1. English as a lingua franca
English is considered the language mostly used for communication and dissemination of knowledge worldwide (Dumanig, 2008). English is also known for being the global lingua franca; this means that it is the language used for communication by English language speakers who have a first language different from English (Seidlhofer, 2005).
Such expansion of English has reached higher education in many countries. Then, as higher education becomes more internationalized, English becomes the dominant language of research and instruction. Such assumption is explained by Mauranen, Hynninen & Ranta (2010):
Universities have been thoroughly international since their inception. In the middle Ages, scholars around Europe formed close-knit networks for sharing thoughts and discoveries. This was facilitated by a common lingua franca, Latin. Today, we again live in a similarly international context of research and study, albeit on a new scale. A considerable proportion of the age cohort in any country is now involved in higher education as students, teachers and researchers, and the joint enterprises of sharing knowledge and doing research span the entire globe. The need for a lingua franca to keep this network going has not changed, but this time the language is English, and the scale of its use is unprecedented. (p. 183)
Also, Flowerdew (1999) asserts that “English has come to be accepted as the dominant language for publication of academic research findings” (p. 124). Moreover, Swales (1997) has described English as a Tyrannosaurus Rex, “…a powerful carnivore gobbling up the other denizens of the academic linguistic grazing grounds” (p. 374); he also explains that there is no doubt that English has become the world’s predominant language of research and scholarship.
2. Internationalization and intercultural competence
The term internationalization has become popular in higher education systems’ research and practice. The definition of internationalization in higher education, formulated by Knight (2004), states that: “internationalization at the national, sector, and institutional levels is defined as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of education.” Moreover, Knight and de Wit (in Taylor, 2004, p. 150) define internationalization in terms of “the process of integrating an international perspective into the teaching/learning, research and service functions”. Therefore, it is an ongoing, continuous and inclusive process. Knight (1994, in Taylor, 2004, p. 150), describes the cycle of internationalization in terms of six stages: 1) awareness, 2) commitment, 3) planning, 4) operationalizing, 5) review, and 6) reinforcement.
According to Green & Schoenberg (2006, p. iii), “Internationalizing is the most important strategy institutions can use to ensure that all their students acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they will need as citizens and workers in a rapidly changing and globalized world.” Institutions of higher education have tried to respond to this call, and it would seem difficult to find a college or university today that is not making some effort to internationalize. Several scholars (Altbach and Knight, 2007; Dolby and Rahman, 2008; Uys and Middleton, 2011) maintain that internationalization has been mainstreamed, embedded in institutional strategic plans, no longer a luxury but rather an essential part of all reforms in colleges and universities (Yemini, 2012). Altback & Knight (2007, p. 291), identify four types of modes (programs/strategies): 1) distance education and franchising courses or degrees; 2) traditional student mobility; 3) established branch campuses and joint ventures with local institutions; 4) visiting scholar positions of professors and researchers.
Accordingly, one of the main outcomes of internationalization is for students to become interculturally competent. According to UNESCO (2013), the concept of intercultural competence is defined as a new kind of literacy, similar to reading, writing and mathematical abilities. Deardorff (2004), explains that knowing about other cultures does not automatically make an individual interculturally competent, neither does having had an international experience. Chen and Starosta (1999, in Deardorff, 2004) define intercultural competence as “the ability to effectively and appropriately execute communication behaviors that negotiate each other's cultural identity or identities in a culturally diverse environment” (p. 35). They identify three key components to intercultural competence: intercultural sensitivity (affective process), intercultural awareness (cognitive process), and intercultural adroitness (behavioral process).
English (1996, in Deardorff, 2004, p 46) in her research on various definitions of international competence developed a definition of global competence. This definition is more specific in that it identifies five components of global competence: 1) world knowledge, 2) foreign language proficiency 3) empathy for other cultural viewpoints 4) approval of foreign people and cultures, and 5) ability to practice one’s profession in an international setting. Of the five components listed, knowledge (element 1) is directly consistent with other definitions. The other elements can correspond with categories listed in other definitions, that of “skills” (elements 2 and 5) and “attitudes” (elements 3 and 4).
3. English as a medium of instruction
When analyzing foreign language learning, nowadays, there seems to be transition from English being taught as a foreign language (EFL) to English being the medium of instruction (EMI) for academic subjects such as science, mathematics, geography and biology. According to Dearden (2015), the term English as a medium of instruction (EMI) is relatively new and sometimes used as synonym with Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), hence the importance to define it. EMI is “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (Dearden, 2015, p. 4). This definition is important in that it provides a conceptual separation between EMI and content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Whereas CLIL does not mention which second, additional or foreign language (L2) academic subjects are to be studied in, EMI makes it quite clear that the language of education is English, with all the geopolitical and sociocultural implications that this may entail.
4. Language policy and planning
In the past few years, the interest in English language education policies has grown among linguistics and ELT researchers. This is in part due to the implementation of education strategies which aim to achieve intercultural competence among students. Therefore, “ELT professionals –teachers, material designers, textbooks writers, program developers, administrators, consultants or academics – are involved in one way or another with the processes that involve the spread of English and they need tools to investigate how the language became so dominant and why, to teach and use English in a way that suits their needs (Roux, 2012, p.187). In order to understand the ways in which language policies have effects among specific contexts, Ricento and Hornberger (1996, in Roux, 2012) propose an approach in terms of layers:
• Outer layers: objectives, articulated legislation at a national level and operationalized in guidelines at a local level.
• Middle layer: interpretation and implementation of guidelines in institutional settings.
• Inner layer: individuals’ interaction
At each level, there are specific patterns of discourse that reflect goals and attitudes structured by ideologies.