REPRESENTATIONS, PRACTICES AND SOCIAL PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA IN A RUSSIAN UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY: CONFLUENCES OF INTERNATIONALIZATION

The study explores the social representations, practices and perceptions of English as a lingua franca (ILF) at Tomsk State University (TSU), Russia, highlighting its intersection with the process of internationalization of higher education (HE).Anchored in Calvet's (2007) language policy model, the article addresses how geopolitics, language policies and institutional practices shape the use of English in a multilingual academic context.The analysis focuses on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of members of the university community, demonstrating that English is seen as an indispensable socio-cultural capital in a globalized world.The study used qualitative and quantitative methods, including questionnaires based on a Likert scale, focus groups, semi-structured interviews and document analysis.Students, managers and teachers were interviewed, showing that the motivation for learning English is linked to professional, academic and international mobility factors.TSU integrates English into various institutional policies, such as double degree programmes, courses taught in English and internationalization initiatives in line with the Bologna Treaty.The results show that TSU adopts a bottom-up internationalization model, in which students and teachers promote practices of using the ILF in a collaborative way.Internationalization is treated as a dynamic and plural process, which values subjectivities and territorialities, integrating multicultural and ethical perspectives into ES.It concludes that ILF is not merely functional, but a tool for academic and social transforma-1.BRICS is the grouping made up of five large emerging countries -Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -which together account for around 42% of the population, 23% of the GDP, 30% of the territory and 18% of world trade (BRICS BRAZIL 2019).2. "For Friedrich & Matsuda (2010), ILF should be defined as a function of the English language worldwide, and not as a linguistic variant [...], ILF could not be defined as a variant because this would imply that there would be a variant of English (or a certain set of them) specifically used in international situations: for them, the functions of English to which the term ILF refers are too fluid and cannot be captured by the notion of variant.They defend the characterization of ILF as a term used in reference to the functions to which the English language is put in its use in different contexts" (JORDO, 2014, p. 16). 3. The choice of this university was entirely dictated by the opportunity to conduct the research in loco thanks to the scholarship of the Doctorate-Sandwich Program Abroad (PDSE), from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and, especially, by the international agreement between UNIJU and TSU.tion, in line with the demands of globalization.The article contributes to understanding the relationship between language policies and internationalization practices, reinforcing the need for decolonial models that break with traditional linguistic hegemonies.