Conference Agenda

Educational language policies in higher ed (HE) such as correction keys, marking codes, grading criteria or rubrics at the course, departmental, faculty or institutional level guide the teaching and assessment of academic writing. These descriptions of what makes “good writing” on the lexical, grammatical and organizational level are not neutral, as educational language policy is a “mechanism that can turn ideology into practice or practice into ideology” (Shohamy, 2006). In many cases they embody covert attitudes and ideologies around “writtenness” (Turner, 2018) that value a specific type of academic writing: one that embodies a “smooth ride” via the elements of clarity, concision and accuracy, valued in Anglophone scientific writing since Enlightenment times.

Friction often arises when the taken-for-granted values around writing run up against writing that may differ from these norms (Turner, 2018), such as in the plurality of Englishes thriving in the linguistically-diverse setting of the contemporary Anglophone Canadian university (Preece and Marshall, 2020). Language that does not provide a “smooth ride” becomes marked; it ceases to be an invisible conduit of ideas and therefore becomes seen as a problem. Therefore, policies built on a foundation of “writtenness” and “good writing” often centre certain Englishes and English users, while marginalizing others (Hill 2011; Kubota et al., 2023).

In this session, participants will unpack the covert attitudes and ideologies that influence how we teach and evaluate academic writing in linguistically-diverse HE settings. The concept of “writtenness” and commonplace definitions of “good writing” will be unpacked. A case study drawn from a critical discourse analysis of language policy at three Canadian universities, drawing on Gee (2005) and Fairclough (2015) and the concept of “discourse-in-place” (Scollon & Scollon (2004, p. 10) will be shared. Finally, the role of HE language practitioners in implementing, appropriating and resisting policy will be discussed.

In this narrative case study, two Chinese students from a Wenzhounese dialect-speaking background in Paris describe their Mandarin language acquisition experiences, emphasizing the Input Hypothesis (Krashen 1989) and related factors. Lucie and Stéphane, who both grew up in Wenzhounese-speaking families, retained their Chinese nationalities and underwent distinct language journeys in France. In accordance with the Input Hypothesis, a Wenzhounese-speaking nanny and summer trips to China provided early language exposure. Their learning was further enhanced by Mandarin classes in Chinese community schools and public schools in Paris.

A key factor in enhancing their Mandarin proficiency was the enjoyment they experienced when watching Chinese dramas, variety shows, and Chinese social media sites such as TikTok (Douyin). The "pleasure watching" motivated them to acquire Mandarin unconsciously. Moreover, these media sources provided comprehensible input, which is consistent with the principles of the Input Hypothesis. According to the study, Mandarin learners with a dialect background are faced with a variety of challenges and opportunities, shaped by a variety of factors, including individual initiative, family and peer influence, community involvement, and mainstream education system support.

A significant finding of this study is that the Input Hypothesis is relevant to the acquisition of Mandarin language by CHL learners with dialect backgrounds, demonstrating the importance of comprehensible input in their language acquisition. This study provides insight into language learning factors and may be inspiring to individuals and families facing similar challenges.