Introduction

Globalization has turned the world into a culturally, socially, and linguistically more diverse locality. Universities have taken their own share of emerging global-scale demographic trends in the form of student populations that are more international and more culturally/linguistically diverse than ever. Nowadays, foreign language classrooms in universities are being increasingly populated by students from diverse language backgrounds. Transformation of foreign language classrooms into a principal confluence of different cultures and languages, as Pauwels (2014) puts it, limited engagement with issues of plurilingualism, and lack of awareness of new paradigm shifts generated by super-diversity have created an impression of multilingualism as a threat against further language acquisition.

One of the domains that should be particularly nurturing multilingual ideologies is higher education. In an era marked by worldwide dramatic changes in economic, social and demographic patterns, concepts such as diversity, heterogenity, social justice and equity have acquired even more significance. Universities are not immune from the reverberations of socio-economic inequalities and mechanisms of stratification such as culture, ethnicity and other power dynamics that manifest in social, administrative and pedagogical terms alike. Ensuring social justice in a university does not solely incorporate establishment of social justice among students. It also encapsulates the institution of equity and social justice among languages, the recognition of entirety of learners’ experiences and linguistic resources as legitimate learning assets, the delivery of anti-racist curriculums (Gaudion, 2022), the provision of appropriate materials which foster instructional practices for multilingual pedagogical approaches (Matsumoto, 2019; Pourhaji et al., 2016) and the maintenance of professional development opportunities which help teachers develop transformative pedagogies to better manage the demands of multilingual pedagogical strategies (Banegas et al., 2022). This unique educational context marked by multilingualism and plurilingual language practices obviously calls for a reconsideration of language policies to more efficiently administer the new linguistic order created thereof.

Following intercommunal clashes and Turkey’s 1974 military intervention, North Cyprus remains an internationally unrecognized and economically isolated territory, unlike neighbouring South Cyprus which boasts full membership to EU and international collaborations. Despite continuing cease-fire conditions and all possible forms of sanctions imposed, however, North Cyprus universities host an expanding community of tens of thousands of students from different corners of the world. This study seeks to investigate the perceptions and policies of multilingualism by the director and assistant directors (referred hereafter as the administrators or participants) of an English preparatory school in a North Cyprus university. It also aims to gauge the extent of intersection between the participants’ perceptions and practical engagement with multilingual paradigms in their own professional context where diversity and internationalism have emerged as defining qualities.

Institutional monolingualism

Schools are one of the most prevalent institutions where ideal standard language policies (Lippi-Green, 1997) are prioritized while vernaculars and geographically based varieties (Bourdieu, 1991) are excluded from mainstream discourse. Whereas the goal of producing homogeneous citizens with equal life chance opportunities is still theoratically upheld by educational institutions, what actually prevails in schools is a diversity of languages, behaviours and social groups that are formally unrecognized and even actively suppressed during day-to-day instructional processes (see, among others, Heller and Martin-Jones, 2001; Martín Rojo, 2017). Thus, if we wonder how a standard monolingual rule is implemented within an institution such as a school, we must necessarily focus the analysis on places where power is exercised and the exact way in which this occurs, such as by establishing requirements to use a specific language variety or through continuous corrections and instructions to students to ‘say it right’ or ‘say it in the language of the school’. Ethnographic sociolinguistics has clearly revealed how all stakeholders at universities consider the emphasis on normative linguistic behaviour part of the role of school in the regulation of differences, and a strategy for guaranteeing social inclusion. Besides this postcolonial scenario, the imposition of monolingual standards is particularly striking as the increased mobility and diasporic trajectories of many speakers contribute to the polyglot forms of their linguistic repertoires, which encourages increased hybridization practices and translanguaging (García and Wei, 2014; Blackledge and Creese, 2010; Blommaert and Rampton, 2011). The resulting framework calls for a poststructuralist critique of the dichotomies and power structures that determine our cognitive, social and ontological orientations whose linguistic repercussions reveal itself, inter alia, in the form of foreign language learners being condemned to a non-participatory role in class (Cummins, 2009) and their mother tongue being banished from educational platforms as an impediment to foreign language learning (Ortega, 2017).

Theoretical framework

Poststructuralist thought in the form of multilingual instructional strategies offers promising prospects for addressing, decentring, and deconstructing essentialist hierarchies that validate inequity, injustice and exclusion in foreign language classroom (Koslowski, 2018). Poststructuralist theory refuses the ‘grand narratives of modernity’, questioning the “dream of full presence, the reassuring foundation, the origin and end of the game” (Derrida, 1984) in a system of thought where the normal is defined by default in opposition to the abnormal (Foucault, 2001) and human existence/identity can be validated through opposition, and only in relation to the ‘other’ (Derrida, 1976). Poststructuralism launches a direct attack on the framework of stable positions enacted by the so-called privileged holders of knowledge who claim to understand the true essence of the human mind/spirit. In this sense, poststructuralist thought seeks to expose and undermine the ‘universal regimes of truth’ produced by the power structures of institutions of society (Foucault, 1980); that is, the logocentric tendencies of Western metaphysical thought which has always “designated the constant of a presence—eidos, arche, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject), aletheia [truth], transcendentality, consciousness, or conscience, God, man, and so forth” (Derrida, 1976).

Foucault considers poststructuralist critique as a liberating instrument for bringing power-holders into account. For him, poststructuralist critique represents an act, as well as a practice of freedom (Butler, 2001). Foucault’s critique of the belief in essential truths, the existence of a stable linguistic structure for expressing these truths, and the so-called scientific systems of thought that assign power and subject positions through a set of ideologically-oriented binary oppositions all point to his defiance of modernist intellectual paradigms and his belief in the changing nature of systems of truth and the subject positions they aspire to define (Schneck, 1987; Miller, 1990).

From this standpoint, poststructuralist theory emerges as “an epistemology of difference” (Derrida, 1984) which acknowledges the other; that is to say, which acknowledges and values multiplicity in a way that is oriented towards critique of power inequalities and marginalization of discourses bound to end in a finite, transcendental meaning/discourse. Within this framework, poststructuralism does not solely operate as a radical critique of the hegemony of Western philosophical tradition and the interpretive frameworks imposed by social institutions. It also operates as an instrument, a new platform of perception so to say, for challenging these frameworks, for re-conceptualizing our self and for establishing social change in a wider framework of which foreign language education constitutes an integral domain.

Repercussions of poststructuralism on foreign language education

Poststructuralism has clearly struck an utterly responsive chord in Applied Linguistics and the field of English Language Teaching (ELT) alike. A poststructuralist elaboration of prevalent tenets in ELT also promises an insight into how the manifestations of poststructuralist thought can be traced in the embracement of multilingual pedagogies.

According to Derrida (1976), all forms of meaning in Western philosophical tradition derive their essence from an external point of reference which is believed to represent the absolute expression of reality. This metaphysical logocentrism, as defined by German philosopher Ludwig Klages, embodies that characteristic of modes of representation which produces unmediated meaning, being and knowledge in a “metaphysics of presence” which is motivated by the desire for a “transcendental signified”. Post-structuralist theory of logocentrism inevitably manifests itself in pedagogical practices and ideologies within EFL education in the form of binary oppositions, such as in the acceptance of languages as compartmentalizable objects, the privileging of monolingualism over multilingualism, and the perception of minoritized students’ linguistic resources as deficits in need of remediation.

Logocentric metaphysics of perception of truth in binary oppositions fails to account for lived experiences and lingua-cultural resources, blocking all conceptual space for expression and negotiation of identity. Hence, advocating monolingual English education and banishing other languages from the classroom basically means disengagement of context, code, and communities (Canagarajah, 2016). Our understanding of best practice in foreign language education continues to remain manipulated by the assumptions that teaching should be conducted in target language without recourse to mother language; that translation between target and mother languages is to be avoided; and that mother and target languages should be kept strictly separate within immersion and bilingual programmes (Cummins, 2009).

These assumptions derive from the so-called monolingual principle which eulogizes the native speaker as the ultimate end-point in foreign language learning and advocates the use of target language to the exclusion of learners’ mother tongue. Within this framework, the only context where learners’ mother tongue can be referred to is when giving advice on how its use can be minimized in foreign language education (Cook, 2007). Poststructuralist critique gains significant relevance in this context by challenging power inequity through embracement of plurilingual approaches, reinstitution of power to language learners and acknowledgment of the true merit of learners’ linguistic resources. Translanguaging emerges as a bold attempt to equalize the odds by transforming the act of communication into an improvisational process where meaning is not pre-determined but co-constructed as individuals co-convert their linguistic resources across contact zones (Paulsrud et al., 2017). In this vein, translingual practice also provides promising potential for assessing, challenging and reconsidering the connection between linguistic and ontological legitimacy. In most cases, however, this potential may fail to materialize in foreign language classroom.

Ticheloven et al.’s (2019) study on the challenges of translanguaging in multilingual classrooms found out, for instance, that learners’ feeling of isolation in linguistically diverse academic settings constituted one of the main concerns against translingual practice. Besides reported feelings of awkwardness and failure to understand their classmates, a common complaint among study participants was that these kinds of negative feelings hindered their language improvement. The findings of Meyers et al.’s (2017) study seat well with the findings of Wright’s (2012) study in demonstrating how disengagement in multilingual practices blocks operationalization of learners’ symbolic capital (Foucault, 1980, 2001), confining them into ideologically-constructed subject positions. The seeming discrepancy in terms of support given to multilingualism as a concept, but less so for its pedagogical counterpart is also evident in the findings of García and Menken’s (2007) and Sánchez and Molina-Naar’s (2020) research, where participants pointed out that academic integration and fairness in foreign language classroom could not have been maintained without English-only policies.

There are also a few sources that demonstrate positive perceptions of multilingual practice. In line with the studies conducted by Dagenais et al. (2008) and Mora Pablo et al. (2013), the findings of Payant’s (2015) study cited the participants as stating that language mediation helped when it came to socializing and vocabulary learning. Mbrimi-Hungwe’s (2020) and Alzahrani’s (2019) study findings revealed that translanguaging helped understand difficult concepts and the general content, whereas a study carried out by Lewis et al. (2012) demonstrated that participants actively used translanguaging in group activities.

For translingual pedagogical potential to resurface as equity, justice and enhanced learning, however, there is also a need for administrators who can create space for learners to develop their own modes of resistance (Pennycook, 2017). This also requires the establishment of a liberating discourse where language policies are aligned with multilingual parameters. The establishment and sustenance of such a liberating instructional framework is a responsibility that requires school administrators’ concerted efforts and contribution. The question is, to what extent is this responsibility really successfully executed?

Research remains quite scarce on school administrators’ attitudes on the implementation of multilingual instructional approaches in university foreign language classrooms. As also emphasized by Llurda et al. (2014), “the key role of administrative staff in the implementation of specific institutional policies has often been ignored when analysing policies or attitudes related to higher education.” In one of the few studies carried out on this topic, Doiz et al. (2013) found out that on the multilingualism scale, the higher means in terms of supporting multilingual practices were given by the administrative staff. According to a great majority of the interviewed administrative staff, learning different languages also meant learning more about different socio-cultural realities and gaining access to novel instruments in educational practices. The administrative staff involved in the study firmly believed that nurturing a multilingual ecology in higher education institutions was vital for upgrading intellectual, social, and human resource quality worldwide.

Llurda et al.’s (2014) mixed-method study assessing administrators’ attitudes on the management of multilingualism in Catalonia, the Basque country and Wales revealed parallel findings with Doiz et al.’s (2013) study. According to Llurda et al.’s (2014) study findings, students, teachers, and administrators all expressed support for multilingualism which they described as an indispensable attribute of every international university. The greatest support for multilingual policies was expressed by administrators, however, who believed that the benefits of multilingualism for international universities far outweighed its disadvantages. In a study conducted in Turkey, İlhan & Aydın (2015) investigated perceptions of higher education faculty members on bilingual education in Turkish universities. The mean of scores demonstrated that academics possessed highly positive perceptions towards bilingual education and considered linguistic variety as a token of cultural and historical wealth. The great majority of the participants disagreed that multilingual education would mean jeopardising unity and integrity in the country, adding that depriving Turkish children of education in mother tongue was a great loss both for them as well as for the entire society.

In their study investigating how language policies are negotiated by school principals, Gilmetdinova (2019) dwelled on power structures such as internal/external pressures and school ideologies which manipulate the principals’ role in this respect. Gilmetdinova’s (2019) research used the structure of a previous study conducted by Menken and Solorza (2014) on how school leaders’ decisions shaped language policies in schools. The findings of both studies revealed a link between test-based accountability and the favoring of English-only programmes over bilingual programmes. Additionally, the pressure of instructional/curricula difficulties and principals’ ability to emphatize with ethnic groups emerged as other factors which impacted language attitudes in schools. Other factors mentioned were official language policies, the ongoing power imbalance between the Russian language and the ‘secondary’ status of Tatar language in society, and the prevalence of English as the most preferred foreign language in the world.

Hancock and Davin’s (2020) cross-case analysis of administrators’ and students’ perceptions of bilateracy revealed that administrators regarded the seal of biliteracy as a demonstration of the value attached to multilingualism and racial equity. Hancock and Davin’s research also demonstrated that participants who took part in the study viewed linguistic equity as an indispensable component of an institution’s dedication to racial equity. Another critical finding was that honouring students’ ethnic, cultural and linguistic identities and valuing multilingualism as an asset would contribute significantly to their learning. Gershenson et al.’s (2017) study aligns with Hancock’s and Davin’s study in this respect as both studies draw attention to administrators’ view that valuing biliteracy would demonstrate strong commitment to diversity and advancement of equity.

As can be seen from the literature review presented above, research on school administrators’ perceptions of multilingualism is quite scarce and far from conclusive. There is obviously a need for more data, insights, and research to evaluate the best options for policy design and to make a stronger case for suggested policy changes. Overall, the current study is aimed at making its own contribution to the relevant literature in this regard. Additionally, our study is also directed at investigating school administrators’ policies on multilingualism in the case of North Cyprus that has emerged as an attractive option for international students.

Rersearch context

Cyprus is currenty the only country in the world with a divided capital city. The island has remained split for almost 60 years now, following intercommunal clashes between the two founding partners, a Greek junta-backed coup and a military operation in 1974 by Turkey which divided the island permanently into South Cyprus and North Cyprus, making tens of thousands of Cypriots refugees in their homeland (Borowiec, 2000). Despite all forms of economic and political sanctions imposed, however, universities in North Cyprus continue to attract students not only from mainland Turkey but from other countries in many different parts of the world as well.

The main reason for this popularity is that North Cyprus universities offer internationally accredited programmes in English medium, which makes them a popular destination both in themselves and as a transition point to European Union and other developed countries such as USA and Canada. The university where this study was conducted is the oldest higher education institution on the island that has a solid international reputation. It welcomes >16,000 students from >100 different countries, which makes the student population a truly diverse one in terms of lingua-cultural and ethnical considerations. This was one of the reasons this university ranked first in our selection criteria. Another reason had to do with practicality and logistics. Being a member of staff and ease of accessibility to resources as well as the participants offered sufficient observation platforms for the author, also providing different streams of input for data analysis and triangulation.

Post-structuralist thought emphasizes that our perceptions of truth, identity and legitimacy are rooted in contextual, demographic, and spatial parameters. Notwithstanding the emphasis it places on the binding impact of contextual factors, however, poststructuralism also generates spaces of resistance and emancipation for challenging our perceptions, reconceptualizing our practices and inducing social change in a wider framework. In this respect, post-structuralist critique bears revolutionary significance and resources for the act of understanding and demolishing power dynamics in a way that is directed towards critique of the marginalization of ideologies ending in a transcendental discourse. This is why the analysis of the participants’ perceptions, the manifestation of these perceptions in practical domain and the points of intersection/incompatibility between participants’ conceptual and practical positioning bear critical significance for the fulfilment of our study purpose in accordance with the theoretical framework implemented.

Against this background, this study aims primarily to discuss the following questions:

  1. 1.

    What are the university English preparatory school director’s and assistant directors’ perceptions of multilingualism in higher education context?

  2. 2.

    What are the director’s and assistant directors’ practical engagement in multilingual paradigms in their own professional context?

Methodology

Design

This qualitative research implements case study design to investigate school administrators’ perceptions and practices of multilingualism. In this respect, the study uses a multiplicity of data gathered through interviews and informal chats in the form of case study design for a more comprehensive insight into the multifaceted case under discussion.

Semi-structured interviews provide increased flexibility in real-world research, facilitating the deliverance of rigorous data and adding greater insight into analysis through a combination of techniques which increase the participants’ cooperation tendencies (Newton, 2010). In addition to semi-structured interviews, the present study also uses informal chats to facilitate the researchers’ access to fine-grained data through a more in-depth inquiry. According to Patton (2015), informal chats may sometimes be not only the best way, but also the only way to maintain communication and collection of naturalistic data. In this sense, informal chats in this study have added significantly to the researchers’ efforts towards data collection and triangulation. In a language school which is driven by the desire

  1. (i)

    “to promote the sustainable life-long practices … required in the real world”, where “the ‘use’ of language is prioritized over knowledge of forms, structures and lexico-grammatical features”, and

  2. (ii)

    “to enhance its various learning opportunities to meet the changing needs of its students and stakeholders and co-create ‘graduates’ ready, willing and able to communicate in a multi-cultural world at recognized international standards” (as stated in school mission and vision statements),

this has substantially contributed to the supply of multiple and multidimensional sources of information for data triangulation.

Data collection procedure

Interviews were conducted using a digital tape recorder. All interviews were subsequently transcribed, verbatim, using a web-based transcription tool (otranscribe). After transcription of interviews, the transcripts and audio recordings were imported into the NVivo. In the third stage, the coded notes were read to identify broader themes. To further enhance the credibility of research and provide an in-depth approach to data triangulation, member checking was carried out by sharing with the participants the identified themes and the relevant interview extracts. Each interview took about 90 min to complete. The interviews also included a set of additional questions depending on context to elicit more detailed answers and explanations.

Participants

The participants of the present study are 3 teachers—a school director and 2 assistant directors—who constitute the administrative body in The School of Foreign Languages in a university in North Cyprus. School directors in the current research context are elected by simple majority vote of all voting members and officially appointed by the rector’s office. The participants’ tenure was extended for another 3 years in 2022 following their achievement of the most votes from School academic staff for the third consecutive time. All the participants are Turkish Cypriot citizens who have been working in their current professional workplace for 25–30 years. Regarding ethical considerations, the participants were informed about the purpose and voluntary nature of the study. All the participants who took part in the study signed Informed Consent Forms prior to interviews taking place. To this end, the participants were informed that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any point they wished to, and the right to refuse to answer any question(s), by simply telling the researcher that they would like to stop the interview or no longer like to take part in the study. Also, the participants were informed that the findings of the study would be shared with them after the study was completed. Contact information of the researcher was provided to the participants for any questions they might want to address.

Results

Data elicited from participant responses are discussed in more detail in the rest of the article. The set of prevalent themes materializing from semi-structured interviews and informal chats are listed and discussed below:

General impression of diversity on campus

The study participants’ detailed, well-justified and clearly-articulated perceptions of diversity on campus were accompanied with reassuring nodes, validating comments and non-verbal expressions of content and pride. One of the most recurrent themes emanating from interviews and informal conversation data was the outstanding success the university had achieved by emerging as a hub of cultural exchange in a no man’s land that is not politically recognized by the international community. The interview extracts below are a good illustration of the participants’ emotions:

Our school has attained an unprecedented success in a country that has been suffering under political non-recognition and economic embargoes. The current level of diversity on campus is a seal of international recognition and acceptance for our institution. Diversity is our passport of acceptance by the outside world and our greatest opportunity (Participant 2, interview).

In a world based on global competition, our competitive strength as an educational institution probably comprises the most prominent asset we own as the whole country for competing against the rest of the world (Participant 3, interview).

The emphasis on micro-scale institutional recognition in the face of all forms of sanctions and isolation imposed on North Cyprus found echo in all participants’ responses:

Our country is not officially accepted as a member of the international community. Same is true for us as citizens of this state. We simply do not exist. Nevertheless, our university has been granted official recognition by thousands of students who come here from different corners of the world. At this university, we are not Turkish Cypriot citizens only. We are also world citizens (Participant 1, informal chat).

Another major theme pervading participants’ responses was empathy and tolerance. Administrators who partook in the study have been working in the same university for a minimum of 25 years. Therefore, they have personally witnessed how far the university has progressed towards becoming an international university with thousands of students representing over 100 nationalities. Information obtained through the entirety of data collection tools implemented in the study clearly reveals the administrators’ satisfaction with the environment of diversity on campus and the atmosphere of empathy and tolerance fostered thereof:

In the past, the extent of diversity on campus was defined by the number of students from Turkey, Pakistan or Iran only. However, cultural and linguistic diversity on campus has now reached an unprecedented level. Diversity is our greatest opportunity for planting seeds of peace and tolerance on campus, an environment we have sadly failed to establish in our country (Participant 3, informal chat).

Diversity brings awareness, ability to tolerate difference, empathy, sensitivity and a self-monitoring mechanism to watch out for differences in understanding, which may hurt others. This sensitivity makes everyone more interested in cultures, belief systems and events in other countries. This is one of the things which make you a world citizen. (Participant 1, interview).

The participants’ perception of multicultural trends reveals their engagement with diversity in search for novel forms of positionality where power and identity are redefined on the basis of diversity and inclusivity (Ou & Gu, 2020). From a post-structuralist reading, this represents a denial of artificially-coded discourses and symbolic violence—which suppresses reflexivity and change—and an embracement of diversity as a tool for mobilizing valued forms of cultural capital (Foucault, 1980; Bourdieu, 1989). How this translates into practical educational practice is another issue to consider.

Outcomes of diversity

In line with their description of diversity as the emblematic symbol of institutional recognition, the participants believe that the most significant outcome of internationalization of student demographics in their professional context has been the re-endorsement of English as the world language. As clearly revealed by interviews and informal chats, the common perception among the administrators is that cultural and linguistic diversity has been most influential in legitimizing the institutionalized state of English as a cultural capital:

Diversity has created a more authentic language learning environment. Multiplicity of languages on campus means everyone, even Turkish Medium Programme students, have to find a way to communicate in a common language. Diversity has made our students better understand the importance of English as the only world language (Participant 1, interview).

According to some, linguistic diversity serves to equalize grounds and to wipe out status differences among languages. But this is only seemingly true. As a matter of fact, linguistic diversity certifies and further consolidates the indispensability of English as the only language for international communication, and as the most important instrument for promoting cohesion and equity among students (Participant 3, interview).

Contrary to their denomination of diversity as a token of internationalism and educational quality, the administrators’ association of English prevalence with fostering of equity and harmony on campus seems to create a contradiction in terms of poststructuralist positionality. This lack of engagement with diversity in multicultural context and the embracement of monolingual English immersion as the main resource for equity and inclusivity becomes even more obvious in the administrators’ comments which define English proficiency as synonymous with inclusion and success:

English is not only a language but a way of life. Speaking English makes you also speak about things happening all around the world. Speaking not only a world language but also about world problems is an important life skill. English is the key to erasing limitations and boundaries. It is the key to a better life (Participant 2, informal chat).

Administrators’ celebration of diversity as a symbol of internationalism and educational quality, but their perception of English language proficiency as the most important criterion for acculturation, academic performance and career opportunities seems suggestive of macro scale discourses which equate English predominance with harmony, success and world citizenship. Despite all the praise heaped on diversity and internationalism, the participants are resolute in their conviction that diversity and globalisation would not have any meaning or use in the absence of English as the lingua franca. From this standpoint, it could be suggested that post-structuralist critical processes towards creation of identity positions built on personal linguistic assets have not been really operational among the study participants. Hence, rather than validating personal “domestic” resources, the prevalent tendency among the participants is to seek change and liberation through hegemonic language ideologies which oppress learners’ and teachers’ diverse linguistic identities and languaging practices.

English is probably the most important capital especially for Turkish Cypriot and other nationality students coming from war-stricken and impoverished conflict zones such as Palestine, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Sudan. English is like a global currency with highest value and interest returns. You will never go wrong if you invest in this currency! (Participant 3, informal chat).

For a more comprehensive insight into this debate, it remains to be seen how the study participants position themselves on the issue of non-English use in foreign language classroom.

Teachers’ use of non-English languages in foreign language classroom

Data findings confirm that the participants unanimously regard monolingual English instruction as a sine qua non for establishing a fair learning environment.

Our number one priority in class is to ensure that students benefit from everything in an equal manner. If this does not happen, it is unacceptable for us. Our aim and our priority is always English and communication in English. (Participant 1, interview).

Despite their being very knowledgeable about the ways English has dominated other languages particularly in former colonies such as Cyprus, it is strikingly interesting how the study participants define English as the most important prerequisite for establishment of a democratic and equitable learning environment:

We all know the history of English language is mired with tyranny and exploitation. However, paradoxically, current multicultural trends in education call for the use of a dominant world language to offer equal learning opportunities to all students (Participant 1, informal chat).

Additionally, the emphasis on the importance of “following university rules on English medium instruction” and “aligning with global trends in language education” was markedly evident in the participants’ comments:

No, our rules do not allow that (use of non-English languages in class). Our school is a cosmopolitan institution. Classrooms are not made up of Turkish, African or Arabic students only. You can’t have multilingual education in a cosmopolitan school (Participant 3, interview).

I’d like to repeat that our teachers are responsible for acting in accordance with university rules. This means they have to use English in class, which is the official language for instruction in every international university. Sometimes, a teacher says a few words in a learner’s mother language to facilitate understanding. Other students come to us and complain about this kind of incidents, which they believe is an act of injustice (Participant 2, interview).

Another strikingly prevalent reason voiced against use of non-English languages in class was that success in foreign language learning was directly proportional to the amount of target language exposure. As can be seen in the extracts below, the participants firmly believe that “infiltration of foreign languages” into English medium instruction would not only hinder learning but also lead to overuse of and dependence on learners’ mother languages.

A rolling stone gathers no moss. One can improve a foreign language to the extent he uses it. The more you immerse yourself in English, the more you improve your English proficiency (Participant 3, interview).

Frequent recourse inevitably leads to overuse and dependence on your mother tongue. When students are allowed to use their mother tongue, they start using it even in cases when this is not really necessary (Participant 2, interview).

We understand that the participants’ policy on translingual practice in foreign language education is shaped by monolithic ideologies which regard languages as separate entities with clearly-demarcated boundaries. This implies the perception of learners’ linguistic repertoire not merely as a worthless learning asset (Bourdieu, 1991) but also as a threat to language learning. In this sense, it can be stated that the study participants display no evident sign of engagement in poststructuralist critique for mediation of local and international positionality.

Students’ use of non-English languages

The participants’ solid stance regarding teachers’ use of languages other than English was repeated with equal emphasis in their comments on learners’ use of non-English languages. A highly-persistently articulated motive behind their reasoning was that this could lead to unwanted misunderstandings and impair unity and inclusivity in the classroom.

As I said before, the most important thing in a classroom is to act together. If a couple of students speak in their mother tongue and laugh, this will cause disturbance and impair the spirit of unity in class. Such an environment will not bring any good to anyone (Participant 1, informal chat).

We as the administration had to intervene in a similar situation recently when the classroom teacher and a female student complained about a group of students constantly speaking Arabic and laughing. The student said: “they keep talking and looking at me and I do not understand what they are saying” (Participant 3, interview).

The participants’ conceptual support for linguistic and cultural diversity is understood to prevail in practical domain so long as this diversity remains amalgamated in the melting pot of English as the lingua franca to form an overarching pan-identity monoculture: the so-called world citizenship. Another central theme emanating from the participants’ comments was the correspondence between target language use and amount of learning that takes place. Despite welcoming plurality of languages and cultures as an attribute of democracy, progressivism and internationalism, administrators are adamant that the key to language learning is immersion and practice in target language.

Letting students use every language they know will only impede improvement in target language. As the saying goes, practice makes perfect. One cannot progress without practising. It’s like playing football when you are actually trying to learn basketball. It is true there are a few commonalities, but not as many as worth spending time in football training when you’re actually trying to learn basketball (Participant 3, informal chat).

Against this background, it could be stated that the participants’ perception of diversity as a conditionally-meaningful asset in international educational markets and their support for dominant, communicative-based paradigms in foreign language education indicates a divergence between their conceptual and practical attitude towards multilingualism. This obviously points to a lack of engagement with poststructuralist critique of diversity and multilingualism, at least in practical domain.

Materials and criteria

Materials and assessment criteria do not only constitute one of the most critical components of teaching and learning processes in educational settings. They also represent a tangible expression of the aims, priorities and principles of the pedagogical approaches being implemented. Shifting demographic patterns caused by mass influx of migrants, pace of technological change and structural variations in labour market have created a novel educational context which requires new approaches and instruments to deal with the emergent heterogenity. This also calls for new learning materials to help learners cope with multilingual paradigms by increasing their language awareness and teaching them to mobilize their existing linguistic resources.

Our data findings show that compared to their rather conservative stance on usage of non-English languages in class, the participants displayed a more flexible stance when it came to alignment of course materials and assessment mechanisms with multilingual principles. During both interviews and informal chats, the participants unanimously agreed that their course materials respected diversity and fostered a sense of belonging for all students.

Most of the materials we use have been prepared in view of cultural/linguistic diversity which pervades our classrooms. Discussion and writing topics similarly observe and respect differences. This is very important in terms of remaining aligned with global educational trends and making everyone in class feel included and respected (Participant 1, interview).

I can definitely say that our materials respect diversity, traditions, privacy of life and many other points. We consider every single factor used in our materials, even names, dialects, pronunciation, family life, etc. (Participant 2, interview).

As for the assessment policy, however, the participants are “not quite sure whether they could really say the same thing”:

The main criteria here, as in every international university, is native speaker proficiency and native speaker pronunciation. For instance, a student from Iran, Pakistan, etc. will always lose points from pronunciation in a speaking test or presentation. Such a criteria can be said to not account for people’s uniqueness and diversity. However, it treats everyone as standard and in an equal manner (Participant 2, interview).

Despite the need for more work towards aligning assessment criteria with multilingual paradigms, the participants believe considerable improvement has been achieved in this respect:

Recent revisions we have made in our assessment criteria also reflect our mentality towards diversity. For instance, our presentation criteria no longer prioritize native speaker pronunciation and grammatical accuracy over everything else. They are still there, but there is now a more holistic and pluralistic approach befitting the wholistic and pluralistic aspect of communication (Participant 1, interview).

With the integration of descriptors such as task fulfilment, formatting requirements, coherence, etc., our writing assessment criteria no longer place all the emphasis on grammatical accuracy alone. Even if our students make grammatical mistakes in a writing test or fail to pronunce words like a native speaker during a presentation, they know their individual resources are valued and that they can still get a good grade overall (Participant 3, interview).

Irrespective of the emphasis placed on monolingual English instruction and its importance for an inclusive, fair learning environment, the participants’ refusal to acknowledge standard English and its apostles (grammatical accuracy, native speaker pronunciation, standard English, etc.) as the only symbolic determinant of status in ontological and power-production spheres demonstrates their awareness and poststructuralist engagement, albeit in restricted form, in monolithic discourses and binary norms.

Discussion

Overview

This study has attempted to analyze, from a poststructuralist theoretical perspective, administrators’ engagement with diversity at a North Cyprus university which aspires to international competition in the face of economic embargoes and political isolation. Notwithstanding its scope being limited to a single university, the findings of our study carry the potential for being exemplary of other universities in North Cyprus and elsewhere, which similarly prioritize monolingual English-only policies in pursuance of internationalism and global-scale educational standards.

Growing student mobility and internationalization of higher education have also steadily grown cultural diversity as well as the number of languages used by university stakeholders. This has increased not only the importance but also the difficulty of administering diversity in its various shapes and ramifications.

How pro-diversity policies operate as instruments of homogenization and hegemonization

One of the key messages emanating from this study is that the pedagogical practices in the participants’ own professional context are not emancipated from stereotypical tendencies to construct hierarchies between languages and to associate internationalism with English medium instruction (Soler, 2020). Despite championing diversity as a token of internationalism and equity, the participants’ perception of English as the highest-value asset in local and international markets shows that their actual pedagogical practices are characterised by monolingual tendencies which underlie linguistic racism in educational and societal domains. In this sense, diversity and multiculturalism which are embraced as the epitome of international recognition trickle down into an ideological contrivance paradoxically validating advancement of monolingual English-only policies. Put in other words, despite the equitable, all-inclusive implications of multiculturalism that is acclaimed as highest-value asset for internationalisation, language management policies are in fact strictly oriented towards erosion of differences and exclusion of minority students’ histories from mainstream discourse (Soler and Gallego-Balsà, 2019).

Our findings demonstrate that the study participants perceive global citizenship as a superordinate identity where learners’ cultural identities are celebrated in the form of an overarching global framework (Amiot & Jaspal, 2014; Colombo, 2015). Nevertheless, the participants’ tendency to classify languages in terms of power, their perception of English as the lingua franca (Tannenbaum et al., 2020) and their description of non-English use as a threat against harmony and equity (Shvidko, 2017; Wei, 2013) is indicative of a compartmentalized, rather than integrative approach in linguistic terms. Viewed in this light, there is enough grounds to suggest that the study participants display a structuralist monolingual attitude by refusing to implement poststructuralist critique in terms of translingual practice (Leung & Valdes, 2019) and by discouraging the use of learners’/teachers’ linguistic resources as valuable learning asset.

Despite non-engagement with poststructuralist critique in terms of linguistic diversity, however, the analysis of accumulating data reveals the study participants’ willingness to reconstruct difference by reconciling teaching materials with multilingual paradigms. The participants’ flexible approach on reflection of classroom diversity onto teaching materials in the form of topics discussed, names of people, countries cited in texts, pronunciations used in listening activities, etc. points to their readiness to negotiate multiplicity, at least in this realm. The same can be said for the participants’ expressed satisfaction at the modification of writing criteria to encompass descriptors other than grammatical accuracy, such as task fulfilment and organization. The participants’ post-structuralist engagement proves rather constrained and short-lived in this context, however, being far outlived with their feeling of dedication to institutional rules and accepted standards.

Underlying motives and consequences of non-engagement with poststructuralist critique

One way of elaborating the participants’ restricted poststructuralist critique is through Foucault’s (1980) concept of disciplinary power which operates as an agent for maintenance of social comformity without use of any force or violence. Disciplinary power works by teaching subjects to become their own prison guards and to discipline themselves without any need for outside intervention. In this administrative mechanism, one eventually “assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection” (Foucault, 1991). One major aspect of Foucault’s disciplinary power then is that it establishes conformity not through sheer violence but by training and ‘normalising’ people in a subtle and elusive way which makes it even harder to resist. This subtlety and normalizing impact also forms the essence of Bourdieu’s (1991) concept of symbolic violence and the role it plays in camouflaging and reproducing manifestations of power through cultural systems.

The participants’ refusal to integrate learners’ resources into assessment mechanisms without any intervention from upper-level administrative units shows how power is exercised through a set of natural, common-sense practices that are accepted unconditionally and unquestioningly. This is also the case with the administrators’ unconditional adherence to English-only and standard-English-only approach which only honours one standard legitimate language, under-representing other languages, banishing learners from mainstream discourse and depriving them of a valuable asset for academic and professional success. In this context, lack of concurrence between the participants’ conceptual and practical policies, the participants’ refusal to allow infiltration of any “peripheral entity” into assessment policies, their celebration of varieties but loyalty to standard forms, their assignment of languages to different uses, their rejection of translingual practice and their doing all these without any visible institutional intervention stems from internalized mainstream discourse which maintains its existence even in its absence, just like in Bentham’s Panopticon, where inmates are kept under control even in the prison guards’ absence (Foucault, 2001).

Auerbach (1993) echoes Foucault in his assertion that this kind of taken-for-granted practices promoted as the natural way of doing things are in fact inherently political and serve mainly to maintain the existing state of power relations. Derrida (1984) similarly locates the source of violence in the unacknowledged assumptions of the society and the power of discourse which makes violence harder to identify. From this standpoint, treating the native speaker as the ideal role model to be emulated and advocating that English is best taught monolingually sums up to conceding to the inherent power inequality and racism, which are the reverberations of the same ideological orientation underpinning inequality in distribution of power and promotion of prioritized interests.

Traditional binary discourses manipulate how we perceive phenomena by intertwining local and global ways human subjects are contextualized. The mechanism of surveillance which accompanies this process marks out the causal path from knowledge construction to development of human sciences and associated discourses, opening and foreclosing possibilities that link people in definite relations of power. A major operational component of this structuralist framework is cultural violence which seeks harmony in the erosion and reproduction of difference through ideological discourses. The symbolic violence deriving from artificial pragmatic dispositions does not only limit possibilities of poststructuralist critique for social transformation. It also denies, through gate-keeping mechanisms, access to networks of authority and valued forms of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1989). The clearest manifestation of this ideological positioning becomes consolidated in the form of monolingual habitus plus English policy which has its foundation in the belief that internationalism in higher education automatically translates into English medium education.

English proficiency and identity struggle in North Cyprus

North Cyprus is a ‘non-existent’ state which has been subjected to all forms of economic and political sanctions for six decades. The level of deprivation in the North reaches such dramatic extents that, for example, Turkish Cypriot citizens who do not possess a passport issued by a ‘legal’ state are banned from international travel. In such setting, proficiency in English language emerges as one form of cultural capital that is exchangeable in global freedom, labour, and education market. According to Bourdieu (1991), language learning is an investment in individual human capital whose value is determined by the extent of institutionalization of languages as legitimate in a certain society.

In this sense, people’s position in social space is dependent on the ‘currency value’ of their linguistic resources, and the total value of capital they accumulate. This transforms languages from an instrument of communication into an instrument of power whose utility is determined by its ‘market value’ in the linguistic marketplace. As such, languages bestow prestige and legitimacy onto their users, depending on their symbolic power and internationality (Rössel and Schroedter, 2021). No doubt, this places English on the highest pedestal among all languages, and even more so in North Cyprus setting.

Considering the treatment North Cyprus has been subjected to, and all the deprivation that has come along with this treatment, the education sector stands out as a symbolic capital which North Cyprus has grasped with both hands, since this capital generates prospects for acceptance by legitimate authorities, both in educational and economic realm. Linguistic and ontological integration into a system that is marked by homogeneity necessitates the absorption of subjugated entity into dominant culture. The desire to increase cultural and linguistic diversity in a university seems doomed to run up against the paradox of internationalization. The greater the diversity in linguistic sense, the higher the chances are that all university stakeholders communicate using the lingua franca, that is, the language with highest-volume capital which can be converted into symbolic capital.

In linguistic sense, this translates into compliance with accepted standards and norms for using the English language. Conformity promises engagement and inclusivity, but it may also mean deprival of identity and renouncement of the right to resist. The current study participants’ description of English language as the key to internationalization, employment and success is a clear revelation of their perception of English language proficiency as a passcode to personal/social identity formation, as well as a gateway to intercultural citizenship, engagement, and access to knowledge (Ou and Gu, 2020; Baker and Fang, 2021).

In this sense, notwithstanding the participants’ perception of diversity as the epitome of international quality standards in educational context, our data analysis demonstrates that diversity and internationalism both acquire their existence from the concept of world citizenship which is operationalized by the usage of English as a lingua franca (Jenkins, 2015). Hence, despite championing diversity as a revelation of equity and internationalism, the participants’ perception of English as the highest value asset on the market is also an expression of their embracement of language management policies that are oriented towards erosion of differences and exclusion of minority students’ histories from mainstream discourse. The dismissal of lingua-cultural resources from mainstream discourse leads to advancement of monolingual English-only policies and reinforcement of monolingual norms under the pretext of diversity, equity, and internationalism (Gaertner et al., 2016).

Against this background, we are guided by data findings to suggest that the administrators who partook in this study exhibit awareness of, as well as limited engagement with some of the monolingual norms which shape their professional attitudes. We also understand, however, that poststructuralist critique processes towards integration of learners’ capital into classroom practice and assessment mechanisms have not been fully operational due mainly to mainstream discourses which continue to manipulate their behaviours even in their perceived absence.

Conclusion

This study has sought to investigate, through a post-structuralist theoretical framework, the perceptions and policies of multilingualism by the director and assistant directors of an English preparatory school in a North Cyprus university. The analysis of gathered data demonstrates that the participants unanimously regard multilingualism and diversity as an indispensable symbolic capital representing a just, inclusive and internationally-acknowledged educational setting. They also believe, however, that fairness, inclusion and internationalism can be made operational only under the agency of the over-arching concept of world citizenship, which becomes manifested through the use of English as the lingua franca—an indication that monolingual mindset is still all pervasive in practical domain.

The perceptions and policies of multilingual paradigms in higher education context continue to receive scarce research attention, especially among the administrative staff of English preparatory schools or foreign language departments. The scarcity becomes more extreme when it comes to implementing a post-structuralist theoretical framework that provides a more nuanced understanding of an array of questions bearing directly on current conceptions in the field of English language teaching and humanities. The present study seeks to make its own contribution to the relevant literature in this respect. Additionally, despite the scope of its analysis remaining limited to one particular institution only, this study carries great potential for encouraging further studies in higher education institutions in North Cyprus and elsewhere, which similarly regard English-only policy as an epitome of internationalism and global-scaled standards in education.

Higher education sector emerges as a symbolic capital in North Cyprus as it offers prospects of economic gain, as well as educational and political inclusivity. Inclusivity may also mean conformity to centralized language norms and normativity. This is ironically because the greater the cultural and linguistic diversity in higher education sector, the higher the tendency for all university stakeholders to stick to the lingua franca (Kuteeva, 2019), that is, the most international, legitimate and powerful language which can be converted into symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1986).

Against this background, our analysis of data findings suggests that poststructuralist critique processes towards integration of learners’ identities, histories and linguistic capital into classroom practice have not been fully operational among the participants due mainly to ideologically created mainstream discourses which continue to manipulate their behaviours even in their perceived absence. There is definitely a need for further research to probe more deeply into this lack of conformity between the participants’ conceptual and practical embracement of multilingual paradigms. Further investigation into administrative policies of other universities in North Cyprus will also promote stronger grounds for re-evaluation of language education around the parameters of multilingualism in North Cyprus that seeks to defy international exclusion by recreating itself as an internationally-acclaimed higher education hub.