How important is it to use accurate, grammatically perfect English in the EMI classroom?

The labels ‘accurate’ and ‘mistake’ are rarely used in communication research. These ideas are more connected with social judgements of language and speakers than actual language use. In fact, research reveals that communication is a complex and always negotiated process, and that language varies according to context because of how humans communicate.

People’s perceptions of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, ‘effective’ or ‘ineffective’, or ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ also vary according to context and speakers, because people bring their own experiences, knowledge, expectations and positioning to their interactions and develop judgements of appropriate and effective language within their social performances. It is important for educators to consider how the complexity of human communication can present issues and opportunities to them in their EMI roles.

Communication in EMI settings

EMI settings are intercultural settings, and they are commonly settings where English is used as a lingua franca, i.e. speakers use English but do not share a first language (see Jenkins et al., 2011). In these settings, research has shown that English tends to be used flexibly, with speakers drawing on behaviours and resources that go beyond a culturally specific or rule-based ‘English’ taught in some language schools.

However, educators sometimes feel pressure to provide a ‘perfect’ language model for their students, and some students feel similar or greater pressure on their language. If we think of language as part of communication rather than as a restricted code to learn, the only model we need to consider is a model of behaviour rather than words and language patterns only.

As we discussed earlier in the course, one of the justifications for implementing EMI is to improve the English ability of graduates, but we need to be aware that facilitating students’ movement towards our academic fields requires more than isolated vocabulary and grammar; it requires facilitating effective communication and appropriate treatment of content. Emphasising shortcomings in language and rewarding ‘accurate’ English is likely to alienate and discourage students for whom EMI is a struggle, as would showing off a superior knowledge of the English language compared to them.

When we teach, our communication and treatment of language also transmit particular attitudes, identities and behaviours that can exclude or include students. Brumfit pointed out that languages

“are used to create solidarity, but also to threaten solidarity, to conceal, but also to reveal, to claim identity both within and outside particular cultural groupings” (2001: 138).

Therefore, as educators, we need to find ways of identifying with our students through English, which means avoiding threats to their self-esteem and identities while simultaneously encouraging shared growth and understanding. We should also encourage open engagement in an environment where it is safe to communicate openly and not fear the reactions of others. This requires the development of inclusiveness, especially when dealing with diverse classes.

Models of behaviour

If we take this idea of the EMI practitioner not being limited to modelling ‘target language’, we can prioritise effective communication alongside the display and encouragement of positive attitudes to flexible communication. The essence of effective communication would be similar to contexts where everybody speaks and uses their first language, because most people’s goals will be not only to communicate content, but also to motivate, interest and engage students in both the content and the thinking of the discipline they are entering.

Different fields have different priorities when discussing and presenting their content, but these are developed over time and require students to understand both the content and the many cultural conventions around their communication within the community of practice they are entering.

Communities of practice

It takes time to develop language that effectively signals membership and status in a ‘community of practice’ (see Wenger, 1998). In our academic communities, we move from being novices to becoming experts, and language forms a part of signalling our expertise and knowledge of our academic areas. ‘Errors’ in communicating with our communities can signal non-expertise in the area, or a lack of knowledge of how the community works. These ‘errors’, however, go deeper than being simple language errors, and relate to our presentation of understanding or the ways we identify ourselves in relation to others in the field.

As university educators, we need to communicate meaning in an accessible way to people who are not expert members, and we need to allow them space to develop through engagement with our fields. Our communication with students, and colleagues, can suffer if we signal our expertise over them, as it denies their involvement in the dialogue.

The best example of this, perhaps, is when parents communicate with their young children. Parents’ linguistic expertise and professional identities will not necessarily help them to create positive relationships with their children, who might not even understand what is said if they have little experience of the language involved.

As educators, we must reflect on what it was like to enter our communities of practice as novices while also understanding what it is like to communicate with people who have different experiences of using an additional language for this purpose. We also need students to display this same empathy and understanding towards us and other students when they communicate, as this is part of their academic and personal development.

What should we do?

Both educators and students can forget how much time and effort they spent on improving their knowledge, behaviour and language to suit very different needs. Whether EMI practitioners have high or low levels of confidence in their English knowledge, they would ideally encourage clarity, empathy, flexibility and compromise in English use, and they would prioritise what is communicatively important within their fields and the communicative situations they face. How this is achieved might vary (with support, humour, technology, time, personalisation, constant accommodation, or all of these), but this time and effort should be well spent.

There is not a clear answer to striking the balance between communicating effectively with students and preparing them to develop subject-specific communication skills that they can apply in future. Each teaching context will be different, but it is worth considering these tips:

1. correction of language does not often help learning, but if done it requires systematic support, space for reflection and processes of consolidation to be useful;

2. emphasising correct language forms might reduce communicative effectiveness at moments where genuine communication is key;

3. exposure to varieties of expressions, whether ‘standard English’ or not, will help students to prepare for the real diverse worlds they will meet outside education;

4. students will always have an active role in forming their linguistic identities and choices, often in reference to their future goals, so discussing their language development and communicative choices can be a positive way of working together to achieve both of your goals.