English prescriptivism in higher education settings: Focus on Nordic countries

Abstract

5 This chapter explores the use of explicit language policies and regulations in higher 6 education settings where English is used as a foreign language. In particular, the chapter 7 presents a case study of the Nordic countries of Europe, which, in today's Europe, are 8 considered some of the settings where English users have overall high proficiency in 9

Full text

This is a pre-print version of: Peterson, Elizabeth and Marika Hall. 2023. English
prescriptivism in higher education settings: Focus on Nordic Countries. In Joan Beal, Morana
Lukač & Robin Straaijer (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Prescriptivism.
Routledge.
1
English prescriptivism in higher education settings
2
Focus on Nordic countries
3
Elizabeth Peterson and Marika Hall
4
Abstract
5
This chapter explores the use of explicit language policies and regulations in higher
6
education settings where English is used as a foreign language. In particular, the chapter
7
presents a case study of the Nordic countries of Europe, which, in today’s Europe, are
8
considered some of the settings where English users have overall high proficiency in
9
English. The chapter presents a collection of public university language policy documents
10
from the countries of Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. An analysis of
11
these documents reveals two sets of outcomes. The first is that, presumably as a by-
12
product of Nordic union and collaboration, English language skills in the Nordic countries
13
are upheld as elite among Nordic Universities. The second outcome is that the prescribed
14
use of English in these institutions mirrors that of colonial and imperial norms of English.
15
16
1. Introduction
17
In this chapter, our aims are to explore the role of prescriptivism with regard to the
18
English language in the Nordic countries. Our specific focus is on the use of English in
19
institutions of higher education (HEIs). The reasons for pursuing this line of investigation
20
are two-fold. First, there has been a concerted effort among Nordic universities to enhance
21

2
their global visibility and competitiveness through the use of English as a language of
1
science and higher education. The outcome is that Nordic universities are, in fact,
2
increasingly the target of prospective students as well as researchers who come to these
3
destinations with the expectation that they will be able to carry out their academic work –
4
as well as their personal life – using English. This phenomenon is not without its
5
consequences and tensions, which leads to the second main aim of our treatment here. The
6
use of English in higher education gives rise to many ideological questions that link to
7
prescriptivism. These questions, in no specific order, include: What varieties of English
8
are valued over others in the context(s) of Nordic universities? How does prescriptivism
9
with regard to English relate to prescriptivism with regard to the national language(s)?
10
How is English proficiency treated among and between the Nordic countries compared to
11
speakers of English from other territories?
12
A couple of key factors warrant such an investigation of the Nordic countries. Of
13
particular interest is the fact that the Nordic countries, despite the fact that English has
14
foreign language status in the Nordic region and is overwhelmingly an additional, not a
15
first language, routinely rank among those having the most widely proficient speakers of
16
English in the world (Jeong et al., 2021). In addition, English has come to these countries
17
as a result of so-called “cultural” imperialism, not colonialism, a situation that
18
distinguishes their use of English from territories such as Australia, Bermuda, Canada,
19
India, the Philippines, and other territories that have been under British or American rule
20
(Phillipson, 2008; Lønsmann, 2009; Leppänen et al., 2011; Þórarinsdóttir, 2011; Rindal,
21
2014; Hult, 2017).
22
In the Nordic countries, there has been no model of English established through
23
historical widespread settlement, as is the case in, for example, Australia, Canada and the
24
United States (Schneider, 2007). Likewise, English-medium schools and other formal
25

3
establishments such as government and courts have not been established through
1
colonization, such as in places like Kenya, the Caribbean, and Pakistan (and, obviously,
2
many other places). Thus, the development and accepted norms of English in the Nordic
3
countries emerges as a joint outcome of cultural imperialism (as per, e.g., Phillipson,
4
1992; Pennycook, 2017) and local interpretations of what any norms of English can and
5
should be. For the purposes of this chapter, prescriptivism is regarded as an orientation
6
toward the norms of use offered by the canonical (i.e., “norm-providing”) varieties of
7
English, namely British English, and American English. The term “British English” is
8
used in this chapter as a more common way of referring to the norms of Standardized
9
Southern British English (Hughes et al., 2012). In conjunction with this definition,
10
prescriptivism with English manifests in the treatment of English users from differing
11
language backgrounds. This is an especially pertinent point when it comes to English, a
12
language used by an estimated 1.5 to 2 billion people around the world (MacKenzie,
13
2018) and a prime example of a pluricentric language (Clyne, 1992); due (in large part) to
14
its colonial history, English is a language with many homes. In the case of the Nordic
15
countries, then, it is critical to note whether they gravitate toward the norms of English
16
imposed through its history of colonialism and coloniality, or if they recognize and are
17
open to other norms of use.
18
While the role of ideologies about English has been explored relatively
19
extensively in research on languages in Nordic universities (see Section 3 of this chapter),
20
the relationship between ideologies about English and prescriptivism with regard to
21
English remains mostly underexplored, at least from the perspective of the institutions
22
themselves.
23
2. The language situation in the Nordic countries
24

4
The countries comprising the Nordic region of Europe – Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
1
Norway, and Sweden – are by many standards considered “small” populations (see, e.g.,
2
Hoffmann, 2000) where, in general, the relationship of national identity and language
3
identity is seen as quite direct. In other words, there is a strong ‘one-nation-one-language’
4
ideology, a concept considered a premise of successful nations under the assumption that
5
the use of a single language is beneficial for national unity and social harmony (see, e.g.
6
Piller, 2015; May, 2012; Blommaert, 2006). For example, the Finnish language has been
7
referred to as a “holy cow” for Finns due to its perceived difficulty (Latomaa &
8
Nuolijärvi, 2005), and the distinction between Norwegian and Danish is a common
9
example in linguistics classrooms to support the famous observation “a language is a
10
dialect with a navy”. Indeed, the Declaration on Nordic Language Policy (Nordic Council
11
of Ministers, 2006) states, “There are six languages in the Nordic countries that are both
12
complete and essential to society [emphasis added]: Danish, Finnish, Faroese, Icelandic,
13
Norwegian (in both written forms: Bokmål and Nynorsk), and Swedish” (p. 91). Thus, the
14
relationship between Nordicness and national identity and language is well established,
15
even though, of course, each country has its own unique linguistic history.
16
The Nordic countries, with the exception of Finland and Norway, each have a
17
single official language, but also have recognized various regional or minority languages
18
(Table 11.1 here)
19
20
Following linguistic classifications, the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family
21
tree is the most represented in the languages of the Nordic countries. Of the languages
22
listed in Table 11.1, Danish, Faroese, Swedish, Icelandic, and Norwegian are
23
characterized as Germanic languages. The second most represented language family is
24
Finno-Ugric: the Sami languages, Finnish, Karelian, Kven and Meänkieli. While the
25
population majority in Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are users of Germanic
26

5
languages, and the population majority in Finland are users of a Finno-Ugric language,
1
there is overlap across borders – as would be expected. In other words, there are speakers
2
of Finnic languages in parts of Norway and Sweden, and there are speakers of Germanic
3
languages in Finland. For example, as a result of its proximity and shared history with
4
Sweden, Swedish is an official language in Finland (according to the Finnish Constitution,
5
1919). Today there are approximately 289,000 speakers of Swedish in Finland, about 5.2
6
percent of the total population. As the list of languages may already demonstrate, each
7
country has a distinct history. As always, any list of “official” or “recognized” languages
8
should also be considered more indicative of power relations and politics, rather than
9
reflecting actual linguistic realities
1
.
10
While the Nordic countries each have their own systems of governance
11
(constitutional monarchies and republics) and political trajectories, they do interact
12
economically and politically and have for a long time. Denmark, Finland, and Sweden are
13
members of the European Union (EU), and all of the Nordic countries are members of the
14
European Economic Area (EEA). As such, Iceland and Norway are affiliated with the EU
15
through the free movement of goods, services, people, and capital. Due to their proximity
16
and similar cultural beliefs, the Nordic countries have also forged a regional partnership to
17
enhance Nordic cooperation.
18
For cooperation purposes, including the Nordic Council and Nordic Council of
19
Ministers (inter-governmental and -parliamentary cooperation), the Scandinavian
20
languages of Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish are to be used, although the practicability
21
and fairness of this has been questioned and, in practice, cross-Nordic communication
22
often takes place in English (Kristinsson & Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2012). In fact, English is
23
extensively learned and used within the Nordic countries, including as a lingua franca
24
among Nordic people in certain contexts. It is important to note that English is an L1 for
25

6
an extremely small minority of people in the Nordic countries, as only one of hundreds of
1
immigrant languages.
2
As mentioned previously, there is no history of Anglo-colonization in the Nordic
3
area, although Iceland was occupied by British, Canadian, and American troops during
4
World War II. Rather, there is a complex history of Nordic colonization with colonial
5
presences in or ties to places such as the Caribbean, North America, and Africa, and
6
within the Nordics and surrounding regions. For example, the Sami territories in Finland,
7
Norway, and Sweden were colonized by people living in each respective area. Iceland has
8
also been under Norwegian and Danish rule, and Finland and Norway under Swedish rule
9
(for more information see e.g. Höglund & Burnett, 2019), and there is extensive shared
10
political history between Germany and Denmark and Russia and Finland, to name a few
11
examples.
12
The manner in which English language learning was introduced is similar across
13
the Nordic countries – and indeed bears similarities to how and why English language
14
learning spread around the world in general in the post-World War II era (see, e.g.
15
Pennycook, 2017). For the Nordic countries in particular, the widespread adoption of
16
English as a foreign language coincided with strong social movements that peaked in the
17
social welfare model of the 1970s. These other factors included urbanization and
18
modernization, education reforms, taxation benefit models, changes to the childcare and
19
healthcare systems, and so on. Country-specific legislation notwithstanding (see Hultgren
20
et al., 2014), today English is the dominant foreign language learned in school throughout
21
the Nordic region (Björklund, et al., 2013), as either a de jure or de facto required subject.
22
Although the European Parliament (2017) has long promoted the 1+2 model (“mother
23
tongue” and two foreign languages) specifically with the aim of maintaining and
24
increasing multilingualism in the EU region, the reality in the Nordic countries tends to be
25

7
“national Nordic language + English + other”. In Finland and Iceland the “other” foreign
1
language, however, is fulfilled by the second national language (Finnish or Swedish), and
2
Danish (or other Scandinavian language), respectively.
3
Today, the Nordic countries routinely rank among the places where there is the
4
highest proportion of English-speakers per capita outside of inner-circle settings such as
5
the UK and the USA (Jeong et al., 2021; Peterson, 2019). While to a large extent English
6
is embraced, especially by younger generations, there is concern over the effect of English
7
on the national languages. In other words, English is often considered to be a useful and
8
necessary tool and a lingua franca, and as such, mastery in it is considered highly
9
important. At the same time, English can be construed as a threat that ‘pollutes’ the
10
Nordic languages and decreases their importance and usage locally – a position which can
11
certainly have puristic and nationalistic undertones (Nevalainen, et al., 2015; Hakulinen et
12
al., 2009; Ljosland, 2015; Haberland & Preisler, 2014; Salö, 2014; Josephson, 2014;
13
Saarinen, 2020). In settings of higher education, internationalization and the increasing
14
use of English are often perceived as destabilizing or threatening not only to local science
15
but to nationhood.
16
17
3. Higher Education the Nordic Countries
18
The Nordic countries have a similar approach to higher education, in that it is based upon
19
a commitment to welfare, particularly in providing equal access to education. For this
20
reason, higher education has traditionally been public and tuition-free. In the past decades,
21
however, higher education has undergone notable changes due to globalization and
22
neoliberal economic practices. These broader global realities serve as a backdrop to
23
understanding the shifting of roles of HEIs, specifically in terms of moving from public
24
sector institutions to more competitive and market-oriented ones (e.g. Bagley & Portnoi,
25

8
2014; Piller & Cho, 2013; Olssen & Peters, 2005). While naturally there is notable
1
variation in the actualization of HEI policies in each of the Nordic countries and across
2
different institutions; in general Nordic HEIs are increasingly expected to compete in the
3
global education market – while at the same time contributing to national economic
4
development and serving the welfare state (Hultgren, et al., 2014; Saarinen & Taalas,
5
2017; Kivistö, et al., 2019; Fägerlind & Strömqvist, 2004). Internationalization has thus
6
become a key objective for HEIs in the Nordic countries as it is considered a key factor
7
contributing to the overall success and competitiveness of a university. For example, the
8
number of international students and research projects serve to boost international
9
rankings (Hultgren, 2014a; Hultgren, et al., 2014; Rumbley et al., 2012; Altbach, 2007;
10
Hénard, et al., 2012; Maassen, et al., 2005; Elken, et al., 2015), and such aims are
11
connected to the use of English.
12
With the increase of international student mobility globally, English-speaking
13
countries have tended to attract more students, resulting in an Anglophone asymmetry (cf.
14
Hughes, 2008) in the international student market (e.g. Saarinen & Taalas, 2017; de Wit,
15
et al., 2013). To compete with Anglophone countries, although perhaps a bit
16
paradoxically, HEIs around the world have incorporated English as a medium of
17
instruction (EMI). In addition, in Europe, several cross-national policies and practices
18
aimed at facilitating international mobility have been implemented, for example, the
19
Bologna Process and the ERASMUS programme. The former seeks to ensure that
20
institutions can easily recognize foreign studies and credits within Europe, while the latter
21
is a European exchange programme making temporary studies at other European
22
universities possible. The agreement on Nordic Admission to Higher Education (e.g.
23
SOPIMUS Tanskan, Suomen, Islannin, Norjan ja Ruotsin välillä pääsystä korkeampaan
24
koulutukseen, 1997) also seeks to increase mobility within the Nordic countries by
25

9
recommending that students from other Nordic countries should be considered for
1
admission on the same or equivalent basis as local applicants (cf. Elken, et al., 2015).
2
Each Nordic country has also ratified the Lisbon Recognition Convention (1997),
3
guaranteeing the recognition of foreign degrees (unless substantial differences are
4
observed), including the admission to tertiary education based on the same criteria as the
5
applicant’s home country in signatory countries – although more specific entry
6
requirements, such as language, can be set. Language requirements, as discussed in
7
Section 5, are typically satisfied through degree equivalency or local or international
8
language tests.
9
Internationalization on the tertiary level has been comparatively fast in Northern
10
Europe, and especially the Nordic countries. Efforts to internationalize are of course also
11
intricately tied to the issue of language(s) and their use at institutions of higher education.
12
Many institutions in the Nordic countries have indeed adopted English as a language of
13
instruction and even administration, in addition to or even in lieu of the respective
14
national languages (e.g. Altbach & Knight, 2007; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014;
15
Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2009; Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012; Hultgren, et al., 2014; Lindström &
16
Sylvin, 2014; Hultgren, et al., 2015; Airey, et al., 2017; Saarinen & Rontu, 2018; Holmen,
17
2018; Nissen, 2018; Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018). In addition, English-language materials are
18
increasingly used in classrooms, with approximately 70 to 90 percent of academic articles
19
and dissertations being written in English in Nordic universities. Nordic HEIs, thus, could
20
be considered to be at the forefront of Englishization, with a seeming purpose of enabling
21
mobility rather than imparting knowledge per se (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018; Hultgren, et al.,
22
2014; Saarinen & Taalas, 2017).
23
The incorporation of English seems to have been quite effective, as the number of
24
international students in the Nordic countries has increased dramatically since the start of
25

10
the millennium (OECD). For example, between the years 2000 and 2015 Norway more
1
than doubled its number of international students, most likely due to increased English-
2
medium instruction and free tuition (Wiers-Jenssen, 2018). However, EMI is more
3
common in graduate level programmes (20–40 percent) than it is at the undergraduate
4
level (10–25 percent). In all, international students make up about 5–15 percent of the
5
total student populations in the region (Hultgren, et al., 2014; Wächter & Maiworm,
6
2014).
7
The most obvious advantage of incorporating English into academic functions, in
8
terms of language of instruction as well as research, is that it is already quite widely used.
9
It thus provides a practical common medium of communication, even if the majority of
10
the incoming students are not L1 speakers of English. In addition, EMI programmes do
11
not only attract international but local students as well (Marginson & van der Wende,
12
2009; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). Of course, due to the various languages spoken and
13
used in Europe, relying on education in the national language(s) would decrease the
14
potential pool of students, especially if the national languages are not widely spoken
15
outside of the national boundaries. Typically, Nordic HEIs do not require that
16
international students learn the national language(s), although faculty and staff might be
17
expected to do so within a “reasonable” time period – normally three to five years.
18
These changes in the academic environment have led Nordic HEIs to reassess their
19
institutional language policies and practices, which has prompted discussions and concern
20
over the decreased usage of national languages. While there is a push for English as a
21
means of internationalization, many stakeholders, including policymakers and university
22
officials, consider universities as having the role of preserving and promoting the national
23
language(s) and cultures (Cots, et al., 2012; Soler, et al., 2018; Hultgren, et al., 2014;
24
Björkman, 2015; Haberland & Preisler, 2014). Thus, HEIs simultaneously attempt to
25

11
internationalize and safeguard national languages and cultures. Many Nordic universities
1
engage in a practice of parallel language use, which is also encouraged by the Declaration
2
on a Nordic Language Policy (2006), touting the benefits of multilingualism. However,
3
the reality is that “multilingualism” and “parallel language use” often equates “national
4
language(s) and English” – for example, Swedish and English in Sweden (Källkvist &
5
Hult, 2016) (in line with the general language learning patterns, national language +
6
English, stated in the previous section). As Hultgren (2014b) argues, parallel language
7
policies at Danish universities may actually be more about the promotion of English than
8
Danish.
9
University students, therefore, are largely expected to be able to understand and
10
produce English even as L1 speakers of Nordic languages (at Nordic universities), which
11
can be problematic as they are not necessarily trained to do so. Indeed, it is difficult to
12
complete a higher education degree in the Nordic countries without some kind of
13
proficiency in English, even if the programme is not EMI (e.g. Ljosland, 2015). Iceland,
14
having the most conservative policy on parallel use, is particularly interesting because
15
Icelandic is so heavily emphasized throughout schooling, and compared to other countries
16
in the Nordic Region the approach to the Icelandic language is perhaps the most purist
17
(see Section 6). Thus, students are expected to primarily read texts and be taught in
18
Icelandic in secondary school, but are expected to read academic texts in English at the
19
tertiary level, with the assumption that this poses no problems (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018;
20
Albury, 2016; Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010).
21
22
4. Materials
23
With the linguistics and academic set-up described so far in this chapter, there are many
24
approaches which could be – and have been – adopted to explore the phenomenon of
25

12
language use in higher education. For our purposes, the data used to describe the use of
1
English in HEIs in the Nordic countries comes from official, top-down sources.
2
Specifically, the data comprises publicly available language policy and language
3
requirements from public institutions of higher learning from the five Nordic countries.
4
We began our investigation by collecting language policy documents we could find online
5
from universities in each of the five Nordic countries, with our initial set of documents
6
amounting to 25 policies and guidelines. After gaining a comprehensive overview of the
7
language situation from examining these documents, we chose to narrow our focus to the
8
following investigations: 1) an overview of the English language requirements for student
9
applicants at the MA level 2) an overview of the English language policy of the
10
universities. It should be noted that each of the universities made their language policy
11
texts available in at least two languages – the main national language and English.
12
Because we are writing this chapter in English, about English, and for an international
13
audience, we have chosen to use the English language version of the relevant documents.
14
Further, for the purposes of this chapter we limited our scope to the highest-
15
ranking, multiple-programme public university in each of the five Nordic countries. The
16
main reasons for limiting our scope was that the minimum English language requirements
17
are in some cases set at the national level (for example, by the country’s Ministry of
18
Education) and therefore do not vary widely across individual institutions within each
19
country. Second, in some respects the largest and/or most prestigious universities in each
20
country serves to influence or offer a benchmark in terms of how smaller universities set
21
their own language standards.
22
23
5. Whose English is good enough?
24

13
Section 3 of this chapter highlighted the perceived necessity to offer English-medium
1
courses for students and to attract top-tier international scholars who, presumably, use
2
English as their working and research language. At the same time, Nordic countries
3
actively strive for, and have in fact enacted legislation that allows for uninhibited
4
movement and shared resources among Nordic HEIs. Of particular interest is the status of
5
English as a component part of this cooperation, and it is this component which we now
6
bring into focus.
7
An investigation of the language requirements documents for English medium
8
programmes in HEIs across the Nordic countries shows several areas of similarity. First,
9
not surprisingly, applicants are required to submit a current set of results from a
10
standardized test of English proficiency. This requirement is specified mostly for master’s
11
programmes conducted in English, but in some cases also for bachelor’s programmes or
12
specific courses conducted in English. The most commonly cited tests across the
13
university documents are the TOEFL, IELTS, Cambridge ESOL and Pearson PTE. In
14
addition, it is also worth noting that each of the English language requirements documents
15
analysed for this study were written more or less according to the norms of British
16
English, as evidenced, for example, through spellings such as programme as opposed to
17
program. Some universities, such as University of Oslo and Lund University have also
18
explicitly outlined the preference for British English in official university documents in
19
their respective language policies (seeSection 6).
20
Perhaps not surprisingly, there is variation in the required minimum scores for
21
standardized language tests across Nordic countries, universities, and for different kinds
22
of degree programmes. For example, master’s programmes in English language and
23
literature for some universities require a higher score than other programmes. Overall, the
24
required TOEFL scores, for example, range from 79 to 108, with the lowest, 79, for
25

14
specific programmes in Iceland, and the highest, 108, for specific English major
1
programmes in Norway. By way of comparison, the average expected TOEFL scores for
2
admission to Ivy League universities in the United States is around 100, and around 110
3
for Cambridge and Oxford in the United Kingdom. The average range across top
4
universities, both Ivy and non-Ivy League, is 79–100. Therefore, it is evident that the
5
English language expectations for admission into an English-language medium
6
programme in the Nordic countries is on par with places like the US and the UK.
7
Exemptions for standardized English proficiency tests, however, are similar across
8
Nordic countries. For example, a minimum grade in English from an International
9
Baccalaureate is cited almost uniformly across countries. In addition, a minimum grade in
10
English from an EU/EEA country is also usually recognized (see Table 11.2). These
11
general observations aside, specific differences enacted at the national level of each
12
country are explored in turn, highlighting areas of overlap against nation-specific
13
distinctions. The exploration concludes with an overview of the relationship of these
14
requirements against prescriptivism in English.
15
(Table 11.2 Here)
16
17
There are several discussion points to be extracted from the descriptions in Table 11.2. In
18
terms of the aims laid out in the introduction to this chapter, a key concern is the varieties
19
of English which are considered adequate for admission to a master’s programme without
20
an applicant being required to demonstrate English proficiency through an expensive
21
exam. (The current price for a TOEFL exam, for example, is 185 US dollars.) Across
22
HEIs, there is a prominent partiality for so-called inner circle varieties of English
23
(Kachru, 1982), or what has also been termed “a majority English speaking country” (as
24
stated in the English language requirements for the University of Iceland). Indeed,
25
citizenship and/or proof of upper secondary school studies from Australia, Canada (except
26

15
French-dominant regions of Canada), Ireland, New Zealand, the USA, and the United
1
Kingdom are exerted preferential treatment across the HEIs examined here. In Denmark
2
and Finland, these inner-circle settings of English are in fact the only countries that are
3
treated as exemptions – aside from European and Nordic countries, a topic taken up later.
4
What this means in practice is that a person from, for example, Barbados, may need to
5
take an English proficiency exam such as TOEFL to apply for a master’s programme in
6
Finland, Denmark, and Sweden, but not in Iceland or Norway.
7
These six inner-circle locations of English aside, it is likewise of interest to note
8
which English-speaking nations, and, presumably, the varieties of English used in these
9
places, are evaluated as being of a high enough standard for admission. With Finland and
10
Denmark at one end of the scale of acceptability with a limited view of only six English-
11
speaking countries and the Nordic/EU/EAA, the other end of the scale is Sweden, with its
12
much more comprehensive list of countries including India, Pakistan and 17 African
13
nations: Botswana, Eritrea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia,
14
Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and
15
Zimbabwe. Iceland and Norway occupy a position somewhat more in the middle,
16
reporting a comparatively long list of countries that are exempt from English proficiency
17
tests. For the University of Iceland, this list entails mostly countries in the Americas, and
18
the Caribbean region in particular, including Anguilla, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados,
19
Barbuda, Belize, The British Virgin Islands, Dominica, Grand Cayman Islands, Grenada,
20
Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines,
21
Trinidad & Tobago, and the Turks & Caicos Islands. As per their guidelines, it seems the
22
University of Iceland has based its decision on what overall proportion of the population
23
has L1 English in a given nation. Given the small populations of the nations in question,
24
however, it is statistically unlikely that many potential applicants would take advantage of
25

16
this language perk by applying to an Icelandic university. The University of Oslo’s
1
requirements appear less territorially oriented; in addition to several Caribbean nations,
2
considerations are also made for Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Africa.
3
In terms of prescriptivism in English, a key consideration emerges on the basis of
4
these lists of countries. It is well established that there is extreme variation in the use of
5
English in any setting, including inner-circle settings (see, e.g., Hughes et al., 2012;
6
Peterson, 2019; Schneider, 2007; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2016). The countries that
7
are or are not included in the list of exemptions point toward attitudes about the perceived
8
correctness of a variety used in a given location by a given population, and also how
9
uniform that variety is perceived across speakers. For the core six inner-circle countries
10
which are exempted without exception, then, there appears an assumption that any
11
(English) speaker who applies from these countries – Australia, Canada, Ireland, New
12
Zealand, the USA, and the UK – conforms to the expected standards of English. This
13
assumption raises numerous questions relating to ethnicity, race, social class, education,
14
and language. Presumably, an applicant from the USA who would apply to a Nordic
15
university would have among other required credentials a history in education in the USA,
16
a situation which likely precludes the use of certain (undervalued) varieties of US English.
17
That is, there is an informed assumption that the applicant will be fluent in standardized
18
US English. While the same assumption could well hold across other English-speaking
19
territories, it appears that for most Nordic universities these other varieties of English are
20
not considered good enough. Despite the fact that English speakers from places such as
21
Hong Kong or India can be and indeed are speakers of standardized, prescriptive norms of
22
English, for most Nordic universities their English is not given a chance; they are required
23
to pay for and pass a proficiency exam in English. In this regard, it can be stated that
24
overall the Nordic countries uphold norms of English that favour existing power
25

17
structures, including colonial and global powers (see, e.g., Pennycook, 2017; Peterson,
1
forthcoming; Piller, 2016; Saarinen & Nikula, 2012). While on the one hand this can be
2
viewed as a practical measure, it is on the other hand a clear favouring of pre-existing
3
power dynamics external to the Nordic system. Whether intentional or not, these Nordic
4
universities are aligning themselves to these existing power structures by re-enacting their
5
language prescriptions.
6
The English language guidelines and requirements, then, have the overall property
7
of privileging certain English speakers from certain territories over others. At the same
8
time, it is evident that Nordic proficiency in English, in particular, is elevated to a similar
9
status bestowed upon inner-circle varieties of English. This is clearly based on the fact
10
that applicants who can demonstrate a minimum grade in English from their upper
11
secondary schooling in a Nordic country (either in English or in general, depending on the
12
requirements) are exempted from an English proficiency test, presumably based on the
13
assumption that the level of English proficiency resulting from upper secondary education
14
in a Nordic country is on equal footing with a native speaker from places such as the US,
15
the UK, and so on. Furthermore, the implication is that the level of English achieved
16
through schooling in the Nordic countries is superior to the English language used in other
17
places throughout the world. In one way, this portion of the language guidelines is a
18
practical and even exemplary outcome of Nordic (and EU/EAA) cooperation. Indeed, the
19
Common European Framework of References for Languages was established precisely for
20
such purposes, contributing to the possibility for cross-border cooperation. After all, one
21
might reason, these are Nordic universities, so why shouldn’t students from the Nordics
22
be prioritized? Yet by placing themselves in the same league as inner-circle English
23
speaking territories such as the US and the UK, the Nordic HEIs further demonstrate a
24

18
perceived level of superiority regarding their own use of English, positioning themselves
1
as more qualified English language users than those from other backgrounds.
2
3
6. What do we do with English? What about our language?
4
A second component of our investigation in this chapter deals with the English language
5
policies of the Nordic HEIs. For the most part, the language policy documents are freely
6
available on the university websites, with the exception of the University of Copenhagen.
7
All of the universities’ language policies have explicitly made accommodations
8
for the use of English at each institution. Unsurprisingly, the reason for the inclusion of
9
English into the functions of the universities is cited as “internationalization” or
10
“international collaboration”. While the use of multiple languages is also encouraged in
11
the name of internationalization, multilingualism, and multiculturalism, for example, they
12
are typically clumped together under the term other (foreign) languages, leaving English
13
as the only (non-Nordic) language with a name (cf. Nikula, et al., 2012). As mentioned
14
earlier, many of the universities advocate for parallel language use, but the reality again
15
seems to be a Nordic language and English (cf. Källkvist & Hult, 2016), as exemplified in
16
the following statement from the University of Oslo’s language policy:
17
18
The University of Oslo shall promote so-called parallel-lingualism. This means that Norwegian is
19
to be nurtured as the primary language at the University, at the same time as linguistic diversity is
20
encouraged, with English as the main foreign language. Language policy guidelines for the
21
University of Oslo
22
23
Similarly, although one of the main purposes of the formulation of a language policy at
24
the University of Helsinki is that it “raises linguistic awareness, builds well-functioning
25
bilingualism, highlights multilingualism as a strength and encourages the parallel use of
26

19
different languages” (Language policy of the University of Helsinki, p. 48), subsequent
1
mentions of “parallel language use” primarily refer to Finnish, Swedish (official
2
languages of the university), and English. “Linguistic diversity” and “multilingualism,”
3
thus, seem to be reduced to a limited number of languages, and as such, are perhaps
4
misnomers (cf. Lasagabaster, 2015).
5
An exception to this is the University of Iceland, which clearly designates
6
Icelandic as the language of the university: “Icelandic is therefore the default language for
7
all work at the University and shall be used unless specific circumstances dictate
8
otherwise” (University of Iceland Language Policy). Although this edict is rooted in
9
governmental acts and policies in Iceland, it is nevertheless in contrast to the other
10
universities’ policies which all allow for the use of English or other languages when
11
‘appropriate’ or ‘necessary,’ for example when a member of a committee is not proficient
12
in the national language. In some cases, this also extends to providing administrative
13
bodies/departments the freedom to decide which language is to be used within their own
14
affairs.
15
All universities, however, implicitly or explicitly note the importance of nurturing
16
the national languages, as well as developing and protecting them as academic languages.
17
These observations highlight the tensions described in Section 3 of this chapter: Nordic
18
HEIs are in the precarious position of being forced to operate on a world stage while at
19
the same time serving as protectors of their own national – and Nordic – languages and
20
cultures, often in conjunction with broader national efforts, as exemplified in the policy
21
for Lund University:
22
The Language Act prescribes Swedish as the language of the public sector in Sweden, and public
23
authorities have a special responsibility for making Swedish terminology in their various areas of
24
expertise accessible, and ensuring that it is used and developed. Access to information in the
25
common language of Swedish is a question of democracy
26

20
Lund University Language Policy, p. 2
1
2
As noted previously, other universities made similar remarks about the development of
3
the national languages in academia. Perhaps in an attempt to quell concerns about
4
English, Lund University, along with University of Helsinki, also explicitly note that the
5
use of English is not in contradiction with the aforementioned guidelines:
6
7
Lund University constitutes a part of an international academic environment, and the dominant
8
international research language is English. English is also the most important language for
9
international educational collaborations and other forms of international cooperation. The
10
Language Act’s requirement for Swedish as the public sector language does not stand in
11
contradiction with this practice.
12
Lund University Language Policy, p. 3
13
14
When it comes to prescribed use of English, the language policy documents investigated
15
reveal individual differences, but overall demonstrate a strong core adherence to the
16
norms established as “a recognized international English” (University of Iceland
17
Language Policy), presumably meaning an inner-circle variety. It is notable that none of
18
the language policy guidelines we observed made explicit mention of exclusively US
19
norms, while two of the universities – Oslo and Lund – made specific mention of British
20
English as a model. The University of Oslo’s language policy states: “For official
21
information from the University in English the standard is British English (Oxford
22
English Dictionary)” (Language policy guidelines for the University of Oslo), while Lund
23
University states:
24

21
The norm for official texts of a general nature at Lund University is British English. If there are
1
different variants, the BE version is to be preferred for the names of activities and units, titles,
2
names of organisations and higher education terminology. Lund University Language Policy, p. 3
3
4
Aarhus University states that documents must be written in “correct English”, “in
5
compliance with [British and American English standard],” although the language policy
6
further specifies that official university letters, brochures, etc., should be in British
7
English. The universities of Copenhagen, Helsinki, and Iceland, on the other hand, do not
8
recommend adherence to the norms on any particular variety of English, although support
9
services are mentioned to aid in the production of written English, and as such, there
10
seems to be an expectation of adherence to at least some standardized written variety
11
(even if that variety is not explicitly mentioned).
12
13
8. Conclusion
14
HEIs in the Nordic countries have positioned themselves among an elite set of global
15
universities. This chapter has described how several Nordic universities have come into
16
prominence in recent decades (judging from rankings such as Times Higher Education,
17
QS World University Rankings, Best Global Universities, etc.) and the role English has
18
played in achieving this status (cf. Hultgren, 2014a). In addition to highlighting some of
19
the tensions involved with achieving global prominence – in English – while at the same
20
time serving as arbiters of national and regional languages and cultures, the main concern
21
of this chapter has been to describe prescriptivist attitudes about English. This line of
22
questioning was approached through an examination of publicly available documents
23
from Nordic HEIs, in particular language regulations for students to English-medium
24
master’s programmes and language policy documents. The overarching finding is that, for
25
the most part, Nordic HEIs adhere to and perpetuate prescriptive ideals of English that are
26

22
offered up from English colonial powers, especially Britain. This is largely in evidence
1
from the English language requirements for prospective students. Applicants from a
2
handful of inner-circle settings, namely the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand,
3
(English-speaking) Canada, and Ireland are especially privileged. Of the Nordic countries,
4
Finland and Denmark demonstrated the most restrictive regulations on English varieties,
5
while Sweden demonstrated the most liberal, in essence recognizing that English is a
6
pluricentric language with many different standardized varieties around the world.
7
Simultaneously, influenced by the drive for both Nordic and EU/EAA
8
cooperation, the English skills achieved by students from Nordic countries (and other
9
European countries) are treated as on par with inner-circle standards of English. This
10
means that while an L1, monolingual speaker of English from, for example, Barbados,
11
needs to demonstrate English proficiency through an exam such as the TOEFL (for some
12
Nordic universities), an applicant from a Nordic country (who has a high enough English
13
grade from upper secondary school) does not.
14
Language policy documents from Nordic HEIs underscore these tendencies, but in
15
a more nuanced fashion. Perhaps because language policy documents apply mostly to
16
staff members and existing students, there are less stringent language gatekeeping
17
tendencies evident in them. Characteristic of the language policy documents is an
18
emphasis on promoting parallel multilingualism and preserving the national languages as
19
languages of learning and science. English is presented as a necessary tool in these
20
documents, and only a few of the language policy documents we viewed recommended
21
adherence to the prescriptive norms of an inner-circle variety; when this occurred, British
22
English was the preferred variety.
23
The information in this chapter – and indeed the findings of other research –
24
highlights an unsatisfactory and bleak reality: that is, to participate in the global stage of
25

23
world academia, there appears to be either overt or covert pressure to adhere to
1
exclusionary, elitist rules that have thus far dictated English language use and its
2
relationship to higher learning. This certainly appears to be the case for Nordic HEIs,
3
especially considering their external status to colonialism and English; in this regard, they
4
would have no obvious reason to participate in the colonial perseverance of prescriptive
5
English norms. Rather, to align themselves with elite universities, they have adopted
6
similar English language standards as other English-medium universities. While a strong
7
case can be made for the practical necessity to uphold and adhere to norms of use of
8
English in formal institutions such as universities, the specific array of information laid
9
out in this chapter is nonetheless telling in ideologies about Nordic exceptionalism, in this
10
case relating to the use of English.
11
As a final note, one obvious shortcoming of this chapter is that we have
12
necessarily treated the documents used for data in isolation from the policy-makers and
13
other actors who created them. While there are clearly many other possible avenues of
14
research related to the topic of higher education and the role of English, an investigation
15
into the decision makers and broader policy sectors behind these policies and guidelines
16
would be a fruitful and necessary way of gaining further knowledge about the content in
17
the documents. After all, policymaking is socially, politically, and historically rooted, and
18
as such, highly multi-layered.
19
20
References
21
Airey, J., Lauridsen, K. M., Räsänen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2017). The expansion of
22
English-medium instruction in the Nordic countries: can top-down university language
23
policies encourage bottom-up disciplinary literacy goals? Higher Education, 73(4), 561–576.
24
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9950-2
25

24
Albury, N. J. (2016). National language policy theory: exploring Spolsky’s model in the case of
1
Iceland. Language Policy, 15(4), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-015-9357-z
2
Altbach, P.G. (2007). Globalization and the university: realities in an unequal world. In J. J. F.
3
Forest, P. G. Altbach (Eds.), The international handbook of higher education (pp. 121–139).
4
Springer.
5
Altbach, P.G. & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of higher education: motivations and
6
realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3), 290–305.
7
Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2018). Using English at university. In B. Arnbjörnsdörnsdóttir & H.
8
Ingvarsdóttir (Eds.), Language development across the life span: English in Iceland (pp.
9
143–160). Springer.
10
Bagley, S. S., & Portnoi, L. (2014). Setting the stage: global competition in higher education. New
11
directions in higher education, 2014(168), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20109
12
Björklund, M., Björklund, S., & Sjöholm, K. (2013). Multilingual policies and multilingual
13
education in the Nordic countries. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education,
14
6(1), 1–22.
15
Björkman, B. (2015). Attitudes towards English in university language policy documents in
16
Sweden. In A. Linn, N. Bermel, G. Ferguson, and C. Hadjidemetriou (Eds.), English in
17
Europe: opportunity or threat? Volume 1: Attitudes towards English in Europe (pp. 115–
18
138). De Gruyter Mouton.
19
Blommaert, J. (2006). Language policy and national identity. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction
20
to language policy: theory and method (pp. 238–254). Blackwell.
21
Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university:
22
parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
23
Development, 33(5), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.670241
24
Clyne, M. G. (Ed.). (1992). Pluricentric languages: differing norms in different nations. De
25
Gruyter Mouton.
26

25
Cots, J. M., Lasagabaster, D., & Garrett, P. (2012). Multilingual policies and practices of
1
universities in three bilingual regions in Europe. International Journal of the Sociology of
2
Language, 2012(216), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2012-0037
3
de Wit, H., Ferencz, I., & Rumbley, I. (2013). International student mobility: European and US
4
perspectives. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 17, 17–23.
5
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2012.679752
6
Elken, M., Hovdhaugen, E., & Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2015). Higher education in the Nordic
7
Countries: evaluation of the Nordic agreement on admission to higher education. Nordic
8
Council of Ministers.
9
European Parliament. (2017). Language policy: fact sheets on the European Union – 2018.
10
www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/142/language-policy.
11
Fägerlind, I., & Strömqvist, G. (Eds.). (2004). Reforming higher education in the Nordic countries
12
– studies of change in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. IIEP UNESCO.
13
Haberland, H., & Preisler, B. (2014). The position of Danish, English and other languages at
14
Danish universities in the context of Danish society. In F. Vila & V. Bretxa (Eds.), Language
15
policy in higher education: the case of medium-sized languages (pp. 15–42). Multilingual
16
Matters.
17
Hakulinen, A., Kalliokoski, J., Kankaanpää, S., Kanner, A., Koskenniemi, K., Laitinen, L.,
18
Maamies, S., & Nuolijärvi, P. (2009). Suomen kielen tulevaisuus. Kielipoliittinen
19
toimintaohjelma. Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus. http://scripta.kotus.
20
/www/verkkojulkaisut/julk7
21
Hénard, F., Diamond, L., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Approaches to internationalisation and their
22
implications for strategic management and institutional practice. IMHE Institutional
23
Management in Higher Education, 11(12), 2013.
24
Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. (2009). The impact of English on language education policy in Iceland.
25
European Journal of Language Policy, 1(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.1.1.5
26
Hilmarsson-Dunn, A., & Kristinsson, A. (2010). The language situation in Iceland. Current Issues
27
in Language Planning, 11(3), 207–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2010.538008
28

26
Hoffmann, C. (2000). The spread of English and the growth of multilingualism with English in
1
Europe. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: the acquisition of a third
2
language (pp. 1–21). Multilingual Matters.
3
Holmen, A. (2018). Shaping a Danish multilingual university’s language policy: gatekeepers and
4
drivers of change. In M. Siiner, F. Hult, & T. Kupisch (Eds.), Language Policy and Language
5
Acquisition Planning. Language Policy (pp. 137–153). Springer.
6
Hughes, A., Trudgill, P., & Watt, D. J. L. (2012). English accents & dialects: an introduction to
7
social and regional varieties of English in the British Isles, 5th ed. Hodder Education.
8
Hughes, R. (2008). Internationalisation of higher education and language policy: questions of
9
quality and equity. Higher Education Management and Policy, 20(1), 1–18.
10
https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v20-art6-en
11
Hult, F. M. (2017). More than a lingua franca: functions of English in a globalised educational
12
language policy. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 30(3), 265–282.
13
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2017.1321008
14
Hultgren, A. K. (2014a). English language use at the internationalised universities of Northern
15
Europe: is there a correlation between Englishisation and world rank? Multilingua – Journal
16
of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 33(3–4), 389–411.
17
https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-0018
18
Hultgren, A. K. (2014b). Whose parallellingualism? Overt and covert ideologies in Danish
19
university language policies. Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage
20
Communication, 33(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-0004
21
Hultgren, A.K., Gregersen, F., & Thøgersen, J. (Eds.). (2014). English in Nordic universities:
22
ideologies and practices. John Benjamins.
23
Hultgren, A.K., Jensen, C. & Dimova, S. (2015). Introduction: English-medium instruction in
24
European higher education: from the north to the south. In S. Dimova, A.K. Hultgren, & C.
25
Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 1–16). De
26
Gruyter Mouton.
27

27
Höglund, J., & Burnett, L. (Eds.). (2019). Nordic colonialisms and Scandinavian studies [Special
1
issue]. Scandinavian Studies, 91(1–2).
2
Jeong, H., Elgemark, A., & Thorén, B. (2021). Swedish youths as listeners of global Englishes
3
speakers with diverse accents: Listener intelligibility, listener comprehensibility,
4
accentedness perception, and accentedness acceptance. Frontiers in Education, 6, 651908.
5
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.651908
6
Josephson, O. (2014). The Swedish language council and English as a lingua franca.
7
Sociolinguistica, 28(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1515/soci-2014-0010
8
Kachru, B. B. (1982). The other tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press.
9
Källkvist, M., & Hult, F. M. (2016). Discursive mechanisms and human agency in language
10
policy formation: negotiating bilingualism and parallel language use at a Swedish university.
11
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(1), 1.
12
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.956044
13
Kivistö, J., Pekkola, E., Berg, L. N., Hansen, H. F., Geschwind, L., & Lyytinen, A. (2019).
14
Performance in higher education institutions and its variations in Nordic policy. In R.
15
Pinheiro, L. Geschwind, H. Foss Hansen, & K. Pulkkinen (Eds.), Reforms, organizational
16
change and performance in higher education: a comparative account from the Nordic
17
countries (pp. 37–67). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11738-2_2
18
Kristinsson, A. P., & Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. (2012). Unequal language rights in the Nordic
19
language community. Language Problems & Language Planning, 36(3), 222–236.
20
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.36.3.02kri
21
Lasagabaster, D. (2015). Multilingual language policy: is it becoming a misnomer at university
22
level? In S. Dimova, A. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in
23
European higher education (pp. 115–134). De Gruyter Mouton.
24
Latomaa, S., & Nuolijärvi, P. (2005). The language situation in Finland. In R. B. Kaplan & R. B.
25
Baldauf Jr. (Eds.), Language planning and policy in Europe, Vol. 1: Hungary, Finland and
26
Sweden (pp. 125–232) Multilingual Matters.
27

28
Leppänen, S, Pitkänen-Huhta, A., Nikula, T., Kytölä, S., Törmäkangas, T. Nissinen, K., Kääntä,
1
L., Räisänen, T., Laitinen, M., Pahta, P., Koskela, H., Lähdesmäki, S., & Jousmäki, H.
2
(2011). National survey on the English language in Finland: Uses, meanings and attitudes.
3
Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, 5. Varieng.
4
Lindström, J., & Sylvin, J. (2014). Local majority and minority languages and English in the
5
university: The University of Helsinki in a Nordic comparison. In A. Hultgren, F. Gegersen,
6
& J. Thøgersen (Eds.), English in Nordic universities: ideologies and practices (pp. 147–
7
164). John Benjamins.
8
Ljosland, R. (2015). Policymaking as a multi-layered activity. A case study from the higher
9
education sector in Norway. Higher Education, 70(4), 611–627.
10
Lønsmann, D. (2009). From subculture to mainstream: the spread of English in Denmark. Journal
11
of Pragmatics, 41(6), 1139–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.11.003
12
Maassen, P., Nokkala, T., & Uppstrøm, T.M. (2005). Rethinking Nordic co-operation in higher
13
education: national and institutional case studies. Norden.
14
MacKenzie, I. (2018). Language contact and the future of English. Routledge.
15
Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2009). The new global landscape of nations and
16
institutions. Higher Education to 2030, 2, 17–62. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264075375-3-
17
en
18
May, S. (2012). Language and minority rights: ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language.
19
Routledge.
20
Nevalainen, T., Taavitsainen, I., & Rissanen, M. (2015). Englannin aika: Elävän kielen
21
kartoitusta. University of Helsinki.
22
Nikula, T., Saarinen, T., Pöyhönen, S., & Kangasvieri, T. (2012). Linguistic diversity as problem
23
and resource: Multilingualism in European and Finnish policy documents. In J. Blommaert,
24
S. Leppänen, P. Pahta, & T. Räisänen (Eds.), Dangerous multilingualism: northern
25
perspectives on order, purity and normality (pp. 41–66). Palgrave.
26

29
Nissen, C. F. R. (2018). Language policy in reality – a study of language use in two English-
1
taught courses at University of Copenhagen. In M. Siiner, F. Hult, & T. Kupisch (Eds.),
2
Language policy and language acquisition planning (pp. 187–199). Springer.
3
Nordic Council of Ministers. (2006). The declaration on a Nordic language policy. Copenhagen.
4
http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:700895/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
5
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy:
6
from the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345.
7
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718
8
Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Routledge.
9
Peterson, E. (2019). Making sense of “bad English”: an introduction to language attitudes and
10
ideologies. Routledge.
11
Peterson, E. (Forthcoming). Colonialism by proxy? The best English speakers in the whitest of
12
places. In J. Hoegaarts, T. Liimatainen, & E. Peterson (Eds.), Stories of (de)coloniality,
13
belonging and exchange: Critical perspectives on Finnishness. Helsinki University Press.
14
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.
15
Phillipson, R. (2008). Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European integration and
16
globalisation. World Englishes, 27(2), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
17
971X.2008.00555.x
18
Piller, I. (2015). Language ideologies. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international
19
encyclopedia of language and social interaction, Vol. 2 (pp. 917–927). Wiley-Blackwell.
20
Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice: an introduction to applied sociolinguistics.
21
Oxford University Press.
22
Piller, I. & Cho, J. (2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in society, 42(1), 23–44.
23
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404512000887
24
Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., Hansen, H. F., & Pulkkinen, K. (Eds.). (2019). Reforms,
25
organizational change and performance in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.
26
Rindal, U. (2014). Questioning English standards: learner attitudes and L2 choices in Norway.
27
Multilingua, 33(3), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-0015
28

30
Rumbley, L., Altbach, P., & Reisberg, L. (2012). Internationalization within the higher education
1
context. D. Deardorff, H. Wit, J. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
2
international higher education (pp. 3–27). SAGE.
3
Saarinen, T. (2020). Higher education, language and new nationalism in Finland: Recycled
4
histories. Palgrave Macmillan.
5
Saarinen, T., & Nikula, T. (2012). Implicit policy, invisible language: Policies and practices of
6
international degree programmes in Finnish higher education. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, &
7
J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: global challenges (pp. 131–
8
150). Multilingual Matters.
9
Saarinen, T. & Rontu, H. (2018). University language policies: how does Finnish constitutional
10
bilingualism meet the needs for internationalisation in English? European Journal of
11
Language Policy, 10(1), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2018.5
12
Saarinen, T., & Taalas, P. (2017). Nordic language policies for higher education and their multi-
13
layered motivations. Higher Education, 73(4), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-
14
9981-8
15
Salö, L. (2014). Language ideology and shifting representations of linguistic threats. In A.
16
Hultgren, F. Gegersen, & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), English in Nordic universities: ideologies and
17
practices (pp. 83–110). John Benjamins.
18
Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: varieties around the world. Cambridge University
19
Press.
20
Soler, J., Björkman, B., & Kuteeva, M. (2018). University language policies in Estonia and
21
Sweden: exploring the interplay between English and national languages in higher education.
22
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(1), 29–43.
23
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1307844
24
SOPIMUS Tanskan, Suomen, Islannin, Norjan ja Ruotsin välillä pääsystä korkeampaan
25
koulutukseen, 23. (1997).
26
https://finlex.fi/fi/sopimukset/sopsteksti/1997/19970023/19970023_2.
27

31
Strang, J. (2018). Nordic Countries – Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland. In D. S. Lewis
1
& W. Slater (Eds.), The 2018 Annual Register: World Events, Vol. 259 (pp. 40–47).
2
ProQuest.
3
Vik, H. H., Jensen, S. L., Lindkvist, L., & Strang, J. (2018). Histories of human rights in the
4
Nordic countries. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 36(3), 189–201.
5
https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131.2018.1522750
6
Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (Eds.). (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher
7
education: the state of play in 2014. Lemmens.
8
Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2019). Paradoxical attraction? Why an increasing number of international
9
students choose Norway. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(2), 281–298.
10
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1028315318786449
11
Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (2016). American English: dialects and variation, 3rd ed.
12
Wiley Blackwell.
13
Þórarinsdóttir, H. (2011). The use of English in Iceland: convenience or a cultural threat? A lingua
14
franca or lingua detrimental? In S. R. Ísleifsson (Ed.), Iceland and images of the North (pp.
15
373–404). Presses de l’Université du Québec.
16
17
Appendix: Primary data consulted for this chapter
18
Lund University:
19
Language policy. Lund University Language Policy, www.staff.lu.se/sites/staff.lu.se/files/lund-
20
university-language-policy.pdf
21
Language requirements. English requirements, www.lunduniversity.lu.se/admissions/bachelors-
22
and-masters-studies/entry-requirements/english-requirements
23
University of Copenhagen:
24
Language policy. [Not publicly available]
25
Language requirements. Bachelor’s programmes guide to studies and admission: Admission
26
requirements, https://studies.ku.dk/bachelor/admission-requirements/english-language-
27

32
qualifications/; Master’s programmes guide to studies and admission: Language
1
requirements, https://studies.ku.dk/masters/application-and-admission/admission-
2
requirements/language-requirements/
3
University of Iceland:
4
Language policy. University of Iceland Language Policy,
5
https://english.hi.is/university/university_of_iceland_language_policy
6
Language requirements. Proof of English proficiency requirements,
7
https://english.hi.is/university/proof_of_english_proficiency_requirements
8
University of Helsinki:
9
Language policy. Language policy of the University of Helsinki: From guidelines to practice:
10
towards functional multilingualism,
11
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/160446/HY332282.pdf?sequence=1&isAl
12
lowed=y
13
Language requirements. Proving your English language skills – bachelor’s programme in science,
14
www.helsinki.fi/en/admissions-and-education/apply-bachelors-and-masters-
15
programmes/apply-bachelors-programme-science/proving-your-english-language-skills
16
University of Oslo:
17
Language policy guidelines. Language policy guidelines for the University of Oslo,
18
www.uio.no/english/for-employees/support/profile/language/
19
Language requirements. English proficiency for bachelor studies,
20
www.uio.no/english/studies/admission/nora/english-proficiency-bachelor.html; English
21
proficiency requirement for master’s programmes taught in English,
22
www.uio.no/english/studies/admission/master/english-proficiency-master.html
23
24
Table 11.2. English language requirements/equivalents for master’s degree
25
programmes at Nordic Universities
26
Co
unt
TOE
FL
citizensh
ip
schooling
higher ed
other /
International

33
ry
Baccalaureate
Den
mark
iBT
>83
Australia,
Canada
(except for
Quebec
and
northern
New
Brunswick
), Ireland,
New
Zealand,
UK, USA
completed
upper
secondary
school in
Denmark with
a min. grade
of 3 in
English B,
completed
upper
secondary
education in a
Nordic
country and
have B-level
English
studied or
completed a
bachelor’s
degree at a
Danish
university;
Completed a
bachelor’s
programme in
Australia,
Canada,
Ireland, New
Zealand, UK,
or USA
IB diploma with
minimum grade
of 3 in English
Finla
nd
iBT
>92
(NA, see
next
column)
Upper
secondary
school in the
Nordic
Countries,
Australia,
Canada,
Ireland, New
Zealand, UK,
USA
Foreign
language
studies in
English as part
of a Finnish
university
degree;
completed
degree at a
Finnish
university with
English as the
major subject;
University
degree in an
EU/EEA
country or
Switzerland,
Australia,
Canada, New
Zealand, UK,
USA in
English
Language skills
test specifically
for University of
Helsinki
applicants; IB
diploma with a
minimum grade
2/A1, 5/A2, 2/A
European
Baccalaureate
with min. 5/L1
(after 2021) min.
7/L2

34
Icela
nd
79,
85,
108,
depen
ding
on
progra
mme
Australia,
Canada
(except
Quebec),
Ireland,
New
Zealand,
UK, USA,
18
different
locations
in the
Caribbean
(see full
list below)
English A
equivalence
from an
EEA/EFTA
country
Completed
min. of 1 year
of higher
education in
English in UK,
USA, Ireland,
New Zealand,
Australia,
Canada
IB or European
Baccalaureate in
an English-taught
programme
Nor
way
90 or
108,
depen
ding
on
progra
mme
(NA, see
next
column)
Entire upper
secondary
education in
English in
Australia,
Bahamas,
Barbados,
Canada,
Denmark, Fiji,
Finland,
Guyana, Hong
Kong,
Iceland,
Ireland,
Jamaica,
Macao, Malta,
Mauritius,
New Zealand,
Norway,
Samoa,
Singapore,
South Africa,
Sweden,
Trinidad &
Tobago, UK,
Studied or
completed a
degree in
English in a
Nordic
country or the
Netherlands
Completed upper
secondary school
in Norway with a
min. grade of 4

35
USA;
completed
upper
secondary
school in
Norway with
grade of 4 or
higher
Swe
den
90–
100,
depen
ding
on
progra
mme
(NA, see
next
column)
Completed
upper
secondary
studies
depending on
the country of
study
Completed
60+ ECTS
(credits) in
English in an
EU/EEA
country,
Switzerland,
USA, English-
speaking parts
of Canada,
Jamaica,
Australia, New
Zealand, UK
Completed degree
in English-
medium program
from a recognized
institution; partial
degrees also
accepted in some
cases: USA,
Australia, NZ,
Jamaica, Canada,
17 different
African countries
(see full list
below), India,
Pakistan
1
1
See map at https://nordregio.org/maps/languages-in-the-nordic-region/