; Sung, 2021b, 2021a). The findings of the present study have largely aligned with the related literature, showing that Zohra ascribed to certain ideologies that construct EMI settings as English-only spaces, and these ideologies in turn led her to adhere to monolingual practices in some aspects of university life. The findings have also shown that like many other international students, Zohra was at times positioned as an outsider because she was a non-Russian speaker. The present study has also yielded some important key findings regarding emotion. By including emotion in the analysis of Zohra’s experiences of language use at BU, the present study revealed a vivid range of emotions that were connected both to her identity positioning and potentially to her ideological stances as well, as she experienced anger when her expectations how language ought to be used were not met. At times, these emotional responses resulted in substantial and sometimes protracted distress. Finally, the findings revealed how Zohra mobilized her agency to manage these emotions and renegotiate her position on language use. Previous studies on the experiences, views, and language practices of international students have not taken up emotion as an explicit feature of their analyses. The findings of the 68 present study indicate that this could be a fruitful area for research to better understand the role of self-reflection and emotional management in adapting to the multilingual reality of EMI settings. Recall in Chapter One, for example, Sung’s (2021a) case study of Lily, who was able to leverage her cultural and linguistic capital to construct an insider identity, and Vivien, whose relative lack of valuable symbolic capital hampered her ability to construct a positive identity. Sung’s study analyzed the roles of linguistic and cultural capital, language ideologies, and degrees of agency in their processes of identity construction. Although the study referred to Vivien’s negative emotions surrounding her exclusion briefly, the impact of her emotions was not investigated, even though (1) Vivien ran up against a number of obstacles that hindered her ability to act agentively to use the symbolic capital she did possess to create a positive identity, and (2) her language ideologies that devalued the local language also created a barrier (Sung, 2021a). Despite Vivien’s efforts to exercise her agency to form a positive in-group identity, Sung found that Vivien ultimately accepted a marginalized identity (Sung, 2021a). Based on Zohra’s experiences, I posit that a negative emotional state could have also acted as a barrier, cementing Vivien’s view of herself as an outsider. Future studies could include the adoption of emotion as a heuristic in their analysis in order to unpack the role of emotion in this process and identify emotional regulation strategies that students may employ. Furthermore, there is a need for continuing investigation of the identity negotiations of international students within EMI settings. As argued above, these institutions are shaped by a particularly complex landscape of ideologies, policies, and language practices. With ever greater numbers of students pursuing their university education transnationally, it is imperative to understand how students find ways to make themselves fully heard and seen in these complex communities and also better understand why some may encounter difficulty in doing so. Future 69 research should closely examine the impacts of particular institutional policies and practices as well as classroom policies and practices. This examination would provide a richer context in which to understand the identity negotiation strategies and language practices international students undertake. Understanding their processes of identity negotiation would also help researchers be able to make relevant recommendations to EMI institutions and provide concrete ideas of how to support these students. This study also holds potential implications for the EMI teaching and learning community. It is important to put the findings of the present study in conversation with research on the issue of content learning and translanguaging in EMI. I must say at the outset, however, that this discussion is a general consideration of arguments for translanguaging in EMI in light of Zohra’s experiences. This discussion is not meant to be a prescription for language policy or practices at BU. There is a wealth of literature examining the content learning process and academic success of students in EMI settings (e.g., Ali, 2020; Ball & Lindsay, 2012; Chapple, 2015; Hua, 2019; Siegel, 2020; Yao et al., 2021). This body of work has revealed a variety of challenges that students in EMI settings face related to language comprehension and, as a consequence, content learning. One student referred to the ‘double barrier’ posed by the demand to learn new content information through the medium of English (Hua, 2019). It has been argued in the literature on EMI settings and elsewhere that translingual practices can help scaffold content learning for multilingual students (e.g., Blair et al., 2018; Fang & Liu, 2020; Muguruza et al., 2020; Shohamy, 2012), and there are calls in the literature for a translingual approach to be implemented in EMI settings (e.g., Graham et al., 2021; Muguruza et al., 2020; Shohamy, 2012). It is well beyond the scope of the present study to offer an assessment of whether implementing translanguaging (i.e., the shuttling between the learner’s first language and the second language, 70 English, that is being learned) would be the most pedagogically effective approach for EMI settings. However, given the ongoing discussion of a translingual approach in the literature, this issue must be addressed. I must also admit that as a researcher and language teacher, I am inclined to support translingual pedagogies as a way to enhance learning and create an equitable classroom environment that values all linguistic resources. Additionally, the criticisms levelled at EMI for its potential detriment to content learning (e.g., Shohamy, 2012) ought to be taken seriously. Scholars who have studied the experience of international students in EMI contexts are mixed on their view of whether translanguaging (specifically translanguaging that mainly involves English and the local language) should be implemented in light of the potential problems this would pose for international students. Sung (2021b), for example, suggests that in order to balance the needs of a highly diverse student body, it may be most appropriate to enact policies that would limit the use of the local language to situations where no international students are present to avoid disadvantaging them. While I can understand the rationale for Sung’s suggestion, it is concerning that such a policy might serve to separate international students and local students and, perhaps, create a sense of resentment between them. One could imagine, for example, a local student feeling frustrated that the use of her language is not allowed because there is an international student in the class. Other researchers have taken a different position and argue for a multilingual vision of EMI settings that would also include international students. For example, Graham et al. (2021) argued for a vision of EMI that would incorporate multilingual practices throughout the institution along with translingual pedagogies that would cultivate students’ multilingual identities and address language ideologies. Their study did reveal feelings of discomfort among some international 71 students regarding the use of the local language, but they argue against the creation of an “artificial linguistic environment…through strict monolingual implementations of EMI” (Graham et al., 2021, p. 11). Instead, they suggest that a multilingual approach to EMI should be designed to include and support speakers of all languages. One way to achieve this, they wrote, could be the provision of classes in the local language for international students. They also called for more research into specific strategies and practices that could make this vision a reality. To BU’s credit, such language classes are not only offered but are mandatory (i.e., required credits). In Zohra’s case, the opportunity to learn Russian was certainly helpful and necessary as she made use of her emerging Russian skills to significant effect. The type of pedagogy in Zohra’s language classes or her content classes is also unknown. Future studies should examine the effects of language classes and the type of pedagogy (i.e., traditional or translingual) on international students’ views of multilingualism, language practices, and identity negotiations. Based on the findings of this study, which revealed Zohra’s intense emotional distress in situations where she was excluded by the use of Russian, it is clear that implementing a translingual approach to EMI would have to be done with great care. As Graham et al. (2021) suggest, it is not enough to simply include other languages as part of the teaching and learning process. In order to successfully implement a translingual approach, a change in the overall culture of the institution would be necessary to create an environment where all students’ multilingual repertoires are valued and included in the teaching and learning process. It would also be necessary to address linguistic hierarchies (Sung, 2021b) to create an equitable teaching and learning environment. In order to ensure that international students feel included and accepted as part of the learning community, instructors must be aware of the potential negative 72 impacts of exclusionary language practices and make concerted efforts to include all students and languages and engage in multilingual practices tactfully and strategically. Creating this kind of institutional culture and raising awareness about these issues among instructors and students would take time, and it would likely require a core group of instructors leading the charge and implementing professional develop workshops to create a forum where these ideas can be discussed and understood. The process of discussing and understanding translingual practices would also take time, as instructors and students alike bring their own language ideologies, experiences with language learning, and views of language use to the situation. To echo both Sung (2021b) and Graham et al. (2021), any implementation of language policies must be based on an analysis of the needs and conditions of the local context, culture, and language ecology. I would be remiss if I did not address the fact that although Zohra worked to accept the multilingual practices at BU, what she really wanted was an English-only environment. She wanted this not only because of her view of EMI informed by monolingual ideologies, but also because she believed that such an environment would be the most equitable one for all students. This raises the question of whether the turn to translingual pedagogies described above would really meet the needs of the students and align with their vision of equity. This issue should not be brushed aside, and as I argued above, any incorporation of a translingual approach should be undertaken carefully and in conversation with the instructors and students of the institutions in order to tailor the approach to their needs. Still, it has been shown above that although multilingualism might not be officially recognized by institutional policies, multilingual practices are endemic to EMI settings, including BU. Furthermore, research suggests that the development of a multilingual identity and 73 multilingual repertoire is already occurring on an ad hoc basis among students at these institutions. Over the relatively short period of time during which this study was conducted, Zohra’s view of multilingual practices within BU evolved, and her multilingual repertoire expanded to include Russian. Other studies have turned up similar results, demonstrating that students in multilingual university contexts develop a more flexible view of multilingualism over time (Gu, 2013) and expand their multilingual repertoires in order to adapt to the institution (e.g., Gu, 2013; Kuteeva, 2020; Sung 2021a). Traditionally, EMI has been conceptualized as a way to promote and develop English language abilities. I would contend that EMI universities should instead be conceived of as institutions that promote the development of multilingual competencies, which would include not only proficiency in multiple languages but also the pragmatic competence to use multiple languages strategically as part of a multilingual repertoire. English, of course, would be a part of this repertoire, but this should not be valued more highly than all other available linguistic resources. Rather than marginalizing multilingualism within their institutions (Baker & Hüttner, 2017), or trying to ‘put the genie back in the bottle’ and enforce a monolingual environment, it might be more beneficial for EMI universities to make multilingual competence one of their goals and acknowledge its value. This would mean actively seeking to develop multilingual competence among their students and consciously creating an environment that would support the use of all languages spoken by students at the institution. I can only speculate on this point, but it is possible that an environment that actively promotes multilingualism and the inclusion of all languages could ease the emotional distress and exclusion experienced by students like Zohra. Limitations The present study and the applicability of its findings are limited by a number of factors. The first major limitation is that the study focused exclusively on the views and experiences of 74 just one student. To gain a full picture of language practices at BU, a much larger study would have been necessary to assess the views and practices of a larger number of students as well as instructors. It also would have been beneficial to include a more thorough analysis of the national, institution, and classroom-level language policies that shape the linguistic atmosphere of BU. The most significant limitation is the fact that I was unable to travel to Kyrgyzstan to conduct in-person observations. Although a trip to visit BU was initially part of the study design, complications resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic made travel impossible. Because no observations were possible, I had to rely on the reports of informants and on publicly available documents on the university website to gain insight into the larger institutional context and patterns of language use. I am not making any broad pronouncements for specific policy and practice changes at BU at this juncture because I do not have all of the necessary information to do so. The only conclusions that can be drawn regard Zohra’s own experiences, views, and language practices and their development over time. Any discussion of language practices that may be beneficial must remain purely speculative and exploratory at this point. Future research should continue these efforts to more clearly understand if a translingual approach can be instituted in such a way that does not exclude international students and whether such an approach may be beneficial for all students. 75 APPENDICES 76 Appendix A - Student Interview 1 (All Participants) Background • Tell me about the place where you grew up. o About how many people live there? o What are the people like? o How do you spend your time? o How do you feel about your home? • Tell me about Bishkek o What do you think of this city? o What are the people like? o How do you spend your time? • Compare your how your life was at home to how your life is here. • Do you feel and act the same here as you do at home? Explain. • What do your friends back home think of you studying at BU? • What does your family say about you studying at BU? • What are your family responsibilities? • How is your home and your family connected to your identity? • Do you feel a strong national identity? Languages • What languages do you speak? • Which language you express yourself best in? • How do you feel when you speak each of those languages? o What do you associate with each language? • Do you use different languages for different purposes? • When did you begin studying English? • Why do you want/need to use English? • How do you feel about English? • What are the positives and negatives about English? Education • Why do you want to study in English? • What are the positives and negatives about studying in English? • Describe yourself as a student and how you feel about learning. • Why did you choose BU? • Did you consider any other universities? • Compare BU with other universities. • What is your relationship with your classmates like? • What is your relationship with your instructors like? 77 • What have you learned during this year in the PYP? o Push beyond academic things – about yourself; about other people; about other cultures. • Compare yourself when you first started the PYP with yourself now. Future • What are your goals after you finish university? • Where do you want to live in the future? • Will English be an important part of your life in the future? Explain. • What do you hope to learn in the next schoolyear? 78 Appendix B - Student Interview 2 (All Participants) PYP Academics • General (Language Classes) o Which English classes in PYP do you think were the most important? Please explain. o How often do you participate in PYP classes? • Experiences with reading: o How difficult was the reading for the literature and film class? Please explain. ▪ (How much reading did you do for each class session? About how long did it take you? Were there lots of new vocabulary words? How well did you understand the content of what you read?? ▪ What strategies did you use to complete the reading? ▪ (Dictionaries, translators, working with friends, re-reading the text, reading summaries, reading materials in other languages) ▪ Did you have positive or negative emotions about the reading? o How difficult was the reading for EAP? Please explain. ▪ Same questions as above o Any other English classes? Please explain. ▪ Same questions as above • Experiences with writing: o In your opinion, what is the difference between everyday English and academic English? o You learned about different types of essays in EAP, different writing styles, and how to cite sources. ▪ Do you feel confident about your academic writing? ▪ Do you have more work harder on the content of the essay (what to write) or on the English (how to write it, what words to use) ▪ Can you write everything you want to? Or do you sometimes feel that you don’t know how to write what you are thinking about? ▪ Is there anything that you still struggle with when it comes to academic writing? ▪ Do you have positive or negative emotions about writing? Language Attitudes and Multilingualism • If you need more explanation about a new topic in class, do you ever read things or watch videos in other languages to help you understand? (Any PYP class including Math) • Do you ever discuss homework assignments with your classmates in other languages to help you understand? • During classes, do you use the chat box to talk to a classmate in another language? 79 o If yes, what is the purpose of the communication? To talk about the lesson? To ask for feedback? Or to talk about other things? • Do your professors ever use other languages besides English in class? o How do you feel when they do that? • Sometimes the university sends out emails to students in Russian. What do you think of this? • Do you think it is important to talk like/write like a native speaker of English? Why or why not? • Do you think your professors think it is important to talk like/write like a native speaker of English? Why or why not? • When you speak or write in English, do you think it is more important to express your ideas or to be grammatically correct? • Do you worry about making mistakes when you speak/write in English? o If yes, does that ever stop you from saying/writing everything you want to say/write? • What languages should be used at BU and in what situations? o (What languages should be used in class by professors and students? What languages should be used for group projects? What languages should be used for reading and research? What languages should be used for socializing?) BU Future Academics • BU undergraduate o How do you think the class work will compare with your PYP classes? (More difficult? About the same?) o What do you think will be the biggest academic challenge for your next year? o Were you aware that there are no English language classes for undergraduates? ▪ What do you think/how do you feel about that? ▪ Do you wish there were English language classes? Why or why not? o What do you think will be the biggest language-related challenge for you next year? o How will you deal with any language issues you might face next year? o Overall, how do you feel about starting your undergraduate studies? (Confident? Nervous? Excited? Unsure?) 80 Appendix C - Student Interview 3 (All Participants) • What did you do in the orientation classes? • Who was your teacher and what were they like? (in comparison to PYP) • How did it compare to PYP classes? o What was new about orientation? o What parts were similar to PYP/how did PYP help you deal? • How did you use your languages during orientation? • What classes are you taking/who are your professors? 81 Appendix D - Student Interview 4 (Kanykei and Alexander) The University • We’ve talked before about languages at BU and how students and teachers use languages in different settings. How would you describe the way languages are used at the university in percentages? For example this percent English, this percent Russian, this percent Kyrgyz, this percent Persian, etc. • (Based on what they say) In what parts of student life do you use or do you hear people using those languages? • How have different languages been used in your classes this semester? o By professors (e.g. you mentioned that if all the students in a software class spoke Russian, then the professor would probably use Russian) and by students o Was language used differently in different classes? • Have you had to do group work this semester? o If yes, what languages were used? o Did any problems arise? Language and Academics • Do you feel successful as a student? Why or why not? • How would you compare the way you speak English to your classmates? • Do you ever help classmates with academic work? Do you help classmates with language? (could be any language, not just English) Language and Social Acceptance • In general, do students from Kyrgyzstan and international students hang out together? o If not, why do you think that is? • Who do you spend most of your time with? Where are they from? • Which languages do you speak when you hang out? • Do you hang out with any international students? Which languages do you speak when you hang out? • Are you involved in any extra-curricular activities like clubs or volunteering? o Which languages are used in these settings? • For Alexander: You mentioned before that you sometimes feel strange when you speak Uzbek around other Kyrgyz students. Can you tell me more about that? 82 Appendix E - Student Interview 4 (Zohra) The University • You dreamed of attending BU for a long time. Overall, has the university met your expectations? • You said before that the university is 70% English and 30% Russian. What about the other languages spoken by students? Where do those languages exist? • BU is a very multilingual environment. Before BU, had you ever experienced a place like this where there are multiple languages being used at the same time? o If so, what’s different about BU? • To what extent did the negative surprises about language use impact Language and Academics • Would you consider yourself a student leader? Why or why not? o How does language impact your ability to be a leader? • Do you feel successful as a student? Why or why not? o How does language impact your success as a student? • Do you ever help classmates with language issues? (any language) • How would you compare the way you speak English to the way your classmates speak English? • Have you had to do group work this semester? If yes, what languages were used? Did any problems arise? Language and Identity • You told me before about how English brought lots of good things into your life because of the leadership camp in India. Can you tell me more about that? o What did you do at the camp? o What did you learn? o How was English involved? o How did speaking English there make you feel? • Are there other ways that English has brought good things into your life or might bring good things in the future? • You said before that the more languages you know, the more people you are. Could you tell me more about that? o Can you describe who you are in different languages? (Or how you feel? Or what adjectives you would use for yourself?) ▪ Dari? ▪ English? ▪ Russian? Language Use 83 • In what situations do you usually use Russian? o What about English and Dari? • We’ve talked about this a bit with how you have used Russian in WhatsApp group chats. But do you want to use Russian in social situations or in clubs? • Do you think it would be better for you to speak Russian in social situations or for people to use English in social situations? Language and Social Acceptance • You said before that international students who don’t speak Russian feel uncomfortable and feel like they don’t belong in the BU family. Can you give more examples of times when you or others have felt like this? • You said before when you were talking about your class that you wished students from Kyrgyzstan would allow international students to be friends with them. Can you say more about that? • Do local Kyrgyz students and international students hang out together? • Overall, do you feel accepted by your classmates at BU? • Who do you spend most of your time with? o International students? Afghan? Kyrgyz? An even mix? Final Question • What could the university do to improve the situation of students who don’t speak Russian? • Are there any clubs that non-Russian speakers can’t join because of language? 84 Appendix F - PYP Instructor Interviews Instructor 1 Program and Course Background • How long have you worked in this program? • How long have you taught this class? • What were your goals when you developed this class? • Why is it important for students to study creative writing? • Do you view this class as primarily a writing class, primarily a language class, or a balance of the two? • How does this class relate to the rest of the PYP curriculum? • How does this class relate to students’ future undergraduate classes? o What skills/knowledge do you hope students take from this class into their future courses? Course and Teaching Style • What level of writing ability/comfort do students usually enter the class with? How have their abilities developed over the course of this year? • What aspects of your course do students find the most challenging? • When assessing student writing, how do you balance assessing style and content with technical language issues? Class Specifics • On average each week, how many pages of reading are students asked to do? • One student remarked on the quantity of new words she encountered in the homework assignment – she said that if she continued noting new words, she would fill a whole book. The language level of the texts seems to be quite demanding – how do students cope with this challenge? What kind of strategies do you employ as a teacher to help them? • When reading texts from Russian or Kyrgyz, did students read the original too? • Do students use L1 in writing process? • The syllabus says beginner-intermediate – do you use the same materials with students at all levels? • Do you use free writing in every class? Multilingualism and Language Attitudes • The syllabus is very clear that English is to be used for all class discussions and assignments. What is the reason behind this? • Do you ever deviate from this English-only policy? If so, under what circumstances? 85 • You said it would be fine if students used another language with each other, but wanted students to imagine themselves in London or Vancouver and to be able to operate in that setting – i.e. without reverting to another language. Ideally at BU, what kind of language use do you envision? • What is the role of other languages at BU? • When you speak with students outside of class, what language do you use? • Do you expect students to use a particular variety of English? • Does BU expect a particular variety of English at the undergraduate level? Is there a policy in place? • Do you value comprehensibility or correctness more highly? Why? • In your opinion, should a learner of a language strive to emulate native speakers of the language? Why or why not? • To what extent are students’ multilingual, multicultural identities involved in the classroom? o Examples? PYP to Undergrad Transition • In your mind, what demands do undergraduate classes at BU place on students? • What aspects of studying at BU do you think are most challenging for students as they transition from PYP to undergraduate courses? o Language level? ▪ Specialized vocabulary ▪ Length/difficulty of reading ▪ Length/difficulty of writing ▪ Comprehension in seminars/lectures o Academic expectations? ▪ Varied content of liberal arts curriculum ▪ Quantity of reading/writing ▪ Rigor of course content? • Do you feel that PYP students are well prepared to succeed at the undergraduate level? (Specific examples/skills?) o Do you have any concerns for students as they progress to undergraduate studies? • Do you maintain relationships with students as they progress through their studies? o Can you provide examples of some of their experiences? • How does the undergraduate experience of PYP graduates compare with those who entered the university directly? o If you have the insight – in what ways do their performance and experiences differ? • There does not seem to be explicit language teaching at the undergraduate level. o Do you believe there should be further language instruction? o How does students’ language development continue during their undergraduate studies if not through formal courses? 86 • Do you feel that there is adequate language support for undergraduate students? • Where does language support come from? From professors or from support centers on campus? • Does BU bear any responsibility for continued language instruction? Are they primarily responsible for content instruction or should there be a balance between content and language instruction? Instructor 2 Program and Course Background • How long have you worked in this program? • How long have you taught this class? • What were your goals when you developed this class? • How does this class relate to the rest of the PYP curriculum? • How does this class relate to students’ future undergraduate classes? o What skills or knowledge do you hope students take from this class into their future courses? Course and Teaching Style • What aspects of your course do students find the most challenging? • Students will all be pursuing different areas of study. How do you deal with this in designing the EAP course and making it useful for students going forward? Multilingualism and Language Attitudes • Do you establish any language use policies for your classes? (e.g. English only) o Explain the reasoning behind any policies • To what extent might students use other languages in their writing or reading process? • Do you expect students to use a particular variety of English? (e.g. British, American) • Does BU expect a particular variety of English at the undergraduate level? • To what extent do you think professors’ language expectations might negatively impact students? • Do you value comprehensibility or correctness more highly? Why? • In your opinion, should a learner of a language strive to emulate native speakers of the language? Why or why not? • To what extent are students’ multilingual, multicultural identities involved in the classroom? o Examples? • To what extent do students use their other language(s) in their writing development process or to support their reading? o Do you think there is value in doing so? PYP to Undergrad Transition 87 • In your mind, what demands do undergraduate classes at BU place on students? • What aspects of studying at BU do you think are most challenging for students as they transition from PYP to undergraduate courses? o Language level? ▪ Specialized vocabulary ▪ Length/difficulty of reading ▪ Length/difficulty of writing ▪ Comprehension in seminars/lectures o Academic expectations? ▪ Varied content of liberal arts curriculum ▪ Quantity of reading/writing ▪ Rigor of course content? ▪ Academic conventions • Do you feel that PYP students are well prepared to succeed at the undergraduate level? (Specific examples/skills?) • How does the undergraduate experience of PYP graduates compare with those who entered the university directly? o If you have the insight – in what ways do their performance and experiences differ? • There does not seem to be explicit language teaching at the undergraduate level. How does students’ language development continue as undergraduates? • Do you feel that there is adequate language support for undergraduate students? • Where does language support come from? From professors or from support centers on campus? • To what extent might language issues impact students’ content learning at the undergraduate level? 88 REFERENCES 89 REFERENCES Baker, W., & Hüttner, J. (2017). English and more: A multisite study of roles and conceptualisations of language in English medium multilingual universities from Europe to Asia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(6), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1207183 Baker, W., & Hüttner, J. (2019). “We are not the language police”: Comparing multilingual EMI programmes in Europe and Asia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 78– 94. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12246 Beardsmore, H. B. (2003). Who's Afraid of Bilingualism. In J.-M. Dewaele, A. Housen, & L. Wei (Eds.), Bilingualism: Beyond basic principles (pp. 10–27). essay, Multilingual Matters. Blair, A., Haneda, M., & Bose, F. N. (2018). Reimagining English-Medium Instructional Settings as Sites of Multilingual and Multimodal Meaning Making. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 516–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.449 The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2021, December 23). President - Kyrgyzstan job with American University of Central Asia: 425865. The Chronicle of Higher Education Jobs. Retrieved April 10, 2022, from https://jobs.chronicle.com/job/425865/president Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1196–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.006 Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and Identity in Educational Settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000233 The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301 Fang, F., & Liu, Y. (2020). ‘Using all English is not always meaningful’: Stakeholders’ perspectives on the use of and attitudes towards translanguaging at a Chinese university. Lingua, 247, 102959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102959 File:Kyrgyzstan Base Map.png. (2021, May 15). Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository. Retrieved 20:55, May 9, 2022 from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kyrgyzstan_Base_Map.png&oldi d=560484393. 90 Galloway, N. (Ed.). (2020). English in higher education – English medium Part 1: Literature Review. London: British Council. Galloway, N., Numajiri, T., & Rees, N. (2020). The ‘internationalisation’, or ‘Englishisation’, of higher education in East Asia. Higher Education, 80(3), 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00486-1 García, O., 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: Global Perspectives. Blackwell, Malden MA. Gardner, D., & Lau, K. (2018). Learning and using English: What experience and expectations do non-local Asian international students bring to their university studies in Hong Kong? Oxford Review of Education, 44(6), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2018.1448262 Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Graham, K. M., Eslami, Z. R., & Hillman, S. (2021). From English as the medium to English as a medium: Perspectives of EMI students in Qatar. System, 99, 102508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102508 Gu, M. M. Y. (2013). Language Practices and Transformation of Language Ideologies: Mainland Chinese Students in a Multilingual University in Hong Kong. In H. Haberland, D. Lønsmann, & B. Preisler (Eds.), Language Alternation, Language Choice and Language Encounter in International Tertiary Education (Vol. 5, pp. 223–235). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6476-7_11 Hazel, S., & Mortensen, J. (2013). Kitchen Talk – Exploring Linguistic Practices in Liminal Institutional Interactions in a Multilingual University Setting. In H. Haberland, D. Lønsmann, & B. Preisler (Eds.), Language Alternation, Language Choice and Language Encounter in International Tertiary Education (Vol. 5, pp. 3–30). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6476-7_1 Hillman, S., Graham, K. M., & Eslami, Z. R. (2019). Teachers’ Translanguaging Ideologies and Practices at an International Branch Campus in Qatar. English Teaching & Learning, 43(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-018-0015-3 Hillman, S., Graham, K. M., & Eslami, Z. R. (2021). EMI and the international branch campus: Examining language ideologies, policies, and practices. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 44(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.20093.hil Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction in Chinese higher education: A case study. Higher Education, 67(5), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9661-5 Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University. The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. London: Routledge. 91 Jiang, A. L., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Chinese students’ perceptions of English learning affordances and their agency in an English-medium instruction classroom context. Language and Education, 33(4), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1578789 Karakas, A. (2016). Turkish lecturers’ views on the place of mother tongue in the teaching of content courses through English medium. Asian Englishes, 18(3), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1229831 Khudoikulova, N. (2015). Linguistic situation in Tajikistan: Language use in public space. Russian Journal of Communication, 7(2), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409419.2015.1044869 Kroskrity, P. (2010). Language ideologies. In J. O. Ostman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1-24). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kuteeva, M. (2020). Revisiting the ‘E’ in EMI: Students’ perceptions of standard English, lingua franca and translingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1637395 Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Content and language in policy and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mambetaliev, A. (2019). A Comparative Study of the Gap Between De-Jure and De-Facto Language Policies: The Case of Kyrgyzstan and Hungary. Sustainable Multilingualism, 15(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.2478/sm-2019-0013 Moore, E. (2016). Conceptualising multilingual higher education in policies, pedagogical designs and classroom practices. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2016.1132652 Mortensen, J. (2014). Language policy from below: Language choice in student project groups in a multilingual university setting. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.874438 Muguruza, B., Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Implementing translanguaging pedagogies in an English medium instruction course. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2020.1822848 OECD. 2014. Indicator C4: Who Studies Abroad and Where? Education at a Glance 2014. OECD Indicators. https://dx. doi.org/10.1787/888933118656. Orusbaev, A., Mustajoki, A., & Protassova, E. (2008). Multilingualism, Russian Language and Education in Kyrgyzstan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(3–4), 476–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050802148806 Paulsrud, B., Tian, Z., & Toth, J. (2021). English-medium instruction and translanguaging. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 92 Rosa, J., & Burdick, C. (2016). Language ideologies. In O. Garcia, N. Flores, & M. Spotti (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and society (pp. 103-124). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sabitova, Z., & Alishariyeva, A. (2015). The Russian language in Kazakhstan: Status and functions. Russian Journal of Communication, 7(2), 213–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409419.2015.1044877 Shohamy, E. (2012). 10. A Critical Perspective on the Use of English as a Medium of Instruction at Universities. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities (pp. 196–210). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847698162-014 Söderlundh, H. (2013). Language Choice and Linguistic Variation in Classes Nominally Taught in English. In H. Haberland, D. Lønsmann, & B. Preisler (Eds.), Language Alternation, Language Choice and Language Encounter in International Tertiary Education (Vol. 5, pp. 85–102). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6476-7_4 Song, Y. (2019). English language ideologies and students’ perception of international English- Medium-Instruction (EMI) Master’s programmes: A Chinese case study. English Today, 35(3), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078418000408 Sung, C. C. M. (2020). English as a lingua franca in the international university: Language experiences and perceptions among international students in multilingual Hong Kong. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1695814 Sung, C. C. M. (2021a). International students’ negotiation of identities during transnational studies in Hong Kong: The role of language. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 51(5), 764–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1674635 Sung, C. C. M. (2021b). English only or more?: Language ideologies of international students in an EMI university in multilingual Hong Kong. Current Issues in Language Planning, 1– 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2021.1986299 University Fairs. (n.d.). American University of Central Asia. University Fairs. Retrieved April 10, 2022, from https://www.universityfairs.com/institutions/american-university-of- central-asia Wächter, B & Maiworm, F (2014) English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Bonn: Lemmens. Wannagat, U. (2007). Learning through L2 – Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and English as Medium of Instruction (EMI). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 663–682. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb465.0 93 Wei, C. Y., & Kolko, B. E. (2005). Resistance to globalization: Language and Internet diffusion patterns in Uzbekistan. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 11(2), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614560500402817 Wei, L., & Wu, C.-J. (2009). Polite Chinese children revisited: Creativity and the use of codeswitching in the Chinese complementary school classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050802153210 94