Keywords

5.1 Introduction

As discussed in Chap. 1, the English use of EMI lecturers and students has attracted much attention in studies of English as a Medium of Instruction (Ball & Linday, 2013; Council of Europe, 2001; Danish Language Council, 2012; Jiang et al., 2019; Klaassen & Räsänen, 2006). This issue has created tension for institutions offering EMI programs (Costa & Coleman, 2013; Dearden, 2014, 2015, 2016; Werther et al., 2014), in that stipulating English capability is an important criterion when recruiting EMI lecturers (Dearden, 2014). Couched within a monolingual framework such research has proposed much EMI teaching to be void of authentic colloquial English, compounded by grammatical problems in oral presentations and lectures, and framed the issue as an English language deficiency on the part of EMI lecturers. This is understandable as tension may arise for all stakeholders when an academic subject is taught through a lecturer’s additional language.

In parallel with the research on monolingual priorities, literature has also reported the influence of lecturers’ and students’ L1 on EMI teaching and learning but from the contrasting position of translanguaging (Lin & Lo, 2017; Macaro et al., 2020; Pun & Macaro, 2019; Sah & Li, 2022; Tai & Li, 2021). For example, Lin and Lo (2017) studied school teachers’ CLIL classes in Hong Kong, with the conclusion that when students drew on their daily life experiences, connecting their everyday L1 language they were more effectively able to engage in co-constructing knowledge in an EMI class. In Mainland China, Macaro et al. (2020) studied Chinese and English use in Chinese EMI classes. This research reported that in the observed classes the participating lecturers used ‘English-only’ for 99% of the teaching time. The findings also outlined that students preferred English instruction throughout the lectures, with L1 use preferred only for scaffolding their understanding. These findings imply that either the EMI lecturers and/or the institutions, hold a monolingual view in terms of EMI programs. It may also indicate that EMI, is understood as ‘teaching in English only’ based on the widely accepted translation of the term (quan ying shou ke – teaching ‘teaching totally in English’) (see Chap. 2). Further Pun and Macaro (2019) studied L1 and English use in EMI classes in school contexts in Hong Kong. This research identified that a shift between L1 and English impacted on the quality of classroom interactions: when lecturers used L2 English, the students became less interactive; and when L1 was used during instruction, the teachers were able to ask more challenging questions to promote higher-order thinking.

This research is noteworthy given the majority, if not all, EMI lecturers and perhaps students, are bilingual or multilingual, and therefore their English is not insulated from their L1. The focus of this Chapter is psycholinguistic in nature and from a cognitive perspective it offers insights into how the L1 of these Chinese EMI lecturers influenced their teaching and instructional language in English. In practice bi/multilinguals cognitively, and arguably naturally, activate their repertoire of background language/s when using English (Gunnarsson et al., 2015). Although English is the ‘official’ instructional language, EMI lecturers’ bi/multilingual reality implies that cross-linguistic transfer is an inevitable phenomenon in EMI classrooms. This Chapter is concerned with the interrelationship between the lecturers’ two languages, and the mechanisms for how L1 cognitively assists with the scaffolding of the EMI lecturers’ construction and use of their L2. Data in this research reveal the L1’s phonetic, semantic, syntactic, conceptual and, to a lesser extent, pragmatic influence during EMI teaching.Footnote 1

Cross-linguistic influence is a meaningful lens through which to explore the teaching of the EMI lecturers participating in this research. It is not the intention of this Chapter to examine the EMI lecturers’ L1/L2 language transfer as positive or negative or to judge their English as deficient or incorrect as advocates of structuralism would propose. Rather, this Chapter has sought to identify the various types of transfer and the linguistic features generated by observing the actual EMI teaching of the research participants. It aims to identify how the various categories of transfer has functioned as a steppingstone or a self-scaffolding strategy for their instructional language development.

5.2 Cross-Linguistic Influence

Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) is a language phenomenon bilinguals or multilinguals experience during the cognitive processes occurring in language use (Cenoz, 2003; Cook, 2003; Jarvis, 2016; Odlin, 2005; Pavenko, 2000; Pavlenko & Jarvis, 2002). Linguists traditionally organize transfer into categories such as “phonemic, morphological, lexical, semantic, conceptual, syntactic, discursive, pragmatic, and collocational” (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008, p. 2). To categorize further, language transfer may occur at linguistic levels such as language forms (for example, the phonological, morphological or syntactic structure) and then also at the level of the meanings associated with those forms (for example, lexical, semantic or conceptual). It may also occur at a non-linguistic level, that is, transfer of pragmatic functions (discursive, pragmatic or collocational). Cummins (2008) highlights non-linguistic transfer such as pragmatic transfer (for example, the use of paralinguistic features such as gestures to aid communication) and transfer of metacognitive and metalinguistic strategies (for example, strategies of visualising, the use of graphic organizers, mnemonic devices, and vocabulary acquisition strategies). For the Chinese EMI lecturers in this research, their language transfer could hence be considered as involving the application of linguistic or non-linguistic rules from L1 to their English use, or in reverse, L2 back to their L1.

5.2.1 Negative vs Positive or Explicit vs Implicit Transfer

In the dominant discourse surrounding L1 and L2 transfer, a negativity towards this phenomenon exists. Literature has more commonly reported negative transfer as it appears overtly, in the form of errors, whereas positive transfer is implicit, mostly unnoticed in practice, and therefore less discussed and reported in the literature (Jarvis, 2016; Jarvis & Pavlenk, 2008; Lennon, 2008). Whilst this negative view narrowly focuses on communication errors, at the same time it enacts a silence around the positive function transfer can bring from across bilinguals’ language experiences. Ringbom (2006, p. 31) critiqued the truism that “if a learner produces an unacceptable word or construction of any kind, some degree of ignorance lies behind it”. To mitigate the negativity of transfer, from the learners’ perspectives, he proposed transfer should utilize the “perceived and assumed” cross-linguistic similarities. Ringbom (2006) argues that transfer tends to be positive when it is clearly manifested in comprehension across languages, especially for those perceived to be similar; it is negative when L1 and L2 differences create interference in the learner’s L2. Thus, “it is natural to perceive similarities across closely-related languages, and they are especially frequently employed in comprehension” (Ringbom, 2006, p. 26).

Applying this ‘relational languages’ proposition, Chinese and English would be categorized as distant languages. On many occasions, similarities may be less obvious but more assumed by the Chinese English bilinguals. It would be less likely that positive transfer will occur between English and Chinese and it would be commonplace for errors in English L2 production due to the influence of Chinese as the L1. This structuralist perspective is problematic. It foregrounds the language form, and negates the functions transfer offers to bilinguals in their cognitive abilities across both languages. Proponents of ‘negative’ transfer are basically focussing on the explicit or observable language examples, whereas ‘positive’ acknowledges one language can be merged into another for a range of purposes, implicitly or covertly. The use of the terms ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’ transfer is offered in this research as this gives voice to the agency of the EMI lecturers, and acknowledges the facilitative role of L1/L2 transfer in the teaching and learning process.

By describing transfer as ‘explicit’ or ‘implicit’ rather than negative or positive, theoretically, this confronts the structuralist view that there is a ‘black and white’ positing within the world and negates judgement of language transfer as right or wrong, correct or incorrect, perfect or deficit. It enlists a post-structuralist perspective, and in this context accepts that there can be a variety of English or Englishes. Categorizing transfer as ‘explicit’ or ‘implicit’ is to give L1-influenced Chinese EMI lecturers’ English a legitimate status. Thus, ‘explicit’ or ‘implicit’ transfer is one type of translanguaging and one sub-concept under the translanguaging umbrella. It is a temporary form and outcome of languaging in the translaguaging process.Footnote 2

5.3 L1-Influenced English Identified in the EMI Lecturers’ Teaching

This section draws on observational evidence to examine the influence of the L1 Chinese language on the EMI lecturers’ use of English. The data reveal that explicit transfer between the EMI lecturers’ L1 to L2 was substantially mobilized. Reliance on L2 may have illustrated the demographics of this particular group of EMI lecturers, that is, being experts in a discipline other than English (ESL) and without extensive English as L2 education in or throughout their career. This echoes the finding of a recent research study that claims the propensity to explicit transfer between EMI lecturers’ L1 and L2 is related to the degree of formal, intensive language skills training provided to them (Babaii & Ramazani, 2017). In the case of this research (L1 Chinese/L2 English), the language transfer exhibited by the EMI lecturers did not follow a single linear mode but was rather indicative of a multifaceted process. Different patterns of interdependence were observed across L1 and L2. Among the various types of explicit transfer, the most common types were phonological, syntactic and semantic transfers. Whilst there was evidence of conceptual and reverse transfer, these incidences were substantially less frequent. It needs to be noted also, that non-linguistic (pragmatic or metalinguistic) transfer was also operationalized. This phenomenon is analyzed in Chap. 6.

5.3.1 Phonological Influence – Consonants, Vowels and Consonant-Vowel Complex

Data demonstrate frequent use of phonological transfer in the EMI lecturers’ instructional English. This was an observed trend for all the lecturers including those more fluent in English usage. English consonants and vowels that are absent in Chinese (the L1 for these research participants), and those words that end with friction consonants were noted as the majority of explicit transfer cases. Examples from the observational data appear in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Phonological transfer
Full size table

Attributable to the absence of these English consonants such as interdental fricative /ð/ and /θ/, palatal affricate /dʒ/, /tʃ/ and tr/, and alveolar lateral /l/ in the Chinese pronunciation system, the EMI lecturers notably replaced these with comparable Chinese interdental fricatives [z] and [s], palatal glide [j], palatal affricates [ch] and [q] and palatal rhotic [r] (Table 5.1: Columns 1 and 2). The English vowels /u/, /eɪ/, /e/, /ʌ/, /æ/, /eə/, /aɪ/ were substituted with Chinese[u:], [yi], [ə], [a], [ai], [ai], [a] in some lecturers’ pronunciations (Table 5.1: Columns 3 and 4). It was also observed that a significant proportion of the lecturers tended to add the vowel sounds [ə] and/or [i:] to those English words ending with fricative consonants such as /f/, /t/, /d/and /s/ (Table 5.1: Columns 5 and 6). This reflects the unique characteristics of the Chinese pronunciation system, one in which words starting with fricative consonants must be followed with a vowel sound. Consequently, some of the lecturers habitually added a non-existing vowel to those English words ending with a consonant.

These data indicate that the lecturers were dependent on the relationships they could establish between English and Chinese in their pronunciation. They primarily mobilized the use of consonants and vowels between L1 and L2, making pronunciation of their first language an essential aid, not a troublesome obstacle in their EMI teaching. An advocate of monolingualism may proclaim the deficiency of these L2 pronunciations. This shows a lack of understanding concerning the realities of modern EMI teaching and learning in universities in China. The EMI lecturers are experts in their discipline but most lack intensive English training and qualifications in their own education. An alternative position is offered based on this finding, that is, although Chinese and English are two distant languages (Ringbom, 2006), phonologically, these EMI lecturers’ prior knowledge of their L1 did provide consistent scaffolding for L2 usage. These L1 opportunities for scaffolding were not only enacted phonologically but were also evident syntactically by the EMI lecturers.

5.3.2 L1 Influence on the Syntactic Structure of English

Explicit syntactical transfer was identified as another key feature in the EMI lecturers’ English instruction. Often, these arbitrary rules of syntax are not commonly shared between languages and an L1 user may ‘override’ an L2 structure by transferring their more familiar L1 structural rule/s. The following table provides examples from the participants’ EMI teaching, showing L1 sentence structure being transferred into L2, when structural rules from their L1 and L2 were mismatched.

Linguists have argued, the transfer between two distant languages, can result in the L1 having a significant role in the L2 (Ringbom, 2006). Yet others have argued the same applies for related as well as distant languages (Cummins, 2005). That is, bilinguals’ L1 knowledge has as much influence on an L2 that is closely related or distant from the L1. This was the case for the Chinese L1 EMI lecturers in this research as the following discussion of examples in Table 5.2 indicates.

  • Object-complement structure: “I don’t like class quiet” is a typical Chinese sentence structure of: subject + verb + object + complement. The same expression in English has the structure of: subject + verb + grammatical modifier + object (“I don’t like a quiet classroom”).

  • Statements without a subject: This occurs as there are no strict subject-predicate rules in Chinese sentences and a sentence can be valid without a subject.

  • Statement with a question mark: question sentences in Chinese L1 are mostly statements followed by a question mark with a rising tone tagged to the end of the sentence.

  • Reference to singular and plural: There is no singular and plural consistency rule in the Chinese subject and predicate relationship.

  • Tense: there is no implicit grammatical mark for tense in Chinese L1. The tense of a sentence can be built into a sentence through semantics.

Bylund and Jarvis (2011) and von Stutterheim and Carroll (2006) argue that the choice of an L2 users’ language structures is predictable as these structures will very likely be based on existing, familiar L1 language patterns. The Chinese EMI lecturers in this research frequently transferred linguistic structural elements from their L1 directly into their individual use of L2. A case in point is to consider how some researchers view this transfer phenomena as being erroneous resulting in imperfect sentence structure/s. This argument only bodes credibility when the assessment is solely based in terms of the English rules, that is, when a monolingual perspective is applied. To counter, the excerpts showcased in Table 5.2 indicate that the purpose of EMI is being fulfilled. EMI classrooms in this research were not English language classes, but rather the presentation of content and knowledge via English. Therefore, the structural patterns of Chinese provided the EMI lecturers with essential support and hooks to enable them to deliver their lectures smoothly without any loss to comprehension by students. From this perspective, it is not constructive to argue that these are examples of negative transfer as they played a practical and beneficial role in this teaching and learning context. A multilingual approach would see both L1 and L2 languages being co-dependent and in a symbiotic relationship rather than separate and conflicting entities.

Table 5.2 Observed explicit syntactic transfer
Full size table

5.3.3 EMI Lecturers’ Semantic Transfer

The relationship between the EMI lecturers’ L1 and L2 at the semantic level was also observed. Semantic transfer between L1 and L2 includes elements such as “polysemy”, and “the distinction between core and peripheral or literal and metaphoric meanings”. In another words, it relates to word properties such as cognate status or “translation equivalents” (Pavlenko, 2000, pp. 1–2). As with the structural transfer discussed above, in some instances the EMI lecturer’s L1 dominated the L2 resulting in unclear meaning, yet during other teaching and learning episodes, their L1 and L2 shared a semantic alignment or similarity enabling transfer to occur seamlessly and implicitly. At the crossroads between understanding and misunderstanding in semantics, the EMI lecturers were observed in their teaching using words in their L2 to create an image, rather than through their customary meaning. Examples of metaphorical or rhetorical semantic transfer are presented in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 Examples of semantic transfer
Full size table

The EMI lecturers were observed giving the students directions where the meaning in the L2 statement was conveyed to the students without it being linguistically correct. “Open your computer” instead of “turn on your laptop” was used by some EMI lecturers when providing instructions to the class in English. The two forms “open” and “turn on” represent two different meanings in English, whereas in Chinese “open” (dakai) is a polysemous word covering two meanings: “open” and “start” (or “turn on”). In a Biology class, a lecturer introduced the topic of Stem Cells using “heavy” to describe a skin cut whereas the meaning in L2 would have been “If the cut is not severe”. Again, this transfer is caused by the polysemous word ‘zhong’. ‘Zhong’ when translated into English, can mean “heavy” or “severe” but English “heavy” is not equivalent to ‘severe’. For monolingual English L1 users, these would create confusion as “open” in English does not mean “start” (or “turn on”) and “heavy” does not equate to “severe”. However, given the context of this teaching and learning environment, where most students are Chinese L1 speakers and share similar L1 influence, this type of transfer did not create semantic confusion.

The third example was the L1 transfer of “portable computer” into L2 directly, rather than the word “laptop”. Laptop is a metaphor in English – a metonymy word for “portable computer”. When the Chinese L1 lecturers referred to it, they used either the non-metaphorical words “portable computer”, or their own version of metonymy “shou ti diannao” (“portable electronic brain”). No Chinese lecturers were observed to have used the word “laptop” or the Chinese direct translation of “laptop”. In this case, the same object was allocated different forms due to the rhetorical understanding. It may have created different images for listeners with different L1 backgrounds, but not necessarily a misunderstanding of the meaning across L1 and L2 as the metaphorical uses are related to, or a reminder of, the usual, ‘normal’ semantic meaning of the referent.

5.3.4 EMI Lecturers’ Conceptual Transfer

Compared to semantic transfer, conceptual transfer goes beyond word meanings to involve cultural background experiences. Pavlenko (2000, p. 3) indicates that conceptual transfer “demonstrates cross-linguistic and cross-cultural differences”. Conceptual representation can include “abstract notions” or “concrete objects”. Jarvis (2016, p. 609) emphasizes conceptual transfer links to rational, intellectual experiences either “real or imagined”. Odlin (2005) believes that conceptual transfer can be attributed to the linguistic relativity between two languages. However, “not all evidence of linguistic relativity constitutes direct evidence of conceptual transfer” (Jarvis, 2016, p. 616). This might indicate that conceptual transfer generates a cognitive change whereas other types of transfer appear more mechanical, affecting the bilingual speaker’s language behavior but not necessarily their cognition. When observing the instructional English used by the EMI lecturers in this research, scant examples of conceptual transfer were identified, however one example of syntactic to conceptual transfer was identified. During an Environment Studies class, a lecturer introduced the history of garbage classification in China. Several times within the lecture he listed all the modifiers prior to the core word. An instance was: “In 2017, China’s garbage classification system document was issued”. Comparing this to the usual English expression “The document outlining the garbage classification system was issued in China in 2017”, it seems to be a difference in syntactic order but in fact it reveals how “bilinguals’ language backgrounds [and thinking pattern] affect the ways they prioritize path versus manner of motion” (Jarvis, 2016, p. 623). This phenomenon pertains to which information is processed or which image is visualized first, during the speaker’s cognitive thinking process. Chinese people tend to start with a context such as time or location, and then move to the ‘core business’ for example, the issues, matters or people. With English expressions there tends to be a balance between the core and other contextual components which reflects a difference in the ‘thinking/processing order’ for English speakers.

A second example identified was semantic to conceptual transfer. At around 50 min into a 90-min lecture, several lecturers advised students to “Have a rest!” Expressions such as “hard topic” or “condense lesson” were also added. The image or the concept created in the lecturers’ mind by ‘rest’ was noted to be different from the image conjured for the English expression “Have a break”. By ‘rest’, they may have imagined and expected students literally to ‘do nothing’ during the 10 min between sections of the lecture. However, for English L1 users ‘Have a break!’ indicates the choice to have a break away from the lecture or classroom. They would imagine the students have a drink, go to the bathroom, check emails or chat to a friend. These different connotations will be dependent on an individual’s prior socio-cultural experiences. The same expression may not instigate the same response in the actions of others, as imaged by the speaker. Speakers of Chinese L1 and English L1 “perceive, recognize, or evaluate the same experiences in conceptually different ways” and “have different conceptual meanings in mind when performing the same task” (Jarvis, 2016, p. 622). However, most of the students in these EMI lecturers’ classes shared the same L1 and cultural background. Although no data were collected from the students, the observational data indicate that there was no perceived misunderstanding on the part of the students in relation to the lecturers’ L1-influenced English expressions.

From this level of discourse there is not necessarily a clear-cut boundary between these types of transfer across languages. For example, if semantic and linguistic transfers do not generate new imaginings in a bilingual speaker’s mind, then conceptual transfer does not occur. Data previously discussed in this Chapter intimated that for those Chinese EMI lecturers who instructed the students to “open the computer”, those students were not imagining the literal L1 translation of ‘pull it apart and see what is inside’. Instead they were able to infer the meaning as “start or turn on the computer”. At a different juncture, semantic transfer is more than “a matter of naming patterns (form–meaning mapping)” or “which words correspond with which categories”; it “reflects the makeup of the mental categories themselves.” (Jarvis, 2016, p. 624).

5.3.5 Reverse Transfer

Reverse transfer can occur at any level of communication including conceptual, semantic, and phonological. Two types of reverse transfer, syntactic and phonological, were observed in the L2 used by one of the participants in this research. This EMI lecturer was a Biochemistry Professor who had lived and taught in the U.S.A. for 10 years, and as such his English was as fluent as an English L1 speaker. Table 5.4 provides the example of the phonological reverse transfer identified during his EMI teaching.

Table 5.4 Examples of reverse transfer
Full size table

As this EMI lecturer referred to a Biochemistry formula on the prepared PowerPoint slide, his spoken language included: “see here” followed by the Chinese “看这里”. In his pronunciation, the ‘kan’ became /kæn/; ‘zhe’ became /dgə/; and the /i/ in Chinese ‘li’ should be heard with the tongue positioned front and middle, however in his Chinese /i/ sound, his pronunciation was closer to the English /i/. This is evidence that his tongue was slightly moved back and lower in position. Several reverse structural transfers were also observed during his teaching when he reverted to his Chinese L1 which then specifically showed an English L2 influence. The observation was that when he used two or more modifiers as attributives, he had the tendency to split them with the modified word in the middle. For example, his oral statement: 你们的竞争对手是美国的年轻人，在大学里的 whilst spoken in Chinese, followed the English structure: subject + predicate + attributive 1 + object + attributive 2 – “Your competitors are those American young people who are in universities”. A typical Chinese sentence structure for this statement would be: subject + predicative + attributive 1 + attributive 2 + object – ‘Your competitors are those American universities’ young people’: 你们的竞争对手是美国大学里的年轻人).

This finding resonates with Cenoz (2003), and Pavlenko and Jarvis’s (2002) research. That is, a two-dimensional transfer between a bilingual speaker’s L1 and L2 can occur within certain circumstances. Pavlenko and Jarvis’s (2002) research analyzed oral narratives of a group of Russian L1 speakers with English L2. After having lived in the U.S.A. for several years, their L2 (English) started to influence their L1 (Russian) use in semantic representations and formal linguistic competence. Similarly, Cook (2003) argues that reverse transfer is likely to occur when L2 acquisition is equal to, or higher than, L1 competency, and/or there is sufficient L1/L2 proficiency to enable the transfer of learned linguistic knowledge between both languages. For the EMI lecturers in this research, all but one, did not have the L2 English competency to display reverse transfer. None had indicated an experience of having lived, worked or studied in an English-speaking country.

5.4 Discussion

The findings from the analysis of the observational data collected from actual EMI teaching indicate significant amounts and types of explicit transfer occurred during the EMI lectures. Two indicators were identified as influencing the L1/L2 transfer: the educational background of the EMI lecturers; and the distance between the Chinese and English languages. The EMI lecturers in this study were trained as discipline experts and received less intensive English language training in their own education. As could be expected, L1 influence then frequently appeared in the majority of these lecturers’ English expressions. The particulars of the relationship between the L1 Chinese to L2 English plays the key in determining the EMI lecturers’ transfer features. The examples of their explicit transfer would be different from those shown by bilinguals with genetically related L1/L2 languages, for example, German and English, and the bilinguals with genetically unrelated L1/L2 languages. Verhoeven’s (1994) research identified that a strong level of explicit pronunciation or semantic transfer between languages X (L1) and Y (L2) may not be the case of languages Z (L1) and W (L2). Similarly, a moderate level of implicit lexical and morphosyntactic transfer between languages X (L1) and Y (L2) may not occur between languages Z (L1) and W(L2). Thus, it can be argued there are many Englishes in EMI depending on the lecturers’ first language. Seeking ‘the English’ in EMI teaching is neither realistic nor feasible.

5.4.1 Nativeness – An Aspiration for EMI Lecturers

Chapter 7 in this book reports that the EMI lecturers in this research did not fully embrace and accept their version of English with data disclosing they aspired to an “authentic English”, “colloquial English”, “fluent English” and “accurate English” (Table 7.1). They described the non-nativeness of their accent and instructional language with adverse statements. Such attitudes from EMI lecturers themselves is also largely reported in the current literature (see Chap. 1). However, the observational data included in this Chapter indicate L1 and L2 transfer was the EMI lecturers’ reality, with cross-language transfer occurring ‘naturally’ in their English instruction. For these lecturers, L1 influence is a necessary condition for their development as successful bilinguals. Cummins (2005, p. 6) argues that language transfer should be encouraged rather than impeded. The EMI lecturers either from China, Vietnam, or Finland should accept the shift towards reduced rigidity and a move away from native English norms and embrace the plurality of their English (Inbar-Lourie & Donitsa-Schmidt, 2020, p. 311; Jenkins, 2014; McCambridge & Saarinen, 2015).

This research suggests that although the EMI lecturers’ L1 and English are two distant languages, they are interdependent and formed a stable construct that acted as a powerful tool in their EMI teaching. The expectation of nativeness in English does not acknowledge the reality of interdependence across the two languages (Cummins, 2005). It follows that L1 and L2 empower each other differently at various stages throughout one’s bilingual development. When transfer occurred in this research, whilst the form of the L2 production may not have been perfect ‘native’ English, it achieved a valuable function – the ‘not so perfect’ English scaffolded their own English development and content delivery. There is evidence from this research to contend that the existence of reverse transfer “underscores the unstable nature of ‘native-speakerness’” (Pavlenko & Jarvis, 2002, p. 219). The possibilities of reaching a very high competency level in L2 are increased if a bilingual speaker is immersed in an L2 country for a significant amount of time. However, when this does occur maintaining ‘perfect’ L1 for bilingual speakers is challenging, especially if competency in L2 increases to a full acquisition level. This research enables the argument that the EMI lecturers’ L1 and L2 are beneficially co-dependent, and not a deficit.

EMI programs are not centered on learning English per se. Their purpose is for students to learn the discipline content knowledge, skills and understandings of their chosen field, via English (Chen et al., 2020). It is important that EMI pedagogy is considered paramount, in preference to the production of ‘perfect’ English exposition on the part of both teacher and student. Therefore, the relationship between EMI lecturers’ L1 and L2 (Chinese and English in this context), takes on a very different persona to that of English as a Second or Foreign Language (ESL; EFL) courses and lectures. All too often a monolingual frame of reference is applied to EMI whereby the standard of English is the quintessential element of EMI success. The emerging dilemma is hence grounded in either English as ‘form’ or ‘function’ in relation to how the success of EMI teaching and learning is gauged. This Chapter contributes to the debate which challenges the over importance given to English as ‘form’ in much EMI research and instead argues in favor of ‘function’.

An extrapolation from the findings of this research is to caution educational institutions against having assessment and evaluation criteria in EMI programs based solely on standards of authentic or native English. Policy makers as well as the EMI lecturers should be aware that extensive use of English within EMI classes is a useful and important educational strategy, but “should not be implemented in a rigid or exclusionary manner” (Cummins, 2005, p. 6), as this monolingual perspective is not supported by the cognitive reality of the bilingual lecturers’ languaging processes. It is unavailing for researchers to argue that EMI lecturers’ English is not authentic or lacks nativeness when there can be no single manifestation of EMI that can be applied across courses, universities or groups of students. Similarly, there is a need to acknowledge and appreciate that EMI teaching and learning does not need to mirror ESL classes as both have different purposes and outcomes.

5.5 Conclusion

This Chapter has reported on the analysis of the observational data of the EMI lecturers’ English use from the perspective of cross-linguistic influences. Explicit linguistic transfer was identified in the lecturers’ English instruction, as having been influenced considerably by their Chinese L1 phonologically, syntactically and semantically. This indicates that the EMI lecturers’ English, on different occasions, was shadowed or overridden by pronunciation, sentence structure and word meanings from the Chinese language system. Based on the evidence from this research, it is posited that cross-linguistic influence is a reality in EMI teaching and should be acknowledged as such. The bilingual EMI lecturers’ explicit L1/L2 transfer played a beneficial and meaningful scaffolding role in their teaching in EMI Programs.