A wealth of research already exists exploring the growing impact of English as an academic language within the European higher education community. To date, such research primarily studies public manifestations of language switch within both teaching and research: the introduction of English-medium degree programmes (Earls, 2016) and the increased use of English as a medium for presenting and publishing research findings. The rationale for such language policy is often expressed in terms of increased internationalisation,
whether through the attraction of a greater number of non-European students, enhanced participation in international research communities or the broader dissemination of research to a global audience.
The preferencing of English within academic domains remains contested,
with mounting concerns not only regarding linguistic inequality (Ammon, 2012) and domain loss, but also changes in discourse patterns within academic English (Pérez-Llantada, 2015). While some national academic communities (e.g. France) have
resisted the growing dominance of English, others (e.g. Sweden) have attempted to counter their initial enthusiasm for its adoption with national and institutional policies redressing, in part at least, the acknowledged imbalance with national
languages.
Against the shifting landscape of educational practice and
research dissemination, this chapter explores emerging debates surrounding the penetration of English into the infrastructural realms of national research funding within the German-speaking countries of Europe. In particular, it examines the policies of Austria’s "Fond zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung"
which in 2008 – under the auspices of quality control and enhancement – extended its exclusive acceptance of English-only funding applications within
the natural sciences to include the humanities. The chapter explores how the academic community in Austria has attempted to resist such developments and questions to what extent ensuing debates reveal genuine concerns for issues of research quality or point rather to underlying tensions in the language ideology driving national
research policy and practice.