Language policy

In this section, I discuss the concept of language policy. In general, the term is used to cover all the language-related choices and actions, as defined by Johansson, Nuolijärvi and Pyykkö (2011: 17). Hornberger (2006: 28) introduces three different approaches for studying language policy and planning. First, status planning refers to actions regarding the functions and purposes of languages in speech communities. Secondly, corpus planning concentrates on the adequacy

17

of the form or structure of languages. Lastly, acquisition planning aims to influence the allocation of users of the languages. According to Backhaus (2012: 240), who discusses language policy at the municipal level, there are a couple of definable language policy fields that are relevant for all the local language policy makers: (1) language within the administrative body, (2) communication between administration and the public, and (3) public signs. He also notes that unlike the higher administrative levels, municipal governments are in daily contact with the general public and are thus obligated to take much greater care to communicate with their residents (Backhaus 2012: 226).

In Section 2.2.1, I demonstrate how language policy is referred to in legislative contexts. In Section 2.2.2, I discuss the research results by Jenkins, who studied language policy of international universities across the globe. Lastly, in Section 2.2.3 I discuss the language policy at Finnish universities based on the studies carried out by Saarinen and Nikula (2013) as well as Pyykkö et al. (2007).

2.2.1 Language policy and Finnish legislation

This section studies different legislative acts related to languages and the extent to which they are applied in Finnish universities. According to the Language Act, first passed in 1922, the official languages in Finland are Finnish and Swedish. After the revision that came into effect in 2003, the Language Act also ensures rights for the minority languages of Finnish sign language, Saami languages, Romani languages and Karelian languages (Finlex 2003b). The largest minority language regarding foreign languages is Russian (Leppänen et al. 2011: 17).

Presumably, the aforementioned languages are not the only languages spoken in Finland. The Language Act is mainly applied in courtrooms and before other state and municipal authorities as well as joint municipal organizations. The Council of State decrees either a monolingual or bilingual language status for each municipality (Finlex 2003b). In a monolingual municipality, such as Joensuu, the municipal officials are required to have excellent oral and written skills in the official language spoken by the majority of the inhabitants, and satisfactory skills in understanding the official language spoken by the minority of the inhabitants (Finlex 2003a).

Importantly, operating in two languages does not require that every member of the personnel must have fluent language skills in both languages. Notably, nothing in the legislation prevents

18

authorities from providing services in a wider range of languages (Ministry of Justice, Finland 2012). Hence, English is a valid option as a language choice.

It is mentioned in the European Union’s plain of action, as well as in the objective statements of the Council of Europe, that all citizens ought to be able to speak two foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue (Sajavaara et al. 2007: 28). Sajavaara and et al. (2007: 27–28) point out that in Finland this objective has been realized ever since the establishment of comprehensive schools, and that language education in Finland has developed greatly within the last three decades. According to Sajavaara et al. (2007: 25, my translation), “universities’

language of instruction and degree may be Finnish (e.g. the University of Tampere), Swedish (Åbo Akademi) or both (e.g. University of Helsinki, University of Vaasa, the Sibelius Academy).” Notably, the language of instruction is Finnish also in the UEF (University of Eastern Finland 2011b: 7). However, universities are allowed to use other languages in instruction and examination (Finlex 2009). Students who have received education in some other language than Finnish or Swedish (or who have been educated abroad), are not concerned with the same objectives and requirements as Finnish students. For one thing, they receive an English degree title. Moreover, they are not required to be proficient in Finnish and Swedish, but their language proficiency is determined by the university they attend (Finlex 2004). In addition to legislative frames, universities have their own policies and regulations regarding languages, which are explored in the next two sections.

2.2.2 Language policy at universities across the globe

In her research, Jenkins (2013: 71–84) reviews the academic English language policies in HE worldwide, and explores how NNES and NES students as well as the university staff consider these language policies in practice. In her research, discourse analysis was carried out on websites and other online material provided by a range of international universities across the globe. Her research also included an open-ended questionnaire administered to academic staff of the universities, and unstructured interviews with international students from an institution in the UK (Jenkins 2013: 71).

19

Concerning Asian universities, Jenkins (2013: 99) finds that there is confidence in the English used particularly by the Chinese institutions. She also points out that doing research on Chinese ELF is becoming popular among Chinese students and academics (Jenkins 2013: 99). When it comes to Europe, Jenkins (2013: 100–108) sees a distinction between the institutions in northern, southern and central European countries. She argues that in some countries, specifically in the Mainland Europe, there is a hint of antipathy towards English as the lingua franca of the EU and of HE (Jenkins 2013: 100). This seems to be the case especially in the websites of Belgian and Spanish universities (Jenkins 2013: 102). In some cases in the southern Europe, institutions place more emphasis on their local language(s) than on English (Jenkins:

2013: 102–103). Jenkins (2013: 104) also notes that EMI programmes are highly promoted in the northern parts of Europe, which illustrates the disadvantage of smaller native languages very well. Yet, according to Jenkins (2013: 105), internationalisation is emphasized even more so in the central and eastern Europe, since in some countries in these areas English appears to be assumed as the language to open doors. Contrary to Europe, institutions in the countries of Latin America tend to be less prone to have EMI programmes in HE (Jenkins 2013: 108). Not surprisingly, most detailed information about English language programmes is provided by institutions in the Anglophone and Anglophone branch campuses (Jenkins 2013: 111–112).

2.2.3 Language policy at Finnish universities

According to Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 134), language skills have been considered important in Finnish HE for decades. Universities first founded their own language centres in the late 1970s (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 134). In 1987, the Ministry of Education refined their first official internationalisation strategy, in which language was often discussed in very practical terms (ibid.). By the end of the millennium, the focus shifted to developing ‘foreign language’

study programmes, which caused EMI programmes to arise (ibid.). The number of international degree programmes in Finland has increased rapidly within the last few decades (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 135). This development, along with the Bologna reform established by the European Commission, has put pressure on the universities’ language centres to develop EMI for the university staff as well as to improve the pedagogical abilities of the teaching staff (Räisänen and Fortanet-Gómez 2008: 26).

20

Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 134) emphasise that the ‘foreign language’ study programmes used to be genuinely foreign language programmes, since the language repertoire of the programmes included not only English but German and French as well – at least at the turn of the new millennium. They agree with Lehikoinen (quoted in Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 134), who implies that in the Finnish education today, foreign equals English. In fact, according to Räisänen and Fortanet-Gómez (2008: 35–36) Finland offers most English-language degree programmes in Europe (not counting Anglophone countries). Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 134) see this as a proof of the strong role that English has in Finnish society. Furthermore, Hellekjær (2010: 233) argues that it is often thought to be self-evident that lecturers and students have close to no problems when operating in English. Then again, Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 132) point out that using a lingua franca language may deplete the teacher’s performance and make learning more demanding for the students. Pyykkö et al. (2007: 135–147) add that universities do not seem to question the fact that all foreign language instruction takes place in English, although internationalisation is a major factor in the strategic thinking of all higher education organizations and the reason why more and more students are recruited from abroad. They discuss the possibility of offering foreign education in some other language than English, but recognise and acknowledge the status of ELF today (Pyykkö et al. 2007: 135).

According to Pyykkö et al. (2007: 126), the university curricula are prepared in departments and the final decisions regarding them are made in faculties. Universities are also responsible for the quality and development of the degrees (Pyykkö et al. 2007: 126). In fact, Pyykkö et al.

(2007: 129) note that neither the language repertoire nor the volume of language education in different universities has ever been nationally planned, nor have there been reports concerning the need for language experts (with the exception of teacher training). However, based on the aspects of the Bologna Declaration (described in Section 2.2), and the EU’s plain of action that includes an object for all citizens to learn to speak two foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue, I would argue that universities are guided towards internationalisation.

Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 137) discovered in their research that the role of EMI in international study programmes does not seem to aim at teaching both language and content simultaneously. On the contrary, as has been argued by Smit (2010: 262), the programmes are not chosen for the purpose of learning the language of instruction, but to enrol in a programme where all participants share a common language (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 137). In fact,

21

students are usually required to have proper English skills prior to their studies in the international programmes (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 141). All programmes have their own definition of ‘good’ or ‘sufficient’ English skills, and the students are required to prove their language skills with a test (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 142). In their research, Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 138) learnt that international study programmes are often distinguished from regular courses offered in Finnish, for example by promoting the programmes as a way to increase the students’ global or international skills in the labour market (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 138).