This paper sheds light on (1) the diversity of Erasmus students’ discourses about their second language acquisition experiences; (2) the way(s) in which this diversity is influenced mainly by their (lack of) social networks abroad; and (3) other intervening factors that ultimately affect the students’ different socialisation patterns abroad.
Many academic and institutional discourses on study abroad (SA), which could be claimed to be part of the so-called ‘Study Abroad Marketing’ (Zemach-Bersin, 2010), reinforce the popular belief that SA automatically leads to cultural and linguistic gains (Mitchell et al., 2017). Many scholars have tried to dismantle this well-known myth, however, by highlighting the great variability of second language acquisition outcomes and, thus, the inconsistencies and inconclusiveness of many SA studies (Wang, 2010); by calling for longitudinal, case-based research that focuses more on the students’ processes (rather than outcomes) and that showcases the heterogeneity of their experiences (Duff, 2019); and by accounting for the many interlinking factors that may affect the students’ different trajectories. From a discourse-analytic approach, this paper aims to contribute to this gap by presenting a longitudinal qualitative multiple-case study of the Erasmus experience of nine Catalan undergraduate students, in three different sociolinguistic contexts: Italy, Denmark and the UK. Departing from the participants’ perception of linguistic gains or lack of these after their sojourn abroad, and understanding that social networks constitute a key factor affecting such gains, this paper sheds light on (1) the diversity of the students’ discourses about their second language acquisition experiences and how these differ from their initial motives for studying abroad; (2) the way(s) in which this diversity is influenced mainly by their (lack of) social networks abroad; and (3) other intervening factors that ultimately affect the students’ different socialisation patterns abroad, such as the language requirements of the home and host universities, the students’ self-perceived L2 competence prior to departure, the temporality of the stay and the students’ priorities once abroad, among others.
