Conflictual language ideologies and mismatched language practices of Thai international students at a Chinese-medium instruction university

The study is motivated by China’s growing role in international higher education and its strategy to promote Chinese language and culture through academic programs. While much research on international student mobilities centers on Western contexts and English-medium instruction (EMI), fewer studies examine non-Anglophone settings, especially Chinese-medium instruction (CMI). International students in China face linguistic barriers that impact academic and socio-emotional well-being, and the prevailing discourse often homogenizes student experiences within national groups. This research focuses on Thai students—the second-largest international student group in China—to explore diversity within a national cohort. The study asks: (1) What language ideologies are held by Thai international students at a CMI university? (2) What are their actual language practices? The purpose is to illuminate how Chinese functions both academically and socially, and how students navigate tensions between ideology and practice in a multilingual environment.

The paper reviews language ideology as a social construct that rationalizes language use, noting the lack of consensus on definitions and the risk of assuming homogeneity within cultural groups (Rumsey, 1990; Kroskrity, 2008). Prior EMI research shows native-speakerism and monolingual ideologies often produce English-only practices and devalue language variation, mixing, and use of other languages, which can cause epistemic injustice and linguistic racism (Baker & Hüttner, 2019; Dovchin, 2020; Sah & Karki, 2023). While EMI has been widely studied, fewer works explore international students’ ideologies and practices in other linguistic regimes such as CMI. Given China’s promotion of Chinese through academic programs, the same critical questions asked of EMI contexts merit examination in a CMI setting. The study addresses gaps by probing heterogeneous ideologies and practices within a single national group (Thai students), and by unpacking how institutional and social forces shape their language use.

Setting: A prestigious public comprehensive university in Shanghai offering EMI, CMI, and FMI options with a highly diverse international student body. Chinese is generally the default lingua franca, with English also used for teaching and research. Participants: Seven female Thai undergraduates in a 2+2 program (two years in Thailand, two in Shanghai) majoring in Chinese language and literature. All had relatively high Chinese proficiency (HSK 5 or 6); some were heritage speakers, but all identified Thai as L1. Data collection: Semi-structured walking interviews (~30–60 minutes) conducted in Chinese; convenience sampling via researcher–teacher access; audio-recorded. Interviews covered language use inside/outside class, participation, relationships, challenges, strategies, and ideologies about language roles. Data handling and analysis: Transcripts were produced and member-checked; check coding by two researchers to enhance reliability. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) integrated deductive codes (language ideologies/practices) and inductive in vivo/descriptive codes (e.g., “standard Chinese,” “using multiple languages”). Codes were collated into sub-themes, leading to three overarching themes aligned with the research questions. Attention was paid to both shared and heterogeneous experiences across participants.

- Roles of Chinese: Students widely perceived Chinese as both the medium of instruction and the default lingua franca for everyday communication on campus and in the community (e.g., ordering food, socializing, interacting with staff and teachers). Some students prioritized its social/functional role over the academic role; one participant held a balanced view of both roles. - Standard language ideology and native-speakerism: All participants favored “standard” (accent-free, native-like) Chinese. “Standardness” was linked to fluency, intelligibility, specific consonant distinctions (z/zh, c/ch, s/sh), and formal register. Native speakers and teachers were viewed as benchmarks, producing a hierarchy that positioned Thai speakers as non-standard/subordinate. - Multilingual vs. monolingual ideologies: Five students valued multilingual practices (code-switching, mixing, translanguaging) for intelligibility and convenience, including during assessments (e.g., using English to clarify meanings). Two students expressed a monolingual (Chinese-only) preference, viewing mixed-language use as potentially chaotic. - Ideology–practice mismatch: Despite monolingual preferences among some, actual practices frequently involved multilingualism due to lexical gaps, effectiveness, and the multilingual campus ecology. Students naturally mixed Chinese, English, and Thai in daily interactions, illustrating the complex, non-linear relationship between ideology and practice. - Participant profile/contextual data: N=7, all female Thai undergraduates; high Chinese proficiency (HSK 5/6); multilingual campus with frequent intercultural interactions that normalize code-switching and translanguaging.

The findings demonstrate that within a CMI university, Chinese functions dually as an academic medium and as a default lingua franca for everyday life, reflecting China’s wider soft power aims and the normalization of Chinese as an international language in this context. Students’ strong native-speakerist, standard language ideologies reinforce hierarchies between native and non-native speakers, contributing to feelings of linguistic inferiority and reproducing linguistic power imbalances. At the same time, the multilingual campus ecology promotes flexible practices—code-switching, mixing, and translanguaging—that enhance communication and academic accessibility, even when students ideologically espouse monolingualism. The observed mismatch between ideology and practice underscores the complexity of language socialization in CMI settings and challenges assumptions of homogenous experiences within a single national group. Pedagogically, the results argue for critical language awareness, “respectability” pedagogies that legitimize diverse language forms, and the intentional inclusion of students’ full multilingual repertoires to foster equitable participation and learning.

The study contributes evidence from a CMI context showing Thai international students’ heterogeneous language ideologies and practices and the frequent incongruence between what they value and what they do. Chinese operates both as the medium of instruction and a default lingua franca, while native-speakerist ideologies sustain hierarchies that disadvantage non-native speakers. In practice, multilingual strategies prevail due to communicative needs and context. The authors recommend developing multilingual awareness, adopting respectability pedagogies that counter standard language ideology, and embracing translanguaging to create inclusive learning environments. Future research should consider additional international student groups and contexts to further unpack the interplay among language policy, identity, and power in non-Anglophone higher education.