![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
In 2002, English-medium degree programmes (EMDPs) became a permanent feature of German higher education (HE). While this action marked an important step towards government-supported institutionalisation of English in Germany, no formal strategy or guidelines governing the role of English in HE have been developed. To date, research in this area in Germany has been predominantly focused on the top-down perspectives of decision-makers comparatively few studies have been conducted into bottom-up perspectives of those directly experiencing such language policy and planning decisions. In this paper, empirical data resulting from a mixed-method case study conducted at a German HE institution will be analysed to reveal hitherto unexplored bottom-up insights into the lived reality of an EMDP in Germany. The paper begins with an introduction to such programmes in Germany, before outlining the methodology pursued and exploring demographics and participant motivations within the programme under investigation. Applying Spolsky's (Citation2004, p. 39) framework for analysing language policy, the de facto language policy experienced by study participants is revealed, providing insights into daily linguistic practices within the programme, and the pragmatic and ideological roles that English and German play in participants' reported experiences. Uncovering this de facto language policy serves to provide policy-makers at the top level with bottom-up perspectives for future policy formulation which may lead to a more well-grounded language policy (Shohamy, Citation2009, p. 188).
Notes on contributor
Clive W. Earls is currently completing his doctoral research as an Irish Social Sciences Platform (ISSP) Government of Ireland Scholar, and lectures in Linguistics, German Studies and Translation/Interpreting at the University of Limerick. His research interests include language policy and planning, English as a language of international communication, German as a foreign language, multilingualism, sociolinguistics and higher education policy studies.
Notes
1 The drawbacks identified by the German Science Council corresponded to: (a) rigidity of the German traditional HE system; (b) curricular stagnation and a resultant lack of labour market relevance; (c) issues of comparability and compatibility with other HE systems and (d) rigid German language requirements for study (Wahl, Citation2005).
2 The distinction is made in this paper between IDPs and EMDPs. The only difference between the terms is that the former includes programmes meeting the DAAD's criteria as an international programme where English is not a language of instruction while the latter describes 98% of all international programmes in Germany where English is either the partial or total language of instruction.
3 An internationalised curriculum pertains to the orientation of the subject matter around international standards and practices, and the use of methodologies and theoretical insights from other academic cultures.
4 English-to-German phased programmes operate with English as the sole language of instruction in semester 1–3/4 with non-German-speaking students receiving intensive German as a foreign language training in order to transition to German as the language of instruction for the final semesters (i.e. 4/5–7/8).
5 These numbers represent 63% and 62% of the total population, respectively. At the time of data collection, the total student population within second and fourth semesters of the programme stood at 30 and 27, respectively, while the total faculty population stood at eight for the programme.
6 In Germany, Fachhochschulen are Universities of Applied Sciences where the degree programmes follow an applied orientation emphasising the practical nature of study. The primary aim of such institutions is to prepare students for the labour market.
7 Here, the label ‘international students’ refers to students who have not completed their secondary education in Germany, but rather in their country of origin or a third country, and have decided to study at tertiary level in Germany.
8 A situation where predominantly OECD countries attempt to attract and retain the brightest minds, mainly from developing countries, in addition to stemming the emigration of domestic students (chiefly in favour of the English-speaking world), as a means of enhancing their national competitiveness.
9 This characterisation of native and non-native speakers follows students' characterisations which follow Kachru's categorisation of English speakers (1985). In the students' view, native speakers come solely from Kachru's (Citation1985) inner circle, uncovering an element of linguistic purism on the part of students with regard to English varieties.
10 No official language policy exists for EMDPs in Germany in general, nor for the individual EMDP under investigation. However, the planning dimension in the model is important to acknowledge, considering the interrelationship between the extra-linguistic frame within which EMDPs have developed and the effect such a frame has on the ideologies and practices of those involved on the programme under investigation and its implications for developing a de facto language policy for this and similar programmes.