Understanding Chinese international students’ language ideologies and multilingual practices in English-medium instruction programs in Germany

Abstract

Analysed through the lens of language ideology, this qualitative study delved into the multilingual experiences of Chinese international students in English-medium instruction (EMI) studies in Germany. Drawing on semi-structured interview data from 16 Chinese postgraduate students in an international university, this study probed into these students’ language ideologies related to English, German, and Mandarin Chinese. Data analysis showed that their language ideologies were complex and intertwined with academic success, social integration, future employment, solidarity within ethnic groups, and widening local networks. It was also found that the participants’ multiple while often conflicting language ideologies were pivotal in shaping their investment in and usage of particular languages. The findings of this study contribute to a deeper understanding of the diversity inherent in international students’ language ideologies in EMI and have significant implications for the internationalisation of multilingual environments in higher education (HE).

Keywords:

• Chinese international students
• EMI
• Germany
• higher education
• ideologies
• language

Introduction

Driven by the internationalisation of higher education (HE) and intensified economic, political, and cultural dialogues at multifaceted levels, English-medium instruction (EMI) in HE has been extensively implemented in a global climate. Universities adopt EMI as a competitive tactic to elevate their international rankings and attract international students, accompanied by their financial profits (Bamberger et al. 2019). For example, Germany, encouraged by federal governmental policies like ‘Brain Gain statt [instead of] Brain Drain’ (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 2000a, 2000b), has witnessed a significant increase in the number of EMI programs. Specifically, there has been a 1,649% growth from 2002 to 2018, as reported by the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD 2019). What follows thereafter is an influx of international students in its HE institutions. According to DAAD (2022), the number of international students enrolled in all types of German universities has increased from 184,960 in 2010/11 to 324,729 in 2020/21. Such an ongoing change in the profile of the student body has transformed campuses into a site of ‘social space’ (Tsou 2021, p. 11) where students need to cope with linguistic differences and negotiate the use of English and other languages (Liddicoat 2016; Jenkins and Mauranen 2019; Lin 2019; Sung 2020a).

Against the backdrop of EMI, substantial attention has been paid to discourses surrounding English uses, including the role of English as a lingua franca (ELF) (e.g. Jenkins 2014, 2015), conceptualisations of English(es) (e.g. Kuteeva 2020; Sung 2022a), and translanguaging practices (e.g. Zhang et al. 2021). Nevertheless, primarily focusing on English(es) falls short in providing nuanced analyses of the realistic linguistic ecology in EMI settings, particularly in non-Anglophone countries where interactions inside and outside the classroom appear to be multilingual (e.g. Söderlundh 2012, 2013; Fabricius et al. 2017; Lin 2019). The presence of ELF, Global Englishes including varieties of World Englishes and the multilingual background of students should be taken into account in the planning of EMI initiatives (Kirkpatrick 2014).

As one of the leading providers of EMI (Macaro et al. 2018), Germany has gained considerable popularity among Chinese students primarily due to its high quality of education, low expenses, opportunities to acquire international communication skills, and increased career prospects (Xu and Küpper 2014). In this context, Chinese students represent the largest international student population in German HE, accounting for 12.4% of the total (DAAD 2022). Nonetheless, Chinese students’ language ideologies underpinning their multilingual experiences are little known during their EMI studies in Germany. Given that English and German are two dominant communication languages coexistent with international students’ L1s within the German HE environment (Earls et al. 2016), this study focuses on Chinese international students’ language ideologies about English, German, and Mandarin Chinese during their EMI studies at a multilingual university in Germany. Probing into their language ideologies further explicates the correlation between language ideologies and the construction of linguistic and social orders in the given society. Equally important, this study may provide implications for multilingual language planning policies from below and implementation in non-Anglophone EMI contexts.

Language ideologies

Language ideologies are ‘any sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use’ (Silverstein 1979, p. 193). They are not only language speakers’ evaluative assumptions underlying language(s), including values and status of languages, (in)appropriacy of language uses, and hierarchical conceptions of languages in specific contexts (Song 2010; De Costa 2011; Sung 2020a), but also practices through which these perceptions are represented and enforced (Gal 1998). A language ideological perspective provides an enlightening lens into how individuals make sense of their social world (Lee 2018) since it is practically ‘social constructs that reflect the historical roles, economic values, political power, and social functions of a particular language’ (Li et al. 2019, p. 634). Language users’ ideologies concerning the value and appropriateness of specific languages are multifarious, malleable, and frequently contested (Kroskrity 2004; McGroarty 2010; De Costa 2012; Lee 2018), contributing to the (re)production of power relations between certain languages (Heller 1995 1999). Another aspect to consider is the intricacy between language ideologies and the notion of indexicality, which is described as ‘the property of language that points to its context of usage’ (De Costa et al. 2019, p. 38). This relationship emerges from the interplay between individuals’ beliefs about a particular language and their perceptions of associated social groups. The indexical meanings attributed to a language largely stem from underlying language ideologies (Kroskrity 2004; Woolard and Schieffelin 1994). For instance, a prevalent indexical link between language and identity has been established in extensive research (e.g. Kroskrity 2000; Sung 2020a).

Language-related issues in EMI

As English has been postulated as the dominant lingua franca of academia in ‘countries and jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English’ (Macaro et al. 2018, p. 37), deviations from the standard English use have been expected in multilingual landscapes. Although scholars (e.g. Jenkins 2014 2015; Jenkins and Mauranen 2019; Rose et al. 2021) have challenged the native speaker hegemony and called for a paradigm shift in ELT, reflecting the reality of global Englishes and ELF communications, empirical research (e.g. Baker and Hüttner 2019; Kuteeva 2020; Sahan and Rose 2021) has revealed that students’ language ideologies about English are driven by native English norms, exacerbating inequalities among different English varieties and their English speakers (Shirahata and Lahti 2022). These prevailing perceptions of a hierarchy of different English(es) may deprive speakers of sharing the ownership of English and (re)producing individual identity in the host community (Kim et al. 2017). Against the backdrop of EMI, another significant ideology is the concept of English as a commodity (Song 2010). This viewpoint regards English as a marketable asset, underscoring its economic value and its role in enhancing prospects in the international job market due to its global status (Park 2009).

However, the linguistic ecology of an international university can be complicated in non-Anglophone EMI where English is used alongside local languages and geographically different L1s, resulting in an unprecedented linguistic hybridity (Preisler et al. 2011; Baker 2016). An oversimplified interpretation about the role of English without considering its context may incur little thought of multilingual speakers’ dialogic practices. Amid an acceleration in student mobility around the globe, research efforts have been made to investigate international students’ language practices in non-Anglophone EMI contexts (e.g. Kim et al. 2014; Lin 2019; Ou and Gu 2021; Song and Xia 2021; Zhang and Lütge 2022). Nevertheless, there is a paucity of research exploring the language experiences of international students within a multilingual university setting, particularly from a language ideological perspective.

Considering international students’ linguistic resources and different ways of speaking, more research is needed to explore language ideologies in non-Anglophone EMI settings (Jenkins and Mauranen 2019; Sung 2020a, 2020b). The present study focusing on Chinese students’ language ideologies underpinning their multilingual experiences in Germany will add significant evidence to the literature on the intricate interplay between international students’ multilingual experiences and language ideologies. This study seeks to explore the language ideologies held by a cohort of Chinese international students, enrolled in EMI programs, regarding English, German, and Mandarin Chinese at an international university in Germany. Its research question is formulated: What are the language ideologies held by Chinese international students regarding English, German and Mandarin Chinese during their EMI studies at a multilingual university in Germany?

Nevertheless, it is necessary to point out the following caveat: This study embraces a perspective that celebrates the fluid and dynamic language practices of multilinguals instead of viewing different languages as static entities with well-defined boundaries (Baker 2022). However, for the purpose of this study, recognising and labelling individual languages is deemed crucial, because completely blurring the distinctions between named languages ‘may lead to the risk of ignoring the power relations among languages in a given context’ (Galante 2020, p. 2) and disadvantage some minority language students (e.g. Gu 2018; Hornberger 2005), reinforcing existing linguistic hierarchies.

The current study

Context and participants

The present study was undertaken at an elite publicly funded research-oriented university in the southeast of Germany. This university was chosen for its convenient access and notable achievements in the realm of EMI within Germany. It has launched an array of policy initiatives to promote EMI, such as additional funds and resources allocated to departments, alongside incentives for international students. For instance, the teaching language for over 80 percent of the postgraduate programs (e.g. Physics, Neuroscience, American Studies, and Geophysics) offered by the university is English, thereby attracting a substantial number of international students. The EMI programs are distinguished by their diverse instructional formats (i.e. lectures, academic excursions, and seminars), which enhance interactions among students from varied linguacultural backgrounds.

At the time of data collection, there were 10,255 international students, constituting 19.6 percent of the university’s student population. In adherence to enrollment criteria, all applicants for EMI programs must demonstrate an excellent command of English at a minimum B2 level as determined by the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) test (or equivalent), without the need for proven German proficiency. Concerning faculty members, while this university has absorbed a considerable number of researchers from various countries, including Canada, Poland, and Australia, the predominant presence consists of German-speaking instructors. These instructors are requested to deliver courses in English within EMI. In this context, German serves as the dominant communication language at the university; English is used as a lingua franca in all EMI classrooms. The usage of English also extends beyond the classroom, involving interactions among students from diverse L1 backgrounds or a mixture of international students and local instructors/students in various settings. Therefore, this university creates a conducive environment for Chinese international students to leverage their multilingual skills, allowing them to engage in varied linguistic activities and embody multiple roles.

This study adopted a purposive snowball sampling method (Miles et al. 2014) to select participants. Given that the first author was a teaching staff member at the university, we were able to contact the targeted students via email, explain the purpose of this study, and inquire about their willingness to participate. Within one week, six mainland Chinese students consented to participate and were subsequently asked to recommend more participants. The following criteria were adopted to recruit the participants: (1) they were Chinese international students and (2) they must participate in an EMI program because a large number of Chinese students attend traditional German-taught programs. Meanwhile, ethical consent and considerations were thoughtfully addressed to ensure the integrity of the data collection process. Prior to the study, potential participants were informed that their participation was entirely voluntary, and all data collected would be treated with anonymity and confidentiality. Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Languages and Literature.

Through snowball sampling, 16 mainland Chinese postgraduate students (see Table 1 for details) engaged in diverse EMI programs within the university were recruited in this study. All participants came to Germany after earning their Bachelor’s degrees in mainland China. Prior to conducting the interviews, assurances were provided to all interviewees that their records would be only used for research purposes, and pseudonyms were adopted to safeguard their confidentiality. Their linguistic repertoires encompassed Mandarin Chinese¹ and a variety of hometown dialects (13 in total) as L1(s), with English serving as their L2. All participants reported having a friendship network primarily with co-nationals, leading to the use of Mandarin Chinese as one of their main languages for out-of-class communication. This phenomenon aligns with prior research (e.g. Spencer-Oatey and Xiong 2006; Henze and Zhu 2012). As they uniformly reported using Mandarin Chinese rather than their hometown dialects in Germany, their hometown dialects were left aside in this study. Additionally, eight participants demonstrated limited German proficiency (A1-A2 levels). Ten participants, including some from the aforementioned group, engaged in efforts to enhance their German proficiency either through language courses or interactions with locals.

Table 1. Details of the participants.

Pseudonym	Gender (male = M, female = F)	Age	Place of origin	Major	Year of study	L1(s)	Self-assessed overall english proficiency (CEFR)	Self-assessed overall german proficiency (CEFR)
F1	F	27	Shenyang Province	Computational Linguistics	2nd	Mandarin Chinese	C1	B2
F2	F	28	Shanxi Province	English Studies	4th	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	C1	A1
F3	F	24	Sichuan Province	Computational Linguistics	8th	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	B2	A2
F4	F	25	Henan Province	Medicine	3rd	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	C1	B1
F5	M	28	Henan Province	Cognitive Psychology	6th	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	C1	B1
F6	M	32	Shandong Province	Engineering	3rd	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	C1	A1
F7	M	33	Shenyang Province	Engineering	2nd	Mandarin Chinese	C1	A2
F8	M	25	Hebei Province	Mathematics	3rd	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	B2	A1
F9	M	27	Shanghai Municipality	Translation	4th	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	C1	B2
F10	M	29	Yunnan Province	Computational Linguistics	5th	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	B2	B1
F11	F	25	Sichuan Province	Medicine	2nd	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	C1	A2
F12	F	23	Henan Province	Physics	1st	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	C1	A1
F13	M	23	Shenyang Province	Mathematics	4th	Mandarin Chinese	C1	B2
F14	M	27	Hebei Province	Physics	3rd	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	B2	B1
F15	M	26	Jiangsu Province	Data Science	8th	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	B2	A2
F16	F	24	Anhui Province	American Studies	5th	Mandarin Chinese/hometown dialect	C1	B2

Data collection and analysis

Two rounds of in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted respectively in November 2021 and March 2022. Central to the design of this study was the consideration that interviews (see Appendix A for the interview protocol) allowed participants to provide beliefs, experiences, and attitudes in great depth (Kvale 1996). Open-ended questions in the first round of interviews pertained to their educational backgrounds, English and German proficiency levels, networking experiences in Germany, experiences of using different languages and their preferred languages in specific contexts. In the second round of interviews, all the participants talked about their perceptions of L1, English and German for diverse interaction purposes, beliefs about varieties of English, and language-related challenges in the past several months. Probing questions were also added when points of interest emerged during the interviews. All the interviews were conducted one-to-one in Mandarin Chinese and were audio-recorded with the participants’ informed consent. The average length of interviews was 45 minutes per person. Supplementary data sources included the questionnaire for collecting the participants’ background information and email exchanges with the first author.

All interviews were transcribed by the first author, then-rechecked by the second author. The collected data transcripts were analysed following a deductive and recursive content analysis approach. NVivo 10 was employed to form common categories and themes that occur and recur across the cases. During the data analysis process, we immersed ourselves in reading transcripts, with a particular focus on the participants’ multilingual language experiences and beliefs. Moreover, we constantly compared across the interviews in an attempt to identify reasonable interpretations of emergent themes and potential associations between different themes. Lastly, multiple language ideologies attributed to the named languages by the participants were established.

Findings

Results showed that the participants embraced a diverse set of ideologies related to the three named languages being investigated. The ideology of English as the academic lingua franca, German as a symbol of integration and L1 as a symbol of ethnic identity were identified as three dominant ideologies in the analysis (see Appendix B). It was also revealed that the participants’ ideologies concerning each language were not only multi-dimensional and interwoven, but also potentially conflicting, thereby creating a landscape of ideological contention. The language-associated ideologies are arranged in order of their significance as reflected in the data. All the presented quotations were translated from Mandarin Chinese into English by the first author.

Ideologies of english(es)

English as the academic lingua franca

All the participants espoused the ideology about English as the rightful language choice for their academic studies in Germany. This ideology aligns with the notion of ELF (Seidlhofer 2004), referring to English as a contact language for communication among linguistically diverse speakers whose L1 is not English. The participants employed English as the ‘de facto language’ (F7) for interactions with instructors, local and other international classmates within and beyond the classroom.

For instance, F11, a female student majoring in Medicine, exhibited a marked preference for speaking English during on-task discussions, extending beyond the classroom environment due to his inadequate German listening and speaking skills. Additionally, she referred to a significant overlap in medical terminology between English and German, with ‘Diabetes’ and ‘Arthritis’ as examples. Furthermore, F11 stated that the use of ELF was well-received among local students within the same discipline, indicative of a perceived equality and inclusiveness in accessing learning opportunities (see Extract 1).

Extract 1

F11: My German isn’t good, especially the way of listening and speaking. Some of them [classmates] are German, we use English inside and outside of classes. We need to discuss surgical procedures after the seminar. After all, there’re many same or similar medical terms in English and German. Discussions in English at least make me talk on an equal basis with them.

As an attempt to avoid a collapse in intercultural communication, students from diverse L1 backgrounds actively participated in constituting ELF academic communities where their mutual understanding of transmitted information was achieved, and academic problems could be resolved. Accordingly, every member with different L1s in the community shares a linguistic repertoire in a jointly negotiated ‘enterprise’ and gains equal ‘access to claims of legitimacy and communicate with one another on equal grounds’ (Sung 2014, p. 96).

Another facet of the participants’ ideology regarding ELF is their emphasis on the intelligibility and comprehensibility of communication. Thirteen participants demonstrated a tolerant attitude towards the use of non-standard English and acknowledged the diversity of its speakers. This stance was shaped by the widespread presence of non-native English speakers among student and teacher populations in the university, as exemplified by F3:

Extract 2

F3: It took me some time to understand local teachers’ German English and other varieties of English, but now I am used to them. Understanding what others mean is the most important.

As ELF intrinsically refers to flexible and dynamic ways of using English to facilitate communication and learning effectively (e.g. Baker 2016), the participants were not strictly abode by native English rules but oriented themselves to a fluid lens, valuing multilingual speakers’ meaning-making processes in their own right.

A hidden hierarchical view of English varieties

To different degrees, ten participants emphasised the importance of adhering to native English norms. Such an ideology of native-speakerism views native English speakers as the idealised English language user, leading to the ‘othering’ and separation of non-native speakers (Fang 2018). Further data analysis elucidated an implicit correlation between the ideology of native-speakerism and the participants’ self-perceived expertise in humanistic disciplines, such as Translation, American Studies, and English Studies. For instance, F9, a 27-year-old male student majoring in Translation, characterised her English-as-L1 classmates as ‘advantageous’, ‘standard’ and ‘role models’. Her narratives (Extract 3) suggested that she associated ‘English nativeness’ with recognisable professional competence and great career opportunities in the field of translation or simultaneous interpretation:

Extract 3

F9: They [native English speakers] are more advantageous to seek jobs. The standard accent is always beneficial. Possessing a British or American accent can lend a perceived depth of meaning to the content you translate. If you could speak standard English in international conferences, listeners would be impressed and probably say ‘Oh! you’re professionally competent’.

According to F9, the use of a ‘standardised’ English accent is particularly esteemed in formal settings, such as international conferences. This preference for native English speakers has prompted F9 and other participants to become overly self-conscious about their own English accents, resulting in efforts to mask their accent. For example, F16, a student majoring in American Studies, shared, ‘I exclusively watch American series and listen to radio programs hosted by native speakers, imitating their speech patterns. I prefer not to be influenced by English with other accents’. Such a self-stigmatisation evoked by the participants’ Chinese accent led them to internalise a hierarchical stance on different varieties of English.

Beyond evoking feelings of linguistic inferiority among the participants due to the native speaker ideology, this perspective caused ten participants to assess the academic English competence of non-native English-speaking instructors against an ‘idealised’ native speaker standard. This inclination stems from a prevailing assumption that native English-speaking teachers possess inherent advantages over their non-native counterparts. For example, F7, a second-semester Engineering student, expressed difficulties in comprehension attributable to the pronounced accent of his Romanian teacher during tutorial classes. Extract 4 exemplifies F7’s perception of the challenges associated with Romanian-accented English:

Extract 4

F7: I have two American teachers and one Romanian teacher. It’s difficult to understand the content because of the Romanian teacher’s heavy accent, and he makes noticeable errors. I prefer American English as it sounds more authentic to me.

As the data showed, the participants did not accord equal value to both native and non-native English(es). Native English was targeted as a benchmark for ‘success’ and ‘authenticity’, influencing not only the participants’ English self-assessment but also their expectations of EMI teachers. This dichotomy established an asymmetrical relationship between native and non-native English speakers, resulting in the participants’ linguistic vulnerability and a hierarchical ideology in English language use.

Ideologies of German

German as a symbol of integration

Different narratives highlighted German’s symbolic importance in facilitating integration, particularly in relation to the participants’ ability to integrate into German society. Fourteen participants associated their marginal status and constrained access to local social networks with their limited fluency in German. This further resulted in feelings of frustration and a sense of self-positioning as deficient German users. Extract 5 exemplifies the experiences of F15, who has stayed in Germany for four years and encounters challenges due to his A2 level of German proficiency. He lamented that his German was insufficient for effective interactions with locals, describing one experience with visiting doctors as a ‘nightmare’:

Extract 5

F15: Going to the clinic is a nightmare. Once, I needed a surgery. Before the appointment, there was a form to fill out. However, I couldn’t understand the anaesthetist’s instructions in German, so I didn’t complete the form beforehand. When I arrived, the anaesthetist was angry that nothing had been filled out on the form. [Sigh] I felt embarrassed and helpless.

Consequently, participants with limited proficiency in German experienced a range of negative emotions such as embarrassment, helplessness, and anxiety. This emotional response further led to their reluctance to engage in interactions within the local community. For instance, F2, an English-Studies major with only a basic understanding of German, shared, ‘My dormitory administrator doesn’t speak English. This makes me hesitant to talk to her’.

Closely linked to the participants’ ideology that German proficiency is key for social integration is the notion that it may unlock access to ‘hidden’ information and fosters friendliness in interactions with locals. The participants viewed that speaking German as vital for facilitating effective communication, affirming their right to be heard, and enhancing their acceptance into the German-speaking ‘club’.

F4, a Medicine-major female student with a specialisation in Cosmetology, had limited knowledge of German prior to her arrival in Germany. She attended free German classes twice weekly provided by the university, and had achieved a B1 proficiency level by the time of her second interview. Extract 6 showcases her narrative, highlighting that her endeavour to communicate in German often leaves a positive impression on university administrators, who in turn are more inclined to offer valuable information pertinent to her studies:

Extract 6

F4: When I communicate with the university officer in German, she seems more inclined to provide additional information, like the earliest date I can pick up my certificate.

F5 also articulated a sense of gratification stemming from positive evaluations of her German use by officials at the Office of Foreign Affairs, as detailed in Extract 7. She observes that her attempts to communicate in German are perceived by the office as indicative of her integration efforts, easing the process of her residence permit extension:

Extract 7

F5: Every international student knows that office staff in the Office of Foreign Affairs are not nice. I try to speak German when I go there for my visa extension. I want the officer to feel that I’m really trying to fit in here. My German’s not fluent, but they always seem to appreciate my effort. Somehow, things can go smoother.

German as capital for career purposes

All the participants described German as the primary language used in job-hunting spheres. Fifteen participants indicated their intention to enhance their German skills. This motivation is driven by their aspirations to enter the workforce in Germany post-graduation, where a high level of German proficiency is required to cater to the local population, especially within specialised fields such as Automotive and Electrical Engineering. However, due to the fact that most participants did not achieve advanced German proficiency, they voiced concerns regarding constrained employment opportunities. For instance, F6, who has an Engineering background, admitted experiencing employment challenges due to limited German proficiency:

Extract 8

F6: I’ve been rejected by many companies because of my inadequate German. These companies, which primarily undertake Germany-based projects for local information technology providers, require individuals with an excellent grasp of German and a deep understanding of the local market.

F6’s account underscores the pivotal role of German language proficiency not only in local firms but also in international companies. In this respect, German is essentialised as desirable linguistic capital that ‘confers access and power, and provides advantages in achieving a higher social status in society’ (Sah and Li 2018, p. 109), affording participants access to economic opportunities.

Reflecting the sociolinguistic landscape they navigate, participants actively sought opportunities to improve their German, including enrolling in ‘German courses during the semester break’ (F16) and intentionally ‘making German friends’ (F10). They view learning German as a strategic ‘entrepreneurial activity’ (Şahan and Sahan 2023, p. 2), recognising and investing in the language as a marketable commodity for job applications in the local market.

Ideologies of Mandarin Chinese

L1 as a symbol of ethnic identity

In the data, all participants emphasised the indexical link between their L1 and ethnic identity, providing ‘them with a sense of community belonging, as well as shared language, culture, and experiences’ (Gu et al. 2019, p. 1122). This finding stands in contrast to studies of Yuen (2010) and Sung (2020a), indicating a link between the ideology of L1 among Chinese students and a stigmatised ‘mainlander’ identity in Hong Kong. For instance, F8 articulated ‘enjoyment’ and ‘pleasantness’ by engaging with Chinese friends. This connection was further strengthened by celebrating Chinese festivals together, thereby augmenting their sense of belonging to their home culture:

Extract 9

F8: I shared my life and study problems with them and asked for solutions. We go to Chinese restaurants because of our ‘Chinese stomach’. We celebrate the Chinese Spring Festival by preparing Chinese dishes. I feel comfortable by staying with them and speaking Chinese effortlessly.

Also of note is that the participants’ ideology of L1 and its ties to ethnic identity derived from the positive support they received within the L1-speaking community. Consistent with previous studies on challenges faced by Chinese international students when assimilating into unfamiliar culture systems (e.g. Spencer-Oatey and Xiong 2006), the participants in this study reported their difficulties in adapting to the German culture. However, our findings indicate that the L1-speaking community serves as a critical venue for participants, providing a space where they commonly share life challenges and academic issues, seeking advice from each other. Within this community, participants experience significant mental and psychological relief. As described by F11, ‘Those intercultural and academic issues can only be shared with Chinese friends because they can fully understand me. They can give me confidence to move forward’. In this way, the L1-speaking community provides the participants with opportunities for ‘sharing responsibilities involved in cultural adaptation and serves an important function as a confirmation of their native identity, giving them confidence to face cultural and linguistic differences’ (Scally and Jiang 2020, p. 1340).

The ideology of L1 as a problem

Within their narrative accounts, ten participants held the perception of their L1 as a problem, aligning with Ruiz’s (1984) language-as-problem orientation in examining individual language attitudes. Specifically, individuals regard a language, which is always different from the mainstream language, as an impediment to educational access, employment opportunities, and social mobility in a multilingual society (Nguyen and Hamid 2018). This implies that individuals’ inability to communicate fluently in the dominant language of the mainstream society face barriers to assimilation into that society.

In this study, a significant transformation in the status of the participants’ L1 is observed. Specifically, the participants’ L1 held a position of power in their homeland, but upon their transition to Germany, it has been relegated to a non-dominant, marginalised status. This diminished standing of L1 in the German-dominated society fundamentally underpins the participants’ perception of their L1 as problematic. Specifically, the participants viewed their L1 as a constraint to expanding their social networks, as evidenced in F7’s remarks, ‘I have too many Chinese friends. I don’t need to speak German for making more friends, but when local students realise you can’t speak German, they also tend to avoid talking to you’. His narratives imply that L1 was inadequate, and thus problematic, for establishing social connections with locals.

Additionally, the participants’ language-as-problem ideology was reflected in the way they attached their personal development and employment opportunities to the value of German, acknowledging the insufficiency of relying solely on their L1. This viewpoint is reinforced by F12, a female student specialising in Physics, who noted the importance of having German-speaking referees in the job application:

Extract 10

F12: Having a German referrer who can recommend you is important. Relying on Chinese friends isn’t enough. I wish I had German friends in the industry who could be referees for my future job applications.

Discussion

This study presented a detailed and in-depth account of Chinese international students’ multilingual experiences during their EMI studies in Germany analysed through the lens of language ideology. The analysis sheds light on how the participants attributed distinct roles, values, meanings, or images of personhood to these languages. Notably, three predominant language ideologies emerged: English as the academic lingua franca, German as a symbol of integration and Mandarin Chinese as a symbol of ethnic identity, each corresponding to the instrumental, integrative and identificational functions of language, respectively. The complexity and diversity inherent in the participants’ language ideologies demonstrates evidence of their adherence to multilingual ideologies.

Importantly, the study highlights significant ideological tensions that arose from the coexistence of competing ideologies related to these languages, giving rise to the participants’ ambivalences in their evaluation of, adoption of, and/or investment in specific languages. Particularly, the participants conceptualised English as an academic lingua franca for intelligible communication, facilitating equal access to academic learning in their cross-border studies. While similar findings have been echoed in similar European contexts (Söderlundh 2012; Zhang et al. 2021), our analysis extends this by highlighting that international students’ attitudes towards English are not monolithic but ambivalent and contradictory. Although the participants acknowledged the usefulness of ELF, they still regarded Anglophone English as more desirable and prestigious. This perception was especially pronounced among Humanities students, including those in American Studies, English Studies, and Translation, for whom proficiency in standardised English was seen as a hallmark of professional competence. Additionally, this study noted a tendency among participants to prefer native English-speaking lecturers in EMI. This biased trend contradicted the core construct of Global Englishes and EMI, both of which ‘lobby for the promotion of multilingual pedagogies, challenge native speaker hegemony, and highlight the importance of multilingual teachers’ (Rose et al. 2022, p. 160). Thus, the participants exhibited conflicted feelings towards the English language, thereby challenging the conclusions drawn by Phan (2009) and Sung (2022b). These studies had portrayed a consistent and uniform conceptualisation of English among international students, highlighting a shared sense of ownership over the language.

In terms of German, this study offers a contrast to the focus on English in previous research, which highlights the economic benefits of English for securing jobs (Vaish 2008). Instead, participants in this study highlighted the value of German as a marketable asset that aids in social and economic integration into the German society. This is evidenced by the majority of participants expressing varying levels of willingness to work in Germany after their graduation, as they disliked ‘uncompensated overtime, competitive and stressed workplace environment in China’ (F1). In such a context, therefore, German has more symbolic prestige than English. This recognition of German’s commodity value underlines the participants’ motivation to invest in learning the language, coupled with their uncertainty regarding the use of English for social interactions with locals. In relation to Mandarin Chinese, the participants acknowledged its indexical value in reinforcing their ethnic identity, echoing with Weber and Horner’s (2013) ‘one nation-one language ideology’. Also, they exhibited a L1-as-problem orientation, admitting that an over-reliance on their L1 impeded their efforts to expand social networks. This perspective underscores a sophisticated understanding of the participants’ L1 role, balancing its significance in maintaining home cultural ties with the potential challenges it poses for broader local social connections. These ideological tensions suggest that the participants’ multilingual experiences represent a complex battleground where various language ideologies interact. The participants’ use or non-use of different languages in the multilingual context are marked by struggles and contradictions. These findings indicate that language use in such contexts is not merely a matter of preference or ability, but is intertwined with broader ideological conflicts.

Conclusion and implications

This study contributes to a limited body of research on Chinese international students’ multilingual experiences during their EMI studies in Germany by exposing their coexistent and conflictual language ideologies. While these insights may not be generalised to other ethnic students, they illuminate the intricate interplay between language ideologies and sociocultural realities. This interplay is further influenced by the differing power dynamics inherent in languages within a multilingual context, which in turn shapes students’ attitudes towards specific languages. It becomes evident that the impact of EMI is multifaceted and context-dependent, underscoring the need for a nuanced understanding of how EMI may shape language planning policies within the international HE environment.

In line with the findings, it is critical to acknowledge the significant impact that international students have in shaping the cultural and linguistic landscape of internationalised universities. Given the evidence of the participants’ multilingual ideologies regarding the inevitability of their routine engagement in multilingual practices, we argue that the university’s prevailing English-only language policy does not provide ‘appropriate support, evaluation and reflection’ (Baker 2016, p. 438), especially concerning the social integration and employability of international students within the host society. We suggest that universities should establish comprehensive language advisory services as a cornerstone for students’ linguistic and cultural integration, guiding them through a carefully curated selection of language courses and learning opportunities that align with their specific goals. Additionally, EMI programs could incorporate local language courses that focus on learning content specific to the local industry, so that international students are enabled to transition more smoothly from their university studies to professional careers within the host society after their graduation. Using Germany as an example, it is not only attractive to the participants of this study but also to the broader international student population as a permanent place of residence because of the country’s ‘economic, political, and societal security aspects’ (Thies 2022, p. 150). Furthermore, EMI classrooms should strive to cultivate an egalitarian environment that not only supports but also acknowledges and integrates the diverse linguistic identities and community membership of international students.

Considering that students, especially those in Humanities, equate native English proficiency with professionalism, EMI teachers should play a pivotal role in guiding students to re-evaluate such perceptions. Recognising English’s prominence in ELF settings, teachers should encourage students to critically assess their language ideologies, including questioning the assumption that native English is synonymous with professional competence. Such reflection would encourage a broader, more inclusive understanding of professionalism in academic and professional realms, acknowledging the value of linguistic diversity and fostering an environment that celebrates multilingualism as an asset rather than a barrier, thereby enabling students to explore more empowered identities.

However, the findings of this study should be interpreted with consideration of its limitations. This study depended on self-reported data obtained through interviews. An ethnographic approach may allow a more detailed understanding of international students’ multilingual practices. Additionally, the scope of this study was limited to international students in a single EMI university setting. Future investigations could broaden this scope by examining other stakeholders’ (e.g. teachers, administrative staff, and policymakers) language ideologies, and by comparing ideological variations across these stakeholder groups.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Scholarly debates persist regarding the classification of the numerous linguistic manifestations of ‘Chinese’ as either regional dialects or distinct languages (Liang 2014). In this context, Mandarin Chinese (referred to as Putonghua), which serves as the standard dialect in mainland China, has been considered as the participants’ L1 in this study.

Appendix A.

Interview protocol (examples)

1. Can you tell me what languages do you use inside and outside of the university?

2. What are your self-assessed overall proficiencies in these languages?

3. How do you feel when you speak English/German with local/international students/instructors?

4. What does your L1 mean to you during your studies in Germany?

5. Do you want to sound like a native English speaker or a Chinese speaker of English when you speak English with others?

6. What drives you to learn German?

Appendix B.

A summary of the frequency counts of each type of language ideologies

Table

Languages	Types of categorised language ideologies	Frequency	Individual percentage (%)
Ideologies of English(es)	English as the academic lingua franca	104	21.90%
	A hidden hierarchical view of English varieties	76	16%
Ideologies of German	German as a symbol of integration	92	19.40%
	German as capital for career purposes	50	10.50%
Ideologies of Mandarin Chinese	L1 as a symbol of ethnic identity	96	20.30%
	The ideology of L1 as a problem	56	11.80%
	Total	474	100%