Understanding the international student’s experiences in a multilingual university context from a sociolinguistic perspective

Abstract

This paper takes a sociolinguistic perspective in understanding the international student’s experiences in a multilingual university context. Drawing on a narrative inquiry approach, the present qualitative case study investigates a Brazilian Chinese international student’s lived experiences of studying in a Hong Kong university, with particular attention to his identity construction in both in-class and out-of-class contexts and the role of language in shaping his dynamic identity construction. The findings suggest that the international student’s language (in)competence appears to be closely intertwined with his identity construction in situated contexts, intersecting with his inclusion/exclusion and empowerment/marginalisation. The findings also reveal that multiple language ideologies mediate the impact of the international student’s language (in)competence on his identity construction in various situated contexts. Taken together, the findings call attention to the complex and dynamic interaction between identity construction, language (in)competence and language ideology in advancing our understanding of the international student’s experiences in a multilingual university context.

Introduction

Internationalisation, as an irrevocable trend in global higher education, is one of the key strategies through which international universities around the world respond to globalisation (Mok, 2007). Notably, the internationalisation of higher education is closely associated with ‘Englishisation’, given the role that English plays ‘as an academic language of teaching and learning as well as a means of international communication’ (Dafouz and Smit, 2016: 399). Also of note is that while internationalisation pulls towards the use of English as a lingua franca, it also increasingly diversifies the language practices in international universities (Kuteeva et al., 2020). As a result of the multilingual make-up of staff and students from diverse linguacultural backgrounds, multilingualism is increasingly the norm in the sociolinguistic landscape of international universities (Baker, 2016; Fabricius and Preisler, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2014). More specifically, English and the national/local language(s) are likely to be used in international universities alongside the first languages brought by international students from different linguistic backgrounds (Kuteeva et al., 2020; Sung, 2020). Accordingly, international universities can be considered an interesting site for investigating multilingual language practices and identities (Baker, 2016; Haberland et al., 2013; Kirkpatrick, 2014).

International student recruitment is one of the most noticeable consequences of the internationalisation of higher education (Mok, 2007; Montgomery, 2010). With the increasing presence of international students in international universities worldwide, there exists an extensive body of research work on international students’ experiences, especially with respect to their sociocultural adaption and academic acculturation (e.g. Brown and Brown, 2013; Cushner and Karim, 2004; De Costa et al., 2016; Gu and Maley, 2008; Guo and Guo, 2017; Heng, 2019; Montgomery, 2010; Lu, 2020; Sercombe, 2011; Yang, 2016, 2017; Young, et al., 2012). With China being the country with the largest number of students undertaking their academic studies outside of China (Zhu and Gao, 2021), there is a growing body of research on Chinese international students’ experiences abroad (e.g. De Costa et al., 2016; Gu and Maley, 2008; Heng, 2019; Lu, 2020; Yang, 2016, 2017). Research has suggested that the challenges faced by international students can be more varied and substantial than those encountered by domestic students (Cushner and Karim, 2004; Guo and Guo, 2017; Heng, 2019; Montgomery, 2010). For example, international students often have to deal with various challenges arising from intercultural adjustment, culture shock, alienation and discrimination (Sercombe, 2011; Young et al., 2012). Research has also shown that as a result of the stress resulting from their attempts to adapt to the unfamiliar physical conditions, some international students may show reluctance to participate in the classroom and express an unwillingness to engage in social interactions with domestic students outside the classroom (Gu and Maley, 2008; Yang, 2016, 2017). In some cases, international students may also experience identity conflicts and develop a sense of inferiority as a result of their encounters with unexpected and sometimes disturbing images of their national cultures and negative judgements of their cultural values (Brown and Brown, 2013; Heng, 2019).

Within the growing body of work on international students’ experiences during their studies overseas, one strand of research has focused on international students’ language experiences, including the role of language in shaping the ‘international student experience’ (e.g. Arkoudis and Tran, 2007; Benzie, 2010; Clarke, 2020; Kukatlapalli et al., 2020; Phakiti et al., 2013; Popadiuk and Marshall 2011; Sawir, 2005; Zhang and Mi, 2010). Research has found that many international students face various language difficulties in speaking and writing English, particularly with respect to understanding colloquial language in social interactions outside the classroom and writing in stylistically appropriate English for academic purposes (Popadiuk and Marshall 2011; Sawir, 2005). It has also been found that international students’ inability to integrate socially with domestic students may create difficulties for them to access adequate levels of English language experiences, which may negatively impact on their social and linguistic identities during their overseas studies (Arkoudis and Tran, 2007; Benzie, 2010). Moreover, research studies have revealed that international students’ English language proficiency can be a necessary but not sufficient condition for their academic success (Phakiti et al., 2013). Other factors such as motivation, self-regulation and self-efficacy have been found to influence international students’ academic performance and their English learning outcomes (Phakiti et al., 2013).

However, as of now, the majority of empirical studies on international students’ language experiences are situated in the Western world, especially Anglophone countries, with a focus on non-native English-speaking international students’ experiences of using English for academic and/or social purposes and on the relationship between international students’ English proficiency levels and their academic attainment (Kettle, 2005). There is thus a need for more research on international students’ language experiences beyond the Western world, especially in non-Anglophone contexts where multilingualism is the norm rather than the exception (Baker, 2016; Fabricius and Preisler, 2015).

With the aim to extend our understanding of the ‘international student experience’ (Montgomery, 2010) from a sociolinguistic perspective, this paper focuses on the role of language in shaping the international student’s experiences in a non-Anglophone, multilingual context. Given that language use can be an integral part of international students’ lived experiences, the present study attempts to shed light on the complex relationship between the international student’s language use and identity construction in an international university context that is characterized by linguistic diversity. By drawing on a qualitative case study methodology and a narrative inquiry approach to data analysis, this paper investigates a Brazilian Chinese international student’s language experiences in both in-class and out-of-class contexts in a multilingual university in Hong Kong. It seeks to address the following research question: How does language shape the international student’s identity construction across different contexts in the multilingual university?

Theoretical framework

This study is firmly grounded in an integrated sociolinguistic framework which is informed by a poststructuralist perspective on identity (Norton, 2000) and on the relationship between language and identity (Pavlenko and Blackledge, 2004), as well as the construct of language ideology (Kroskrity, 2004). As language use does not take place in a vacuum, there is a need to pay attention to the socioculturally mediated nature of language use, especially the role of language in identity construction and the ideological nature of language practices. Indeed, the relationship between language use and identity construction can be complex and is often constructed through social interactions about ideologies regarding languages and their speakers. By considering an international student’s language experiences together with the identities and language ideologies related to those language experiences, this study aims to generate nuanced insights into the role of language in mediating the international student’s lived experiences in a multilingual university context.

Identity

Identity can be defined as ‘how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, and ‘how that relationship is constructed across time and space’ (Norton, 2000: 5). Identity also involves ‘[b]eing recognized as a ‘certain kind of person’, in a given context’ (Gee, 2000: 99). From a poststructuralist perspective, identity is not a given, but is constructed in particular sociocultural and sociohistorical contexts (Block, 2007). Moreover, identity is conceptualized as being multiple, fluid, dynamic and changing across contexts rather than fixed or static (Block, 2007; Norton, 2000).

Of note is that identity construction should be understood with reference to the interplay between agency and social structure (Pavlenko and Blackledge, 2004). Agency, which can be understood as one’s ability to take actions and overcome obstacles that impede their progress towards their life goals, is always subject to structural constraints (Ahearn, 2001; Kettle, 2005). As Ahearn (2001: 112) argues, agency is a ‘socioculturally mediated capacity to act’. Although individuals can exert their agency to act and make choices in forming and reforming their achieved or self-constructed identities (Pavlenko and Blackledge, 2004), their exercise of agency in self-formation may be constrained by social structures, especially inequitable relations of power. Indeed, as Bourdieu (1986) argues, individuals are positioned in the social space based on the volume and composition of their cultural capital. As the value of individuals’ cultural capital changes, subject to the dominant ideologies in particular spaces, how individuals’ capital is valued in particular contexts can constrain their agency in claiming their achieved identities and resisting their ascribed identities (Norton, 2000; Sung, 2019).

Language and identity

From a poststructuralist perspective, language and identity are closely intertwined and can be mutually constitutive (Piller, 2011). Language is not only a marker of individual and group identities but is also implicated in more complex identity work, including the process of identification with some and differentiation from others (Edwards, 2009). With multilingualism being a sociolinguistic reality, the relationship between language and identity in multilingual contexts can be even more complex (Blackledge and Creese, 2008). Multilingual speakers often make language choices based on the languages and/or language resources at their disposal and construct their identities accordingly (Piller, 2011). As different languages can be associated with different social meanings, they can be used to index different identities in different contexts (Blommaert, 2010). As Creese and Blackledge (2015: 25) notes, ‘speakers use linguistic resources in complex ways to perform a range of subject positions, sometimes simultaneously’. Although it is widely accepted that one language does not straightforwardly index one particular identity, language choices can play an important role in the construction of both individual and group identities (Piller, 2011).

It is also important to acknowledge that the value of different languages and language resources can be context-dependent and that the identities that are constructed through different languages can be perceived and evaluated differently in different contexts (Blommaert, 2010). Although language as a form of cultural capital can be used to accrue power and increase one’s symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1986), its value can be determined by the particular context in which it is used. As Blommaert (2010: 6) argues, each space is ‘filled with norms, expectations, conceptions of what counts as proper and normal (indexical) language use and what does not count as such’. Specifically, the norms and expectations associated with different spaces can impact on what individuals can and/or cannot do with their language and their identities, including both achieved and ascribed identities (Blommaert et al., 2005: 203). When people move across different spaces, their languages and language repertoires can be subject to new language norms. As a consequence, the values of their languages and language resources will be reassessed according to the new language norm (Blommaert, 2010), which may in turn influence their situated identities.

In view of the changing values ascribed to different languages and language resources in different contexts, it would also be worth pointing out the situated view of what counts as language competence. Blommaert, Collins and Slembrouck (2005) reject the static conceptualisation of language competence as a set of attributes of individuals but argue that what counts as language competence should be understood in connection to its situated occurrences in an environment, together with the spatio-temporal characteristics associated with the given environment (Blommaert et al., 2005). Likewise, Canagarajah (2018: 35) argues for a spatial orientation to conceptualizing language competence by situating it within the ‘fullest communicative ecology’. Accordingly, assessments of one’s language competence are often subject to situated expectations embedded in particular environments (Blommaert et al., 2005), which may in turn shape the identity options available to an individual.

Language ideology

Silverstein (1979: 193) defines language ideologies as ‘any sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalisation or justification of perceived language structure and use’. That is to say, language ideologies can be linked to beliefs and attitudes towards the use of a particular language or languages. Importantly, they can guide how individuals use linguistic resources to enact their identities and evaluate others’ use of linguistic resources (Pavlenko and Blackledge, 2004). Also noteworthy here is that language ideologies are rarely unified; instead, they are always situated in socio-cultural contexts (Kroskrity, 2004; Sung, 2020). Moreover, language ideologies can shape and be shaped by power relations and are therefore politically interested. For example, language ideologies can be used by powerful groups to promote and legitimate group interests by underscoring the superiority of their language(s) (Kroskrity, 2004; Woolard and Schieffelin, 1994).

Of relevance to the present study is the notion that language ideologies can shape identity construction in multilingual contexts (Creese and Blackledge, 2015; Kroskrity, 2004). As Piller (2015) notes, language ideologies are not only beliefs about language but also about speakers and their identities. Specifically, language ideologies envisage links of language to group and individual identities and can be used in the creation and representation of various social and cultural identities, including nationality, race, and ethnicity, for oneself and for others (Leeman, 2015; Woolard and Schieffelin, 1994). For example, raciolinguistic ideologies can play a role in shaping individuals’ conceptions of racial authenticity by, for example, associating some racial groups with certain emblematic racialized language practices and other groups with a lack thereof (Rosa, 2019; Rosa and Flores, 2017).

Informed by an integrated sociolinguistic theoretical framework as described above, this paper investigates a Brazilian Chinese international student’s language experiences in a multilingual university in Hong Kong, with a focus on his identity construction in different in-class and out-of-class contexts and the role of language (including language competence and language ideology) in shaping his situated identity construction.

The study

This paper is part of a larger qualitative study on twenty-four international students’ experiences of studying in an international university in multilingual Hong Kong (see Sung, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d, 2022 for more details). The present paper reports on a single case study of the lived experiences of one participant, referred to here as Arnold (pseudonym). A single case study approach was employed here to achieve analytic (or theoretical) generalization, as opposed to statistical generalization (Duff, 2014). As Yin (2014) argues, generalization in relation to a single case study should be understood with reference to ‘the opportunity to shed empirical light about some theoretical concepts or principles […] that go beyond the setting for the specific case’ (p. 40). Arnold’s case was chosen in this paper for an in-depth analysis because its information-rich nature. It was also considered unique and revelatory in that his case could offer a nuanced understanding of a particular phenomenon, that is, international students’ language experiences. Moreover, the selected case could generate theoretical insights into the complex ways in which language mediates the international student’s identity construction in the multilingual university context. Although one may argue that the examination of a single case study can be limiting, ‘insights from a case study can inform, be adapted to, and provide comparative information to a wide variety of other cases, so long as one is careful to take contextual differences into account’ (Van Lier, 2005: 198).

The research setting

Hong Kong, as a multilingual society, can be characterized by its citizenry’s biliteracy (written Chinese and English) and trilingualism (Cantonese, Putonghua and English). Over 95% of the population in Hong Kong are ethnic Chinese. Cantonese is the dominant vernacular language spoken by the local Chinese population in Hong Kong. Putonghua, the official spoken language of China, is also used widely in society (Sung, 2019). Although Cantonese and Putonghua are regarded as dialects of the Chinese language, they are mutually unintelligible. English, the former colonial language and the second language of the majority of the local Chinese population, is the co-official language (together with Chinese) in Hong Kong (Sung, 2020). Although English is important for one’s upward mobility in Hong Kong, its use as a spoken medium for intra-ethnic communication among the Chinese population in Hong Kong is rare (Li, 2009).

The research study was undertaken at University X (pseudonym), a small liberal arts university in Hong Kong, where English is used as the primary medium of instruction in the classroom. As the majority of undergraduate students in University X are local Chinese, Cantonese is used as the dominant language outside the classroom. A number of international (or ‘non-local’) students from other parts of the world also undertake their studies in University X, and most of these international students rely on English as a lingua franca for their everyday interactions with the locals within and without the university (Sung, 2020).

The focal participant

Arnold, the focal participant of this case study, was a full-time undergraduate student at University X at the time of the study. He was in his early twenties when he first took part in the study. He is Brazilian by nationality and was born in Brazil to his Chinese parents. His father was originally from China but moved to Brazil for work in his thirties. He met Arnold’s mother in Brazil who also migrated to Brazil at a very young age. Both parents spoke Portuguese with each other and with Arnold since his birth. Arnold’s mother passed away when Arnold was 5 years old. His father spent much of his time away from home, working in different parts of Brazil since Arnold’s childhood. He was raised almost entirely by Brazilian domestic helpers who only spoke Portuguese with him. He only spoke Portuguese while in Brazil.

Arnold moved to Hong Kong from Brazil at the age of 16. He did not speak any Cantonese or English when he first arrived in Hong Kong. He studied in an English-medium secondary school with a large student population of ethnic minority backgrounds. Arnold experienced a hard time picking up English from scratch but managed to speak English quite well after a year or two. He also took Chinese as a second language in the secondary school, with Cantonese as the spoken medium. He succeeded in achieving a pass in the GCSE Chinese Language examination but admitted that he could only speak and understand very limited Cantonese. After graduating from secondary school, Arnold was admitted to a 4-year Bachelor of Arts programme in University X and chose to major in English. Arnold spent a semester abroad in the U.S. through the university’s exchange programme. He also took Chinese as a second language courses as part of the language requirements for graduation, with Putonghua as the instructional medium. Arnold’s linguistic repertoire included Portuguese as his first language, English as his second language, and very limited proficiency in both Cantonese and Putonghua at the time of the study.

Data collection

Data collection was conducted over a 2-year period (i.e. during the third and fourth years of Arnold’s 4-year undergraduate studies at University X). As a narrative inquiry of Arnold’s experiences, individual interviews were used as the primary source of data for analysis. Six interviews were conducted to elicit Arnold’s detailed accounts of his experiences in University X, with particular attention to his participation (or non-participation) in different activities in the university and his use (or non-use) of different languages in different in-class and out-of-class contexts within the university. His beliefs and ideologies about different languages were also probed into during the interviews. Although the first three interviews were primarily based on an interview protocol which focused on particular aspects of his lived experiences across different contexts within the university, the last three interviews aimed to elicit further narratives of his experiences which he considered to be critical incidents during his studies at University X. English was used as the main language of the interviews. Each interview lasted from 1 h to almost 2 h, and over 10 h of interview data were gathered for the present single case study analysis. With Arnold’s express permission, the interviews were audio-recorded and were later transcribed verbatim.

In addition to individual interviews as the main dataset, other sources of data were also collected to produce a thick description of Arnold’s lived experiences, which could generate a more contextualized understanding of his narratives. They included (a) self-generated reports on language experiences; (b) participant observations (including classroom observations); (c) a background questionnaire (on the participant’s personal information, education background, travel experiences, etc.); (d) email exchanges (the main purpose of which was to follow up on the individual interviews); (e) relevant documents (including course syllabi, course outlines, university language policies, university websites, etc.); and (f) the researcher’s field notes.

Data analysis

Data analysis was conducted in line with a narrative inquiry approach (Polkinghorne, 1995). Narrative inquiry can be understood as the study of experience, with the aim to make sense of the narrator’s ‘real-world’ experience (Connelly and Clandinin, 1999). Narrative inquiry is considered a suitable approach for the present case study because narratives can be considered an important resource through which ‘human beings give meaning to their experience of temporality and personal actions’ (Polkinghorne, 1988: 11). More importantly, narrative inquiry can help to reveal the intricate relationship between language and identity (Barkhuizen et al., 2014).

The process of data analysis was a recursive and gradually evolving process (Strauss and Corbin, 1994). Different sources of data were read and reviewed multiple times in order to gain a holistic understanding of Arnold’s lived experiences in the multilingual university context. As the main source of data, the interview transcripts were coded manually using ‘paradigmatic analytic procedures to produce taxonomies and categories out of the common elements across the database’ (Polkinghorne, 1995: 5). Recurring categories and themes which emerged from the data were identified and were constantly re-evaluated and revised throughout the process. The iterative process of data analysis continued until the identification of the themes and the relationship between the themes reached the point of saturation. The interpretations of the themes were further informed by an integrated sociolinguistic theoretical framework as described in the previous section in order to address the research question of the study. Finally, drafts of preliminary analyses were sent to Arnold for comments via a member checking procedure.

Findings

Linguistic marginalisation in the student project group

As revealed in his narratives, Arnold faced linguistic marginalisation in a student project group where he had to work with several local students. ¹ As group projects were a common assessment method in the majority of the courses in University X, Arnold often collaborated with local students on different group projects for different courses. In his narratives, he recounted his experiences of being a member of a student project group during Year 2. Arnold initially expected that the local students would be willing to speak English in the student project group discussions outside the university classroom, especially in the presence of non-local students. However, they seemed reluctant to accommodate his language needs and spoke almost entirely in Cantonese during the group discussions. It was only when important decisions were made that one of the local students explained to him very briefly in English what they had discussed earlier. He remarked that he was often sidelined in the decision-making processes and felt excluded in the student project group.

Of note here is that the language choice of the student project group seemed to have placed Arnold in an unfavourable position, prohibiting him from participating actively in the discussions of the student project group. Arguably, the language choice of the group discussions could be related to the power structures of the student project group where the local students constituted the majority of the group. As such, the use of Cantonese as the language choice can be seen as a form of symbolic domination (Bourdieu, 1986; Heller, 1992), whereby the local students exerted their power and dominance by establishing Cantonese as the legitimate language of the group. Although such a language choice could be said to serve the local students’ interests by ensuring their ability to speak in the most linguistically efficient way in the group discussions through their first language, it led to Arnold’s exclusion from the group discussions. Arnold’s limited competence in Cantonese, together with the local students’ reluctance to accommodate his linguistic needs, denied him the right to speak and impose reception in the group discussions, constraining his construction of an identity as a valued member of the group. As can be seen in Extract 1, Arnold was also perceived negatively by the local students as a ‘free rider’ (see Extract 1), that is, someone who benefits from the group but without contributing much to the group or doing a fair share of the work. However, such a negative ascribed identity was clearly at odds with Arnold’s preferred identity as a valuable and contributing member of the group. He expressed a strong desire to participate as much as the local students but was prevented from doing so because of the language choice of the group.

Extract 1

In my group, none of them were comfortable speaking in English. So actually every, every time we had a group meeting, they would use Chinese 100%. I mean, sometimes they would try to translate a word or two in English because they know that I am there. But I am not really contributing much because they have all the ideas that they wanna talk about and use for the presentation. But at the same time, they understand that ‘Oh, we have a member who do not understand what we are saying’. So in the end, I am pretty sure they called me a free rider. […] Actually, it wasn’t my aim to do so because I would love to have participated more. (Interview 3)

Notably, the local students’ characterisation of Arnold as a liability in the student project group due to his limited proficiency in Cantonese may have exacerbated his marginalized position within the group. As shown in Extract 2, Arnold noted that while the local students had the ability to conduct the group discussions in English, albeit to varying degrees, their ideology of English as a ‘formal’ language led to their perception of English as an inappropriate language for the group discussions taking place outside the classroom. As a result of the use of Cantonese for discussions in the student project group, Arnold was judged negatively by the local students as a ‘big burden’, since his limited Cantonese proficiency gave rise to the need for the local students to do extra work and serve as ad hoc interpreters for Arnold during the group discussions.

Extract 2

I guess they [local students] have a hard time. […] So I do understand why they don’t wanna speak in English. Cause it’s not a language for them. I think for most locals they take English as a very formal language. Like for a job, but not for daily conversation. […] I think they would look at me as a burden. Like a really big burden. (Interview 3)

Furthermore, the monolingual use of Cantonese in the student project group created obstacles for Arnold to participate in the group discussions through his use of English as a lingua franca. With only very limited productive ability in Cantonese, Arnold made some attempts to participate in the group discussions by speaking in English, while other students continued to conduct the group discussions in Cantonese. However, with the dominant monolingual ideology which legitimized the use of Cantonese only in the group discussions, Arnold seemed to be aware that his of English as a lingua franca could be in conflict with the monoglossic norms operating in the student project group comprised of mostly local students.

Even though Arnold admitted that he attempted to resist the use of Cantonese in the student project group, he failed to negotiate a change in the language choice of the group. As Blackledge and Creese (2008: 546) argue, whether resistance is possible depends on the ‘individual situation, the social and linguistic resources available to participants, and the balance of power relations which sets the boundaries for particular identity options’. As the local students were the majority in the group, it would seem understandable that they might prefer to use Cantonese for the sake of ensuring linguistic efficiency in the group discussions and for maintaining their control and domination of the group dynamics. More important is that Arnold’s lack of valued cultural knowledge which would otherwise be useful to the group project and which could potentially be translated into a source of symbolic power (e.g. knowledge of the local context) constrained his attempt to negotiate a change in the language choice of the group discussions. His failure to ‘display appropriate linguistic and cultural knowledge in order to gain access to the game’ (Heller, 1992: 125) may have severely constrained his participation in the group discussions.

Linguistic exclusion in the Chinese student community

Arnold also reported that he experienced struggles in negotiating his membership in the Chinese student community at University X, as a result of the dominant ideological link between language and ethnicity (Leeman, 2015) in the minds of the local students. Even though he expressed his pride in being a Brazilian, he was also aware of his ethnic identity and expressed a desire to re-discover his roots by integrating into the Chinese student community in the university. However, his limited proficiency in Cantonese (and Putonghua) led to his struggles in gaining acceptance as a legitimate member of the Chinese student community, especially as a result of the local students’ expectation that Arnold should be able to speak in Cantonese (and Putonghua). As Piller (2011: 168) suggests, ‘our embodied identities constrain the ways in which our linguistic performances are perceived’. In particular, his non-use of Cantonese in the Chinese student community was interpreted by the local students as intentionally displaying distance from the community. As Hawkins (2005: 61) aptly points out, ‘It is not enough to make a bid for a certain position or even to appropriately enact a desired identity […] – one must be recognized and acknowledged as that (kind of) person by others within the community’. As shown in Extract 3, Arnold observed that the local students seemed ready to communicate with non-ethnic-Chinese students in English (such as Caucasian and South Asian students), but they appeared to make very different assumptions about Chinese-looking students, such as Arnold, and seemed hesitant in using English with other ethnic Chinese students. It would appear here that the local students might have subscribed to the essentialist idea of equating language and ethnic identity in their language ideological beliefs (Leeman, 2015; Rosa, 2019; Rosa and Flores, 2017), which could have led to Arnold’s observation that students of non-Chinese ethnic background were not expected to understand Cantonese and/or Putonghua, but ethnic Chinese students were assumed to have some knowledge of Cantonese and/or Putonghua. Because of the mismatch between the local students’ expectations of Arnold’s proficiency in Cantonese (and Putonghua) and his actual language proficiency, Arnold’s desired identity as a legitimate member of the Chinese student community was not recognized by other Chinese students. He also struggled to enact his desired ethnic Chinese identity that could be recognizable to others in the Chinese student community, as a result of his limited proficiency in Cantonese (and Putonghua).

Extract 3

Especially for an Asian person. I mean, Asian looking person as me. They [local students] will expect me to know Chinese. I mean, if I were a white guy, then it’s different. Cause they would immediately understand and expect you not to know Chinese. […] And most people will probably not understand or think it makes sense that me, as a Chinese, ethnically I am Chinese. Both parents. And they will definitely expect me to know Chinese. […] When they learn that I don’t speak Cantonese, it’s a huge disappointment for them. And they will probably think that it’s worse than someone who actually doesn’t look like a Hong Konger. […] For example, if you look like an Indian or a Pakistani, they will directly talk to you in English. […] People just don’t understand my case. (Interview 6)

Arnold’s narratives also revealed that the local students’ overt resistance to the use of English outside the classroom added to Arnold’s difficulties in integrating into the Chinese student community at University X (see Extract 4 below). Arguably, the local students’ insistence of using Cantonese outside the classroom could be related to their strong desire to display their ethnolinguistic identity as Hong Kong Chinese and their allegiance to the Hong Kong Chinese community. As Li (2009: 81) observes, ‘the collective ethnolinguistic identity of Chinese Hongkongers is so strong that initiating or maintaining a conversation in a language other than Cantonese is generally perceived as highly marked’. It would appear here that the ideological link between language and ethnolinguistic identity can be seen as a localized manifestation of the one-nation-one-language ideology which promotes monolingualism as a central aspect of the formation of a shared cultural identity (Woolard, 1998). Arnold may have been constrained by the prevalence of such a language ideology in establishing his membership in the Chinese student community, owing to his limited proficiency in Cantonese.

Extract 4

Some of the people told me, in front of me, ‘Why should I speak English? I’m living in Hong Kong. My mother tongue is Cantonese. I’m not gonna go to any other country. I will live here for the rest of my life, so I should only use Cantonese.’ They [local students] are very, very proud of their language, and they are even willing to say it to my face, which I found it so disrespectful. (Interview 5)

To make sense of his own struggles in integrating into the Chinese student community in the university, Arnold expressed his resistance to the local students’ ideologies about the essentialist relationship between language and ethnicity, that is, the expectation that ethnic Chinese people should be able to speak Chinese. By engaging in an internal dialogue (see Extract 5), Arnold voiced his resistance to his own linguistic marginalisation in the Chinese student community. Specifically, he problematized the local students’ tendency to homogenize the Chinese student community, that is, the erasure of any differences between people of one single ethnic group (Gal and Irvine, 1995). For example, he recognized that he was different from the majority of ethnic Chinese people, including overseas Chinese who are able to understand and speak Chinese. He also noted that while other overseas Chinese might be able to speak Chinese because of their family backgrounds, he was an exception, given that he was deprived of a familial environment which could otherwise be conducive to his acquisition of Chinese during his childhood.

Extract 5

They [local students] assume my family was Chinese, so I should be able to know Chinese. […] Because they always take other people for examples. There are so many Hong Kong people who were born overseas, but they can speak Chinese. But that’s because of their own background. It’s different form mine. My background is very unique. It’s very rare almost. I think no one would be like me being raised by only domestic workers. (Interview 5)

Linguistic advantage and empowerment in the English-medium classroom

In order to counter his disadvantaged and marginalised position outside the university classroom, including in the student project group and in the Chinese student community, Arnold appropriated his English proficiency to construct a desirable academic identity as a competent university student and achieve a sense of empowerment in the English-medium classroom. Although Arnold, like the majority of the local students in the university, is a second-language speaker of English, he was aware that he could speak English much more fluently than the majority of the local students, which helped him construct a more powerful identity in the classroom than outside the classroom. By participating actively in the whole-class discussions in the classroom through the use of English, he mobilized his linguistic capital to his advantage and gained linguistic privilege over other local students. In so doing, he not only neutralized the unequal power relations between local students and non-local students, at least temporarily but also positioned himself in a more favourable position than the local students in the English-medium classroom (through his display of his English proficiency as a form of symbolic power). As can be seen in Extract 6 below, Arnold noted that his high proficiency of English not only intimidated the local students, but also left a good impression on his professors.

Extract 6

I do feel an advantage. […] This guy can speak such good English. Impressive, right? So that’s an advantage […] Maybe because I speak a lot in class. And maybe compared to the other locals, I may have better English than them. So in terms of the impression that I give to the professor, that may be useful. I don’t know whether this is right, but maybe the other students may feel threatened by me. (Interview 4)

Cognizant of the symbolic value of English in the university classroom, Arnold further claimed his linguistic privilege as an English major and constructed an advantageous position in the English-medium classroom. Specifically, he identified himself favourably as an English major, while at the same time differentiating himself from the majority of the local students who were non-English majors. By setting up the binary oppositions between English majors and non-English majors, Arnold gained symbolic power through claiming linguistic expertise as an English major, which facilitated his construction of a desirable academic identity as a competent university student in the English-medium classroom where the majority of the local students were non-English majors. As can be seen in Extract 7 below, Arnold’s use of the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘they’ signals the oppositions that he set up between English majors and non-English majors in creating a favourable academic identity for himself.

Extract 7

I feel like English majors are, not just me, we do have an advantage in the sense that we can express our ideas with more confidence, because we are always having to use English in class anyway. So when we have a class or elective, most of us we do pretty well compared to the others. Others, maybe, they don’t use English in their lessons as much as we do. (Interview 4)

Apart from his general English proficiency, Arnold’s ability to speak English without a local accent also helped him position himself more favourably vis-à-vis the local students in the English-medium classroom. He claimed that he spoke better English than the local students (including those who were English majors) by virtue of his ability to speak English without a ‘heavy local accent’. His adoption of the native speaker ideology which valorized native-speaker accents and his acceptance of the ideology surrounding the stigmatisation of the local Hong Kong accent allowed him to position his own near-native accent of English above the local accent used by the majority of the local students. As can be seen in Extract 8, by associating ‘good’ English with the non-presence of a ‘heavy local accent’, Arnold positioned himself as more powerful than the local students in the English-medium classroom through his internalisation of the global hierarchical order of English accents (Lippi-Green, 2012).

Extract 8

For me, I would be in advantage. I mean good English in terms of accent and pronunciation. Like without heavy local accent. I guess. I guess so. (Interview 4)

Discussion

This paper presented an in-depth case study of a Brazilian Chinese international student’s experiences in in-class and out-of-class contexts in a multilingual university in Hong Kong, with particular attention to his evolving identity construction and the role of language in shaping his situated identity construction. The findings show that Arnold constructed different identities in different in-class and out-of-class contexts in the multilingual university and that his situated identity construction was shaped by his language (in)competence which was evaluated differently in different contexts. Although his limited proficiency in Cantonese constrained his construction of more favourable identities in the student project group and in the Chinese student community, his proficiency in English facilitated his construction of an empowered identity in the English-medium classroom.

An important finding emerging from the case study is that judgements of Arnold’s language (in)competence appear to vary in different contexts within the multilingual university. As the multilingual university can be seen as comprising different spaces where different language norms operate, the international student’s language (in)competence needs to be viewed as dynamic, situated and context-dependent (Sung, 2021d). In contrast to the previous findings which point to the role of international students’ English proficiency in determining their academic and social integration (e.g. Arkoudis and Tran, 2007; Benzie, 2010; Phakiti et al., 2013; Sawir, 2005), the findings here suggest that a more nuanced view of international students’ language (in)competence is necessary. More specifically, the degree of alignment or misalignment between the international student’s linguistic repertoires and the language norms associated with a particular space within the university can be of importance in shaping others’ assessments of their language (in)competence in a specific space (Sung, 2021b). Although Arnold’s English proficiency was regarded as a valued form of linguistic capital in the English-medium classroom, which helped him gain recognition and negotiate a favourable academic identity, his English proficiency was not recognized as legitimate language competence in other contexts, with its use being disapproved by others in the student project group and in the Chinese student community. As Blommaert (2010) argues, different spaces can be linked to different norms, expectations and conceptions of what counts as language competence. As the values and social meanings of different languages may vary in different spaces, what counts as language competence can differ significantly across contexts (Blommaert et al., 2005). It is only when the international student’s linguistic capital is valued in a particular context that it can be considered language competence (Bourdieu, 1986, 1991).

The findings of this study also suggest that Arnold’s language (in)competence appears to be closely intertwined with his identity construction in situated contexts within the multilingual university, thus lending support to the impact of language on international students’ lived experiences and identity construction as reported in previous studies (e.g. Arkoudis and Tran, 2007; Benzie, 2010). More importantly, the findings here further suggest that the impact of Arnold’s language (in)competence on his identity construction can be highly context-specific. On the one hand, Arnold’s English proficiency afforded him the opportunity to participate actively in the whole-class discussions and enact his desired academic identity as a competent university student in the English-medium classroom where the language choice was dictated to a large extent by the university’s official language policy. His identity construction experiences in the classroom thus demonstrate how language competence can be appropriated to reframe relationships with others (i.e. local students) and ‘open new identity options’ (Pavlenko and Blackledge, 2004: 13). On the other hand, Arnold’s limited proficiency in Cantonese placed considerable constraints on his exercise of agency and his construction of a favourable identity in the student project group. As Piller (2011: 168) rightly points out, ‘our linguistic proficiencies constrain the identities we can perform’. Arnold, as the only non-local group member, only had limited power over the rules of the game (Bourdieu, 1991). With limited Cantonese proficiency, he seemed to have no choice but to succumb to the language choice imposed by the local students, placing him in a disadvantaged position in the student project group. Overall, the findings suggest that the international student’s language (in)competence may shape what they can or cannot do with language in each context within the multilingual university, thereby making possible or limiting the range of identity options available to them in specific contexts within the university.

Furthermore, the case study extends the existing body of work on international students’ language experiences (e.g. Arkoudis and Tran, 2007; Clarke, 2020; Kukatlapalli et al., 2020; Phakiti et al., 2013; Zhang and Mi, 2010) by highlighting the mediating role of language ideologies on the international student’s identity construction experiences in the multilingual university. Specifically, the findings here reveal that multiple language ideologies may have mediated the impact of Arnold’s language (in)competence on his construction of identities in situated contexts. These language ideologies not only influenced how Arnold mobilized his linguistic resources in constructing his identities in specific contexts but also affected how others perceived his identities based on his language use and language competence. For example, the prevailing monolingual ideology and the ideology of English as a formal language which circulated widely in the local student community delegitimized Arnold’s use of English in the student project group, thereby limiting the opportunities for his involvement in the group discussions and resulting in his linguistic marginalisation in the group. Moreover, the local students’ embrace of the ideology regarding the essentialist link between language and ethnolinguistic identity led to their insistence on the use of Cantonese as the legitimate language in the Chinese student community, which contributed to Arnold’s sense of exclusion. It would appear here that the international student’s identity construction can be shaped by local and other students’ language ideologies with regard to the relationship between language, race and ethnicity (Leeman, 2015; Rosa, 2019; Rosa and Flores, 2017). By contrast, the prevalence of the ideologies surrounding the valorisation of English in the university context and the hierarchisation of different English accents in the global linguistic marketplace enabled Arnold to construct an empowered identity through the display of his advanced English proficiency and his near-native English accent in the English-medium university classroom (Clarke, 2020; Lippi-Green, 2012). Overall, the findings suggest that given their power of naturalising language choices and language practices in different contexts, different language ideologies can serve to either facilitate or restrict the international student’s ability to right to speak and impose reception, thereby mediating the impact of language (in)competence on their identity construction in different contexts within the university (Sung, 2021d).

Conclusion and implications

Although the single case study reported here can be limited by its potential for generalizability owing to the vast differences amongst different international students’ language experiences in different university contexts, it makes an important theoretical contribution to the extant body of work on the international students’ experiences by offering valuable sociolinguistic insights into the complex role of language in shaping the international student’s lived experiences in a multilingual university situated in a non-Anglophone context. The findings suggest that the international student’s language (in)competence can be closely intertwined with their dynamic identity construction in different contexts, intersecting with their inclusion/exclusion, membership/non-membership and empowerment/marginalisation. The findings also reveal that multiple language ideologies play a role in mediating the impact of the international student’s language (in)competence on their identity construction across contexts (Sung, 2021d). Taken together, the findings call attention to the complex and dynamic interactions between identity construction, language competence and language ideology in advancing our understanding of the international student’s experiences in a multilingual university context.

The findings also have practical implications for international universities in helping international students adapt to the multilingual university settings during their cross-border studies. As the impact of the international student’s language (in)competence on identity construction can be highly context-dependent, it would be important for international universities to raise international students’ awareness as to the different language norms operating in different spaces within the multilingual university so that they can make informed decisions as to how best they can make use of their linguistic repertoires in navigating the different language norms associated with different contexts in order to gain linguistic advantage and resist linguistic marginalisation. International universities can also offer language courses to international students who do not speak the local/national language(s) of the host country so that they can integrate socially into the local student community more easily through expanding their linguistic repertoires. Moreover, international universities should encourage domestic students to speak English as a lingua franca and accommodate international students’ language needs whenever possible in order to facilitate intercultural learning and communication on the university campus (Sung, 2020).

In terms of research implications, the case study calls upon researchers to move beyond their narrow focus on international students’ English proficiency in understanding their language experiences in the international university. Given the increasingly multilingual realities of universities worldwide (Baker, 2016), there is a need for more research on the role of international students’ situated multilingual (in)competence in shaping their construction of identities across different contexts in the multilingual university. Further research would also be necessary to understand how international students from different languacultural backgrounds navigate various language-mediated challenges and opportunities in the multilingual university context by drawing on different aspects of their linguistic repertoires in constructing their identities in situated contexts.