The construction of multilinguals as Others

The cons uc ion
o mul ilinguals
as O he s
Do we p ac ice wha we p each?
Edi ed by
A emis Alexiadou
Claudio Sca aglie i
Ch is oph Sch oede
Heike Wiese
language
science
p ess
Con ac and Mul ilingualism 9
Con ac and Mul ilingualism
Edi o s: Isabelle Léglise (CNRS SeDyL), S e ano Man edi (CNRS SeDyL)
In his se ies:
1. Lucas, Ch is ophe & S e ano Man edi (eds.). A abic and con ac -induced change.
2. Pin o, Jo ge & Nélia Alexand e (eds.). Mul ilingualism and hi d language acquisi ion:
Lea ning and eaching ends.
3. Hakimo , Nikolay. Explaining Russian-Ge man code-mixing: A usage-based app oach.
4. Sánchez Mo eano, San iago & Élodie Bles el. P ác icas lingüís icas he e ogéneas: Nue as
pe spec i as pa a el es udio del español en con ac o con lenguas ame indias.
5. Migge, Be ina & Shelome Gooden. Social and s uc u al aspec s o language con ac and
change.
6. Cole , Ma & And ew Ne ins (eds.). Con empo a y esea ch in mino i ized and diaspo a
languages o Eu ope.
7. P adenhaue , Ka in, So ia Rüdige & Valen ina Se eli (eds.). Global and local pe spec i es
on language con ac .
8. Haig, Geo ey, Mohammad Rasekh-Mahand, Donald S ilo, Lau en ia Sch eibe & Nils
Schibo (eds.). Pos -p edica e elemen s in he Wes e n Asian T ansi ion Zone: A
co pus-based app oach o a eal ypology.
9. Alexiadou, A emis, Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike Wiese (eds.). The
cons uc ion o mul ilinguals as O he s: Do we p ac ice wha we p each?
ISSN (p in ): 2700-8541
ISSN (elec onic): 2700-855X
The cons uc ion
o mul ilinguals
as O he s
Do we p ac ice wha we p each?
Edi ed by
A emis Alexiadou
Claudio Sca aglie i
Ch is oph Sch oede
Heike Wiese
language
science
p ess
A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike Wiese
(eds.). 2025. The cons uc ion o mul ilinguals as O he s: Do we p ac ice wha we
p each? (Con ac and Mul ilingualism 9). Be lin: Language Science P ess.
This i le can be downloaded a :
h p://langsci-p ess.o g/ca alog/book/393
© 2025, he au ho s
Published unde he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0):
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
ISBN: 978-3-96110-528-1 (Digi al)
978-3-98554-148-5 (Ha dco e )
ISSN (p in ): 2700-8541
ISSN (elec onic): 2700-855X
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15655344
Sou ce code a ailable om www.gi hub.com/langsci/393
E a a: pape hi e.o g/documen s/ emo e? ype=langsci&id=393
Co e and concep o design: Ul ike Ha bo
Typese ing: Sebas ian No dho
P oo eading: Alina Bachmann, Annika Schie ne , Ch is ian Döhle , Elen Le
Foll, Ellio Pea l, F ede ic Blum, Ha old Some s, Lau en ia Sch eibe , Nicole a
Romeo, Sebas ian No dho
Fon s: Libe inus, A imo, DejaVu Sans Mono
Typese ing so wa e: XƎL
A
T
EX
Language Science P ess
Scha nwebe s aße 10
10247 Be lin, Ge many
h p://langsci-p ess.o g
[email p o ec ed]
S o age and ca aloguing done by FU Be lin
Con en s
P e ace iii
1 In oduc ion: Mul ilinguals as O he s
A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike
Wiese 1
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
Claudio Sca aglie i 11
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
Heike Wiese 35
4 Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols: How no o
A emis Alexiadou 63
5 (M)o he ongue: How Global Sou h mul ilingual p ac ices allow
unco e ing mul ilingualisms benea h he in en ed monolingual
Eu opean Sel
F iede ike Lüpke 81
6 Cons uc ing a clien ele in need: The ield o Ge man as a Second
Language
Jana Gampe , Ch is oph Sch oede , Julia Schlauch & Do o heé S einbock103
7 Mul ilingualism and iden i y cons uc ion in pedagogical discou se
İnci Di im 135
8 The anxious he i age speake ? Language anxie y and insecu i y in
mul ilingual con ex s
Oli e Bunk 153
9 Who’s he e? In/Exclusi ely add essing he O he in dissemina ing
linguis ic esul s
Judi h Pu ka ho e 179

Con en s
Index 198
ii
P e ace
The i s spa kle o his olume began wi h in ensi e discussions wi hin he
amewo k o he esea ch g oup “Eme ging G amma s in Language Con ac
Si ua ions” (RUEG), unded by he Ge man Resea ch Council (FOR 2537). Th ee
o he edi o s we e in ol ed in RUEG wi h esea ch p ojec s. Claudio, whose
discou se-analy ical wo k on he Ge man mig a ion deba e p o ides an impo -
an addi ional aspec , quickly joined he discussion. The i s esul o ou col-
labo a ion was a join wo king pape en i led “Mul ilinguals as O he s in socie y
and academia: Challenges o belonging unde a monolingual habi us”. We a e
e y g a e ul o Ben Ramp on o cons uc i e commen s on a p e ious e sion
o his pape and o making i possible o us o publish i in he Wo king Pa-
pe s in U ban Language & Li e acies (Pape 302, 2022). The posi i e eac ions o
he wo king pape in u n ga e us he idea o add essing he opic o “O he ing”
in he con ex o mul ilingualism esea ch in a b oade con ex in a wo kshop
ha ook place a he Humbold Fo um Be lin on 11 July 2022. The wo kshop
esul ed in his olume. All con ibu ions ha e unde gone he elabo a e mul i-
s age e iew p ocess which LangSci en isages. We hank he in e nal and ex e -
nal e iewe s o hei aluable inpu on ea lie e sions o he pape s, and we
a e e y g a e ul o all au ho s o hei high-quali y con ibu ions. In he inal
s age o p epa a ion, we g a e ully ecei ed nume ous commen s in he c owd
e iew p ocess, and in dealing wi h hese, Lea Coy’s expe ise was uly in alu-
able. Many hanks a e also due o İ em Duman Çakı o o ganiza ional assis-
ance. Las , bu no leas , we a e g a e ul o he se ies edi o s o he Con ac and
Mul ilingualism se ies, Isabelle Léglise and S e ano Man edi, o accep ing he
olume and o he publishe , ad pe sonam especially Sebas ian No dho , o he
echnical suppo du ing i s p oduc ion.
A emis Alexiadou
Claudio Sca aglie i
Ch is oph Sch oede
Heike Wiese
Chap e 1
In oduc ion: Mul ilinguals as O he s
A emis Alexiadou
Leibniz-Zen um Allgemeine Sp achwissenscha (ZAS); Humbold Uni e si ä
zu Be lin
Claudio Sca aglie i
Uni e si é de Lausanne
Ch is oph Sch oede
Uni e si ä Po sdam
Heike Wiese
Humbold -Uni e si ä zu Be lin
1 Mul ilinguals as O he s
Mul ilingualism is he no mal condi ion o con empo a y as well as his o ical
human socie ies (e.g., G osjean 2010). Howe e , Eu opean na ion-s a e building
has led o a s ong “monolingual habi us” (Gogolin 2002) ha cons uc s a com-
muni y o monolingual speake s as bea e s o a na ion (O ega 2009, G osjean
2010, Cook 2016). This e ases o exo icises mul ilinguis ic p ac ices and excludes
mul ilingual speake s.
The e ec s o his exclusion a e isible in he public discou se on mul ilingual
speake s, whe e we ind a widesp ead “O he ing” o mul ilingual speake s, un-
de s ood as cons uc ing hem as membe s o a social and linguis ic ou -g oup
(Lamon & Molná 2002, De in 2015). Such O he ing is, o example, e iden o
A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike Wiese. 2025.
In oduc ion: Mul ilinguals as O he s. In A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i,
Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike Wiese (eds.), The cons uc ion o mul ilinguals as O he s:
Do we p ac ice wha we p each?, 1–9. Be lin: Language Science P ess. DOI: 10.5281/
zenodo.17132439
A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike Wiese
G osjean, F ançois. 2010. Bilingual: Li e and eali y. Camb idge: Ha a d Uni e -
si y P ess. DOI: 10.4159/9780674056459.
Gudmes ad, Aa nes, Amanda Edmonds & Thomas Me zge . 2022. Mo ing be-
yond he na i e-speake bias in he analysis o a iable gende ma king. F on-
ie s in Psychology (12). Ped o Guija o-Fuen es, C is ina Sua ez-Gomez, Mila
Vulchano a, An onella So ace & Valen in Vulchano (eds.). 11–23. DOI: 10 .
3389/ comm.2021.723496.
Jaspe s, Jü gen & Lian Malai Madsen. 2019. C i ical pe spec i es on linguis ic ixi y
and luidi y: Languagised li es (Rou ledge C i ical S udies in Mul ilingualism
19). New Yo k & London: Rou ledge Taylo & F ancis G oup.
Jespe sen, O o. 1922. Language: I s na u e, de elopmen , and o igin. New Yo k:
Hol .
Ke swill, Paul & Heike Wiese (eds.). 2022. U ban con ac dialec s and language
change: Insigh s om he Global No h and Sou h (Rou ledge S udies in Lan-
guage Change). New Yo k & London: Rou ledge Taylo & F ancis G oup.
Lamon , Michèle & Vi ág Molná . 2002. The s udy o bounda ies in he social
sciences. Annual Re iew o Sociology 28(1). 167–195. DOI: 10.1146/annu e .soc.
28.110601.141107.
Li, Wei. 2016. Epilogue: Mul i-compe ence and he anslanguaging ins inc . In
Vi ian Cook & Wei Li (eds.), The Camb idge handbook o linguis ic mul i-
compe ence (Camb idge Handbooks in Language and Linguis ics), 533–543.
Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107425965.026.
O’Rou ke, Be nade e & Joan Pujola . 2015. New speake s and p ocesses o new
speake ness ac oss ime and space. Applied Linguis ics Re iew 6(2). 145–150.
DOI: 10.1515/appli e -2015-0007.
O ega, Lou des. 2009. Unde s anding second language acquisi ion. London: Hod-
de Educa ion.
Pennycook, Alas ai . 2016. Mobile imes, mobile e ms: The ans-supe -poly-
me o mo emen . In Nicolas Coupland (ed.), Sociolinguis ics. Theo e ical de-
ba es, 201–216. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Ramp on, Ben. 2010. F om “mul i-e hnic adolescen he e oglossia” o “con em-
po a y u ban e nacula s”. Language & Communica ion 31(4). 276–294. DOI:
10.1016/j.langcom.2011.01.001.
Rash, Felici y & Ge aldine Ho an. 2020. Discou se o B i ish and Ge man colonial-
ism: Con e gence and compe i ion (Empi es in Pe spec i e). London: Rou ledge.
Rosa, Jona han & Nelson Flo es. 2017. Unse ling ace and language: Towa d a
aciolinguis ic pe spec i e. Language in Socie y 46(5). 621–647. DOI: 10.1017/
S0047404517000562.
8

1 In oduc ion: Mul ilinguals as O he s
Ro hman, Jason, Fa ih Bay am, Vincen DeLuca, G azia Di Pisa, Jon Andoni
Duñabei ia, Khadij Gha ibi, Jiuzhou Hao, Nadine Kolb, Maki Kubo a, Tanja
Kupisch, Tim Lamé is, Alicia Luque, B echje an Osch, Se gio Miguel Pe ei a
Soa es, Yanina P ys auka, Deniz Ta , Aleksand a Tomić, Toms Voi s & S e anie
Wul . 2023. Monolingual compa a i e no ma i i y in bilingualism esea ch is
ou o “con ol”: A gumen s and al e na i es. Applied Psycholinguis ics 44(3).
316–329. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716422000315.
Shad o a, Anna, Pia Linscheid, Julia Lukassek, Anke Lüdeling & Sa ah Schneide .
2021. A Challenge o con as i e L1/L2 co pus s udies: La ge in e - and in a-
indi idual a ia ion ac oss mo phological, bu no global syn ac ic ca ego ies
in ask-based co pus da a o a homogeneous L1 Ge man g oup. F on ie s in
psychology 12. 165–193. DOI: 10.3389/ psyg.2021.716485.
Tsehaye, Win ai, Ta iana Pashko a, Rosema ie T acy & Shanley E. Allen. 2022.
Decons uc ing he na i e speake : Fu he e idence om he i age speak-
e s o why his ho se should be dead! F on ie s in Psychology 12. Ped o
Guija o-Fuen es, C is ina Sua ez-Gomez, Mila Vulchano a, An onella So ace
& Valen in Vulchano (eds.). 67–80. DOI: 10.3389/ psyg.2021.717352.
Wa nke, Ingo. 2019. Th ee s eps in ch oma ic abysses: On he necessi y o e-
sea ching colonialism in la e linguis ics. Jou nal o Pos colonial Linguis ics 1.
41–59.
Weisge be , Leo Johann. 1966. Vo eile und Ge ah en de Zweisp achigkei . Wi k-
endes Wo 16. 73–89.
Wiese, Heike. 2013. Wha can new u ban dialec s ell us abou in e nal language
dynamics? The powe o language di e si y. In We ne Ab aham & Elisabe h
Leiss (eds.), Dialek ologie in neuem Gewand (Linguis ische Be ich e - Sonde -
he e), 208–245. Hambu g: Helmu Buske Ve lag.
Wiese, Heike, A emis Alexiadou, Shanley Allen, Oli e Bunk, Na alia Gaga-
ina, Ka e yna Ie emenko, Ma ia Ma yno a, Ta iana Pashko a, Vicky Ri-
zou, Ch is oph Sch oede , Anna Shad o a, Luka Szucsich, Rosema ie T acy,
Win ai Tsehaye, Sabine Ze bian & Yulia Zuban. 2021. He i age speake s as
pa o he na i e language con inuum. F on ie s in Psychology 12. Ped o
Guija o-Fuen es, C is ina Sua ez-Gomez, Mila Vulchano a, An onella So ace
& Valen in Vulchano (eds.). 209–227. DOI: 10.3389/ psyg.2021.717973.
Wiese, Heike, A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i & Ch is oph Sch oede .
2022. Mul ilinguals as O he s in socie y and academia: Challenges o belong-
ing unde a monolingual habi us. Wo king Pape s in U ban Language & Li e a-
cies 302. h ps://wpull.o g/wp-con en /uploads/2022/10/WP302-Wiese-e -al-
2022-Mul ilinguals-as-o he s.pd .
9
Chap e 2
O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
Claudio Sca aglie i
Uni e si é de Lausanne
This con ibu ion desc ibes ways o O he ing o mul ilinguals in public discou se.
Based on a co pus o 49 ex s om Ge many, Aus ia and Swi ze land, I i s demon-
s a e ha mul ilinguals a e cha ac e ized as di e en om he ‘We’ g oup and la-
belled wi h e ms ha dis ega d hei mul ilingual capabili ies and ins ead po ay
hem as geog aphic, na ional o eligious o he s. This ‘being-di e en ’ om ‘Us’
is egula ly e alua ed in nega i e e ms, wi h mul ilinguals being blamed o , e.g.,
an isemi ism o homophobia in ‘Ou ’ socie y. The da a also shows ha hese labels
and he unde lying dis inc ions be ween ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ pe sis agains c i icism
and ha hey a e used o explain new social phenomena (like he de elopmen
o a pandemic). Taken oge he , his s udy no only allows us o unde s and how
O he ing o mul ilinguals p oceeds in he in es iga ed socie ies, bu also o econ-
s uc a e y na ow concep o he pe cei ed ‘We’ g oup. As academia in gene al,
and linguis ics in pa icula , is in luenced by he socie al con ex in which i ope -
a es, such olk concep s o ‘Us’ s. ‘Them’ ha e he po en ial o in luence linguis ic
esea ch – as e idenced by he con ibu ions o his olume.
1 In oduc ion
O he ing has been desc ibed as a language p ac ice ha dema ca es indi iduals
o g oups as dis inc ly di e en om he g oup he cu en speake iden i ies
wi h (Dahinden 2011, B ons 2015). O he ing iden i ies people as “alien” (B ons
2015) om ‘Us’ – he speake ’s g oup – and as belonging o a di e en g oup.
His o ically, such o he ing p ocesses ha e o en led o nega i e e alua ions o
he O he g oup (Sca aglie i & Zech 2013, Dahinden e al. 2014; Sca aglie i &
Luginbühl 2023) and ha e a imes been a basis o d as ic and coe ci e social
and poli ical measu es di ec ed a ha g oup (D akulić 1993, Mülle -Funk 2016:
Claudio Sca aglie i. 2025. O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y. In A emis Alexiadou,
Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike Wiese (eds.), The cons uc ion o
mul ilinguals as O he s: Do we p ac ice wha we p each?, 11–34. Be lin: Language
Science P ess. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17132441
Claudio Sca aglie i
141). In his con ibu ion, I aim o desc ibe ways in which mul ilinguals a e po -
ayed as O he s in socie y. To his end, I examine da a om public discou se in
Ge many, Swi ze land and Aus ia.1The da a demons a es 1) ha mul ilinguals
in hese coun ies a e o en po ayed as di e en om he majo i y socie y, 2)
he ways in which such O he ing p oceeds and 3) he ypes o O he ing c ea ed.
I show ha s udying p ocesses and p ac ices o O he ing no only ells us abou
how he O he g oup is pe cei ed, bu ha i also allows us o be e unde s and
how he majo i y pe cei es hemsel es. By desc ibing and discussing O he ing
in socie y, his con ibu ion aims o lay he g oundwo k o he a icles in his
olume ha in es iga e O he ing in science. Since science is connec ed o social
p ocesses in mul iple ways, mul iple in e dependencies be ween he way mul i-
linguals a e pe cei ed in socie y and science a e o be expec ed. This con ibu ion
a gues ha a clea and objec i e concep o mul ilinguals and mul ilingualism
ha does no os acize mul ilinguals as O he s, needs o be he basis o a mo e
open and non-disc imina ing social discou se abou mul ilinguals.
In he ollowing, I i s p esen he exis ing esea ch abou O he ness and O h-
e ing and discuss he main s ands in he discou se analy ic li e a u e abou he
po ayal o immig an s in he mass media. I hen b ie ly desc ibe he analy ic
p ocedu e and he da ase ha was used in his s udy. The s udy is explo a o y in
na u e and ollows a quali a i e app oach ha allows o a a he de ailed, hick
desc ip ion (Gee z 1973) o O he ing p ocesses bu does no claim ep esen a-
i eness o s a is ical signi icance. Ins ead, i aims a unco e ing some o he
mos impo an pa e ns in which O he ing o mul ilinguals p oceeds in public
discou se. In he Findings sec ion, I analyze six examples ha illus a e he di -
e en pa e ns o O he ing in my da a.2I i s desc ibe p ac ices o O he ing and
secondly demons a e ha O he ing is no es ic ed o exis ing social deba es,
bu will also be applied o new eme ging p oblems, like he Co id-19 pandemic
o he 2022 New Yea ’s E e io s in Ge many. Thi dly I will show ha O he -
ing equen ly leads o nega i e e alua ions o he O he g oup ha allows his
g oup o be blamed o socie al p oblems and hus o po ay he ‘own’ g oup in
mo e posi i e, desi able e ms. In he discussion sec ion, I poin ou he p inci-
ples ha guide O he ing p ocesses and he unde lying olk concep s o ‘Us’ s.
‘They’, i.e., he ideas ha guide he c ea ion o g oup membe ship in he in es-
iga ed socie ies. I close by ouching on he connec ions be ween scien i ic and
social discou se and by a guing o a di e en concep ualiza ion o mul ilinguals
in linguis ics and language science.
1All h ee o hese coun ies a e mul ilingual. In his con ibu ion, I will only s udy he Ge man-
language discou se in hese coun ies.
2Some o hese examples ha e al eady been b ie ly discussed in Wiese e al. 2022.
12
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
2 Resea ch on O he ing
The dis inc ion o same s. di e en cons i u es a undamen al p inciple o hu-
man pe cep ion (F eud 1913, Ma u ana & Va ela 1980, Taube 2015). This no only
holds ue om a biological o psychological indi idualis ic pe spec i e bu can
also been ans e ed o social p ocesses – people egula ly dis inguish be ween
hose hey pe cei e as belonging o hei own g oups s. hose pe cei ed as
membe s o ano he g oup (Gillespie 2007; Mülle -Funk 2016: 66). While such
p ocesses migh be seen as “na u al” (c . Gadame 2010: 374) and no pe se p ob-
lema ic, he linguis ic p ac ice o O he ing has been desc ibed in mo e c i ical
e ms (Dahinden 2011, Dahinden e al. 2014; Wiese e al. 2022). Linguis ic O h-
e ing p oceeds in wo basic s eps: Fi s , a dis inc ion is d awn be ween an In-
and an Ou -g oup, a g oup ‘We’ belong o s. a g oup ‘They’ belong o (Reisigl
2014). While he In-g oup is o en no e e ed o explici ly – implying ha who
‘We’ a e is sel -e iden and does no need o be explained – he O he g oup
is o en iden i ied ia a speci ic e m, e.g., as Jews, Muslims, o people wi h a
‘mig a ion backg ound’ (see below).3In a second s ep, nega i e a ibu es (like
delinquency o abuse o he social wel a e sys em) a e egula ly asc ibed o his
O he g oup. Much linguis ic esea ch has desc ibed such O he ing p ac ices in
public discou se in he mass media (see o example Jung e al. 1997, Reisigl &
Wodak 2001, Wengele 2003, Bu e wegge & Hen ges 2006; Con ad & Aðals eins-
dó i 2017; Holzbe g e al. 2018; Jo is e al. 2018; Amo es e al. 2020, Figou eux
2021, Sca aglie i & Luginbühl 2023). While a comple e su ey o he li e a u e is
no in ended he e, i has been shown ha immig an s – and hei o sp ing, i.e.,
child en bo n and aised in he espec i e coun y o immig a ion – ha e been
po ayed in mo e nega i e han posi i e e ms, i.e., ha nega i e a ibu es a e
asc ibed o he O he g oup. Among such a ibu es, he desc ip ion o immi-
g an s as c iminals is one o he phenomena mos in es iga ed in he li e a u e
(see e.g., Wengele 2003, de Ridde 2010, To e al. 2016, Con ad & Aðals einsdó -
i 2017, Sca aglie i 2018, Jo is e al. 2018, Holzbe g e al. 2018, Figou eux 2021,
Czyma a & an Klinge en 2022). O he impo an ames in his con ex a e ha
o immig an s as in ude s ( an Go p 2006; Sca aglie i 2018, Rheindo & Wodak
3One o he s iking aspec s o hese labels is ha a i s sigh hey appea o deno a e a clea ly
de ined social g oup, while in eali y he bounda ies o hese ca ego ies a e o en e y po ous
and his o ically unde go a p ocess o g adual ex ension. In he Ge man Nazi-s a e, o exam-
ple, he ca ego y o Jews included amilies and indi iduals who did no p ac ice hei belie
o gene a ions o who did no iden i y as Jewish bu had Jewish ances o s. In con empo a y
discou se in many Eu opean coun ies, people a e iden i ied as Muslims i hey o hei ances-
o s come om a majo i y Muslim coun y, ega dless o whe he hey p ac ice hei belie ,
iden i y as a heis s, agnos ics o belong o a eligious mino i y.
13

Claudio Sca aglie i
2018) pene a ing ‘ou ’ space despi e no belonging ‘he e’ o ha hey p oduce
p oblems and inancial cos s o he majo i y socie y (Sca aglie i & Zech 2013,
To e al. 2016, Con ad & Aðals einsdó i 2017, Jo is e al. 2018, Figou eux 2021).
These a ibu ions no only p esen he O he g oup in a nega i e ligh , bu also
implici ly sugges clea pa hs o dealing wi h his O he g oup – c iminals need o
be punished, in ude s need o be sen away, e en mo e so i hey a e esponsible
o social p oblems and ising social wel a e cos s. Thus, e en i such measu es
a e no explici ly called o in he espec i e O he ing ex s, asc ibing such cha -
ac e is ics o a social g oup implies a ce ain cou se o ac ion owa ds hem. The
same holds ue o he wa e me apho s e y equen ly used o desc ibe immi-
g an s as a lood o wa e o people. These me apho s p esen O he s as a mass o
uncoun able and uncon ollable objec s ha h ea en o wash o e ‘Ou ’ coun-
y and need o be deal wi h in ways app op ia e o na u al disas e s (Rehbein
1993, Jung e al. 1997, Wengele 2003, Jo is e al. 2018). O cou se, O he ing in
p inciple also allows o desc ibing he O he g oup in mo e posi i e o neu al
e ms. Especially pe sons leeing om wa zones ha e been desc ibed as ic ims
in he mass media ( an Go p 2006, Con ad & Aðals einsdó i 2017, Jo is e al.
2018, Holzbe g e al. 2018) and some imes hey a e also being amed as use ul
o bene icial (mos o en in economic o demog aphic e ms). These ca ego ies
a e o en used in he media o y o balance he epo ing on immig an s and
po ay he O he g oup in a less nega i e ligh , also wi h he aim o no eeding
acis na a i es and s e eo ypes.
While esea ch has in gene al been e y in e es ed in he desc ip ion o immi-
g an s in public discou se, e en linguis s ha e so a igno ed he language aspec
o O he ing, i.e., he O he ing o immig an s based on hei mul ilingual compe-
encies. Resea che s ha e ye o demons a e language as a sou ce o O he ing
and o desc ibe he ways in which linguis ic O he ing in socie y p oceeds ( o a
i s s ep see Sca aglie i 2022). The e o e, he p esen con ibu ion pu sues he
ollowing goals:
1. Documen cases o O he ing o mul ilinguals in public discou se;
2. Di e en ia e be ween di e en kinds o O he ing o mul ilinguals;
3. Desc ibe he a ibu es and labels used o O he ing mul ilinguals;
4. Elabo a e how, based on he indings o 1)-3), he ‘We’ g oup is cons uc ed
s. he O he g oup.
In he ollowing sec ion, I desc ibe he da a co pus and he analy ic app oach
ha we e used o pu sue hese goals.
14
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
3 Da a and analy ic app oach
This explo a o y s udy is based on a co pus o 49 ex s, including audio- and ideo
iles, om Ge many, Swi ze land, and Aus ia4. All elemen s o he da abase
a e jou nalis ic a icles o in e iews ha con ibu e o public discou se. The
da a does no con ain o um discussions o con ibu ions o social media, only
con ibu ions o adi ional news media (online and p in e sions o newspape s,
adio- and -p og ams).
The da a we e collec ed by Heike Wiese, who g aciously allowed me o use he
da a, and by mysel . Sampling ollowed a basic he meneu ic app oach – newspa-
pe a icles o con ibu ions o adio o TV p og ams we e collec ed i a i s
sigh hey seemed o con ibu e o he O he ing o Mul ilinguals o – mo e gen-
e ally – people po ayed as immig an s. This o cou se explains he a he small
co pus – we did no ga he all ex s abou language, mul ilingualism, o immi-
g an s, bu only such sou ces ha we e deemed ele an o he opic o his con-
ibu ion.
Following a i s eading, lis ening, o wa ching o he da a, I ansc ibed he
audio and ideo iles. Fo ansc ip ion, I op ed o ollow con en ions es ablished
in media linguis ics (Bu ge & Luginbühl 2014: 523) ha ocus on he e bal con-
en o he con ibu ions, less on pa alinguis ic o non e bal in o ma ion (c . Je -
e son 2004). I hen analyzed he da a acco ding o es ablished me hods o dis-
cou se analysis (Wodak & Meye 2009, Spi zmülle & Wa nke 2011), ocusing
pa icula ly on wha was said abou mul ilinguals, how hey we e po ayed,
whe he O he ing occu ed and how i p oceeded. My analy ic app oach hus
o e s in e p e a ions o he meanings o ex s, si ua es hem in he con ex in
which hey occu and discusses how hei meanings is cons uc ed (c . Richa d-
son 2019). In a ou h analy ic s ep, I dis inguished be ween di e en ypes o O h-
e ing appa en in he sou ce ex s. This dis inc ion was mainly based on which
aspec s he O he ing was g ounded in (e.g., geog aphy s. e hnic o na ional be-
longing).
Sampling and analysis hus ollowed hese ou s eps:
1. Fi s iew ( eading, lis ening, wa ching) and decision abou including he
sou ce in he co pus;
2. T ansc ip ion o audio and ideo sou ces;
4The discou se in he Ne he lands and in Du ch-speaking Belgium shows e y simila pa e ns
(Van Maele 2021, Sca aglie i 2022), bu due o space es ic ions his con ibu ion will be
limi ed o Ge man-language da a.
15
Claudio Sca aglie i
3. Close linguis ic analysis o he sou ces wi h ega ds o O he ing o mul i-
linguals;
4. Di e en ia ion o ypes o O he ing.
As men ioned, he s udy is explo a o y in na u e and does no claim ep esen-
a i eness o public discou se as such. Based on he limi ed da ase , i is also no
possible o make s a emen s abou he o e all equency o he pa e ns o O h-
e ing appa en in my da a. Despi e hese limi a ions, his con ibu ion is able o
demons a e ha O he ing o mul ilinguals exis s in he public discou se o he
espec i e coun ies and how such O he ing p oceeds. My s udy hus also aims o
lay he g oundwo k o u u e s udies ha would hen be able o use o ins ance
s a is ical me hods and a la ge da abase o examine he ep esen a i eness and
equency o he pa e ns desc ibed he e.
4 Findings
Despi e sampling o O he ing o mul ilinguals, a i s look a my da a e ealed
ha e en in his ca e ully chosen subse o public discou se, language is o en
dis ega ded o ea ed as a side-issue wi h limi ed ele ance o he o e a ch-
ing poin o he a icle. This o en means ha mul ilingual immig an s o hei
child en o g andchild en a e O he ed, wi hou men ioning hei mul ilingual
capabili ies (see ex ac s 3 and 5 below o examples). One o he e ec s o his
phenomenon is ha mul ilinguals a e no amed as pe sons who – by speaking
mul iple languages – ha e mo e capabili ies han he a e age monolingual mem-
be o he majo i y socie y. No men ioning mul ilingualism when alking abou
– and O he ing – immig an s hus conceals an impo an asse o he objec s o
he con ibu ion, which in u n lends i sel o po aying hem no as impo an
and con ibu ing membe s o socie y, bu as de icien , p oblem-inducing O h-
e s in need o suppo (c . Sca aglie i & Zech 2013). Con a y o wha would
be expec ed, he concealing o hei mul ilingualism hus does no con ibu e o
‘no malizing’ mul ilinguals – as one o he a ibu es ha possibly di e en ia es
‘Them’ om ‘Us’ is no men ioned – bu can ins ead be a pa o po aying hem
in nega i e e ms. The no men ioning o he mul ilingualism o O he s hus con-
ibu es o he second s ep o O he ing men ioned abo e, he nega i e e alua ion
o O he s o “c ude o he ing” acco ding o B ons (2015: 71).
One i s inding is hus ha o en he mul ilingual capabili ies o he immi-
g an popula ion a e no men ioned in public discou se. Ins ead, mul ilinguals
16
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
a e po ayed as geog aphic, e hnic, o na ional O he s (c . Wiese e al. 2022),
wi hou e e ing o language.
A ela ed inding is ha language is o en used as a ai , o dema ca e mul ilin-
guals as, o example, ‘non-Ge man-speaking’. In hese cases, linguis ic compe-
encies a e ea ed like labels, used in e changeably wi h o he labels dema ca -
ing he O he g oup. A i s example om a discussion abou educa ional policy
in he s a e pa liamen o Be lin illus a es his p ac ice (emphasis added).
(1) Ex ac 1: “Unequal oppo uni ies in inishing school”, Tagesspiegel, 22. 3.
2017
Melze [membe o pa liamen ; C.,S. ] also wan ed o know how
s uden s om immig an amilies compa e o hose om
Ge man-speaking amilies. His ques ion was, howe e , no answe ed
– ins ead, Sec e a y o S a e Rackles ga e him he o e all igu es –
Ge mans and mig an s oge he – as well as he sepa a e igu es o
mig an s. To be able o calcula e he school comple ion a es
sepa a ely o child en wi h and wi hou a mig an backg ound, one
would i s ha e o g ab a calcula o . I you don’ do ha , all you
ind ou is ha 34 pe cen o mig an s g adua e om high school a
he A-le el, while he a e o Be lin o e all is 47.4%.5
In his ex ac , a dis inc ion is made be ween on he one side “Ge mans”, “chil-
d en wi hou a mig a ion backg ound”, and “Ge man-speaking amilies”, and on
he o he side “immig an amilies”, “mig an s” and “child en wi h a mig a ion
backg ound”. Language is hus used as a ai o cha ac e ize some membe s o
socie y – hose ha a e “Ge man-speaking” – and o dis inguish hem om o he
membe s who do no ha e his ai . I also becomes clea ha ‘Ge man-speaking’
is jus one o he labels assigned o one o he wo g oups, which by e e se ma ks
he O he g oup as non-Ge man-speaking. This label is used e en hough bo h
g oups a end he Ge man educa ion sys em and – o a la ge ex en a leas –
we e bo n and aised in Ge many and hus ac ually do speak Ge man. This la-
belling is hus less abou he ac ual abili y o speak Ge man, bu mo e abou
whe he he child en speak ano he language besides Ge man. This O he ing
p ac ice hus leads o he pa adoxical si ua ion in which a g oup o child en ha
speaks Ge man is po ayed as non-Ge man-speaking because hey speak Ge -
man along wi h ano he language. O he ing he e is based on child en speaking
no only Ge man, bu also ano he language.
5Ex ac s a e p esen ed in ansla ion. The Ge man o iginals a e p o ided in he appendix.
17
Claudio Sca aglie i
And he con inues: “I am cu ious whe he you ha e he cou age o add ess
his publicly. I hink p obably no , a he lead ake deba es, because you
could be called a acis b oadcas e ”. So a lo o age exp essed he e. And eas
Schleiche , wha do you say?
Expe : So he opic o in eg a ion is eally a c ucial one oday, and you
basically ha e o ge he pa en s on boa d ea ly. And I hink ha ’s he ask
o a good educa ion sys em, o app oach hese people. I was once in one
o he poo es egions o China [...]. Tha ’s wha we ha e o expec om a
good educa ion sys em, o seek he con e sa ion ea ly, because he language
basics a e he basics o e e y hing, igh .
The in e iewe e e s o a lis ene who exp esses e y sha p c i icism o a
amily ha is p ac icing wha has scien i ically been ound o be he mos ade-
qua e way o mul ilingual language de elopmen : speaking he amily language
a home and ha ing child en acqui e he socie y’s majo i y language in he ed-
uca ional sys em (T acy 2008, Rehbein 2013, Mon ana i 2019, Wiese e al. 2020).
The lis ene connec s his wi h he opos o “pa allel socie ies” and gi es he child
g owing up in his way “no chance”. He also s a es ha he child would only be
“allowed” o speak Ge man a e en e ing school, while in eali y he pa en s
a e p obably no ac i ely p e en ing he om lea ning Ge man, bu a e simply
speaking hei na i e language wi h hei child. The lis ene ’s s ong – and sci-
en i ically w ong – s a emen s a e classi ied by he in e iewe as exp essing “a
lo o age” bu no o he wise commen ed on. In his eac ion, he expe again
accep s he p oposi ion ha immig an s need o a oid speaking hei amily lan-
guage a home and should speak Ge man ins ead. I hus seems clea ha he
quo ed lis ene , he in e iewe and he expe all ag ee ha he Tu kish amily
men ioned in his case i a aul speaking hei i s language wi h hei child.
The expe blames his mis ake on he Ge man educa ion sys em ha did no
in o m he amily abou he ‘ igh ’ beha io .
In he nex u n, he in e iewe con inues o b ing he opics immig a ion
and mul ilingualism oge he :
In e iewe : Jus o ge back o he opic o immig a ion […]. So he p opo -
ion o ou h g ade s who always speak Ge man a home was jus unde
62% in 2021, compa ed wi h 84% in 2011. Can conclusions be d awn abou
his, does some hing like his d ag down a class?
In his u n, he in e iewe b ings up immig a ion o he hi d ime and ex-
plici ly connec s immig a ion and speaking a language o he han Ge man wi h
24

2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
p oblems in he educa ion sys em (classes being “d agged down”). The p opo-
si ion, ha he p oblems in he much-maligned Ge man educa ion a e due o
immig an s speaking a language o he han Ge man a home is exp essed e y
clea ly and in dis inc e ms: he classes, he o he s uden s and he whole sys-
em is going down (c . Lako & Johnson 1980 o he me apho ical concep s o
‘up is good’ and ‘down is bad’) because o hese s uden s no “always speak[ing]
Ge man a home”.
The expe suppo s his as well, in unambiguous e ms:
Expe : Absolu ely. I hink ha ’s wha we mus ealize ha ea ly language
educa ion is he be-all end-all. Tha ’s why elemen a y educa ion is o c u-
cial impo ance, whe e child en ha e he oppo uni y o lea n he a ge
language Ge man. […] So he pa allel wo lds usually de elop when his
school wo ld and he home a e basically decoupled, igh .
He ag ees empha ically (“absolu ely”) and again poin s ou he impo ance o
ea ly language educa ion, wi hou men ioning ha his can be achie ed mul i-
lingually as well, independen ly o which language is spoken a home. He e en
akes up he no ion o “pa allel wo lds” o “pa allel socie ies” and ela es i o
amilies speaking ano he language a home, simila o he lis ene quo ed ea -
lie .
I lea e ou a sho sequence o his in e iew and b ing up he inal ques ion
abou immig a ion, in which he in e iewe seems o p opose coe ci e measu es
agains immig an s speaking hei amily language a home.
In e iewe : Klaus Klemm, an educa ional esea che , says ha posi i e dis-
c imina ion is he way o go, i.e., i he e a e no enough places in dayca es,
make su e ha child en om socially disad an aged amilies a e gi en p e -
e ence. Would some hing like ha be a solu ion, also o language suppo
pe haps, o make i obliga o y, pe haps?
The in e iewe again shi s om “socially disad an aged amilies” o immi-
g an mul ilinguals and seems o sugges o cing hem o lea n Ge man ea ly
(“make i obliga o y”). The expe again ag ees empha ically (“absolu ely”) and
hen s ongly a gues in a o o posi i e disc imina ion. I emains unclea i
he unde s ands he ques ion as sugges ing coe ci e measu es agains immig an
amilies.
In his example, ha I ga e a bi mo e space o, we hus ind a clea connec ion
be ween immig an s and language. As in o he examples, mul ilingualism is no
25
Claudio Sca aglie i
po ayed as a esou ce o an asse bu educed o no speaking Ge man. Sec-
ondly, he connec ion be ween immig a ion and mul ilinguals who do no speak
Ge man is amed e y nega i ely, mainly as p oducing p oblems in he Ge man
educa ion sys em (‘d agging classes down’ o building ‘pa allel wo lds’). Mul i-
ple imes du ing he exchange, speaking a language o he han Ge man a home
is depic ed as highly p oblema ic, wi h in e iewe , expe and e en a lis ene
ag eeing on his p oposi ion. One would expec ha his would lea e a s ong
imp ession on mos lis ene s o he p og am, especially since he connec ion
be ween mul ilinguals and p oblems o he educa ion sys em is made mul iple
imes in e y explici e ms and suppo ed by an in e na ionally enowned ex-
pe . Thi dly, i appea s as i coe ci e measu es a e sugges ed, designed o o ce
immig an amilies o speak Ge man (such a sugges ion is eminiscen o deeply
p oblema ic language policies ha his o ically ha e led o he ex inc ion o lan-
guages in some coun ies (B izic 2007)).
We also ind ha a clea dis inc ion is d awn be ween ‘Us’ and ‘Them’. This
is done o example by he expe poin ing ou ha membe s o educa ional
ins i u ions need o each ou o immig an pa en s and le hem know abou
he impo ance o speaking Ge man. Immig an s a e hus po ayed as special
cases ha , di e en ly om membe s o he majo i y socie y, need o be con ac ed
and in o med sepa a ely. Also, he no ion o “pa allel socie ies” is b ough up
mul iple imes, which sugges s ha immig an s ha e willingly chosen o o m
‘Thei ’ own socie y wi hin ‘Ou ’ socie y, o di e en ia e ‘Themsel es’ om ‘Us’.
Fu he mo e, he languages ha immig an s speak a home a e only men ioned
once – by he lis ene who is upse abou his neighbo speaking Tu kish wi h he
child – in all o he cases, he con e sa ion is conce ned wi h languages O he
han Ge man, which li e ally hin s a he O he ing ha is happening he e. This
is ein o ced in one o he ques ions – no e u ed by he in e iewee – ha
explici ly p esen s he ac ha he e a e less monolingual Ge man child en –
ou h g ade s who “always speak Ge man a home” – han en yea s ago as a
p oblem. Mul ilingualism is hus explici ly po ayed and accep ed as a p oblem
o ‘Ou ’ socie y.
Finally, he example demons a es ha he e is an en i e discou se s and ha
p oblema izes and O he s mul ilinguals, as a ious s udies o esea che s a e
e e ed o du ing he discussion. Those s udies a e used o suppo he O he ing
conduc ed in his con e sa ion, which makes i clea ha his discussion is no an
isola ed example bu based on p e-exis ing con ibu ions o public and scien i ic
discou se ha O he ing can ely on.
A six h and inal example illus a es ha linguis ic O he ing can also be ap-
plied o so-called au och honous mino i ies. As epo ed by nume ous ou le s
26
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
(ex ac 6: De Tagesspiegel , “Saxons s. So bs”, 7. 1. 2018; Neues Deu schland
“Hos ili y owa ds Na ionals”, 18. 1. 201813), he o me p ime minis e o he Ge -
man s a e Saxony, S anislaw Tillich, was publicly labelled non-Saxon: a e an-
o he poli ician had been elec ed as p ime-minis e , he mayo o a small Saxon
own s a ed ha “a leas now o he i s ime we ha e a Saxon as p ime minis-
e ” (De Tagesspiegel 7. 1. 2018) and la e explained ha he o he o me p ime
minis e s came om o he pa s o Ge many and he e o e could no be consid-
e ed Saxon, while Tillich, who was bo n and aised in Saxony, was a So b – a
membe o he o icially ecognized au och honous So bian mino i y in Saxony
– and hus no a Saxon. In his case, O he ing is hus no ela ed o immig a ion
bu o a pe son belonging o a mul ilingual mino i y. The ac ha Tillich was
bo n and aised in Saxony, s ongly iden i ies wi h he egion, and speaks Ge -
man as one o his na i e languages hus appa en ly does no su ice o him being
included in he ‘We’ g oup. Ins ead, him speaking a language besides Ge man
and iden i ying as a membe o a mino i y, leads o him being O he ed. We ind
ha a e y na ow concep o who ‘We’ a e unde lies his O he ing p ocess. I
discuss his concep in he nex sec ion and sum up wha I ound abou O he ing
o mul ilinguals in he da a.
5 Summa y and discussion
Be o e discussing he indings, I i s p esen a sho summa y o he pa e ns o
O he ing o mul ilinguals in public discou se ha a e isible in my da a.
• O he ing p oceeds by po aying people as di e en and labelling hem
wi h e ms ha exp ess O he ness (Wiese e al. 2022). In he examples
discussed abo e, some o hese labels we e ela ed o language (non-
Ge man speaking, Tu kish-speaking), o he s o e hnic (Tu kish, A ab) o
geog aphic o igin (mig an ) o eligion (Muslim). As poin ed ou , hese
labels a e o en e y b oad and do no desc ibe he O he g oup in much
de ail bu pick ou one aspec o dema ca e hem as O he .
• In my da ase , he mul ilingual capabili ies o mul ilinguals a e o en
no men ioned. Con a y o wha migh be expec ed, his does no wo k
agains O he ing, bu suppo s he nega i e e alua ion o he O he g oup
(‘c ude o he ing’ acco ding o B ons 2015: 71), as an impo an asse o he
g oup is concealed.
13This a icle can be ead he e: h ps://www.nd-ak uell.de/a ikel/1076671.inlaende eindlichkei .
h ml (las seen 22. 1. 2024)
27
Claudio Sca aglie i
• I language is men ioned in hese con ex s, i is almos always po ayed
as a ixed ai , no as communica i e abili y. The language label (non-
Ge man-speaking e c.) is hen used in e changeably wi h o he essen ialis
and b oad ways o labelling such as “immig an ”, “mig a ion backg ound”
o “Muslim”.
• Such essen ialis labels (“mig a ion backg ound” e c.) – be hey ela ed
o language o no –and he co esponding dis inc ions a e upheld and
eused e en agains explici c i icism. They a e also applied o new social
phenomena (like a pandemic, io s e c.).
• O he ing is o en combined wi h clea ly nega i e e alua ions o he O he
g oup, which makes i possible o blame social p oblems (homophobia, an-
isemi ism, bad pe o mance o he educa ion sys em) on he O he g oup.
This also has he e ec o po aying he ‘We’ g oup in mo e posi i e e ms
(c . Gillespie 2007: 580), as hey a e p esen ed as less esponsible o exis -
ing socie al p oblems.
• The dis inc ion o ‘Us’ s. ‘Them’ and he clea ly nega i e e alua ion o
he O he g oup can lead o he sugges ion o coe ci e measu es agains
his g oup (c . D akulić 1993, Sca aglie i & Zech 2013, B ons 2015).
• O he ing is no es ic ed o mul ilinguals who mig a ed o whose ances-
o s did so bu can also be applied o au och honous mino i ies (c . Wiese
e al. 2022).
These indings hus illus a e how O he ing p oceeds and he e ms in which
O he s a e po ayed and labelled. mul ilinguals a e labelled as linguis ic O he s,
geog aphic O he s, na ional, e hnic, o eligious O he s (Wiese e al. 2022). Since
he O he g oup is o en i no always po ayed agains he backd op o he ‘We’
g oup, my indings also allow o conclusions abou impo an ai s asc ibed o
his ‘We’ g oup. Acco ding o my da a, a pe son will be conside ed a membe o
he ‘We’ g oup i hey hold he ollowing ai s:
• ‘We’ we e bo n and aised ‘he e’, i.e., ‘We’ ha e no amilial o indi idual
expe ience o c oss-bo de mig a ion. ’He e’ is ela ed o na ional bo de s,
people who mig a ed wi hin a coun y a e gene ally accep ed as pa o
he ‘We’ g oup;
• ’We’ a e membe s o he socially dominan ‘e hnic’ (c . Redde 2011) g oup;
28
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
• ’We’ a e ‘na i e speake s’ o he socially dominan language and do no
speak ano he language on a na i e-like le el.
Anyone who di e s in one o mul iple o hese aspec s om hese ea u es is
pe cei ed and labelled as O he in ways discussed abo e. The da a also shows
ha he bounda ies be ween hese g oups a e pe cei ed as e y sha p – indi id-
uals o g oups a e po ayed as pa o ei he g oup, hey canno belong o bo h
he ‘We’ and he ‘They’ g oup.14
We hus ind ha in social public discou se, he e exis s a commonsense o olk
concep abou who ‘We’ a e s. who ‘They’ a e. Ehlich (1993: 210) unde s ands
such e e yday o olk concep s (All agskonzep e) as basic ideas abou eali y,
incl. na u e, socie y o cul u e, ha guide how we ac ou sel es and how we
unde s and he ac ions o o he s in o dina y e e yday con ex s. Due o hei e y
undamen al na u e, many indi iduals o en a e no consciously awa e o such
olk concep s, and hey migh pe cei e hem as sel -e iden p esupposi ions ha
need no be c i icized Such olk concep s migh hen appea impossible o discuss
o decons uc . Con a y o me hods o heo ies – which in science a e egula ly
made he objec s o in ense e lec ion, discussion and e ision – such basic ideas
and p e-concep s can he e o e become unanalyzed pa s o esea ch p ocesses
(Ehlich 1993). Since he e a e mul iple connec ions be ween science and socie y
– including pe sonal, inancial, in as uc u al, legal and epis emic connec ions
– science is in gene al in luenced by he social sys em in which i is conduc ed
(e.g., MacIn y e 1987, Rosa 1998). This holds especially ue o ideas abou who
we a e and wha cons i u es us as a socie y – ideas ha o m he ounda ion
o collec i e and indi idual iden i y (Taylo 1989). As he con ibu ions o his
olume show, he unanalyzed, o en unconscious no ion ha Mu lilinguals a e
O he s, is no only p esen in public discou se bu has con inued o in luence
language science o decades and has o en o med one o he s a ing poin s
o scien i ic unde akings in he linguis ic ield. I a gue ha linguis ics needs o
discuss and decons uc his dis inc ion o be able o push o a mo e open and
egali a ian socie al discou se abou linguis ic belonging.
14The e a e ew excep ions o his ule, namely a icles ha po ay indi iduals in de ail and
discuss con adic o y eelings o belonging, o en o mul ilingual immig an s o hei child en.
In hese con ibu ions howe e , i is usually poin ed ou ha po aying someone as eeling
like hey belong o mul iple g oups is uncon en ional and di icul and ha i goes agains he
gene al way o unde s anding iden i y and belonging.
29

Claudio Sca aglie i
Acknowledgemen s
I hank my co-edi o s as well as wo anonymous e iewe s o ex ensi e and e y
help ul commen s on his s udy. I also hank he pa icipan s o he O he ing
wo kshop conduc ed in Be lin in July 2022 o hei commen s on his s udy.
Re e ences
Amo es, Ja ie J., Ca los A cila-Calde ón & Bea iz González-de-Ga ay. 2020.
The gende ed ep esen a ion o e ugees: Using isual ames in he main Wes -
e n Eu opean media. Gende Issues 37(4). 291–314. DOI: 10.1007/s12147-020-
09248-1.
B izic, Ka ha ina. 2007. Das geheime Leben de Sp achen: Gesp ochene und e -
schwiegene Sp achen und ih Ein luss au den Sp ache we b in de Mig a ion
(In e na ionale Hochschulsch i en 465). Müns e : Waxmann.
B ons, Lajos. 2015. O he ing, an analysis. T anscience 6(1). 69–90.
Bu ge , Ha ald & Ma in Luginbühl. 2014. Mediensp ache: Eine Ein üh ung in
Sp ache und Kommunika ions o men de Massenmedien. 4. neu bea bei e e und
e wei e e Au lage. Be lin: de G uy e .
Bu e wegge, Ch is oph & Gud un Hen ges (eds.). 2006. Massenmedien, Mig a-
ion und In eg a ion: He aus o de ungen ü Jou nalismus und poli ische Bildung
(In e kul u elle S udien 17). Wiesbaden: VS. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-531-90207-4.
Con ad, Maximilian & Hug ún Aðals einsdó i . 2017. Unde s anding Ge many’s
sho -li ed “cul u e o welcome”: Images o e ugees in h ee leading Ge man
quali y newspape s. Ge man Poli ics & Socie y 35(4). 1–21.
Czyma a, Ch is ian S. & Ma ijn an Klinge en. 2022. New pe spec i e? Com-
pa ing ame occu ence in online and adi ional news media epo ing on
Eu ope’s “mig a ion c isis”. Communica ions 47(1). 136–162. DOI: 10.31235/os .
io/h3 py.
Dahinden, Janine. 2011. „Kul u “ als Fo m symbolische Gewal : G enzziehungsp o-
zesse im Kon ex on Mig a ion am Beispiel de Schweiz. Neuchâ el.
Dahinden, Janine, Ke s in Duemmle & Joëlle Mo e . 2014. Disen angling eli-
gious, e hnic and gende ed con en s in bounda y wo k: How young adul s
c ea e he igu e o “ he opp essed muslim woman”. Jou nal o In e cul u al
S udies 35(4). 329–348. DOI: 10.1080/07256868.2014.913013.
de Ridde , Ka leen. 2010. De wi e media: O waa om “alloch onen” al ijd slech
nieuws zijn. Tiel : Lannoo.
Des a is. 2021. Be ölke ung und Demog a ie: Auszug aus dem Da en epo 2021.
Wiesbaden: S a is isches Bundesam .
30
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
D akulić, Sla enka. 1993. The Balkan exp ess: F agmen s om he o he side o wa .
New Yo k: No on.
Ehlich, Kon ad. 1993. Quali ä en des Quan i a i en: Quali ä en des Quali a i en:
Theo e ische Übe legungen zu eine gängigen Un e scheidung im Wissen-
scha sbe ieb. In Johannes-Pe e Timm & Helmu J. Vollme (eds.), Kon o-
e sen in de F emdsp achen o schung (Bei äge zu F emdsp achen o schung),
201–222. Bochum: B ockmeye .
Figou eux, Ma ie. 2021. “S ange dange !”: Mapping he (coun e -) aming, pe cep-
ion o , and esponse s a egies o mig a ion and adicalisa ion in Belgium. Leu-
en: KU Leu en. (Doc o al disse a ion). h ps://li ias.kuleu en.be/3519199.
F eud, Sigmund. 1913. The in e p e a ion o d eams. T ans. by Ab aham A. B ill.
New Yo k: Macmillan.
Gadame , Hans-Geo g. 2010. Wah hei und Me hode: G undzüge eine philosophi-
schen He meneu ik. 7., du chgesehene Au lage. Tübingen: Moh .
Gee z, Cli o d. 1973. The in e p e a ion o cul u es: Selec ed essays. New Yo k:
Basic Books.
Gillespie, Alex. 2007. Collapsing sel /o he posi ions: Iden i ica ion h ough di -
e en ia ion. The B i ish Jou nal o Social Psychology 46(P 3). 579–595. DOI:
10.1348/014466606X155439.
G esch, Co nelia & Co nelia Ki s en. 2011. S aa sbü ge scha ode Mig a ions-
hin e g und? Ein Ve gleich un e schiedliche Ope a ionalisie ungsweisen am
Beispiel de Bildungsbe eiligung. Zei sch i ü Soziologie 40(3). 208–227.
Holzbe g, Billy, K is ina Kolbe & Ra al Zabo owski. 2018. Figu es o c isis: The
delinea ion o (un)dese ing e ugees in he Ge man media. Sociology 52(3).
534–550. DOI: 10.1177/0038038518759460.
Je e son, Gail. 2004. Glossa y o ansc ip symbols wi h an in oduc ion. In
Gene H. Le ne (ed.), Con e sa ion analysis: S udies om he i s gene a ion
(P agma ics & beyond 125), 13–31. Ams e dam: Benjamins.
Jo is, Willem, Leen d’Haenens, Baldwin an Go p & S e an Me ens. 2018. The
e ugee c isis in Eu ope: A ame analysis o Eu opean newspape s. In Sai Fe-
licia K ishna-Hensel (ed.), Mig an s, e ugees, and he media (Global in e disci-
plina y s udies se ies), 59–80. Abingdon: Rou ledge.
Jung, Ma hias, Ma in Wengele & Ka in Böke (eds.). 1997. Die Sp ache des Mi-
g a ionsdisku ses: Das Reden übe „Auslände “ in Medien, Poli ik und All ag. Op-
laden: Wes deu sche Ve lag.
Lako , Geo ge & Ma k Johnson. 1980. Me apho s we li e by. Chicago: Uni e si y
o Chicago P ess.
Lange, Imke & Ing id Gogolin. 2010. Du chgängige Sp achbildung: Eine Hand ei-
chung. Müns e : Waxmann.
31
Claudio Sca aglie i
Lohndal, Te je, Jason Ro hman, Tanja Kupisch & Ma i Wes e gaa d. 2019. He -
i age language acquisi ion: Wha i e eals and why i is impo an o o -
mal linguis ic heo ies. Language and Linguis ics Compass 13(12). e12357. DOI:
10.1111/lnc3.12357.
MacIn y e, Alasdai . 1987. A e i ue: A s udy in mo al heo y. 2. (co .) ed. (wi h
Pos sc ip ). London: Duckwo h.
Ma u ana, Humbe o & F ancisco Va ela. 1980. Au opoiesis and cogni ion. Do -
d ech : Reidel.
Meche il, Paul & İnci Di im. 2010. Die Schlech e s ellung Mig a ionsande e :
Schule in de Mig a ionsgesellscha . In Paul Meche il, Ma io do Ma Cas o
Va ela, İnci Di im, Anni a Kalpaka & Claus Mel e (eds.), Mig a ionspädagogik
(S udium Paedagogik), 121–149. Weinheim: Bel z.
Mon ana i, Elke. 2019. Mi zwei Sp achen g oß we den: Meh sp achige E ziehung
in Familie, Kinde ga en und Schule. 14 h edn. München: Kösel.
Mülle -Funk, Wol gang. 2016. Theo ien des F emden (Uni-Taschenbüche 4569).
Tübingen: F ancke. DOI: 10.36198/9783838545691.
OECD. 2009. Childen o immig an s in he labou ma ke s o EU and o he OECD
coun ies: An o e iew. Pa is.
Redde , Angelika. 2011. „E hnizi ä “ und Meh sp achigkei . Linguis ik und Li e a-
u wissenscha 64. 71–92.
Rehbein, Jochen. 1993. „Und diese unkon ollie e Zus om...“: Anme kungen
zum poli ischen Disku s heu e. In Wol Pe e Klein & Ingwe Paul (eds.),
Sp achliche Au me ksamkei , 156–164. Heidelbe g: Win e .
Rehbein, Jochen. 2013. The u u e o mul ilingualism: Towa ds a HELIX o soci-
e al mul ilingualism unde global auspices. In K is in Büh ig & Be nd Meye
(eds.), T ans e ing linguis ic know-how in o ins i u ional p ac ice (Hambu g
s udies on mul ilingualism), 43–83. Ams e dam: John Benjamins.
Reisigl, Ma in. 2014. Ös e eichische Rech spopulismus im Zei al e on Medi-
endemok a ie und mediale E lebnisgesellscha . In F anz Januschek & Ma -
in Reisigl (eds.), Populismus in de digi alen Mediendemok a ie (Osnab ücke
Bei äge zu Sp ach heo ie), 71–99. Osnab ück: Uni e si ä s e lag Rhein-
Ruh .
Reisigl, Ma in & Ru h Wodak. 2001. Discou se and disc imina ion: Rhe o ics o
acism and an isemi ism. London: Rou ledge.
Rheindo , Ma kus & Ru h Wodak. 2018. Bo de s, ences, and limi s: P o ec ing
Aus ia om e ugees: Me adiscu si e nego ia ion o meaning in he cu en
e ugee c isis. Jou nal o Immig an & Re ugee S udies 16(1-2). 15–38. DOI: 10.
1080/15562948.2017.1302032.
32
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
Richa dson, John E. 2019. Analysing newspape s: An app oach om c i ical dis-
cou se analysis. 3 d edn. London: Macmillan.
Rosa, Ha mu . 1998. Iden i ä und kul u elle P axis: Poli ische Philosophie nach
Cha les Taylo . F ank u a. M.: Campus.
Sca aglie i, Claudio. 2018. Das F emde in de Linguis ic Landscape: Die Plaka e
de Schweize SVP und ih e disku si e Ve a bei ung. In Melanie Ulz & Ch i-
s oph Rass (eds.), Mig a ion ein Bild geben (Mig a ions egime), 327–355. Hei-
delbe g: Sp inge .
Sca aglie i, Claudio. 2022. The socie al con ex o O he ing in linguis ics. Talk
gi en a he Wo kshop “Do we p ac ice wha we p each?”, a Humbold -
Uni e si ä zu Be lin, 11 h July 2022.
Sca aglie i, Claudio & Ma in Luginbühl. 2023. The social semio ics o Swi ze -
land’s a igh : How campaign pos e s by he Swiss Na ional Pa y commu-
nica e ac oss di e en domains. Social Semio ics 34(4). 671–696. DOI: 10.1080/
10350330.2023.2178295.
Sca aglie i, Claudio & Claudia Zech. 2013. „Ganz no male Jugendliche, alle d-
ings meis mi Mig a ionshin e g und“: Eine unk ional-seman ische Analyse
on „Mig a ionshin e g und“. Zei sch i ü Angewand e Linguis ik 58. 201–
227.
Spi zmülle , Jü gen & Ingo Wa nke. 2011. Disku slinguis ik: Eine Ein üh ung in
Theo ien und Me hoden de ans ex uellen Sp achanalyse. Be lin: de G uy e .
Taube , Al ed I. 2015. “The o he ” wi hin: F eud’s ep esen a ion o he mind. In
Da id Goodman & Ma k Philip F eeman (eds.), Psychology and he o he , 71–93.
Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. DOI: 10.1093/acp o :oso/9780199324804.003.
0005.
Taylo , Cha les. 1989. Sou ces o he sel : The making o he mode n iden i y. Cam-
b idge: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
To , Maheba Nu ia Goedeke, La s Guen he & Geo g Ruh mann. 2016. Von k im-
inell bis willkommen: Wie die He kun übe das mediale F aming on Ein-
wande e n en scheide . Medien & Kommunika ionswissenscha 64(4). 497–517.
DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2016-4-497.
T acy, Rosema ie. 2008. Wie Kinde Sp achen le nen und wie wi sie dabei un e -
s ü zen können. 2nd edn. Tübingen: Na F ancke A emp o.
an Go p, Baldwin. 2006. F aming asiel: Ind inge s en slach o e s in de pe s. Leu-
en: Acco.
Van Maele, Ina. 2021. Massenmediale Disku se übe Mig a ion in Deu schland und
Belgien: Ein Ve gleich zwischen Männe n und F auen. Ghen : Ghen Uni e si y.
(MA hesis).
33
Heike Wiese
e hnic le els (1ab), and some imes openly acis (1c), (Ge man o iginals; ansla-
ions by me, H.W.):
(1) a. “no ou Ge man g amma ”; “semilingual pa en s […] qua e lingual
child en”
b. “mig a ion child en”
c. “I hink i is also somehow a p oblem o hei in ellec ”
“emo ional supe iciali y”
“cul u al alalia”
“ hey also ha e a di e en ana omy, hey also ha e comple ely
di e en aces. O en hey ha e e y bulging lips, and hen on op o
ha he pube y” [laughs]
No e ha hese a e u e ances made in he con ex o an in e iew, ha is,
in a si ua ion whe e pa icipan s end o moni o hemsel es mo e closely and
end o a oid s a emen s hey deem o be socially undesi able o unaccep able.
Tha we ind such e idence om language p o essionals could indica e ha such
opinions a e widely sha ed in socie y o a leas pe cei ed as such. How does his
a ec academia? Do we ind e ec s o his socie al habi us in linguis ics?
1.2 Does his a ec linguis ics?
I we a e looking o possible in luences o a monolingual and monoe hnic so-
cie al habi us in linguis ics, we ha e o emembe ha his kind o habi us is
p ima ily cha ac e is ic o he Global No h, gi en i s o igin in Eu opean na ion-
s a e building. A he same ime, esea ch om he Global No h has been dom-
inan in academia o a long ime. Fo psychology, Hen ich e al. (2010) poin ed
ou ha esea ch adi ionally concen a ed on wha hey called WEIRD soci-
e ies: an abb e ia ion o “Wes e n, Educa ed, Indus ialised, Rich, Democ a ic”.
In linguis ic ypology, Dahl (2015) c i icised a LOL bias: a ocus on languages
wi h he ea u es “Li e a e, O icial, Lo s o use s”, which accoun o less han
1% o human languages. Bo h pa e ns a e ela ed o he dominance o he Global
No h, wi h i s cha ac e is ic poli ical, economic, and linguis ic make-up.
Acco dingly, we migh expec o also see e ec s o he monolingual and mo-
noe hnic habi us p e ailing in he Global No h. This is bo ne ou no only in
such ea lie s uc u alis idealisa ions as de Saussu e’s “ o me idéale” (de Saus-
su e 1916) o Chomsky’s “ideal speake -lis ene ” (Chomsky 1965) ha we e dis-
cussed in he In oduc ion (Alexiadou e al. 2025 [ his olume]). We can also see
e idence o such a habi us in cu en concep ualisa ions o a “na i e speake ”.7
7Fo a ecen deba e see con ibu ions in Guija o-Fuen es e al. (2022)
40

3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
In esea ch on language acquisi ion, monolinguals ha e long been cons uc ed as
he p ima y bea e s o a language.8In he i age language esea ch, monolinguals
a e s ill commonly used as con ols (see also Lüpke 2025 [ his olume]):9he i age
speake s ha e so a p ima ily been in es iga ed in he Global No h, in socie ies
wi h a s ong monolingual habi us, and monolinguals ha e been chosen as a con-
ol g oup o “na i e-like” beha iou , “na i e compe ence” o “na i e le els” o
language a ainmen .
This implies a monolingually biased iew on who belongs o he p ima y
speake g oup and owns a language, e y much in keeping wi h he socie al
habi us we discussed. In he p esen pape I am going o del e deepe in o his
by looking a a b oade ange o subdisciplines. In o de o unco e possible
implici biases, I will ocus on he way mul ilinguals a e labelled. In wha ol-
lows, I p esen e idence om linguis ics and om ela ed ields o sociology and
educa ion, and analyse he di e en opoi ha a e e iden in labelling p ac ices
(Sec ion 2). Agains his backg ound, I discuss how his migh a ec ou esea ch
pe spec i es (Sec ion 3). The inal sec ion (Sec ion 4) summa ies ou esul s and
discusses hei implica ions.
2 Labelling mul ilinguals as O he s
2.1 E idence om academic w i ing
In wha ollows, I p esen a quali a i e analysis o O he ing pa e ns implici in
labels used o mul ilinguals in academia. Fo his analysis, I use as my empi ical
basis examples o labelling I ound when eading li e a u e ele an o my e-
sea ch in e es s. This is hence no a ep esen a i e sample, bu skewed owa ds
my own eading. The goal was no o iden i y quan i a i e pa e ns, bu o anal-
yse he unde lying opoi e iden in such labels. This said, he examples indica e
ha O he ing h ough labelling has a wide dis ibu ion in linguis ics. My ex-
amples come om publica ions ac oss di e en pe spec i es, subdisciplines and
esea ch domains, including con ac linguis ics, he i age language esea ch, lan-
guage acquisi ion, g amma ical analysis, and sociolinguis ics, plus some exam-
ples om ela ed ields o sociology and educa ion. Geog aphically, all examples
come om he Global No h, p edominan ly om esea ch in Eu ope, bu also
om No h Ame ica and Aus alia.
I ha e anonymised all sou ces. Speake codes iden i y he discipline (L – Lin-
guis ics; S – Sociology; E – Educa ion), speake numbe wi hin a discipline (L01,
8C . c i icism in O ega (2009); O’Rou ke & Pujola (2015).
9C . Ro hman e al. (2023) o a ecen c i ique o “monolingual compa a i e no ma i i y”.
41
Heike Wiese
02, … S01, …), and publica ion yea . The e a e wo easons o his anonymisa ion.
Fi s , I use publica ions as da a poin s he e, hence au ho s a e ea ed as subjec s
and acco dingly anonymised. Second, since hese a e widesp ead p ac ices, i
would be besides he poin o pu indi idual au ho s on he spo , and migh hin-
de an open discussion. In his con ex , le me poin ou ha he examples also
include a quo e om one o my own ea lie publica ions.
As I will show in he ollowing sec ions, O he ing h ough labelling alls in o
h ee main, in e ela ed s ands: (1) O he ing wi h espec o e i o ial belong-
ing cons uc s geog aphic O he s; (2) O he ing wi h espec o na ional g oup
membe ship cons uc s na ional O he s; (3) O he ing wi h espec o linguis ic
owne ship cons uc s linguis ic O he s. These s ands closely ollow pa e ns o
O he ing in public discou se, as discussed in Sec ion 1.1. In wha ollows, I look
a each s and in u n.
2.2 Te i o ial belonging: Cons uc ing geog aphic O he s
Labelling p ac ices in his s and cons uc child en and g andchild en o immi-
g an s as geog aphic O he s, al hough hey a e locally bo n (and non-mobile).
This is hence eminiscen o he use o “mig an ” in e changeably wi h “mig a-
ion backg ound” men ioned abo e o he public discussion in Ge many.
In some cases, a mig an s a us is pe pe ua ed o e se e al gene a ions, wi h
speake s labelled as (im-)mig an s, a he han locals when hei ances o s we e
immig an s. In o he cases, a o eign o igin is pe pe ua ed o la e gene a ions,
wi h speake s labelled as o igina ing om o he coun ies, a he han om he
coun y o hei bi h and upb inging. We can iden i y wo opoi he e:
• Topos 1 “Pe pe ual Mig an s”: Mul ilinguals a e mig an s.
• Topos 2 “No om He e”: Mul ilinguals ha e a o eign o igin.
The i s opos is e iden when mul ilingual speech communi ies a e desc ibed
as “immig an popula ions” (L01/2019), and when locally bo n speake s a e la-
belled as “mig an s” (S01/2014) and se apa as “mig an pee s” (L19/2009) o
monolingual local speake s. Ra he han being acknowledged as i s o second
gene a ion locals – o indeed jus locals – hey a e labelled as “second” o “ hi d
gene a ion (im-)mig an s” (L01/2019, L03/2020, L06/2020, L10/2017, L11/2013,
L16/2011, L19/2009, L20/2013, E02/2017), o as coming om “mig an amilies o
he second o hi d gene a ion” (E01/2020).
42
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
The second opos mani es s i sel when o eign “home coun ies” (L01/2019) o
“coun ies o o igin” (L05/2013, E02/2017) a e pos ula ed o locally bo n speak-
e s, while he coun y hey ha e li ed in all hei li es is desc ibed as a “hos
coun y” (L20/2013) o , adop ing a pe spec i e o he speake , hey a e desc ibed
as “li ing ab oad” (L06/2020). Speake s a e cha ac e ised, e.g., as o “Tu kish o i-
gin” (L19/2009) o o “Mo occan” o “Tu kish descen ” (L07/2014, E02/2017) o as
ha ing “ o eign oo s” (S01/2014).
Taken oge he , his kind o labelling o eg ounds an ances al mig a ion e en
in he amily his o y and applies i o a gene a ion ha has no pa icipa ed in i ,
making hem new a i als in he coun y o hei bi h (Topos 1), and cons uc -
ing hem as aliens whose home is no he coun y hey li e in, bu he sending
coun y o hose ea lie gene a ions in hei amily his o y (Topos 2).
2.3 Na ional g oup membe ship: Cons uc ing na ional O he s
Labelling p ac ices in his s and cons uc mul ilingual speake s as membe s o a
o eign ou -g oup o es ablish dicho omies be ween hem and he local in-g oup.
Again, wo opoi a e associa ed wi h his:
• Topos 3 “Fo eign Na ionals”: mul ilinguals a e Tu ks, Chinese, …
• Topos 4 “No Ou People”: mul ilinguals a e no Ge man, Du ch, ….
Topos 3 is e iden when speake s who we e bo n and g ew up in, e.g., Ge -
many, he Ne he lands, o Aus alia a e labelled “Chinese”, “G eek”, Tu ks”, “Mo-
occan”, “Albanian”, o “Su inamese” (L01/2019, L02/2013, L07/2002, L07/2014,
L12/2008). In some cases, simila ly o he “Pe pe ual Mig an s” opos, he e is
explici e e ence o he ac ha speake s a e al eady he second gene a ion li -
ing in he coun y, bu ins ead o , e.g., “second gene a ion Du ch/Aus alian”,
hey a e labelled as “second gene a ion Chinese/G eek” e c. (L01/2019, L13/2019).
Feeding in o Topos 4, locally bo n young people who a e mul ilingual a e
con as ed o an in-g oup o , e.g., “Du ch” o “Ge man” child en o adolescen s
who a e cons uc ed as monolingual (L04/2017, L07/2002, L17/2008, E03/2005,
S01/2014, S02/2017). This es ic s local belonging o monolingual speake s
and dema ca es mul ilinguals as ou side s. Especially in he con ex o he
Ne he lands, an addi ional opposi ion pai some imes used he e is ha o
“au och honous” s. “alloch honous”, which e minologically es ic s belong-
ing o one g oup, ma ginalising he second g oup as “allo-”. While his is in
keeping wi h he s a e’s census e minology, associa ing his dicho omy wi h
43
Heike Wiese
monolingualism s. mul ilingualism in linguis ics suppo s u he O he ing o
mul ilingual speake s.
These opoi eed in o a na a i e ha se s mul ilinguals in con as o he
na ional in-g oup and cas s hem as membe s o ano he na ionali y. Especially
in he con ex o Eu opean na ion-s a es, his cons uc s an alien speake g oup
ha is excluded om local belonging.
2.4 Linguis ic owne ship: cons uc ing linguis ic O he s
Labelling p ac ices wi hin his s and deny mul ilingual speake s owne ship o
he languages hey speak, e en i hey g ew up wi h hem as a amily language
o as he dominan language in he socie y hey we e bo n in o. My da a e eals
wo opoi:
• Topos 5 “No Na i e Speake s”: mul ilinguals a e no na i e speake s o
Spanish, Du ch, …
• Topos 6 “No o Ou Language”: mul ilinguals a e no Ge man-, … speak-
ing
Topos 5 is e iden h ough labelling ha cons uc s only monolingual speak-
e s as na i e speake s and con as s hem wi h bilinguals. In he i age language
esea ch, his is e iden when di e ences be ween “na i e speake s and he i age
speake s” o de ia ions o “he i age speake s om na i e speake s” a e in es i-
ga ed (L01/2019, L14/2018), hus denying na i e-speake hood o bilinguals, e en
hough hey acqui ed he language om bi h. The o he side o he coin is e i-
den when bilinguals a e con as ed o “na i e speake s” o he majo i y language
ha hey speak in addi ion o hei he i age language (S01/2014). Taken oge he ,
his kind o labelling denies bilingually g own up speake s na i e-speake hood
o bo h o hei languages.
In Topos 6, his is aken a s ep u he o he case o he majo i y language,
excluding bilinguals om i s speake base al oge he . Such O he ing is e iden
in a pape cons uc ing as “non-Ge man speaking s uden s” Ge man uni e si y
s uden s wi h a “mig a ion backg ound” (L09/2010), e e ing o speake s who
wen o school in Ge many (and usually we e al eady bo n he e) and g adua ed
om school he e – in schools whe e Ge man would no mally be he language
o ins uc ion, gi en he coun y’s s ong monolingual habi us. This migh look
like an ex eme case, and i ce ainly seems o be less common han Topos 5.
Howe e , he pape in ques ion is no a inge publica ion, bu a con ibu ion o a
44
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
well-es ablished handbook in which his ob iously emained unno iced h ough-
ou he e iewing and edi ing p ocess, which unde sco es he no mali y o such
e minology in ou ield.
2.5 Th ee s ands: pa allels o public discou se
As men ioned in 1.1 abo e, public discou se on language and belonging in he
wake o Eu opean na ion-s a es is o en domina ed by a nexus o “one coun y,
one na ion, one language”. My indings indica e ha his nexus is no es ic ed
o he gene al public and “lay” discou se: esul s e eal labelling p ac ices in
academic w i ing ha cons uc mul ilingual speake s as O he s wi h espec o
e i o ial belonging, na ional membe ship, and language owne ship, mi o ing
he ini y o coun y, na ion, and language. Figu e 2 illus a es his in eg a ion
o he h ee s ands and he opoi eeding in o hem.
Te i o ial belonging
“Mig an s”
“No om he e”
Na ional membe ship
“Fo eign na ionals”
“No ou people”
Language owne ship
“No na i e speake s”
“No o ou language”
coun y
na ion
language
Figu e 2: O he ing o mul ilingual speake s h ough labelling p ac ices
in academia
This esul sugges s ha when i comes o he labels we use o mul ilinguals,
he monolingual and monoe hnic habi us dominan in la ge socie y exe s i s
powe in academia as well. The linguis ic side o his is e iden in O he ing
ha denies speake s language owne ship, he e hnic side in e i o ial and na-
ional O he ing. Wi h espec o he la e , i is p esumably no a coincidence
ha he speake s labelled in his way we e in a iably speake s o ma ginalised
and acialised g oups.10 As he con as discussed o he wo Tagesspiegel a i-
cles in 1.1 abo e illus a ed, i is hese g oups ha a e subjec o such O he ing
in he public deba e, a he han hose cons uc ed as whi e middle class.
10See Fulle (2012) on bilingual se ings cons uc ed as “immig an ” s. “eli e” in Ge many and
he US; Rosa & Flo es (2017) on aciolinguis ic pa e ns.
45

Heike Wiese
Tha labelling p ac ices in academia should so closely mi o nega i e lan-
guage ideologies in la ge socie y is su p ising. I sugges s an un e lec i e use o
e minology ha en ails biases ha p esumably none o he publica ions in ques-
ion would subsc ibe o – in ac he e y biases ha many explici ly c i icise.
Da ies & Lange (2006: 20), discussing s anda d language ideologies, emind us
ha “Folk linguis ic iews will also be exp essed by academic linguis s, o cou se,
whene e hey a e guided by hei na i e ins inc s a he han hei o icial aca-
demic iews”. I seems ha oo o en, we a e s ill guided by “ins inc s” on mono-
and mul ilingualism ha e lec linguis ic and e hnic socie al biases, as e ealed
in he labels we use.
A oiding such labelling p ac ices is no only impo an om he poin o iew
o schola ly e minology. The O he ing implici in such labelling can u he un-
de mine social equali y and socie al pa icipa ion o ma ginalised g oups. A case
in poin comes om he public discussion in Ge many in ea ly 2024. I illus a es,
o an ex eme example, he kind o na a i es ha such a concep ualisa ion as
O he s can suppo . Jou nalis s wo king wi h he in es iga i e pla o m “Co ec-
i ” e ealed a sec e mee ing o conse a i e and igh -ex emis poli icians in
No embe 2023 whe e plans o mass depo a ions had been discussed o o eign
na ionals as well as Ge man ci izens who we e concep ualised as e hnic O he s.
When hese plans became public, hey led o a public ou c y, wi h majo demon-
s a ions agains he ex eme igh h oughou he coun y las ing o weeks.
The in e es ing poin o ou discussion is ha his depo a ion plan had been
cons uc ed as “ emig a ion”. No e ha his is in ac a e m in keeping wi h he
kind o labelling discussed in his pape : by calling second-gene a ion Ge mans
e c. “(im-)mig an s” we a e ul ima ely blowing in he same ho n. I locally bo n
speake s a e unde s ood as “mig an s” om o he “home coun ies”, hen i is
only a small s ep o ame hei expulsion in o hose coun ies as “ emig a ion”.
When, on he o he hand, we concep ualise hem as Ge mans, we ecognise such
a depo a ion o wha i is.
In e es ingly, some aces o O he ing o he people a ge ed in his depo a-
ion plan we e e iden e en in he public ou c y agains i . An ini ia i e #ZUSAM-
MENLAND (“ oge he land”) ha was joined by he majo media, he indus ial
sec o , and all majo academic ins i u ions in Ge many (incl. he Ge man Science
Founda ion, he Leibniz Associa ion, he Max Planck Socie y, he Helmhol z As-
socia ion, he Ge man Academic Exchange Council and a la ge numbe o uni-
e si ies) c i icised “ he so-called “ emig a ion” o ou iends, neighbou s, col-
leagues”. While hose “ iends, neighbou s, colleagues” a e no amed as non-
46
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
Ge man, hey a e also no us: hey a e no pa o he “we”-g oup ha makes his
s a emen .11
Wi h espec o academia, he O he ing e iden in he kind o labelling p ac-
ices discussed in his pape can also a ec ou esea ch pe spec i e. I mul ilin-
guals a e cons uc ed as O he s, his can lead o a p oblema ic esea ch bias. In
he li e a u e, we ind some indica ion o his in di e en a eas. In he ollowing
sec ion, I illus a e his wi h wo examples, highligh ing p oblems o app oaches
o language s uc u e and language use.
3 P oblems o ou esea ch pe spec i es
3.1 Alloca ing mul ilinguals’ language use ou side na i e g amma s
A socie al monolingual and monoe hnic habi us cas s mul ilinguals as linguis ic
ou side s and leads o doub s abou hei language compe ence. This is wha we
saw, o ins ance, e lec ed in such unding schemes as Fö Mig o linguis ic and
educa ional esea ch p ojec s in Ge many (Sec ion 1.1). In he public deba e, a
equen ly oiced assump ion is ha adolescen s wi h a “mig a ion backg ound”
do no mas e Ge man p ope ly, and such oices include well-known linguis s.12
Along he same lines, i a monolingual and monoe hnic habi us leads o con-
s uc ing mul ilinguals as being ou side he na i e speake g oup, hen hei lin-
guis ic p ac ices migh no be seen as pa o na i e g amma s.13 An example o
how his can impac esea ch in linguis ics comes om ea lie accoun s o an
u ban con ac dialec now known as “Kiezdeu sch”,14 which eme ged in mul i-
lingual and mul ie hnic neighbou hoods in pee -g oup in e ac ions among ado-
lescen s.
In he ea ly 2000s, g amma ical cha ac e is ics o his a ie y we e ypically
desc ibed as mo e o less andom de ia ions and omissions. Fo ins ance, Aue
(2003: 4) s a es ha “gende ge s changed (p esumably ad hoc), […] de ini e and
inde ini e a icle o ms a e o en missing, […] he XV…-o de o Ge man is ans-
o med in o SVO”.15 The las cha ac e is ic e e s o an op ion in Kiezdeu sch
11Fo he ull ex o he s a emen (in Ge man) see h ps://cmk.zei .de/cms/a icles/
16974/anzeige/zusammenland/neue-kampagne-zusammenland- iel al -mach -uns-s a k (las
accessed May 24 h, 2024).
12See Wiese (2015) o a discussion o linguis s’ con ibu ions o he public deba e on Kiezdeu sch.
13See con ibu ions in Guija o-Fuen es e al. (eds.) (2021/2022) o c i ical app oaches o he
concep o “na i e speake ”; Wiese e al. (2021) o e idence om he i age language esea ch.
14Li . “(neighbou -)hood Ge man” (Wiese 2012).
15Ge man o iginal, my ansla ion (H.W.).
47
Heike Wiese
o place an ad e bial and a subjec in on o he ini e e b, which iola es
he e b-second (V2) cons ain o s anda d Ge man main decla a i es. Sel ing
& Ke n (2009) discussed his o a speci ic p osodic pa e n and desc ibed i as
some hing no mally no ound in Ge man including i s “colloquial and/o egion-
alized a ie ies”.
Meanwhile, his wo d o de has been analysed as a sys ema ic e b- hi d (V3)
cons uc ion ha is a iable op ion wi hin Ge man g amma ,16i has also been
a es ed in monolinguals, including in spoken language ou side Kiezdeu sch,17
and i has been shown o ha e pa allels wi h op ions ound in ea lie diach onic
s ages, sugges ing long-s anding Ge manic oo s.18
Hence, i is unlikely ha such s a emen s would s ill be made oday. The
poin is, howe e , ha a he ime hose claims we e made wi hou any empi -
ical backing on he ange o op ions ou side V2. This migh no ha e been he
case i such pa e ns had i s been obse ed in monolinguals, and i migh be
linked o a cons uc ion o speake s as ou side s. Aue (2003) calls he a ie y
Tü kenslang “Tu ks’ slang”, Ke n & Sel ing (2006)19 use he e m Tü kendeu sch
“Tu ks’ Ge man”, hus concep ualising speake s as “Tu ks”, a he han Ge mans,
e en hough hey we e bo n and aised in Ge many (and o en hold Ge man ci -
izenship), in line wi h Topoi 3 and 4 discussed in 2.3 abo e. This poin s o a
possible implici bias ha can ha e nega i e e ec s on ou esea ch: i speake s
a e no pe cei ed as a legi ima e pa o he Ge man in-g oup, hei language
use will no be alloca ed wi hin he no mal ange o Ge man – an O he ing o
speake s goes hand in hand wi h an O he ing o hei language use.
Agains his backg ound, Di ma (2013) s a es, in a pape on he speake s o
his a ie y, which he e e s o as “mul ie hnolec al Ge man” (sho : MED),
“I ad ise cau ion he e: we should […] no miss any oppo uni y o poin ou
ha MED speake s […] also ha e o p ac ice he Ge man s anda d – i is
he only way hey can be aluable, indispensable co-designe s and c ea i e
language change s o ou socie y and emain so in he u u e!”
This seems o pu Kiezdeu sch speake s ou side socie y: hey seem no o be
included in he “us” in “ou socie y”; speaking Kiezdeu sch pu s hem a isk o
16C . Wiese (2012); F eywald e al. (2015); e Velde (2017); Walkden (2017); Alexiadou & Lohndal
(2018).
17See Schalowski (2015); Wiese & Mülle (2018); Bunk (2020).
18Wiese (2012); Walkden (2017).
19This is an ea lie , Ge man e sion o Sel ing & Ke n (2009). In Sel ing & Ke n (2009), hey
changed he e m o “Tu kish Ge man”.
48
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
emaining in he ou -g oup. This highligh s he link be ween O he ing a way
o speaking and O he ing a social g oup associa ed wi h i . A he same ime, i
also shows how his goes hand in hand wi h doub s abou language compe ence,
again pa allel o wha we ound o la ge socie y. In his case, he doub s a e
on egis e compe ences, speci ically hose in o mal, s anda d-close egis e s,
which a e ega ded as a p econdi ion o speake s being “ aluable” membe s o
“ou socie y”. Apa om he s ong s anda d language ideology e iden he e,
such doub s show ha egis e di e en ia ions a e o e looked when i comes o
language use ha is p ima ily associa ed wi h ma ginalised mul ilingual speak-
e s – e en hough e idence o b oade speake s’ epe oi es in such mul ilingual
se ings was a ailable well be o e ha pape was published.20
And in he same yea , Aue (2013) s ill desc ibed he V3 pa e n ound in
Kiezdeu sch as a “change o XV o de ” ha “deeply in e enes in he s uc u e o
au och honous Ge man in i s s anda d and nons anda d o ms”. This was despi e
e idence o he s uc u al in eg a ion o his pa e n in o he Ge man sen ence
lay-ou (e.g., he p esence o e bal b acke s in V3 and he use o e b-las o de
in subo dina e sen ences), oge he wi h an o e all e y low equency o his
pa e n, wi h canonical V2 accoun ing o he o e whelming majo i y o main
decla a i es in speake s’ p oduc ions.21
Tha such e idence is o e looked and ha pa e ns de ia ing om s anda d
language a e alloca ed ou side au hoch honous Ge man, sugges s a esea ch bias
ha cas s speake s as alloch honous and ha has nega i e e ec s on ou indings:
we miss ou on he oppo uni y o lea n some hing new abou na i e g amma s
and hei op ions. As esea ch guided by a mul ilingual, a he han de ici pe -
spec i e has shown, mul ilingual se ings can suppo a linguis ic dynamics ha
leads o quan i a i e ad an ages and p o ides us wi h an in e es ing spo ligh
on o linguis ic a ia ion and change.22
3.2 E asu e o majo i y language p ac ices in mul ilinguals
I mul ilinguals a e seen as linguis ic O he s in coun ies wi h a monolingual
socie al bias, his can also mean ha hei use o he majo i y language is no seen.
Such an e asu e is e iden in wo ela ed assump ions o en ound in esea ch on
mul ilinguals ha speak a he i age language: (1) i a neighbou hood is associa ed
20See, o ins ance Kallmeye & Keim (2003), Keim (2007). Fo egis e -di e en ia ed use o
s anda d a ie ies and u ban con ac dialec s by adolescen speake s in o he coun ies, e.g.,
Co nips (2008) on Du ch, Ganuza (2008) on Swedish.
21See Wiese (2013) and e e ences he ein.
22Wiese (2013); Kupisch & Polinsky (2022); Wiese e al. (2021).
49
Heike Wiese
In linguis ics, he esul s o ou analysis con ibu e o exis ing calls o adop a
genuinely mul ilingual pe spec i e, app oaching cha ac e is ics o mul ilinguals’
language use as an in eg al pa o language a ia ion, unde s anding mul ilin-
guals as membe s o he linguis ic in-g oup, and ul ima ely mo ing beyond he
bilingual/monolingual dicho omy in a ou o a mo e inclusi e app oach o na-
i e speake s and na i e g amma s.
Acknowledgemen s
Di e en aspec s o he indings p esen ed he e we e discussed a a numbe o
alks a uni e si ies, wo kshops and con e ences, including he 33 d mee ing o
Seman ics and Linguis ic Theo y (SALT) a Yale Uni e si y 2023, he Bilingual-
ism Ma e s Resea ch Symposium in Edinbu gh 2022, He i age Language Syn ax
3 in Pa is 2022, he Annual Mee ing o he Socie à di Linguis ica I aliana in B ixen
2022, he online lec u e se ies “Language and Socie y” by he uni e si ies o Ros-
ock, G ei swald, and F ank u /Ode 2022, he wo kshop “Do we p ac ise wha
we p each? The cons uc ion o mul ilinguals as O he s in public discou se and
academia” in Be lin 2022, he Sociolinguis ics Se ies o Leiden Uni e si y 2019,
and he Sociolinguis ic Lec u es Cock ail Se ies o Cologne Uni e si y 2019. I
hank he pa icipan s o cons uc i e discussions and aluable inpu om di -
e en pe spec i es. Special hanks go also o my g oup a Humbold Uni e si y
Be lin: Oli e Bunk, İ em Duman Çakı , Annika Lab enz, An je Saue mann, and
B i a Schul e discussed di e en aspec s o my analyses o his pape and Nicole
Wong and Johanna Po p o ided much-needed help in checking he sou ces on
socie al ideologies.
The analysis o opoi in linguis ic labelling p ac ices d aws on sec ion 3.1 in
Wo king Pape in U ban Languages and Li e a u es 302 (Wiese e al. 2022); I
am g a e ul o Ben Ramp on o e y help ul inpu on an ea lie e sion o ha
wo king pape .
Resea ch o his pape was suppo ed h ough unding by he Deu sche
Fo schungsgemeinscha (DFG, Ge man Resea ch Founda ion) o he Resea ch
Uni “Eme ging G amma s in Language Con ac Si ua ions” RUEG 2537 (WI
2155/10-1, 10-2, 11-1, 12-1, 13-1) and he Collabo a i e Resea ch Cen e “Regis e s”
SFB 1412, 416591334.
56

3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
Re e ences
Aalbe se, Suzanne, Ad Backus & Pie e Muysken. 2019. He i age languages: A
language con ac app oach. Ams e dam: John Benjamins.
Alexiadou, A emis & Te je Lohndal. 2018. V3 in Ge manic: A compa ison o
u ban e nacula s and he i age languages. Linguis ische Be ich e Sonde he
25. 245–264.
Alexiadou, A emis, Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike Wiese.
2025. In oduc ion: Mul ilinguals as O he s. In A emis Alexiadou, Claudio
Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike Wiese (eds.), The cons uc ion o
mul ilinguals as O he s: Do we p ac ice wha we p each?, 1–9. Be lin: Language
Science P ess. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17132439.
Aue , Pe e . 2003. Tü kenslang: Ein jugendsp achliche E hnolek des Deu schen
und seine T ans o ma ionen. In Annelies Häcki Buho e & Lo enz Ho e (eds.),
Sp ache we b und Lebensal e (Basle S udien zu deu schen Sp ache und Li e-
a u ), 255–264. Tübingen & Basel: F ancke.
Aue , Pe e . 2013. E hnische Ma ke im Deu schen zwischen Va ie ä und S il. In
A nul Deppe mann (ed.), Das Deu sch de Mig an en, 9–40. Be lin: de G uy e .
Bay am, Fa ih, Tanja Kupisch, Diego Pascual y Cabo & Jason Ro hman. 2019.
Te minology ma e s on heo e ical g ounds, oo! Cohe en g amma s canno
be incomple e. S udies in Second Language Acquisi ion 41(2). 257–264. DOI: 10.
1017/S0272263119000287.
Bommes, Michael & U z Maas. 2005. In e disciplina i y in mig a ion esea ch:
On he ela ion be ween sociology and linguis ics. In Michael Bommes & Ewa
Mo awska (eds.), In e na ional mig a ion esea ch. Cons uc ions, omissions and
he p omises o in e disciplina i y, 179–202. London: Rou ledge.
Bunk, Oli e . 2020. „Abe imme alle sagen das“: The s a us o V3 in Ge man:
Use, p ocessing, and syn ac ic ep esen a ion. Humbold -Uni e si ä zu Be lin.
(Doc o al disse a ion). DOI: 10.18452/22085.
Canaga ajah, Su esh. 2007. Lingua anca English, mul ilingual communi ies, and
language acquisi ion. The Mode n Language Jou nal 91(s1). 923–939. DOI: 10.
1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00678.x.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspec s o he heo y o syn ax (Special echnical epo
o he Resea ch Labo a o y o Elec onics o he Massachuse s Ins i u e o
Technology 11). Camb idge, Mass.: The MIT P ess.
Co nips, Leonie. 2008. Loosing g amma ical gende in Du ch: The esul o bilin-
gual acquisi ion and/o an ac o iden i y? In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingualism
12(1-2). 105–124. DOI: 10.1177/13670069080120010701.
57
Heike Wiese
Dahl, Ös en. 2015. How WEIRD a e WALS languages? Pape p esen ed a “Di e -
si y Linguis ics: Re ospec and P ospec ”, Closing con e ence o he Depa -
men o Linguis ics a he Max Planck Ins i u e o E olu iona y An h opology.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7473062.
Da ies, Wini ed V. & Nils Lange . 2006. The making o bad language: Lay lin-
guis ic s igma isa ions in Ge man; pas and p esen (Va iolingua 28). F ank u
am Main: Pe e Lang.
de Houwe , Annick. 2018. Language choice in bilingual in e ac ion. In Annick
de Houwe & Lou des O ega (eds.), The Camb idge handbook o bilingualism
(Camb idge Handbooks in Language and Linguis ics), 324–348. Camb idge:
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
de Saussu e, Fe dinand. 1916. Cou s de linguis ique géné ale. Cha les Bally & Al-
be Sechehaye (eds.). Pa is: Payo .
Di im, İnci. 2016. Ich woll e nie, dass die ande en me ken, dass wi zu Hause A a-
bisch sp echen: Pe spek i en eine linguizismusk i ischen pädagogischen P o-
essionali ä on Leh e innen und Leh e n. In Me le Humm ich, Nicolle P a ,
İnci Di im & Ch is ine F ei ag (eds.), Kul u en de Bildung, 191–208. Wiesba-
den: Sp inge .
Di ma , No be . 2013. Re lexionen übe das En s ehen eines deu schen Dialek s
am Beispiel mul ie hnisch gep äg e jugendsp achliche S ile in G oßs äd en.
In Ka ina Schneide -Wiejowski, Bi e Kelle meie -Rehbein & Jakob Haselhu-
be (eds.), Viel al , Va ia ion und S ellung de deu schen Sp ache, 195–208. Be -
lin: De G uy e . DOI: 10.1515/9783110309997.195.
Flo es, C is ina. 2017. P oblema izing he scope o language a i ion om he
pe spec i e o bilingual e u nees. Linguis ic App oaches o Bilingualism 7(6).
691–695.
Flo es, Nelson. 2019. F om academic language o language a chi ec u e: Chal-
lenging aciolinguis ic ideologies in esea ch and p ac ice. Theo y In o P ac ice
59(1). 22–31. DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2019.1665411.
Fough , Ca men. 2002. E hnici y. In Jack K. Chambe s, Pe e T udgill & Na halie
Schilling-Es es (eds.), The handbook o language a ia ion and change, 444–472.
London: Blackwell.
F eywald, Ul ike, Leonie Co nips, Na alia Ganuza, Ing ild Nis o & To il Opsahl.
2015. Beyond e b second: A ma e o no el in o ma ion-s uc u al e ec s?
E idence om No wegian, Swedish, Ge man and Du ch. In Jacomine No ie
& Ben e A. S endsen (eds.), Language, you h and iden i y in he 21s cen u y, 73–
92. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139061896.
006.
58
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
Fulle , Jane M. 2012. Bilingual p e- eens: Compe ing ideologies and mul iple iden-
i ies in he U. S. and Ge many (Rou ledge S udies in Sociolinguis ics 6). New
Yo k & London: Rou ledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203110645.
Fulle , Jane M. 2021. “O ganically Ge man”? Changing ideologies o na ional
belonging. In Hans an de Velde, Nanna Haug Hil on & Remco Knooihuizen
(eds.), Language a ia ion: Eu opean pe spec i es VIII (S udies in Language Va i-
a ion 25), 112–134. Ams e dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/sil .
25.05 ul.
Gaga ina, Na alia, Julia Lomako, Elizabe h S ad mille & Ka in Lindne . 2020.
Tex o ganiza ion in ypically de eloping bilinguals and bilinguals a isk o
DLD: Wha is di e en and how language independen is i ? In Na alia Gaga-
ina (ed.), Re e en ial and ela ional discou se cohe ence in adul s and child en
(S udies on Language Acquisi ion), 85–104. Basel/Be lin/Bos on: De G uy e
Inc. DOI: 10.1515/9781501510151-005.
Ganuza, Na alia. 2008. Syn ac ic a ia ion in he Swedish o adolescen s in mul ilin-
gual u ban se ings: Subjec - e b o de in decla a i es, ques ions and subo dina e
clauses (Disse a ions in bilingualism 15). S ockholm: Cen e o Resea ch on
Bilingualism S ockholm Uni e si y. h ps://su.di a-po al.o g/smash/ eco d.
js ?pid=di a2%3A198320&dswid=7371.
Gogolin, Ing id. 2002. Linguis ic and cul u al di e si y in Eu ope: A challenge
o educa ional esea ch and p ac ice. Eu opean Educa ional Resea ch Jou nal
1(1). 123–138.
G oh, Lydia & Ma ie-Luise Tische . 2017. Kiezdeu sch: Dialek ode Diagnose? Eine
quali a i e Un e suchung de sp ach he apeu ischen Pe spek i e au Kiezdeu sch.
Be lin: Humbold -Uni e si ä zu Be lin. (MA hesis).
Guija o-Fuen es, Ped o, C is ina Sua ez-Gomez, Mila Vulchano a, An onella So-
ace & Valen in Vulchano (eds.). 2022. The no ion o he na i e speake pu o
he es : Recen esea ch ad ances. Lausanne: F on ie s Media SA. DOI: 10.3389/
978-2-88974-965-2.
Helle , Monica & Bonnie S. McElhinny. 2017. Language, capi alism, colonialism:
Towa ds a c i ical his o y. To on o: Uni e si y o To on o P ess.
Hen ich, Joseph, S e en J. Heine & A a No enzayan. 2010. The wei des peo-
ple in he wo ld? Beha io al and B ain Sciences 33(2-3). 61–83. DOI: 10.1017/
S0140525X0999152X.
Hüning, Ma hias, Ul ike Vogl & Oli ie Moline (eds.). 2012. S anda d languages
and mul ilingualism in Eu opean his o y. Ams e dam, Philadelphia: John Ben-
jamins.
59
Heike Wiese
Kallmeye , We ne & Inken Keim. 2003. Linguis ic a ia ion and he cons uc-
ion o social iden i y in a Ge man–Tu kish se ing: A case s udy o an im-
mig an you h g oup in Mannheim/Ge many. In Jannis K. And ou sopoulos
& Alexand a Geo gakopoulou (eds.), Discou se cons uc ions o you h iden i ies
(P agma ics & Beyond), 29–46. Ams e dam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Keim, Inken. 2007. Die „ ü kischen Powe gi ls“: Lebenswel und kommunika i e
S il eine Mig an inneng uppe in Mannheim (S udien zu deu schen Sp ache
Band 39). Tübingen: Na .
Ke n, F iede ike & Ma g e Sel ing. 2006. Einhei enkons uk ion im Tü k-
endeu schen: G amma ische und p osodische Aspek e. Zei sch i ü Sp ach-
wissenscha 25(2). 239–272. DOI: 10.1515/ZFS.2006.009.
Kupisch, Tanja & Ma ia Polinsky. 2022. Language his o y on as o wa d: Inno-
a ions in he i age languages and diach onic change. Bilingualism: Language
and Cogni ion 25(1). 1–12. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728921000997.
Kupisch, Tanja & Jason Ro hman. 2018. Te minology ma e s! Why di e ence
is no incomple eness and how ea ly child bilinguals a e he i age speak-
e s. In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingualism 22(5). 564–582. DOI: 10 . 1177 /
1367006916654355.
Li, Wei. 2016. Epilogue: Mul i-compe ence and he anslanguaging ins inc . In
Vi ian Cook & Wei Li (eds.), The Camb idge handbook o linguis ic mul i-
compe ence (Camb idge Handbooks in Language and Linguis ics), 533–543.
Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107425965.026.
Li, Wei. 2021. T anslanguaging as a poli ical s ance: Implica ions o English lan-
guage educa ion. ELT Jou nal 76(2). 172–182. DOI: 10.1093/el /ccab083.
Lüpke, F iede ike. 2025. (M)o he ongue: How Global Sou h mul ilingual p ac-
ices allow unco e ing mul ilingualisms benea h he in en ed monolingual Eu-
opean Sel . In A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede
& Heike Wiese (eds.), The cons uc ion o mul ilinguals as O he s: Do we p ac-
ice wha we p each?, 81–102. Be lin: Language Science P ess. DOI: 10.5281/
zenodo.17132447.
Mo an, An hony. 2014. Iden i y, ace, and e hnici y. In An hony Ellio (ed.), Rou -
ledge handbook o iden i y s udies, 170–185. London: Rou ledge.
O’Rou ke, Be nade e & Joan Pujola . 2015. New speake s and p ocesses o new
speake ness ac oss ime and space. Applied Linguis ics Re iew 6(2). 145–150.
DOI: 10.1515/appli e -2015-0007.
Oldani, Ma ina & Naomi T uan. 2022. Na iga ing he Ge man school sys em
when being pe cei ed as a s uden ‘wi h mig a ion backg ound’: S uden s’
pe spec i es on linguis ic acism. Linguis ics and Educa ion 71(55). 1–15. DOI:
10.1016/j.linged.2022.101049.
60
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
O ega, Lou des. 2009. Unde s anding second language acquisi ion. London: Hod-
de Educa ion.
Rosa, Jona han & Nelson Flo es. 2017. Unse ling ace and language: Towa d a
aciolinguis ic pe spec i e. Language in Socie y 46(5). 621–647. DOI: 10.1017/
S0047404517000562.
Ro hman, Jason, Fa ih Bay am, Vincen DeLuca, G azia Di Pisa, Jon Andoni
Duñabei ia, Khadij Gha ibi, Jiuzhou Hao, Nadine Kolb, Maki Kubo a, Tanja
Kupisch, Tim Lamé is, Alicia Luque, B echje an Osch, Se gio Miguel Pe ei a
Soa es, Yanina P ys auka, Deniz Ta , Aleksand a Tomić, Toms Voi s & S e anie
Wul . 2023. Monolingual compa a i e no ma i i y in bilingualism esea ch is
ou o “con ol”: A gumen s and al e na i es. Applied Psycholinguis ics 44(3).
316–329. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716422000315.
Sca aglie i, Claudio. 2025. O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y. In A emis Alex-
iadou, Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike Wiese (eds.), The
cons uc ion o mul ilinguals as O he s: Do we p ac ice wha we p each?, 11–34.
Be lin: Language Science P ess. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17132441.
Sca aglie i, Claudio & Claudia Zech. 2013. „Ganz no male Jugendliche, alle d-
ings meis mi Mig a ionshin e g und“: Eine unk ional-seman ische Analyse
on „Mig a ionshin e g und“. Zei sch i ü Angewand e Linguis ik 58. 201–
227.
Schalowski, Sö en. 2015. Wo s ellungs a ia ion aus in o ma ionss uk u elle
Pe spek i e: Eine Un e suchung de linken Sa zpe iphe ie im gesp ochenen
Deu sch. In Heike Wiese & Ul ike F eywald (eds.), In e disciplina y s udies on
in o ma ion s uc u e / ISIS 18 (In e disciplina y S udies on In o ma ion S uc-
u e), 9–91. Po sdam: Uni e si ä s e lag Po sdam.
Sel ing, Ma g e & F iede ike Ke n. 2009. On some syn ac ic and p osodic s uc-
u es o Tu kish Ge man in alk-in-in e ac ion. Jou nal o P agma ics 41(12).
2496–2514. DOI: 10.1016/j.p agma.2009.05.018.
Şimşek, Yazgül & Heike Wiese. 2022. Ge many: Kiezdeu sch. In Paul Ke swill &
Heike Wiese (eds.), U ban con ac dialec s and language change: Insigh s om
he global no h and sou h (Rou ledge S udies in Language Change), 300–321.
New Yo k & London: Rou ledge Taylo & F ancis G oup.
S a is isches Bundesam . 2023. S a is ische Be ich “Mik ozensus - Be ölke ung
nach Einwande ungsgeschich e - Ende gebnisse 2021”: Tabelle 12211-08
“Be ölke ung im Jah 2021 nach Einwande ungsgeschich e und zu Hause
o wiegend gesp ochene Sp ache”.
e Velde, John R. 2017. Tempo al ad e bs in he Kiezdeu sch le pe iphe y: Com-
bining la e me ge wi h deaccen ua ion o 3. S udia Linguis ica 71(3). 301–336.
DOI: 10.1111/s ul.12055.
61

Heike Wiese
Walkden, Geo ge. 2017. Language con ac and V3 in Ge manic a ie ies new and
old. The Jou nal o Compa a i e Ge manic Linguis ics 20(1). 49–81. DOI: 10.1007/
s10828-017-9084-2.
Wiese, Heike. 2012. Kiezdeu sch: Ein neue Dialek en s eh (Beck’sche Reihe 6034).
München: C.H. Beck.
Wiese, Heike. 2013. Wha can new u ban dialec s ell us abou in e nal language
dynamics? The powe o language di e si y. In We ne Ab aham & Elisabe h
Leiss (eds.), Dialek ologie in neuem Gewand (Linguis ische Be ich e - Sonde -
he e), 208–245. Hambu g: Helmu Buske Ve lag.
Wiese, Heike. 2015. “This mig an s’ babble is no a Ge man dialec !”: The in e ac-
ion o s anda d language ideology and ‘us’/‘ hem’-dicho omies in he public
discou se on a mul ie hnolec . Language in Socie y 44(3). 341–368.
Wiese, Heike. 2022. U ban con ac dialec s. In Salikoko Mu wene & Anna Ma ía
Escoba (eds.), The Camb idge handbook o language con ac , 115–144. Cam-
b idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Wiese, Heike, A emis Alexiadou, Shanley Allen, Oli e Bunk, Na alia Gaga-
ina, Ka e yna Ie emenko, Ma ia Ma yno a, Ta iana Pashko a, Vicky Ri-
zou, Ch is oph Sch oede , Anna Shad o a, Luka Szucsich, Rosema ie T acy,
Win ai Tsehaye, Sabine Ze bian & Yulia Zuban. 2021. He i age speake s as
pa o he na i e language con inuum. F on ie s in Psychology 12. Ped o
Guija o-Fuen es, C is ina Sua ez-Gomez, Mila Vulchano a, An onella So ace
& Valen in Vulchano (eds.). 209–227. DOI: 10.3389/ psyg.2021.717973.
Wiese, Heike, A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i & Ch is oph Sch oede .
2022. Mul ilinguals as O he s in socie y and academia: Challenges o belong-
ing unde a monolingual habi us. Wo king Pape s in U ban Language & Li e a-
cies 302. h ps://wpull.o g/wp-con en /uploads/2022/10/WP302-Wiese-e -al-
2022-Mul ilinguals-as-o he s.pd .
Wiese, Heike, Ka ha ina May , Philipp K äme , Pa ick Seege , Hans-Geo g
Mülle & Ul ike F eywald. 2014 . Deu sch is ielsei ig: Aus- und o bil-
dungsmodule zu Sp ach a ia ion: [‘ he many sides o Ge man. Educa ional ma-
e ials on language a ia ion.’ www.deu sch-is - ielsei ig.de.
Wiese, Heike & Hans G. Mülle . 2018. The hidden li e o V3: An o e looked wo d
o de a ian on e b-second. In Mailin An omo & Sonja Mülle (eds.), Non-
canonical e b posi ioning in main clauses (Linguis ische Be ich e Sonde he e),
202–223. Hambu g: Helmu Buske Ve lag.
Wiese, Heike, Mehme Tahi Öncü & Philip B acke . 2017. Ve b-d i -S ellung
im ü kisch-deu schen Sp achkon ak : In o ma ionss uk u elle Linea isie un-
gen ein- und meh sp achige Sp eche /innen. Deu sche Sp ache 1. 31–52. DOI:
10.37307/j.1868-775X.2017.01.03.
62
Chap e 4
Me hodological o he ing h ough
monolingual con ols: How no o
A emis Alexiadou
Leibniz-Zen um Allgemeine Sp achwissenscha (ZAS); Humbold Uni e si ä
zu Be lin
In a subs an ial body o wo k on a pa icula g oup o mul ilingual speake s,
namely he i age speake s, hese a e o en desc ibed as de ia ing om na i e-like
mas e y in a a ie y o ways. In compa ison wi h monolingual con ols, he i age
speake s a e iewed as lagging behind. This pape add esses his issue and a -
gues ha monolingual con ols should no be dispensed wi h, bu a he hey
can be used o gain insigh s in o language a ia ion and he p ocesses ha shape
monolingual and he i age g amma s alike.
1 In oduc ion
Typically, in empi ical esea ch pa icipan s a e di ided in o wo g oups: he
expe imen al g oup ( he g oup we a e in e es ed in) and he con ol g oup. In
he i age language essea ch esea ch, he con ol g oup is composed o aged-
ma ched monolingual speake s, and also monolingual child en, and he expe -
imen al g oup a e he he i age speake s. Thus, based on an idealized i s lan-
guage (L1) compe ence, adop ing he inclusion o a con ol g oup o monolingual
speake s o he language is he de aul in empi ical esea ch, see Vulchano a e
al. (2022) o a ecen discussion. Howe e , his pe spec i e leads o o he ing he -
i age speake s, iewing hem as some so o special g oup: as in mos cases, such
speake s do no beha e he exac same way as monolinguals, he explana ions
ha a e o en gi en a e de ici o ien ed. The g amma o he i age speake s is
non- a ge g amma in compa ison o he a ge , i.e., monolingual na i e g am-
ma . This has been a gued o be he esul o incomple e acquisi ion o a i ion
A emis Alexiadou. 2025. Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols:
How no o. In A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede &
Heike Wiese (eds.), The cons uc ion o mul ilinguals as O he s: Do we p ac ice wha we
p each?, 63–80. Be lin: Language Science P ess. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17132445
A emis Alexiadou
o bo h depending on he phenomenon (Mon ul 2016), he esul o a bo leneck
(Slabako a 2019), o simply he i age g amma is in some ways de ec i e (Polin-
sky & Scon as 2020). The ocus on non- a ge p ope ies o he i age g amma s
ha e ecen ly led Domínguez e al. (2019: 247 .) o de end he e m incomple e
acquisi ion. As hey s a e, in he ield o L1 acquisi ion, i exp esses he p ocedu al
cha ac e o language acquisi ion: g amma s may luc ua e, change, de elop and
show sensi i i y o ma u a ional cons ain s. In he ield o he i age language
g amma s, i is sugges i e o a si ua ion whe eby he i age language speake s
ha e no had he chance o lea n all he a ailable cues. The au ho s explici ly con-
clude ha ’’in es iga ing he g amma ical knowledge o he i age speake s would
bene i om including a leas wo con ol g oups, a g oup o monolingual speak-
e s and a g oup o speake s ep esen ing he pa en al/communi y inpu ha he
he i age speake s ecei e in ha con ex . This could help cla i y whe he p op-
e ies no ins an ia ed in he i age speake s’ g amma s we e p esen in he inpu
o s a wi h.’’ Domínguez e al. (2019: 251). Thus, om his pe spec i e wo and
no jus one con ol g oups a e necessa y o assess he p ope ies o he i age
g amma s.
The so-called de ici aming o he i age speake s has been c i icized om a
a ie y o pe spec i es, see e.g., Kupisch & Ro hman (2018), Bousque e & Pu -
nam (2020), Higby e al. (2023), Wiese e al. (2021), Wiese e al. (2022) o men ion
a ew. In his pape , I will align wi h hese pe spec i es and p opose o abandon
he idea ha he monolingual speake /na i e speake is he model o all di e en
ypes o language acquisi ion and compe ence. My ocus is on he i age speake s
(hence o h HSs) o G eek. I will adop he idea ha HSs a e in ac pa o he
na i e speake ange, see e.g., Ro hman & T e e s-Dalle (2014); while I will no
a gue ha one needs o dispense wi h he no ion o he con ol g oup as such, I
will sugges ha whene e a con ol g oup is used, he poin o depa u e should
be o show how HSs op o pa e ns ha a e also p oduced by monolinguals,
and hus p esen in he inpu in some o m, albei in di e en se ings. I will a -
emp o iden i y he mechanisms he di e en g oups o speake s employ, see
Higby e al. (2023), Luk & Bialys ok (2013), Wiese e al. (2021) o insigh ul dis-
cussion om di e en pe spec i es. I will hen discuss di e ences be ween HS
and monolingual p oduc ions om he pe spec i e o ep esen a ional economy
and analy ici y, Scon as e al. (2018), and Pu nam e al. (2021).
The chap e is s uc u ed as ollows: in sec ion 2, I o e a de ini ion o he i age
speake s and hei ela ion o he no ion o he na i e speake . In sec ion 3, I
epo on se e al s udies ha show simila i ies and di e ences in he p oduc ions
o HSs and na i e speake s o G eek. In sec ion 4, I u n o some discussion o
he indings, and in sec ion 5 I conclude.
64
4 Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols: How no o
2 He i age speake s and he na i e speake
As s a ed in a pos by G ammon & Babel (2021), ’’ he idea o he “na i e speake ”
o igina ed wi hin he con ex o Eu opean na ionalism and colonialism in he
19 h cen u y. I p o ed use ul bo h as a way o concep ualizing and labeling a
pa icula linguis ic iden i y ied o a na ion and o di e en ia e be ween social
g oups wi hin a colonial hie a chy. A close examina ion e eals ha he concep
o he “na i e” speake is igh ly connec ed o disc imina o y logics.’’, see also
Higby e al. (2023) and e e ences he ein.
Why should ha be he case? As G ammon & Babel discuss, linguis s and
non-linguis s use he e m na i e speake o desc ibe an indi idual ha g ew up
speaking a pa icula language and who is ully p o icien in ha language. The
poin is, howe e , ha o en a ce ain kind o au ho i y as o how a language
should be spoken is bes owed upon na i e speake s, hus o he ing mul ilingual
speake s, see also Wiese e al. (2022) o ex ensi e discussion and e e ences.
Typically, monolinguals a e seen as na i e speake s o hei language, as in
hei case one can a p io i exclude language in e e ence ha may c ea e a mo e
complex linguis ic beha io . Fo his eason, he monolingual speake has been
in he cen e o in es iga ion in he his o y o heo e ical and expe imen al lin-
guis ics. The o igin o his iew can be ound in he ea ly pages o Aspec s o
he Theo y o Syn ax: “Linguis ic heo y is conce ned p ima ily wi h an ideal
speake -lis ene , in a comple ely homogeneous speech-communi y, who knows
i s language pe ec ly and is una ec ed by such g amma ically i ele an con-
di ions as memo y limi a ions, dis ac ions, shi s o a en ion and in e es , and
e o s ( andom o cha ac e is ic) in applying his knowledge o he language in
ac ual pe o mance” (Chomsky 1965: 3).
Thus, o a e y long ime, as s essed in Lohndal (2013), only monolingual
speake s, ea ed as p oducing in a ian speech we e analyzed. This ype o ap-
p oach, howe e , leads o a si ua ion whe e bilingual speake s canno be iewed
as a pu e case o s udy, as he e a e oo many ac o s in e e ing wi h he acqui-
si ion o hei wo g amma s. The language o he i age speake s hus migh be
conside ed a a he complica ed case. In o he wo ds, since he e is a lo o a ia-
ion among speake s in his domain, o mal models o g amma canno eally be
applied o he linguis ic beha io o such speake s. Howe e , we know by now
ha monolingual speake s do exhibi di e gen ou comes, see e.g, Dąb owska
(2012) and subsequen wo k. Thus, i , as igh ly sugges ed by an anonymous e-
iewe , such g adience is no only cha ac e is ic o bilingual popula ions, bu is
also ound among monolinguals as well, he no ion o he ideal speake -hea e
65
A emis Alexiadou
3.5 Pe iph as ic cons uc ions in he i age-G eek
A di e en pic u e eme ges in he domain o he lexicon, discussed in Alexi-
adou & Rizou (2023). He e using he same co pus and he same g oups o speak-
e s, he ocus was on he ques ion o whe he HSs speake s show e ec s o e-
o ganiza ion in he e bal domain. In pa icula , he ques ion was whe he hey
use pe iph as ic cons uc ions (PCs) ins ead o lexical e bs.
Wha p omp ed his ques ion is he ac ha he G eek lexicon has a mixed
cha ac e , as he esul o diglossia (Fe guson 1959). Acco ding o Anas asiadis-
Symeonidis & Asimakis (2003), Ralli (2004) and E hymiou (2017), he ea u e
[+lea ned] cha ac e izes wo ds ha ei he a) come om Ancien G eek o b)
cons i u e a i icial o ma ions o ‘ka ha e usa’. The ea u e [-lea ned] applies
o wo ds ha ha e a popula o igin. [-lea ned] elemen s a e used in in o mal o
spoken (colloquial) speech, while [+lea ned] ones a e used in e ined o w i en
speech. Typically, p e ixed e bs and non-ac i e mo phology on e bs belong
o he so-called [+lea ned] ea u es and hus e bs ha a e buil on he basis o
hese p e ixes a e [+lea ned]. P ecisely hese e bs we e he ocus o ou s udy.
We expec ed ha HSs should beha e di e en ly om monolinguals due o lack
o o mal educa ion, in iew o he ac ha [+lea ned] ea u es a e acqui ed only
ia o mal educa ion.
Table 3, om Alexiadou & Rizou (2023: 98) shows he aw numbe s and he
pe cen ages o he speake s who p oduced PCs ac oss egis e s.
Table 3: Use o PCs. No PCs’ indica es he speake s who did no use
any PCs in hei na a i es and he ow “Bo h o mal and in o mal”
indica es he numbe o speake s who used PCs in bo h se ings.
yHSs in he US Con ol g oup
No PCs 32/ 50.8% 40/ 62.5%
Fo mal 12/ 19.0% 6/ 9.4%
In o mal 4/ 6.3% 9/ 14.1%
Bo h o mal and in o mal 15/ 23.8% 9/ 14.1%
We no ed ha he numbe o HSs ha p oduced PCs in he o mal egis e is
highe han ha o monolinguals. Monolingual speake s also use PCs in he o -
mal egis e , which was no expec ed. Fewe HSs in he US p oduce PCs in he
in o mal egis e , which was no expec ed, and can be explained by ac ha he
in o mal US na a i es a e much sho e compa ed o hei o mal coun e pa s.
72

4 Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols: How no o
Monolinguals use PCs as well bu p e e ably in he in o mal se ings. Some exam-
ples o he PCs and he lexical e bs we ound a e gi en in able 4, om Alexiadou
& Rizou (2023: 99):
Table 4: Types o PCs used by HSs s lexical e bs used by he con ol
g oup
PCs Lexical e b
Ekane eno,e ale a ena,ekane b ake= do b ake F ena e = b ake
pi e a en ion = pay a en ion Sinidi opiise = ealise
Pi e agalia= ake a hug Agaliase = hug
Kanun e e na = do an in es iga ion E e nun = in es iga e
Kanune pa king= do pa king Ihe s a hme si = pa k
Den ihe o a (na)= don’ ha e ime o P ola ene (na) = ca ch up
Ekane s op= do s op S ama ise = s op
Kano epo = do a epo (na)ka a heso = es i y
Ou p edic ion was hus bo ne ou : because he G eek lexicon has a mixed
cha ac e , HSs beha e di e en ly om monolinguals due o lack o o mal edu-
ca ion. We a ibu ed his o he ac ha since speake s a e exposed o [+lea ned]
elemen s only in seconda y educa ion, HSs ecei e much less inpu : hei o mal
educa ion is achie ed by a ending ei he bilingual schools o a e noon/ week-
end schools, and a guably he hou s o ins uc ion a e compa a i ely ewe han
in he case o monolinguals. Because o his, as p edic ed, bo h he monolingual
g oup and he HSs eplace lexical e bs ha bea [+lea ned] ea u es in he in-
o mal egis e , and HSs use PCs in bo h egis e s. The impo ance o o mal
educa ion has also been ecen ly discussed o He i age Pe sian in Gha ibi e al.
(2023), who show ha li e acy seems o be he mos impo an ac o o a ia ion
in he i age language ou comes. Wi h espec o ou analysis o he pa e n, we
assumed ha bo h he lexical e b and he PC lexicalize he same s uc u e, he
di e ence being ha he PC spells-ou each subcomponen o he e bal mean-
ing wi h a dedica ed o m, he ligh e b co esponding o a causa i e laye and
he nominal o m co esponding he esul componen , while he lexical e b
ealizes bo h sub-pa s ia a single elemen .
In conclusion, in ou case s udies, monolingual speake s beha e di e en ly
om HSs in he domain o ag eemen , whe e no misma ches a e obse ed. When
i comes o he selec ion o a pa icula s uc u e, whe e he choice is guided by
egis e (and/o modali y), monolinguals also show he same pa e ns as HSs
73
A emis Alexiadou
in hei choice o a ian , as is he case wi h pu ela i es and PCs. By con as ,
egis e does no seem o play a signi ican ole in he choice o ealiza ion o
ag eemen in di e en con ex s.
4 Discussion
The abo e case s udies show wo di e en pa e ns in he same g oup o speak-
e s, one o which, howe e , also cha ac e izes he monolingual con ol g oup.
In he i s s udy, bo h HSs and monolingual speake s alike use pu ela i es i -
espec i ely o o mali y. The di e ence be ween he wo g oups amoun s o
he a oidance o he ag eeing o m, ound only wi h HSs. In he ag eemen mis-
ma ches s udies, monolinguals do no p oduce misma ches, while US speake s
show ag eemen es uc u ing. In o he wo ds, in hese cases we ha e sugges-
i e e idence ha HSs o G eek use less complex ep esen a ions. In he case o
he lexicon, HSs use PCs, gene alizing a pa e n ound also in monolingual p o-
duc ions, whe e i is associa ed wi h in o mal se ings. Unlike in he i s case
s udy, he e HSs show e ec s o use o a mo e analy ic pa e n. By con as , in
he case o RRCs, hey use a mo e complex ep esen a ion. Why should hey
beha e di e en ly in all hese case s udies?
To app oach his ques ion, I e isi he ecen discussion o he mechanisms
ha shape he i age g amma s in Scon as e al. (2018), see also Lohndal & Pu -
nam (2024): acco ding o Scon as e al. (2018), wo p essu es shape he i age
g amma s, ep esen a ional economy and analy ici y. In hei e ms, in he i s
case, he he i age g amma somehow elimina es while in he la e i augmen s
s uc u es in compa ison o he pa e ns used by monolingual speake s. Speci i-
cally, HSs in some cases p io i ize ep esen a ional economy, es uc u ing hei
g amma in a o o ligh e -weigh linguis ic ep esen a ions: less a icula ed,
mo e pa simonious s uc u es (e.g., s uc u es wi h ewe explici ag eemen ea-
u es) could ease he load on wo king memo y and migh he e o e be p e e ed
o hei ully-a icula ed s uc u es. By con as , Analy ici y a o s one- o-one
co espondence be ween o m and meaning. This pa e n sugges s ha HSs p e-
e one- o-one o m-meaning co espondences, which a e mo e anspa en , (see
also Alexiadou 2021).
I is in e es ing ha in ou case s udies he pa e ns shown go in e y di e -
en di ec ions. In he s udies which in ol e ag eemen , we ha e use o o ms ha
basically lack ea u es o inconsis en pa e ns. In o he wo ds, as also discussed
in Scon as e al. (2018), HSs es uc u e hei ag eemen ca ego ies and a o ing
ewe ea u e alues and pe haps less s uc u e. The in e es ing hing in he case
74
4 Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols: How no o
o G eek RRCs is ha he o m wi h less ea u es is an op ion in he G eek g am-
ma o begin wi h, also used by monolinguals and i looks like HSs gene alize
his. This is no he case in he DP in e nal ag eemen pa e ns, whe e a es uc-
u ing is obse ed. He e he e is no op ion in he g amma , nouns, adjec i es and
a icles ha e o ag ee in numbe and gende . The same applies also in he lexicon
case, whe e he PC is an op ion nex o he lexical e b. Thus, one may ask, as
Scon as e al. (2018) do, whe he i is possible o p edic which domains may
deli e mo e pa simonious ep esen a ions, and which may inc ease analy ici y
in HS g amma s bu also in gene al, i.e., beyond he HS deba e. While we migh
no ye ha e a ull empi ical pic u e o how o answe his ye , an impo an in-
sigh o his pape is ha he wo mechanisms Scon as e al. (2018) discuss a e
no unique o he i age g amma s, bu also shape monolingual g amma s as well;
his becomes e iden once we ake in o conside a ion how speake s use a ian s
o he same ea u e/s uc u e. Whene e he e is al e na ion be ween wo (o
maybe mo e) o ms, a speake may p e e one o he wo. In he RRC s udy, i
was he o m wi hou ag eemen , he less anspa en o m, in he case o he lex-
icon, i was he mo e explici one. In he la e case, he choice was in luenced by
egis e . This in u n sugges s ha depending on he domain o g amma , lexicon
s. phi- ea u es, di e en mechanisms may be exploi ed, see also Bousque e &
Pu nam (2020), and impo an ly also by monolingual speake s. Analy ici y ypi-
cally co ela es wi h less o mal egis e s, while ep esen a ional economy does
no seem o be dependen on o mali y. Impo an ly, his en ails ha he use o
o ms wi h and wi hou ag eemen does no co ela e wi h egis e , a leas in
G eek RRCs, unlike he si ua ion in English RRCs, whe e he dis ibu ion o wh-
elemen s as opposed o complemen ize is egula ed by socio-linguis ic ac o s.
Ra he , i is employed because i is co ela es wi h exp ession o ewe o a he
no ea u es. Ag eemen is one a ea, whe e as Pu nam e al. (2021) s a e, while
obus in he inpu , shows es uc u ing ac oss he i age languages. Acco ding
o Pu nam e al. (2021), his is pa icula ly clea wi h usional languages such as
G eek. Finally, no e ha he ag eemen misma ches iden i ied a e all in he DP
domain. A way o explain his is o assume ha he mechanisms in ol ed DP
in e nally o p oduce ag eemen , namely conco d, a e mo e complex ha hose
in he e bal domain, see Alexiadou e al. (2023) o discussion and e e ences.
5 Conclusions
In his pape , I p esen ed a iew on monolinguals no as con ols in a no ma i e
sense, bu as a g oup p o iding in o ma ion on speake a ia ion. In o de o
75
A emis Alexiadou
be e unde s and he mechanisms in ol ed in he i age g amma s ha lead o
di e ences be ween wo a ie ies o he same language o g oup o speake s, i
is impo an o look a a ia ion wi hin monolingual speech. I is no he case
ha he i age languages a e less complex: hey employ pa e ns also p oduced
by monolinguals. We hus need o in es iga e a a ie y o domains o language
use o ha e a mo e comple e pic u e o wha HSs can do and how hey di e
om monolingual speake s. I showed ha i we ocus on egis e compa ison, in
some cases we a e able o p esen a di e en na a i e abou how HSs di e om
hei monolingual ’con ols’. Mo eo e , i became clea ha , a leas in G eek,
lexicon choice signal egis e a ia ion, pe haps unsu p isingly. By con as , use
o o ms wi h ewe o less phi- ea u es does no co ela e wi h egis e a ia ion.
In gene al, ou case s udies align wi h he ends Pu nam e al. (2021) iden i ied
o usional languages: owa ds simpli ica ion, on he one hand, and analy ici y
on he o he .
Acknowledgemen s
I am indeb ed o wo e iewe s o hei ex ensi e commen s as well as o he pa -
icipan s o he O he ing Wo kshop in July 2022 in Be lin. Special hanks o Vasi-
liki Rizou o ex ensi e wo k on and wi h he RUEG co pus. This esea ch was
unded by he Deu sche Fo schungsgemeinscha g an s AL 554/13-1, 394836232,
and AL 554/15-1, 313607803.
Re e ences
Adge , Da id. 2014. Va iabili y and g amma ical a chi ec u e. In M. Ca me Picallo
(ed.), Va ia ion in a minimalis pe spec i e, 179–196. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y
P ess. DOI: 10.1093/acp o :oso/9780198702894.003.0009.
Albi ini, Abdulka i, Elabbas Benmamoun & B ahim Chak ani. 2013. Gende and
numbe ag eemen in he o al p oduc ion o A abic he i age speake s. Bilin-
gualism: Language and Cogni ion 16(1). 1–18. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728912000132.
Alexiadou, A emis. 2017. Language a ia ion and change: A case s udy o he
loss o geni i e case in (he i age) G eek. Belgian Jou nal o Linguis ics 31(1).
54–72.
Alexiadou, A emis. 2021. Mul iple exponence: Some imes wo is be e han one.
Talk gi en a 46. Ös e eichisch Linguis ik-Tagung.
76
4 Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols: How no o
Alexiadou, A emis & Vasiliki Rizou. 2022. Res ic i e ela i e clauses in G eek
He i age Speake s in he US. Be gen Language and Linguis ics S udies 12(2).
130–42. DOI: 10.15845/bells. 12i2.3834.
Alexiadou, A emis & Vasiliki Rizou. 2023. The use o pe iph asis o he exp es-
sion o aspec by G eek he i age speake s: A case s udy o egis e a ia ion
na owing. Regis e S udies 5(1). 82–110. DOI: 10.1075/ s.20022.ale.
Alexiadou, A emis, Vasiliki Rizou & Fo eini Ka kale sou. 2023. Ag eemen
Asymme ies wi h Adjec i es in He i age G eek. Languages 8(2). DOI: 10.3390/
languages8020139.
Alexiadou, A emis, Vasiliki Rizou, Nikolaos Tsokanos & Fo eini Ka kale sou.
2021. Gende ag eemen misma ches in he i age G eek. Languages 6(1). DOI:
10.3390/languages6010003.
Anas asiadis-Symeonidis, Anna & Flia ou as Asimakis. 2003. The ea u es
[lea ned] and [- lea ned] in G eek: De ini ion and classi ica ion. In P oceedings
o he 6 h In e na ional Con e ence on G eek Linguis ics. Uni e si y o C e e.
Benmamoun, Elabbas, Si ina Mon ul & Ma ia Polinsky. 2013. He i age lan-
guages and hei speake s: Oppo uni ies and challenges o linguis ics. Theo-
e ical Linguis ics 39. 129–81. DOI: 10.1515/ l-2013-0009.
Bolonyai, Agnes. 2007. (In) ulne able ag eemen in incomple e bilingual L1 lea n-
e s. In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingualism 11. 3–23.
Bousque e, Joshua & Michael T. Pu nam. 2020. Rede ining language dea h: E i-
dence om mo ibund g amma s. Language Lea ning 70(S1). 188–225. DOI: 10.
1111/lang.12362.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspec s o he heo y o syn ax (Special echnical epo
o he Resea ch Labo a o y o Elec onics o he Massachuse s Ins i u e o
Technology 11). Camb idge, Mass.: The MIT P ess.
Domínguez, Lau a, Glyn Hicks & Roumyana Slabako a. 2019. Te minology
choice in gene a i e acquisi ion esea ch: The case o “incomple e acquisi ion”
in he i age language g amma s. S udies in Second Language Acquisi ion 41. 241–
255. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263119000160.
E hymiou, Angeliki. 2017. In ensi ica ion and dein ensi ica ion in Mode n G eek
e bs. Lexis [Online] (10). DOI: 10.4000/lexis.1089.
Fe guson, Cha les. 1959. Diglossia. Wo d 15. 232–251.
F ancis, Elaine J. 2022. G adien accep abili y and linguis ic heo y. Ox o d: Ox-
o d Uni e si y P ess. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674323000059.
Fuchs, Zuzanna. 2019. Gende in he nominal domain: E idence om bilingualism
and eye- acking. Ha a d Uni e si y, MA, USA. (Doc o al disse a ion).
77

A emis Alexiadou
Gha ibi, Khadij, Fa ih Bay am & Gus a o Guaja do. 2023. Lexical and mo -
phosyn ac ic a ia ion in Pe sian he i age language ou comes. Linguis ic Ap-
p oaches o bilingualism 14(6). 886–914. DOI: 10.1075/lab.21052.gha.
G ammon, De in & Anna Babel. 2021. Wha does na i e speake mean anyway?
Sou ce: Language Log blog. Blog pos . h ps://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/
?p=51108.
Guy, G ego y R. & Robe Bayley. 1995. On he choice o ela i e p onouns in
English. Ame ican Speech 70(2). 148–162.
Higby, E e, E elyn Gámez & Claudia Holguín Mendoza. 2023. Challenging de ici
amewo ks in esea ch on he i age language bilingualism. Applied Psycholin-
guis ics 44. 417–430. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716423000048.
Hol on, Da id, Pe e Mack idge & I ene Philippaki-Wa bu o. 1997. G eek: A com-
p ehensi e g amma o he mode n language. London: Rou ledge.
Kupisch, Tanja & Jason Ro hman. 2018. Te minology ma e s! Why di e ence
is no incomple eness and how ea ly child bilinguals a e he i age speak-
e s. In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingualism 22(5). 564–582. DOI: 10 . 1177 /
1367006916654355.
Lohndal, Te je. 2013. Gene a i e g amma and language mixing. Theo e ical Lin-
guis ics 39(3–4). 215–224. DOI: 10.1515/ l-2013-0013.
Lohndal, Te je & Michael T. Pu nam. 2024. The impo ance o ea u es and ex-
ponen s: Dissol ing ea u e eassembly. Linguis ic App oaches o Bilingualism
14(1). 1–36. DOI: 10.1075/lab.23023.loh.
Lohndal, Te je, Jason Ro hman, Tanja Kupisch & Ma i Wes e gaa d. 2019. He -
i age language acquisi ion: Wha i e eals and why i is impo an o o -
mal linguis ic heo ies. Language and Linguis ics Compass 13(12). e12357. DOI:
10.1111/lnc3.12357.
Luk, Gigi & Ellen Bialys ok. 2013. Bilingualism is no a ca ego ial a iable: In e -
ac ion be ween language p o iciency and usage. Jou nal o Cogni i e Psychol-
ogy 25(5). 605–621. DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2013.795574.
Mon ul, Sil ina. 2016. The acquisi ion o he i age languages. Camb idge: Cam-
b idge Uni e si y P ess. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139030502.
Mon ul, Sil ina, Rakesh Mohan Bha & A chna Bha ia. 2012. E osion o case and
ag eemen in Hindi he i age speake s. Linguis ic App oaches o Bilingualism
2(2). 141–76. DOI: 10.1075/lab.2.2.02mon.
Polinsky, Ma ia. 2018. He i age languages and hei speake s. Camb idge: Cam-
b idge Uni e si y P ess. DOI: 10.1017/9781107252349.
Polinsky, Ma ia & G ego y Scon as. 2020. Unde s anding he i age lan-
guages. Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion 23(1). 4–20. DOI: 10 . 1017 /
S1366728919000245.
78
4 Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols: How no o
Pu nam, Michael T., La a Schwa z & And ew D. Ho man. 2021. Mo phology
o he i age languages. In Sil ina Mon ul & Ma ia Polinsky (eds.), The Cam-
b idge Handbook o He i age Languages and Linguis ics, 613–643. Camb idge:
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Ralli, Angela. 2004. S em-based s wo d-based mo phological con igu a ions:
The case o Mode n G eek p e e bs. Lingue e Linguaggio 3(2). 241–275.
Ro hman, Jason, Fa ih Bay am, Vincen DeLuca, G azia Di Pisa, Jon Andoni
Duñabei ia, Khadij Gha ibi, Jiuzhou Hao, Nadine Kolb, Maki Kubo a, Tanja
Kupisch, Tim Lamé is, Alicia Luque, B echje an Osch, Se gio Miguel Pe ei a
Soa es, Yanina P ys auka, Deniz Ta , Aleksand a Tomić, Toms Voi s & S e anie
Wul . 2023. Monolingual compa a i e no ma i i y in bilingualism esea ch is
ou o “con ol”: A gumen s and al e na i es. Applied Psycholinguis ics 44(3).
316–329. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716422000315.
Ro hman, Jason & Jeanine T e e s-Dalle . 2014. A p olegomenon o he cons uc
o he na i e speake : He i age speake bilinguals a e na i es oo! Applied Lin-
guis ics 35(1). 93–98. DOI: 10.1093/applin/am 049.
Scon as, G ego y, Ma ia Polinsky & Zuzanna Fuchs. 2018. In suppo o ep-
esen a ional economy: Ag eemen in he i age Spanish. Glossa: A jou nal o
gene al linguis ics 3(1). 1–29.
Slabako a, Roumyana. 2019. The bo leneck hypo hesis upda ed. In T. Ionin & M.
Rispoli (eds.), Th ee s eams o gene a i e language acquisi ion esea ch: Selec ed
pape s om he 7 h GALANA mee ing, 319–346. Ams e dam: John Benjamins.
DOI: 10.1075/lald.63.16sla.
Vulchano a, Mila, Valen in Vulchano , An onella So ace, C is ina Sua ez-Gomez
& Ped o Guija o-Fuen es. 2022. Edi o ial: The no ion o he na i e speake pu
o he es : Recen esea ch ad ances. F on ie s in Psychology 13. DOI: 10.3389/
psyg.2022.875740.
Wiese, Heike. 2020. Language si ua ions: A me hod o cap u ing a ia ion
wi hin speake s’ epe oi es. In Asahi Yoshiyuki (ed.), Me hods in dialec ology
XVI, 105–117. München: Pe e Lang.
Wiese, Heike, A emis Alexiadou, Shanley Allen, Oli e Bunk, Na alia Gaga-
ina, Ka e yna Ie emenko, Ma ia Ma yno a, Ta iana Pashko a, Vicky Ri-
zou, Ch is oph Sch oede , Anna Shad o a, Luka Szucsich, Rosema ie T acy,
Win ai Tsehaye, Sabine Ze bian & Yulia Zuban. 2021. He i age speake s as
pa o he na i e language con inuum. F on ie s in Psychology 12. Ped o
Guija o-Fuen es, C is ina Sua ez-Gomez, Mila Vulchano a, An onella So ace
& Valen in Vulchano (eds.). 209–227. DOI: 10.3389/ psyg.2021.717973.
79
A emis Alexiadou
Wiese, Heike, A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i & Ch is oph Sch oede .
2022. Mul ilinguals as O he s in socie y and academia: Challenges o belong-
ing unde a monolingual habi us. Wo king Pape s in U ban Language & Li e a-
cies 302. h ps://wpull.o g/wp-con en /uploads/2022/10/WP302-Wiese-e -al-
2022-Mul ilinguals-as-o he s.pd .
80
Chap e 5
(M)o he ongue: How Global Sou h
mul ilingual p ac ices allow unco e ing
mul ilingualisms benea h he in en ed
monolingual Eu opean Sel
F iede ike Lüpke
Helsinki Collegium o Ad anced S udies
This pape , pa o a collec ion on he O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics, ex-
plo es O he ing om he pe spec i e o Global Sou h socie ies, in which mul ilin-
gualism is commonly pe cei ed h ough Eu ocen ic lenses p e alen in cogni i e
science and linguis ics. The pape c i ically examines hese iewpoin s h ough de-
sc ibing he e ec s o p ocesses o O he ing, ocusing pa icula ly on he in en ion
o he Eu opean Sel as a c ucial componen o O he ing and d awing on c i ical
heo y and pos colonial s udies, especially he wo ks o Édoua d Glissan and Gay-
a i Spi ak. The i s p ocess o O he ing in ol es desc ibing he non-Eu opean
O he using Eu ocen ic concep s, whose applicabili y o Global Sou h con ex s
needs o be challenged. Howe e , me ely c i iquing hese concep s wi hin he Sel -
O he amewo k ails o add ess he need o decons uc he Eu opean Sel , in-
en ed as pa o he O he ing p ocess. The cons uc edness o he Eu opean Sel
i sel emphasises he need o a pa adigm shi in linguis ics ha acknowledges
he inadequacy o cu en analy ical amewo ks. This need is compounded by he
e ec s o O he ing on he sel -pe cep ion o he O he , which compels hem o
pe cei e hemsel es h ough ex e nal lenses, o con ibu e o he colonial lib a y
and o pe pe ua e colonial iewpoin s. The pape ad oca es a ecalib a ion o on-
ologies, epis emologies, and me hodologies in he desc ip ion o mul ilingualism
ac oss all se ings. By disman ling he no ion o he monolingual Eu opean Sel ,
he oad is pa ed owa ds no malising dynamic and luid mul ilingualisms, lead-
ing o a mo e comp ehensi e unde s anding o mul ilingualism wo ldwide based
on con i ial esea ch pa adigms.
F iede ike Lüpke. 2025. (M)o he ongue: How Global Sou h mul ilingual p ac ices allow unco -
e ing mul ilingualisms benea h he in en ed monolingual Eu opean Sel . In A emis Alexiadou,
Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike Wiese (eds.), The cons uc ion o mul ilin-
guals as O he s: Do we p ac ice wha we p each?, 81–102. Be lin: Language Science P ess. DOI:
10.5281/zenodo.17132447
F iede ike Lüpke
3 En iching he concep ual lib a y o mul ilingualism
esea ch in con i ial ways
Mul ilingualism esea ch has di e si ied d ama ically o e he las decade. Today,
i s scope is no limi ed o con empo a y indus ialised socie ies in he Global
No h and pos colonial u ban se ings in he Global Sou h bu also includes
a g owing esea ch ocus on u al si ua ions ex ending in o p ecolonial imes
(Lüpke 2016b, Singe & Ha is 2016, Good e al. 2019, S enzel 2005, Lüpke e al.
2020, Pakendo e al. 2021). Ye , an awa eness o hese (small-scale and u al)
mul ilingual socie ies as globally widesp ead and e olu iona y old (E ans 2017) is
slow o en e mains eam linguis ics, including mul ilingualism esea ch. P e ail-
ing endencies o o eg ounding se ings in he anglosphe e ha e been c i iqued
(Blasi e al. 2022, Hen ich e al. 2010) and O he ing o Global Sou h p ac ices and
esea ch on Global Sou h se ings has been poin ed ou (Kass an 2022, Meye ho
& Nagy 2008, Smakman 2015). Ye , i emains exceedingly a e o ead a s udy
o mul ilingualism in a Global No h se ing ha d aws inspi a ion om Sou h-
e n heo ies o mul ilingualism (Ndhlo u & Makalela 2021, Pennycook & Makoni
2019), and oo many s udies si ua ed in he Global Sou h exclusi ely use Eu o-
cen ic epis emologies and on ologies (Lüpke & S o ch 2013, Makoni 2013). This
ma ginalisa ion is exace ba ed by he deeply inequal ci cula ion o epis emolo-
gies and esea ch ou pu s ha excludes esea ch in and on Global Sou h socie ies
om he global economy o knowledge (Abode in e al. 2023). Con inuing such a
ocus means ha esea ch on se ings a he knowledge pe iphe y, mos no ably
in he Global Sou h, is no seen as ele an ou side he se ings in which i s da a
we e collec ed, echoing Mbembe (n.d.)’s obse a ion ha hey (and A ica in pa -
icula ) a e seen as esidual en i ies, places o da a collec ion ha ha e no much
o con ibu e o heo y o ma ion.
As he o go en and unde esea ched his o y o mul ilingualism in Eu ope
and he Global No h (Pa lenko 2023) eminds us, p e-na ionalis con igu a ions
we e seen as unsui able o he cons uc ion o he Eu opean Sel , and hei his-
o y bu ied unde new iden i y concep s and linguis ic no ions o ideally mono-
lingual speake s and socie ies. Tu ning o he as body o esea ch on Global
Sou h mul ilingualisms is he e o e o p ime impo ance o decen ing Eu o-
pean na a i es no only in and on Global Sou h socie ies (Ndhlo u & Makalela
2021, Makalela 2018, Pennycook & Makoni 2019, Makoni 2013, Adejunmobi 2004)
bu also in and o Global No h socie ies.
Imagina ions o u al socie ies as monolingual e hnolinguis ic communi ies
p io o u banisa ion and mass mig a ion and he con inuing dominan imagi-
na ion o mul ilingualism as mos ly happening in “supe di e se” Global No h
88

5 (M)o he ongue
socie ies (Ve o ec 2007) hinde s a ull app ecia ion o mul ilingual socie ies, in-
cluding in Eu ope. These assump ions a e based on he cen al ene ha e h-
nona ionalis language ideas a e uni e sal AND ha hey cap u ed he eali y o
language use in (some) socie ies p io o ecen dis u bances o his o de .
In he ollowing, a he han a emp ing a ( u ile and inescapably O he ing)
o e iew o how mul ilingual socie ies ou side Eu ope unc ion, I illus a e how
in eg a ing concep s om hese se ings can se e o disman le dominan no ions
in Eu ope and es ablish a con i ial dialogue as a basis o explo ing he meanings
o language in a non-de e minis ic manne .
I will mainly ocus on a guing agains he ollowing no ions:
• Language use s ideally being speake s and w i e s o one language, and
language as he mos p ominen ma ke o (e hnic) iden i y.
• Languages ha ing absolu e a ibu es (“indigenous” s. “colonial”, “mo he
ongue”, “e hnic language”, “lingua anca”, e c.).
• Roles iden i ied o languages, such as “mo he ongue” cap u ing social
eali ies a he han language ideologies.
• Languages as ei ied, uni o mly e i o ialised and used by speech commu-
ni ies ha a e also language communi ies.
• Mul ilingualism, mixing and con ac as special (and always iden i iable)
cases, o as new, u ban and young.
The ca ego ies o mo he ongue and na i e speake a e p ime examples o no-
ions o igina ing om a Eu opean desi e o essen ialise iden i ies (Bon iglio 2010)
in he wake o he o ma ion o monolingually imagined na ion s a es. Mo he
ongue is an imp ecise signi ie in he Lacanian sense, bu he UNESCO (2025)
de ini ion “a language lea ned in childhood in he home en i onmen , also e-
e ed o as mo he ongue, i s language, o na i e language”, in u n con ain-
ing se e al signi ie s ha ci cula ly ein o ce each o he , is ep esen a i e o
con empo a y a emp s o u n i in o a sign wi h conc e e meaning. Tha he
ca ego y o mo he ongue is no applicable o mul ilinguals quickly eme ges, o
ins ance when sociolinguis s and educa ion planne s in Senegal and Mali eso
o he use he F ench loanwo d langues ma e nelles o designa e mo he ongues
o wan o a ansla ion equi alen ha is no sys ema ically misunde s ood as
meaning ‘mo he ’s languages’, ha is, he language(s) spoken by one’s mo he .
S a ing hei mo he ongues p esen s mul ilinguals wi h he conund um o see-
ing hemsel es h ough he p ism o Eu opean language ideologies.
89
F iede ike Lüpke
I am o en asked o p o ide al e na i e no ions o speake hood s emming om
colleagues’ and my own esea ch in Global Sou h se ings. A numbe o ecen
publica ions o e insigh in o aspec s o iden i y o eg ounded in he ela ions
be ween speake s and some o hei ocal languages in a a ie y o se ings om
ac oss he globe (Good e al. 2019, Pakendo e al. 2021, Lüpke e al. 2020). How-
e e , i also eme ges om his esea ch ha ela ionships be ween spaces and
speake s, be ween speake s in in e ac ion, and be ween esea che s and esea ch
pa icipan s dynamically shape how epe oi es a e ca ego ised and p esen ed,
and ha esea che s’ ocus on language as a cen al ool o iden i y in luences
esponses (Goodchild 2016, Goodchild & Weidl 2018, Lüpke 2019, Lüpke 2021a, Di
Ca lo 2016). This con i ial na u e o language use and i s ca ego isa ion is quali-
a i ely incompa ible wi h s a ic and absolu e oles o named languages and o
he no ion o language as a p ede e mined ca ego y ha exis s ou side o an in-
e ac ional con ex . Sociolinguis ics has unde gone h ee wa es b inging i om
he assump ion o pa icula speech o ms cha ac e ising social g oups in he
i s wa e and om he ecogni ion o he cons uc ion o social g oups h ough
he use o pa icula linguis ic ea u es in he second wa e o esea ching how
speake s make use o a wide a ay o s yles and ea u es o cons uc di e se
social meanings in in e ac ion (Ecke 2012, Tagliamon e 2016), e en hough his
a ia ion o en is only s udied wi hin one named language, wi h a s anda d a-
ie y as he benchma k. The ime has come o desc ip i e and documen a y
linguis ics o mo e om assuming ha languages index o cons ue ixed social
iden i ies o s udying how language i sel is cons uc ed con i ially (see Lüpke
& Wa son (2020) o an example om Senegal).
A podium discussion on A ican linguis ic di e si y a he Kenako A ica Fes-
i al 2020 in Be lin illus a es he s uggle wi h Eu opean language ideas and
he impossibili y o simply eplace hem wi h al e na i e ca ego ies. Fou A o-
Diaspo ic panellis s – linguis Reginald Duah, compa a i e li e a u e schola
Rémi Tchoko he, w i e Elna han John and poli ical heo is S ephanie Wanga
aim a answe ing he seemingly simple ques ion “Wha is you mo he ongue?”
asked by he mode a o . In he p ocess o answe ing i many laye s o misun-
de s andings and con adic ions connec ed o his concep a e e ealed when
he panellis s y o desc ibe hei li ed linguis ic expe iences in Kenya, Nige ia,
Came oon and Ghana h ough his lens. Elna han John s a es his expe ience as
one o g owing up wi hou a mo he ongue, bu wi h wo languages – Hausa and
English – which ha e been imposed on him, and ou o which English has become
his w i ing ool. John’s expe ience illus a es he limi s o dicho omies such as
“indigenous” s. “colonial”: Hausa, a language o p ecolonial empi e o ma ion,
can be as aliena ing o speake s on whom i is o ced as English, he colonial lan-
90
5 (M)o he ongue
guage, which in u n can become a che ished ool o exp ession. Rémi Tchoko he
men ions Cam anglais and Came oonian Pidgin English as languages ha a e
seen as nobody’s mo he ongue bu es ablish ela ionships o solida i y among
speake s who would be seen as di e en based on assump ions o a single e h-
nolinguis ic iden i y. The e oca ion o non-s anda d o ms o English as ho i-
zon al o ms o solida i y es i ies bo h o he plu ali y o o ms con ained in a
named language and o he acialisa ion o hese o ms as ou side colonial and
neo-colonial ins i u ions. S ephanie Wanga d eams o a Kenyan socie y in which
all he a he and mo he ongues (all he languages and language o ms used
by he a he and mo he and hei pa en s in u n) would ha e equal igh s and
be in es ed wi h esou ces, es i ying o he impossibili y o selec ing one lan-
guage as ha ing he all-encompassing impo ance o iden i y sugges ed by he
e m mo he ongue. I cas in mo he ongue e ms, he ision would mean o al-
low dynamic, non- egula ed mul ilingualism as a mo he ongue. Reginald Duah
se s ou o p o ide he named language Akan o Ghana as his mo he ongue
bu con esses ha he e is no ce ain y o knowing wha Akan means. This la-
bel, in ci cula ion o mo e han 400 yea s, has been and is used as a changeable
umb ella e m o languages and lec s whose composi ion in e ms o linguis-
ic ea u es and labels di e depending on space, ime and pe spec i e, wi h no
all people iden i ying as Akan speaking an Akan language, and no all speak-
e s o an Akan language necessa ily seeing hemsel es o being ca ego ised as
Akan. E en i he o ien a ion he e, p imed h ough he ques ion, emains o-
wa ds named languages, i becomes mani es ha hey canno accoun o he
mul iple, ambi alen and dynamic communica i e p ac ice o he panellis s be-
yond a ough i s app oxima ion. Tha is, meanings o he concep o a named
language can be di e se and quali a i ely e y di e en om hose in a monolin-
gual s anda d language cul u e. The ollowing quo e, om he au obiog aphy o
he Senegalese philosophe Souleymane Bachi Diagne (2021: 28–29) ques ions
he essence o named languages as well as common ca ego isa ions o language
in e ms o sequen ial acquisi ion:
J’en [des langues, FL] ai pa lé assez apidemen qua e; le wolo , le ançais,
le diola, le c éole. Le diola, langue à laquelle on iden i ie la égion sud du
Sénégal où pou an ou le monde en pa le plusieu s, es une langue que
j’ai a apée assez i e. Je eg e e an de l’a oi laissée s’échappe , plus
a d, de la zone de mon ce eau où elle ne s’é ai pas assez p o ondémen
inc us ée. Plus a d, c’es -à-di e au ou de mes neu ans, lo sque ma amille
a déménagé à Daka . Le c éole po ugais, qui é ai la langue commune de la
ille de Ziguincho , s’es aussi dissipé dans l’a mosphè e de Daka lo sque
91
F iede ike Lüpke
je ne l’ai plus pa lé, même s’il m’en es e des b ibes. Le wolo e le ançais
me son « langues p emiè es » au an l’un que l’au e ca les ci cons ances
on ai que je les ai pa lés en même emps.
[I p e y quickly spoke ou languages: Wolo , F ench, Joola, C eole. Joola,
he language wi h which he Sou he n egion o Senegal is iden i ied, al-
hough e e ybody he e speaks se e al languages, is a language I’ e caugh
e y quickly. I eg e e y much o ha e le i escape, la e , om he a ea
o my b ain whe e i hadn’ en enched i sel deeply enough. La e , mean-
ing when I was abou nine yea s old, when my amily mo ed o Daka .
Po uguese C eole, which was he communal language o Ziguincho , also
dissipa ed in o he a mosphe e o Daka when I didn’ speak i any longe ,
e en hough I s ill ha e some pieces o i . Wolo and F ench a e “ i s lan-
guages” o me, each as much as he o he , because ci cums ances ha e made
ha I ha e spoken hem simul aneously.]
A e Joola (and i so, which Joola?) and C eole Diagne’s he i age languages?
Can F ench be a mo he ongue o a ci izen o Senegal? Is a communi y language
di e en om a lingua anca? How can we accoun o he ac ha Wolo is
deeply en angled wi h F ench, in a s ongly es ablished luid ype o “unma ked
code-swi ching” (Mye s-Sco on 1993) ha has p omp ed some esea che s o
cha ac e ise i as a “pos colonial c eole” (Swiga 1992)? Is Po uguese C eole an
indigenous language? Can Diagne, who has augh a Ame ican uni e si ies o
mos o his academic li e, claim English as a language he owns on a pa wi h
his o he languages? The mul iplici ies, ambi alences, ague e e en iali ies o
named languages, changeabili y o epe oi es elucida ed in he es imonies p e-
sen ed abo e canno be cap u ed wi h hese o any o he e m, hey equi e hink-
ing away om named languages and hei oles in s anda d language cul u es
and owa ds con i ial mul ilingualism.
The sho comings o he colonial language lib a y and he al e na i e lan-
guage wo lds ha eme ge om hese es imonies a e o ele ance no only o
Global Sou h socie ies; compa ing hem wi h li ed expe iences all o e he wo ld
also e eal hidden mul ilingualism h ough enabling he opening o c acks in
Eu opean and No he n language ideologies. Reac ing o linguis ic epe oi es
such as hose gi en abo e enables Eu opeans o ela e hei expe iences o hem.
Ra he han seeing hem as exo ic and alien, he e oca ion o such complex and
dynamic epe oi es (Lüpke & S o ch 2013) o en empowe s Eu opeans, oo, o
accep he misma ch be ween no ma i e s ances and ac ual beha iou and expe-
ience and a icula e hei likewise changeable and mul iple links o languages.
A ecogni ion o such misma ches allows:
92
5 (M)o he ongue
• seeing mul ilingualism as a iably ca ego ised a he han associa ed wi h
ixed unc ions o clea ly de e mined named languages;
• ecognising he use o mul iple egis e s wi hin and beyond named lan-
guages;
• pe cei ing up u es in language socialisa ion, o ins ance be ween con-
i ial language use in he amily and he exposu e o a s anda dised lan-
guage o educa ion a school, ega dless o whe he he same named lan-
guage is used o no (Lüpke & Cissé 2023).
Lis ening o my examples om Senegal, a Spanish colleague old me ha she
could ela e o hem e y well, since she had always wonde ed why she was old
ha she was ecei ing mo he ongue educa ion when lea ning s anda d Galician
and Cas ilian, which we e bo h e y emo ed om language use in he amily
and ou -o -school en i onmen . A home, no only di e en linguis ic a ie ies
o hese named languages we e used, bu hey we e also used wi h a luidi y no
allowed in he school con ex . The language o he in ima e en i onmen had no
place in his mo he ongue logic. The Ame ican w i e Amy Tan has cap u ed
he mul i ude o Englishes and how monoli hic no ions o a mo he ongue and
a sha ed body o linguis ic signs as inca na ing i ail o g asp his a iabili y in a
powe ul essay (Tan 1990). He na a i e cap u es he mul i ude o sociopoli ical
egis e s and how hey connec he o di e en ace s o he iden i y ha a e
hidden behind he açade o a single named language. Such expe iences ex end
beyond English o e e ywhe e, om Swahili (Mugane 2015) o Finnish (Laakso
2022).
I is no jus language use s whose dynamic and mul iple ela ions o lan-
guage(s) and egis e s means ha hey canno be s a ically and uni ocally consid-
e ed as pa icula ypes o speake s. The concep s con ained in pa icula oles
associa ed wi h named languages, in analogy o hose o o he socio-poli ical
iden i y concep s such as na ionali y and e hnici y a e indexing imagined, a he
han eally exis ing communi ies (Ande son 1983, Sil e s ein 2015), o which
equally imagined named languages se e as signs o di e ence (Gal & I ine
2019) h ough “lies ha bind” (Appiah 2018). Bo h he ca ego isa ion h ough lan-
guage names and language oles and o linguis ic p ac ice a e subjec o pe spec-
i al and scala socio-cogni i e pe cep ion (Lüpke 2021a). In es ing named lan-
guages wi h ixed social indexicali y is only possible h ough he necessa y “cul-
i a ed agueness” and “magical unce ain y” (Bala on-Ch imes 2021) o seem-
ingly clea ly e e en ial on ologies. Fixing languages h ough a delinea ed in en-
o y o named languages and associa ed linguis ic o ms ails o acknowledge
93

F iede ike Lüpke
ha we all always only use “bi s and chunks o language” (Blommae 2010),
akin o Deleuzian assemblages (Pie ikäinen 2021). Dynamic, luid, and a iously
ca ego isable epe oi es always de y being cas in e ms o ini e and objec i e
ca ego ies.
4 Ou look: how o make mul ilingualism esea ch uly
global
This cen u y has seen a mul ilingual u n in all a eas o linguis ics. Too o en,
his u n is seen as co ela ed wi h inc easing mul ilingualism and supe di e -
si y. Such a iew is ahis o ical in ha i only akes in o accoun a sho pe iod o
imagina y monolingualism (o egula ed mul ilingualism) dis u bed by globali-
sa ion and inc easing mig a ion. I is now necessa y o globalise he mul ilingual
u n and ee i om Eu ocen ic language ideologies. Such a u n equi es i s
and o emos a e hinking o language, as Ndhlo u & Makalela (2021: 11) emind
us:
as Ndhlo u (2018: 118) pu s i , while he in oca ion o ‘high-sounding
me apho s o human igh s, an i-impe ialism and biodi e si y esona e
wi h con empo a y in e na ional con e sa ions a ound social jus ice and
equi y issues’, hey s uggle o achie e much because ‘s anda d language
ideology emains ensconced as he only alid and legi ima e concep ual
amewo k ha in o ms mains eam unde s andings o wha is mean
by “language”’. This is no a ques ion o language s anda disa ion – he
p oblem ha language e i al p ojec s gene ally need o educe language
a ie y o a much na owe se o op ions – bu ha hese p ojec s all oo
o en ope a e wi h a cons ic ed unde s anding o wha language is and
how i ope a es.
Such an opening owa ds “ ee ange language” (Wiese 2023) in ol es “p o in-
cialise la langue” (Canu 2021), p o incialise language h ough acknowledging
he o igin and ecognising he limi a ions o dominan ideas o language no only
o O he places, bu in he No h as well. No longe can we say “A icans a e so
mul ilingual” and hus con as hem wi h an imagined mono- o less mul ilin-
gual Eu opean Sel . Ra he , we should ask wha makes A ican mul ilingualisms
mo e isible han Eu opean mul ilingualisms, a ques ion ha ine i ably leads us
o in es iga ing he p ocesses ha ha e e ased Eu ope’s and he No h’s linguis-
ic di e si y om consciousness and banned hem om many domains o public
94
5 (M)o he ongue
li e and o esea ching he social con ex s which enable mul ilingualism o be
less censu ed and mo e con i ial.
Monolingualism is a na ionalis in en ion (Schneide 2018, G amling 2016). I
we concede ha monolingualism is cons uc ed, his also en ails ha we need di -
e en epis emologies, on ologies and me hodologies o app oach mul ilingual-
ism. To pa aph ase in a i hme ic e ms, he e is no longe a mul iplicand ha
can be mul iplied, no a code ha can be mixed. Wi hou such a base line, wha
we a e le wi h is luid ( ans)languaging (Mignolo 1996, Ga cía 2009, Ga cía
& Li 2014, Li 2018, Makalela 2015, 2016) as he phenomenon ha can be ob-
se ed. (T ans)languaging, con i ial language use in in e ac ion, cons ained in
acco dance wi h language ideologies and language egimes a wo k in pa icula
spaces and exchanges bu ne e a sealed monolingual con aine . He e oglossic
and a iable language use becomes mono- o mul ilingual h ough social indexi-
cali y (Agha 2005, Sil e s ein 2003). I is hus socio-cogni i e ca ego isa ion p o-
cesses ha de e mine how ( ans)languaging is ca ego ised as mono- o mul ilin-
gual. I ollows ha language IS con i iali y: i has no ixed meaning ou side o
pa icula places, in e ac ions and obse a ions which a e shaped by language
ideologies and epe oi es (Lüpke 2021a).
In es iga ing con i ial language use is bes done in con i ial se ups. I s a s
om explo ing in e ac ional spaces, no om esea ching languages, an endea -
ou ha equi es di e se collabo a i e esea ch g oups. In desc ip i e and doc-
umen a y linguis ics, a con i iali y amewo k pa es he way o in es iga ing
how di e en indi iduals and socie ies cons uc , ei y and index pa icula so-
cial ca ego ies, including language (o no ). This equi es he de elopmen o
new models o language and ( ans)languaging aking he necessa y incomple e-
ness o language in mul ilingual epe oi es and use in o accoun . Such esea ch
is necessa ily con i ial i sel , d i en by in e - and c ossdisciplina i y and aiming
a being socially ele an o mul ilingual speake s.
Con i iali y esea ch he e o e equi es a poli ical and ac i is s ance. I is no
possible o celeb a e mul ilingualism and showcase he c ea i i y o con i ial
( ans)languaging p ac ices o a gue o hei in oduc ion in o o mal educa ion
sys ems wi hou challenging he exclusiona y and aciolinguis ically mo i a ed
p ac ices o hese ins i u ions (Cushing 2021, Flo es & Rosa 2015, Rambukwella
2021, Lüpke & Cissé 2023). Con i ial mul ilingualism is ou lawed he e, because
soli ude mono-o mul ilingualism in s anda d languages is he p e ailing lan-
guage idea. In pos colonial socie ies o he Global No h and Sou h, hese ins i-
u ions penalise he mos con i ial mul ilinguals mos , because hei p esence is
ei he e ased o seen as an educa ional challenge, and hei language use does
no co espond o soli ude ideas o language: hey do no ha e mo he ongues
95
F iede ike Lüpke
co esponding o a clea se o linguis ic ea u es and used in s anda d-based
w i ing. Acco ding o mo he - ongue-based monolingual ideologies, hey a e ex-
cluded om owning la ge pa s o hei epe oi es, ei he because hey con ain
non- alo ised Sou he n o ms o languages o Eu opean p o enance o because
hey a e seen as impu e and de icien . Ad oca ing o con i ial mul ilingualism
means ac i ely encou aging con i ial ideas o language and con i ial language
use. The e y ac ha I am cons ained by deeply oo ed No he n academic
adi ions o w i e his a icle in a s ongly ei ied o m o English, which is
supposed o ins an ia e ‘na i e’ o ‘na i e-like’ p o iciency and keep sepa a e
a ie ies o English ha luidly in e mesh in my language use ( o ins ance by
choosing ei he ‘Ame ican English’ o ‘B i ish English’) while a he same ime
emaining excluded om being a ‘na i e speake ’ o claiming owne ship o his
language illus a es he eno mi y o his ask. And I am w i ing as a p i ileged
Eu opean s eeped in s anda d language cul u e and schooled in s anda d B i ish
English. Fo “mul icephalous” language use s ac oss he globe (Sow 2021), he
s anda d languages imposed on hem a e he me opoli an o ms o colonial lan-
guages o (pos )colonially c ea ed s anda d e sion o ‘ hei ’ languages (Ngué
Um 2015), he eby disowning hem and disquali ying hei con i ial p ac ices, a
s a us quo ha we need o unsea .
Re e ences
Abode in, Isabella, Di ine Fuh, Eyob Balcha Geb ema iam & Puleng Segalo. 2023.
Beyond ‘equi able pa ne ships’: The impe a i e o ans o ma i e esea ch
collabo a ions wi h A ica. Global Social Challenges Jou nal 2(2). 212–228. DOI:
10.1332/27523349Y2023D000000002.
Adejunmobi, Mo adewun. 2004. Ve nacula pala e . Imagina ions o he local and
non-na i e languages in Wes A ica. B is ol: Mul ilingual Ma e s.
Agha, Asi . 2005. Voice, oo ing, en egis e men . Jou nal o Linguis ic An h opol-
ogy 15. 38–59.
Ande son, Benedic Richa d O’Go man. 1983. Imagined communi ies. Re lec ions
on he o igin and sp ead o na ionalism. London, New Yo k: Ve so. h p://hdl.
handle.ne /2027/heb.01609..
Appiah, Kwame An hony. 2018. The lies ha bind. Re hinking iden i y: C eed,
coun y, colou , class, cul u e. London: P o ile Books.
Bala on-Ch imes, Saman ha. 2021. Who a e Kenya’s 42(+) ibes? The census and
he poli ical u ili y o magical unce ain y. Jou nal o Eas e n A ican S udies
15(1). 43–62. DOI: 10.1080/17531055.2020.1863642.
96
5 (M)o he ongue
Blasi, Damián E., Joseph Hen ich, E angelia Adamou, Da id Kemme e & Asi a
Majid. 2022. O e - eliance on English hinde s cogni i e science. T ends in Cog-
ni i e Sciences 26(12). 1153–1170. DOI: 10.1016/j. ics.2022.09.015.
Blommae , Jan. 2010. The sociolinguis ics o globaliza ion. Camb idge: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess.
Bon iglio, Thomas Paul. 2010. Mo he ongues and na ions: The in en ion o he
na i e speake . Be lin & Bos on: De G uy e Mou on.
Canu , Cécile. 2021. P o incialise la langue: Langage e colonialisme. Pa is: Édi-
ions Ams e dam.
Cummins, Jim. 2008. Teaching o ans e : Challenging he wo soli udes as-
sump ion in bilingual educa ion. In Nancy H. Ho nbe ge (ed.), Encyclopedia
o language and educa ion, 1528–1538. Bos on: Sp inge .
Cushing, Ian. 2021. “say i like he Queen”: The s anda d language ideology and
language policy making in English p ima y schools. Language, Cul u e and
Cu iculum 34(3). 321–336. DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2020.1840578.
de Meulde , Maa je, Annelies Kus e s, E in Mo ia y & Joseph J. Mu ay. 2019.
Desc ibe, don’ p esc ibe: The p ac ice and poli ics o anslanguaging in he
con ex o dea signe s. Jou nal o Mul ilingual and Mul icul u al De elopmen
40(10). 892–906. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2019.1592181.
Di Ca lo, Pie paolo. 2016. Mul ilingualism, a ilia ion, and spi i ual insecu i y.
F om phenomena o p ocesses in language documen a ion. Language Docu-
men a ion and Conse a ion Special Publica ion 10. 71–104.
Diagne, Souleymane Bachi . 2021. Le ago de ma mémoi e. Pa is: Philippe Rey.
Diagne, Souleymane Bachi . 2022. De langue à langue. L’hospi ali é de la aduc-
ion. Pa is: Albin Michel (Biblio hèque Albin Michel Idées).
Ecke , Penelope. 2012. Th ee wa es o a ia ion s udy. The eme gence o mean-
ing in he s udy o sociolinguis ic a ia ion. Annual Re iew o An h opology
41(1). 87–100. DOI: 10.1146/annu e -an h o-092611-145828.
E ans, Nicholas. 2017. Did language e ol e in mul ilingual se ings? Biology &
Philosophy 32(6). 905–933. DOI: 10.1007/s10539-018-9609-3.
Flo es, Nelson & Jona han Rosa. 2015. Undoing app op ia eness: Raciolinguis ic
ideologies and language di e si y in educa ion. Ha a d Educa ional Re iew
85(2). 149–171. DOI: 10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149.
Gal, Susan & Judi h T. I ine. 2019. Signs o di e ence: Language and ideology in
social li e. Camb idge & New Yo k: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. DOI: 10.1017/
9781108649209.
Ga cía, O elia. 2009. Educa ion, mul ilingualism and anslanguaging in he 21s
cen u y. In Educa ion, mul ilingualism and mul ilingual educa ion o social
jus ice: Globalising he local, 140–158. New Delhi: O ien Blackswan.
97
Jana Gampe , Ch is oph Sch oede , Julia Schlauch & Do o heé S einbock
on s udies ela ed o child and adolescen lea ne s. We combine his wi h a sec-
ond ques ion, asking, how academic s udies in he academic ield o GSL con-
cep ualize hei “clien ele” o lea ne s. We conduc ou esea ch in he o m o
a sys ema ic li e a u e e iew. Ou esea ch ques ions o igina e in he obse a-
ion ha GSL is a a he ague concep , ending o ake a de icien pe spec i e
on i s clien ele. This is ela ed, in ou iew, o an unclea di e en ia ion be ween
he psycholinguis ic no ion o GSL in he ame o second language (hence o h
L2) acquisi ion on he one hand, which has o should ha e (in ou iew) ce ain
speci ic and empi ically based implica ions. On he o he hand, he academic
ield o GSL has a pa icula ly applied adi ion in Ge many ha di e s om (es-
ablished) second language acquisi ion (hence o h SLA) esea ch in pa icula
ways.
Ou chap e is s uc u ed as ollows: In sec ion 2, we subs an ia e ou esea ch
ques ion. In sec ion 3, we de elop and conduc ou e iew. Sec ion 4 discusses
ou indings.
2 Theo e ical conside a ions
To subs an ia e ou esea ch ques ion, we i s b ie ly in oduce ou unde s and-
ing o mul ilingualism and second language acquisi ion (2.1), be o e u ning o
he academic ield o GSL (2.2) and some ini ial quali a i e obse a ions (2.3),
which lead us o poin ou ce ain dange s o “O he ing”, which may o igina e in
he misma ch be ween he scope o he academic ield and he psycholinguis ic
no ion o GSL.
2.1 Mul ilingualism, second language acquisi ion and age o onse
Acqui ing an L2 is one way an indi idual can become mul ilingual, and in he
indi idual-o ien ed use, he e m “mul ilingualism” is an umb ella e m o a -
ious o ms o language acquisi ion in he cou se o an indi idual’s li e, as well
as o linguis ic p ac ices and egula ions in e e yday li e, in wo king li e and
ins i u ions (c . G osjean 2010).
Indi iduals become mul ilingual by acqui ing mo e han one language. The e
is no doub ha he age o onse (AoO) and he leng h o exposu e (LoE) o he
language(s) a e decisi e o he cou se o he acquisi ion p ocess, bu also o
i s speed and o some ex en o i s success (c . Gaga ina e al. 2021, G imm &
C is an e 2022, Meisel 2009). Di e ences in AoO, hen, a e impo an indica ions
o he (expec ed) quali a i e cou se o acquisi ion. The acquisi ion o mo e han
104

6 Cons uc ing a clien ele in need: The ield o Ge man as a Second Language
one language simul aneously as i s languages is commonly called “bilingual
i s language acquisi ion”. The acquisi ion o a second language a e he age
o 3 is called “successi e second language acquisi ion”. Speaking o Ge man as
an L2, his is whe e “Ge man as a Second Language” begins.1Successi e second
language acquisi ion up o he age o 7 is summa ized as “ea ly childhood sec-
ond language acquisi ion”. Finally, a dis inc ion mus be made be ween whe he
he language(s) a e acqui ed as a child o as an adul . Adul acquisi ion o an-
o he language is conside ed o s a wi h he onse o pube y (c . Hyl ens am
& Ab ahamsson 2003). All in all, language de elopmen in Ge man as L2 can be
summa ised well by saying ha he ea lie he acquisi ion o Ge man begins, he
mo e simila i s cou se and dynamics a e o monolingual i s language acquisi-
ion. Wo k by Thoma & T acy (2007) and T acy (2008) makes i qui e clea ha
child en who begin acqui ing Ge man be o e he age o 3-4 go h ough he same
s ages o acquisi ion, a leas in he a ea o syn ac ic de elopmen , as child en
who acqui e Ge man as hei i s language. A i s quali a i e b eak becomes
isible a he age o onse in o second language acquisi ion a ound age 4. In
pa icula , he wo k o Habe ze l (2014) and Gaga ina e al. (2021) show ha
child en who begin second language acquisi ion a his age acqui e he language
di e en ly han child en o whom he p ocess begins ea lie (see also G imm &
C is an e 2022).
These age- ela ed di e en ia ion o lea ne g oups a e no mo e han app ox-
ima e guidelines o he connec ion o onse and cou se o L2 acquisi ion, bu
AoO is a c ucial de ining ac o when i comes o L2 lea ne iden i ica ion. How-
e e , he e a e no eliable igu es o Ge many on how many o he mul ilingual
indi iduals can be classi ied as L2 lea ne s. Fo example, he e a e no igu es a ail-
able on he p opo ion o amilies who speak only Ge man as he amily language
(=monolingual Ge man language acquisi ion), o speak Ge man and ano he lan-
guage as amily languages (=simul aneous bilingual acquisi ion). Childca e a es
in kinde ga ens could p o ide a clue, al hough in o icial s a e epo s only da a
on “mig a ion backg ound” is a ailable,2bu no linguis ic da a. S ill, i we ake
1This dis inc ion is by no means uncon o e sial. The e a e ce ainly app oaches ha place he
beginning o successi e second language acquisi ion (in con as o bilingual i s language
acquisi ion) la e , namely a he age o ou o i e (Meisel 2009, Schulz & G imm 2019). No e
ha he ac ha he exac o mula ion o he c i e ia migh be con o e sial does no diminish
he impo ance o clea -cu c i e ia.
2“Mig a ion backg ound” (Ge m. Mig a ionshin e g und) is a sociodemog aphic cha ac e is ic
used in demog aphic s a is ics in Ge many in o de o desc ibe he mig an communi y in he
coun y. Acco ding o he Fede al S a is ical O ice in Ge many, indi iduals ha e a mig a ion
backg ound i hey hemsel es o a leas one o hei pa en s we e bo n wi h a non-Ge man
ci izenship. See o an o e iew and c i ical e alua ion Will (2020).
105
Jana Gampe , Ch is oph Sch oede , Julia Schlauch & Do o heé S einbock
he s a o kinde ga en a endance as he s a o he acquisi ion o Ge man o
child en wi h a “mig a ion backg ound”, hen, he (cau ious) conclusions abou
he age a he s a o acquisi ion a e as ollows: Fo he as majo i y o child en
bo n in Ge many wi h a mig a ion backg ound, we can assume bilingual i s
language acquisi ion o ea ly second language acquisi ion.3
Wha does his say wi h ega d o expec ed compe encies in Ge man? On
he one hand, he idea ha second language acquisi ion is comple ed when he
speake has mas e ed he second language a he same le el as a monolingual
speake is no enable: Bilingualism o mul ilingualism does no mean mul iplied
monolingualism, as he amous ci a ion om G osjean (1989) goes. A he same
ime, he a ia ion in language use and compe ence among monolingual speak-
e s is so g ea ha a no ma i e assump ion o monolingual language use and
compe ence is no possible (Shad o a e al. 2021).
Howe e , he e is a g owing body o esea ch esul s which compa e he aca-
demic language compe encies o child en and adolescen s bo n in Ge many wi h
a mig a ion backg ound and/o wi h a amily language o he han o besides
Ge man wi h hose o child en and adolescen s wi hou a mig a ion backg ound
o wi h a monolingual acquisi ion biog aphy. These allow he ollowing con-
clusion: The as majo i y o child en and adolescen s bo n and aised in Ge -
many wi h a amily language o he han o alongside Ge man do no di e in
hei linguis ic compe encies om monolingual child en and adolescen s when i
comes o academic language pe o mance (see among o he s Habe ze l 2016, Ri-
ca B ede 2020, Pe e sen 2014). I he e was successi e second language acquisi-
ion a all (and no bilingual i s language acquisi ion), hen his p ocess eaches
comple ion in p ima y school (Gaga ina e al. 2021). A he same ime, his does
no necessa ily ha e o mean ha he linguis ic compe encies and p ac ices o
mul ilinguals a e indis inguishable om he linguis ic compe encies o p ac ices
o monolinguals. Howe e , po en ial suppo needs a e no di e en om hose
aced by monolinguals and co ela e p ima ily wi h social ac o s ha limi ac-
cess o he academic egis e o school (Reiss e al. 2019, Rauch 2019).
I we summa ise he discussion abo e o ou esea ch ques ions, wo poin s
become e iden : Fi s , in he s udy o mul ilingual child en and adolescen s, i
3Acco ding o he igu es o he Fede al S a is ical O ice, jus o e 20% o 0-3 yea old
child en wi h a mig a ion backg ound a end kinde ga en and he a e ises o o e 80%
o 3-6 yea olds (wi h ce ain di e ences be ween he ede al s a es), see S a is isches
Bundesam , igu es o Ma ch 2020, a h ps://www.des a is.de/DE/Themen/Gesellscha -
Umwel /Soziales/Kinde agesbe euung/Tabellen/be euungsquo e-mig a ion-un e 6jah en-
nach-laende n.h ml;jsessionid=8F81E7EAE4F5065DB0917E1313242370.li e742 [accessed
2024/04/09].
106
6 Cons uc ing a clien ele in need: The ield o Ge man as a Second Language
is essen ial o ask o biog aphical de ails conce ning he exposu e o he newly
acqui ed language, be o e classi ying hem as L2 lea ne s. On a minimal le el,
his is bes done h ough inqui ing abou he age o onse o acquisi ion (AoO),
and/o he leng h o exposu e (LoE), possibly also he leng h o schooling (LoS)
in he language. And second, o hose we classi y as “ea ly second language
lea ne s”, we can assume ha hey s op being “second language lea ne s” a he
la es a p ima y school age.
2.2 The academic ield o Ge man as a Second Language
The academic ield o Deu sch als Zwei sp ache (DaZ / GSL) is ela i ely new. I
eme ged om he pe iod o he i s “gues wo ke ” immig a ion o Ge many
in he 1970s. Ge many expe ienced an economic boom in he la e 1960s, and
he demand o labo exceeded domes ic esou ces. As a esul , wo ke s om
Sou he n Eu ope and No h A ica we e ec ui ed in la ge numbe s. Ini ially,
hese so-called “gues wo ke s” we e o s ay only o a ew yea s, bu i soon
became clea ha he need o labo con inued, and companies did no wan o
le hei ained wo ke s lea e again. Consequen ly, he wo ke s we e in i ed
o se le o good, oge he wi h hei amilies. Resea ch p ojec s ocussing on
he linguis ic aspec s o his de elopmen (ini ially ca ied ou unde he name
o Deu sch als F emdsp ache (DaF), ha is, “Ge man as a o eign language”, and
only om he 1980s on “DaZ”, c . Bau 2001) concen a ed, on he one hand,
on un u o ed second language acquisi ion o (mos ly young) adul s (Ah enholz
& Ros -Ro h 2021). On he o he hand, a s ong applied o ien a ion de eloped,
which u ned o he socially impo an ques ion o how he school sys em deal
o should deal wi h s uden s whose knowledge o Ge man was ini ially oo low
o be able o ollow he con en o ins uc ion (Menk 2000). In his line o esea ch,
a ocal opic o GSL esea ch became he pa icula school egis e o academic
Ge man (Bildungssp ache, c . Lange 2020) ha is p esumed o open doo s o
social pa icipa ion.
Almos hal a cen u y has passed since he eme gence o GSL as an academic
ield. On he one hand, he o iginal ield o ac i i y o GSL has changed conside -
ably. The s udy o adul second language acquisi ion has di e si ied conside ably
because adul immig a ion has changed g ea ly in o m and scope. A e all, he
new Ge man Immig a ion Ac o 2005 has in oduced ins i u ionalized language
eaching in he o m o in eg a ion cou ses (c . Gampe e al. 2021). A he same
ime, he o me “child en o o eigne s” (Ge m. Auslände kinde ) a e now adul s
“wi h a mig a ion backg ound”; hey a e pa en s o g andpa en s; hei child en
and child en’s child en we e bo n in Ge many, go h ough Ge man educa ional
107
Jana Gampe , Ch is oph Sch oede , Julia Schlauch & Do o heé S einbock
ins i u ions and, as long as a leas one pa en was bo n ab oad wi h a o eign
ci izenship, a e again child en o young people “wi h a mig a ion backg ound”.
Le us unde line he ac ha a his o y o amily mig a ion does no ell us any-
hing abou whe he Ge man is an L1 o L2, especially o descendan s o he i s
gene a ion o immig an s (see sec ion 2.1).
On he o he hand, immig a ion o child en and adolescen s con inues. Pa -
icula ly wi h he la ge numbe s o e ugee mig a ion in ecen yea s, i s in
2015 ollowing he Sy ian ci il wa , and hen a e he Russian a ack on Uk aine
in Feb ua y 2022, ques ions abou o ms o schooling o newcome s wi h li le
o no knowledge o Ge man, s udies on he second language acquisi ion o his
g oup a school, and on he condi ions and possibili ies o suppo ha e once
again come o he o e (Gampe e al. 2021).
Thus, he academic ield o GSL in Ge many deals wi h a leas wo undamen-
ally di e en g oups: On he one hand, some mul ilingual child en and adoles-
cen s a e bo n in Ge many and acqui e Ge man as one o hei i s languages o
as hei ea ly L2, and, on he o he hand, he i s gene a ion o immig an s, who
acqui e Ge man as hei L2. I is c ucially impo an o dis inguish be ween hese
wo g oups. The second g oup needs suppo in lea ning Ge man, bu he i s
g oup does no , a leas no in he same way. Suppo he e means ha newly
immig a ed child en and adolescen s need help o acqui e basic knowledge o
Ge man o gain access o he school-speci ic egis e s. Secondly, lumping he
wo g oups oge he is meaningless i one wan s o gene alize he dynamics o
second language acquisi ion. And hi dly, no dis inguishing be ween he g oups
may ha e he consequence ha he i s g oup slips in o a “p oblem g oup” ca -
ego iza ion. This is no only w ong bu i also has disc imina ing endencies, in
o he wo ds, endencies o “O he ing”.4
So a , we ha e seen ha he umb ella e m GSL is ambiguous. On he one
hand, i co e s lea ne s who a e new immig an s and mee he c i e ion o ha -
ing s a ed L2 acquisi ion a e he age o 3. Howe e , due o he his o ical de el-
opmen o he ield o GSL, i also co e s lea ne s o whom i is unclea whe he
Ge man is a (second) L1 o an L2. This concep ual agueness5has consequences
o how L2 lea ne s a e concep ualized and wha a ibu ions a e made o his
(unclea ly de ined) g oup.
4We speak o “O he ing” as he di e en ia ion o a g oup o a pe son om ano he g oup by
desc ibing he o me g oup o pe son as di e en and alien. Language is a possible ool o
di e en ia ion he e (c . Szymczyk e al. 2022).
5See o a simila discussion in G ea B i ain Szymczyk e al. (2022).
108
6 Cons uc ing a clien ele in need: The ield o Ge man as a Second Language
2.3 Obse a ions
Gi en he p e ious obse a ions, we ha e he imp ession ha he academic ield
o GSL does indeed ha e a endency o de elop a ce ain blind spo and ea
bilingual young people who we e bo n and aised in Ge many as GSL lea ne s
and in need o special language suppo . Th ee examples should su ice o a s a ,
and we gi e hem wi hou a e e ence, because we do no wan o pu indi idual
au ho s on a spo :
• A mo e didac ically o ien ed in oduc ion o eaching Ge man in mul i-
lingual class ooms om 2017 equa es being mul ilingual wi h acqui ing
Ge man as he second language.
• One o he mos success ul in oduc ions o Ge man as a second language
(4 h edi ion, 2020) uses “mig a ion backg ound” as he cen al de ining c i-
e ion o L2 lea ne s o Ge man. La e , “insu icien knowledge o Ge man
as a second language” is iden i ied as a decisi e ac o o he educa ional
ailu e o his g oup, in addi ion o “lowe class membe ship”.
• A s udy on he eading beha io o adolescen s, published 2014 by a ec-
ognized publishe in he ield, de ines L2 lea ne s o Ge man on he basis
ha hey ha e “non-Ge man mo he ongue”. A no poin does AoO o LoE
play a ole, nei he a e he linguis ic compe encies o he adolescen s opic
a any poin .
Ou e iew is in ended o answe he ques ion, whe he he abo e examples
ep esen a gene al end in he sense ha ea u es like mig a ion backg ound,
mul ilingualism and L2 lea ne a e mixed and addi ionally a ibu ed wi h insu -
icien academic pe o mance, o whe he hey a e excep ions. Le us make qui e
clea a his poin ha ou s udy is no in ended as jus ano he ac o O he -
ing. The au ho s o his s udy by no means exclude hemsel es om his c i ical
(sel -) e lec ion bu ha e in he pas engaged hemsel es in publica ions which
de ined Ge man as a L2 h ough implici and ague ca ego ies. So when asking
he e, wha kind o discu si e cons uc ion o a clien ele eme ges in schola ly pub-
lica ions on GSL, we also ask, wha kind o discu si e cons uc ions we ou sel es
ha e engaged in.
3 Re iew
The ocus o he empi ical wo k ha ollows is on he ques ion o whe he ou
selec i e obse a ions s and up o empi ical e i ica ion. These obse a ions in-
109

Jana Gampe , Ch is oph Sch oede , Julia Schlauch & Do o heé S einbock
clude on he one hand he hypo hesis ha di e en a ge g oups, namely L2
lea ne s in he na ow sense as well as mul ilingual speake s in gene al, a e
mixed unde he umb ella e m GSL. On he o he hand, he cons uc GSL seems
o be associa ed wi h insu icien knowledge o Ge man and he need o sup-
po . To es hese assump ions, we conduc ed a semi-sys ema ic e iew. Ou
esea ch ques ion was: How do academic pape s on GSL published in Ge many,
and w i en in Ge man o a Ge man academic audience, concep ualize child and
adolescen GSL lea ne s?
3.1 Me hods
3.1.1 Sample
The sample o ou e iew includes 138 pape s, o which 92 a e empi ical s udies
and 46 a e non-empi ical (i.e. concep ual). To compile he sample, we conduc ed
an au oma ic li e a u e sea ch in he da abase “FIS Bildung”,6which includes
monog aphs, collec i e wo k con ibu ions and jou nal a icles om di e en
ields o acquisi ion- and lea ning- ela ed esea ch. The da abase includes mo e
han 1 million subjec -speci ic i les. Wi hin his da abase, we sea ched o pape s
ha ca ied he e m “Ge man as a Second Language” (in Ge man) in he i le in
di e en a ian s (i.e., Ge man as a Second Language, Second Language Ge man,
L2 Ge man, Ge man as a Fo eign- and Second Language) and we e published be-
ween 2011 and 2021. The i s sample compiled in his way included 113 i les,
which we e educed in a second s ep excluding wo ks ocusing on ou -o -school
lea ning, eache educa ion, de elopmen o eaching ma e ial, as well as on adul
lea ne s. The inal sample ex ac ed om he FIS da abase comp ised 79 i les.
In a second s ep, we included a book se ies in he sample ha has es ablished
i sel in he Ge man-speaking communi y as ele an o he opics o GSL, mul-
ilingualism, and L2 acquisi ion. The se ies is he esul o he wo kshop Kinde
mi Mig a ionshin e g und (Child en wi h a Mig a ion Backg ound), which has
exis ed since 2009 and was enamed Wo kshop Deu sch als Zwei sp ache, Mig a-
ion und Meh sp achigkei (Ge man as a Second Language, Mig a ion and Mul i-
lingualism Wo kshop) a ound 2015. The wo kshop is held annually and in i es
esea che s conduc ing GSL esea ch. The se ies was included in he e iew be-
cause i e lec s cu en esea ch p ojec s and discou ses and can hus be classi-
ied as discou se-shaping. The e iew includes 14 wo kshop olumes ( olume 1
o double olume 14/15) om he pe iod 2009 o 2021. The olumes comp ise a
6h ps://www. achpo al-paedagogik.de/li e a u /e wei e e_suche.h ml?checkFo mPa ams=
1&he kun []= is [accessed 2024/04/09].
110
6 Cons uc ing a clien ele in need: The ield o Ge man as a Second Language
o al o 189 con ibu ions, o which we only included he empi ical pape s in he
e iew (n = 89). O he 89 empi ical wo kshop pape s, 30 we e excluded because
hey did no mee he abo e men ioned inclusion c i e ia, lea ing 59 i les in he
wo kshop se ies subsample. The eason o including only empi ical pape s om
he book se ies is ha we assume ha mainly empi ical s udies can shed ligh
on how GSL lea ne s a e ope a ionalized. Fo he o e all sample, howe e , his
means ha he e is a su plus o empi ical s udies.
3.1.2 Da a p epa a ion
The sample was coded using a double-coding app oach (c . O’Conno & Jo e
2020). The codes we e i s de eloped deduc i ely om he psycholinguis ic li -
e a u e and hen ex ended on he basis o a smalle da a sample. In his way we
we e able o iden i y a o al o 19 ea u es, o which we conside ed h ee o be
explici and 16 o be implici o seconda y. We eco ded bo h se s o cha ac e -
is ics (i.e., explici s. implici ) once wi h ega d o he heo e ical desc ip ion o
GSL in he en i e sample and once exclusi ely wi h ega d o he ope a ionaliza-
ion o subjec s in empi ical s udies. Table 1 gi es an o e iew o he ea u es we
iden i ied wi hin he sample.
Unde “explici ”, we ha e g ouped ea u es which unambiguously cla i y ha
Ge man is an L2 in he psycholinguis ic sense. The AoO, LoE and LoS ea u es
can be used o measu e he onse and age o acquisi ion.7Unde “implici ” we
ha e g ouped cha ac e is ics ha may be a consequence o (e.g., bilingualism o
mul ilingualism, o he o addi ional language spoken a home)8o a eason o
L2 acquisi ion (e.g., mig a ion, e uge s a us), bu hese a e no su icien c i e ia
o de e mine whe he Ge man is indeed an L2 o he lea ne s desc ibed in he
pape s. Among he implici ea u es, mo eo e , he e a e also nume ous ones
ha ha e no ela ion o GSL in he na ow sense, mos no ably he ea u es “in-
su icien compe ence” and “educa ional disad an age”. Such cha ac e is ics may
apply o all lea ne s in he school, ega dless o hei indi idual language biog a-
phies. The lis also includes ea u es ha sugges an O he ing o GSL speake s
(e.g., speci ic e hnic backg ound o he ea u e “ o eign”). The e m “unspeci ic”
was used when GSL lea ne s we e men ioned bu no desc ibed in de ail. “O he ”
includes cha ac e is ics ha a e oo a e o eco d sepa a ely.
7We included Leng h o Schooling (LoS) unde explici ea u es since we assume ha epo ing
he leng h o schooling allows us o in e he leng h o exposu e and also he age o onse .
8“O he language” e e s o he assump ion ha he speake s speak a di e en language and
he e o e do no speak Ge man a home o as L1. “Addi ional language”, on he o he hand,
means ha Ge man is spoken in addi ion o ano he amily language.
111
Jana Gampe , Ch is oph Sch oede , Julia Schlauch & Do o heé S einbock
Table 1: Coded ea u es o GSL
explici ea u es implici ea u es
age o onse (AoO) o he amily language / o he L1
Leng h o Exposu e (LoE) addi ional language (i.e., o he han Ge man)
Leng h o Schooling (LoS) mul ilingual
bilingual
mig a ion backg ound
o eign
mig a ion
e ugee
speci ic e hnical backg ound (e.g., Tu kish)
Ge man as a Fo eign Language
speci ic lea ning con ex (e.g., sepa a e classes)
insu icien compe ence in Ge man
educa ional disad an age (e.g., poo pe o mance
in compa a i e s udies)
bo n in Ge many
o he
unspeci ic
3.1.3 Coding p ocedu e and in e a e eliabili y
As men ioned, he da a sample was coded by wo a e s. Fi s , a subsample was
coded using he induc i ely gene a ed lis s o ea u es. The coding o he sub-
sample showed ha he deduc i e c i e ia we e no su icien o cap u e all de -
ini ional ea u es. Based on he i s coding s ep, he ea u e lis was he e o e
expanded o include addi ional ea u es de i ed om he i s coding s ep. The
wo code s hen coded he en i e sample wi h he comple e lis c ea ed in his
112
6 Cons uc ing a clien ele in need: The ield o Ge man as a Second Language
way. We dis inguished be ween non-empi ical pape s on he one hand and em-
pi ical pape s on he o he . Going om his gene al spli we hen dis inguished
be ween passages and sec ions wi hin he pape s ha con ain gene al desc ip-
ions and sec ions ha con ain an ope a ionaliza ion o pa icipan s in a na ow
empi ical sense. The ea u es lis ed in Table 1 we e he e o e coded in a wo old
manne : Passages and sec ions con aining gene al desc ip ions o GSL speake s
we e assigned he p e ix “ h” o each ea u e. This applies o all non-empi ical
pape s and o he heo e ical sec ions (and, e.g., discussion o esul s) in empi ical
pape s. Passages and sec ions con aining in o ma ion on he ope a ionaliza ion
o pa icipan s we e assigned he p e ix “op” o each ea u es. This applies only
o empi ical pape s. To calcula e he in e a e eliabili y, a sample o 27 i les
(co esponding o 20 pe cen o he o al sample) was andomly selec ed. The
coding o he da a was conduc ed by Ra e 1 and Ra e 2, wi h each a e espon-
sible o hal o he da a. The calcula ion o he in e a e eliabili y was achie ed
by coding he selec ed i les by he espec i e o he a e . The eliabili y o he
wo coding esul s was de e mined by calcula ing Cohen’s Kappa (Plonsky &
De ick 2016). The calcula ion esul ed in a alue o 𝜅 = 0.56, which co esponds
o a mode a e and hus sa is ac o y s eng h o ag eemen .
3.2 Resul s
In gene al, we almos always ound mo e han one ea u e used o desc ibe GSL
speake s. We i s p esen he 15 mos equen ea u es ha appea in he en i e
da a se and hen di e en ia e he p opo ion o iden i ied ea u es acco ding
o empi ical and non-empi ical s udies. This should p o ide a i s imp ession
o he cha ac e is ics wi h which GSL can be associa ed in ou sample. In he
second s ep, we use an associa ion analysis o show which ea u es in ou da ase
occu mos equen ly oge he and hus o m seman ic ne wo ks. Th ough hese
wo analy ical s eps we wan o app oach he ques ion o which concep s a e
associa ed wi h he e m GSL.
3.2.1 Gene al o e iew
The i s s ep is a desc ip i e p esen a ion o he ela i e equencies. I has been
calcula ed how o en each ea u e occu s in he da a sample (n=138). A his poin ,
we do no di e en ia e be ween empi ical and non-empi ical pape s. The “ h”-
ea u es in Figu e 1 hus include he gene al desc ip ions o GSL speake s bo h
in non-empi ical pape s and he heo e ical sec ions o empi ical pape s. A dis-
inc ion o “ h”- ea u es be ween empi ical and non-empi ical ollows in Figu e 2
113
Jana Gampe , Ch is oph Sch oede , Julia Schlauch & Do o heé S einbock
Associa ion analysis equi es he de ini ion o a con idence h eshold. We de-
cided on a compa a i ely high h eshold o 0.8 which means ha we ge an ou -
pu o hose ules whose p obabili y o occu ence is a leas 80%. By se ing his,
we ha e ensu ed ha he ules we obse e ha e a high p obabili y o ea u es
co-occu ing. In addi ion, an associa ion analysis equi es he se ing o a sup-
po h eshold which is a alue ha is se o de e mine which combina ions o
elemen s in a da a se should be conside ed ele an . I de ines he minimum
equency wi h which a combina ion mus occu o i o be conside ed. In ou
case, we ini ially se a suppo h eshold o 0.2 meaning ha we a e only in e -
es ed in combina ions o ea u es ha occu a leas 20% o he ime in ou da a.
In o he wo ds, we ocus on pa e ns ha occu ai ly equen ly. Fo subse 2,
howe e , we ound ha he e is only one ule ha mee s he Con idence and
Suppo h esholds. To make mo e ules isible, we he e o e lowe ed he Con i-
dence h eshold o subse 2 o 0.6 and Suppo o 0.1. The wo esul s o subse s
1 and 2 hus di e ed in he equency o he ules we obse ed. In consequence,
he ules obse ed o subse 2 a e weake han hose o subse 1. Below we i s
see he esul s o he iden i ied ules in a able o ma , each o subse s 1 and
2. The “lhs” (= le -hand side) column in he Table 2 and Table 3 lis s he ea-
u es ha we e iden i ied as condi ion- o i -elemen s o a ule. I mo e han one
ea u e is lis ed in his column, i means ha hese ea u es occu oge he as a
condi ion o he ule. The o de o he a iables in he column is no meaning ul
and has no signi icance o he in e p e a ion o he ule. The column “ hs” (=
igh -hand side) e e s o he a iables ha a e included in he ule as in e ence-
o hen-elemen s. The ables hus show he equency (= Suppo ) and he like-
liness (= Con idence) o i - hen-elemen s ( ha oge he o m ules) wi hin he
da a se . The column “coun ” s a es he numbe o pape s in which he obse ed
ule occu s.
As we can see o bo h Table 2 and Table 3, he e is a clea con as be ween he
Suppo and Con idence alues. We ind compa a i ely high Con idence alues,
bu a he low Suppo alues. This means ha he i - hen- ela ions we ound in
he da a a e ai ly s ong in he sense ha he likeliness o co-occu ence is e y
high. A he same ime, he co-occu ences do no occu e y equen ly. This is
especially ue o subse 2: since we had o lowe he Con idence and Suppo
h esholds, he i - hen- ela ions a e gene ally lowe . This, in u n, may imply,
ha he e is a ce ain a bi a iness as o which ea u es a e associa ed wi h GSL
and ha he e is seman ic agueness and ambigui y in he cons uc .
To be e unde s and he nume ic esul s om Table 2 and Table 3, he esul s
o he associa ion analyses a e p esen ed in Figu e 4 and Figu e 5. Figu e 4 ep-
esen s he esul s based on Table 2 and Figu e 5 hose based on Table 3. Bo h
120

6 Cons uc ing a clien ele in need: The ield o Ge man as a Second Language
Table 2: Resul s associa ion analysis subse 1, n=29 pape s which men-
ion explici ea u es
condi ion/i -elemen s in e ence/ hen-elemen s suppo con idence coun
{op_LoS} →{op_LoE} 0.21 1.00 6
{ h_disad ana aged} →{ h_biling} 0.21 1.00 6
{ h_mul iling} →{op_o he L} 0.25 1.00 7
{ h_mul iling op_LoE} →{op_o he L} 0.21 1.00 6
{ h_biling op_o he L} →{op_LoE} 0.25 1.00 7
{ h_immig a ion} →{op_LoE} 0.25 0.87 7
{ h_o he L, op_o he L} →{op_LoE} 0.25 0.87 7
op_o he L op_LoE} →{op_o he L} 0.25 0.87 7
{ h_biling op_LoE} →{op_o he L} 0.25 0.87 7
{ h_mul iling} →{op_LoE} 0.21 0.86 6
{ h_insu icien comp} →{op_LoE} 0.21 0.86 6
{ h_mul iling op_o he L}→{op_LoE} 0.21 0.86 6
Table 3: Resul s associa ion analysis subse 2, n=87 pape s which do
no men ion explici ea u es
condi ion elemen s (= lhs) in e ence elemen (= hs) suppo con idence coun
{ h_disad an aged} →{ h_biling} 0.14 0.81 13
{op_mul iling} →{ h_mul iling} 0.13 0.75 12
{op_mul iling} →{op_o he L} 0.13 0.75 12
{ h_mul iling, op_mul iling}→{op_o he L} 0.10 0.75 9
{op_o he L, op_mul iling} →{op_mul iling} 0.10 0.75 9
{ h_mul iling, op_o he L} →{op_mul iling} 0.10 0.75 9
{ h_biling, op_o he L} →{ h_o he L} 0.12 0.68 11
{ h_mul iling} →{ h_biling} 0.20 0.64 18
{ h_disad an aged} →{ h_o he L} 0.11 0.62 10
{ h_immig a ion} →{ h_o he L} 0.13 0.60 12
121
Jana Gampe , Ch is oph Sch oede , Julia Schlauch & Do o heé S einbock
igu es we e d awn manually, bu a e based on a isualiza ion o esul s using
he packages a ulesViz and ggg aph in R (c . o applica ion o packages o as-
socia ion analyses Hahsle & Ka pienko 2017). The i -condi ions a e colo ed in
whi e, and he hen-condi ions in g ey ci cles. A ows show he i - hen ela ions
be ween he ea u es. The wid h o he a ows ep esen s he suppo alues,
which a e also indica ed in he igu e legend.
As can al eady be seen om Table 2, we see in Figu e 4 wo main nodes in
hose empi ical pape s ha use explici ea u es o ope a ionalize pa icipan s:
“o he language” and “leng h o exposu e”. I is s iking ha he wo nodes go
hand in hand wi h each o he : “LoE” is an i -condi ion o “o he language” and
ice e sa. The a he s ong connec ion be ween hese wo ea u es is la gely
plausible: I LoE is eco ded, i also seems logical o include o he language(s)
o pa icipan s o ope a ionaliza ion. Also, he “ h”- ea u es used o desc ibe
GSL speake s wi hin he heo e ical sec ion o he pape s ollow a la gely con-
sis en pa e n: we p edominan ly ind “ h”- ea u es such as “mul ilingual” and
“bilingual” o he gene al desc ip ion o GSL speake s. One excep ion is he “ h”-
ea u e “insu icien compe ence”. In addi ion, he isola ed pai o nodes a he
bo om igh o he igu e is also s iking: comple ely de ached om he ope a-
ionaliza ion ea u es LoE and “o he language”, we ind a connec ion be ween
he “ h”- ea u es “bilingual” and “disad an aged”. Toge he wi h he “insu icien
compe ence” ea u e, his is an indica ion ha e en s udies ha make use o ex-
plici and psycholinguis ically mo i a ed ea u es o he ope a ionaliza ion o
pa icipan s use implici (and de icien -o ien ed) ea u es o desc ibe GSL speak-
e s. Howe e , such a ibu ions seem o be a he a e in hese pape s. Whe e
speake s a e iden i ied as GSL lea ne s based on he ea u e LoE, ea u es ha
a e a logical consequence o L2 acquisi ion (i.e., bi-/mul ilingualism, p esence o
o he languages in addi ion o L2 Ge man) p edomina e. This is di e en in pa-
pe s ha do no men ion he explici ea u es AoO and LoE a all (i.e. nei he
o he gene al desc ip ion o GSL speake s no o ope a ionaliza ion o pa ici-
pan s). In such pape s, we see ou main nodes in Figu e 5: “o he language” (as an
“op”- ea u e), “mul ilingual”, “bilingual” and “o he language” (all h ee as “ h”-
ea u es). Wi h espec o he ope a ionaliza ion o pa icipan s wi h he help o
he ea u e “o he language”, we ind co-occu ences wi h “ h”- ea u es like ‘mul-
ilingual’ and “bilingual”. Al hough hese co-occu ences a e in line wi h he pa-
pe s ha e e o mo e explici ea u es (mainly LoE, see Figu e 4), i emains un-
clea whe he an ope a ionaliza ion o GSL speake s h ough he ea u e “o he
language” is jus i ied. Fu he mo e, we see in Table 3 and Figu e 5 ha he “ h”-
ea u e “educa ionally disad an aged” igge s he ea u es “bilingual” as well as
“mul ilingual”. As al eady poin ed ou in sec ion 3.2.1, he ea u e “educa ionally
122
6 Cons uc ing a clien ele in need: The ield o Ge man as a Second Language
Figu e 4: Associa ions o ea u es in subse 1
123
Jana Gampe , Ch is oph Sch oede , Julia Schlauch & Do o heé S einbock
Figu e 5: Associa ions o ea u es in subse 2
124
6 Cons uc ing a clien ele in need: The ield o Ge man as a Second Language
disad an aged” is ne e used o ope a ionaliza ion. Whe he he ela ions o
mul ilingualism, GSL and educa ional disad an age sugges ed by such egula i-
ies a e empi ically e i ied and enable emains open. O e all, he associa ion
analysis shows no pa icula ly la ge di e ences be ween pape s ha use explici
ea u es o ope a ionalize subjec s and hose ha do no men ion he ea u es a
all. In bo h da a subse s, we see ha GSL speake s a e p edominan ly desc ibed
as bi- o mul ilingual and as speake s o an “o he language”. The e is also a en-
dency in bo h subse s o use implici de ici cha ac e is ics such as “insu icien
compe ence” and “educa ionally disad an aged” as pa o gene al desc ip ions
o speake s. Finally, he main di e ence be ween he wo subse s is ha hose
who ely on explici ea u es o ope a ionalize pa icipan s can s a e wi h a high
deg ee o ce ain y ha hei pa icipan s a e eal L2 lea ne s. A he same ime,
his does no jus i y he de icien a ibu es ha we ne e heless ind in he da a.
Fo hose pape s ha do no con ain any explici ea u es, we only know ha he
pa icipan s o speake s a e bi- o mul ilingual and speak a language o he han
Ge man. Whe he hey a e L2 lea ne s in he na owe sense emains comple ely
open.
4 Discussion
Ou e iew s a ed wi h he ques ion o how Ge man as a Second Language is
concep ualized in schola ly publica ions on he subjec , which concen a e on
child and adolescen lea ne s. The esea ch ques ion is based on he obse a ion
ha GSL seems o be a a he ague concep , implying a de icien pe spec i e on
i s clien ele. To es ou esea ch ques ion, we e iewed a da a sample o n=138
pape s ha we e coded acco ding o explici and implici ea u es ela ed o GSL.
In he i s explo a o y analysis, we de e mined which ea u es a e gene ally e-
quen and whe he he e a e di e ences be ween empi ical and non-empi ical
s udies. We also assessed he ela ionship be ween gene al desc ip ions o GSL
speake s and he ope a ionaliza ion o pa icipan s in he s udies. In he second
s ep, we used associa ion analyses o de e mine whe he he e a e egula ela-
ions be ween ea u es in s udies ha use explici ea u es o ope a ionaliza ion
(= subse 1) and hose ha do no men ion explici ea u es a all (= subse 2).
Ou esul s can be summa ized as ollows:
1. Implici ea u es occu no iceably mo e o en han explici ones, ega dless
o he ype o pape (i.e., empi ical s. non-empi ical).
125

Jana Gampe , Ch is oph Sch oede , Julia Schlauch & Do o heé S einbock
2. The mos equen ea u es a e linguis ic ea u es, bu mainly hose ha
do no allow o conclude whe he Ge man is an L2 (i.e., “bilingual”, “mul-
ilingual” as well as “o he language”). These ea u es shape he gene al
desc ip ion o GSL speake s o a la ge ex en and a e also equen ly used
o he ope a ionaliza ion o pa icipan g oups in empi ical s udies.
3. The ea u es “insu icien compe ence” (he e conce ning Ge man) and “ed-
uca ionally disad an aged” a e also equen ly used. These non-linguis ic
pa ame e s a e mainly ound in he ield o heo e ical desc ip ions o GSL
bu a e ha dly e e used o ope a ionaliza ion in empi ical s udies.
4. Bo h pape s ha use explici ea u es o ope a ionaliza ion and hose ha
do no men ion hem a all base hei gene al desc ip ion o GSL speake s
and he ope a ionaliza ion o pa icipan s on he ea u es om poin 2.
Rega dless o whe he he pape s use explici ea u es o ope a ionalize
pa icipan s, we ind de icien a ibu ions using ea u es om poin 3.
Based on hese esul s, he ini ial obse a ion ha GSL seems o be a a he
ague and unspeci ic cons uc can be con i med, a leas o ou da a sample. I
is unce ain whe he Ge man can be conside ed an L2 o he speake s desc ibed
in he non-empi ical pape s and he pa icipan s in empi ical s udies, in mos
cases. This is because only a small numbe o pape s a e based on compa a i ely
s ic acquisi ion- heo e ical c i e ia (i.e., AoO, LoE and LoS). In he majo i y o
he pape s, GSL speake s a e concep ualized as a g oup o speake s who a e bi-
and/o mul ilingual, speak a language o he han Ge man a home, a e educa-
ionally disad an aged, and/o ha e insu icien Ge man language skills. The ac
ha explici c i e ia o he de ini ion o GSL speake s a e a he a e is p oblem-
a ic o wo easons: Fi s , he g oup’s second language p o iciency in Ge man
is unce ain due o he lack o explici c i e ia. Second, he lack o explici c i e-
ia allows o he c ea ion o a cons uc o GSL speake s ha may no exis in
eali y o may be highly biased.
Ou da a analysis sugges s an answe o ou second esea ch ques ion: The
GSL cons uc , as pu sued in he academic ield o GSL in Ge many indeed has
endencies owa d a de ici iew o GSL speake s in pa icula and mul ilingual-
ism in gene al. The ac ha bi- and mul ilingualism, inadequa e Ge man lan-
guage skills, and educa ional disad an age appea o be en angled in ou da a
in such a dominan way sugges s ha a discou se is being ei e a ed he e ha
we o iginally ound in non-expe educa ional policy deba es. La ge-scale s udies
such as PISA o educa ional ends o Ge man, among o he s, ha e sugges ed, a
126
6 Cons uc ing a clien ele in need: The ield o Ge man as a Second Language
leas in hei ea ly esul s, ha mig a ion- ela ed mul ilingualism is p oblema ic
when i comes o achie ing adequa e Ge man compe encies and high educa ional
a ainmen (c . A el e al. 2003: 51 .). This ini ial in e p e a ion has since been
signi ican ly weakened (c . Reiss e al. 2019: 158 .). Ins ead o mig a ion- ela ed
mul ilingualism, social ac o s (independen o s uden s’ linguis ic backg ound)
seem o in luence he a ainmen o ce ain language compe encies and deg ees.
GSL esea ch should co ec his o m o bias wi h he help o accu a e me hod-
ological designs, ins ead o using labels such as GSL o mul ilingualism o sup-
po p oxy deba es (p ecisely because impo an causal ac o s such as social
inequali y seem o be mo e impo an easons o di e en school pe o mance).
The e is eason o be conce ned ha such p oxy deba es s igma ize GSL lea ne s
as well as (ce ain) mul ilingual speake s. Such an in e p e a ion o ou da a does
no mean ha he e a e no s udies ha do no add ess his issue - he e ce ainly
a e. Howe e , in ou da a se , we ind a clea endency owa d me hodological
as well as concep ual imp ecision coupled wi h he a o emen ioned co ela ion
wi h mo e de ici educa ion- ela ed ea u es. Ano he endency ha is e iden in
ou da a is he concep ualisa ion o GSL as linguis ic O he ness. The dominance
o he cha ac e is ic ”o he language” ( han Ge man) in ou da a shows ha he
me e exis ence o a language o he han Ge man in he amily con ex leads o a
classi ica ion in which he mul ilinguals a e no compe en speake s o Ge man -
and hus ’o he ’ om he monolinguals (c . also Szymczyk e al. 2022). Al hough
we did no es whe he he cha ac e is ic co ela es wi h concep s o O he ing, i
would be wo hwhile in es iga ing such co ela ions in u u e s udies. Ou ind-
ings highligh p oblema ic endencies in he GSL esea ch communi y o pa ic-
ipa ing in pa s o a de ici discou se and sha e esponsibili y o discu si ely
ea ing mul ilingual speake s in gene al and GSL lea ne s in pa icula as O he .
This is a ha sh accusa ion. Le us s ess again ha he au ho s o his s udy by
no means exclude hemsel es om his p oblem. Ou s udies, oo, o en de ine
GSL h ough implici and ague ca ego ies and engage in a o m o O he ing.10
The e o e, ou e iew in no way in ends o de ame indi iduals o esea ch ap-
p oaches. Ra he , i aims o make ce ain, in ou iew p oblema ic, app oaches
10We a e awa e o he ac ha i is s a e o he a o include a monolingual con ol g oup
in empi ical s udies. Howe e , he e a e nume ous p oblems o his, one o hem being ha
monolinguals ha dly e e cons i u e a homogeneous g oup o speake s bu end o show high
deg ees o he e ogenei y (see also Alexiadou 2025 [ his olume]). I is he e o e necessa y o
ca e ully e alua e whe he a compa ison be ween mul ilinguals and monolinguals is heo e i-
cally g ounded and pu pose ul. In any case, a con ol g oup should be well jus i ied and should
no be an au oma ism, as his can con ibu e o concep ualizing GSL and mul ilingual speake s
as o he s.
127
Jana Gampe , Ch is oph Sch oede , Julia Schlauch & Do o heé S einbock
in he ield o GSL esea ch isible. A he same ime, we would like o con ibu e
o enewing ou esea ch p ac ice and in e nal discou ses.
In ou iew, such a enewal comp ises wo cen al poin s: The e needs o be a
e-e alua ion o which lea ne s o speake s we should label as GSL-lea ne s and
which no . And his mus ha e consequences o he compila ion and e ela ion
o speake - ela ed me ada a ha allow us o p ecisely desc ibe pa icipan g oups
(in empi ical s udies) o lea ne s in gene al. We elabo a e on hese wo ela ed
poin s below.
Ou e iew has made clea ha in mos s udies we do no know whe he he
speake s labelled as GSL lea ne s in he pape s a e ac ually L2 lea ne s o no .
Explici and na owly de ined heo e ical c i e ia on AoO and LoE a e ei he no
epo ed and/o no assessed. Ins ead, GSL is equa ed wi h mul ilingualism o
he p esence o o he languages a home. Thus, i is no longe possible o clea ly
delinea e whe he empi ical s udy indings o heo e ical p esupposi ions abou
GSL e e o L2 lea ning in he na ow sense a all. I seems easonable o assume
ha hey do no . This in u n has he consequence ha mul ilingual speake s a e
au oma ically assumed o ha e Ge man as an L2. Coupled wi h he co-occu ence
o he label GSL and pa ly de icien ea u es such as “insu icien compe encies”,
his c ea es an o e all de icien pic u e o mul ilingualism. To enable a di e en-
ia ed iew, i is necessa y o e u n o na ow de ini ion c i e ia o GSL. As
s a ed in sec ion 2.2, acco ding o he cu en s a e o he a , Ge man is a second
language only i i s acquisi ion begins a e he age o h ee. Fu he mo e, s udies
sugges ha ea ly successi e L2 acquisi ion (s a ing a age 3) does no seem o
esul in any di e ences in he acquisi ion p ocess compa ed o L1 lea ne s. F om
an acquisi ion heo y pe spec i e, he ac ha Ge man is acqui ed as an L2 has
a quali a i e (e.g., conce ning acquisi ion sequences) as well as quan i a i e (e.g.,
conce ning aquisi ion speed) e ec on he acquisi ion ajec o y a he ea lies
om he age o ou (see sec ion 2.1). The ask o GSL esea ch should be o e-
eal how L2 acquisi ion p oceeds, which ac o s can in luence i , and how. I is
no he ask o GSL esea ch o cap u e he linguis ic O he ness o mul ilingual
speake s. Tha his ne e heless happens is, in ou iew, also due o a lack o cla -
i y when lea ne s lea e he s a us o being lea ne s. Fo example, a e adolescen s
o adul s whose acquisi ion o Ge man began in childhood s ill GSL lea ne s? O
a e hey simply mul ilingual (i a all)? This ques ion leads us o a discussion
on acquisi ion heo y, which is al eady unde way. In a nu shell, his deba e can
be summa ized as ollows: Assuming ha he age o acquisi ion is cap u ed, we
would expec ha being in he p ocess o lea ning he basic s uc u es o a sec-
ond language means being in he p ocess o L2 acquisi ion. The p ocess o he
acquisi ion o academic language howe e , which builds up upon ha , is usually
128
6 Cons uc ing a clien ele in need: The ield o Ge man as a Second Language
no di e en om wha monolingual L1 speake s ha e o go h ough in school-
induced language expansion (see Gampe & Sch oede 2016, also Huls ijn 2019
“basic language cogni ion” s. “ex ended language cogni ion”). F om his poin
o iew, esea ch in he ame o GSL would be ocused p edominan ly on lea n-
e s who a e in ea ly acquisi ion phases and se e o acqui e basic g amma ical
and lexical s uc u es. We hus a gue o a na owing o he concep o GSL only
o lea ne s who a e in he ea ly s ages o L2 acquisi ion. GSL would hen apply
only o lea ne s who a e in he ea ly s ages o L2 acquisi ion. In ou opinion, his
almos always applies o hose speake s who a e new mig an s o Ge many. Fo
child en bo n and aised in Ge many, his is usually no he case.11 GSL esea ch
and he e m “GSL” would hus be closely linked o ac o s in he con ex o new
immig a ion.12
We a e awa e ha such na owing can igge deba es because i ques ions
es ablished esea ch adi ions and esea ch ques ions. Howe e , in ou iew,
i is necessa y o signi ican ly e ise and o e come de icien concep s o GSL
and mul ilingualism and o ms o O he ing - also conce ning educa ional policy
deba es. Ou p oposal o limi GSL exclusi ely o newly immig a ed lea ne s o
Ge man has pa icula implica ions o empi ical s udies in his ega d.
A consensus is needed ha s udies ela ed o GSL should only be conside ed
GSL i hey ocus on L2 lea ne s in a na ow sense. Tha hey do so includes
bo h he ca e ul collec ion o meaning ul me ada a, which mus include a leas
AoO. O he ea u es such as LoE (o LoS) a e use ul, and mo e (such as indi idual
educa ional and schooling expe iences, he i age languages, w i ing expe iences
in hese languages, and indi idual language lea ning si ua ions) a e desi able o
ge a maximally di e en ia ed pic u e. Such me ada a mus no only be collec ed
11We a e g a e ul o one o he e iewe s, who poin ed ou he pa allel o L1 acquisi ion: Clea ly,
one would no call a monolingual adul “L1 lea ne ”, e en i one could a gue ha language
lea ning, a leas lexical lea ning, con inues h oughou he li espan.
12We a e awa e o he ac ha ou p oposal comes along wi h p oblems when dealing wi h
adul L2 lea ne s. An anonymous e iewe igh ly poin ed ou ha adul L2 acquisi ion akes
a compa a i ely long ime when i comes o acqui ing basic lexical and g amma ical ea u es.
Making he e m GSL dependen on he language acquisi ion domain would he e o e mean
ha hese lea ne s would ha e o keep he label GSL o a e y long ime (al hough hey
may achie e a high le el o communica i e compe ence in e e yday li e). One idea could
be o dis inguish be ween L2 lea ne s on he one hand and GSL speake s on he o he . L2
lea ne s would hen ( ega dless o he AoO) p ima ily mean hose lea ne s who ha e ecen ly
immig a ed and ha e o lea n basic g amma ical and lexical s uc u es. GSL speake s, on he
o he hand, would p ima ily e e o hose whose acquisi ion p ocess has been going on o
some ime, bu who do no ye show ex ensi e compe ence wi hin he domain o basic language
cogni ion. In any case, he label GSL should no be used o speake s who a e conce ned wi h
he de elopmen o so-called ex ended language cogni ion.
129
İnci Di im
assimila ionism is conce ned wi h he dissolu ion o di e ence in a model ha a -
i ms he p imacy o he nonimmig an way o li e, mul icul u alism ad oca es a
di e en pe spec i e, namely he ecogni ion o cul u al iden i ies, including es-
pecially hose o immig an mino i ies” ( ansl.: İD). Language was also quickly
iden i ied as a cen al ea u e o di e en cul u al ways o li e, mos p obably
because i is less abs ac han cul u e – i cons i u es a isible and audible di-
e si y.1This concep o mul icul u alism included he sugges ion o cul i a ing
so-called mig an languages. The a gumen was ha he languages o o igin o
hose iden i ied as mig an s2should be aken in o accoun because o hei im-
po ance o he iden i y o hese people. This some imes pa e nalis ic a gumen
was quickly aken up in pedagogical con ex s, such as in he ield o Ge man
as a second language. In his ield, he e was and s ill is an in e es no only in
eaching Ge man, bu in languages in gene al, in mig a ion, he de elopmen o
he socie y, and abo e all in he people o he socie y (see also Chp. 6). Th ough
hei di ec con ac wi h he lea ne s, eache s o Ge man as a second language
also became and s ill a e expe s on mig a ion issues, no leas because his a ea
is s ongly in e wo en wi h mig a ion policies and educa ional policies. Thus,
i is in he ield o Ge man as a second language whe e he ‘iden i y a gumen ’
de eloped, i.e. he idea ha o igin and hus languages o o igin a e cen ally
impo an and wo hy o p o ec ion. The a gumen con inues o be used in edu-
ca ional policy as well as in academic con ex s. An example o a policy con ex
is he posi ion pape o he In eg a ion Council o he Ge man ede al s a e o
No h Rhine-Wes phalia, whe e i says: “The app ecia ion o a pe son’s language
o o igin is a he same ime he app ecia ion o a pe son’s iden i y – his applies
in a e y special way o child en and adolescen s” (Landesin eg a ions a NRW
2022, ansl.: İD). Wha ideas lie behind hese a gumen s and e e ences? Wha
can i mean o people who a e conside ed o ha e a mig a ion backg ound, o
be associa ed wi h hese ideas? In his chap e , I will adop a subjec i iza ional
pe spec i e. The subjec i iza ional app oach encou ages hinking abou back-
g ounds and a ibu ions ha imply a connec ion be ween language and iden i y
1Religion was inc easingly ega ded as ano he cha ac e is ic o cul u e (Donlic & Yildiz 2024).
This domain is no add essed in his a icle. On he connec ion be ween he ca ego ies o
language, ace and eligion, see Thoma 2022, Rühlmann 2023.
2In he nine ies, he e m “mig an ” la gely eplaced he e m “ o eigne ”, which was pe cei ed
as acis . La e , in he cou se o he g owing poli ical ecogni ion o mig a ion as a social ac in
Ge many, he e m “mig a ion backg ound” (Pe chinig & T oge 2011 in Knappik & Meche il
2018:169) eme ged. Howe e , he e m was subsequen ly s ongly c i icised, pa ly due o i s
imp ecision and exclusiona y na u e (ibid.). In his a icle, ollowing he c i icism, his e m is
only used when necessa y and in a dis anced manne .
136

7 Mul ilingualism and iden i y cons uc ion in pedagogical discou se
(Bjegač 2020; Poki sch 2022; Rühlmann 2023). In he ollowing, he subjec i iza-
ional implica ions ha he claim o he uni y o language o o igin wi h iden i y
can ha e, will be p esen ed and discussed in de ail.3
2 Iden i y, language and cul u aliza ion/lingualiza ion
In e e yday con ex s, as well as in educa ional and didac ic models o dealing
wi h bilingualism and mul ilingualism, ideas o iden i y a e o en assumed in
which a s able iden i y, ied o a ce ain o igin o language, o ms he cen e o
he pe sonali y. Acco ding o hese concep ions, in he acquisi ion o a second
language, he acquisi ion o knowledge ce ainly akes place, bu he o ma ion
o iden i y con inues o ely on e e ence back o a speake ’s o igin and hei
language o o igin. This no ion o o igin as he ac o de e mining a pe son’s
iden i y p esumably goes back o E ikson’s heo y o he de elopmen o iden-
i y in a so-called li e cycle: “‘Iden i y’ hus exp esses a ecip ocal ela ionship
inso a as i encompasses bo h a pe manen being-same-sel and a pe manen
pa icipa ion in ce ain g oup-speci ic ai s” (E ikson 1989: 124; s. also E ikson
1968, 1982). Iden i y in hese concep ions is hus pe cei ed o as a ai ha is
pe manen ly inhe en in people and pe mea es he cou se o li e. I is assumed
ha he e is such a hing as a heal hy de elopmen o iden i y, which has he
s eng h o e e back o onesel again and again in he c ises o li e, and om
which one gains he s eng h o con inue o exis wi h digni y. Iden i y, in his
heo e ical o ien a ion, is mo e o less gi en om bi h, so ha he e is a na u al
connec ion o o igin, which includes belonging o a conc e e p imo dial g oup.
Such a eleological iew o iden i y is also e iden in app oaches o mul ilingual-
ism which claim ha cul u al and linguis ic (pa ial) iden i ies need o be os e ed
so ha hose os e ed can a i e a a balanced de elopmen o hei o al pe son-
ali y. In highe educa ion, one equen ly inds he a gumen in s uden pape s
ha lea ne s’ mo he ongues ha e o be in eg a ed in o he class oom so ha
he de elopmen o hei iden i y can p oceed in a heal hy way.
E en a quick sea ch on he In e ne will yield a la ge numbe o a icles om
di e en pedagogical app oaches ha suppo his app oach. An example is he
web page “E ziehungskuns ” (“A o Educa ion”) on Waldo educa ion: “Thus,
no only he second language and i s cul i a ion has a undamen al impo ance
o he o e all de elopmen o child en om language mino i ies, bu also he
3This a icle con ains e ised and upda ed passages om he publica ion Di im & Heinemann
2016. I am g a e ul o he edi o s and o he anonymous e iewe s o help ul sugges ions.
137
İnci Di im
cul i a ion o he i s language. Many membe s o he hi d gene a ion o im-
mig an s know he home coun ies o hei pa en s and g andpa en s only om
aca ion, and hey o en g ow up wi h wo languages wi hou being able o iden-
i y wi h ei he o hem. Accommoda ion o he ex e nal ways o li e, o he social
habi s and o he legal no ms o he language majo i y should he e o e no be
unde s ood as assimila ion. The ounda ion o a heal hy pe sonali y de elopmen
can only lie in he ha mony be ween one’s own cul u al iden i y and he app e-
cia ion and openness owa ds o he cul u es – and no in a cul u al up oo ing”
(Pe azzo e al. 2012,1, ansl.: İD).
Undoub edly, hese a gumen s a e based on a desi e o con ibu e o he well-
being o he pupils in ol ed. The e is no hing w ong wi h making oom o lan-
guages ha play almos no ole in he monolingual (Ge man-speaking) educa ion
sys em, o add ess and de elop languages ha a e impo an o pupils, which
hey speak in such p i a e con ex s as in he amily, and o enable educa ion in
hese languages. Howe e , i such e o s a e no e lec ed ca e ully, hey can
ha e a numbe o unin ended consequences, in pa icula i he symbolic mean-
ing o language is made cen al o an iden i y a gumen in an o e ly p esc ip i e
way. This has aken place, and con inues o ake place, in a e y simila way in
he discussion o cul u al iden i y, and i has been c i icized on a numbe o occa-
sions (Tajmel 2013, Döll e al. 2015, Al maye 2023). Some o he possible e ec s
o a igid de ini ion o iden i y can be summa ized by e e ing o Paul Meche il’s
discussion o he ca ego y o “cul u al iden i y” (Meche il 2003):
When complex social p ocesses o human coexis ence a e educed o he ca -
ego y o cul u e, a “cul u aliza ion” akes place. People a e hen no longe pe -
cei ed in hei dis inc i eness, bu ins ead, hei p esumed cul u al a ilia ion
is used as a gene al explana o y pa e n. The same applies when he complex
p ocess o de eloping a sel -unde s anding is educed o a language o o igin.
In he app oach o Niku Do os ka , his educ ion esembles “cul u aliza ion”,
and he calles i “lingualiza ion” (Do os ka 2014: 66). Re e ing o na ional and
sup ana ional EU language discou ses, Do os ka unde s ands lingualiza ion as
a educ ion o social issues o language (ibid.). One example o lingualiza ion is
he language policy, appa en in almos all EU membe s a es, o educing he
complex p ocess o mig an s’ in eg a ion o language (acquisi ion). The exclu-
si e and p oblem-o ien ed e e ence o people wi h a so-called mig a ion back-
g ound c ea es he imp ession ha only his g oup ’su e s’ om ’iden i y p ob-
lems’. Con e sely, his means ha people who a e no mul ilingual and who
speak he majo i y language a e a peace wi h hemsel es. Fu he mo e, i is as-
sumed ha speaking a language conside ed o be he language o o igin mus
138
7 Mul ilingualism and iden i y cons uc ion in pedagogical discou se
make he speake eel com o able. This o e looks ha in pa icula he mul i-
lingual child en and adolescen s also ha e hei second language and o he lan-
guages a hei disposal, and ha iden i y- ele an con on a ions and lea ning
p ocesses ake place in hese languages, oo.
These ei ying and one-dimensional no ions o iden i y a e g adually being
eplaced in he academic ield by subjec i iza ional and simila pe spec i es,
la gely based on he wo k o Michel Foucaul (1982) and Judi h Bu le (1990).4In
hese pe spec i es, iden i y is no iewed essen ialis ically as a ela i ely closed
gi en, bu as an e e dynamically e ol ing complex sys em o sel - e e ence. Ac-
co ding o hese app oaches, he e is no co e iden i y ha is pu e and in ac and
ha needs o be p o ec ed: i is only h ough add essings and – concomi an – as-
c ip ions ha he e e ence sys em iden i y eme ges, and e e ences a e always
modi ied and con ain con adic ions.5I is he discou ses ha p o ide he knowl-
edge abou oles and a ilia ions ha a e a ibu ed o subjec s and o which hey
a e mo e o less a me cy. In his essay on “Ideology and Ideological S a e Appa-
a uses” Al husse (1977) exempli ies a si ua ion in which someone is called by
a policeman wi h “Hey, you he e!” (Al husse 1977: 142) and u ns owa d he
policeman. Acco ding o Al husse , in he momen o his eac ion and u ning o-
wa ds he policeman, he indi idual becomes a subjec because he ela es he call
o himsel and hus accep s i . Subjec hood and hus iden i y a e unde s ood in
his app oaches as adically decen e ed and always in luenced by discou ses and
p ac ices, h ough which a subjec can be o med. In o he wo ds, iden i y is de-
penden on in oca ion and asc ip ion (Al husse 1977: 108 .). S ua Hall c i ically
conside s he ques ion o a uni a y iden i y on his basis. He w i es ha , con a y
o p e ailing opinion, a e lexi e concep ualiza ion o iden i y canno hold o a
s able co e o he sel . He conside s i impossible o his sel o e ol e h ough
he wis s and u ns o li e wi hou change and o emain he same h ough he
en i e li e ime. He also conside s he idea ha his sel can gua an ee cul u al
uni y and clea ly emphasizes ex e nal di e ences o be an illusion, as is he idea
o ha ing a uni ied his o y o one’s own sel . He conside s such a s o y o be an
un ealis ic na a i e ha only akes place because he e is a need o i (Hall 2004:
170 .). In his opinion, which is also sha ed by o he heo is s o cul u al s udies
( o an o e iew s. Ma cha 2018, esp. Chap. 1: 17 , and Chap. 5: 169 ), iden i ies
4Bo h au ho s ha e published nume ous wo ks on he subjec o subjec i a ion. A e y good
o e iew in English is a ailable in Wiede 2020.
5The e is a di e ence be ween he posi ions o Foucaul and Bu le in ha Bu le g an s he
subjec g ea e eedom o decision and ac ion han Foucaul (Foucaul 1982, Bu le 1990, Wiede
2020).
139
İnci Di im
a e cons uc ed, in e wo en, and associa ed wi h con adic o y discou ses, p ac-
ices, and posi ions, and hey a e cons an ly changing and ans o ming (Spies
2009 w.p.).
Le ’s e u n o ou s a ing poin , language. When language is used in i s sym-
bolic unc ion as a ma ke o o igin and iden i y, he c ucial poin is he ques-
ion how o igin is concep ualized in his p ocess. Re e ences loaded wi h con-
s uc ions o o igin a e b ough o subjec s, a ec hem, a e ca ied o wa d in
di e en ways, and a e inco po a ed in o discou ses ha p o ide igu es o a -
gumen a ion wi h which subjec s a e es ablished. Foucaul poin s ou ha i is
a o m o powe ha u ns indi iduals in o subjec s (Foucaul 2005: 275). How-
e e , powe he e is no hough o as some hing “bad” pe se, bu as a p oduc-
i e o ce. Sel -concep ions depend on he a ibu ions which a e di ec ed a he
subjec s om posi ions o highe powe in socie y. The emphasis is on an in es-
iga ion o he quali ies o a ibu ions, as a esul o which sel -unde s andings
such as “Spania d”, “child”, “beau i ul gi l” e c. a e acqui ed. Subjec i iza ional
app oaches do no dis inguish be ween social and pe sonal iden i y because hey
ques ion he cons uc o an iden i y as such. They unde s and iden i y as an on-
going luid p ocess in which he subjec o ms i sel in he con on a ion wi h a
social en i onmen and a he same ime shapes his en i onmen , so ha pe -
sonal and social ca ego ies canno be sepa a ed. Acco dingly, he subjec de el-
ops in line wi h he accep ance o ejec ion o a ibu ions in social space.
In pedagogical con ex s, i is he e o e impo an o ake a close look a he
a ibu ions ha child en and adolescen s encoun e . In his espec , he wo k
by Vesna Bjegač (2020) is a aluable con ibu ion o he discussion: She analyses
pedagogical discou ses in he academic ield o Ge man as a second language
(GSL, see also Chp. 6) on he connec ion be ween language and educa ion and
ela es his o in e iews wi h young people wi h a so-called mig a ion back-
g ound. She shows how hese adolescen s a e nega i ely in luenced by nega i e
ep esen a ions in he academic ield. In pa icula , young people de elop nega-
i e sel -concep ions wi h ega d o he connec ion be ween language and o igin.
I becomes clea ha he e is a g ea esponsibili y o he academic ield as well
as ela ed pedagogical and educa ional discou ses, as hei discou se can ha e
an in e io izing-subjec i izing e ec . This p oblem is e iden , o example, in a
s udy by Heike Nied ig (2015), whe e s uden s om A ican coun ies epo ha
hei F ench o English is seen as less aluable in he Hambu g schools hey a -
end han he F ench o English o s uden s who a e om Eu ope, o ins ance
om F ance. We see he e a s ong connec ion be ween ( he a ibu ed) coun y
140
7 Mul ilingualism and iden i y cons uc ion in pedagogical discou se
o con inen o o igin and language when i comes o ecogni ion, and we un-
de s and ha ecogni ion di e s when coun ies o o igin a e judged di e en ly
(Nied ig 2015, 7). Rühlmann’s (2023) disse a ion, ollowing s udies in he a ea o
acio-linguis ics, shows ha hese hie a chies a e ela ed o pos colonial alue
hie a chies. Thus, he ex en o which language compe ence is ecognized also
has o do wi h acial ca ego ies.
Agains his backg ound, we can now o mula e mo e p ecisely he ques ion
on he ole o language o iden i y de elopmen in mig a ion socie y con ex s:
Wha add esses o mul ilinguals become isible in connec ion wi h language in
social discou ses and wha a ibu ions do hese add esses con ain? O , o pu i
mo e gene al: To wha ex en do “iden i y asc ip ions” con ain powe ul cul u -
alizing o lingualizing conno a ions h ough which child en, young people, and
also adul s wi h a so-called mig a ion backg ound a e discu si ely u ned in o
in e io subjec s and a e hus disad an aged? These ques ions will be discussed
in he ollowing, using he example o a Eu opean Commission (EC) documen
ha ca ies a discou se- o ming unc ion by manda e.
3 Language and iden i y by o de o he Eu opean
Commission
A he EU le el, mul ilingualism is a p og amme as well as a equi emen . A he
sup ana ional le el, he idea ha mul ilingualism is o undamen al impo ance
p e ails because o he mul ina ionali y and mul ilingualism o he EU. This un-
damen al a i ude has an impac on he iew o mig a ion- ela ed mul ilingual-
ism. In 2008, a newly o med “G oup o In ellec uals o In e cul u al Dialogue”
add essed he issue o mul ilingualism. In he ollowing, I p esen and analyze
a documen p oduced in his con ex . I ca y ou his analysis in he ame o
he subjec i a ion app oaches ou lined abo e, acco ding o which iden i y does
no eme ge on i s own, bu de elops in he cou se o dealing wi h a ibu ions,
especially when hese come om au ho i ies highe in powe . The analysis con-
cen a es on he iden i y- ela ed ideas ha he documen sends ou as a poli ical
s a emen .
4 P oposals o he council o in ellec uals
A he eques o he hen P esiden o he Eu opean Commission, José Manuel
Du ão Ba oso, and he Commissione o Mul ilingualism, Leona d O ban, a
141

İnci Di im
g oup o discou se-shaping ac o s was se up in 2008.6The g oup was gi en he
ask o ad ising he EU Commission “on he con ibu ion o mul ilingualism o
in e cul u al dialogue and mu ual unde s anding among ci izens in he Eu opean
Union”7(Eu opean Commission 2008: 2). In 2008, he Council o In ellec uals
published a epo en i led “A wo hwhile challenge – how mul ilingualism can
con ibu e o he consolida ion o Eu ope”. As a basis o my analysis, I b ie ly
e iew he basic s a emen s o his epo , especially hose ha a e ele an o
ou p esen discussion.
Mus we y o de ine a ‘Eu opean iden i y’? Can his o e come all ou di e -
ences?” (ibid.: 2) These ques ions, classi ied as “eno mously sensi i e” (ibid.: 2),
a e hen ela ed o mul ilingualism: “Ou b ie was o hink abou mul ilingual-
ism and how mul ilingualism migh impac on Eu opean in eg a ion and in e cul-
u al dialogue. The e o e, we decided o lea e aside ou p econcei ed opinions
– bo h op imis ic and pessimis ic – o s a om a comple ely neu al obse a-
ion: Fo any socie y, linguis ic, cul u al, e hnic o eligious di e si y b ings a
he same ime ad an ages and disad an ages, i is a sou ce o ichness bu also
o ensions” (ibid.: 2). The au ho s see he solu ion in aking linguis ic di e si y
in o accoun in a speci ic way: “Respec ing ou linguis ic di e si y does no only
mean aking in o accoun a cul u al eali y based on his o y. E en i he ma-
jo i y o Eu opean na ions we e ounded on he basis o hei iden i y- o ming
languages, he Eu opean Union can only be based on i s linguis ic di e si y. [...]
We e en conside i capable o s anding as a model o he whole o humani y o
an iden i y based on di e si y” (ibid.: 5). Wi h ega d o immig an s, i is s a ed
ha a deep knowledge o he na ional language and he cul u e hey ca y is an
indispensable condi ion o in eg a ion in o he hos socie y, in o de o pa ic-
ipa e in i s economic, social, in ellec ual, a is ic and poli ical li e. Fu he mo e,
he epo unde lines ha Eu opean coun ies mus unde s and he impo ance
o main aining he language o o igin o any immig an o pe son wi h a mi-
g an backg ound. This is jus i ied by an a gumen a ion ha , in u n, ies he
6The g oup was led by he au ho Amin Maalou and included he ollowing membe s: Ju a
Limbach, p esiden o he Goe he-Ins i u ; Sand a P along, communica ions expe ; Simone a
Agnello Ho nby, au ho ; Da id G een, p esiden o EUNIC (Eu opean Ne wo k o Na ional
Cul u al Ins i u es), o me di ec o o he B i ish Council; Edua do Lou enço, philosophe ;
Jaques de Decke , au ho , pe manen sec e a y o he Académie Royale de Langue e de Li -
è a u e ançaises de Belgique; Jan Sokol, philosophe , o me Minis e o Educa ion o he
Czech Republic; Jan Ch is oph G øndahl, au ho ; and Taha Ben Jelloun, au ho (Eu opäische
Kommission 2008: 2).
7The epo was analysed in he Ge man e sion; all quo es ha e been ansla ed by he au ho
(İ.D.) in o English.
142
7 Mul ilingualism and iden i y cons uc ion in pedagogical discou se
loss o iden i y, i s , o he loss o linguis ic compe ence in he so-called ‘mi-
g a ion language’, and, second, pa hologizes i : “A young pe son who loses he
language o his o he ances o s also loses he abili y o communica e wi h his o
he own pa en s in an unclouded manne , which is a ac o o social des abiliza-
ion ha can, in u n, lead o iolence. The exagge a ed a i ma ion o iden i y
o en sp ings om a sense o guil owa d one’s cul u e o o igin, a guil ha
is some imes exp essed in an o e emphasis on eligious componen s. In o he
wo ds, an immig an o a pe son wi h an immig an backg ound who is p o i-
cien in his o he mo he ongue, who can pass i on o his o he child en, who
eels ha his o he language and cul u e o o igin a e ecognized in he hos so-
cie y, would eel less need o quench his o he hi s o iden i y in o he ways”
(ibid.: 21).]The epo begins by s a ing ha linguis ic di e si y is a challenge
o Eu ope. Howe e , he au ho s a gue ha i is a wo hwhile challenge (ibid.
3), which mus be me in an e icien manne . The ollowing ques ion is hen
b ough o he o e: “How can we make i possible o so many di e en peoples
o li e ha moniously oge he ? [...] Mus we y o de ine a ‘Eu opean iden i y’?
Can his o e come all ou di e ences?” (ibid.: 2) These ques ions, classi ied as
“eno mously sensi i e” (ibid.: 2), a e hen ela ed o mul ilingualism: “Ou b ie
was o hink abou mul ilingualism and how mul ilingualism migh impac on
Eu opean in eg a ion and in e cul u al dialogue. The e o e, we decided o lea e
aside ou p econcei ed opinions – bo h op imis ic and pessimis ic – o s a om
a comple ely neu al obse a ion: Fo any socie y, linguis ic, cul u al, e hnic o
eligious di e si y b ings a he same ime ad an ages and disad an ages, i is a
sou ce o ichness bu also o ensions” (ibid.: 2). The au ho s see he solu ion in
aking linguis ic di e si y in o accoun in a speci ic way: “Respec ing ou linguis-
ic di e si y does no only mean aking in o accoun a cul u al eali y based on
his o y. E en i he majo i y o Eu opean na ions we e ounded on he basis o
hei iden i y- o ming languages, he Eu opean Union can only be based on i s
linguis ic di e si y. [...] We e en conside i capable o s anding as a model o
he whole o humani y o an iden i y based on di e si y” (ibid.: 5). Wi h ega d
o immig an s, i is s a ed ha a deep knowledge o he na ional language and
he cul u e hey ca y is an indispensable condi ion o in eg a ion in o he hos
socie y, in o de o pa icipa e in i s economic, social, in ellec ual, a is ic and
poli ical li e. Fu he mo e, he epo unde lines ha Eu opean coun ies mus
unde s and he impo ance o main aining he language o o igin o any immi-
g an o pe son wi h a mig an backg ound. This is jus i ied by an a gumen a ion
ha , in u n, ies he loss o iden i y, i s , o he loss o linguis ic compe ence in
he so-called ‘mig a ion language’, and, second, pa hologizes i : “A young pe son
who loses he language o his o he ances o s also loses he abili y o commu-
143
İnci Di im
nica e wi h his o he own pa en s in an unclouded manne , which is a ac o o
social des abiliza ion ha can, in u n, lead o iolence. The exagge a ed a i ma-
ion o iden i y o en sp ings om a sense o guil owa d one’s cul u e o o igin,
a guil ha is some imes exp essed in an o e emphasis on eligious componen s.
In o he wo ds, an immig an o a pe son wi h an immig an backg ound who is
p o icien in his o he mo he ongue, who can pass i on o his o he child en,
who eels ha his o he language and cul u e o o igin a e ecognized in he
hos socie y, would eel less need o quench his o he hi s o iden i y in o he
ways” (ibid.: 21).
In he cou se o he ex , he au ho s u he conc e ize he dange o gene -
a ing iolen ac s as a consequence o no aking in o accoun he so-called lan-
guages o o igin, and dis inguish i om he ca ego y o eligion: “Allowing mi-
g an s, Eu opean as well as non-Eu opean, easy access o hei language o o igin
and allowing hem o p ese e wha could be called hei linguis ic and cul u al
digni y seems o us once again an e ec i e an ido e o ana icism. Religious and
linguis ic a ilia ion a e ob iously among he elemen s ha mos s ongly con-
s i u e iden i y. Howe e , hese a ilia ions unc ion di e en ly, and some imes
e en compe e wi h each o he . Religious a ilia ion is exclusi e, while linguis ic
a ilia ion is no . The decoupling o hese wo powe ul iden i y- o ming ac o s,
he de elopmen o a linguis ic and cul u al belonging no a he expense o eli-
gion, bu e y much a he expense o he iden i y- o ming unc ion o eligion,
seems o us a salu a y unde aking ha could con ibu e o he educ ion o en-
sions bo h in Eu opean socie ies and elsewhe e in he wo ld” (ibid.: 18).
O e all, he ecommenda ions o he G oup o In ellec uals pu sue a bene -
olen goal, namely ha o secu ing peace, and see ce ain di e ences be ween
peoples as a possible and his o ically p o en obs acle, namely eligious and lin-
guis ic di e ences, which a e iden i ied as cul u al ca ego ies. In ela ion o lan-
guage, we ind he ollowing unde lying a gumen a ion:
• Language is a ac o ha c ea es iden i y.
• E e ybody has a/one language o o igin; language and o igin a e insepa-
ably connec ed.
• People mus ha e oppo uni ies o speak hei i s language because o i s
iden i y- o ming unc ion.
• I young mig an s canno speak ‘ hei languages o o igin’, he e is a dan-
ge ha hey will become aliena ed om hei pa en s and hus become
iolen .
144
7 Mul ilingualism and iden i y cons uc ion in pedagogical discou se
• The iden i y- o ming momen o eligioness is a p oblem o be comba ed.
The ocus on eligion a ises om he u ge o iden i y, which can be
s opped by aking in o accoun he ‘mo he ongues’ o ‘mig an s’.
A subjec i iza ional pe spec i es e eals he ollowing pa e ns, among o he
hings:
• The Council o In ellec uals ollows a “monolingual habi us” (Gogolin
1998), acco ding o which monolingualism ep esen s he no mali y and
he symbolic means o es ablishing he oge he ness o ci izens. Gogolin
(1998) shows ha in he cou se o he o ma ion o he Ge man na ion-
s a e, Ge man was b ough o he o e as he only (legi ima e) language o
he s a e; wi h he help o he educa ional ins i u ion school, in he cou se
o ime his posi ion o Ge man became he no mali y. The Council o
In ellec uals seems o ollow his idea o he na ional language as a c ucial
uni ying elemen , gi en ha i assumes ha all people possess an (one)
iden i y language. The documen hence equa es people and language, as
is ypical o he de elopmen o a ce ain o m o na ion-s a e. Mo eo e ,
also in he con ex o mig a ion, language is unde s ood as a language
acco ding o he na ion-s a e model; language con ac phenomena and hy-
b idiza ions ha a e ypical o mig a ion a e no aken in o accoun . F om
he poin o iew o language ideology heo y, a simila pic u e eme ges.
The language o o igin (o en called mo he ongue) o ms a uni y wi h he
so-called a he land. This es ablishes a connec ion ha also appea s in con-
empo a y nego ia ions o linguis ic (non)belonging: an “e hnic owne ship
o language” (Bon iglio 2013: 36), wi h which speake s o a ce ain language
and o igin a e hough o be indissolubly linked. Acco ding o Poki sch
& Di im (2024), his is linked o h ee cen al language-ideological as-
pec s, which a e also e ec i e in he documen unde discussion: “mo he
ongue as a singula language ca ego y (each pe son has only one mo he
ongue), mo he ongue as a cha ac e -de ining ea u e, and mo he ongue
as a collec i izing elemen ha de e mines belonging” (Poki sch & Di im
2024, also Poki sch & Bjegač 2022, Bon iglio 2010, Ahlzweig 1994, in de ail
Poki sch 2022: 50 .).
• People ega ded as mig an s a e ixed o hei o igin and hus posi ioned
as no belonging and ha ing o be in eg a ed. Language is asc ibed a cen-
al signi icance in his con ex . This is hence a pa e n o a lingualiza ion
(Do os ka 2014), since no social ca ego ies o he han eligion a e aken
145