Introduction

Over the past two decades, the presence of international students in local educational institutions has become common (Waters and Brooks, 2021). While much scholarship on international student mobilities (ISM) has focused on Western contexts (see, for example, Bamberger and Morris, 2023; Kobayashi, 2023), there is increasing evidence of ‘South–South’, ‘intra-periphery’, and Eastward mobility to emerging education hubs (Lipura and Collins, 2020). China has become a significant player in the international higher education market through strategic initiatives promoting the Chinese language and culture. Despite this, gaps remain in the literature on China’s internationalisation of higher education (IHE) policy, particularly regarding the role of the Chinese language for international students. These students often face language barriers that lead to acculturative stress, affecting their academic performance and social and emotional well-being (Barkhuizen, 2017; Ryan et al., 2015; Sam and Berry, 2006). The lack of local support due to linguistic divides exacerbates these issues, making it difficult for international students to navigate local cultures and negotiate their identities, especially when their dominant languages are English, French, Spanish, or German.

The internationalisation of higher education has led to ‘Englishisation’ (Galloway et al., 2020), especially in non-Anglophone contexts. English-medium instruction (EMI) policies aim to boost international enrolment, improve rankings, and enhance graduates’ employability (Hu and Lei, 2014; Macaro et al., 2018). However, EMI has caused social and academic issues, including epistemic injustice and educational inequality (Gu and Lee, 2019; Hu and Lei, 2014). Critics argue that EMI’s value and the dominance of English perpetuate ‘linguistic imperialism’ (Phillipson, 1992) and are based on perceived Western superiority. While language-related experiences of international students in EMI universities are well-documented (Gu and Lee, 2019; Song, 2019), Altbach (2002) notes that discussions on internationalisation are mainly Western. As China promotes programmes using Chinese to enhance its soft power (Ministry of Education, 2010, 2017), it has become imperative to explore the language-related experiences of international students in this unique linguistic context and to appreciate the other side of the narrative.

Another problem with the existing scholarship is that much of the work on ISM has been underpinned by the assumption of ‘shared’ experiences among international students, especially within the same cultural or national group, overlooking their diversity (Sung, 2022b). For instance, studies on China-directed mobility emphasise homogeneous experiences among international students of the same nationality or race, such as African students’ social strategies (Ho, 2017), Thai students’ relationships and mobility intentions (Lin and Kingminghae, 2018), Indian medical students’ compromises (P. Yang, 2018), and Asian students’ language ideologies and linguistic entrepreneurship (Yu and Xu, 2023). This approach risks essentialising students of the same race or ethnicity as a homogeneous group, ignoring their diverse experiences, perceptions, and cultural repertoires (Bista, 2018; Sung, 2022a). Therefore, it is crucial to explore how international students’ lived experiences in host institutions both converge and diverge (Sung, 2022b).

This study examines Thai students’ language ideologies and practices within the Chinese-medium instruction (CMI) context, set against China’s rise in the international higher education market and its promotion of the Chinese language (Ministry of Education, 2010; R. Yang, 2007). Thai students, representing the second largest grouping of the international student population in China (Ministry of Education, 2019), were chosen due to their understudied status. By exploring their mobility patterns and experiences in the CMI context, we gain insights into their conflictual language ideologies and practices as they adapt to learning Chinese. This approach highlights the challenges faced by Thai students and provides a comprehensive understanding of linguistic and cultural adaptation among international students in China. Such an analysis is crucial for developing effective support mechanisms to bridge linguistic divides and create a more inclusive educational environment.

Language ideologies and language practices

To understand the nexus as well as incongruences between the ideal and actual language practices in globalised educational contexts, the social construct of language ideologies plays a crucial role (Curdt-Christiansen, 2016), as it ‘rationalises language usage’ in communicative practice (Kroskrity, 2008, p. 496). To this day, however, no consensus is reached with regard to its controversial definitions. For example, Rumsey (1990) refers to language ideologies as ‘shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language in the word’. This notion was further instantiated in empirical studies, such as beliefs and feelings about English as a global language (Cameron, 2012), Cantonese as a resource for claiming cultural identity (Lai, 2011), or Chinese as threats to Anglo-European and anglophone identity (Weinmann et al., 2020). However, Kroskrity (2008, p. 496) critiques that this theorisation fails to problematise language ideological variation in terms of age, gender, class, race and ethnicity, as they ‘promote an overly homogenous view of language ideologies within a cultural group’. In this article, therefore, we intend to address this gap and capture the diversity of language ideologies possessed by international students within a cultural group, under the influence of some of the dynamic forces, such as linguistic, educational and social realities.

In addition, previous research has evinced how language ideologies regulated people’s language choices and actual use of language, especially in EMI settings. Of note, the pervasiveness of native-speakerism and monolingual ideology has resulted in ‘English-only’ practices (Sahan et al., 2022), and English variations, language mixing and using other languages (including mother tongues) are all regarded as a sign of deficiency and ineffectiveness (Baker and Hüttner, 2019; Chang, 2019). The strict and uncritical implementation of the EMI policy, however, has largely neglected the linguistic ‘baggage’ that students bring (Busch, 2017) and lead to the exclusiveness of language use and epistemic injustice through education (Sah and Karki, 2023). In this way, the emphasis on English in tertiary education has somehow induced ‘linguistic racism’ (Dovchin, 2020) and ‘power imbalances between languages’ (Fang et al., 2023, p. 5). In comparison with the volume of research on language issues in EMI higher education, far few studies have explored language ideologies and practices of international students in other linguistic contexts, with a few exceptions (Okuda, 2020; Xu, 2024). Given the Chinese government’s active promotion of the Chinese language through academic programmes (as a strategy of internationlising its official language), it would be interesting to shift our attention to another context as the same questions that apply to EMI students can be asked about those enroled in CMI programmes.

To address the paucity of research, this study aims to examine the intermingled and complex relationship between language ideologies and language practices. If any, we also intend to unpack the hidden power differentials and heterogeneous language-related experiences among Thai international students. We employ a qualitative approach and aim to contribute to the existing ISM literature in the Chinese context by asking two questions:

  1. (1)

    What are the language ideologies held by Thai international students at CMI University?

  2. (2)

    What are the language practices of Thai international students enroled in CMI University?

Methodology

Research setting and participants

The current study was undertaken in a prestigious, public comprehensive university located in Shanghai, China. Like other well-resourced, top-tier universities in China, it offers undergraduates and postgraduates language choices in terms of academic programmes, including EMI, CMI and FMI (French-medium instruction) courses. The student population is very diverse today; in addition to local students, the remaining are from more than 100 countries, including South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, the USA, Germany, France, the UK, Canada, North Korea, Australia, Thailand, etc. Whilst which language should be regarded as a lingua franca is not stipulated in any official policy documents (usually, it is Chinese), English is also accepted as a norm at university since both academics and students use it for the purposes of teaching and researching from time to time.

The seven student participants (see Table 1) involved in the research study were all enroled in a 2 + 2 programme (2 years in a Thai university and another 2 years in Shanghai), which requires courses to be delivered in Chinese. All of them were female undergraduates who came from a range of cities in Thailand and undertook their studies in Chinese language and literature. They had a relatively good command of Chinese, that is, passing HSK (Chinese Proficiency Test) 5 or HSK 6, and some of them were heritage speakers. However, none of the participants identified themselves as L1 speakers of Chinese as they speak Thai as their mother tongue.

Table 1 Demographic information of student participants.
Full size table

Data collection and analysis

This article draws upon qualitative data collected via semi-structured interviews with these seven Thai international students (of ~30–60 min each) based on their voluntary participation and consent. The sampling method or the participants’ recruitment took the form of convenience sampling, as our identity as their everyday teachers provides ‘easy access’ to the participants (Cohen et al., 2011). Walking interviews were conducted on campus as we intended to engage our students ‘on the move’ in a ‘pleasurable, relaxing, and even liberatory’ way (Warren, 2017, p. 786). More importantly, we wished to reduce the power imbalance and encourage more interactive conversation because ‘talking becomes easier with walking’ (Kinney, 2017, p. 1).

Specifically, the interview questions were structured around different aspects of their academic and social experiences at university, including language use in and beyond classrooms, participation in classroom and social activities, relationships with teachers, local and international students, challenges and strategies in surviving and thriving in the unfamiliar context. We also attempted to elicit their perspectives on the role of different languages (i.e. language ideologies) in this CMI context. All of the interviews were conducted in Chinese and they were audio-recorded. The interview transcripts were translated into Chinese and members checked with research participants for clarification and confirmation (Gray, 2014). Check coding was conducted with two researchers through regular meetings to minimise biases and reach consensus on the reliability of codes (Flick, 2014).

The interview data were analysed thematically (Braun and Clarke, 2006), which integrated both inductive and deductive coding. While the concepts of language ideologies and language practices informed the deductive coding process, we also extracted ‘in vivo’ codes (e.g. ‘standard Chinese’) and descriptive codes (e.g., using multiple languages) from the data itself so as to capture the participants’ own voices (Saldana, 2016). After the data set had been initially coded, we sorted, collated, and combined relevant codes to form several sub-themes (Nowell et al., 2017). When ‘language ideologies’ were conflated with ‘language practices’, the overarching theme began to emerge. Three themes in relation to the participant's language-related experiences were identified in the process of data analysis, and they are aligned with the research questions presented in the previous section. In addition to the ‘sharedness’ of experiences, heterogeneous and variegated language ideologies and practices were also found in participants’ narratives in relation to the themes identified (details will be discussed later).

Findings

The identified language ideologies of students were classified into three categories, involving the roles of Chinese in classrooms and beyond, the native-speakerism ideology, monolingual/multilingual ideologies. Although a Chinese-only monolingual language ideology was found among some of the participants, all of them perceived multilingual practices (e.g., code-switching, mixing languages and translanguaging) as a ‘natural’ and expected language choice in the interviews.

Chinese as a medium of instruction and a lingua franca?

When asked about the role(s) of Chinese at university, all participants referred to it as a ‘default’ lingua franca for communication on university campuses. They considered it as a norm to interact with teachers, classmates and supporting staff in the medium of Chinese and in this way, their L2 was put into actual use in a range of social spaces and for authentic purposes. In what follows, the selected quotes revealed that the perceived roles of the Chinese were multiple and multifaceted, with foci on day-to-day communication:

I often use Chinese to order dishes and communicate with teachers. (Participant 6)

Most of the time, I chat with foreign friends in Chinese… Also, when ordering dishes, we speak in Chinese and greet the cafeteria auntie. (Participant 7)

In these two extracts, the participants were trying to explain how day appropriated Chinese as a tool for social interactions to survive and integrate into the local community (e.g. ordering food, socialising with teachers and friends). It appears that they viewed themselves as Chinese language users rather than Chinese language learners, as the language was described to play a functional and practical role in communication in everyday life. This point was further elaborated by Participant 3 in her interview:

After being here for two months, I can use Chinese to ask the auntie, ‘Is this pork?’ because my friend is an Israeli. Then I also ask, ‘Can you help me’ in Chinese. It’s very useful. In class, I also speak Chinese with my Japanese friends, and my friends also speak Chinese with me, whether they are from Thailand or other countries, because they also want to practice Chinese. In class, I often go to ask teachers questions in Chinese. (Participant 3)

While the participant acknowledged Chinese as an appropriate ‘communicative medium of choice’ (Seidlhofer, 2013, p. 7) when participating in group discussions and asking questions in class, she also gave some detailed instances and stressed its importance outside the classroom. Chinese, as a socially dominant language in China, was therefore perceived by the students as a means to understand and make themselves understood in mundane practices so as to meet basic living needs and make friends with peers from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

An analysis of the data revealed that a majority of Thai international students associated the role of Chinese with ordering food and asking directions and it seems that they espoused the ideology of Chinese as a shared language and a means of surviving in the Chinese university. Interestingly, a small proportion of them even downplayed the fact that Chinese was a medium of instruction for academic purposes while underscoring its functions in social spheres. Below are the quotes representative of such a view:

Participant 1: Shopping and asking for directions.

Participant 2: Ordering takeaway food.

Researcher: You forget the most important thing—attending classes.

[laughed together]

This dialogue illustrates how the students accentuated the phenomenon of Chinese as a ‘de fault’ lingua franca for communication. When their responses did not meet the researcher’s expectations, we prompted them to expand their answers and talk more about its role as a medium of instruction, given the university’s CMI policy. However, they reacted with laughter, indicating awareness of their concerns about everyday lives instead of academic studies. In this way, we argue that some students held a pragmatic attitude towards Chinese use rather than confine themselves to the academic-related classroom context.

Of note, there was only one student who had a balanced ideology of Chinese and the extract below is an archetypical example of her explanations in terms of the roles of Chinese at a CMI university:

Our teachers teach in Chinese and we also do our homework in Chinese. It also allows me to communicate with others, make new friends. (Participant 5)

Although the CMI policy requires international students to study in the medium of Chinese, all of them displayed a positive attitude and preference to use it for practical purposes, which is an intended outcome of the implementation of CMI (see Ministry of Education, 2010; Ministry of Education, 2018). Participant 5’s narratives show that in her evaluated stance, Chinese provided affordances for education (i.e. teaching and doing homework) as well as for intercultural communication among interlocutors from diverse linguistic backgrounds. These two functions co-existed in the CMI university; whilst most of the students prioritised one (the role of a lingua franca) over another (the role of a medium of instruction), a disparate ‘balanced’ view was also manifested in a student’s discourse. This further informs us that even within the same sociocultural and linguistic context, students of the same ethnic and cultural origin might share conflictual notions of language use and have a heterogenous view of language ideologies (Kroskrity, 2008).

‘Standard’ language ideology and the ‘non-standard’ Thai speakers

Apart from the roles of Chinese, the native/non-native dichotomy was uncovered in students’ expressions of their ‘standard language ideology’ (Lippi-Green, 1994). Similar to English language learners who privilege native varieties of English (see, for example, Baker and Hüttner, 2017; Choi, 2016; Jenks and Lee, 2020), all Thai international students held a favourable stance towards speaking Chinese without an accent or with a ‘standard’ accent. Though ‘standard’ was a common refrain among this group of students, it turned out to be an ambiguous and unmeasurable descriptor when evaluating their own competence in Chinese. For example, Participant 4 attempted to frame ‘standard’ in terms of fluency and intelligibility:

Participant 4: Not quite standard and not very fluent.

Researcher: What kind of Chinese is considered standard?

Participant 4: I tried chatting with Japanese in Chinese, but sometimes they still can’t understand. Maybe my pronunciation is not very clear.

It seems that the participant held a critical view of her ‘not quite standard’ and ‘not very fluent’ Chinese, as it led to the problems of non-comprehensibility. The same point was also reflected in Participant 5 and Participant 6’s accounts, who gave a more elaborate explanation on the issue of which Chinese can be accepted as ‘standard’ Chinese:

Participant 5: Just so-so. I can express what I want to say, but my pronunciation is not very standard, and I’m not very fluent.

Researcher: So, what kind of pronunciation is considered standard?

Participant 5: I think being able to pronounce ‘z’, ‘zh’, ‘c’, ‘ch’, ‘s’, ‘sh’ clearly can be considered as relatively standard. Also, sometimes I have an accent when I speak.

Participant 6: I feel that I’m not very fluent.

Researcher: What is considered fluent, in your opinion?

Participant 6: Just like how Chinese people speak.

From the Participant 5’s perspective, distinguishing and achieving the desired sounds of consonants was marked as ‘relatively standard’, and the ‘non-standard’ pronunciation could possibly be attributed to her Thai pronounce habits and the position of the tongue when speaking Chinese. As for Participant 6, however, she articulated her native speaker ideology in a much more straightforward way—speaking like Chinese people was deemed as a fixed, easily identifiable form of standardisation. With the diversity and variability of the Chinese(s) (e.g., Thai Chinese, Korean Chinese and Japanese Chinese) present in the multilingual university, the students’ language ideologies alluded that the ‘C’ in ‘CMI’ and in Chinese as a lingua franca should conform to a native variety of Chinese.

In addition to the pronunciation, the language style was also referred to as a gatekeeping mechanism to judge and evaluate language proficiency and confidence in speaking Chinese, as Participant 3 added one more point:

Participant 3: I feel that I’m not formal enough when speaking

Researcher: So, what kind of Chinese can be called ‘formal’?

Participant 3: I think I use two words a lot, ‘就是’ (‘that is to say’ in English) and ‘然后’ (‘then’ in English). I feel these make my speech less formal.

Researcher: Do you think your Chinese teachers and friends speak formally?

Participant 3: Yes, they speak very formally. They are cool.

Such a standard language ideology can be referred to as ‘linguistic racism’ (Dovchin, 2020), where a hierarchy was implicitly created between the native, ‘standard’ Chinese speakers and the non-native, accented, and ‘non-standard’ Thai Chinese speakers. This ‘standardised form’ was unconsciously created and perpetuated by the Thai international students themselves, as they used native-like pronunciation and language style as benchmarks to construct Chinese people as ‘standard language role models’ and powerful social groups while making themselves (i.e. speaking ‘informally’ and with an accent) get subordinated (see Cushing, 2021).

(In)congruent language ideologies and practices in and beyond the classroom

In general, apart from two students, Participant 1 and Participant 3, who believed that the Chinese-only practice should be the norm in the CMI university (details will be discussed later), the other five students held a positive attitude towards multilingual practices. This is because they believed the adoption of multiple linguistic resources could bring benefits for enhancing intelligibility and convenience (see Fang et al., 2023). For instance, Participant 6 mentioned how she believed that shuttling between English and Chinese contributed to effective communication:

I feel that using multiple languages is better. Because there are still some words I don’t understand, and if they can be explained in English, I think life would be more convenient. (Participant 6) (Language ideology)

This interview data revealed Participant 6’s multilingual language ideologies, as she gave the reason for her practices of mixing languages in real-life linguistic practices. As language ideology and language practice are intermingled (Gu, 2014), the participants’ ideology of multilingualism further informed their multilingual Chinese use in and beyond the classroom. This was well illustrated in the Participant 3’s narrative of her communicative practices:

Let me tell you something funny One day, I was speaking Chinese with my Korean friend, learning a bit of Japanese with my Japanese friend, picking up some Chinese in class, translating into English, and also speaking Thai with friends. When I returned to the dormitory, I asked the auntie, ‘你可以给我key吗?’ (‘Can you give me the key?’ in English) (Participant 3)

Like Participant 3, many participants engaged in sustained conversations about the multilingual practices they experienced in specific contexts while noting the naturalness and unconsciousness of mixing languages. It is perhaps because they had so many multilingual opportunities in this multilingual university, and code-switching or mixing languages has been internalised and accepted as a norm in intercultural communication. In other words, there appears to be an interplay between language practices and language ideologies (Curdt-Christiansen, 2016), as the students’ language choices might also be shaped by the dynamic multilingual uses in this specific linguistic context.

In addition, Participant 6 also observed multilingual practices in the classroom, where both the teachers and students challenged the CMI policy and promoted the inclusiveness of language use during exams, as she explained:

During exams, sometimes we also use foreign languages for explanations. Most of the exam content is in Chinese. If the Thai translation of a word is not very good, I use English to translate. (Participant 6)

Participant 6’s account appears to resonate with Gu’s (2014) findings that translanguaging practices were prevalent in teachers’ language practices in elite universities in Shanghai. Though the CMI policy was implemented, multilingual practices were found in the delivery of the course contents and examinations. In this way, the existing power structures among languages (e.g., English, Chinese and Thai) were challenged as the students could possibly utilise their multilingual repertoire and maximise educational achievements (see Chang, 2019).

Nevertheless, a conflicting language ideology was also found among the Thai international students, who espoused the ideology of monolingualism:

I think it’s better to speak one language; using many languages can be chaotic. However, I believe that Chinese people sometimes mix two languages, such as ‘app’, as I’ve noticed it while watching TV. Thai people do the same. Nowadays, there are things we can’t describe in our own language, so we use other languages to describe them, which sounds more international. (Participant 3)

Participant 1: I prefer speaking one language. But sometimes, I would think if others could understand.

Participant 2: I don’t use English much because my English is not very good, so I speak Chinese more.

Researcher: In China, there are many overseas returnees, and when you mix Chinese and English, some people might think you’re stylish, but others might think you’re pretentious.

Participant 2: Thailand has this too.

Participant 1: But we have some words for which there might not be a direct translation in Thai, or they are not commonly used, like ‘helicopter’.

Participant 2: Yes, and computer.

Participant 1: Yes, we don’t have specific Thai words for those.

It seems that Participant 3 and Participant 1 treated linguistic diversity and multilingual language use as a ‘problem’ (e.g. ‘using many languages can be chaotic’) rather than a ‘resource’ (Ruíz, 1984), which might explain their preference for Chinese-only practices. However, as Fang et al. (2023, p. 18) stated, ‘even though one’s ideology is understood, their language practice cannot be easily and directly predicated’. Based on the students’ narratives, a mismatch between language ideologies and language practices was uncovered. Even both of them were proponents of the monolingual Chinese-only practice, they resorted to other languages (e.g. English and Thai) when asked about their actual language practices, because it is a common practice and ‘sounds more international’.

It is also interesting to note that when concluding our interviews, we asked Participants 1 and 2 if they would like to participate in cooking activities on campus, and both of them were enraptured by this upcoming event. As displayed in our dialogue, they spontaneously and unconsciously referred to ‘ส้มตำ’ (i.e. Som Tum in English) and ‘ครก/สาก’ (e.g., wooden mortar in English) in expressing what they want to make and the specific tool they need. In other words, they inevitably adopted translanguaging practices rather than conform to their monolingual ideology, as their inadequate Chinese capability became an obstacle for them to adhere to their pure Chinese-only practices.

Discussions

This study investigates a group of Thai international students’ language ideologies and practices at a CMI university. It offers insights into a set of multiple, complex yet sometimes conflictual ideologies of Chinese within the same cultural/national group, as well as the discrepancy between their language ideologies and practices. More important is that the data suggests that the participants’ language ideologies were much more complicated than the CMI suggests. First, while the macro-level policy and university specified the role of Chinese for academic and pedagogical purposes (Ministry of Education, 2010, 2018), the students’ narratives indicated the dual functions of Chinese in their day-to-day practices—a medium of instruction and a ‘default’ common language for communication both in and beyond formal settings. The roles of the Chinese have been, therefore, stretched and utilised as a means to meet living and social needs. It seems that the broader aim of promoting the Chinese language through academic programmes has somewhat achieved (Gao and Zhu, 2021), as the students began to use Chinese, rather than English, as an international language (Fallon, 2014).

Moreover, the findings also reveal that native speakers were so entrenched in the Thai international students’ minds, which led to a clear demarcation between ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’, ‘native’ and ‘non-native’, ‘fluent’ and ‘not fluent’ in their accounts (see Tsurutani, 2012). They believed that Chinese has a ‘fixed, easily identifiable’ form (Cushing, 2021, p. 322), and this imagined ‘standardised form’ was naturally associated with the dominant social groups (e.g. teachers, native Chinese speakers), who authoritatively affirmed and validated the ‘correctness’, ‘fluency’ and ‘accuracy’ of the language. As such, they felt inferior to idealised native speakers and positioned themselves as subordinated, which motivated them to model the use of language (e.g. ‘pronounce “z”, “zh”, “c”, “ch”, “s”, “sh” clearly’, Participant 5) and further reproduced the standard language ideology. We argue that the Thai participants lacked a critical reflection on the power imbalance and the taken-for-granted hierarchical relationships between native Chinese speakers and Thai Chinese speakers, which could possibly be attributed to China’s rising position within the world system relative to Thailand.

In addition, we also found that whilst most of the participants upheld a multilingual ideology, two students in the cohort insisted on the monolingual use of Chinese. This further illustrates that international students’ language-related experience was not ‘shared’ within the same national origin, instead, it was diverse and heterogenous in nature (Heng, 2019; Sung, 2022b). However, the relationship between language ideologies and language practices is far from linear and straightforward (Gu, 2014). Those who held a monolingual attitude did not conform to the Chinese-only ideology in actual practices and the reasons were multiple, including inadequate lexical resources, ‘more international’ and ‘effective communication’ concerns. Thus, the efforts that the students made through everyday communicative practices became incongruent with their language ideologies. Though the monolingual language ideologies might invoke linguistic hegemony (Nam et al., 2023) and present constraints in everyday communicative practices’ (Garrett, 2011), they were greatly compromised in the students’ un/intentional language choices enacted in mundane interactions, such as mixing languages and translanguaging practices.

This study has important implications for the teaching and learning in CMI universities in terms of creating an inclusive language environment for their culturally and linguistically diverse student body. Firstly, it is important for teachers to develop critical language awareness and take the international students’ multilingual repertoire into account when designing their curriculum and pedagogy. ‘Respectability’ pedagogies that approve and legitimise all forms of a language could possibly be adopted (Baker-Bell, 2020), so as to challenge the standard language ideology and provide students access to more equitable Chinese (language) education. Furthermore, it is also imperative to help students develop a multilingual mindset and appreciate multilingual practices in the university context and wider society. Monolingual practices cannot naturally lead to desirable educational and communicative outcomes, and translanguaging practices, such as using L1, semiotic resources, and modalities, should be advocated.

As a final note, it is crucial for the global public to understand the significance of Thai international students’ experiences in the context of CMI education. These students’ navigation of conflictual language ideologies and practices offers valuable insights into the broader dynamics of linguistic justice and multiculturalism. Education in this context can serve as a powerful tool to bridge power differentials, allowing students to assert their identities beyond the dominant Anglophone paradigm. By incorporating Chinese and other heritage languages, educational frameworks can support Thai students in becoming global citizens who are not only multilingual but also capable of representing diverse cultural perspectives. This approach not only challenges the hegemony of English but also promotes a more inclusive and equitable global educational landscape where students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds are recognised and valued. Such an understanding underscores the importance of fostering an educational environment that embraces and celebrates linguistic diversity, ultimately contributing to the promotion of social justice and cultural empathy on a global scale.

Conclusions

This study has explored the conflictual language ideologies and practices of Thai international students in China, revealing the complexities and nuances of their linguistic experiences. Our analysis highlighted how these students navigate their language use in a context dominated by Chinese, reflecting broader sociolinguistic dynamics and China’s strategic language planning and development aimed at bolstering its soft power.

Chinese has significantly influenced Chinese people’s sense of pride and competence, reinforcing its status as a key element of China’s cultural and political influence. In the context of international education, Chinese not only serves as a tool for academic and social integration but also as a mediator of dominant language ideologies. This dual role underscores the importance of examining how language policies and practices shape the lived experiences of international students and contribute to broader sociopolitical objectives. From a sociolinguistic perspective, it is crucial to consider how language educators can promote linguistic justice, equity, and inclusion within this framework. Ensuring that language policies do not merely impose a monolithic linguistic culture but rather support diverse linguistic identities is essential. This approach aligns with the broader goals of fostering an inclusive and equitable academic environment where all students, regardless of their linguistic background, can thrive. Future research could continue to explore these themes, considering the perspectives of various international student groups to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between language, identity, and power.