Abstract
This study investigates how English proficiency functions as both human and linguistic capital within Saudi Arabia’s emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem. Drawing on Human Capital Theory and Linguistic Capital Theory, it examines how English shapes entrepreneurial opportunities, how student entrepreneurs develop proficiency, and the challenges they encounter across local and global contexts. Using a qualitatively driven mixed-methods design, the study integrates survey data (n = 41), semi-structured interviews (n = 17), and an analysis of 83 entrepreneurial project names. Findings indicate that English operates as context-activated capital rather than a universal requirement for entrepreneurial success. Its value becomes salient when ventures engage with international markets, English-dominant technologies, foreign partners, or institutional programs that mandate English use. Participants developed proficiency through both formal education and self-directed learning, though speaking remained the most challenging skill due to limited opportunities for authentic interaction. While AI-mediated tools facilitated comprehension and communication, English-only systems produced structural barriers that restricted access to resources. English also functioned as symbolic capital, enhancing perceptions of professionalism, credibility, and global orientation. Naming practices revealed hybrid linguistic strategies combining Arabic, English, and pseudo-English forms to balance cultural identity with international visibility. Overall, the study reconceptualizes English not as a prerequisite for entrepreneurship but as a strategic resource whose economic and symbolic value depends on situational demands.
Plain Language Summary
This study looks at how English helps Saudi student entrepreneurs in their business journeys. It focuses on English as both a skill people can learn (human capital) and a resource that gives them social and economic advantages (linguistic capital). Using surveys, interviews, and an analysis of project names, the research explores how students use English in their ventures, how they learn it, and what difficulties they face. The results show that English is most useful when businesses connect with English-speaking partners, technologies, or startup programs. Students improve their English through school and daily experiences, but many still find speaking difficult because they lack real chances to practice. While AI tools make understanding easier, systems that work only in English can exclude those with lower proficiency. English also gives entrepreneurs a sense of professionalism and status. The way students name their projects often mixes English and Arabic, showing that English is used strategically rather than universally.
Keywords
Introduction
Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 places innovation and entrepreneurship at the center of the Kingdom’s economic transformation, aiming to diversify the economy and reduce dependence on oil revenues. The national strategy emphasizes the development of a knowledge-based economy driven by youth empowerment, technological innovation, and global integration (Saudi Vision 2030, 2016). Within this context, English language skills have gained increasing strategic relevance. As Saudi entrepreneurs and university graduates engage with transnational markets, investors, and knowledge networks, English often functions as a key medium of communication and access to global opportunities (Almegren, 2022; Alqahtani, 2022). In many non-English-speaking contexts, proficiency in English is widely perceived as facilitating economic mobility and international engagement, though the extent to which it directly shapes entrepreneurial outcomes remains contested (Ahmad, 2023).
Entrepreneurship has likewise become a central pillar of Saudi higher education and economic development policy. The General Authority for Small and Medium Enterprises (Monsha’at) has implemented numerous initiatives aligned with Vision 2030, including the “University Startups Initiative,” which has supported tens of thousands of students and substantially improved the Kingdom’s ranking in entrepreneurship education (Monsha’at, 2023). Large-scale events such as the Biban Forum 2025 and its “University Entrepreneurs Competition” further illustrate institutional commitment to student entrepreneurship, with participation from dozens of universities and hundreds of startup projects (Biban Global, 2025). These initiatives increasingly expose student entrepreneurs to international networks, competitions, and investors, contexts in which English frequently serves as a working language of communication and knowledge exchange. Consequently, understanding how English proficiency operates within Saudi entrepreneurial ecosystems has become both empirically important and policy-relevant.
Despite this growing emphasis, the relationship between English proficiency and entrepreneurial success remains insufficiently understood, particularly in the Saudi context (Alharbi, 2022; Albiladi, 2022). While policy discourse often frames English as a key competence for global engagement (Almegren, 2022; Saudi Vision 2030, 2016), empirical research examining how language skills translate into concrete entrepreneurial processes such as opportunity recognition, venture development, legitimacy building, and international market access, remains limited (Omer et al., 2025; Rajović et al., 2024; Siddiqui et al., 2024). Moreover, existing studies frequently treat English proficiency as a uniform advantage, overlooking how its value may vary across institutional settings, market orientations, and stages of venture development.
This study addresses this gap by examining how English proficiency functions within Saudi student entrepreneurship, drawing on data from a university innovation center and interviews with early-stage entrepreneurs. Rather than assuming a direct relationship between language competence and success, the study investigates how English is mobilized across different entrepreneurial domains, including opportunity access, legitimacy construction, branding, and technological mediation.
Literature Review
English Proficiency and Entrepreneurship
In global entrepreneurship, English proficiency is a vital competence that enables access to international resources, partners, and specialized knowledge (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999). Within this context, Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF) prioritizes intelligibility and strategic communication over native-like fluency, fostering effective collaboration among linguistically diverse teams (Kankaanranta & Räisänen, 2025). Entrepreneurs who communicate confidently in English can negotiate, manage cross-border operations, and navigate complex international regulations with greater efficiency (Siddiqui et al., 2024).
English proficiency is also linked to innovation capacity. It enables engagement with global research, digital learning platforms, and professional networks, supporting creativity, problem-solving, and intercultural competence (Rajović et al., 2024). In digital economies, English functions as the dominant language of e-commerce platforms, cloud services, and online marketplaces (Piller & Cho, 2013), reinforcing its perceived role in building credibility, trust, and visibility (Omer et al., 2025; Roshid & Kankaanranta, 2025).
However, this literature often treats English as a universally advantageous asset, overlooking the contextual conditions under which it becomes necessary or influential. Research on English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) complicates this assumption by demonstrating that effective international communication frequently relies on simplified, hybrid, or non-native forms of English rather than standardized proficiency (Jenkins, 2013; Seidlhofer, 2011). In BELF settings, communicative success depends less on grammatical accuracy than on strategic competence, negotiation skills, and shared professional knowledge. These findings suggest that English may function as a situational resource rather than a deterministic driver of entrepreneurial success.
Critical sociolinguistic perspectives further challenge the notion of English as a neutral tool. Work on language in late capitalism argues that linguistic skills are commodified as economic assets, valued not for communicative necessity alone but for their symbolic association with modernity, mobility, and prestige (Duchêne & Heller, 2012). Similarly, raciolinguistic scholarship highlights how language evaluation is shaped by ideological and social hierarchies rather than purely functional considerations (Flores & Rosa, 2015). These perspectives foreground linguistic gatekeeping: the process through which access to opportunities is mediated by socially constructed notions of appropriate language use.
Taken together, these strands of research suggest that English proficiency operates simultaneously as a communicative tool, symbolic marker, and institutional filter. Yet empirical studies in entrepreneurship have rarely examined how these dimensions interact in non-Western contexts or among early-stage entrepreneurs, where local markets, Arabic networks, and institutional constraints may reduce reliance on English.
English in Saudi Arabia’s Innovation Agenda
Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 positions entrepreneurship, innovation, and global integration as central to economic diversification. Within this agenda, English proficiency is increasingly framed as a key enabling skill for international competitiveness (Alharbi, 2022). English is associated with participation in tourism, commerce, and global knowledge exchange (Almegren, 2022), as well as access to international business networks and intercultural communication (Albiladi, 2022).
Educational reforms emphasize alignment between language education and labor market needs. E-learning initiatives and curriculum redesign aim to equip Saudi youth with skills for global engagement, including English proficiency (Alqahtani, 2022; Singh et al., 2022). Empirical research indicates that students and faculty perceive English as essential for business education and professional success (Omer et al., 2025).
Yet policy narratives often assume that English proficiency translates directly into entrepreneurial capability. English is framed as a transferable skill that enhances productivity and competitiveness (Becker, 1964; Huber et al., 2022). However, critical scholarship emphasizes that language functions within broader political-economic structures and does not independently determine economic success (Duchêne & Heller, 2012). In practice, structural constraints such as access to finance, regulatory requirements, institutional support, and market conditions often exert a stronger influence on venture development than linguistic factors alone (Marvel et al., 2016; Tight, 2022).
Moreover, many ventures in Saudi Arabia initially target domestic markets, where Arabic remains the dominant language of business communication and consumer interaction. Sociolinguistic research further shows that language choice reflects ideological valuations and local legitimacy rather than purely functional communication needs (Bourdieu, 1991; Flores & Rosa, 2015). Consequently, English proficiency may function less as a prerequisite for entrepreneurial activity per se and more as a strategic resource for internationalization, global networking, and access to transnational knowledge flows (Kankaanranta & Räisänen, 2025; Roshid & Kankaanranta, 2025). This perspective aligns with research on English as a lingua franca, which emphasizes context-dependent use driven by communicative necessity rather than universal dominance (Jenkins, 2013; Seidlhofer, 2011).
Artificial Intelligence, Translation Technologies, and Linguistic Capital
Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence have introduced a new dimension to debates on language and entrepreneurship. AI-driven translation and language models increasingly mediate access to English-dominant knowledge systems, allowing users to draft communications, summarize information, and interact with global platforms without full proficiency (Almusharraf, 2026; Al Fraidan, 2025; Li et al., 2025). Entrepreneurs report using tools such as ChatGPT and Google Translate to overcome language barriers, expand networks, and streamline business operations (Almusharraf & Bailey, 2023; Abdelhalim et al., 2025; Dwivedi, 2025).
However, emerging research suggests that AI does not simply substitute for human language competence but transforms how linguistic resources are deployed. Large language models act as cognitive mediators that support idea generation and problem solving, but effective use depends on users’ ability to formulate prompts, evaluate outputs, and adapt content to context (Almusharraf & Bailey, 2023; Zhai, 2023). Thus, technological mediation may reduce entry barriers while simultaneously privileging those with stronger underlying competencies.
Empirical studies in EFL contexts indicate that AI can amplify existing inequalities rather than neutralize them. Al Fraidan (2025) shows that AI-assisted writing improves performance, but gains are significantly greater for learners with higher proficiency and stronger motivation. Similarly, research on global virtual teams suggests that translation technologies improve efficiency yet cannot fully replicate human abilities to negotiate meaning, build trust, or convey considered intent (Menzies et al., 2024).
These findings suggest that AI reconfigures rather than eliminates linguistic capital. Entrepreneurs with higher English proficiency can leverage AI as a productivity multiplier, while those with limited proficiency may rely on automation that remains imperfect, particularly in high-stakes contexts such as negotiations or investor communication. Consequently, AI may reinforce the conditional nature of English as a resource rather than rendering it obsolete.
Theoretical Framework: Human and Linguistic Capital
To capture these complexities, this study integrates Human Capital Theory (HCT) and Linguistic Capital Theory (LCT). HCT conceptualizes education and skills as investments that enhance productivity and economic outcomes (Becker, 1964). In entrepreneurship, human capital supports opportunity recognition, resource mobilization, and venture development (Marvel et al., 2016). English proficiency can therefore be understood as a transferable skill enabling access to global knowledge, technologies, and markets (Huber et al., 2022).
LCT, rooted in Bourdieu’s theory of capital, emphasizes the symbolic value of language as a marker of legitimacy, authority, and social distinction (Bourdieu, 1991). Linguistic competence influences how individuals are perceived by investors, partners, and institutions, shaping access to opportunities beyond purely functional communication. As Cerne (2021) notes, certain linguistic forms are socially valued more highly than others, reproducing power relations.
Integrating these frameworks reveals English proficiency as both an economic resource and a symbolic asset. Skills developed as human capital may become linguistic capital when leveraged for credibility or prestige. At the same time, language ideologies can produce exclusionary effects, privileging certain speakers while marginalizing others (Pennycook, 2004). This dual perspective aligns with research on language and work in multilingual economies (Block, 2017; Jenks, 2025).
Research Gap
Despite growing scholarship highlighting the importance of English for global business communication, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity (Antioco et al., 2023; Huber et al., 2022; Rajović et al., 2024; Roshid & Kankaanranta, 2025; Siddiqui et al., 2024), most studies focus on multinational corporations or Western contexts, with comparatively limited attention to early-stage entrepreneurs operating within predominantly local ecosystems. Furthermore, much of this literature positions English proficiency as a key entrepreneurial competence facilitating internationalization and competitiveness, implicitly suggesting a linear relationship between language ability and entrepreneurial success. This perspective overlooks emerging evidence that language operates as a context-dependent resource whose value is shaped by market orientation, institutional constraints, and technological mediation.
By examining Saudi university entrepreneurs, this study addresses these gaps and investigates how English proficiency operates not as a universal determinant but as a selectively activated form of human and linguistic capital. Guided by this framework, the study addresses the following research questions:
Methodology
Research Design
This study adopted a qualitatively driven mixed-methods design (Mason, 2006; Morgan, 2014) in which a small quantitative component served a strategic support function. A brief screening survey (n = 41) provided descriptive background information and informed purposive sampling for the qualitative phase, but did not constitute a standalone quantitative dataset for inferential analysis. The qualitative strand, comprising semi-structured interviews with student entrepreneurs and a linguistic analysis of 83 project names, formed the core of the research and carried the primary interpretive weight. This design was selected to capture both the functional and symbolic dimensions of English proficiency within entrepreneurial activity, consistent with the study’s theoretical grounding in HCT and LCT.
Research Setting and Context
The study took place within an innovation and entrepreneurship center at a leading Saudi university in Riyadh, a strategically significant site for examining English proficiency in entrepreneurial practice, given its alignment with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 emphasis on economic diversification through entrepreneurship and technological innovation. The center provides an integrated support ecosystem, including mentorship, funding channels, and structured training, and maintains detailed records of ventures across pre-incubation, incubation, and acceleration stages in sectors such as technology, services, health, tourism, and creative industries. This university-based environment sits within a broader and highly heterogeneous entrepreneurial landscape in Riyadh, where accessible, bilingual university incubators coexist with more selective, internationally oriented accelerators such as Misk Foundation Accelerator, Flat6Labs, and Wa’ed Ventures, which typically operate in English and emphasize high-growth, globally scalable ventures. Most participants in this study were affiliated with university incubation programs that allowed flexible use of Arabic or English; however, some had also engaged with other elite accelerators (e.g., Misk Foundation Accelerator, The Garage, CODE-related initiatives), providing analytically valuable variation.
Participants and Sampling Strategy
A maximum-variation purposive sampling strategy guided recruitment. The screening survey produced 41 responses and captured demographic, linguistic, and entrepreneurial characteristics essential for shaping the qualitative sample. Among these 41 Saudi entrepreneurs (68.3% male, 31.7% female; mean age 23.2 years). Technology projects constituted the majority of submissions, accounting for 65%, followed by services (27.5%), industrial (5%), and creative projects (2.5%). English proficiency levels were moderately distributed (mean = 5.49/10, SD = 2.47), with 51.2% reporting intermediate proficiency (4–7), while 24.4% each reported low and high proficiency; notably, 51.2% had received no university education in English, and 61.0% identified self-directed learning (YouTube, apps, gaming, reading) as their primary English acquisition source. In terms of actual venture operations, only 14.6% used English primarily in their projects, while 53.7% used it partially, and 31.7% did not use English at all, a pattern strongly correlated with market orientation, as 87.8% of ventures focused on local/domestic markets versus 12.2% international ventures. Paradoxically, despite this limited English usage, 82.9% of entrepreneurs perceived English proficiency as providing a competitive advantage (versus 9.8% who disagreed and 7.3% uncertain). When asked about support needs, financial support ranked highest (75.6%), followed by network access (56.1%), marketing support (41.5%), and English language training (39.0%), suggesting that while English is valued symbolically, entrepreneurs prioritize capital and business infrastructure as more critical resources for venture success.
From this broader pool, 17 student entrepreneurs were purposively selected for in-depth interviews, representing variation across discipline, sector, venture stage, gender, and self-assessed proficiency as illustrated in Table 1. This sampling strategy ensured that the findings reflected a broad spectrum of entrepreneurial and linguistic experiences rather than a narrow subgroup.
Interview Participant Demographic Data.
Data Collection and Analysis
Quantitative Screening Survey (Supportive Component)
The screening survey (n = 41) provided descriptive demographic and proficiency data and helped identify information-rich participants for interviews. As a small quantitative component, it was analyzed using basic descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, to profile the broader entrepreneurial pool and guide purposive sampling, consistent with mixed-methods designs where quantitative data serve a supportive, selection-focused role (Mason, 2006; Morgan, 2014).
Interviews (Primary Qualitative Component)
The interview guide was developed through a literature review, expert consultation, and alignment with HCT and LCT, then refined through pilot interviews to ensure clarity, cultural relevance, and feasibility. The final semi-structured protocol included 20 open-ended questions across six thematic areas addressing English proficiency, innovation, symbolic capital, branding, opportunity structures, and recommendations for support. Interviews were conducted in Arabic to maximize comfort and depth, recorded with consent, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English using principles of conceptual equivalence. Culturally specific expressions were noted in analytical memos, and member checking was used to validate translations and interpretations. Interviews lasted 35 to 50 min (mean = 43 min).
Interview data were examined using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022), which enabled an inductive, iterative interpretation aligned with the study’s theoretical framing. The process involved repeated reading and memoing for familiarization, followed by open coding to identify initial concepts and linguistic patterns. These codes were then organized through axial coding into broader categories reflecting conceptual relationships. Subsequent selective coding produced seven major thematic domains. To enhance dependability, 20% of transcripts were double-coded, with differences resolved collaboratively. Final themes were interpreted through both HCT and LCT, ensuring theoretical coherence.
Interview data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022) through an iterative, theory-informed process. Transcripts were read repeatedly for familiarization, supported by analytic memoing to capture initial insights. Inductive open coding identified meaningful segments related to language use, entrepreneurial practices, perceived benefits, and challenges. Codes were refined through constant comparison and grouped into broader conceptual categories, from which candidate themes were developed and iteratively reviewed across the dataset to ensure internal coherence and clear distinctions. This process resulted in seven overarching thematic domains. Theme development was guided by both empirical patterns in the data and relevance to HCT and LCT. To enhance dependability, 20% of transcripts were independently double-coded, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Sample interview questions are provided in an accompanying Supplemental Material.
Given the interpretive nature of reflexive thematic analysis, I acknowledge my positionality as a researcher situated within the Saudi higher education context and familiar with the local entrepreneurial ecosystem. While this background facilitated access and contextual understanding, it may also shape interpretation. To mitigate potential bias, analytic decisions were documented through reflexive memoing, and themes were repeatedly reviewed against the full dataset to ensure they reflected participants’ perspectives rather than preconceived assumptions.
The quantitative component was used descriptively to contextualize the qualitative findings rather than to support inferential or causal claims. Accordingly, results are interpreted as indicative patterns within the sample rather than generalizable relationships.
Entrepreneurial Naming Practices Analysis
A purposive sample of 83 entrepreneurial project names and accompanying descriptive materials was extracted from the survey (n = 45) and institutional incubator records (n = 38). Each name was classified into one of three linguistic categories based on explicit criteria:
Transliterated Arabic: Arabic words rendered in Latin script to preserve pronunciation while enabling broader readability for non-Arabic speakers.
Accurate English: Names composed of standard, grammatically correct English words or phrases.
Pseudo-English: English-like forms that deviate from conventional spelling, morphology, or semantics, including hybrid or stylized constructions.
Names were reviewed alongside project descriptions to ensure contextual accuracy, and ambiguous cases were resolved through iterative comparison.
Results
This section presents the qualitative findings organized around the study’s three research questions. Drawing on interview data, supported by naming analysis, the results illustrate how English proficiency operates across entrepreneurial contexts, experiences, and symbolic practices. Rather than presenting themes in isolation, the findings are grouped to show how each set of themes addresses a specific research question. This structure highlights the multifaceted role of English as a context-dependent resource shaping entrepreneurial outcomes, developmental trajectories, and symbolic positioning within the Saudi entrepreneurial ecosystem.
English as Context-Activated Resource in Entrepreneurial Outcomes (RQ1)
English as Context-Contingent Infrastructure
Across participants, English was conceptualized not as a blanket requirement but as a situational resource whose value rises with project scope, sector, and stage of growth. Participants repeatedly distinguished between local, Arabic-medium ventures, where English was largely unnecessary, and internationally oriented or institutionally mediated opportunities, where English functioned as an indispensable infrastructure. One founder, whose ventures were entirely embedded in the Saudi and Arab market, stated clearly: “My whole market is Saudi and Arab… I don’t need English to talk to my customers or partners” (p3). Another participant managing multiple local projects similarly explained: “Because my target Saudis and Arabs, I don’t really need English now… but if I have a product or something international, English would definitely be essential” (P16). Even among participants whose businesses remain locally focused, there was broad recognition that English still represents a valuable developmental resource. As P10 remarked, “We should not reduce its importance… English is part of the project’s growth and part of my growth as an entrepreneur”.
Participants described a very different reality when they approached national accelerators, large exhibitions, or global investors. P13, for example, recounted his experience with a prestigious accelerator: “I entered and discovered the entire program was in English. The mentors, consultants, and even the entrepreneurs, most of them speak English. I couldn’t follow anything, and I couldn’t continue.” He went on to note that major programs “require good English… even if your project is great, if you don’t have the language, you will be rejected.” P12 echoed this, observing that in some high-profile hackathons and conferences: “The whole event was in English… the discussions, the panels, even the instructions. If you don’t have English, you just sit there without understanding.”
Furthermore, entrepreneurs working in international or technology-oriented sectors positioned English as an operational infrastructure. P11, whose digital platform Badayatuk maintains “over 500 agreements with international companies,” noted that “all documentation, meetings, and interfaces are in English—it’s impossible to avoid.” In tourism, P1 reflected on 3 years managing international clients: “English isn’t optional; it’s how I connect with foreign tourists and partners.” P2 reported, “My English proficiency has been fundamental to building long-term international partnerships and navigating multinational environments.”
Early-stage, locally focused ventures functioned monolingually; yet, as projects scaled, English became indispensable for regulatory correspondence, partnership negotiation, and documentation. P6, leading a national drone-delivery initiative, observed, “At the start, everything was Arabic, but once we dealt with aviation authorities and international suppliers, English became part of daily operations.”
Operational Barriers Exceed Linguistic Ones
A notable pattern across the interviews was the extent to which entrepreneurs framed operational and structural barriers, rather than English proficiency, as the most immediate and consequential constraints on their ventures. While language challenges were acknowledged, participants frequently emphasized that issues related to capital, logistics, staffing, regulatory processes, and ecosystem support were far more determinative of entrepreneurial outcomes. This reframes the role of language within the broader entrepreneurial landscape: not as the central barrier, but as one contextual factor amid a complex web of constraints.
P14, despite identifying linguistic limitations in elite programs, clearly distinguished between language as a challenge and capital as a barrier. Having won a national entrepreneurship competition and received access to office space, mentorship, and consultancy, he nonetheless emphasized: “My problem was not English… it was the lack of financial support. I had office space and consulting, but I needed capital.” His narrative underscores that even for ambitious, high-potential projects, financial constraints often precede or overshadow linguistic ones. English proficiency may facilitate certain forms of opportunity access, but it cannot compensate for systemic funding shortages.
Similarly, P16 described the closure of two ventures in terms that highlight the primacy of operational constraints. “Delivery costs were too high,” he explained about the closure of the perfume business, noting that maintaining vehicles and logistics infrastructure became financially unsustainable. Regarding Hardware, he attributed the failure to “a shortage of technicians,” stressing that finding reliable labor was the central challenge. Importantly, he clarified: “Language never stopped us.” For P16, the decisive barriers were cost structures and labor market limitations, not English proficiency.
P6’s experience running a drone delivery initiative further illustrates how regulatory processes can eclipse linguistic obstacles. His project remained stalled, not due to communication issues but because of bureaucratic requirements: “It’s just bureaucracy, not language.” This reflects a broader trend in the Saudi entrepreneurial ecosystem, where high-tech ventures often face lengthy approval timelines, complex compliance obligations, and regulatory ambiguity, issues largely independent of entrepreneurs’ linguistic capacities.
Across cases, participants portrayed language as a manageable challenge, often addressed through AI tools, informal translation support, or incremental learning. Operational barriers, however, were described as structural, unavoidable, and often beyond individual control. These included high startup costs, customer acquisition hurdles, competition, government licensing, and talent shortages. The contrast suggests that while English proficiency may shape access to elite opportunities, the everyday survival and progression of entrepreneurial projects hinge more critically on material, institutional, and market conditions.
From an HCT perspective, this theme underscores that linguistic capital is only one component of an entrepreneur’s broader resource portfolio. Human capital is multifaceted, encompassing managerial ability, technical skill, market insight, and financial literacy. Participants’ experiences illustrate that English proficiency is frequently deprioritized when entrepreneurs must allocate scarce time and resources toward immediate operational demands. As one participant put it in another part of the interviews: “I don’t have time to learn English now… I’m busy trying to keep the project running.” This reflects the reality that human capital development, including language acquisition, is constrained by the entrepreneur’s external environment and resource availability.
Developing and Experiencing English: Pathways, Challenges, and Technological Mediation (RQ2)
Multiple Pathways Toward Comparable Proficiency
Participants described highly varied trajectories of language learning, shaped by schooling, university specialization, work environment, and personal initiative. What they shared, however, was a sense that formal education had often provided insufficient or fragmented support for English development. P14, a marketing graduate, summarized his experience starkly: “Four years in the university and we only had one English course… of course it didn’t have a big effect on my level.” He described his proficiency as “weak and still weak”, noting that what little he had gained came from “watching movies and things I did by myself, not the university or school.”
P13, a psychology graduate, reported a similar pattern: English at school was “very basic, not deep at all,” and at university, he only encountered “one course with psychological terms in English.” Recognizing the gap, he enrolled in a private language institute after graduation and later paid for an online English course. Reflecting on these efforts, he concluded that real progress only came when he was immersed abroad: “In London I had to speak English for every small thing… you can’t buy, move, or do anything without speaking the language. That forced me to use it and improved me more than all the courses.”
P6, a mathematics graduate from an English-medium program, explained, “Most courses were in English, so I practiced daily through lectures and assignments.” Others advanced through self-regulated exposure: P16 reported reading Oxford Bookworms “four hours every day for four months,” remarking that this intensive period “really improved my reading and confidence.”
Workplace environments served as powerful informal classrooms. P16 recalled, “In the law firm, everything—emails, meetings—was in English; that’s how I learned.” P11 attributed his progress to “constant communication with global partners” in the aviation and export sectors. P2 reported “Long-term commitment to English learning through workplace experience was more valuable than formal coursework. I didn’t achieve fluency in a classroom; I achieved it by managing international projects and having to navigate complex business communication daily”. Similarly, P4 mentioned, “When I practice English in real professional situations, that’s when I actually improve, not from textbooks or classrooms.” High proficiency typically stemmed from sustained, multimodal engagement. P1 combined university instruction with 3 years of professional English use, attaining IELTS 8.0: “You don’t stop learning English; it grows with your business.”
Beyond their varied learning trajectories, participants’ experiences reflected principles consistent with BELF, where effective communication depends on intelligibility, clarity, and strategic adaptation rather than native-like fluency. Entrepreneurs commonly relied on functional, BELF-aligned practices, including simplified English, selective terminology, and hybrid Arabic–English communication to ensure mutual understanding. Several participants described compensating for limited grammar or vocabulary through BELF strategies: P1 explained that “the goal is to be understood… not to speak perfect English,” while P3 emphasized using “simple words and direct sentences” when dealing with foreign partners. Others highlighted how English-dominant tools required strategic navigation rather than full mastery; as P12 noted, “I use English only to get the meaning across… I don’t need perfect language to finish the task.” These accounts illustrate that despite differing proficiency histories, entrepreneurs reached functionally comparable communicative levels by mobilizing BELF strategies that prioritize clarity, efficiency, and problem-solving over linguistic accuracy.
Institutional Language Gaps
Across the interviews, entrepreneurs consistently identified a structural misalignment in the linguistic demands of the Saudi entrepreneurial ecosystem: institutions expect English proficiency yet provide insufficient, inconsistent, or poorly targeted support for its development. Participants framed this not simply as inadequate training, but as a broader policy-level disconnect that shifts responsibility for acquiring linguistic capital onto individuals, often through informal means.
This gap was most evident in university contexts. P3 noted that his 4-year Finance and Investment degree included “only one or two English courses… the market needs more than that,” while P13 described university English as “very basic… nothing that prepares you for real work or entrepreneurship.” These accounts suggest that institutions responsible for developing foundational human capital are not equipping students with the linguistic competence required for participation in entrepreneurial ecosystems.
The gap becomes more pronounced in incubators and accelerators. While some university-based programs allowed Arabic pitches, external programs (e.g., Misk Foundation Accelerator, The Garage, and CODE-related startup programs) were described as predominantly English-medium. As P14 explained, “Some accelerators give you no choice; everything must be in English… even the interview and the documents.” P12 similarly highlighted inconsistencies across contexts, noting that language flexibility in university settings disappears in external programs. This variability creates unpredictability and forces entrepreneurs to adapt linguistically across environments.
Importantly, participants did not question the value of English but emphasized the need for more aligned institutional support. They called for entrepreneurship-specific language training focused on real-world communication, including investment terminology and professional interaction. As P7 noted, courses should reflect “real-life practice,” while P6 emphasized the importance of learning “actual terminology… for real business communication.” These suggestions highlight the need to embed functional, domain-specific English development within entrepreneurship education rather than treating it as a peripheral skill.
Information Access Inequality and Linguistic Gatekeeping
While the previous theme highlights gaps in institutional preparation, this section focuses on how broader digital and knowledge ecosystems reproduce linguistic inequalities. Participants consistently emphasized that English proficiency shapes access to entrepreneurial knowledge, the speed of learning, and the effective use of digital tools. English thus operates as a structural gatekeeper, not because of inherent superiority, but because most up-to-date resources, platforms, and technical documentation exist primarily in English.
Participants pointed to a clear imbalance between English and Arabic resources. P2 summarized this contrast: “In Arabic, information about modern technology is very little. In English, it’s huge; you learn faster and deeper.” Similarly, P11 noted that English enables access to “articles, even YouTube tutorials,” highlighting the breadth of available learning channels.
These inequalities are intensified in digital environments. Many participants described key platforms as exclusively English-medium. P14 explained that tools central to his workflow were “completely in English; no Arabic option,” requiring workaround strategies such as using ChatGPT to interpret system errors. P6 reported similar challenges when navigating aviation regulatory systems, where English-only interfaces made routine tasks more complex.
Even participants with strong English proficiency recognized the structural nature of this advantage. As P5 noted, “All the tools I use are in English,” while P16 acknowledged that “not everyone can reach the same information.” Because these platforms underpin training, marketing, analytics, and compliance, limited English proficiency constrains full participation in digital entrepreneurship.
These patterns illustrate how English functions as institutionalized linguistic capital that structures access to knowledge, tools, and opportunities. Entrepreneurs with strong proficiency can efficiently navigate global resources, while others rely on translation tools or indirect strategies that slow learning and reduce competitiveness. In this sense, linguistic gatekeeping produces information-access inequality that directly shapes entrepreneurial trajectories within the Saudi ecosystem.
AI and Translation Tools as Compensatory Aids
All participants were aware of, and many actively relied on, AI and translation tools to navigate English-dominant environments. These tools were described as particularly useful for reading, writing, and problem-solving when engaging with platforms, documentation, or technical content. As P7 noted, “All of the technical skills… require searching in English, where I use AI tools to help me interpret and understand the procedures.” Similarly, P17 used browser-based translation to access video content: “If I watch something on YouTube, I use a Chrome tool that translates the subtitles… so I can benefit from it.”
Participants agreed that such tools significantly lower barriers to accessing English-only resources, especially for written and asynchronous tasks. For example, P13 explained that translation tools allowed him to “benefit from English content even if my level is not high,” while others used AI to refine emails and proposals, helping them “sound more professional in writing.” These practices indicate that AI has become part of entrepreneurs’ everyday linguistic toolkit, extending the functional reach of limited proficiency.
However, participants consistently emphasized that AI tools cannot replace English proficiency in real-time, high-stakes, or relational contexts. Speaking remained the most significant challenge, as there is no equivalent support for live communication. As P17 explained, “If you attend a discussion… the tools will not speak for you… you still need the language.” Concerns about accuracy and overreliance were also common. P15 noted that “AI helps a lot, but it is not 100% accurate,” warning that excessive dependence may hinder learning. Similarly, P9 stressed that relying on AI in professional interaction weakens communication and risks misinterpretation, particularly in contexts such as engaging with investors or technical experts.
English as Symbolic Capital: Legitimacy, Identity, and Strategic Positioning (RQ3)
English as Symbolic Capital: Status and Professional Identity
English proficiency emerged not only as a communicative resource but as a potent form of symbolic capital, a marker of professionalism, cosmopolitan identity, and entrepreneurial legitimacy that can be converted into social, reputational, and market advantages (Bourdieu, 1991). Across interviews, participants consistently described English as a form of linguistic capital that enhances entrepreneurs’ perceived credibility and authority within the entrepreneurial ecosystem, even in contexts where operational tasks do not require the language.
Participants consistently emphasized that English proficiency functions as a visible marker of competence, seriousness, and global readiness in entrepreneurial and professional contexts. As P15 noted, English can enhance a person’s social standing, even though the absence of English does not diminish their intrinsic worth. P7 similarly clarified that while English may not dramatically reshape everyday social hierarchies in Saudi society, it holds significant symbolic and practical weight in business environments: “Speaking English shows professionalism… it helps you in exhibitions, in dealing with investors, and even in building networks on LinkedIn.” Reflecting this dynamic, P6 added that English fluency enhances an entrepreneur’s persuasive capacity and self-assurance in multicultural settings: “When you present in English, the communication is faster, clearer, and more confident… it gives you an edge over someone relying on translation.”
This symbolic dimension was particularly visible in narratives describing credibility and trust. P14, a certified trainer with more than 500 trainees, recounted a pivotal moment when a participant advised him, “Your English is weak… You must improve it; it will open many doors.” Although the comment did not question his instructional expertise, it exposed how linguistic capital is perceived as a determinant of future opportunity and upward mobility. P14 also articulated how English shapes professional aura: “Even if you are not an expert, if your English is excellent, they see you as experienced, and they trust you more.” He added that speaking English publicly “gives you power… you yourself feel stronger when your English is good.”
Several participants noted that employers and investors often privilege English proficiency as an initial filter, independent of technical skills. As one put it, “They look first at language on the CV before anything else.” P11 similarly estimated that “about 40 percent of an investor’s judgment is language… it signals quality.” Even those with low proficiency acknowledged its symbolic force. P14, remarked: “People still assume you’re more educated when you speak English.” These statements demonstrate how English functions as a tangible marker of modernity, education, and international readiness, influencing how entrepreneurs are perceived before their substantive competencies are assessed.
Participants also linked English competence to professional aspiration and upward mobility. P16, for example, framed English mastery as a prerequisite for elite professional status: “If I want to be among the best lawyers here, I must master English.” Similarly, P5 reported, “I see myself as someone who can compete globally, who belongs in international tech conversations.” Their reflections position English not merely as a tool, but as a symbol of ambition and membership in higher-status professional circles.
Furthermore, entrepreneurs strategically alternated between Arabic and English to navigate dual market identities. P8, working in retail and coffee startups, explained that she operates fully in Arabic for domestic customers but switches to English when dealing with international suppliers, describing these linguistic shifts as “two voices… local and international.” This fluid negotiation underscores how English functions as positional capital, enabling entrepreneurs to align themselves with global markets while retaining cultural rootedness.
Results of Entrepreneurial Project Naming Practices
As illustrated in Table 2, the analysis of 83 project names revealed three dominant linguistic strategies: transliterated Arabic, accurate English, and pseudo-English, reflecting how entrepreneurs balance local identity with global visibility. These naming choices function not only as branding decisions but also as expressions of linguistic and symbolic capital. The table below summarizes the distribution, characteristics, and implications of each pattern.
Summary of Project Naming Practices.
Discussion
This study advances a relational understanding of language in entrepreneurship by demonstrating that English proficiency operates not as a universal predictor of entrepreneurial success but as a context-activated form of capital. Integrating HCT and Linguistic LCT, the findings show that English acquires value only when recognized within specific institutional, digital, and transnational contexts. In this sense, English functions as entrepreneurial infrastructure: a resource that becomes consequential when entrepreneurs engage with global knowledge systems, regulatory frameworks, and international markets, rather than a capability that directly produces venture success.
This reconceptualization challenges linear interpretations within HCT that assume a direct relationship between skill acquisition and economic outcomes (Becker, 1964; Marvel et al., 2016). The data show that entrepreneurs with limited English successfully launched innovative ventures, while fluent speakers sometimes operated within local markets without pursuing international expansion. English, therefore, does not generate entrepreneurial capability in itself; rather, it enables access to external opportunities, including funding ecosystems, cross-border networks, and global knowledge resources (Rajović et al., 2024; Roshid & Kankaanranta, 2025). Its value is thus contingent on the demands of the entrepreneurial context.
From an LCT perspective, this variability reflects the field-dependent nature of linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1991). English becomes economically and symbolically valuable only when recognized by institutions, investors, or platforms that privilege it. In domestically oriented ventures operating within Arabic-dominant networks, other forms of capital, financial, social, and cultural, were often more decisive (Marvel et al., 2016; Tight, 2022). These findings support the concept of context-activated linguistic capital, positioning language as a relational resource whose value emerges through alignment with specific social and institutional conditions.
English proficiency also functioned as symbolic capital, conferring legitimacy, professionalism, and credibility even when not instrumentally required. Entrepreneurs reported being perceived as more competent, globally oriented, and trustworthy when using English, irrespective of their actual expertise. This suggests that language operates not only as a communicative resource but as a marker of social value, shaping recognition and access within entrepreneurial and institutional contexts. In line with LCT, these patterns demonstrate how English functions as a prestige-bearing resource that structures perceived competence and opportunity (Bourdieu, 1991; Pennycook, 2004).
A key contribution of the study lies in demonstrating that structural constraints often outweigh linguistic ones in shaping entrepreneurial outcomes. Participants consistently identified funding limitations, regulatory complexity, and market competition as more restrictive than language proficiency. This finding complicates skill-based explanations of entrepreneurship by showing that human capital cannot compensate for structural barriers. Political-economy perspectives on language further clarify this dynamic, emphasizing that linguistic resources operate within broader systems of inequality rather than independently determining outcomes (Duchêne & Heller, 2012). English proficiency, therefore, enhances opportunity utilization (Huber et al., 2022; Siddiqui et al., 2024) but does not create opportunities in the absence of supportive institutional conditions.
At the same time, English plays a critical role in structuring access to high-value opportunities through linguistic gatekeeping. English-only platforms, untranslated documentation, and global accelerator requirements create conditions in which opportunities are formally open but practically accessible only to those with sufficient linguistic capital. This produces what can be described as information-access inequality, where disparities in language proficiency translate into unequal access to knowledge, tools, and networks. Such dynamics reflect neoliberal language ideologies that position English as a proxy for competence and professionalism (Block, 2017; Jenks, 2025; Piller & Cho, 2013) and align with research demonstrating how language policies reproduce social stratification (Flores & Rosa, 2015).
Importantly, this gatekeeping operates across multiple levels. At the institutional level, participants identified a persistent language gap between educational preparation and entrepreneurial demands. Universities and training programs often require English proficiency but do not provide sufficient or context-specific support for its development, shifting responsibility onto individuals. At the systemic level, digital platforms and knowledge ecosystems were overwhelmingly English-dominant, further reinforcing access inequalities. These findings show that linguistic disadvantage is not simply an individual deficit but a product of institutional design and global knowledge distribution.
Furthermore, the findings contribute to emerging debates on AI and linguistic capital by showing that digital tools function as compensatory but unequal mediators. AI and translation technologies expand access to English-mediated resources by supporting reading, writing, and problem-solving tasks. However, they do not eliminate the need for human proficiency, particularly in real-time, high-stakes interactions such as negotiation and pitching. More importantly, their benefits are unevenly distributed: higher-proficiency users are better able to evaluate, adapt, and leverage AI outputs, while lower-proficiency users encounter limits in interpretation and accuracy. This supports research conceptualizing AI as an augmentative rather than substitutive technology (Almusharraf, 2026; Menzies et al., 2024; Zhai, 2023) and aligns with findings that technological support amplifies existing differences in linguistic and cognitive capacity (Almusharraf & Bailey, 2023; Abdelhalim et al., 2025; Al Fraidan, 2025; Li et al., 2025).
Despite these constraints, English does not displace Arabic as the primary language of local entrepreneurship. Many ventures operated successfully within Arabic-speaking networks, indicating the coexistence of multiple legitimacy regimes. This aligns with research on English as a lingua franca, which emphasizes context-dependent use driven by communicative necessity rather than universal dominance (Jenkins, 2013; Seidlhofer, 2011). English thus functions as a situational resource, activated in transnational contexts but not required for all forms of entrepreneurial activity.
The study extends conceptualizations of linguistic capital by examining entrepreneurial naming as a form of capital conversion. Naming is not merely a branding decision but a strategic practice through which entrepreneurs transform linguistic competence and symbolic prestige into market value (Bourdieu, 1991; Clarke & Cornelissen, 2011). Accurate English names index communicative competence and international orientation, while pseudo-English names appropriate the symbolic power of English without requiring full linguistic mastery. In contrast, transliterated Arabic names preserve cultural identity while ensuring visibility within English-dominated digital infrastructures (Abdelhalim et al., 2025). These patterns reflect deliberate positioning within global platform economies, where visibility, legitimacy, and searchability are shaped by linguistic norms. Rather than signaling deficiency, hybrid naming strategies demonstrate how entrepreneurs actively negotiate the tension between local authenticity and global accessibility (Clarke & Cornelissen, 2011; Omer et al., 2025).
Taken together, the findings advance a relational model of language in entrepreneurship. English functions neither as a universal prerequisite nor as a neutral communication tool but as situated capital whose value emerges at the intersection of institutional access, symbolic legitimacy, and technological mediation. This model integrates HCT’s focus on productive skills with LCT’s emphasis on socially recognized value, demonstrating that language becomes economically consequential only when embedded within supportive structural conditions, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Context-activated linguistic capital model of English in Saudi entrepreneurship.
By foregrounding operational constraints and gatekeeping mechanisms, the study challenges skill-centric explanations of entrepreneurial inequality and highlights the role of institutional design in shaping access to opportunities. It also contributes to applied linguistics by reconceptualizing English not as a monolithic global resource but as a context-dependent infrastructure within multilingual economies.
Conclusion
Summary of Key Findings
This study examined how English proficiency functions within Saudi Arabia’s entrepreneurial ecosystem, revealing that language operates not as a universal prerequisite for entrepreneurial success but as a context-contingent form of capital. While English is not required for operating or sustaining locally focused ventures, it becomes valuable when entrepreneurs engage with international markets, English-dominant technologies, global investors, or institutional gatekeeping mechanisms. Through a qualitatively driven mixed-methods design, the findings show that English proficiency serves dual roles within HCT and LCT: it enhances communicative efficiency in boundary-crossing contexts while simultaneously functioning as symbolic capital, signaling professionalism, legitimacy, and global orientation.
By conceptualizing English as context-activated linguistic capital, the study advances a relational model of language in entrepreneurship that challenges skill-centric explanations of entrepreneurial inequality. Language proficiency alone does not generate success; its economic value emerges only when embedded within supportive structural conditions, market demands, and technological infrastructures. These insights contribute to ongoing debates in applied linguistics, entrepreneurship studies, and AI-mediated communication by reframing English as a situated resource shaped by power, access, and institutional design rather than as a neutral global skill.
Practical Implications
These findings have several implications for universities, incubators, and policymakers. First, entrepreneurship education should incorporate targeted English instruction that is integrated into experiential programs rather than delivered as isolated language courses; instruction should emphasize genres and skills directly relevant to entrepreneurial practice (investor communication, pitch discourse, sector-specific terminology, and international negotiation) and be embedded within accelerators, mentorship, and pitch-training activities. Second, language training on its own is unlikely to yield substantive gains unless accompanied by structural reforms that reduce linguistic gatekeeping and information asymmetries; policy interventions must therefore address institutional barriers that constrain the translation of language competence into market access. Third, efforts to redress knowledge imbalances require sustained investment in high-quality Arabic-language resources, including rigorous translations of foundational entrepreneurial literature, technical documentation, and global research, together with the production of locally relevant materials. Fourth, language policy should be guided by equity considerations, recognizing that many locally oriented ventures do not require advanced English and that support should be differentiated according to venture goals and market orientation. Finally, programs should prioritize structured practice, consistent exposure, and guided application, over short-term activities, since sustained, practice-based interventions are more likely to produce durable improvements in functional competence and entrepreneurial outcomes.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study has several limitations. The sample consisted of university-educated entrepreneurs within a single institutional ecosystem, limiting generalizability to non-university contexts, established entrepreneurs, or different regions in Saudi Arabia. Data relied on self-reports, which may be affected by recall or social desirability biases, particularly in perceptions of language proficiency and entrepreneurial achievement. The cross-sectional design captures experiences at a single moment, preventing analysis of how language proficiency and entrepreneurial trajectories evolve over time. Additionally, proficiency estimates were drawn from self-reported measures rather than standardized tests, creating potential inconsistencies. The analysis of AI and translation tool use was also based on perceptions rather than observed practices.
Future research should address these limitations through longitudinal or ethnographic designs to trace real-time language use, proficiency development, and venture growth. Multi-institutional or national sampling would strengthen generalizability and clarify how different entrepreneurship ecosystems structure linguistic expectations. Further work should also examine how entrepreneurs integrate generative AI tools into their workflows and whether AI can mitigate or, conversely, amplify linguistic inequality over time. Finally, future studies could incorporate standardized proficiency assessments and objective measures of entrepreneurial performance (e.g., revenue, funding, patents) to deepen causal understanding of how linguistic and human capital interact in entrepreneurial contexts.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440261462988 – Supplemental material for From Language to Leverage: English as Human and Linguistic Capital Among Saudi Student Entrepreneurs
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440261462988 for From Language to Leverage: English as Human and Linguistic Capital Among Saudi Student Entrepreneurs by Asma Almusharraf in SAGE Open
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) for their financial support and to all student entrepreneurs who generously shared their time and insights during the research process.
Ethical Considerations
The research methodology employed in this study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) in accordance with the university’s ethical guidelines for research involving human participants. IRB Approval Number: 638881360642409112 (granted on July 15, 2025).
Consent to Participate
All participants were informed about the purpose and procedures of the study before taking part. Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any time without penalty. By agreeing to participate, they provided their informed consent, acknowledging that they understood the information provided and consented to the use of their anonymized data for research purposes.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2604).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.*
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
