MOUTON EuJAL 2024; aop

Esther Jahns*
Academic register anxiety? – How language
ideologies influence university students’ oral
participation
https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2024-0003

Abstract: This paper deals with the registers of spoken language in university
classes, their prestige, and the language ideologies linked to them. I will show that,
due to these ideologies, the academic registers can trigger strong emotions that hin-
der oral participation. Previous research on language anxiety has revealed that for-
mal situations are an important trigger. Therefore, the academic context is an inter-
esting research site for language or register anxiety, as it offers a range of highly
formal communicative situations. Academic language can be conceptualized as a set
of distinctive registers that must be acquired by students. However, it is seldom
made explicit which linguistic competences are expected and that their acquisition
is a process. This might trigger feelings of anxiety in the classroom, especially for
students who perceive themselves as not mastering these registers or who have
already experienced unbelonging or exclusion due to their linguistic repertoire.
Based on qualitative interviews with students from a German university, I will
show that proficiency in the academic registers is often perceived as competence
and knowledge in the respective discipline. This ideology together with other fac-
tors can lead to less or no oral participation in class.

Keywords: language anxiety, language ideologies, academic registers, participation

Zusammenfassung: In diesem Beitrag geht es um die gesprochene Sprache an der

Universität, ihr Prestige und die Sprachideologien, die mit ihr verbunden sind. Ich
zeige, dass die wissenschaftsprachlichen Register aufgrund dieser Sprachideologien
starke Emotionen hervorrufen und die mündliche Beteiligung verhindern können.
Bisherige Forschung zu Sprachangst hat gezeigt, dass formelle Situationen ein we-
sentlicher Faktor bei der Entstehung von Sprachangst sind. Der universitäre Kon-
text mit seinen sehr formellen kommunikativen Situationen bietet daher ein inte-
ressantes Forschungsfeld für Sprachangst. Die akademische oder wissenschaftliche
Sprache kann als eine Anzahl von Registern beschrieben werden, die Studierende

*Corresponding author: Dr. Esther Jahns, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Institut für
Germanistik, 26129 Oldenburg, E-Mail: esther.jahns@uni-oldenburg.de

Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2 Esther Jahns MOUTON

sich aneignen müssen. Es wird jedoch in der Regel weder explizit vermittelt, welche
sprachlichen Kompetenzen genau erwartet werden noch, dass ihr Erwerb ein Pro-
zess ist. Dies kann im Unterricht insbesondere bei den Studierenden zu Ängsten
führen, die sich selbst nicht als kompetente Sprecher*innen dieser Register wahr-
nehmen oder die bereits aufgrund ihres sprachlichen Repertoires Ausschlusserfah-
rungen machen mussten. Anhand von qualitativen Interviews mit Studierenden
einer deutschen Universität zeige ich, dass das Beherrschen der akademischen Re-
gister häufig als inhaltliche Kompetenz im jeweiligen Fach interpretiert wird. Diese
Ideologie kann zusammen mit anderen Faktoren die mündliche Beteiligung von
Studierenden stark oder sogar komplett verhindern.

Schlagwörter: Sprachangst, Sprachideologien, akademische Register, Partizipation

Résumé: Cet article traite des registres de la langue parlée dans les classes univer-
sitaires, de leur prestige et des idéologies linguistiques qui y sont liées. Je montre
qu’en raison de ces idéologies, les registres académiques peuvent susciter de fortes
émotions qui empêchent la participation orale. Des recherches antérieures sur l’an-
xiété liée à la langue ont révélé que les situations formelles constituaient un facteur
essentiel dans l’apparition de cet anxiété. Par conséquent, le contexte universitaire
est un site de recherche intéressant pour l’anxiété liée à la langue, car il offre un
éventail de situations de communication hautement formelles. Le langage académi-
que ou scientifique peut être conceptualisé comme des registres que les étudiant·e·s
doivent acquérir. Cependant, il n’est généralement pas enseigné explicitement
quelles compétences linguistiques précises sont attendues, ni que leur acquisition
est un processus. Cela peut susciter des sentiments d’anxiété en classe, en particu-
lier chez les étudiant·e·s qui estiment ne pas maîtriser ces registres ou qui ont déjà
fait l’expérience de la non-appartenance en raison de leur répertoire linguistique.
Sur la base des interviews qualitatifs avec des étudiants d’une université allemande,
je montre que la maîtrise des registres académiques est souvent interprétée comme
une compétence en matière de contenu dans la discipline concernée. Cette idéolo-
gie, associée à d’autres facteurs, peut empêcher fortement, voire complètement, la
participation orale des étudiant·e·s.

Mots-clés: anxiété linguistique, idéologies linguistiques, registres académiques,

participation

1 Introduction
This paper deals with the registers of spoken language in university classes, their
prestige, and the language ideologies linked to them. I will show that, due to these
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 3

ideologies, the academic registers can trigger strong emotions that hinder oral par-
ticipation and can therefore be understood as a form of language anxiety, i.e., aca-
demic register anxiety.
Language anxiety has been researched so far in the context of multilingualism,
either concerning the learning of a foreign language (Horwitz 2001) or concerning
majority and heritage languages in the migration context (Sevinç & Dewaele 2018).
These contributions highlight that formal communicative situations foster language
anxiety. Therefore, the academic context is an interesting and important research
site for studying language anxiety, as it offers a large range of highly formal com-
municative situations in a place where participation of students with different back-
grounds should be ensured. I define participation in this study as active oral parti-
cipation in university classes.
Academic language can be conceptualized as a set of distinctive registers that
have to be acquired by students. This acquisition is thus the prerequisite to partici-
pate, i.e., to make one’s voice heard and contribute to the process of knowledge
production. However, it is seldom made explicit which linguistic competences are
expected and that their acquisition is a process. This might trigger feelings of anxi-
ety in the classroom, especially for students who perceive themselves as not master-
ing these registers or who have already experienced unbelonging or exclusion due
to their linguistic repertoire.
I argue that in comparison to other types of language anxiety, it is not necessa-
rily the mastering (or felt non-mastering) of several named languages that leads to
anxiety, but rather that anxiety can arise also with respect to a distinct register or
use of language that is supported by prevailing language ideologies.

2 Research background
2.1 Language anxiety

Language anxiety can be generally understood as a type of anxiety that is triggered

by (the use of) a specific language and provokes strong emotions that lead to inse-
curity1 in the use or to avoidance of this very language. It must be differentiated

1 A related concept to language anxiety is linguistic insecurity which is described as an insecurity

when using a variety of a language (often the standard variety or a variety close to the standard) that
enjoys more prestige than the one the speaker usually makes use of (see Labov (2006) and Preston
(2013) for a detailed description of the concept). In this article I stick to the concept of language anxiety
for two reasons. First, even though the academic language (or registers) seems to enjoy a high prestige,
it is a variety used in a very specific situation, having a special function (therefore being conceptua-
4 Esther Jahns MOUTON

from communication apprehension, which describes the general anxiety of speak-

ing in public. While communication apprehension can be a factor contributing to
language anxiety, it is not limited to or triggered by a specific language or register.
Language anxiety was first researched in the context of foreign language learn-
ing (Horwitz 2001; Horwitz et al. 1986; MacIntyre 2017) as foreign language anxiety
(FLA) or foreign classroom language anxiety (FCLA) and can be defined as “the wor-
ry and negative emotional reaction aroused when learning or using a foreign lan-
guage” (MacIntyre 1999: 27). This type of anxiety is conceptualized in contrast to
trait or state anxiety as a situation-specific anxiety (see Horwitz 2001: 113; MacIntyre
2017: 15) that arises in a specific situation, namely the learning of a foreign language
(i.e., a language that is not the speaker’s L1) in a formal classroom setting.
MacIntyre (2017) differentiates between three categories of causes (and conse-
quences) of FLA: academic, cognitive, and social. While some of the causes are re-
lated to the specific context of learning a foreign language, most of them apply also
to educational contexts in general, like public error correction by the teacher in an
especially embarrassing way, test methods (both academic), competitiveness, or
fear of being laughed at (both social). The cognitive factors cover individual causes
like shyness and low self-esteem, which can, however, be aggravated by factors
from the other categories. Horwitz et al. (1986: 127) relate FLA to three performance
anxieties, namely test anxiety, communication apprehension, and fear of negative
evaluation, but highlight that FLA is more than the sum of these three. Thus, it be-
comes clear that FLA operates on three levels, the individual (cognitive causes that
can lead to communication apprehension), the societal (social causes including the
fear of negative evaluation), and the academic (academic causes including the anxi-
ety concerning tests). These levels are of course interrelated, as test anxiety or an
embarrassing correction in front of the class can lead directly to the feared negative
evaluation from both teachers and peers. This fear of negative evaluation can be
aggravated by the fact that learners of a foreign language do not or not completely
know the linguistic and societal norms against which they are evaluated (Horwitz et
al. 1986: 128). In combination with their limited proficiency in the foreign language,
this can provoke a feeling of inauthenticity that threatens the self-perception of the
speaker; “the L2 is likely to challenge an individual’s self-concept as a competent
communicator and lead to reticence, self-consciousness, fear, or even panic“ (Hor-
witz et al. 1986: 128).

lized as a register, see 2.2.). The relation between academic registers and students’ everyday-language
is therefore a different one than the relation between two varieties of the everyday-language, e.g.,
between the standard variety of a language and a regional dialect. Second, the concept of language
anxiety highlights the influence that the very language or register that is one part of the label exerts on
the speaker, which is the focus of my study, i.e., the anxiety that is triggered by academic registers.
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 5

In sum, FLA arises through the interaction of different factors situated on dif-
ferent levels. It can be an obstacle to language learning and achievement, which are
main concerns of foreign language anxiety research. The relatively new dynamic
approach in this research area highlights the importance of context and under-
stands “anxiety as an emotion that fluctuates over time” (MacIntyre 2017: 23).
A newer strand of language anxiety research shifts the focus from the learning
of a to-date unknown language in the classroom setting to the use of several lan-
guages in the everyday lifeworld of multilingual speakers, especially in the context
of migration. This field of research investigates heritage language anxiety (HLA)
and majority language anxiety (MLA) of multilingual speakers (Sevinç & Backus
2019; Sevinç & Dewaele 2018). In their study on Turkish migrants to the Netherlands
and their descendants, Sevinç & Backus (2019) revealed a correlation between gen-
erations and the extent of MLA or HLA. While the migrants and to a lesser extent
also their children were more likely to experience MLA, their grandchildren were
more prone to heritage language anxiety.
HLA and MLA are similar to FLA insofar as speakers perceive their linguistic
proficiency in a certain language as insufficient. Sevinç & Backus describe the
causes and consequences of language anxiety as a vicious circle or feedback loop,
as speakers often tend to avoid the languages they feel anxious about, which can
lead to less (perceived) competence and more anxiety (2019: 708).
In the literature on HLA and MLA it is, however, emphasized that both differ
significantly from FLA, as they are tied to speakers’ feelings of identity and belong-
ing. Even though a person’s self-perception as a competent speaker can also be chal-
lenged when learning a foreign language (see above), this feeling and the possible
anxiety related to it are linked to a specific and, in a way, artificial setting that is
rather isolated from the person’s everyday life. Despite the consequences that this
inauthenticity might have for the foreign language learner, the anxiety is limited to
the classroom.2 Heritage languages and majority languages, however, are languages
that define speakers’ everyday lives and their ancestries, i.e., who they are and
where they or their families come from.
Analyzing the causes of MLA and HLA, Sevinç & Backus differentiate between
two categories, namely linguistic and socioemotional factors (2019: 713–718). The
latter comprise the felt pressure to perform perfectly in both languages, as well as
conflicts of identity and belonging. Unsurprisingly, linguistic factors include in both
cases a low proficiency in the respective language. The perceived linguistic inferior-

2 It might be possible or even probable that learners of a foreign language are anxious to use this
language also outside the classroom in a more ‘natural’ setting. The research on FLA/FCLA, however,
focuses on the anxiety in the classroom due to the above-mentioned factors and the consequences
concerning the achievement in learning the language.
6 Esther Jahns MOUTON

ity to so-called ‘native speakers’3 of the respective language is of course tied to the
socioemotional factors, as it can lead to the feeling of not being a legitimate member
of either the society the speaker lives in or the speaker’s ethnic group (Sevinç &
Backus 2019: 708–709; Sevinç & Dewaele 2018: 176). Speakers are confronted with
monolingual ideologies (see Section 2.3) and expectations of fluency, which puts
them under an enormous pressure to perform linguistically because their member-
ship in the society or an ethnic group is at stake (Bunk in press). Concerning MLA,
this pressure is especially high in formal or “... communicative settings in which
perceived fluency is key to social acceptance and socio-economic success” (Sevinç
& Backus 2019: 710).
In sum, the research on language anxiety has so far focused on settings where
several named languages are involved, either in the context of foreign language
learning (FLA) or in the context of multilingualism due to migration (HLA, MLA).
Perceived limited proficiency in the respective language and expectations from the
speakers themselves, but also from others, exert a pressure on the speaker that can
lead to anxiety and avoidance. Formal settings seem to be an important factor con-
tributing to LA in both cases. While FLA arises in the closed setting of the classroom,
HLA and MLA are strongly tied to questions of identity, belonging, in- and exclusion,
as these are speakers’ everyday languages and the perceived fluency in these lan-
guages has consequences for their access to or social position in the respective so-
ciety.
In the next chapter, language at university will be described in order to discuss
whether a form of language anxiety can also be expected concerning language use
in this setting.

2.2 Language at the university

The university context can be seen as a formal setting for education. The accom-
plishment of university studies enjoys high prestige as the highest possible educa-
tional attainment, allowing the graduate to apply for well-paid employment oppor-
tunities. Thus, two of the main criteria contributing to language anxiety apply in
this context.
Language is vital to university education – as to the educational system in gen-
eral – across all disciplines. University teaching and learning are based on written

3 Contrasting multilingual speakers with ‘native speakers’ can be considered Othering and a practice
of exclusion. See Truan (this Special Issue) on native speakerism and related ideologies and Wiese et
al. (2022) on Othering in linguistics.
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 7

and spoken language; texts of different types are read and written, presentations
are held, questions are asked, discussions enhanced. However, while it is accepted
that written academic language is a competence that can and has to be learned, as
the number of courses offered for this purpose across universities prove, spoken
academic language is generally not an explicit topic in university teaching or an
object of meta-discussion in German universities, with the exception of academic
language skills in languages other than German (mainly English).
In the English-speaking literature, the label ‘academic language’ often refers to
the language used and learned in school, as well as in higher education (Cummins
2008; Hurst et al. 2017; Rhodes et al. 2021). In the German-speaking literature, how-
ever, the language use in schools is generally differentiated from that in universi-
ties. While the language used at school is mainly referred to as Bildungssprache
(‘language of education’) (Gogolin & Duarte 2016; Morek & Heller 2012; Riebling
2013), the language used at university is sometimes called Wissenschaftssprache
(‘language of science’) (Dannerer 2018; Fandrych 2006) or akademische Sprache
(‘academic language’). The Wissenschaftssprache can be further subdivided into All-
tägliche Wissenschaftssprache (‘everyday scientific language’) (Ehlich 1999) and the
respective discipline-specific professional languages (Roelcke 2020).
Even though these different labels indicate a difference between the language
used in the different levels of the educational system (primary/secondary vs. ter-
tiary), a clear-cut boundary between the language used in schools and that used at
universities or between the language use in different university disciplines is diffi-
cult to draw and not the focus of this paper. Some aspects of Bildungssprache, like
the three functions that Morek & Heller (2012) describe, can also be applied to the
language used at university. They differentiate between a communicative function
for the transfer of knowledge, an epistemic function for the processing of knowl-
edge and for comprehension, and a social function. This last refers to indexing ad-
herence to a higher social class by the use of this language. We can, however, as-
sume – and this has been shown for the written language (Pohl 2007) – that with the
increased complexity of content at the university, the complexity of the language
used is increasing as well and moving closer and closer to the pole of written con-
ception even in oral communication (Riebling 2013: 120–121). It seems, therefore, to
be more adequate to understand the language uses within the different levels of the
educational system as a continuum.
In the English and German-speaking literature, both Bildungssprache and aca-
demic language are often conceptualized as registers, due to their functional and
situative dimensions (Riebling 2013: 114; Rhodes et al. 2021: 524). I consider this per-
spective appropriate also for the language used at university, and would describe it
accordingly as a register, or more precisely, as several registers (taking into account
the different disciplines plus the everyday scientific language, see above) of a
8 Esther Jahns MOUTON

distinct named language (in the case of this study, German). I am following the de-
finition of registers from Pescuma et al. (2022: 1), who define them “as recurring
variation in language use on the function of language and the social situation.” The
conceptualization of the speech patterns used at university as registers based on
this definition has two advantages: First, it highlights the difference between the
registers used at school and at university because the settings can be described as
different social situations and, second, because these speech patterns are under-
stood as parts or varieties of a named language and not as languages that differ
from the dominant language of the country. This is of paramount importance for
the perception of these speech patterns and their effect on speakers, which is the
focus of this study (see below).
Thus, when I refer in this study to academic registers, I am referring to the
everyday scientific language, Alltägliche Wissenschaftssprache (Ehlich 1999), to-
gether with the respective discipline-specific professional languages (Roelcke 2020)
at university, and not to the register learned and used in school (Bildungssprache).
This means that I do not assume that we are dealing with one homogeneous regis-
ter, but rather with different registers varying by discipline, medium (written/spo-
ken), etc. In this paper, I will, however, use the term ‘academic registers’ only to
refer to the oral communication in university classes that is my focus here. More-
over, the aim of my study is not a description of grammatical or lexical features of
the academic registers, but an analysis of university students’ perception of them
and the emotions such as anxiety that might be triggered by this perception. Like
Rhodes et al., I am “...not convinced that the technical features of language (qua
lexico-grammar) suffice to make sense of AL [academic language] and its implica-
tions for students” (2021: 524). This might also entail processes of enregisterment,
which are “... processes whereby distinct forms of speech come to be socially recog-
nized (or enregistered) as indexical of speaker attributes by a population of lan-
guage users” (Agha 2005: 38).
Academic registers are a means to participate not only in the process of knowl-
edge construction, but also in the general public discourse. What is according to
Mecheril & Quehl necessary for (multilingual) pupils at school, i.e., to “find their
voice” (2006: 371) is necessary for university students as well. One of the most im-
portant means to contribute their perspective is to make their voice heard and en-
gage in discussions with others, react to them, make themselves understand, find a
compromise, disagree etc., i.e., to participate orally in class. The prerequisite for this
is the acquisition and actual use of the academic registers. However, (oral) academic
registers are often referred to as being part of a “hidden curriculum” (Morek &
Heller 2012: 78; Wagner 2012: 62). This means that their mastering is expected, but
they are neither taught nor spoken about. This lack of transparency concerning the
linguistic expectations can lead to feelings of insecurity (Wagner 2012). Students
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 9

perceive that they are expected to conform to linguistic norms they are not familiar
with. This is similar to the evaluation against unknown linguistic and social norms
in a foreign language (see above for FLA). In contrast to the learning of a foreign
language, however, students might not expect problems concerning the language
use at university because the teaching and learning takes place in the majority lan-
guage, a language they expect themselves to master completely. Even if they per-
ceive it as a different and more formal register, it can be assumed that most stu-
dents (and teaching staff) would consider having accomplished the acquisition of a
formal register necessary to transfer and process knowledge in school. This is line
with Dannerer’s observation that an awareness of the necessity to support univer-
sity students in expanding their linguistic resources in the academic language in
their L1 is lacking (2018: 181).
Thus, in a very formal setting that offers the opportunity for socio-economic
success, students are confronted with unknown linguistic norms and conventions
in a language that they expect to master.4 In addition, the lack of transparency re-
lates not only to the existence of such registers, but also to the fact that their acqui-
sition is a process. This might lead to feelings of insecurity and elusive discomfort,
as the source cannot (easily) be identified. Or, if students realize that they have to
use different registers with unknown norms, the discomfort can be aggravated due
to the seemingly effortless use of the registers by others, as this might lead to the
assumption that their mastering is a prerequisite for studying at university.
We can therefore hypothesize the existence of academic register anxiety and
will take a look at how language ideologies contribute to this phenomenon in gen-
eral, but also to the individual experience of perceiving one’s individual linguistic
repertoire in the next section.

2.3 Language ideologies and Spracherleben in the educational

context
Language ideologies can be conceptualized as the shared values that speakers attri-
bute to different languages, varieties, registers or other linguistic practices and,
with this, to their speakers. These evaluations can lead to hierarchies of languages
according to their presumed value or utility (e.g., for work or socioeconomic suc-
cess), but also to the attribution of single characteristics or affective evaluations

4 The confrontation with unknown linguistic norms might, however, not happen for the first time, as
some speakers might have experienced similar situations at school. See also the next section and
Busch (2021) on Spracherleben.
10 Esther Jahns MOUTON

towards them. They are based on differentiation, as only what is perceived as dif-
ferent can be an object of evaluation (Blommaert 1999; Irvine & Gal 2000; Jahns
2024).
Language ideologies can deploy their power as explicit or implicit linguistic
norms or conventions of a given society or community about, for example, ‘good’,
’bad’ or ‘adequate’ language use. These norms can lead to power inequalities be-
cause they might affect the identity and social position of individual speakers or
speaker groups by devaluing their language use as inferior or erasing it from the
public sphere, e.g., in the case of minority languages (Busch 2021: 87–88; Irvine & Gal
2000: 38–39). Speakers embody these norms and evaluations due to their individual
experience and based on their social position and the socio-cultural system in which
they are embedded (Irvine & Gal 2000; Kroskrity 2004). However, as Blommaert puts
it, “ideologies do not win the day just like that, they are not simply picked up by
popular wisdom and public opinion” (1999: 10), but rather gain their power through
reproduction in everyday and institutional practice, which eventually leads to their
normalization. This means that they are often not contested or even perceived, but
taken as a fact or as evidence (Busch 2021: 88).
The literature on language ideology is as vast as the number of its definitions
(Woolard & Schieffelin 1994). The following two describe best what is essential for
this study, as they emphasize the interdependence of social position and linguistic
form:

“language ideology as a mediating link between social structures and forms of talk” (Woolard
& Schieffelin 1994: 55)

“the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their load-
ing or moral and political interests” (Irvine 1989: 255)

Several language ideologies that prevail in German society can be identified as

strongly influencing the educational sector. These include, first of all, the normative
monolingualism or what Maitz & Elspaß (2013) label the “ideology of homogeneity”
that treats any deviation from a standard variety or any kind of variation or code-
mixing as negative and a threat to the linguistic unity of the country. This illusion of
Germany as a monolingual country leads to what has come to be known as the
“monolingual habitus” in the educational system (Gogolin 1994; Wiese et al. 2020).
The only form of bi- or multilingualism that is generally accepted encompasses
(Western European) languages that are acquired at school. This ideology is labeled
“elite bilingualism” (Morek 2018). In contrast, languages that are spoken by people
with a so-called Migrationshintergrund (‘migration background’), like Arabic or
Turkish, are not perceived as pleasant and are assigned a lower market value (Adler
& Ribeiro Silveira 2020; Wiese 2015: 361). The term Migrationshintergrund is com-
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 11

monly used in the German public discourse and originated in reference to German
nationals who themselves or one of their parents were born outside Germany, i.e.,
migrated to Germany. The term is criticized for its potential as a means of Othering,
as it is often used to construct these people as not ‘real’ Germans, i.e., as an out-
group that represents huge challenges for the society as a whole. The foreignness of
this out-group is explained by their alleged lack of competence concerning the Ger-
man language or their special needs in this domain (Scarvaglieri & Zech 2013; Oldani
& Truan 2022; Wiese 2015). Interestingly, only multilingual speakers who have in
their repertoire one of the languages that are perceived as less prestigious are re-
ferred to as having a migration background.
Language ideologies exist, however, not only concerning different named lan-
guages, but also concerning certain varieties as well as the ‘correct’ and unmixed
use of them, as the “standard language ideology” prevailing in Germany and other
European countries proves. As explained above, the values and characteristics that
are attributed to certain languages and varieties are often extended to their speak-
ers as well. Therefore, speakers making use of the valued variety of standard Ger-
man are often seen as competent and educated, while pupils not mastering the Bil-
dungssprache are considered as lacking cognitive abilities (Morek & Heller 2012: 75).
This is why Morek & Heller characterize the above-mentioned social function of the
Bildungssprache as both an entrance ticket and business card (Eintritts- und Visiten-
karte), because the use of this register both grants admission to and demonstrates
membership in the educated middle class.
Thus, language ideologies do affect what Busch labels Spracherleben, i.e., the
lived linguistic experience of speakers. She describes three axes of this lived experi-
ence as fundamental and, in a way, reflected in most linguistic biographies: a) self-
perception and perception by others, b) belonging and unbelonging, and c) the ex-
perience of linguistic power or powerlessness (Busch 2021: 20–33). The lived experi-
ence can lead to feelings of shame or inferiority when speakers perceive that their
language use is not valued and/or they feel that they cannot conform to the linguis-
tic norms of the society or community of which they are and want to be a part
(Becker 2021; Busch 2021; Schroedler et al. 2022). In consequence, language ideolo-
gies can be powerful on both an individual and societal level, as they link perceived
or presumed linguistic difference to questions of belonging, using language or lan-
guage use as a justification to exclude (Dirim 2020; Wiese 2015).
Therefore, Bunk (in press) rightly claims that the role of language ideologies
should not be underestimated but rather taken into account systematically when
language anxiety is under study. He argues that foregrounding the influence of
ideologies also shifts the focus from the “anxious speaker” as having an individual
‘problem’ to the pressure that society and its norms exert (see also Oldani &
Truan 2022 on the role of the addressee). To tackle this shift in focus also with
12 Esther Jahns MOUTON

respect to terminology, Bunk proposes to use the term “linguistic pressure” instead
of ‘language anxiety.’ Even though I completely agree with his argumentation, I will
stick with the concept of language anxiety as an umbrella term for two reasons.
First, it allows me to investigate the concept comparatively and focus on the
similarities and differences between different types of language anxiety. Second,
it emphasizes that the respective language or register that is part of its label, includ-
ing the language ideologies that are linked with it, is the cause of the strong
emotions.

3 Research design and research questions

As shown in the previous chapter, it can be hypothesized that the concept of lan-
guage anxiety can also be applied to the university context and the oral academic
registers. Even though the academic registers are not a foreign or different named
language, they are – to a different extent – foreign to students who enter university.
The fact that their distinctiveness is less obvious might even aggravate the problem.
Therefore, the research questions for this study are:
Is there a form of language anxiety that applies to the academic registers used in
universities and hinders students from orally participating in class?
What are the factors contributing to this presumed academic register anxiety?

It is important to note that the focus of this study is on how students perceive the
academic registers and how they describe their reactions to them. It is not about
their competence in these registers, but about their lived linguistic experience. This
study can therefore be understood as a metapragmatic analysis in reference to the
concept of metapragmatic positioning, as it investigates speakers’ explicitly uttered
ideas and evaluations about a certain language use including their positioning to-
wards this use (Spitzmüller 2013).
The data used in this study were collected in the framework of the project “Lan-
guage anxiety as a barrier to academic participation.”5 As the aim of the project was
to reveal whether an academic register anxiety exists and what the factors are that
contribute to it, we opted for a qualitative approach and conducted semi-structured
interviews. By this means, we could make sure not to ignore factors we were not
thinking of beforehand. This decision was also supported by other studies on LA
(Sevinç & Backus 2019: 711–712).

5 The principial investigators of this project were Esther Jahns and Oliver Bunk.
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 13

We started with an explorative focus-group discussion6 with four students from

different social and linguistic backgrounds, assuming that the language ideologies
prevailing in the educational sector (see Section 2.3) and the (non)-academic back-
ground (Wagner 2012: 71) might have an influence on speakers’ lived experience
with and perception of academic registers.
The focus-group discussion confirmed that the academic registers7 affect the
level of oral participation in university classes. Another important outcome was the
difference the group members perceived between first academics8 and students
with an academic background concerning the ease or level of oral participation.
During the discussion, it became clear that participation varies also across the dif-
ferent disciplines.
Because of these initial insights that were supported by findings from the litera-
ture, we looked for monolingual and multilingual participants with and without an
academic background and from different disciplines. We conducted a total of 12
individual interviews with students from the Carl von Ossietzky University of
Oldenburg. Concerning the categories that we hypothesized to have an effect, the
distribution was as follows:
– 6 of the interviewees defined themselves as female, 6 as male;
– 6 had an academic background, 6 were first academics;
– 6 were monolingual speakers of German, 6 were bilingual or multilingual with
Azerbaijani, Kurdish, Low German,9 Spanish or Turkish in addition to German.

The range of disciplines they studied included English, Gender Studies, German,
History, Spanish, Medicine, Philosophy, Special Needs Education, Social Sciences,
Technology, and Business Administration.
The interviews were semi-structured and covered four general topics: aca-
demic language (first contact, perception, description), oral participation (indivi-
dual experience and development, factors that influence it), emotions and experi-
ences of discrimination in this context. We started each interview with a question
concerning the respondent’s first impression of the language used at the university,

6 See Barbour (2007) for a detailed description of focus groups in the research design.
7 As we presumed that university students might not be familiar with the concept of register, during
the focus group and the interviews we used Sprache an der Universität (‘language at university’) or
Sprachgebrauch an der Universität (‘language use at university’) instead.
8 Students with an academic background have at least one parent who pursued studies in a higher
education institution (HEI). We define ‘first academics’ as students whose parents did not study in a
HEI. They might, however, have siblings who are or were enrolled in an HEI.
9 The university is located in a region where Low German is (still) spoken and used as a family lan-
guage.
14 Esther Jahns MOUTON

but covered the other topics in varying order depending on how the interview de-
veloped. The minimum duration of an interview was 60 minutes; the maximum was
90 minutes.
All interviews were transcribed and coded with MAXQDA. Speakers were anon-
ymized by means of a code containing the number of the interview, a F or M for the
gender, mo for monolingual or bi for bilingual, and na for a non-academic back-
ground or ac for an academic background, e.g., 12Mbina.
For the analysis, we coded the data based on the four general topics of the inter-
view and eventually added codes and categories that emerged from the data in-
spired by the principles of Grounded Theory (Charmaz 2010) in order to grasp the
interviewees’ perspective on and perception of language anxiety, as well as factors
contributing to it.

4 Findings and discussion

All interviews started with the interviewer’s request to the participants to remem-
ber and describe how they perceived and felt about the language use they encoun-
tered in the first seminars they attended during their first week at university.
Speakers’ answers and perceptions varied quite significantly. While some intervie-
wees felt well prepared by their prior school experience and did not perceive a
great difference concerning the language use at the university or considered it ade-
quate, others described their first contact with the academic registers as a Schock
(‘shock’) and perceived them as exklusiv (‘exclusive’) and unnötig kompliziert (‘un-
necessarily complicated’). In this section, I will focus on interviewees who stated
that their oral participation was affected by the academic registers in order to iden-
tify which factors contribute to academic register anxiety (and what the role of
language ideologies is in this context). To avoid confusion between the numbers of
the quotes and the numbers of the respective speakers, I use the letters A-L for the
latter.
In the first quote, speaker K, who describes herself as feeling anxious concern-
ing oral participation in class, explains in more detail what happens when she is
(thinking of) participating.

(1) K: Absolutes (lacht) Herzrasen. [...] Ja, also auch heute noch. [...] Schon wenn ich darüber
nachdenke, ob ich meinen Arm hebe, ist mein (lacht) Herz schon am Rasen. [...] Ja, auch
oder wenn ich jetzt zum Beispiel nicht die richtigen Worte finde, um das passend auszu-
drücken. Also darüber denkst du ja lange nach, wie ich Sachen formuliere. Ja, das (lacht)
braucht sehr viel Zeit dann, wo manchmal das Thema schon längst vorbei ist, weil ich so
lange darüber nachgedacht hab‘: ‚Wie kann ich das jetzt gut formulieren?‘
(11Fmona, 17:06)
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 15

Total (laughs) heart-racing. [...] Yes, even today still. [...] Even when I just think about
raising my arm, my (laughs) heart is already racing. [...] Yes, and also when I don’t find
the right words, for example, to put it adequately. Well, you do in fact think for a long
time, how I say something. Yes, that (laughs) takes a lot of time, and sometimes the topic is
already long gone, because it took me so long to think: ‘How can I say this in a good
way?’10

This quote describes quite nicely some general characteristics of language anxiety,
like the emotional and physical reaction, the academic register as the actual trigger
of these emotions, and the consequences for participation. The pressure to find die
richtigen Worte (‘the right/correct words’), i.e., to express oneself in an adequate
and accepted way, is so strong that it sometimes prevents the student from contri-
buting at all. This reaction seems not to have changed a lot for her in the course of
her studies.
Other interviewees describe a perceived difference between themselves and
others concerning the adoption of academic registers (2) and during their own de-
velopment over the course of time (3).
Student L has a non-academic background and is answering the question
whether there is a difference in the quality or quantity of oral participation be-
tween students with and without an academic background:

(2) L: Mh, (lacht) Ich glaube die reden einfach leichter, also manchmal ähm, die reden dann
auch genauso wie Dozenten so viel, ganz viel drumherum. Sie erzählen da ‘n drei
Minuten Monolog und dann eigentlich geht’s nur um eine Sache, [...]. Die können dann/
haben das besser adaptiert als ich, dieses überspitzte Reden und... Doch. Also ich glaube
die meisten also Akademikerkinder, die äh melden sich schon mehr.
(09Mbina, 42:31)

Hm, (laughs) I think they just talk more easily, well sometimes, hm, they just talk like the
lecturers, just hedging around the subject. They give like a three-minute monologue and
in the end, it’s only about one thing, [...]. They are able to/have adapted to it better than I,
this exaggerated talking and... Yes. Well, I think most of those with an academic back-
ground actually raise their hands more often.

He perceives students with an academic background as adapting easier to the ex-

pected way of speaking and admits that he has not adapted to the registers as well
as they have. However, it seems that he is not aiming to acquire the registers com-
pletely, as he distances himself from this way of speaking by describing it in a nega-
tive way as drumherum reden (‘hedging around the subject’) and überspitzt (‘exag-

10 All interviews were conducted in German. The English translations of the quotes used in this arti-
cle are my own.
16 Esther Jahns MOUTON

gerated’).11 Therefore, this quote is an obvious example of metapragmatic position-

ing (Spitzmüller 2013), as the speaker evaluates the academic registers and positions
himself towards them, as well as towards speakers with an academic background
who use them, from his perspective, better or more easily. This distancing could be
interpreted either as a face- or identity-saving strategy (Morek & Heller 2012: 80–81)
in a setting where the speaker perceives his language use as different in the eyes of
others (Busch 2021: 20), or as a form of resilience against the pressure that academic
registers can exert. The latter could be supported by the fact that the student ex-
plains later in the interview that due to the professional training he completed be-
fore starting university, he feels more self-assured about his qualities and compe-
tences and less threatened by the registers he does not master completely.
Interviewee B, who described the academic registers as exclusive, realized that
she has adapted pretty well to the expected way of speaking in the course of her
studies, even to the point that others feel excluded when she is talking:

(3) B: Ich weiß, dass ich auch sehr exklusiv spreche und mir Leute das spiegeln und sagen,
dass... ‘Ich hab/versteh’ gar nicht, was du von mir möchtest.’ Und ich glaub jetzt merk’ ich
erst: Ok, das ist genau dieselbe Ohnmachtserfahrung, die ich damals gemacht habe, aber
gar nicht einordnen konnte, weil ich gar nicht wusste, dass ich die quasi gemacht habe, weil
mir ist das nie so aufgefallen. Ich dachte, das ist einfach... Ich versteh quasi einfach oder
komm nicht gut genug mit im Fach äh. Obwohl ich eigentlich immer ganz gut mitkam.
(02Fmona, 03:30)

I know that I also speak in a very exclusive way and people react to this and say that... ‘I
have/do not understand what you want from me.’ And I think it’s only now that I realize:
Ok, that is exactly the same feeling of powerlessness that I experienced, but that I couldn’t
grasp, because I didn’t know that I was experiencing it, because I never noticed it. I was
thinking it’s just because... I just, like, don’t understand or can’t follow along in the sub-
ject. Even though I could always follow pretty well, actually.

Speaker B can only make sense of her experience in retrospect. While she now gets
reactions from others to the way of speaking she has adopted, she realizes that the
language was the reason for her elusive discomfort when entering university. As
she could not grasp the reason for this discomfort at the time, which can also be
interpreted as a feeling of not belonging, she linked her feeling of powerlessness to
her lack of competence in the discipline itself, questioning her cognitive abilities.
She ended up doubting herself even though she already knew then that this was not
justified. This feeling of insecurity that can lead to silence is labeled by Busch (2021:
21) as sprachliche Ohnmacht (‘linguistic powerlessness’). Despite the fact that others

11 See Oldani & Truan (2022) for a similar experience of a bilingual university student.
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 17

confirm her proficiency in the academic register, she admits later in the interview
that the fear of being outed as not belonging and not mastering the registers
prevails:

(4) B: Ja und es ist immer auch ‘n bisschen die Angst so aufzufliegen und eigentlich, dass das
dann alle merken, dass man eigentlich gar nicht so wortgewandt ist, wie man da gerade
vorgibt zu sein. Und dass man so’n bisschen entlarvt wird, da eigentlich gar nicht, gar nicht
so richtig reinzupassen und vielleicht nicht richtig zu zugehören. [...] Ok, wahrscheinlich ist
meine Angst äh unberechtigt und ich pass’ wirklich gut hier rein und es merkt niemand.
Aber ich glaub’ diese unterschwellige Angst ja vergeht einfach nicht so richtig.
(02Fmona, 35:24)

Yes, and it’s always also the fear of exposing yourself and actually that everybody realizes
you’re not as eloquent as you’re pretending to be. And that you’re outed as not really
fitting in and not really belonging maybe. [...] Okay, maybe my fear is, uh, not justified
and I really fit in well and nobody notices. But I think this subliminal fear, yes, just doesn’t
go away completely.

The use of auffliegen (‘to expose’), entlarven (‘to out’ or ‘to reveal’), and vorgeben (‘to
pretend’) suggests that she somehow feels like a fraud when using the academic
registers. This indicates that she perceives eloquence as a sort of shibboleth (Busch
& Spitzmüller 2021) or cluster of shibboleths, such that someone who masters the
academic registers belongs to the academic community. This could also be under-
stood as enregisterment (Agha 2005), because for her the academic registers seem to
be the accepted and typical registers for speakers with an academic background or
at least for speakers belonging to the academic community. Even though reactions
from peers and professors prove that she has adapted to the registers, the fear pre-
vails that she does not master them well enough and thus risks being ‘exposed’ as
not being a legitimate member of the community. The reason why she does not
expect to belong, or questions the possibility, might lie in her non-academic back-
ground that she brings up fairly early in the interview. She describes a strong am-
bivalence when it comes to this background. She often hopes not to be exposed as
someone with a non-academic background, but sometimes also wishes to be per-
ceived as a first academic. She also mentions that, concerning language use, she
does not feel completely comfortable when speaking either with her family or at
university. Thus, adapting to a new language use affects her identity in a significant
way and leads to being perceived as not or no longer completely belonging by others
(her family) and not (yet) belonging to the academic community by herself. This self-
perception, however, is influenced by the presumed and expected perception of
others, namely accepted and ‘legitimate’ members of the academic community. This
is in line with Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, which can be understood as a ‘class’ (or
social group)-related incorporated behavior that also includes the use of language.
18 Esther Jahns MOUTON

The fact that the behavior is the individual outcome of a process of socialization
makes it difficult or almost impossible to adapt to the habitus of another (socially
privileged) group (Fröhlich 2014; Spitzmüller 2022: 226–227). This means, in this
case, that student B as a student without an academic background is trying to adapt
to the academic norms of speaking, but cannot get rid of the feeling that she has not
grasped the whole picture or overlooked something, as she lacks the socialization of
her peers with an academic background. She therefore constantly fears being ex-
posed as a fraud, only pretending to belong.
Another way of feeling outed is experienced by the following multilingual
speaker C. Her languages are German, Turkish, and Kurdish.

(5) C: Angst in dem Sinne, dass du halt abgestempelt wirst. Weil ich ja halt noch diesen Mi-
grationshintergrund habe. Und ich mir so denke [...], du wirst so abgestempelt. Und so
nach dem Motto: durch diesen Migrationshintergrund, kann sie sich sprachlich nicht so
ausdrücken, dass es gerade inhaltlich passt. Und wenn ich unsicher bin und denke, ich
kann mich vielleicht fachsprachlich nicht gut genug ausdrücken, dann halt ich mich auch
zurück, damit ich halt nicht einfach abgestempelt werde.
(03Fbiac, 47:58)

Anxiety in the sense of being written off. Because I still have this migration background.
And I think to myself [...], you’re being written off. And according to the principle: Because
of this migration background, she can’t express herself appropriately for the content. And
when I’m insecure and think that I might not be able to express myself well enough in a
discipline-specific way, then I hold back, because I don’t want to be written off.

While speaker B (4) is anxious that some part of her identity will be revealed that
she considers inadequate for the academic setting, speaker C feels that one part of
her identity, namely her migration background, will be taken as a reason or an
explanation for everything she does. Interestingly, she switches from first person to
third person when she talks about herself as having a migration background. This
might indicate that she is now taking over the role and voice of others who perceive
and construct her in this way and thus deny her access to the group of ‘real’ Ger-
mans that possess an unquestioned mastery of the German language (see above on
migration background and the axes of lived experience according to Busch 2021).
Here again, the academic registers affect her oral participation, as speaker C decides
to remain silent in cases where she is not completely sure about the academic word-
ing. It also affects her self-perception of her cognitive abilities as was the case for
speaker B (3), linking her perceived (non-)mastery of the academic register to her
competence in the discipline:
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 19

(6) C: Sprache kann so ein Faktor sein, dass man anfängt, an sich selber zu zweifeln, obwohl
man von den Fächern her, von der Didaktik her, eigentlich es richtig draufhat.
(03Fbiac, 1:05:40)

Language can be such a factor that it makes you doubt yourself, even though as far as the
subjects go, didactics, you really got it.

Like speaker K, she feels a pressure to perform linguistically, but in her experience
the pressure is even higher for speakers who are constructed as having a migration
background. She has to prove her belonging to the academic community with even
better linguistic skills than those without a migration background:

(7) C: Ich hab‘ immer das Gefühl, dass Migrantenkinder sich viel mehr beweisen müssen im
universitären Rahmen, gerade in Germanistik. Ich hab‘ immer das Gefühl, dass man
mehr machen muss, sprachlich noch besser sein muss.
(03Fbiac, 1:03:42)

I always have this feeling that children of migrants have to prove themselves much more
in the university context, especially in the German department. I always have the feeling
that you have to do more, be better concerning the language.

Interestingly, in only two of the interviews with bi- or multilingual speakers did
multilingualism, or more precisely, the language ideologies linked to it, come up as
a factor influencing oral participation. This was the case in the interview with
speaker C (see above), with Turkish and Kurdish as part of her repertoire, and with
speaker J, who speaks Turkish and Azerbaijani. Speakers with Low German as (one)
family language did not mention this language either at all or as having an influence
on their oral participation. Speaker E, with Spanish as one of her languages, re-
ported that she would love to be perceived more often as a speaker of Spanish. Thus,
multilingualism alone cannot be seen as a factor hindering oral participation or
fostering academic register anxiety. However, language ideologies regarding lan-
guages besides German in the speakers’ repertoire, i.e., the different prestige that
the languages enjoy in German society, are an important factor. Speakers of lan-
guages that enjoy lower prestige, like Kurdish and Turkish, feel reduced to the mi-
gration background that others perceive them as having. They experience low ex-
pectations regarding their linguistic competences and therefore perceive a higher
pressure to perform linguistically according to the norm. In consequence, they par-
ticipate to a lesser extent in order to avoid further feeding the stereotypes with
which they are confronted. In contrast, Spanish enjoys a higher prestige in German
society, and Low German at least in the area in which the university is located. Low
German is spoken in this very area and enjoys prestige within the university, as it is
an area of both research and teaching. Thus, while speaker E would love to fore-
20 Esther Jahns MOUTON

ground the Spanish-speaking part of her identity in order to enjoy the prestige with
which the language is associated, speakers C and J wish to avoid focusing on the
languages in their repertoire that are associated with migration and are perceived
by others as an index for lower proficiency in German (see elite bilingualism in
Section 2.3 and Oldani & Truan 2022 for expectations concerning linguistic abilities
for students that are perceived as having a migration background).

The examples from my data indicate a strong link between the academic registers
and the extent of oral participation in university classes. Academic registers can
trigger strong emotions like anxiety that reduce or even hinder oral participation.
The pressure to conform to the linguistic norms that are perceived despite being
neither transparent nor stated explicitly is felt by some of the students to be very
high. On the other hand, no one factor, like multilingualism or a (non-)academic
background, could be singled out to generally or solely trigger academic register
anxiety. Nevertheless, I would argue that speakers’ backgrounds, in a very broad
sense, in combination with language ideologies can influence academic register
anxiety in both directions. I understand background as speakers’ individual lin-
guistic, social, and professional biographies including their lived experiences due
to these biographies. Speakers’ backgrounds can be either constructed by others,
as in the case of a migration background, or felt by the speakers themselves, like
the experience of completing some type of professional training. Moreover, the
external perception by others can also influence one’s self-perception, as in the
case of speaker C who defines herself as someone with a migration background.
Regardless of whether it is a felt or assigned background, it can affect the speaker
and his or her perception and interpretation of further experiences.
There are several background settings that have a positive effect on participa-
tion in university classes or an attenuating effect with respect to academic register
anxiety. First of all, language socialization at home that encompasses a language use
similar to or in part overlapping with the academic registers seem to lead to more
ease in oral participation. Some of the speakers without an academic background
presume speakers with it to have received this socialization (cf. Bourdieu’s habitus
concept), and one student from an academic family overtly agreed in the interview.
She did mention, however, settings in which she reduces her participation as well.
In addition to this linguistic (and presumably also social) factor, two other fac-
tors are linked to an individual’s professional biography. Like speaker B (example
3), most speakers reported that their participation increased over the course of their
studies, as they acquired more knowledge in their respective disciplines and with
this gained confidence in their competence. We can assume that the acquisition of
academic competence in the chosen discipline goes along and is intertwined with
the acquisition of the academic registers and that the opposite of the vicious circle
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 21

of avoidance (see Section on MLA/HLA above) takes place, namely that the use of
academic registers leads to a feeling of proficiency in them, which eases increased
participation. Another factor with an attenuating effect seems to be a an accom-
plished professional training (speaker L). In this case, the professional competence
that the student gained made it less important for him to demonstrate his compe-
tence and belonging to the academic community through linguistic means.
I argue based on my data that this linking of professional/academic and linguis-
tic competence is the basis for a language ideology that prevails in this context.
Proficiency in the academic registers is equated with competence in the respective
discipline, which means that mastering the registers is understood and perceived as
demonstrating one’s competence in the respective discipline. This is in line with
Rhodes et al., who emphasize: “Registers as Agha (2005) shows, produce social
boundaries by creating groups. That which is marked as ‘academic’ contrasts with
that which is not, thus AL [academic language] can serve as a means of making and
marking experts from non-experts” (2021: 525).
This language ideology exerts an especially high pressure on those whose com-
petence has been questioned or who expect not to belong due to previous experi-
ences as they have to demonstrate their academic competence and belonging
through mastery of the academic registers. This is the case for multilinguals who
speak a language that does not enjoy a high prestige and is associated with migra-
tion, as the quotes from speaker C show. In her experience, it is not enough to mas-
ter academic registers; as a person who is perceived as having a migration back-
ground, she feels pressure to do even better. The pressure to perform linguistically
in an adequate (or even better) way in order to demonstrate one’s academic compe-
tence in a discipline can also be seen in the quotes from speakers K and B. Even
though speakers know better, this ideology affects their self-perception, as can be
seen in the quotes from speakers B and C who report that language is the reason for
doubting their academic competence. In contrast, those whose competence has
been demonstrated or is unquestioned, as can be assumed for the teaching staff, for
example, can deviate from the linguistic norm or at least feel less pressure and
participate more easily. This is the case for almost all speakers who feel they have
acquired more competence in their discipline during their studies (see above), but
also for speaker L, whose professional competence was demonstrated by the profes-
sional training he completed successfully. Nevertheless, he is not completely at ease,
as this language ideology is powerful.
22 Esther Jahns MOUTON

5 Conclusion
In this paper, I have shown based on data from qualitative interviews that the aca-
demic registers can trigger strong emotions and hinder oral participation. I argue
that these emotions and reactions to the academic registers can be considered a
form of language anxiety, as causes and triggers investigated for other forms of LA
could be identified in the university context as well and were confirmed by the data
from the interviews. These include the formal setting and the prestige of a univer-
sity degree including the presumed socio-economic advantages, but also questions
of identity and belonging affected by the previous and currently lived linguistic
experiences of the individual and mediated by language ideologies. I argue that it is
not the different named languages that are the buttress of language anxiety, but
rather the social inequalities that are reproduced in the form of different and ex-
cluding language uses.
The concept of language anxiety (LA) can therefore be extended beyond the use
of different named languages to that of different registers as well, encompassing not
only the anxiety triggered by the learning and use of a foreign language (FA) in a
closed setting and of different languages in an everyday setting (HLA/MLA), but also
of a different register (academic register anxiety) in the university setting. While
the distinctiveness of a foreign language compared to the speaker’s L1 is clear and
the learner presumably expects no or low proficiency in this foreign language at the
start, the distinctiveness of the academic registers is less obvious and students
might not expect to be confronted with a feeling of low proficiency concerning this
language use when entering university, especially as the registers (perceived or not)
are part of the language in which they have been educated. The habitus prevailing
at German universities might therefore be better described not only as monolin-
gual, but monoglossic as accepted members of the academic community, like the
teaching staff, often act as though the academic registers are uncontested and im-
plicit. Despite this overall picture, however, there are significant differences be-
tween the disciplines that came up in the interviews (not included in the quotes
presented here). Very generally, it can be said that in the more applied disciplines
students seldom seem to experience academic register anxiety. Whether this is due
to a lesser use of academic registers or whether other factors help reduce this effect
cannot be concluded from the data.
Language ideologies are the core reason for the emotions triggered by aca-
demic registers. In addition to those like the ideologies of homogeneity and of elite
bilingualism, another ideology could be revealed to be especially powerful in this
context. This ideology could be described as the conviction that linguistic compe-
tence (understood as proficiency and fluency in the academic registers) equals dis-
cipline-specific academic competence (understood as expertise in the respective
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 23

field of study). Therefore, every deviation from the expected norm has the power to
mark speakers as lacking the academic competence to successfully pursue their stu-
dies and might even question their belonging to the academic community. The
power of this ideology can be seen in the fact that even though speakers know that
they have the required academic competence in their respective discipline, they
start to doubt this.
As the analysis of the interviews revealed, not every student feels intimidated
by the academic registers and those who report being affected by it are so to varying
degrees on the inter- and intrapersonal levels. A non-academic background or mul-
tilingualism do not inevitably lead to academic register anxiety. Those who have
already experienced exclusion or question their belonging to the academic commu-
nity due to their linguistic and social biography are, however, more likely to feel the
pressure of the prevailing language ideology and might at least reduce their oral
participation.
Thus, in order to ensure the participation of all students and avoid exclusion or
the reproduction of social inequalities, universities and especially teaching staff
should strive to prevent academic register anxiety. As this article has focused on the
question of whether academic register anxiety exists and what factors contribute to
it, more research should be done in order to determine factors that attenuate and
reduce it. However, what should have become clear already is that transparency
and reflection are key. This means that from their first day at university students
should be explicitly and redundantly informed about the fact that they are expected
to acquire new registers and that this acquisition is a process. But this means also
that prevailing language ideologies should be an object of both self-reflection and
open discussion, including the question about the benefits and limitations of the use
of academic registers.

References
Adler, Astrid & Maria Ribeiro Silveira. 2020. Spracheinstellungen in Deutschland – Was die Menschen in
Deutschland über Sprache denken. In Sprachreport, 16–24. Mannheim: Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche
Sprache (IDS).
Agha, Asif. 2005. Voice, Footing, Enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15(1). 38–59.
Barbour, Rosaline S. 2007. Doing focus groups (The Sage qualitative research kit / ed. by Uwe FlickPt. 4).
Los Angeles: SAGE.
Becker, Anna. 2021. “I’m Always in This Conflict” – Students’ Struggle of Plurilingual Identity Expression,
Linguistic Insecurity, and Assimilation in Switzerland’s Higher Education. European Education 53(1).
15–30.
Blommaert, Jan. 1999. The debate is open. In Jan Blommaert (ed.), Language Ideological Debates
(Language, Power and Social Process 2), 1–38. Berlin: de Gruyter.
24 Esther Jahns MOUTON

Bunk, Oliver. In press. The anxious heritage speaker?: Language anxiety and insecurity in multilingual
contexts. In Artemis Alexiadou, Claudio Scarvaglieri, Christoph Schroeder & Heike Wiese (eds.), The
Construction of multilinguals as others: Do we practice what we preach? Berlin: Language Science Press.
Busch, Brigitta. 2021. Mehrsprachigkeit, 3rd edn. (UTB Sprachwissenschaft 3774). Wien: Facultas.
Busch, Brigitta & Jürgen Spitzmüller. 2021. Indexical borders: the sociolinguistic scales of the shibboleth.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2021(272). 127–152.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2010. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los
Angeles, Calif.: SAGE.
Cummins, Jim. 2008. BICS and CALP: Empirical and Theoretical Status of the Distinction. In Nancy
H. Hornberger (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (Springer eBook Collection Huma-
nities, Social Science and Law), 71–83. Boston, MA: Springer Science+Business Media LLC.
Dannerer, Monika. 2018. Sprachwahl, Sprachvariation und Sprachbewertung an der Universität. In Ar-
nulf Deppermann & Silke Reineke (eds.), Sprache im kommunikativen, interaktiven und kulturellen
Kontext (Germanistische Sprachwissenschaft um 2020), 169–192. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Dirim, İnci. 2020. Der Natiolekt als hegemoniales Instrument der Verweigerung von Zugehörigkeit. In
Claus Altmayer, Carlotta von Maltzan & Rebecca Zabel (eds.), Zugehörigkeiten: Ansätze und Perspek-
tiven in Germanistik und Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache (Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache
15), 37–53. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
Ehlich, Konrad. 1999. Alltägliche Wissenschaftssprache. Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache 26(1).
3–24.
Fandrych, Christian. 2006. Bildhaftigkeit und Formelhaftigkeit in der allgemeinen Wissenschaftssprache
als Herausforderung für Deutsch als Fremdsprache. In Konrad Ehlich (ed.), Die Wissenschaft und ihre
Sprachen (Linguistic Insights – Studies in Language and Communication 52), 39–61. Bern, Berlin,
Frankfurt am Main, Wien: Lang.
Fröhlich, Gerhard. 2014. Einverleibung (incorporation). In Gerhard Fröhlich & Boike Rehbein (eds.),
Bourdieu-Handbuch: Leben – Werk – Wirkung, 81–90. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
Gogolin, Ingrid. 1994. Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Zugl.: Hamburg, Univ., Habil.-
Schr., 1992 (Internationale Hochschulschriften). Münster: Waxmann.
Gogolin, Ingrid & Joana Duarte. 2016. Bildungssprache. In Jörg Kilian (ed.), Handbuch Sprache in der
Bildung (Handbücher Sprachwissen (HSW) Serv.21), 478–499. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Inc.
Horwitz, Elaine K. 2001. Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (21).
112–126.
Horwitz, Elaine K., Michael B. Horwitz & Joann Cope. 1986. Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety. The
Modern Language Journal 70(2). 125–132.
Hurst, Ellen, Mbulungeni Madiba & Shannon Morreira. 2017. Surfacing and Valuing Students’ Linguistic
Resources in an English-Dominant University. In David M. Palfreyman (ed.), Academic Biliteracies:
Multilingual Repertoires in Higher Education (Bilingual Education & Bilingualism), 76–95. Bristol:
Channel View Publications.
Irvine, Judith T. 1989. when talk isn’t cheap: language and political economy. American Ethnologist 16(2).
248–267.
Irvine, Judith T. & Susan Gal. 2000. Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In Paul V. Kroskrity
(ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities & identities (School of American Research advanced
seminar series), 35–84.
Jahns, Esther. 2024. Diglossic translanguaging – The multilingual repertoire of German-speaking Jews in
Berlin (Language and social life). Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.
Kroskrity, Paul V. 2004. Language Ideologies. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A companion to linguistic
anthropology (Blackwell companions to anthropology 1), 496–517. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
 MOUTON Academic register anxiety? 25

Labov, William. 2006. The social stratification of English in New York City, 2nd edn. Cambridge UK, New
York: Cambridge University Press.
MacIntyre, Peter D. 1999. Language anxiety: A review of literature for language teachers. In Dolly
J. Young (ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a
low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (The McGraw-Hill second language professional series), 24–43.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
MacIntyre, Peter D. 2017. An Overview of Language Anxiety Research and Trends in its Development. In
Mark Daubney, Jean-Marc Dewaele & Christina Gkonou (eds.), New Insights into Language Anxiety:
Theory, Research and Educational Implications (Second Language Acquisition), 11–30. Blue Ridge
Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Maitz, Péter & Stephan Elspaß. 2013. Zur Ideologie des ‘Gesprochen Standarddeutsch’. In Jörg Hage-
mann, Wolf P. Klein & Sven Staffeldt (eds.), Pragmatischer Standard (Stauffenburg Linguistik 73),
35–48. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
Mecheril, Paul & Thomas Quehl. 2006. Sprache und Macht: Theoretische Facetten eines (migrations-)
pädagogischen Zusammenhangs. In Paul Mecheril (ed.), Die Macht der Sprachen: Englische Perspek-
tiven auf die mehrsprachige Schule, 355–381. Münster, München, Berlin: Waxmann.
Morek, Miriam. 2018. „Der redt halt so komisch.“: Mehrsprachigkeit und Sprachideolgien in Gesprächen
unter Dortmunder Schülerinnen und Schülern. In Markus Denkler (ed.), Dortmund – sprachliche
Vielfalt in der Stadt (Niederdeutsche Studien 59), 239–278. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau Verlag.
Morek, Miriam & Vivien Heller. 2012. Bildungssprache ‒ Kommunikative, epistemische, soziale und in-
teraktive Aspekte ihres Gebrauchs. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 2012(57). 67–101.
Oldani, Martina & Naomi Truan. 2022. Navigating the German school system when being perceived as a
student ‘with migration background’: Students’ perspectives on linguistic racism. Linguistics and
Education 71. 1–15.
Pescuma, Valentina N., Dina Serova, Julia Lukassek, Antje Sauermann, Roland Schäfer, Aria Adli, Felix
Bildhauer, Markus Egg, Kristina Hülk, Aine Ito, Stefanie Jannedy, Valia Kordoni, Milena Kuehnast,
Silvia Kutscher, Robert Lange, Nico Lehmann, Mingya Liu, Beate Lütke, Katja Maquate, Christine
Mooshammer, Vahid Mortezapour, Stefan Müller, Muriel Norde, Elizabeth Pankratz, Angela G. Pa-
tarroyo, Ana-Maria Pleşca, Camilo R. Ronderos, Stephanie Rotter, Uli Sauerland, Gohar Schnelle,
Britta Schulte, Gediminas Schüppenhauer, Bianca M. Sell, Stephanie Solt, Megumi Terada, Dimitra
Tsiapou, Elisabeth Verhoeven, Melanie Weirich, Heike Wiese, Kathy Zaruba, Lars E. Zeige, Anke
Lüdeling & Pia Knoeferle. 2022. Situating language register across the ages, languages, modalities,
and cultural aspects: Evidence from complementary methods. Frontiers in psychology 13. 1–31.
Pohl, Thorsten. 2007. Studien zur Ontogenese wissenschaftlichen Schreibens. Zugl.: Siegen, Univ., Diss.,
2005 (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 271). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Preston, Dennis R. 2013. Linguistic Insecurity Forty Years Later. Journal of English Linguistics 41(4). 304–331.
Rhodes, Catherine R., Katherine Clonan-Roy & Stanton E. F. Wortham. 2021. Making language ‘aca-
demic’: language ideologies, enregisterment, and ontogenesis. Language and Education 35(6). 522–
538.
Riebling, Linda. 2013. Heuristik der Bildungssprache. In Ingrid Gogolin, Imke Lange, Ute Michel & Hans
H. Reich (eds.), Herausforderung Bildungssprache – und wie man sie meistert (FörMig-Edition 9),
106–153. Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann.
Roelcke, Thorsten D. 2020. Fachsprachen, 4th edn. (ESV basics 37). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Scarvaglieri, Claudio & Claudia Zech. 2013. “ganz normale Jugendliche, allerdings meist mit Migrations-
hintergrund„. Eine funktional-semantische Analyse von “Migrationshintergrund„. Zeitschrift für
Angewandte Linguistik 2013(58). 201–227.
26 Esther Jahns MOUTON

Schroedler, Tobias, Judith Purkarthofer & Katja F. Cantone. 2022. The prestige and perceived value of home
languages. Insights from an exploratory study on multilingual speakers’ own perceptions and ex-
periences of linguistic discrimination. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1–18.
Sevinç, Yeşim & Ad Backus. 2019. Anxiety, language use and linguistic competence in an immigrant
context: a vicious circle? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(6). 706–724.
Sevinç, Yeşim & Jean-Marc Dewaele. 2018. Heritage language anxiety and majority language anxiety
among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(2). 159–179.
Spitzmüller, Jürgen. 2013. Metapragmatik, Indexikalität, soziale Registrierung. Zur diskursiven Konstruk-
tion sprachideologischer Positionen. Zeitschrift für Diskursforschung 1(3). 263–287.
Spitzmüller, Jürgen. 2022. Soziolinguistik: Eine Einführung (Lehrbuch). Berlin, Heidelberg: J. B. Metzler.
Wagner, Wolf. 2012. Uni-Angst und Uni-Bluff heute: Wie studieren und sich nicht verlieren. Berlin: Rotbuch
Verlag.
Wiese, Heike. 2015. “This migrants’ babble is not a German dialect!”: The interaction of standard
language ideology and ‘us’/‘them’ dichotomies in the public discourse on a multiethnolect.
Language in Society 44(3). 341–368.
Wiese, Heike, Artemis Alexiadou, Claudio Scarvaglieri & Christoph Schroeder. 2022. Multilinguals as
Others in society and academia: Challenges of belonging under a monolingual habitus. Urban
Language & Literacies 302. 1–19.
Wiese, Heike, Rosemarie Tracy & Anke Sennema. 2020. Deutschpflicht auf dem Schulhof?: Warum wir
Mehrsprachigkeit brauchen (Duden). Berlin: Dudenverlag.
Woolard, Kathryn A. & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1994. Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology
23(1). 55–82.