This critical exploratory study investigates the perceptions and practices of Norwegian lecturers on the implementation of a policy of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) at their Higher Education Institution (HEI). It focuses on their attitudes towards English usage, how they have been prepared and cope in the classroom, and looks at their language and pedagogic competences. The socio-cultural context of using English inside and outside the auditorium is explored and leads to questions of Anglo/American influence and Norwegian domain loss. The study is informed by critical Applied Linguistics (CALx), linguistic imperialism and Bourdieu’s theories on social capital and power. It examines teaching through critical pedagogy and Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of learning to aid understanding of classroom engagement and communication, and successful learning. This study has been informed by the critical approach to challenge normative assumptions of the use of EMI. Qualitative methods were used to collect data; twenty Norwegian teaching academics were interviewed, of whom five were observed whilst teaching. Careful coding and analysis of the data revealed surprising attitudes and perceptions varying from enthusiasm to anxiety for EMI. The participants generally accepted the top-down decision making by the administration on the increase of EMI and English usage. The influences of globalisation and commodification at HEIs combined with the rapid increase in English usage seem to have led to increased power of the management and bureaucratization. Some participants, mostly from the humanities, felt they lacked voice and agency in the implementation and their preparation for EMI, whilst some from the sciences actively embraced English and some wanted English as the working language in HEIs. There was a general feeling that more time and language resources were needed for professional development to cope with the change to EMI. All the participants worked hard to succeed in EMI; they were aiming at NS language competencies and wanted to be better at grammar, pronunciation and terminology, but seemed unaware of the pragmatic level of communication required for teaching and did not recognise the necessity of pedagogic training for EMI. There was a lack of dialogic teaching making co-constructed learning challenging and transformative pedagogy more difficult to achieve. They adapted to the multi-cultural/lingual classroom in a pragmatic manner, but were not given spaces for counter-pedagogies, critical pedagogy and the ideals of the transformative intellectual. The research reveals five areas of concern: a) inadequate English language at the pragmatic level for the demands of EMI, b) inadequate pedagogic skills for the multi-lingual and cultural classroom, c) concern over local and international students’ level of English, d) standardized, Anglo/American teaching materials leading to a lack of diversity and critical approaches, and e) the threat to academic Norwegian from international academics not learning Norwegian, the publishing reward system at Norwegian HEIs and the perceived status of English, and the resultant decline in dissemination to the general public. However juxtaposed to the above points, most participants experienced the international classroom positively and were well-received by and pleased to be in their academic Community of Practice resulting generally in an ambivalent attitude to EMI.

The aim of this study is to examine attitudes towards the use of English in the Swedish language, in Swedish society in general, and in Swedish academia. Mainly a quantitative method was used to examine these attitudes. An online questionnaire was constructed, consisting of different statements regarding the current linguistic situation in Sweden. It also contained a section where the participants had to choose between using an English word or a corresponding Swedish word. The study indicates that people tend to choose the English word instead of the corresponding Swedish word. In addition, people answering this questionnaire seem to be more worried about the use of English in the Swedish language than they are about the use of English in Swedish society in general and in academia. This study also shows that the younger you are, the more positive you tend to be towards the usage of English.

This sociolinguistic study deals with the impact of English on language policy and planning in Sweden. The analysis is based on the principles of the language management theory. The first part is devoted to the discourse of relations between Swedish and other languages in the country, mostly dealing with Swedish as an endangered language due to the extensive use of English causing domain loss. The recently adopted language law is presented as a reaction to this development, giving an official status to Swedish as the main language of the country. According to this, it should be possible to use Swedish within all domains of language use. The problems of domain loss and the risk of diglossia are demonstrated on the example of the domains of higher education and science in the second part. The principles of the Language law are confronted with the need of increased use of English and the strategy of parallel language use suggested as a possible solution. A very valuable source of information for the analysis also are two interviews with the members of the Swedish language council, the institution responsible for implementation of the Language law as well as for observation of the general language situation. Keywords: Swedish, language policy and planning, language management, domain loss, parallel...