This article examines the management of linguistic diversity in English-language classroom contexts from a linguistic justice viewpoint, which is concerned with the equitable and fair treatment of the multiple languages that coexist in a given social context. The analysis presented here shifts the focus from the more typical macro-level approaches in the linguistic justice literature and turns to the micro-level context of the language classroom. The aim is to develop a theoretical argument in connection to two main concerns: firstly, the incorporation (or not) of students' first languages in the English language classroom, and secondly, the incorporation (or not) of different varieties and accents of English. The article argues in favour of recognizing and incorporating students' first languages and the different accents and varieties of English in the language classroom. In addition, it argues in favour of developing an ethics of language that focuses on listening and the listening-subject position as key factors that may determine the fair and equitable treatment of the language resources in the English language classroom and beyond, for a more inclusive and just linguistic environment.

In this chapter, the interviewee engages in a dialogue with the book editors regarding the inclusion of other languages and knowledges in top-tier English-medium journals. The discussion is grounded in specific initiatives and collective conversations within editorial teams of sociolinguistically and linguistic anthropologically orientated journals. It addresses calls in the social sciences and humanities to create more equitable futures by identifying and challenging the capitalist and colonial aspects of academic publishing. The chapter considers the roles of editors, editorial board members, and reviewers and the need to rethink existing structures of editorial work that make it difficult to disrupt institutional logics that perpetuate publishing inequalities. It also argues against an insular focus on language debates, highlighting the importance of addressing broader issues like neoliberal rationalities tied to “internationalization” and “research excellence”. More generally, the chapter advocates an approach to knowledge production that integrates publication concerns with the wider politics of readership, encouraging comprehensive questioning of theoretical and epistemological models in scholarly work and their implications for academic disciplines and society as a whole.

In recent years, more and more calls have been made in the field of English as a lingua franca (ELF) to investigate multilingualism and its natural connection to English as a lingua franca, emphasising that the two phenomena are mutually constitutive. This entry briefly traces the theoretical discussions that have taken place over the past decade in which English as a lingua franca research has progressively drawn from broader frameworks of sociolinguistic inquiry, particularly from a sociolinguistics of mobility and translingual practice. In addition, the entry summarises recent work on this topic that has explicitly engaged with multilingualism in order to see the extent to which calls for further reconceptualisation of English as a lingua franca as multilingualism are taken up by researchers in the field. The entry concludes that a translingual turn in English as a lingua franca studies seems to be slowly consolidating in the field.

This entry provides an overview of the knowledge, uses and attitudes towards English in Estonia. Like in many other countries globally, English has made significant inroads in the country in recent years through a variety of routes, and the language is now present in a range of societal domains and areas. Inevitably, the increased presence of English has brought with it a number of sociolinguistic consequences, both in terms of the growing contexts where English is used, and in terms of the social meanings attached to English. The entry briefly describes the societal functions English has gained in Estonia over the past few years and analyses succinctly the metapragmatic meanings this increased presence of the language has entailed.

This volume investigates the interconnections of language, scholarly publishing, and the knowledge economy in contemporary academia across different European settings. The chapters included revolve around aspects that are related to the knowledge economy cycle, from the individual and systemic conditions that enable knowledge production, to the currently existing channels and frameworks that give shape to and condition its circulation, uptake, and consumption. All the chapters combined provide a coherent and holistic overview of the affordances and limitations that different social actors experience when participating in such cycles, including the different modes of access to resources across geographic contexts and disciplinary traditions. An important contribution of the volume is the multi-layered angle that it incorporates into analysing issues of scholarly publishing in today's academia, placing language as a social practice at the heart of the structuring processes that condition the creation, dissemination, and consumption of knowledge in contemporary societies. Given the centrality of English in these processes, a particular focus on this language runs through the whole volume, but the tensions and intersections with other languages are usefully explored by all authors, with calls for greater sensitivity towards and real acknowledgement of linguistic diversity in the present-day knowledge economy cycle.

This chapter analyses the concept of linguistic prejudice from two different angles: (critical) applied linguistics and political theory. More specifically, the chapter looks into how linguistic prejudice might be defined and how it may take place in the context of international academic publishing in English. The chapter reviews literature from applied linguistics providing the basis to argue that indeed, linguistic prejudice exists in academic publishing in English. It then employs tools from political theory to analyse why this can be considered a problem, and what can be done to address this issue. The chapter then returns to applied linguistic literature to argue that some of the normatively desirable ways of handling linguistic prejudice in international academic publishing in English might not be sufficient to address the root of the problem, and it concludes by arguing in favour of placing more emphatically the onus of responsibility on readers, rather than writers.

This study aims to contribute to the ongoing scholarly debate about linguistic privilege in academia. The article pushes this debate forward by considering the role of English in the career development of academics in Anglophone universities. More concretely, our study empirically explores the career trajectories of multilingual scholars in Ireland who speak English as an additional language (EAL). Adopting a Bourdieusian lens, the article conceptualises academia as a locus of competitive struggle over authority, recognition, and prestige, in which scholars avail themselves of different kinds of capital, including linguistic capital, and deploy strategies to flourish. Through a qualitative approach, the article examines data from university documents and procedures, from interviews with EAL scholars in different disciplines and at different stages of their career, and from interviews with academics holding senior management positions in three universities in Dublin. We analyse the language-related challenges that EAL scholars encounter and the affordances with which Anglophone universities provide them, as well as the ways in which language impacts on their career progression. The empirical data reveals a complex and nuanced interplay between language and other academic factors. Our findings suggest the need to go beyond simple hierarchies of academic privilege or disadvantage based on a scholar’s first or additional language alone.

Public intellectual life is an area of inquiry that has not received a great deal of attention within the field of sociolinguistics. This article investigates the performative dimension of public intellectual engagement in the area of language and gender and, more specifically, how epistemic authority about gender-neutral language is constructed in public intellectual contributions in Catalonia, Spain. Adopting Arendt’s notion of truth claim and the Foucauldian concepts of regimes of truth and epistemic sovereignty, we empirically examine the mechanisms of reception and validation of the public engagements of one highly visible linguistic scholar. Our study shows the ways in which this intellectual figure strives to be recognised as having exclusive scientific authority about language. We argue that pursuing the allegedly impartial standpoint of epistemic authority about gender and language inevitably advances the interests of specific political actors and large media corporations of a conservative strand that fervently oppose gender-neutral language. 

L’àmbit intel·lectual públic és un terreny que fins ara ha estat relativament poc investigat des d’una perspectiva sociolingüística. Aquest article indaga en la dimensió performativa d’aquest àmbit en el context d’un debat sobre llengua i gènere i, més concretament, analitza com es construeix l’autoritat epistèmica sobre el llenguatge neutre en les aportacions intel·lectuals públiques a Catalunya. Adoptem la noció d’afirmació de la veritat d’Arendt i els conceptes foucaultians de règims de veritat i sobirania epistèmica per examinar empíricament els mecanismes de recepció i validació de les intervencions públiques d’una experta lingüista amb molta visibilitat pública. El nostre estudi mostra com aquesta figura intel·lectual s’esforça per ser reconeguda com a autoritat científica exclusiva en relació amb la llengua. Argumentem que buscar un punt de vista presumptament imparcial d’autoritat epistèmica sobre llengua i gènere promou inevitablement els interessos d’actors polítics concrets i de grans corporacions mediàtiques d’una línia conservadora que s’oposen fervorosament al llenguatge neutre.

This article analyses some of the linguistic tensions derived from international academic mobility in English-medium instruction multilingual university contexts, focusing on local and international academic staff’s interests from a linguistic justice viewpoint. Firstly, we develop a normative argument to explore whether international academic mobility and increased use of English can become a source of linguistic domination for local staff, or if suggested countermeasures, such as requiring international scholars to learn the local language, might lead to linguistic discrimination against the latter group. Secondly, via a qualitative analysis of survey data, we ask local and international scholars at the University of Tartu about their views on the language policy regime at the university. Protective language policies that encourage locals to use Estonian more and require internationals to learn some Estonian could help enhance linguistic justice, according to local staff. However, international scholars may perceive such requests as discriminatory. Linguistic domination and discrimination play a key role in the clashing interests of stakeholders, creating tension. The study highlights the complexity of the dilemmas faced by many university officials today in their attempt to balance institutional goals with on-the-ground realities.

This article looks at English-medium instruction (EMI) contexts in higher education from a linguistic justice perspective and offers a theoretical argument to discuss the potential for EMI to be defended as a positive and valuable phenomenon, beyond economic and competitive arguments. In the final keynote panel at the 2022 ICLHE conference, Philippe Van Parijs pondered how EMI teachers might be seen: either as killers, traitors, sellers, saviours, upgraders, or liberators. After providing characterisations for each of these labels, Van Parijs suggested that EMI teachers should be better conceived of as civilisers, not in a missionary sense of civilising the barbarian, but in the Aristotelian meaning of civic virtue, of citizens being part of public life, actively involved in discussion of public affairs. This seems to imply a specific view of English, one that almost naturally equates the language to democratic progress and consensus. In the article, I challenge this assumption and suggest that for English to be a democratising agent and EMI truly a gate-opener to higher education, emphasis needs to be placed on listening subject positions and regimes of uptake as key aspects of democratic deliberation and key elements to overcome prejudiced views of accents and voices.