Teachers’ beliefs and reproduction of language ideologies in English-medium instruction programs in Nepal

Introduction

English-medium instruction (EMI), defined as “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (Macaro, 2018, p. 35), has emerged as a significant area of study in the field of education, garnering substantial attention from researchers interested in documenting various issues associated with its global presence in higher education. EMI researchers have delved into issues concerning policies, politics, and pedagogies (McKinley & Galloway, 2022; Sah & Fang, 2023), as well as socioemotional experiences (see Hillman et al., 2023). Nevertheless, there remains a need for more studies that specifically examine teachers’ language ideologies in the implementation of EMI programs within multilingual contexts. To provide insight into potential research directions, Sah (2022c) engaged in discussions with EMI scholars who underscored the importance of documenting teachers’ knowledge, awareness, and experiences. Although there is a growing interest in capturing teachers’ perspectives, further investigation is required to explore how EMI teachers’ beliefs regarding different languages and language practices may reinforce dominant language ideologies and contribute to language hierarchies in multilingual higher education contexts.

It is because the selection of language as a medium of instruction in multilingual education contexts is an ideological process as it carries political, social, educational, and economic agendas and involves the beliefs, values, and symbolic qualities of languages (Blommaert, 1999; Ricento, 2015; Shohamy, 2006). Teachers, as the final implementers of the EMI policy, are integral to this process because they can exert their agency in perpetuating, resisting, or renewing those agendas through their language beliefs and choices in the classroom (Ellison et al., 2018; Phyak & Sah, 2022). Teachers’ selection of languages is not only influenced by the language ideologies (e.g., English as a superior language) they subscribe to, but it also serves to reproduce those language ideologies. Teachers’ language ideologies play a crucial role in shaping their awareness of language demands and their sensitivity to the linguistic needs of students within EMI programs (Lin, 2016). By exploring teachers’ language ideologies, researchers can gain a comprehensive understanding of how teachers navigate the complexities of language in EMI classrooms, thereby informing the development of effective pedagogical approaches and support mechanisms to enhance the quality of instruction in such contexts (Young, 2014).

The aim of this research was to examine the underlying language ideologies that shape the perspectives of content subject teachers and their language usage preferences within Nepal’s multilingual EMI higher education programs. It also aimed to explore how these language beliefs and practices contribute to the perpetuation of language hierarchies in the educational context. More specifically, the study sought to investigate the degree to which EMI content teachers prioritize English, their attitudes toward the utilization of Nepali, which is a nationally dominant language, as well as other local/Indigenous languages.

Teachers’ language ideologies and reproduction in higher education

In higher education institutions, as articulated by Risager (2012), the existence of language hierarchies and the resulting effects can be attributed to actions and depictions undertaken by both individual and collective agents, such as educators, operating within distinct historical and geographical contexts. Therefore, in the context of this study, the frameworks of “language ideology” (Gal & Irvine, 1995; Silverstein, 1979) and “social reproduction” (Bourdieu, 1973) were employed as fundamental lenses to examine the intricate interplay of language beliefs, power dynamics, language practices, and social reproduction in EMI classrooms.

Language ideologies are defined as sets of beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions about languages that frame the “understandings of linguistic varieties and the differences among them, and map those understandings onto people, events, and activities” (Gal & Irvine, 1995, p. 970). Language ideologies, which can be multiple and variable (Kroskrity, 2004), serve as a theoretical lens through which we can understand how belief systems embedded in social hierarchies influence EMI teachers’ language choices and performances. Teachers’ perceptions significantly influence their pedagogical decisions and teaching practices in EMI classrooms (Jiang et al., 2019), which, in turn, carry political and ideological implications that shape and reshape social hierarchies. Therefore, by combining language ideologies with Bourdieu’s (1973) conceptualization of “social reproduction” — referring to the perpetuation of “structures of relations” between social groups—a lens is provided to explore how language ideologies and power dynamics are reproduced through language practices influenced by the values and status attributed to specific languages (p. 71). When teachers or other stakeholders choose to use a particular language while excluding others, they contribute to a condition of social reproduction in which language hierarchies—and consequently, unequal power distribution between social groups—are perpetuated.

Such a focus in the analysis of EMI teachers’ perceptions and practices is significant as the reproduction of language ideologies can result in the dominance of English as the privileged language of instruction, which may marginalize local/Indigenous languages and, hence, perpetuate social inequalities (Lasagabaster, 2022; Phyak & Sah, 2022; Wang, 2020). For instance, Phillipson (2006) argued that EMI functions as an implicit mechanism for the hegemony of English, leading to the marginalization of local/Indigenous languages and resulting in a phenomenon known as “domain loss” for these less powerful languages (p. 22). Some studies have explored the underlying ideologies of English in EMI programs, revealing a connection between the dominance of English and upward socioeconomic mobility (Sah & Li, 2018; Shao & Rose, 2022; Wang, 2020).

Some research in the EMI higher education contexts has specifically examined teachers’ language ideologies and how they shape their language management, practices, and agency across contexts (Barnard et al., 2023; Manan et al., 2022; Tri & Moskovsky, 2023; Young, 2014). For instance, Tri and Moskovsky (2023) investigated the perception and enactment of language use in Vietnamese higher education EMI programs, which employed classroom observations and interviews with teachers, students, and administrators. The findings of the study revealed that while language policy texts and administrators strongly advocated for the exclusive use of English in EMI programs, teachers held a more supportive stance toward incorporating Vietnamese, albeit with certain restrictions. The teachers expressed concerns that the inappropriate use of Vietnamese could hinder students’ English language acquisition and thus believed that it should not take precedence over English (Tri & Moskovsky, 2023).

Barnard et al. (2023) also examined teachers’ beliefs and practices of different languages in EMI programs in Malaysia and Thailand through interviews, classroom observations, and post-lesson discussions. The findings of the research indicated that, in Malaysian EMI universities, teachers utilized Malay solely for the purpose of delivering instructions and providing motivation to students. Notably, some teachers held the belief that Malay could be employed as a means of spoken communication, but it was deemed inadequate for facilitating academic discourse. Similarly, in the context of Vietnam and Thailand, Sahan et al. (2023) conducted interviews and focus groups with teachers and students to examine the norms of EMI and teachers’ and students’ beliefs about language use. Their analysis showed a prevalent monolingual orientation among teachers in EMI, wherein English was favored as the exclusive medium for instructional purposes. Notably, most Thai teachers (84.6%) and Vietnamese teachers (75%) preferred for English-only instruction. This preference was closely associated with the belief that exclusive English instruction would facilitate the development of student’s English proficiency. There was also an acknowledgment of the potential value of incorporating Thai and Vietnamese translanguaging—the dynamic language practices, in which bi/multilinguals engage to make sense of their bi/mul-tilingual world” García (2009, p. 45)—but only when students required additional support in understanding content knowledge.

Likewise, in the context of higher education in Pakistan, Manan et al. (2022) conducted interviews with teachers to investigate their beliefs regarding utilizing English and local languages. This study sheds light on the phenomenon known as “guilt multilingualism” (Coleman, 2017), wherein EMI teachers expressed apprehension or fear when employing local languages. The teachers believed that the use of English served as an indicator of competent teaching, while the use of local languages was perceived “as a disapproved practice” (Manan et al., 2022, p. 535). These studies show that despite language policies that paint a picture of English only, the reality is that translanguaging seems to be more of the norm in EMI classrooms.

In the studies discussed above, language ideologies appear to play a significant role in shaping EMI teachers’ language management, practices, and agency. For instance, some teachers perceive EMI as a monolingual English-only environment, guided by the ideology that English is a more prestigious language compared with local languages. In all the aforementioned studies, English is positioned as a superior language, as it is linked to the desire for improved English proficiency that serves as a form of symbolic capital. As Manan et al. (2022) demonstrates, EMI teachers are inclined toward monolingual English instruction as it potentially grants them the symbolic capital of being competent teachers. The teachers believe that using English is a marker of teacher competence. Despite holding a supportive stance toward translanguaging that incorporates local languages, these studies reveal that teachers often exhibit a deficit ideology toward those languages. From their perspective, local languages lack the adequacy required for academic discourses; therefore, they tend to minimize their use to informal communication, general classroom instruction, and content explanations. Such ideological beliefs reinforce the dominance of English in academic discourse (Barnard et al., 2023).

Furthermore, the concept of social reproduction is discernible in these studies, although they do not explicitly center their analysis on how prevailing language ideologies can reproduce the perpetuation of social hierarchies in the context of EMI in higher education. The inclination toward English as the dominant language and the devaluation of local languages can sustain social inequalities by fortifying the dominance of English-speaking elites in the educational system and society. In some multilingual societies, where a pervasive nationalist ideology connects a dominant national language to national identity, there are even more complexities in terms of language selection in education. Some teachers are comfortable using the dominant national language (e.g., Nepali in Nepal) alongside English, but they perceive other local/Indigenous languages as deficient. This, in turn, perpetuates historical social hierarchies based on linguistic nationalism—that is, the ideology that associates national identity with a single representative language.

The literature review highlights the necessity of delving into the concept of language hierarchy, defined “as the accumulated result of language practices and representations of language carried out” by teachers (Risager, 2012, p. 129), within the context of EMI in higher education. This investigation offers an opportunity to gain insights into how language ideologies and social hierarchies are perpetuated through teachers’ beliefs and actions.

Study context

English-medium higher education programs have a long history in Nepal, a highly multilingual country with 124 languages spoken as mother tongues across 142 caste/ethnic groups. The inception of these programs can be traced back to the establishment of the first higher education initiatives, which were established in collaboration with Indian institutions and influenced by the British-led Indian education system (Sah, 2022a). Because access to higher education was originally restricted to the elite population until the mid-twentieth century, English-medium education has often been linked to elitism and a middle-class identity. Even today, English-medium education continues to hold a status as a form of “symbolic capital” (Bourdieu, 1973), establishing a value system by which all other educational systems, such as Nepali-medium programs, are recognized or perceived. This ideology of EMI as an elite or middle-class education system has positioned it as a default medium of instruction policy in many higher education institutions.

For instance, in Rana and Sah’s (2023) study on language policy development at a university in Nepal, teachers viewed EMI as a default medium of instruction policy, even though they were not aware of any institutional policy specifying the medium of instruction. In the latter decades of the previous century, there was also a strong push for nationalist agendas that advocated for the use of the Nepali language, often associated with Nepali nationalist identity, as the exclusive medium of instruction at all levels of education. For example, the Nepal National Education Planning Commission (NNEPC, 1956), which was the first formal policy initiative in Nepal, recommended that

the medium of instruction should be the national language [Nepali] in primary, middle, and higher education institutions . . . In the same way English, which is merely taught as a foreign language cannot be considered as an important medium of instruction in educational institutions. (p. 53)

However, a large number of higher education institutions, mainly private ones, carried on teaching through English (Subba, 1980). Although many higher education programs in humanities and social sciences adopted Nepali as the medium of instruction, most programs in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) disciplines remained in English medium.

The Government of Nepal explicitly embraced the free-market education system in the 1990s, leading to a significant rise in the number of private higher education institutions. In most cases, these institutions adopted the EMI policy, considering it a symbol of modern education, irrespective of the specific academic disciplines they offered. Furthermore, there is a growing trend in establishing colleges affiliated with Western universities, further solidifying English as the default medium of instruction policy. Highlighting such internationalization and that in relation to EMI, Sah (2022a) argues,

the EMI policy is a neoliberal endowment for Nepal’s HE [higher education] that has been developed through the state’s policies and dispositions of privatization, internationalization and capitalism, creating a discourse of a market-driven education system that appreciates commodified languages and social semiotics and undermines local realities. (p. 72)

Recent policy developments have accordingly affirmed the use of English as a preferred medium of instruction in higher education. For example, the eighth amendment of the Education Act in 2006 stated the medium of instruction be Nepali, English, or both. Similarly, as Seel et al. (2015), a Ministry of Education’s commissioned report, state that the “Medium of Instruction Road Map . . . suggested higher education through the medium of English and/or Nepali” (p. 3). Lately, the National Education Policy 2019 overtly recommended English to be the medium of instruction in higher education, which was in response to the provision made in the Higher Education Policy 2016 for promoting STEM disciplines (e.g., forestry, computer science, engineering, and medical science), and also to attract international students.

Although many institutions teach or claim to teach their programs in English, it is important to note that Nepali higher education classrooms have never been exclusively monolingual spaces. For instance, a survey conducted by Subba (1980) four decades ago revealed that English was never the sole medium of instruction. In most cases, English was primarily used for textbooks and question-and-answer scripts, while Nepali was heavily utilized in EMI classrooms. EMI practices have remained largely consistent over the last four decades (Shrestha, 2008).

In Sah’s (2022a) depiction of the EMI model in Nepal (Figure 1), both classroom instruction and standardized examinations in higher education programs are conducted bilingually in English and Nepali. However, it is worth noting that entrance examinations are primarily conducted in English only. Local/Indigenous languages are notably absent in higher education programs (Shrestha & Khanal, 2016) and are seldom employed in school education (Phyak & Sah, 2022). The use of local/Indigenous languages in education is often viewed through a deficit perspective, which portrays these languages as lacking academic merit (Sah, 2022a; Shrestha & Khanal, 2016).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Recent EMI model in Nepal’s higher education (Sah, 2022a, p. 79).

It is, therefore, important to unpack the ideological dynamics of language use in EMI programs in Nepal, questioning the power dynamics associated with different languages (English, Nepali as a national dominant language, and local/Indigenous languages). Teachers, as policy arbiters, can have agency in (re)producing certain language ideologies (Ellison et al., 2018; Phyak & Sah, 2022). Hence, investigating language ideologies that guide teachers’ beliefs and practices is an important avenue of research in the context of EMI.

This research is part of a larger project on EMI in Nepal’s higher education that was designed to understand the implementation of the EMI policy in multiple higher education institutions in the Kathmandu Valley. The project originally utilized narrative and interpretive methodologies to understand the perspectives and experiences of teachers and students, including their agency and emotions. In total, 19 students and four teachers from different undergraduate programs (e.g., nursing, pharmacy, business administration, and education) in the Kathmandu Valley were voluntarily involved in open-ended interviews and focus-group discussions. Most teachers and students were multilingual speakers with different home languages. While some belonged to the Nepali-speaking dominant group, the majority hailed from various other ethnolinguistic groups, such as Nepal Bhasa and Tamang. Among the student participants, most came from different regions of Nepal, having relocated to Kathmandu for their higher education. A portion of the students also included local residents of Kathmandu. Notably, the students from Kathmandu typically came from middle-class backgrounds, whereas the others were primarily from lower-middle-class families. The students who participated in the study were selected based on their willingness and availability to take part in the research. In this paper, interviews with teachers were reanalyzed to gain insight into the language ideologies that shaped their beliefs and practices when using various languages in EMI programs. Table 1 provides the details of the four teachers whose narratives are reported in this paper.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participating teachers’ details.

Pseudonym	Program	Subject	Years of Experience	Home Language
Ramesh	BBS	Statistics	19	Nepal Bhasa
Shyam	Education	ICT in Education ELT Methods	13	Tamang
Amit	Pharmacy	Pharmacology Pharmaceutical Chemistry	7	Nepal Bhasa
Binit	Pharmacy	Pharmaceutical Management	1	Nepali

The interviews were conducted in English and Nepali, meaning that the teachers could choose the language(s) they preferred to use. While Binit decided to speak in Nepali—although he often mixed English—all the other teachers decided to interview in the English language. Their use of English is, however, not presented intact in the findings since I rephrased it on many occasions for the international reader to better comprehend the meaning. The interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed for data analysis purposes. The interview data were analyzed through a thematic approach (Creswell & Poth, 2017). After transcribing all interviews verbatim, they were coded inductively. The codes were then combined into different categories, which further yielded different themes. For example, the codes ENGLISH AS AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE, INTERNATIONALIZATION, CAREER, HIGHER EDUCATION ABROAD, and INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY were combined into categories like “upward socioeconomic mobility” and “English as capital.” These categories were then grouped under the theme of “EMI for English Linguistic Capital.”

Findings

The analysis of the teachers’ interviews sheds light on language ideologies that have guided their beliefs and practices regarding the use of different languages in EMI classrooms. This section presents those ideological beliefs and practices in three interrelated themes: (1) “Without English, they [students] can’t survive”: EMI for English linguistic capital; (2) “I start with English, then . . . switch to Nepali”: The use of Nepali to address local needs; and (3) “First is English, then Nepali and then mother tongue”: Placing languages unequally.

“Without English, they [students] can’t survive”: EMI for English linguistic capital

The first theme that emerged during the data analysis pertained to the teachers’ beliefs regarding the advantages students are likely to derive from participating in an EMI program. When questioned about the need and rationale for introducing an EMI program in a multilingual country like Nepal, all teachers unanimously agreed that such a program could prove advantageous for Nepali students, particularly in terms of their upward socioeconomic mobility. The teachers saw EMI as a vehicle for students to acquire English linguistic capital for their higher education:

Now, this whole world has become a global village. That’s why, to be socialized in the global village, English has a very important role. They [students] need to know English. Without English, they cannot survive in the global village . . . English will play a very great role because if they want to compete with other international students, obviously they need the English language. Without the English language, they cannot compete. (Shyam)

According to Shyam, we currently live in what he refers to as a “global village,” where we are all global citizens in some capacity. In this context, Shyam emphasizes the importance of Nepali students socializing within this global village. He argues that knowledge of English is essential for those seeking affiliation with the global village, as English proficiency is regarded as a necessary survival skill for all students in this interconnected world. From this perspective, the global village is seen as a space that is mediated through the English language, thereby necessitating all students to acquire English not only for their survival but also for their engagement with other members of the global village. While it is uncommon to find international students in Nepal’s higher education institutions, there is an increasing trend among Nepali students to pursue further studies abroad. Shyam highlights the challenges faced by Nepali students who intend to pursue further studies abroad, as they have to compete with other international students for admission spots and various opportunities such as post-study employment. In these competitive scenarios, English proficiency plays a crucial role for Nepali students. Amit, who teaches in a Pharmacy program, shares similar beliefs:

The world is now a globalized small village, so every single country is connected to one another. And, the only connecting language is English. So, it [English proficiency] is important for students in the development of their careers. If they want to pursue further higher education, they need English. So, from childhood, if they improve their English, they will not have to face difficulties in any other part of the world. (Amit)

Amit further emphasizes the concept of a “global village” and the increasing blurring of boundaries between nation-states due to rapid international movements in recent decades. He underscores the significance of English as a global lingua franca, particularly in international higher education contexts where English is the predominant medium of instruction (Macaro et al., 2018; Sah, 2022a). Nepali students who plan to study abroad, particularly in anglophone countries such as Australia, Canada, the U.S., and the U.K., would need to develop proficiency in English. It is true that without English proficiency, gaining admission to Western universities becomes nearly impossible, as they require internationally-accredited English proficiency tests (such as IELTS, PTE, and TOEFL) as a gatekeeping mechanism. Therefore, Amit firmly believes that Nepali students must prioritize the development of their English proficiency if they aspire to pursue higher education opportunities. Moreover, Amit emphasizes the importance of English proficiency for career development, which can have an impact both at the national and international levels. Like Shyam, Amit believes that possessing English proficiency ensures global adaptability and eliminates survival difficulties for students. Consequently, both Shyam and Amit advocate for Nepali students to commence English language learning from a young age. In fact, Shyam views EMI programs as a means to foster English proficiency:

When they [students] pass the basic education, we must increase the use of the English language in the upper level [of education]. The medium should be English because if they want their further education in other countries, obviously, they need English. Keeping this thing in mind, we must increase the use of EMI in higher education. (Shyam)

Shyam asserts that the use of English should be increased in higher education to facilitate the development of students’ English proficiency. He believes that when students are extensively exposed to the English language, they will have more opportunities to enhance their English skills. Consequently, the EMI program is viewed as a valuable opportunity for students to acquire English proficiency. This finding contradicts the argument put forth by Macaro et al. (2018) that English proficiency is not a primary goal of an EMI program. Although developing English proficiency is not a curricular focus, it is often a “hoped-for or expected outcome” (Pecorari & Malmström, 2018, p. 502). For the teachers in this study, by attending the EMI program, students can reap linguistic benefits that can work as real or “symbolic capital” (Bourdieu, 1973) for them in their pursuit of higher education studies and employment (Ricento, 2015).

While it may not be wrong to learn English for Nepali students wishing to go abroad for further studies or employment, the ideology of English as a language of survival and that it should be the medium of instruction may cause some problems. For example, it negatively influences the language ecology in higher education, jeopardizing the learning of disciplinary knowledge that can best be learned through the medium of home language or a more familiar language (UNESCO, 2016). Furthermore, the neoliberal logic of education can result in a narrow focus on economic outcomes over broader educational goals.

“I start with English, then . . . switch to Nepali”: the use of Nepali to address local needs

After delving into teachers’ perceptions of the English language, the analysis now centers on their beliefs regarding their own language practices within the EMI program. The analysis reveals the intricate nature of teachers’ perceptions regarding the languages they deem should be utilized versus the languages they find necessary to employ in their actual instructional contexts:

It is our sole responsibility to deliver the lessons in English or to teach the English language to the students but the reality is [that the English] competence of students is very low and if we teach only in English, they will not comprehend well. That’s why, although we want to deliver the lessons in English, we have to use the Nepali language because students do not understand lessons in English only. (Amit)

All teachers unanimously preferred using English exclusively to facilitate students’ English proficiency development. However, they acknowledged the practical challenges of implementing this approach in their teaching contexts. Despite recognizing it as their “responsibility” to deliver lectures solely in English, they were aware that their students’ “level of English proficiency is very low, so they cannot comprehend what we [teachers] want to convey or what we teach in English” (Shyam). Despite the teachers’ inclination toward English monolingual instruction within the EMI program, they demonstrate a willingness to negotiate and adopt the monolingual policy to address the linguistic needs of their students. As a result, the teachers incorporate Nepali in response to their students’ language needs in the EMI program.

In EMI programs, there are normally students from both Nepali-medium and English-medium schooling backgrounds. Ramesh, who teaches in a business studies program, discusses that “most students are from the Nepali-medium schools, and they don’t understand English easily, so they prefer Nepali.” These are the students who have moved to Kathmandu from different parts of Nepal for their higher studies. Similarly, Amit asserts that students from “private [English-medium] boarding schools can understand, but there are difficulties for students from [Nepali-medium] government schools.” First, this shows that there are students with varying English proficiency levels in EMI programs in Nepal, thereby posing constraints on teachers to exclusively deliver lessons in English. Second, there are explicit demands from the students for teachers to use the Nepali language to teach disciplinary knowledge. To further highlight the linguistic needs of EMI students, Amit provides insights from his own experience. He observes that when he requests students in the EMI program to deliver presentations in English, they often express hesitation due to their difficulties in speaking the language fluently. However, when given the chance to discuss their presentations in Nepali, they become more at ease and proficient in conveying their ideas effectively:

When I ask students to try to speak in English, they are hesitant and they cannot express what they are going to say. Even when I give presentation tasks to students, first of all, I make the students give presentations in English language but when they give presentations in English, they cannot explain what they have prepared. But, when I tell them, “ok explain in Nepali,” they will explain it very beautifully. [Amit]

Furthermore, reflecting on their instructional practices, all teachers agree that they first try to “explain in English” but if “students demand, [they] also use the Nepali language” (Shyam). Hence, English-Nepali bilingualism seems to be a default medium of instruction in EMI programs, which results from students’ low English proficiency and their consequent demand to explain disciplinary knowledge in a more familiar language than English. When there are “difficult words in English” that obstruct students’ understanding of disciplinary content, teachers “have to convert [translate] that into Nepali” (Shyam).

However, Nepali is not necessarily used in isolation but in combination with the English language, which indicates the English and Nepali translanguaging: the teachers in the EMI program “use mixed language” (Shyam). For example, they “start with English and then switch to Nepali when they [students] demand” (Shyam):

If I use only English there will be a barrier. If I use only Nepali there will be difficult for me to explain those terminologies. For some of the medical terminologies, I cannot find words in Nepali. So, that will be difficult if I use only English or only Nepali, but it will be easier if I use both. [Amit]

It seems unavoidable for teachers to translanguage in EMI programs as they use one language to complement the use of another language. For example, as Amit mentions, many terminologies and concepts in the medical discipline do not have parallel words and concepts in the Nepali language, so they have to use both English and Nepali flexibly.

The findings presented in this section demonstrate that, regardless of their ideological positions favoring English monolingual instruction within the EMI program, teachers exercise their agency by engaging in negotiations regarding the monolingual policy and their own monolingual ideologies. They also display an awareness of local needs. The teachers possess an understanding of their students’ linguistic requirements and exhibit positive attitudes toward the use of the Nepali language. Consequently, it becomes evident that bi/multilingual practices are inevitable in EMI programs in Nepal due to the presence of students with diverse levels of English proficiency who require support by utilizing their more familiar languages. However, within these bi/multilingual practices, various named languages are employed flexibly. However, as the analysis shows, such a flexible language practice is what Sah and Karki (2023) call “elite bilingualism” that affirms the language practice of only speakers who are proficient in two powerful languages, English and Nepali.

“First is English, then Nepali and then mother tongue”: placing languages unequally

To recap the findings so far, the EMI teachers hold the belief that students will reap linguistic and symbolic advantages by participating in the EMI program, driven by the ideology of English as a commodified language. Consequently, there exists a fundamental adherence to the English monolingual ideology for instructional purposes within EMI programs. However, the teachers exhibit a certain degree of flexibility in negotiating the English monolingual ideology to accommodate their students’ linguistic needs. As discussed earlier, Nepali was not necessarily the mother tongue of most students and teachers in EMI programs and, therefore, it raises concerns regarding their ideological positions about other local/Indigenous languages present in the classroom linguistic ecology. Thus, the analysis in this section shifts the focus toward comprehending the dynamic relationships among all languages present in the EMI programs, thereby highlighting how language hierarchy is perpetuated through the teachers’ ideologies of “English-Nepali elite bilingualism” (Sah & Karki, 2023).

During the inquiry into the teachers’ perceptions of the significance of English, Nepali, and local/Indigenous languages, the majority of them ranked English as the highest in the linguistic hierarchy, followed by Nepali and then local/Indigenous languages. For example, Ramesh holds that “First is English, then Nepali and then mother tongue.” Nepali is also the mother tongue of many teachers and students in the EMI program, but the mother tongue here refers to other local/Indigenous languages:

Being Nepali, the first should be the national language [Nepali]. Most Nepali people talk Nepali, so there is an importance of Nepali in its own right but English, is also necessary because when we go to the professional field, there are people who understand English. When we have to explain something to laymen, Nepali is useful in that case but for a technical person, English will be a good means of communication. [Amit]

Amit provides a further definition of linguistic hierarchy by emphasizing the importance of both Nepali and English. Like other teachers, he recognizes the significance of Nepali as a “national language.” He associates the Nepali language with nationalism, which aligns with the longstanding nationalist ideology present in Nepal’s education system, advocating that all Nepali citizens should learn and be familiar with the Nepali language. It is indeed surprising that despite the recognition of all languages spoken within the territory of Nepal as national languages according to the 2015 Constitution, the teachers still uphold a nationalist ideology regarding the importance of Nepali. This suggests a possible discrepancy between the constitutional provisions and the perceptions and beliefs held by the teachers. Other studies (e.g., Phyak, 2016; Pradhan, 2018; Sah, 2022b; Sah & Li, 2022) have also documented similar ideologies in the school contexts that many teachers still think Nepali is the only national language and, therefore, it should have more usages in education than other local/Indigenous languages. This persistent ideology that associates Nepali with the national identity has the potential to perpetuate the ongoing challenges faced by ethnolinguistic minority groups in Nepal. It further hinders ethnolinguistic minority students from exercising their linguistic human rights in the sphere of education and other domains.

Although Amit finds Nepali to be a crucial language through a nationalist lens, he refers to Nepali as a language of “layman” when he compares it with the English language. He perceives an educated person as someone who knows English and, therefore, he states that “English will be a good means of communication” with the educated person. His observation of the unequal power dynamics between English and Nepali is consistent with historical and structural context of elitism, where English is frequently linked with the so-called educated middle-class. Pradhan (2020) contends that a combination of neoliberal, nationalist, and monolingual ideologies shapes the definition of an educated person in Nepal. This ideology, however, further exacerbates the division between EMI and Nepali-medium instruction (NMI), as well as the division between elite and non-elite educational institutions.

While Nepali is considered less prestigious than English in the EMI program, it is still regarded as more prestigious than local/Indigenous languages, often influenced by a nationalist language ideology:

Obviously, for me, the mother tongue is important but we cannot use it in classrooms. Here [the college], except Nepali, no other languages are allowed. If we use the mother tongue, it could be a good idea, but we should use Nepali and English only but not their mother tongue. I think English is the most important medium of language, you know. (Ramesh)

Ramesh recognizes the importance of his mother tongue, but he holds the belief that it is not suitable for academic practices. His ideology leans toward a liberal stance regarding the use of the mother tongue, suggesting that while it may be beneficial, English and Nepali are more appropriate languages for the EMI program. This perspective reveals a deficient ideology toward local/Indigenous languages in higher education. Ramesh aligns with the other teachers’ belief that English should be the primary medium of instruction, and in situations where English alone is not sufficient, Nepali can be used as a supplementary language for instruction.

In addition, there are other justifications in favor of including Nepali as a complementary language in the EMI program. For example, Shyam contends that “Nepali is a common lingua franca; therefore, they [students] expect the instruction in Nepal.” He further asserts that “there might be different L1s but it’s not possible to use all languages.” Ramesh also adds that “even if we have some Newari students, if I speak Newari, other students may not understand that.” In line, Amit contributes to this discussion by adding that

Only a limited number of students will know that language if I’m speaking in Newari. I am a Newar, so I know Newari but if I’m going to explain it in Newari, more than half of the class will not understand Newari.

Hence, in addition to the nationalist logic, the preference for using Nepali over other local/Indigenous languages (such as Newari or Nepal Bhasa) is justified based on the perception of Nepali as a national lingua franca. The teachers argue that using local/Indigenous languages in the EMI program would only benefit those students who speak that particular language, while using Nepali would be more inclusive since all students can understand it. However, this ideological position held by the teachers obscures the fact that Nepali-speaking students or those who possess English-Nepali elite bilingualism stand to gain more advantages compared with students from ethnolinguistic minority groups. Binit rightly sheds light on this matter.

The analysis highlights how the hegemonic language ideologies these teachers subscribe to reproduce longstanding social hierarchies in Nepal’s higher education. The teachers’ beliefs, which position English, Nepali, and local/Indigenous languages unequally, exacerbate the challenges of accommodating local/Indigenous languages within Nepal’s educational landscape. This, in turn, results in the continued marginalization of students from ethnolinguistic groups, impacting their access to education and potentially hindering their prospects for upward socioeconomic mobility. These disparities manifest as limitations on their full participation in EMI programs and, consequently, restrictions on future employment opportunities. Conversely, the preference for bilingual proficiency in Nepali and English serves to privilege those who have access to these languages. The teachers’ belief system also reflects a context of “symbolic violence” (Bourdieu, 1973), as teachers who speak minoritized languages not only accept the language hierarchy but actively contribute to its perpetuation through their language practices.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore the language ideologies that guide teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the use of different languages in EMI classrooms and how that reproduces social hierarchies in the context of education. The teachers in this study emphasized the perceived benefits of an EMI program, particularly in terms of students’ upward socioeconomic mobility and their ability to navigate the global village. The teachers recognized English as a prerequisite for higher education, career development, and international opportunities. These findings resonate with previous research highlighting the role of English as a global lingua franca in international higher education contexts (Jiang et al., 2019; Macaro & Han, 2022; Rana & Sah, 2023). The teachers’ views challenge the argument that English proficiency should not be a primary goal of EMI programs (Macaro et al., 2018), indicating the complexity of expectations and motivations surrounding English language acquisition. In the specific context of Nepal, a growing number of higher education students are increasingly inclined to pursue overseas opportunities as a means to enhance their prospects for a better future. In this context, the neoliberal language ideology that emphasizes the value of English positions it as a more desirable medium of instruction compared with Nepali and other local languages. This preference for English is driven by the perceived capital and advantages associated with English, making it a favored means of developing English proficiency. This phenomenon then undermines the significance of multilingual competency that many scholars (e.g., Kubota, 2016) have advocated as having more social and educational benefits. At the same time, the elevated status of English as a more desirable medium of instruction can lead to a decreased emphasis on the use and preservation of local/Indigenous languages within formal education systems. In this regard, Shrestha and Khanal (2016) argue that “indigenizing language of instruction in higher education remains a distant dream” in Nepal due to the influence of neoliberal ideologies that shape the policies and practices related to the choice of medium of instruction (p. 153).

Further analysis revealed that the EMI programs in Nepal were not strictly regarded as exclusively monolingual English spaces, despite English being idealized as the preferred language of instruction. Although the teachers expressed a preference for English-only instruction, they acknowledged the low English proficiency levels of their students, leading to a need for the use of an additional language to scaffold instruction and comprehension of disciplinary knowledge, which aligns with previous studies on EMI advocacy for translanguaging in different contexts (e.g., Barnard et al., 2023; Sah & Li, 2022; Sahan et al., 2023; Tri & Moskovsky, 2023). The teachers were optimistic about the use of Nepali as a supplementary language of instruction, which, to some extent, addressed the linguistic needs of students. However, since Nepali itself is another nationally dominant language with a history of marginalizing numerous other local and indigenous languages (Phyak, 2016; Sah, 2021), it cannot be claimed as a transformative practice. In this regard, Sah and Karki (2023) argue that “EMI is a construct of elite bilingualism” in Nepal “because these two languages are endowed with more ideological power in the lure of socioeconomic and sociopolitical benefits, which in large creates inequalities for minoritized students” (p. 21). The perspective put forth by Sah and Karki sheds light on the complex dynamics of language relations that need to be unpacked in such multilingual contexts.

Some studies romanticize the use of national dominant languages and incorrectly assume them as the home languages of all students (e.g., Malay in the context of Malaysia in Barnard et al., 2023 and Vietnamese in the context of Vietnam in Tri & Moskovsky, 2023) and often fail to address the complexities of the language ecology, where numerous local and Indigenous languages coexist. Recognizing and accounting for these complexities is crucial, giving due attention to the real linguistic ecology to unpack linguistic hierarchies and their consequences. For example, as the analysis further revealed, teachers’ language beliefs and practices in EMI programs created a language hierarchy that positioned English at the top, followed by Nepali and then other local/Indigenous languages. While Nepali was seen as the national language and held importance through a nationalist lens, English was deemed essential for communication with educated individuals. This hierarchy reflects the longstanding nationalist ideology in Nepal’s education system, which prioritizes Nepali over other local/Indigenous languages (Phyak, 2016; Pradhan, 2020; Sah, 2022b; Sah & Li, 2022). This then reproduces historical social, political, and economic hierarchies. This linguistic dynamic calls for careful consideration of the linguistic ecology of the EMI classrooms to address the historical inequalities. By actively recognizing and supporting the linguistic resources and backgrounds of students, educational institutions can contribute to a more equitable and enriching learning experience.

In addition, addressing historical language-based inequalities can help pave the way for a more inclusive society that embraces and celebrates linguistic diversity in all its forms. Rather than creating a space for other selected languages (e.g., Nepali) as a coping strategy in the EMI program, teachers and students should be allowed to utilize their fullest linguistic repertoire, inclusive of their mother tongue. In this regard, the EMI program in multilingual settings should adopt what Sah and Kubota (2022) call “critical translanguaging” that resists “nationalist and neoliberal ideologies that position languages and their users unequally, and instead protect the language, culture, and identity of those who have historically received marginalization” (p. 143). They further argue that “creating a critical translanguaging space in the EMI classroom should develop the notion of ‘linguistic human rights’ (Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1994) that provides a rightful space for the students’ mother tongue for pedagogic purposes” (p. 143). This also requires teacher education/training programs to help EMI teachers raise their critical language awareness, so they are ideologically and politically clear about the power dynamics between languages and their speakers (Sah & Uysal, 2022; Zhang-Wu & Tian, 2023).

Conclusion

The findings of this study have significant implications for EMI classrooms and language education in general. The identification and examination of language ideologies held by teachers provide valuable insights into the complexities and challenges surrounding language choices and practices in EMI settings. First, the study highlights the continued dominance of English as a language of privilege and global capital. The teachers’ belief in the indispensability of English for students’ future success reinforces the need to prioritize English language development in EMI programs. However, this emphasis on English proficiency should be accompanied by a critical understanding of the potential consequences of language hierarchies and the exclusionary nature of privileging one language over others. Second, the study reveals the necessity of addressing local needs and leveraging students’ linguistic resources in the classroom beyond celebrating the mere addition of yet another dominant language (Nepali, in this case). Finally, the study emphasizes the need for equitable language policies and practices in EMI classrooms. The existing language hierarchy, which places English at the top and marginalizes other local and Indigenous languages, perpetuates linguistic inequalities. It is crucial for policymakers and educators to actively engage in promoting inclusive language policies that respect and value students’ linguistic diversity. Efforts should be made to create a learning environment where all languages are acknowledged, respected, and utilized as resources for learning (Sah & Fang, 2024).

The findings of this study contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the multilingual complexities of EMI programs and provide insights that can inform future research, curriculum development, and educational policymaking. Future research should explore the impact of these language ideologies on students’ language development, identity (re)construction and negotiation, and their academic and socioemotional well-being. Moreover, policymakers and educators should engage in dialogue to promote inclusive language policies and practices that value students’ linguistic diversity and create equitable learning environments in EMI programs.