The EUt+ university alliance has vowed to adopt a ‘plurilingual approach’ (
https://www.univ-tech.eu/mission-statement). Accordingly, plans have been made concerning the medium of instruction at all eight EUt+ partners. Drawing on a distinction between ‘most widely spoken languages’ (English, French, German, and Spanish) and ‘less widely poken’,
‘low-spread’ or ‘low-dissemination’ languages (Bulgarian, Greek, Latvian, and Romanian), different goals have been established. EUt+ partners located in countries where a ‘most widely spoken’ language is the national language will use that as the principal medium of instruction, whereas partners in countries whose national language is a ‘less widely spoken’
language will use ‘other languages’ (most probably, English) as the main medium of instruction for the convenience of incoming students. The latter will be required to take instruction in the said ‘less widely spoken’ language, with the expectation that they will master said language at the A1 level by the end of their first academic term, then at A2 level by the end of their final term.
Our contribution investigates whether these linguistic plans, reflecting EUt+ roots in the European project’s long-standing commitment to ‘multilingualism’ (
https://www.univ-tech.eu/mission-statement), may affect student mobility, regarded as ‘structural’ to obtaining a degree at EUt+ partner institutions, as well as essential for students to ‘build themselves and their vision of Europe’ (‘European Degrees in Engineering. EUt+ Reference Guide’ [EDEEUt+], 2022:4). This might particularly be the case as far as some EUt+ partners with a ‘most widely spoken’ language are concerned. We argue that prioritising national languages over English disregards the fact that the latter is actually ‘spoken as [a second language or L2] by 38 percent of the [European] population’ (Modiano, 2017:314) and studied as an L2 by 98 percent of students at primary and secondary schools across the continent, according to Eurostat. (Conversely, French is studied as a an L2 by 33 percent of European students, German by 23 percent of them, and Spanish by 17 percent of them). This being so, the possibility exists that student mobility among EUt+ partners be restricted rather than fostered if students are asked to follow their courses in a language in which they may not be proficient enough.
We begin by describing EDE EUt+ mobility and language goals, which are heavily invested into a type of multilingualism that does not rely on using lingua franca. Then, we suggest that those goals may be counterproductive, as an excessive emphasis on multilingualism and a diminished role for English may deter students from engaging in prolonged mobility stays. A speculative overview of the background for EDE EUt+ is performed next, which is followed by a more practice-oriented approach to the issues at stake. Building on the idea that English-medium internationalisation policies may ‘paradoxically … [result] in increased
multilingualism on campuses, as … students from different language backgrounds use [English as] the lingua franca to access and develop knowledge and competencies in a variety of languages’ (Palfreyman & Van der Walt, 2017), it is suggested that English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) be used strategically. Finally, the ‘SUCCESS’ project (2021-1-LV01-KA220-HED-000031178), developed under the umbrella of EUt+, is briefly approached for illustrating the possibility that English be used as a ‘practical’ lingua franca (Ives, 2007), eventually fostering multilingualism or—at the very least—furthering awareness of European linguistic diversity.