Abstract:
A wealth of research already exists exploring the growing
impact of English as an academic language within the European higher education
community. To date, such research primarily studies public manifestations of
language switch within both teaching and research: the introduction of
English-medium degree programmes (Earls, 2016) and the increased use of
English as a medium for presenting and publishing research findings. The
rationale for such language policy is often expressed in terms of increased internationalisation,
whether through the attraction of a greater number of non-European students, enhanced
participation in international research communities or the broader dissemination
of research to a global audience.
The preferencing of English within academic domains remains contested,
with mounting concerns not only regarding linguistic inequality (Ammon, 2012)
and domain loss, but also changes in discourse patterns within academic English
(Pérez-Llantada, 2015). While some national academic communities (e.g. France) have
resisted the growing dominance of English, others (e.g. Sweden) have attempted
to counter their initial enthusiasm for its adoption with national and institutional
policies redressing, in part at least, the acknowledged imbalance with national
languages.
Against the shifting landscape of educational practice and
research dissemination, this chapter explores emerging debates surrounding the
penetration of English into the infrastructural realms of national research
funding within the German-speaking countries of Europe. In particular, it examines the policies of Austria's Fond zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung
which  under the auspices of quality control and enhancement  recently
extended its exclusive acceptance of English-only funding applications within
the natural sciences to include the humanities. The chapter explores how the academic
community in Austria has attempted to resist such developments and questions to
what extent ensuing debates reveal genuine concerns for issues of research quality
or point rather to underlying tensions in the language ideology driving national
research policy and practice.
