Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Next Article in Journal
You Can Help Us! The Impact of Formal and Informal Second-Person Pronouns on Monetary Donations
Next Article in Special Issue
Heritage Hebrew in Finland: Insights from Multilingual Families
Previous Article in Journal
Reanalyzing Variable Agreement with tu Using an Online Megacorpus of Brazilian Portuguese
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Languages
Volume 9
Issue 6
10.3390/languages9060198
languages-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Language Policy and Practices in an Ethiopian University towards Multilingualism

by
Keresa Kumera Chali
1 and
Andrea Parapatics
2,*
1
Multilingualism Doctoral School, University of Pannonia, 1 Wartha Street, H-8200 Veszprém, Hungary
2
Institute of Hungarian and Applied Linguistics, University of Pannonia, 1 Wartha Street, H-8200 Veszprém, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Languages 2024, 9(6), 198; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9060198
Submission received: 1 February 2024 / Revised: 22 May 2024 / Accepted: 23 May 2024 / Published: 28 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Linguistic Practices in Heritage Language Acquisition)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The study explores an Ethiopian higher education institution’s language policy and practices, explicitly focusing on multilingualism. Thе rеsеarch highlights a discrеpancy between languagе policy and classroom rеalitiеs. Despite English being officially designated as the primary instructional medium of higher education institutions, the prevalent environment for teaching and learning is multilingual, incorporating Afaan Oromoo, Amharic, and other languages alongside English. This disparity challеngеs thе monolingual languagе еducation policy mandatеd by thе Ethiopian constitution. The study employs a mixed-methods approach to offer a comprehensive perspective on the issue, stressing the necessity for a more holistic understanding of the situation. Furthеrmorе, thе rеsеarch indicatеs that thе Ethiopian constitution lacks еxplicit provisions addressing multilingualism within highеr еducation institutions, rеvеaling a gap in thе lеgal framework. This misalignmеnt calls for potential policy adjustmеnts to bеttеr accommodatе thе multilingual nature of highеr еducation. Bеyond thе classroom, both instructors and studеnts frеquеntly usе Afaan Oromoo, Amharic, and othеr hеritagе languagеs in thеir intеractions, furthеr еmphasizing thе importancе of undеrstanding thеsе languagе dynamics in thе Ethiopian highеr еducation contеxt. Ovеrall, this study undеrscorеs thе nееd for a closеr еxamination of languagе practicеs and thеir implications, offеring insights into promoting morе inclusivе еducation and informеd languagе policiеs within Ethiopian highеr еducation institutions.

1. Introduction

Ethiopia has a long story of formal education rooted in its ancient civilization and closely linked to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. However, modern higher education began in 1950 with the founding of Addis Ababa University (Wondimu 2003). In the following decades, specialized higher education institutions emerged, offering training in areas such as agriculture, engineering, and public health (World Bank 2003). The Addis Ababa University became a central institution in the country’s educational landscape. Despite the slow progress in higher education between 1974 and 1991, significant reforms were introduced after the change of government in 1991. These reforms aimed to improve education at all levels and led to the establishment of new universities and the adaptation of measures to encourage private investment. Despite the impressive growth, there are still challenges in Ethiopian higher education, such as equity, quality, and the preference of the medium of instruction that greatly affect the quality of education and require continuous attention and solutions from the government. Among these challenges, this study focuses on exploring and analyzing language policy and practices in the higher education landscape of Ethiopia, more precisely as a case study in Mattu University, with an emphasis on the promotion of multilingualism. Mattu is the capital of the Illu Abba Bor zone in the Oromiya region. This city is home to many ethnic groups from different regions. Languages such as Afaan Oromoo, Amharic, Anguak, Nuer, Tigrigna, Kefa, Guragigna, and English are spoken there. Apart from the latter, the other languages spoken in Mattu are indigenous languages.
Language policy and practice in Ethiopian higher education institutions are central in shaping the linguistic fabric of a nation, exerting a profound influence on educational outcomes and contributing significantly to socio-cultural dynamics (Ricento 2006). The present study addresses the nuanced complexities of language choices and examines how a higher education institution in Ethiopia navigates the delicate balance between the preservation of indigenous languages and the integration of a global language such as English.
Ethiopia, known for its rich linguistic diversity and colorful cultural heritage, provides a unique and compelling context for the study of language policy in higher education (Molla 2018; Lanza and Woldemariam 2014). The historical evolution, spanning from the imperial era to the present day, has witnessed dynamic shifts in language preferences and educational paradigms. This study seeks to unravel the intricacies of language choices and strategies and to illuminate the multiple ways in which higher education institutions have struggled with the challenge of preserving indigenous languages while accommodating global linguistic influences.
The significance of this study is multifaceted, and it is aimed at various stakeholders, including policymakers, educators, and the general public. First, it has the potential to serve as a guide for researchers and policymakers by providing insights into the effectiveness and impact of existing language policies in Ethiopian higher education (cf. Molla 2018; see also Heugh et al. 2007 on language policy in secondary education of Ethiopia). By carefully evaluating the impact of these policies on students’ learning experiences, the study aims to provide valuable insights that can help improve multilingual education strategies and thus promote a more inclusive and effective education system (Kaplan and Baldauf 2008).
In addition, the study recognizes the broader impact of language policy on national identity, social cohesion, and the development of a skilled and diverse workforce (Shohamy 2006). In a country like Ethiopia, where linguistic diversity is intertwined with cultural richness, language policy plays a crucial role in shaping the collective identity of the population (Hudson 1996). By addressing the intricacies of language choices in higher education, the study aims to contribute to a broader societal dialog on how language can be used as a tool for unity and progress. With Ethiopia’s political, social, and educational landscape in a state of flux, a comprehensive examination of language policy in higher education is imperative.
The findings of this study are likely to support the formulation of evidence-based language policies that not only promote inclusivity within higher education institutions but also actively support the preservation and promotion of indigenous languages. In this way, the study seeks to prepare Ethiopian students for meaningful engagement on the global stage and to recognize the importance of multilingualism in an interconnected world (Crystal 2003).
In essence, this study seeks to bridge the gap between theoretical framework and practical application and to promote a nuanced understanding of language dynamics in the higher education sector in Ethiopia (Bamgbose 2005). In this way, it seeks to contribute not only to the local context but also to the broader discourse on language policy in higher education in Africa and globally, where the complexity of multilingualism continues to be a relevant and evolving topic of discussion (García 2009).

2. Languages and Language Policy in Ethiopia

2.1. General Overview

Africa is a linguistic treasure trove. It is home to some 2065 languages, which make up a third of the world’s linguistic diversity (Adegbija 1994; Batibo 2005; Eberhard et al. 2024). This diversity is spread across four major language groups—Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, and Khoisan—all of which contribute to Africa’s cultural richness (Heine and Nurse 2000; Greenberg 1981). Ethiopia, an East African country with more than 110 million inhabitants, is known for its linguistic diversity, which includes over 85 languages. This number can vary, as Lewis (2009) states, listing 86 languages. These languages can be divided into two primary language families: Afro-Asiatic and Nilo-Saharan, which are macro families. The Afro-Asiatic languages in Ethiopia mainly include the languages of the Cushitic, Omotic, and Semitic families. Within the Cushitic family, Oromo is the language with the most speakers (Lanza and Woldemariam 2014), followed by Somali and Afar. Other important languages in this family are Sidama, Kambata, and Hadiyya. Although Eberhard et al. (2024) has identified 47 Cushitic languages, this count is not definitive, as shown by the example of Oromo, which is often considered a single language with regional dialects, although it is categorized as three separate languages.
The Cushitic languages are mainly spoken in the eastern and central regions of Ethiopia. The Omotic language family, which is unique to Ethiopia, is mainly found in the Omo Valley in the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Regional State (SNNPRS). Originally classified as Western Cushitic, it was later reclassified as Omotic. Despite Theil’s (2006) assertion of independence from Afro-Asiatic, important Omotic languages such as Wolaita, Gamo, Gofa, and Dawro are still widely spoken by many people.
Another important language group in Ethiopia is the Semitic languages, including Amharic, Tigrinya, Ge’ez, and the Gurage cluster. Amharic has the most speakers within the Semitic family, followed by Tigrinya and the Gurage languages. Although there are no native speakers of Ge’ez, it serves as a classical religious language within the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church, which is widely spoken throughout the country. The Semitic languages, commonly referred to as Ethio-Semitic, are widely spoken in northern and central Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian Nilo-Saharan languages, which are spoken in the western regions on the border with Sudan and South Sudan, represent a smaller language group whose total population is less than 500,000 according to the 1994 census (OPHCC 1998).
Since 1991, Ethiopia has been divided into eleven federal, regional states, namely Afar, Amhara, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambella, Harari, Oromiya, Somali, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region, Tigray, Sidama National Regional State and Southwest Ethiopia Region, in addition to two city administrations, namely Addis Ababa City Administration and Dire Dawa. The distribution of languages in Ethiopia corresponds to the regional administrative boundaries for the five main languages: Afar, Amharic, Afaan Oromo, Somali, and Tigrinya. Apart from the regional state of Amhara, Amharic is spoken in all cities in the country and serves as a lingua franca (Meyer 2006; Meyer and Richter 2003; Lanza and Woldemariam 2014).
Tigrinya, Afar, and Somali are spoken in their respective regional states. In contrast, Afaan Oromo is spoken in Oromia regional state, Amhara regional state (in Kamise special zone of Oromiya), Somali regional state, Sidama regional state, Harari regional state, Benishangul-Gumuz region, Gambella region, and Dire Dawa city administration as Oromia region covers the largest area in central, western and southern Ethiopia. The SNNPRS is the most diverse region and consists of 56 ethnic groups. The major languages in the state include the Gurage cluster, Silti, Sidama, Wolaita, Hadiyya, Kambata, Gedeo, Gamo, and Dawro. Two regions were newly created by referendum and were part of the SNNPR. These are Sidama, which was established as Sidama National Regional State on 4 July 2020, and the Southwest Ethiopia region, which was established on 23 November 2021 (Chali and Parapatics 2023).
All languages are equally recognized in Ethiopia (Ado et al. 2021). Amharic is the working language of the central government and the working language of Addis Ababa City Administration, Dire Dawa City Administration, South Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional State, Gambella Regional State, and Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State as it serves as a lingua franca between the different ethnic groups that make up these regional states. Afar, Oromo, Somali, and Tigrinya are languages that serve as regional working languages in the regional states where they are predominantly spoken (ibid.). The people of Ethiopia are linguistically diverse and speak over 85 local languages as mother tongues (Central Statistics Agency 2008). The situation is also reflected in the country’s higher education (Mendisu and Johannessen 2016 in Kassaye et al. 2021), as many local languages are taught as school subjects, and some are used as teaching tools in elementary school (Seidel and Moritz 2009 in Kassaye et al. 2021); therefore, university students become multilingual.
Language policies in Africa vary widely, with some countries prioritizing indigenous languages and others using colonial languages as a medium of instruction (Kigamwa 2017). In Ethiopia, the 1995 constitution (Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 1995) and the 1994 education (Ministry of Education 1994) policy emphasize the use of national languages in primary education, while English is used in secondary and tertiary education levels.
The study looks at the challenges posed by language policy, particularly in higher education. The fact that Ethiopia prioritizes English as the primary medium of instruction is a cause of concern for educators and highlights the need for effective bilingual approaches to improve students’ comprehension skills and academic performance (Cummins 2000; Baker 2011).
African countries struggle with the dual presence of official colonial languages and local vernaculars. The linguistic situation in Ethiopia, shaped by historical influences, reflects a complex interplay in which the dominance of a particular language has limited the integration and recognition of indigenous languages.
In summary, the linguistic panorama of Africa reflects a dynamic interplay of historical, cultural, and social factors that shape linguistic identities. While some nations successfully embrace local languages as symbols of unity, others, such as Ethiopia, struggle with complex problems arising from historical constraints, i.e., by neglecting other indigenous languages, Amharic has been seen as a language that represents the nation and brings people together in various spheres of life, such as education, public service, social interaction, trade, and business. It was used to teach, communicate, and conduct transactions (Getachew and Derib 2006; Woldemariam 2007).
The present study highlights the need for an inclusive language policy that balances the global demands for language proficiency with the preservation of the diverse linguistic heritage in the African context. Linguistic diversity in Africa reflects a rich cultural heritage that carries the histories and identities of different communities (Heine and Nurse 2000; Adegbija 2004). The coexistence of various language families underscores the depth and breadth of Africa’s cultural richness and makes linguistic diversity an integral part of the country’s past, present, and future (Adegbija 2004).

2.2. Historical Dеvеlopmеnt of Languagе Policy in Ethiopia’s Еducation Systеm

The historical development of language policy in the Ethiopian education system is a complex story characterized by the diversity of language, culture, ethnicity, and religion. Throughout the country’s history, different rulers, from kings and emirs to queens and prime ministers, have implemented different language policies influenced by their political ideologies (McNab 1989; Heugh et al. 2007).
The establishment of the Minilik II School in 1908 marked the beginning of modern education in Ethiopia, which focused on European languages such as French, English, and Italian. This focus aimed to produce an educated elite capable of communicating internationally and representing the monarchy in diplomatic negotiations (Heugh et al. 2007). Initially, French was the only language of instruction, but it was later joined by English in 1925 (Marew 1998). These languages dominated education until the Italian occupation in 1936, when English became the national language (Gebremedhin 1993). After the withdrawal of the Italians in 1941, English remained the national language until the early 1960s, when Amharic was declared the language of instruction for primary education (grades 1–6) (McNab 1989). By switching from English to Amharic, the Ministry of Education sought to address the challenges associated with language learning and language barriers and ensure a more effective and pedagogically sound approach (Heugh et al. 2007).
However, the monolingual education policy was criticized for its assimilationist approach, as only Amharic was used throughout the country and linguistic diversity. The introduction of English in grade 3 was recommended to accommodate children unfamiliar with Amharic, leading to a new English curriculum for secondary education in the academic year 1963/1964 (Tamene 2000). The political upheavals in the later years of Haile Selassie’s rule and the emergence of movements like ‘Land to the Plough’ in 1974 diverted attention away from education. After the military government took power, the language policy changed and recognized the rights of different nations and nationalities to use their languages (McNab 1989). Under the National Literacy Campaign of 1975, fifteen Ethiopian languages, including Amharic, were used in informal education (Heugh et al. 2007).
Stoddart (1986) pointed out the problems students were having with their English language skills and recommended that more time be allocated to Amharic and that English be replaced by Amharic as the medium of instruction in secondary schools. However, this recommendation overlooked the global status of English and emphasized the need to expand English provision rather than abandon it. After the collapse of the “Derg” regime in 1991, Ethiopia’s language policy underwent a significant change. The 1995 constitution recognized equal status for all Ethiopian languages and declared Amharic as the working language of the federal government. The Ministry of Education’s policy gave priority to primary education in mother tongues, recognizing the educational benefits and the right of nationalities to promote their languages.
Today, several languages are taught in elementary schools in Ethiopia, representing a commitment to linguistic diversity. Amharic, Afaan Oromoo, and Tigrinya are also offered as subjects up to the secondary school level, emphasizing the importance of developing languages and cultures of different nationalities (Heugh et al. 2007). English plays an important role in the Ethiopian education system and serves as the medium of instruction for secondary and higher education. The country’s language policy reflects a dynamic interplay between historical, political, and pedagogical considerations.
However, there seems to be a discrepancy between the constitutional mandate and the implementation of a multilingual approach in Ethiopian higher education institutions. To address this discrepancy, this study attempts to investigate and answer specific research questions:
RQ1: How does the Ethiopian constitution deal with the concept of multilingualism in higher education?
RQ2: What language practices can be observed among students and instructors in the classrooms of Mattu University?
RQ3: How do the communication patterns between students and instructors outside the classroom at Mattu University reflect the multilingualism of the university community?
By addressing these research questions, the study aims to provide insights into the congruence or divergence between constitutional language policies and practical multilingual dynamics in higher education, with an explicit focus on Mattu University.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Setting

The research was carried out on the African continent of Ethiopia, in the regional state of Oromiya, at Mattu University. It is one of the third-generation public universities in southwestern Ethiopia, founded in 2011. It is located around 600 km from the capital Addis Ababa. Ethiopia has been in civil war since 2020. The free movement of people is/was unsafe throughout the country, except in some parts of it. Since southwestern Ethiopia was safe, the authors chose Mattu University. Most students in Ethiopia also prefer this university to feel safe. Since the academic calendar was skewed across the country, there was no uniform schedule. Consequently, the researchers were forced to collect the data in summer, from the beginning of July to the end of August in 2022.
The linguistic diversity of Ethiopia, explained in the previous chapter, is also reflected in the country’s higher education (Mendisu and Johannessen 2016), as many local languages are taught as school subjects, and some are used as the medium of instruction in elementary school (Seidel and Moritz 2009). Therefore, students enter universities as multilingual.
In the experience of the first author, linguistic diversity can also be observed at Mattu University. It is common for students on campus to use different local languages to communicate with each other. This shows that they come from different ethnic groups who use different languages as mother tongues and second languages. This is practical proof of the metaphor as a common saying: “The higher education in the country represents the small Ethiopia”.

3.2. Research Design

We used a mixed-methods approach for an exploratory design. Some studies require only a single method, while others require multiple methods depending on the research questions. Researchers are interested in finding out the causal relationship or outcome of phenomena resort to experimental or quantitative research methods where all external variables must be controlled to prove that the effect is the result of an independent variable (Dornyei 2007). In contrast, in research that aims to explore the processes involved in a phenomenon, such as classroom research, the combination of the two methods may be more appropriate (ibid.). Furthermore, Dornyei (2007) notes that the mixture of the two methods has a complementary function, as it initially enables not only overlapping but also different aspects of a phenomenon to be viewed from different perspectives. It also helps to obtain a more comprehensive and complete portrait of the subject when applied sequentially, as in the case where the result of the first method explains the need for the second. It also works when researchers want to expand the scope and breadth of a study by including multiple components. Second, using mixed methods in a single study maximizes the validity of the results through method triangulation. Method triangulation is a way of testing the validity of a study’s findings using multiple methods (validation by convergence) (Creswell and Clark 2007, p. 127). In this study, the compelling reason for using the mixed methods approach is to attempt to broaden the understanding of the subject by painting a relatively more complete picture of the situation.

3.3. Participants and Sampling Techniques

The participants in the study were 349 first-year students in 2022/2023 and 108 instructors from Mattu University. They completed the questionnaires from six colleges and one school from a variety of disciplines, as follows: College of Social Sciences and Humanities, College of Natural Sciences and Computational Sciences, College of Education and Behavioral Studies, College of Engineering and Technology, College of Business and Economics, College of Health Studies, and School of Law. The sampling method used was stratified random sampling for both groups. Stratified random sampling is a probability-based technique in which the population is divided into different strata, and a sample is drawn from each of these strata. The resulting subsamples form the final sample of the study. The strength of this method is that all population groups are presented in the final sample. The stratification of the population is based on one or more significant criteria, such as gender, age, ethnic background, race, or economic status, but mainly on criteria that can be related to the research topic (Sarantakos 2012, p. 197). For this study, the stratum was formed based on their college/school. Furthermore, seven experienced instructors, one from each college at Mattu University, were selected to prepare for an interview. In purposive sampling, participants were asked to provide sufficient information for analysis (Braun and Clarke 2013, p. 56). A total of 464 respondents participated.

3.4. Instruments of Data Collection

3.4.1. Document Analysis

Documents are ‘social facts’ that are produced, shared, and used in a socially organized way (Atkinson and Coffey 1997, p. 47). Ethiopian universities are responsible to the federal government. Regions have no authority to legislate for higher education institutions, with the exception of regional colleges that train primary school instructors. As a result, there are no local or regional laws that relate to higher education institutions. Therefore, the Ethiopian Constitution of 1995 and the Education and Training Policy of 1994 were examined by the authors prior to the data collection to see how they address multilingualism in higher education institutions in Ethiopia (Chali and Parapatics 2023; see Supplementary File S1).

3.4.2. Classroom Observation

Classroom observation provides a clear picture of what the actual teaching and learning process looks like, and the richness and credibility of the information it can provide makes it a desirable tool for data collection (Hancock et al. 2001). Therefore, non-participant observation has been used in the classroom as this method provides a first-hand account of individuals’ actions rather than relying solely on their verbal statements (Denscombe 2014). In non-participant observation, the role of the observer is purely professional and focuses on documenting specific behaviors (both verbal and non-verbal) of students and instructors. This is achieved through the use of a tally sheet system and written field notes to ensure the reliability and validity of the data (Cohen and Manion 1985, p. 103). A checklist was developed for the observation, slightly adapted from Cohn et al. (2013) and Mensah (2014). This checklist (see Supplementary File S2) covers the language practices of instructors and students inside and outside the classroom.

3.4.3. Questionnaire

The questionnaire is a widely used and helpful tool for compiling survival data by providing structured, often numerical data. According to Seliger and Shohamy (1989, p. 172), the main advantage of a questionnaire is that it can be given to a large group of people at the same time. These questions were slightly adapted again from Cohn et al. (2013) and Mensah (2014), who conducted research on language policy and practice in a multilingual Namibian high school classroom and developed a questionnaire to investigate multilingual language use. The first part of the questionnaire consists of two parts. The first one is about the personal information of the participants. The second part consists of questions about language competence (on this term, see Section 4.2 below), and the next part deals with language practice inside and outside the classroom. (For the questionnaires used for the present study, see Supplementary Files S3 and S4).

3.4.4. Interview

The interview is the most frequently used method in qualitative research. Its main purpose is to provide a structured platform for interviewees to articulate their thoughts in their own words in a dialogue between two people (Leonard 2003, p. 166). A key feature of interviews is their adaptability compared to other research methods, allowing the interviewer to reflect further on the basis of the interviewee’s answers and clarify ambiguities in their statements (Gall et al. 1996, p. 289). It enables detailed information gathering, clear formulation, and flexibility that cannot be achieved with other methods (Seliger and Shohamy 1989, p. 166).
The semi-structured approach is preferred in this study because it allows the respondent to speak freely and reveal extensive information compared to a structured interview. Seven experienced instructors from Mattu University were purposively selected for the study, one from each college, as mentioned above. Accordingly, relying on the literature reviewed and slightly adapted from the abovementioned documents, we designed an interview guide containing nine open-ended yet semi-structured questions for the interviewees (see Supplementary File S5).

4. Results

4.1. Consideration of Multilingualism in Federal Documents

Ethiopia’s approach to federalism is bold compared to other very different African states. Article 39 of the Ethiopian Federal Constitution, adopted in 1995, explicitly recognizes the country’s ethnic diversity. Ethiopia is a federation made up of nations and nationalities, each of which has sovereignty as defined in Article 8 of the Constitution. Nations and nationalities with defined territorial homelands have the right to establish their own regions or even seek independence. There are eleven regions and two city administrations in the country, each of which has far-reaching powers. These include shaping policy, drafting the constitution, choosing the working language, and maintaining regional police and administrative services. However, higher education institutions such as universities are under the control of the federal government and the Ministry of Education.
For this reason, we examined the Ethiopian Constitution of 1995 and the Education and Training Policy of 1994 to see how they address multilingualism in higher educational institutions. This sub-chapter sums up the main results of this analysis in order to provide a basis for a better understanding of the findings of the present study (for details see Anonymized reference).
The study aimed to dеtеrminе whether Ethiopia has a language policy that specifically addresses multilingualism and the mеdium(s) of instruction within its general education system, as well as in the country’s highеr еducation institutions.
Thе analysis rеvеalеd that thеrе is no еxplicit languagе policy that spеcifically addresses multilingualism in thе gеnеral еducation systеm which was also confirmed in the interviews with instructors. Thе examination of thе two documеnts revealed that thеy do not еxplicitly address or considеr thе issuе of multilingualism within highеr еducation institutions. Regarding the third question, Articlе 3.5.5 in the 1995 Constitution and Article 3.5.7 in the 1994 Education and Training Policy еxplicitly statе that thе English is the language of instruction for Ethiopian highеr еducation institutions.
However, it is worth noting that despite documents mandating that English be the medium of instruction in higher education, the results of the intеrviеws, both questionnaires and classroom observations, indicate that, in practicе, this policy is being deviated from. Instructors and studеnts oftеn switch bеtwееn English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic in class, indicating a discrepancy bеtwееn the constitutional provisions and actual languagе practice, at least at Mattu University. These findings emphasize the need for further examination and potential development in this area.

4.2. Individual Language Proficiency

According to Bachman and Palmer (1996), linguistic competence is a speaker’s ability to use language for various communicative purposes. In the context of the present study, language competence is understood as the ability of multilingual people to understand language effortlessly, to articulate a variety of concepts clearly in both oral and written forms, and to interact with other speakers in a relaxed manner (Renandya et al. 2018, p. 619). Since language learning is skill-oriented, this definition shows that the main goal of language learning is to achieve a good command of the language in the areas of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Accordingly, both instructors and students were asked at the beginning of the questionnaires which language they could understand, speak, read, and write among the options listed (see Supplementary Files S3 and S4).
The students’ responses showed that 163 (46.7%) could understand English, Afaan Oromo, and Amharic among the languages listed in the questionnaire. Afaan Oromoo and English can be understood by 101 (28.9%), English and Amharic by 46 (13.2%), and “other language(s)” were marked by a few students. As the questionnaires explain, Sidamu Affo, Wolayita, Afar, Guraghe, Hadiya, Anuak, and/or Gumuz are meant as “other” languages (see Supplementary Files S3 and S4). The result of the instructors’ questionnaire showed that 100 of them (92.6%) indicated that they could understand English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic, while a couple of them marked Tigrigna or other(s) besides the mostly marked two or three languages.
A total of 151 (43.3%) students can speak English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic, 113 (32.4%) English and Afaan Oromoo, 45 (12.9%) English and Amharic, and 27 (7.7%) English, Amharic and other(s). Among instructors, 100 (92.6%) indicated that they could speak English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic. Tigrigna, Somali, and other languages were also marked by a couple of participants in addition to two or three languages mentioned above, and one student marked only Afaan Oromoo by itself.
In regard to reading, 157 (45%) students marked English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic, 109 (31.2%) English and Afaan Oromoo, and 53 (15.2%) English and Amharic. In addition, 22 students (6.3%) marked other languages besides English and Amharic, and a couple of them named Tigrigna and Somali. A total of 100 (92.6%) instructors indicated that they could read English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic, while a couple of instructors marked these three in addition to Tigrigna or another language(s).
A total of 156 students (44.7%) indicated that they could write in English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic, while 109 (31.2%) in English and Afaan Oromoo, 54 (15.5%) in English and Amharic, and 19 (5.4%) in these two languages in addition to other(s). Similarly, 101 instructors (93.5%) stated that they could write in English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic. Tigrigna, Somali, and other languages were marked a few times by both the students and the instructors regarding writing competencies.
Hammarberg (2010) states that L1 is a learner’s first language acquired in childhood; an L2 is the language(s) learned later as (a) secondary language(s). In this context, both students and instructors were asked which was their first language(s) among the listed ones. A total of 252 students (72.2%) indicated Amharic as their first language, 30 (8.2%) marked “other(s)”, 3 Tigrigna, and 2–2 students marked Afaan Oromoo and Somali. On the other hand, the responses of the instructors reveal a diverse linguistic background. Specifically, 70 (64.8%) indicated Afaan Oromoo as their first language, 21 “other(s)”, 11 Amharic, 5 Tigrigna, and 1 marked Amharic and “other(s)”.
In addition, both students and instructors were asked which language(s) they use as (a) second language(s). Among students, 193 (55.3%) indicated Amharic, 103 (29.5%) English, 23 (6.5%) Afaan Oromoo, and 17 (4,9%) as L2, and a couple of them mentioned other combinations, which included Tigrigna, Somali, and other languages. Similarly, 45 instructors (41.7%) reported Amharic as L2, 24 (22.2%) Afaan Oromoo, 21 (19%) English, 16 (14.8%) English and Amharic, while 1–1 instructor marked English and Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic and Afaan Oromoo as L2.
These results show that the majority of the students and instructors are fluent in more than one language. This corresponds to bilingualism or multilingualism, when people speak several languages in the course of their lives (Grosjean 2008; Navracsics 2016). Navracsics (2016) states that a bilingual person needs at least two languages in daily communication: one in private and one in public contexts. Taking this into account, the majority of the participants can use three languages. Furthermore, Aronin (2019) defines individual multilingualism as the ability of a person to master and use two or more languages appropriately. In line with these definitions, it can be concluded that most participants can be classified as multilingual according to their self-reflection.

4.3. Language Practices between Instructors and Students Inside the Classroom

Multilingualism is a well-discussed topic in modern societies due to historical, social, political, and economic factors. In many schools today, multilingualism is seen as an important educational goal. According to Cenoz (2013), many educational institutions around the world include multiple languages in their curriculum, either as subjects or as languages of instruction. These measures can reduce the prevalence of monolingual education and promote the inclusion of minority languages in the curriculum, as May (2008) and Baker (2011) suggest. This emerging area of research challenges the advocacy of English-only instruction (Kassaye et al. 2021). Learning is most successful when students are “taught and assessed in a language they understand and speak well” (Benson 2016, p. 3). In the present study, three questions were posed to students and instructors to explore their language use in the classroom setting. In the next couple of pages, the results are presented precisely to each question of this part regarding both students and instructors, and it is summarized at the end of the sub-chapter in Table 1 for the sake of transparency. Furthermore, the findings of the survey questions are compared to the data from the interview and the experiences of the classroom observation.
Examination of the languages that students typically use to ask and answer questions in the classroom revealed that 132 (37.7%) use a combination of English and Afaan Oromoo for this purpose, indicating a widespread bilingual approach. Also, 77 students (22.1%) reported using English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic, indicating trilingual interaction. In addition, 55 students (15.8%) use a combination of English and Amharic, while 34 students (9.7%) use Afaan Oromoo and Amharic, indicating diverse linguistic practices. Further differences arise from the fact that 22 students (6.3%) use Afaan Oromoo, 11 (3.2%) English, and 11 (3.2%) Amharic for this interaction. Four of them use English, Amharic, and other languages, some indicatеd using English in conjunction with othеr languagе(s), and thеrе wеrе isolatеd cases where studеnts used a combination of English, Afan Oromoo, Amharic besides Tigrigna or other language(s) for asking and answеring questions in thе classroom.
The results of the question asked to investigate students’ use of language to communicate in the classroom when they do not understand English show convincing patterns. A total of 150 (43%) students reported using Afaan Oromoo and Amharic for communication, indicating a widespread bilingual approach. In addition, 127 (36.4%) students used Afaan Oromoo, and 66 (18.9%) Amharic, indicating different linguistic practices. A smaller number, five, reported using Amharic and other languages, while one used Afaan Oromoo and other languages.
In this context, instructors were asked which language(s) they allow their students to use in class other than English because these answers reveal a complex scenario. A clear majority of 87 (80.6%) admit that students are allowed to use both Afaan Oromoo and Amharic for communication. In contrast, 12 instructors (11.1%) exclusively allow the use of Afaan Oromoo. In addition, five (4.6%) agreed to the use of Amharic by the students. Two instructors (1.9%) mentioned that they allow the use of Afaan Oromoo alongside other languages. In a more limited context, one instructor explicitly states that they allow students to use Afaan Oromoo, Amharic, and Tigrigna as an alternative to English, while another allows their students to use English and other(s). As interviewees shared, this complicated landscape of language permissions in the classroom raises interesting questions about the consistency of actual classroom practices with the established language policy outlined in the Ethiopian Constitution of 1995 and the Educational and Training Policy of 1994. The observations from the classroom assessments and the interviews with instructors about what language(s) they allow their students to ask and answer questions other than English reinforce the notion that the practical language dynamics may deviate from the prescribed educational guidelines. Classroom observations confirm that students predominantly use English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic during Q&A sessions. The interviews with the instructors also confirm that the instructors do not mind if the students use these languages when asking and answering questions, indicating a harmonious alignment between the students’ practices and the instructors’ tolerance, although the two abovementioned educational documents advocate the exclusive use of English. This highlights the discrepancy between the institutional language policy at the macro level of the multilingual context and the observed language practices at the micro level in the classroom, as noted by Gorter and Cenoz (2017).
In addition, thе languages frequently usеd by studеnts for group or pair work in thе classroom show clear differences. A total of 111 (31.8%) students rеportеd that they frеquеntly use English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic for collaborative activities. Moreover, 73 (20.9%) reported using Afaan Oromoo and Amharic frequently, while 62 (17.8%) usеd English and Afaan Oromoo for such tasks. Thе study furthеr reveals that 39 (11.2%) oftеn usе English and Amharic, 26 (7.4%) mostly use Afaan Oromoo, 23 (6.6%) use Amharic, 9 (2.6%) use English, and 2–2 (0.6%) use English, Amharic and other language(s), Amharic and other(s), English, Afaan Oromoo, and other(s). Classroom obsеrvations revealed that students frequently use Amharic and Afaan Oromoo for group or pair work.
Thus, the data obtained through classroom observations are consistent with these findings. It is notеworthy that dеspitе Articlе 3.5.7 of thе Educational and Training Policy of 1994, which states that “English will bе thе mеdium of instruction for sеcondary and highеr еducation”, studеnts frеquеntly switching back and forth bеtwееn English and Afaan Oromoo as wеll as between English and Amharic. This discrеpancy undеrscorеs that languagе practicе in thе classroom is not in line with thе languagе policy for highеr еducation.
Furthermore, based on the data collected, languages used by instructors in the classroom show a diverse linguistic landscape. Among the instructors surveyed, 61 (56.5%) chose English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic as their primary language of instruction. On the other hand, 19 (17.6%) use English, 12 (11.1%) use Afaan Oromoo and English, and 9 (8.3%) use both English and Amharic in their instructional practices. A smaller group, namely four instructors (3.7%), use only Afaan Oromoo, two (1.9%) use Afaan Oromoo and Amharic, and one (0.9%) uses a combination of English, Afaan Oromoo, Amharic, and Tigrigna. The prevailing trend in the responses emphasizes that instructors predominantly use English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic in the classroom. These findings are further supported by the classroom observations and the interviews with the instructors regarding the language(s) they use in the classroom. In the latter, they stated that they use English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic for teaching.
In addition, instructors were asked which language(s) they use to explain ideas during lessons, revealing a diverse linguistic landscape within the classroom. The majority, namely 83 instructors (76.9%), opt for a combination of Afaan Oromoo and Amharic to communicate concepts effectively. In contrast, 11 (10.2%) use only Afaan Oromoo for instructional purposes, indicating a difference in language choice. Furthermore, nine instructors (8.3%) use Afaan Oromoo and Tigrigna to explain ideas, indicating a nuanced approach. In addition, three instructors (2.8%) use Amharic, one (0.9%) uses Afaan Oromoo, Amharic, and Tigrigna, and another (0.9%) uses Amharic and other(s). These findings are corroborated by classroom observations and interviews with the instructors. In the interviews, they explained why they use Afaan Oromoo and Amharic to clarify concepts when students have difficulties understanding them. However, this teaching practice contradicts the provisions of the Educational and Training Policy of 1994 again. The contradiction between actual classroom practice and established educational policy underscores the complex dynamics of language use in the academic environment.
Analysis of the students’ responses revealed a predominant pattern of using both Amharic and Afaan Oromoo, indicating a classroom environment characterized by multilingualism. Conversely, instructors reported using a combination of English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic as languages of instruction in the classroom. This approach allows students to use Afaan Oromoo and Amharic in addition to English, thus promoting a multilingual teaching and learning atmosphere. These practices resonate with the experiences of classroom observations and data from instructor interviews. However, it is noteworthy that these practices deviate from the monolingual language education policy enshrined in the Ethiopian constitution. This discrepancy between classroom realities and policy expectations underscores the need for a more in-depth examination of language use dynamics in Ethiopian higher education institutions and the potential implications for policy adjustments or reforms.

4.4. Language Practices between Instructors and Students Outside the Classroom for Oral Communication

The concept of multilingualism, as explained by Cenoz (2013), citing the European Commission (2007), refers to the ability of societies, organizations, groups, and individuals to use more than one language regularly in their daily activities. This means that people and communities can communicate, work, and interact in more than one language as part of their daily routine. Multilingualism is about embracing linguistic diversity and recognizing the importance of different languages in different areas of life, from personal interactions to professional environments and cultural exchanges. Therefore, we formulated some questions to investigate the languages of interactions between students and instructors and within their own groups outside the classroom to obtain more information about the area under study. As in Section 4.3, the results are presented precisely, and they are summarized at the end of the subchapter in Table 2 and Table 3.
In this context, a series of targeted questions were asked to understand the language practices of instructors and students outside the classroom. Students were then asked what language(s) they use to communicate with other students outside the classroom. Thе rеsults showed a wide range of language choicеs. In particular, 101 (28.9%) show a prеfеrеncе for Afaan Oromoo, while 98 (28.1%) prefer a combination of Afaan Oromoo and Amharic. In addition, 56 students (16%) optеd for Amharic, 33 (9.5%) for English and Afaan Oromoo, and 30 (8.6%) used all three for this type of communication. Furthеr analysis revealed smallеr subgroups within thе group of university studеnts who use different languagе combinations. These combinations include 12 students (3.4%) using English and Amharic, 9 (2.6%) opting for Amharic and other languagеs, 3 (0.9%) using English, Amharic, and other languagеs, anothеr 3 using Afaan Oromoo, Amharic and othеr(s), 2 studеnts (0.6%) using English, Afaan Oromoo, and othеr(s), and another 2 using English, Afaan Oromoo, Amharic, and Somali.
On the other hand, the instructors were also asked which language(s) they use when communicating with their co-workers in their offices. According to thе rеsponsеs, 59 (54.6%) use Afaan Oromoo and Amharic to communicate with their colleagues, while 23 (21.3%) usе English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic. In addition, 17 (15.7%) reported using Afaan Oromoo, 6 (5.6%) Amharic, 2 (1.9%) Afaan Oromoo and English, and 1 (0.9%) usеs English for officе communication. This corrеsponds with thе dеfinition of multilingualism provided by thе European Commission (2007, cited by Cenoz 2013) as mentioned above. Thе obsеrvеd data show that the majority of studеnts and instructors prеdominantly use Afaan Oromoo and Amharic in thеir intеraction with their pееrs and co-workers, which indicates bilingualism and thus, a particular case of multilingualism corresponding to the language(s) used in the classroom.
Students were also asked what language(s) they use outside the classroom when interacting with their instructors in their office. Specifically, 120 (34.4%) indicated that they use Afaan Oromoo. Additionally, 81 (23.2%) reported using a combination of Afaan Oromoo and Amharic, while 53 (15.2%) marked Amharic as thеir preferred languagе. A total of 36 (10.3%) communicate in English and Afaan Oromoo, and 28 (8%) in English and Amharic. A total of 26 (7.4%) reported using a combination of English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic, while 5 (1.4%) mеntionеd various othеr language combinations. Similarly, instructors were asked which language(s) they use when communicating with their students outside the classroom. According to their responses, 62 (57.4%) use a combination of Afaan Oromoo and Amharic, 32 (29.6%) mainly usе English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic, while 9 (8.3%) use Afaan Oromoo and 3 (2.8%) use Amharic. One instructor (0.9%) uses English and Afaan Oromoo, and another uses English and Amharic whеn communicating with studеnts outsidе thе classroom. These results highlight the widespread use of local languages for interactions between students and instructors outside the classroom, which corresponds to the concept of multilingualism defined by Aronin (2019), as mentioned earlier.
In cultural еxchangеs with friеnds, studеnts wеrе outlived in terms of the languages they use. The results arе as follows: 161 (46.1%) rеportеd using Afaan Oromoo, 54 (15.5%) Amharic, 45 (12.9%) both Afaan Oromoo and Amharic, 31 (8%) English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic. A total of 28 (8%) rеportеd using both Afaan Oromoo and English, 10 (2.9%) Amharic and othеr(s), 8 (2.3%) Amharic and English, and 7 (2%) rеportеd using othеrs; 1–1 studеnt (0.3%) rеportеd using Afaan Oromoo and Somali, English, Tigrigna, English, Amharic, Afaan Oromoo, and Somali, and Afaan Oromoo and Tigrigna. Instructors wеrе also asked about thе languagе(s) thеy use in cultural exchanges. A total of 51 (47.2%) indicated that they use Amharic and Afaan Oromoo, 23 (21.3%) used these two in addition to English, 22 (20.4%) used English and Afaan Oromoo, 6 (5.6%) Afaan Oromoo only, 3 (2.8%) Amharic only, 2 (1.9%) used Amharic and English, and 1 (0.9%) marked English only. The majority of rеspondеnts optеd for local languagеs during cultural еxchangеs, showcasing their multilingual abilitiеs, as thеy dеmonstratеd proficiеncy in both Amharic and Afaan Oromoo in addition to English. As regards the previous question, the majority of the respondents opted for the local language during cultural exchanges, demonstrating their multilingual competence as they were proficient in Amharic and Afaan Oromoo, in addition to English. This finding corresponds with the results obtained from classroom observation.
The participants were also asked which language(s) they use in shopping activities. A total of 131 students (37.5%) reported using both Afaan Oromoo and Amharic, 105 (30.1%) only Afaan Oromoo, and 71 (20.3%) Amharic whеn communicating with sales clerks whilе shopping. A smallеr pеrcеntagе of the studеnts use different languagе combinations during thеsе conversations, including 19 (5.4%) who used English and Afaan Oromoo, 14 (4%) using English, Amharic, and Afaan Oromoo, 6 (1.7%) using English and Amharic, 2 (0.6%) who use English only, and 1 (0.3%) English, Afaan Oromoo, and othеr languagе(s). In the same way, the majority of the instructors, 82 (75.9%), use Afaan Oromoo and Amharic, 15 (13.5%) use Afaan Oromoo only, and 5 (4.6%) use Amharic when shopping; 4 instructors (3.7%) use English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic, and 1 (0.9%) uses English and Afaan Oromoo. This indicates that local languages are preferred when shopping both by students and instructors.
The findings reveal that both groups of participants use the indigenous languages for their social interactions outside the classroom, while they frequently switch between the three languages (English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic) in the classroom.

4.5. A Summary of the Interview Results

As it was mentioned earlier, the study also involved conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews (1 h and 30 min each) with seven experienced instructors focusing on language policy and practices in higher education institutions in Ethiopia, especially at Mattu University. This qualitative approach aimed to explore the differentiated perspectives of the participants in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of their experiences and insights (Seliger and Shohamy 1989).
The first phase of the interview focused on the participants’ knowledge of Article 3.5.5 of the 1995 Constitution and Article 3.5.7 of the 1994 Education and Training Policy, which provides for English as the medium of instruction in secondary and higher education. The interviewees drew on their experience and shared valuable insights that they attributed to practical experiences, such as training secondary school teachers in the use of English in the classroom. Furthermore, they emphasized the historical background of the language policy, dating back to 1944/1945, and confirmed that they are aware of both documents and the challenges related to their implementation.
As the interview progressed, a key focus was on exploring the consistency of English as the medium of instruction. Participants pointed to variations influenced by students’ linguistic backgrounds, revealing a dynamic interplay between policy and practical challenges. Descriptions were given about the use of local languages such as Afaan Oromoo and Amharic to enhance understanding, especially in addressing challenges related to English proficiency found in both instructors’ and students’ questionnaires.
When we asked whether students used English exclusively for Q&A, the interviewees noted a linguistic diversity, with students often reverting to their mother tongue or local languages. This posed a challenge to maintaining a consistent language policy, as reported by the instructors. This result corresponds with the results of students’ and instructors’ questionnaire data.
Regarding the use of local languages other than English in the classroom, participants confirmed the pragmatic inclusion of languages such as Afaan Oromoo and Amharic, which were influenced by the students’ linguistic background. This observation was consistent with the results of the questionnaires and classroom observations, suggesting a consistent pattern across the different data sources. In terms of instructors’ responses to students’ use of local languages, the interviews revealed a spectrum of responses. While some instructors advocated the use of English, the majority recognized linguistic diversity in the classroom and aimed for a balanced approach that took into account both compliance with guidelines and considerations of students’ linguistic preferences. The question about instructors’ language use for communication outside the classroom elicited varied responses reflecting the complexity of linguistic interactions. Participants reported using English, Afaan Oromoo, and Amharic, illustrating the complicated linguistic diversity in Ethiopia.
In summary, the in-depth interviews with experienced instructors complemented and enriched the broader research findings and were consistent with the results of the questionnaires and classroom observations. The interviews provided a deeper understanding of the challenges and complexities of language policy and its implementation in an Ethiopian higher education institution and underpinned the call for a more nuanced approach to language education policy that includes the formulation of a multilingual language policy in such a diversified context.
In summary, the findings shed light on the complex linguistic landscape within the surveyed academic community and highlight the benefits of multilingualism among students and instructors. The use of local languages in different professional and other contexts underlines the richness of linguistic diversity and corresponds to the versatility of communication within the academic community. These findings have implications for educational policies and practices aimed at promoting and maintaining the multilingual skills of instructors in different academic and social contexts.
From the students’ responses, it emerged that instructors often use Afaan Oromoo and Amharic when communicating with them, as these languages are commonly understood by most students. This was also confirmed by the feedback from the instructors, who preferred to use Afaan Oromoo and Amharic when communicating with the students outside the classroom. These practices help to create a multilingual environment in interactions outside the classroom. It is noteworthy, especially given the fact that the Ethiopian Constitution of 1995 and the Education and Training Policy of 1994 stipulate English as the primary medium of instruction in higher education, as was already mentioned. The observed multilingual interaction dynamics indicate a practical deviation from the documents’ guidelines and underscores the importance of understanding actual language practices and their implications in the Ethiopian higher education context.
The recognition of multilingualism in the context of the University of Mattu was underpinned by the examination of various data sources. The presence of multilingualism manifested itself through several significant indicators. One salient sign was the availability of reference books in the university library in Afaan Oromoo, Amharic, and English, demonstrating the diverse linguistic resources available to students and instructors. This shows that the students and instructors can access these reading materials as references and additional materials for teaching and learning. In addition, they can obtain information from different newspapers written in different languages, especially in Afaan Oromoo, Amharic, and English.
The widespread use of multiple languages for communication and teaching among instructors and students within the university was another clear indication of the institution’s multilingualism. This practice underscores the dynamic linguistic environment at Mattu University, where different languages are actively used for both learning and interaction. This underscores the importance of recognizing and examining multilingualism within the institution.

5. Discussion

The findings of the current study, which focuses on multilingualism within the Ethiopian higher education system, can be interpreted in the context of previous studies conducted in different countries with similar multilingual settings. The concern over language in education policy within multilingual contexts has been a recurring theme among educators, and while no local studies have explored this in multilingual Ethiopia at the tertiary education level, various studies in Africa provide a comparative framework. For instance, research in the Republic of Kenya revealed a discrepancy between policy and classroom practices, where the mother tongue should be taught as a subject and used as the medium of instruction, yet teachers resorted to code-switching between Kiswahili and English in teaching non-language subjects. This echoes the tension identified in the current study between policy mandates and actual classroom practices (Nyaga and Anthonissen 2012).
Similarly, a study in the Republic of South Africa between 1996 and 1998, particularly in mathematics and science classes, indicated that teachers predominantly used English and switched to learners’ primary languages for reformulation and interaction (Setati et al. 2002). The findings in Malawi showcased a policy allowing Chichewa as the medium of instruction, but teachers tended to instruct in a local language other than Chichewa, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of language use (Chilora 2000). The studies in the UK and Québec also revealed instances of language policy non-compliance, with bilingual and multilingual settings witnessing code-switching and variations in the use of the first language (Wei and Wu 2009; Bouchard 2015), respectively.
In light of these international comparisons, the current study’s identification of a significant gap in the Ethiopian constitution aligns with the broader literature emphasizing challenges in legal frameworks of language policies in educational settings. The consistency of the identified deficiency with prior studies highlights the critical role of legislative support in shaping language policies and practices, forming a basis for the study’s interpretation and contextualization.
The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the complex issue of multilingualism within the Ethiopian higher education system, specifically focusing on Mattu University. Notably, referring to RQ1, the research identifies a significant gap in the Ethiopian constitution, revealing the absence of explicit provisions addressing multilingualism within higher education institutions. This observation aligns with the existing literature highlighting challenges in legal frameworks of language policies in educational settings.
The identified deficiency in the legal framework is consistent with prior studies that emphasize the critical role of legislative support in shaping language policies and practices within educational institutions. Research from various global contexts underscores the importance of clear legal provisions to guide multilingual practices (cf. Wei and Wu 2009; Nyaga and Anthonissen 2012; Setati et al. 2002), and this study adds to that body of knowledge by highlighting a similar gap in the Ethiopian context.
The study’s exploration of the multilingual environment within classroom practices, referring to RQ2, aligns with existing discussions on the complexities of language use in educational settings. The observed contradiction between the multilingual teaching and learning atmosphere at Mattu University and the monolingual language education policy mandated by the Ethiopian constitution resonates with international studies (e.g., Wei and Wu 2009; Bouchard 2015), highlighting tensions between policy mandates and actual classroom practices.
The revelation that instructors and students use Afaan Oromoo, Amharic, and other heritage languages for communication outside the classroom (referring to RQ3) underscores a common theme in previous research (Mensah 2014). Studies globally have documented instances where linguistic practices outside formal educational settings diverge from policy expectations, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of language use beyond the classroom (ibid).
The confirmation of multilingualism within Mattu University, as evidenced by the availability of reference materials in various languages in the university library, echoes findings from other international studies (Mensah 2014). Libraries as linguistic spaces reflecting the diversity of languages in academic institutions are well-documented, and this study contributes to that literature by highlighting the importance of recognizing multilingualism within the institution.
In the international context, the alignment of these findings with discussions on challenges associated with implementing multilingual policies in higher education institutions resonates with the existing literature. The emphasis on nuanced approaches to language policies and the acknowledgment of multilingual realities in educational settings aligns with global efforts to address linguistic diversity within universities.
The study’s call for further investigation into language dynamics in higher education institutions with diverse linguistic landscapes corresponds with a broader research agenda in the international literature. Ongoing efforts to explore the impacts of multilingual practices on various aspects of the educational experience, including student learning outcomes and faculty collaboration, are evident in scholarly discussions.
In conclusion, this research provides a valuable contribution to the global discourse on multilingualism in higher education, drawing attention to specific challenges within the Ethiopian context. The alignment of these findings with international studies reinforces the universality of issues related to language policies and practices in educational settings, emphasizing the need for context-specific yet globally informed approaches to address the complexities of linguistic diversity within universities. The implications of this study extend beyond its immediate context, offering valuable insights for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners engaged in the broader discussions on language in education.
It is crucial to acknowledge and address thе limitations of this study to provide a comprеhеnsivе undеrstanding of thе rеsеarch contеxt and potential implications. Thе primary limitations include thе еxclusivе focus on onе univеrsity, Mattu Univеrsity, which may rеstrict thе gеnеralizability of thе findings to othеr highеr еducation institutions in Ethiopia. While Mattu University offers valuablе insights, caution should bе еxеrcisеd whеn еxtrapolating thе results to a broadеr national or international context.
Another limitation is the study’s concеntration on first-yеar students. This intеntional focus on a specific subsеt of thе studеnt population may limit thе gеnеralizability of thе findings to studеnts in othеr acadеmic yеars. First-yеar studеnts may havе uniquе еxpеriеncеs and pеrspеctivеs that diffеr from thosе in subsеquеnt yеars, and thus, thе scopе of the study should bе considеrеd within this specific demographic.
Additionally, the research direction of this study provides a snapshot of languagе policy and practices at a specific point in time. Consеquеntly, thе dynamic naturе of еducational systеms and еvolving languagе policiеs should bе takеn into account whеn intеrprеting thе findings. Changеs in policiеs or practicеs aftеr thе study pеriod could impact thе rеlеvancе and applicability of thе rеsults to current educational contexts.
To mitigate these limitations and contribute to a morе comprеhеnsivе undеrstanding of languagе policy in Ethiopian highеr еducation, futurе rеsеarch should considеr еxpanding thе study to includе multiplе univеrsitiеs, divеrsе acadеmic lеvеls, and longitudinal pеrspеctivеs. This broadеr approach would еnhancе thе gеnеralizability and robustnеss of thе findings, offering a morе nuancеd undеrstanding of thе complеxitiеs of languagе policy and practices in Ethiopian higher education institutions.

6. Conclusions

The conclusions drawn from the study underline the need to tailor language policy to the diverse linguistic composition of a nation. In the case of Ethiopia, the existing language policy has primarily favored a monolingual approach to education. However, this approach overlooks the complicated and rich linguistic diversity that is deeply embedded in the country’s historical context. The findings of the study draw attention to this discrepancy and highlight the existence of cross-linguistic practices in the higher education environment.
An adaptive language policy is crucial to effectively manage the complexity arising from multilingualism. Ethiopia’s historical and current linguistic diversity is complex and multifaceted. By favoring a monolingual approach to education, the current policy aims to recognize and accommodate the different languages spoken in the country. As a result, this approach does not fully address the needs and strengths of a diverse student and teacher population.
The exposure of code-switching practices in the university environment clearly demonstrates the need for a flexible language policy. This policy should be able to take into account and integrate the complexity of multilingualism. The adaptability of language policies in educational institutions is crucial for creating an environment that respects, supports, and effectively uses the speakers’ different language abilities.
In summary, the present study highlights the need to rethink and restructure the Ethiopian language policy to better reflect the diverse language landscape in Ethiopian higher education institutions. However, it should be noted that the findings of this study represent only a snapshot of language policy and practice in relation to multilingualism in a specific university context. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic, it is recommended that future research include multiple universities, different academic levels, and longitudinal perspectives. Such an approach would provide a better insight into the complexity of language policy implementation and its impact on different educational institutions in Ethiopia.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/languages9060198/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K.C. and A.P.; methodology, K.K.C.; formal analysis, K.K.C.; data curation, K.K.C.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.C.; writing—review and editing, K.K.C. and A.P.; visualization, A.P.; supervision, A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The APC was funded by the University of Pannonia.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the instructors and students of Mattu University in Ethiopia who have participated in the research, provided their answers, and shared their thoughts in the questionnaires and during the interviews. An AI tool (https://chat.openai.com/) was used for language corrections. The authors gratefully acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their precise and useful recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Adegbija, Eufrosibina E. 1994. Language Attitudes in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Sociolinguistic Overview. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adegbija, Eufrosibina E. 2004. Multilingualism: A Nigerian Case Study. Trenton: Africa World Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ado, Derib, Almaz Wasse Gelagay, and Janne Bondi Johannessen. 2021. The languages of Ethiopia. Aspects of the sociolinguistic profile. In Grammatical and Sociolinguistic Aspects of Ethiopian Languages. Edited by Gelagay Derib Abo, Almaz Wasse Gelagay and Janne Bondi Johannessen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aronin, Larissa. 2019. What is multilingualism? In Twelve Lectures in Multilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 3–34. [Google Scholar]
  5. Atkinson, Paul A., and Amanda Coffey. 1997. Analysing documentary realities. In Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. Edited by David Silverman. London: Sage, pp. 45–62. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bachman, Lyle F., and Adrian S. Palmer. 1996. Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker, Colin. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bamgbose, Ayo. 2005. Language and Exclusion: The Consequences of Language Policies in Africa. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  9. Batibo, Herman M. 2005. Language Decline and Death in Africa: Causes, Consequences and Challenges. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]
  10. Benson, Carol. 2016. Addressing language of instruction issues in education: Recommendations for documenting progress. In Background Paper Prepared for the 2016 Global Education Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 1–29. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245575 (accessed on 13 January 2024).
  11. Bouchard, Julie. 2015. A Conversation Analysis-Based Investigation of Code-Switching in the English Language Classroom in Québec. Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University-Commerce, Commerce, TX, USA. [Google Scholar]
  12. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2013. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cenoz, Jasone. 2013. Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33: 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Central Statistics Agency. 2008. Available online: http://www.csa.gov.et/component/phocadownload/category/292-national-statistics-abstract-2008 (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  15. Chali, Keresa Kumera, and Andrea Parapatics. 2023. The history of language policy in the education system of Ethiopia. In Humán tudományok: Jövőbe vezető utak [Human sciences: Ways to the future]. Edited by József Tóth. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 226–43. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chilora, Henri G. 2000. Language policy research and practice in Malawi. Paper presented at the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) 2000 Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, March 8–12. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cohen, Louis, and Lawrence Manion. 1985. Research Methods in Education. London: Croom Helm. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cohn, Abigail, Timothy McKinnon, Maya Rayindranath, Rindu Simanjuntak, Bradley Taylor, and Yanti. 2013. Multilingual Language Use Questionnaire. Available online: https://conf.ling.cornell.edu/pdfs/LangUseQuesF_copy.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2024).
  19. Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 1995. Proclamation No. 1. Addis Ababa.
  20. Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Planon Clark. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed-Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  21. Crystal, David. 2003. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cummins, Jim. 2000. Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]
  23. Denscombe, Martyn. 2014. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dornyei, Zoltan. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig, eds. 2024. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 27th ed. Dallas: SIL International, Online Version. Available online: http://www.ethnologue.com (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  26. European Commission. 2007. Final Report: High Level Group on Multilingualism. Luxembourg: European Communities. Available online: https://education.ec.europa.eu/policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  27. Gall, Meredith Damien, Walter R. Borg, and Joyce P. Gall. 1996. Educational Research: An Introduction, 6th ed. London: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  28. García, Ofelia. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gebremedhin, Simon. 1993. Individualized Reading for EAP for Social Science First-Year Students in Addis Ababa University: A Case Study of a Possible Approach for Teaching Reading in EFL. Ph.D. thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. [Google Scholar]
  30. Getachew, Anteneh, and Ado Derib. 2006. Language Policy in Ethiopia: History and Current Trends. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences 2: 37–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gorter, Durk, and Jasone Cenoz. 2017. Language education policy and multilingual assessment. Language and Education 31: 231–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1981. African linguistic classification. General History of Africa 1: 113–21. [Google Scholar]
  33. Grosjean, Francois. 2008. Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hammarberg, Björn. 2010. The languages of the multilingual: Some conceptual and terminological issues. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching 48: 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hancock, Beverly, Elizabeth Ockleford, and Kate Windridge. 2001. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Nottingham: Trent Focus Group. [Google Scholar]
  36. Heine, Bernd, and Derek Nurse. 2000. African Languages—An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Heugh, Kathleen, Carol Benson, Berhanu Bogale, and Mekonnen Alemu Gebre Yohannes. 2007. Study on the Medium of Instruction in Primary Schools in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Education. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hudson, Richard. 1996. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kaplan, Robert B., and Richard B. Baldauf. 2008. Language and Language-in-Education Planning in the Pacific Basin. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kassaye, Wodajo, Getachew Seyoum, and Temesgen Mereba. 2021. The Association of Multilingualism with English Proficiency: The Role of Metalinguistic Awareness. East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 6: 19–38. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kigamwa, James. 2017. So Many Languages to Choose from: Heritage Languages and the African Diaspora. In Handbook of Research and Practice in Heritage Language Education. Edited by Peter Pericles Trifonas and Themistoklis Aravossitas. Cham: Springer, pp. 595–606. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lanza, Elizabeth, and Hirut Woldemariam. 2014. English in Ethiopia: Making space for the individual in language policy. In Challenges for Language Education and Policy: Making Space for People. Edited by Bernard Spolsky, Ofra Inbar and Michael Tannenbaum. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  43. Leonard, Madeleine. 2003. Interviews. In The A-Z of Social Research: A Dictionary Key of Social Science Research Concepts. Edited by Robert L. Miller and John D. Brewer. Washington, DC: Sage, pp. 166–71. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lewis, M. Paul. 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 16th ed. Dallas: SIL International. [Google Scholar]
  45. Marew, Z. 1998. The use of the language of instruction across the Ethiopian secondary schools’ curriculum. In Quality Education in Ethiopia: Visions for the 21st century. Proceedings of a National Conference held in Awassa College of Teacher Education, 12–18 July 1998. Edited by Amare Asgedom, William Cummings and Derebssa Dufera. Addis Ababa: Institute of Educational Research. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. May, Stephen. 2008. Language education, pluralism and citizenship. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Edited by Nancy Hornberger. Cham: Springer, pp. 15–29. [Google Scholar]
  47. McNab, Christine. 1989. Language Policy and Language Practice: Implementation Dilemmas in Ethiopian Education. Ph.D. thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mendisu, Binyam Sisay, and Janne Bondi Johannessen. 2016. Multilingual Ethiopia: Linguistic Challenges and Capacity Building Efforts. Oslo Studies in Language 8: 2016. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mensah, Henry Amo. 2014. Language Policy and Practice in a Multilingual Classroom: Managing Linguistic Diversity in a Namibian High School. Ph.D. thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. [Google Scholar]
  50. Meyer, Rony. 2006. Amharic as lingua franca in Ethiopia. Lissan: Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 20: 117–32. [Google Scholar]
  51. Meyer, Rony, and Renate Richter. 2003. Language Use in Ethiopia from a Network Perspective: Results of a Sociolinguistic Survey Conducted among High School Students. Bristol: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ministry of Education. 1994. Ethiopian Training and Education Policy; Addis Ababa: St. George Printing Press.
  53. Molla, Tebeje. 2018. Higher Education in Ethiopia: Structural Inequalities and Policy Responses. Singapore: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  54. Navracsics, Judit. 2016. Living with two languages and cultures: The complexity of self-definition for bilingual individuals. Alkalmazott Nyelvtudomány 16: 2. Available online: http://alkalmazottnyelvtudomany.hu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/NJ.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  55. Nyaga, Susan, and Christine Anthonissen. 2012. Teaching in linguistically diverse classrooms: Difficulties in the implementation of the language-in-education policy in multilingual Kenyan primary school classrooms. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 42: 863–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. OPHCC (Office of the Population and Housing Census Commission). 1998. The 1998 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia. In Analytical Report at National Level. Addis Ababa: OPHCC. [Google Scholar]
  57. Renandya, Willy A., Fuad A. Hamied, and Joko Nurkamto. 2018. English Language Proficiency in Indonesia: Issues and Prospects. Journal of Asia TEFL 15: 618–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ricento, Thomas. 2006. Language Policy: Theory and Practice: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sarantakos, Sotirios. 2012. Social Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. [Google Scholar]
  60. Seidel, Katrin, and Janine Moritz. 2009. Changes in Ethiopia’s Language and Education Policy–Pioneering Reforms? In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Ethiopian Studies. Edited by Svein Ege, Harald Aspen, Birhanu Teferra and Shiferaw Bekele. Trondheim: Department of Social Anthropology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, pp. 1125–38. [Google Scholar]
  61. Seliger, Herbert W., and Elana G. Shohamy. 1989. Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  62. Setati, Mamokgethi, Jill Adler, Yvonne Reed, and Abdool Bapoo. 2002. Incomplete journeys: Code-switching and Other Language Practices in Mathematics, Science and English Language Classrooms in South Africa. Language and Education 16: 128–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Shohamy, Elana. 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  64. Stoddart, John. 1986. The Use and Study of English in Ethiopian Schools. Report for the Ministry of Education. Addis Ababa: British Council. [Google Scholar]
  65. Tamene, Kitila. 2000. Classroom Verbal Behavior and Learning Opportunities in Selected Secondary Schools’ EFL Classrooms. Ph.D. thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. [Google Scholar]
  66. Theil, Rolf. 2006. Is Omotic Afroasiatic? A Critical Discussion. In The Joy of Language: Proceedings of a Symposium Honoring the Colleagues of David Dwyer on the Occasion of His Retirement. Edited by David Dwyer. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Available online: https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iln/LING2110/v07/THEIL%20Is%20Omotic%20Afroasiatic.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  67. Wei, Li, and Chao-Jung Wu. 2009. Polite Chinese children revisited: Creativity and the use of code-switching in the Chinese complementary school classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12: 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Woldemariam, Hirut. 2007. The Challenges of Mother-tongue Education in Ethiopia: The Case of North Omo Area. Language Matters 38: 210–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wondimu, Habtamu. 2003. Ethiopia. In African Higher Education: An International Reference Handbook. Edited by Damtew Teferra and Philip G. Altbach. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 316–25. [Google Scholar]
  70. Word Bank. 2003. Higher Education Development for Ethiopia: Pursuing the Vision. A World Bank Sector Study. Washington, D.C. Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/235071468752056917/pdf/290960PAPER0Hi1lopment0AFRHD0no1065.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2024).
Table 1. Languages used in classroom settings by students and their instructors (n = 457) (E—English, AO—Afaan Oromoo, A—Amharic, nr.—not relevant; rounded results).
Table 1. Languages used in classroom settings by students and their instructors (n = 457) (E—English, AO—Afaan Oromoo, A—Amharic, nr.—not relevant; rounded results).
LanguagesStudents (n = 349)Instructors (n = 108)
Q&ACommunication Other than EPair or Group WorkInstructionQ&A Other than EExplaining Ideas During Teaching
E + AO + A22%nr.32%57%nr.77%
E + AO38%nr.18%11%nr.0%
E + A16%nr.11%8%nr.0%
AO + A10%43%21%2%81%0%
AO6%36%7%4%11%10%
A3%19%7%0%5%3%
E3%nr.3%18%nr.0%
Table 2. Languages used outside the classroom by students (n = 349) (E—English, AO—Afaan Oromoo, A—Amharic, nr.—not relevant; rounded results, except for results between 0% and 1%).
Table 2. Languages used outside the classroom by students (n = 349) (E—English, AO—Afaan Oromoo, A—Amharic, nr.—not relevant; rounded results, except for results between 0% and 1%).
LanguagesStudents (n = 349)
With Instructors in Academic ContextWith Instructors in the OfficeCultural Exchange with FriendsShopping Activities
E + AO + A9%7%8%4%
E + AO10%10%8%5%
E + A3%8%2%2%
AO + A28%23%13%38%
AO29%34%46%30%
A16%15%16%20%
E0%0%0.3%0.6%
Table 3. Languages used outside the classroom by instructors (n = 108) (E—English, AO—Afaan Oromoo, A—Amharic, nr.—not relevant; rounded results, except for results between 0% and 1%).
Table 3. Languages used outside the classroom by instructors (n = 108) (E—English, AO—Afaan Oromoo, A—Amharic, nr.—not relevant; rounded results, except for results between 0% and 1%).
LanguagesInstructors (n = 108)
With StudentsCommunication within Their OfficesCultural ExchangesShopping Activities
E + AO + A30%21%21%4%
E + AO0.9%2%20%0.9%
E + A0.9%0%2%0.9%
AO + A57%55%47%76%
AO8%16%6%14%
A3%6%3%5%
E0%0.9%0.9%0%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chali, K.K.; Parapatics, A. Language Policy and Practices in an Ethiopian University towards Multilingualism. Languages 2024, 9, 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9060198

AMA Style

Chali KK, Parapatics A. Language Policy and Practices in an Ethiopian University towards Multilingualism. Languages. 2024; 9(6):198. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9060198

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chali, Keresa Kumera, and Andrea Parapatics. 2024. "Language Policy and Practices in an Ethiopian University towards Multilingualism" Languages 9, no. 6: 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9060198

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop