The anxious heritage speaker? Language anxiety and insecurity in multilingual contexts

Chapter 8 The anxious heritage speaker? Language anxiety and insecurity in multilingual contexts Oliver Bunk Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Language anxiety (LA), predominantly studied in second language learners, has recently encompassed the experiences of multilingual heritage speakers. While this expanded research offers important insights, it reveals a thread of Othering in LA studies, portraying heritage speakers as a homogenous group with little power over their linguistic command. Drawing on qualitative interviews, this chapter highlights that heritage speakers’ emotional relationship with language is often shaped more by heightened societal consciousness than mere anxiety. They navigate majority linguistic expectations, not as passive entities dominated by anxiety, but as active agents deftly managing their linguistic choices. This study advocates for a reconceptualized view of multilinguals in LA research, emphasizing their agency and the role of societal ideologies towards multilingualism. 1 Introduction Language anxiety (LA) refers to the unease, apprehension, and nervousness experienced by speakers when using or learning a particular language (e.g., Horwitz et al. 1986). LA was initially investigated in the context of foreign and second language acquisition, both in and outside the classroom (e.g., Gregersen 2020, Horwitz 2001, 2010, Horwitz et al. 1986, MacIntyre 2017). While initial studies Oliver Bunk. 2025. The anxious heritage speaker? Language anxiety and insecurity in multilingual contexts. In Artemis Alexiadou, Claudio Scarvaglieri, Christoph Schroeder & Heike Wiese (eds.), The construction of multilinguals as Others: Do we practice what we preach?, 153–177. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10 . 5281 / zenodo.17132453 Oliver Bunk primarily revolved around monolingual1learner contexts, recent investigations have expanded to multilingual settings, especially within minority communities (Ergüt & Baş 2023, Garcia De Blakeley et al. 2017, Jee 2022, Prada et al. 2020, Sevinç 2014, 2018, 2020, 2022, Sevinç & Backus 2019, Sevinç & Dewaele 2018). This shift in focus to multilingualism is highly relevant as it includes a growing population that has largely been left untouched by research. Additionally, it adds a new, important perspective, delving into the emotional well-being of heritage speakers and identifying factors that may adversely affect them, e.g., issues of identity (Sevinç & Backus 2019), culture and belonging (Jee 2022, Prada et al. 2020), and family attitudes (Jee 2022, Sevinç 2022). Thus, such research sheds light on heritage speakers’ experiences and unravels the negative impacts of the contexts they navigate. These insights can provide a basis for improving multilingual experiences. However, there is an underlying risk of Othering within LA studies, echoing Othering practices found in other lines of research, like the use of specific labelling (see Wiese et al. 2022, Wiese this volume) and adapting specific perspectives on heritage speakers. Building on these observations, this chapter investigates the Othering practices within LA research in multilingual contexts. I argue that research on LA generally adopts an inclusive perspective but exhibits patterns of Othering. These patterns often present a unidimensional view, portraying speakers as having limited agency over their language use due to LA. Analyzing interview data that focus on LA in the majority language of heritage speakers, I argue that heritage speakers’ emotional connection to the majority language stems less from anxiety and more from an acute awareness of the expectations set by the prevailing monolingual majority. Consequently, speakers might experience pressure to conform linguistically with this majority; however, they apply specific mechanisms to overcome this pressure. The study, thus, aims to provide an additional perspective in LA research, highlighting speakers’ agency and linguistic ownership and the role of language ideologies in the contexts they navigate. Before delving deeper into the topic, it is imperative to clarify that this discussion is not an attempt to spotlight specific authors, projects, or publications for their Othering patterns. Contrary to other subdisciplines in linguistics, recent 1The term “monolingual” commonly describes speakers of one named language, i.e. English, German, Russian etc. However, only very few individuals may actually speak only one language, especially considering the global importance of languages such as English, French, Spanish or Mandarin-Chinese, and linguistic registers (Rothman 2008, MacSwan 2017). In this chapter, I consider the notion of the “monolingual speaker” as a social construct. However, I will use the term in order to better describe the contrast between speakers that grew up with one vs. multiple language as their family language(s). 154 8 The anxious heritage speaker? research on LA stands out due to its use of inclusive language and perspectives. Especially within the recently developing focus on heritage speakers and diverse, multilingual contexts, this line of research has unearthed invaluable insights into the well-being of multilingual speakers, shedding light on the negative emotions they grapple with in their everyday lives. However, this chapter intends to illustrate that even such a progressive and relatively young field is not exempt from the inadvertent Othering processes stemming from certain deep-seated, internalized perspectives on language and speakers. The chapter is structured as follows: In Section 2, I discuss the key topics in LA research to outline potential areas of Othering. I introduce Linguistic Insecurity (LI) as a concept closely related to LA and compare both concepts with respect to Othering. Section 3 summarizes the main forms of Othering, while Section 4 discusses which perspectives might be taken to avoid Othering. Section 5 presents an example of how these perspectives can help to enlighten our understanding of LA in heritage speakers, acknowledging their role as active language owners. I present a qualitative analysis of interview data on the linguistic pressure of heritage speakers in Germany, focusing on their use of German. Section 6 provides a conclusion. 2 Language anxiety, insecurity and multilingualism Understanding the emotional responses of language learners and speakers, such as Language Anxiety (LA) and Linguistic Insecurity (LI), offers insights into the broader implications of multilingualism. Traditionally, LA has been investigated in the classroom context from the perspective of foreign language learners (Gardner & MacIntyre 1993, Horwitz et al. 1986). The sources of foreign language anxiety (FLA) are multifaceted, including learner factors like a perceived lack of competence or preparation (Horwitz 1986), perfectionism (Gregersen & Horwitz 2002), and competitiveness (Jin et al. 2015), and classroom factors like teacher behavior and teaching methods (Briesmaster & Briesmaster-Paredes 2015, Huang et al. 2010). Horwitz et al. (1986) further argue that foreign language anxiety interacts with communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of social evaluation. FLA can relate to specific domains, such as speaking, listening, reading or writing (Dewaele & Li 2022). Studies indicate multilingualism reduces FLA, facilitating language acquisition (Dewaele 2007, 2010, Thompson & Lee 2013). Liu (2013) reports that frequent use of a foreign language increases self-perceived competence and self-confidence, lowering LA, while MacIntyre & Gardner (1989: 270) find that FLA causes “performance deficits”. Thus, studies on LA in the learner context often explore the 155 Oliver Bunk relationship between anxiety, language achievement and proficiency, i.e. the reasons and effects of LA on language learning (see Luo 2013 for a comprehensive review). These complex interactions also play an important role in heritage and majority language anxiety (HLA and MLA, respectively), however, with different effects for the groups investigated. While FLA might lead to negative learning achievements, particularly in the classroom context, HLA and MLA can pose profound socio-emotional challenges for multilingual speakers in their everyday lives. Still, the term “language anxiety” has been adopted for heritage language research. In his pivotal work, Tallon (2011) introduced the term “heritage language anxiety”, emphasizing the need for detailed research on the anxiety experienced by heritage speakers. Prada et al. (2020: 96) define HLA as a “specific type of anxiety linked to the negative feelings of physical or emotional discomfort experienced in connection with using the HL”. HLA has been investigated in different languages (Chinese: Xiao & Wong 2014; Korean: Jee 2016, 2022; Spanish: Tallon 2009, 2011; Turkish: Ergüt & Baş 2023, Sevinç 2014 et seq.). Compared to foreign language learners, heritage speakers tend to experience less anxiety when using their heritage language (Prada et al. 2020, Tallon 2009). However, the degree of anxiety seems to be linked to different extra-linguistic factors such as communication partner, communication context, self-perceived proficiency, and sociobiographical aspects. In a series of studies, Sevinç (2014, 2018, 2020, 2022), Sevinç & Backus (2019), Sevinç & Dewaele (2018) investigate HLA in three generations of Dutch-Turkish bilinguals in the Netherlands. Sevinç & Dewaele (2018: 162) highlight that the “challenges that immigrant communities face in a language contact situation vary across different geographical, social and political contexts (Canagarajah 2008), and across different value systems underpinned by their identity, culture and so forth.” Hence, identity construction, cultural aspects and the societal context play a central role in HLA, which can best be observed when studying different generations. Sevinç & Dewaele (2018) find that the generation that immigrated from Turkey to the Netherlands exhibits very little HLA (though when speaking Turkish around supposedly monolingual Dutch speakers). However, their children, who were born in the Netherlands or arrived there at an early age, experienced more HLA when speaking Turkish in Turkey outside with perceived native Turkish speakers and with Turkish friends in Turkey. This kind of anxiety also applied to the children of the locally born Dutch-Turkish bilinguals. Additionally, this group experienced the highest level of HLA in all social contexts (i.e., communication with family, friends, and “native speakers”). These forms of anxiety manifest physiologically in electrodermal activity (Sevinç 2018) and 156 8 The anxious heritage speaker? are further influenced by monolingual-oriented family language policy (Sevinç 2022). One of the driving factors in HLA is self-perceived proficiency, with higher self-perceived proficiency being correlated with less HLA (Chhuon 2011, Sevinç 2016, Sevinç & Backus 2019). This factor might be related to the social and cultural conditions heritage speakers navigate daily. Heritage speakers face expectations concerning their cultural identity and constructed ethnicity, often associated with their languages. Studies brought up the vicious circle in which heritage speakers experience HLA, leading to avoidance and a decrease in proficiency, which, in turn, boosts HLA (see Krashen 1998; Sevinç & Backus 2019, Li 1996). Beyond self-perceived proficiency, Sevinç & Dewaele (2018) suggest that feelings of social inequality (Hudson 1996) and sensations of language pride and panic (Martínez 2006) further exacerbate HLA. While most studies on heritage speakers emphasize the heritage language, a limited number delves into LA within the context of the heritage speakers’ majority language. Sevinç & Dewaele (2018) coined the term “majority language anxiety” (MLA), which they describe as “language anxiety experienced by immigrant or minority community members in the language of the majority of the population in a national context” (Sevinç & Dewaele 2018: 176). The study provided first insights into MLA in three generations of Dutch-Turkish bilinguals. They find that the generation that migrated to the Netherlands and their children experience intense MLA, particularly in conversation with or around supposedly monolingual Dutch speakers. Children of the locally-born generation did not experience MLA. Jee (2022) reports similar findings for English-Korean bilingual speakers in Australia, where the immigrant generation felt MLA, while their children did not. However, in contrast to the generations investigated in the Netherlands, speakers from these two generations reported relatively low HLA. Linking LA to the majority language of multilinguals is a rather new approach, as studies on anxiety in the majority language have mostly been investigated in monolingually raised speakers. First introduced by Labov (2006), linguistic insecurity (LI) refers to “speakers’ feeling that the variety they use is somehow inferior, ugly or bad’” (Meyerhoff 2006: 292). The term, thus, initially referred to felt discrepancies between someone’s variety and a valorized variety, often the standard variety. This valorized variety is looked up to, as it represents the baseline of correctness and the norm of an “idealized homogenous language” (Lippi-Green 2012: 64). In his study on New York City English, Labov (2006) finds that speakers from the lower middle-class, particularly women, experience LI, related to the desire to social upward movement. LI is thus linked to social 157 Oliver Bunk factors such as socio-economic class and gender. Similar findings were reported for English in Winnipeg (Owens & Baker 1984) and Michigan (Preston 2013). LI was long investigated with a focus on monolinguals. However, particularly in the context of French, it has been considered a cross-linguistic topic since the 1990s, encompassing multilingual contexts and language contact settings (Bretegnier & Ledegen 2002, Calvet 1996, Francard et al. 1993, de Robillard 1996). It has since been described in various contexts, such as the workplace (Cho 2015, Lancereau-Forster & Martinez 2018) or the classroom (Daftari & Tavil 2017, Gagliardi & Maley 2010, Jantri & Phusawisot 2021). LI research involving multilingualism often investigates insecurity in varieties of named languages (Catalan: Baldaquí Escandell 2011; Spanish: Suárez Büdenbender (2010); English in Singapore: Foo & Tan 2019) or minority languages and endangered languages (Baldaquí Escandell 2011, Dağdeviren-Kırmızı & Inan 2024, Shulist 2022). Studies in LI also more frequently tend investigate positive strategies in dealing with LI (e.g. Lancereau-Forster & Martinez 2018, Lee & Jang 2023) than LA studies. As this brief review shows, LA and LI, while related, target different speaker groups and adopt distinct perspectives. LA is traditionally associated with language learning and thus learning achievement in foreign language acquisition and was later applied to the heritage language contexts, where research focuses on the socio-emotional well-being of the speakers. LI takes the more Labovian sociolinguistic approach to insecurity, focusing on the hierarchies between linguistic varieties within the same named language and sociolinguistic aspects impacting language use and evaluation. In both domains, speakers reportedly experience discomfort when using certain languages or varieties, and Horwitz et al. (1986) mention the fear of social evaluation as related to FLA, which supposedly also plays a role in LI. However, speakers manage these feelings in different ways. Labov (2006) identifies hypercorrection as a result of LI, as (monolingual) speakers emulate structures of a more prestigious variety to avoid previously recognized errors. Hypercorrection is thus an active coping strategy that speakers apply to face LI. In the literature on LA, such perspectives that acknowledge speakers’ agency seem to be a minority, if not completely absent. Speakers, particularly heritage speakers, are usually portrayed as affected by LA with little power over their languages and negative emotions. In contrast, heritage speakers avoid their heritage language due to anxiety, leading to language loss and social conflict. While this perspective is highly relevant for the investigation of the negative impact of LA on the individual, the sole focus on the heritage language and its avoidance overshadows two factors: First, heritage speakers are owners and in power over all their languages and varieties, including their majority language and heritage language, and second, the significance of the societal context, 158 8 The anxious heritage speaker? i.e., societal ideologies and their effects on heritage speakers’ associations with languages and varieties. Current predominating research perspectives on LA in heritage speakers thus run into danger of “Othering” speakers as victims without considering their full linguistic command and broader societal aspects. This kind of Othering also plays out in how speakers and their languages use are labelled. In the next sections, I explore practices of Othering in LA/LI research. I first discuss Othering through labelling as described for other subdisciplines in linguistics (Wiese et al. 2022, Wiese, this volume) and through the labels “anxiety” and “insecurity”. Second, I highlight how including specific perspectives can avoid Othering and simultaneously offer important insights, broadening our understanding of LA. I discuss a) the role of different speaker groups and the societal context and b) the importance of repertoires and linguistic agency. 3 Patterns of Othering in LA/LI research The literature exhibits several Othering practices identified in Wiese et al. (2022) and Wiese (this volume), particularly concerning labelling a) territorial belonging, b) national membership, and c) linguistic ownership. Drawing from Wiese et al. (2022) and Wiese (this volume), I discuss these patterns using anonymized references. Codes mark the discipline, identified through the terms used in the respective study to describe cases of unease centring around language (LA = Language Anxiety, LI = Linguistic Insecurity), study number (01, 02, 03, …) and publication year. 3.1 Territorial belonging, national membership and linguistic ownership The practice of Othering via territorial labels includes terms like “second generation”, “third generation”, and “(im)migrants” (LA02/2023, LA03/2022, LA05/2020, LA06/2022, LA08/2018, LI10/20210, LI12/2016), “immigrant communities” (LA05/2020, LA07/2019) for individuals that are locally born and thus, should be referred to as such, i.e. firstor second-generation locals (Wiese et al. 2022). Compared to monolinguals, these speakers are labelled “immigrant peers” (LA02/2023). These speakers are often associated with “home countries” (LA05/2020), meaning where their ancestors originated, while the nations of their birth and residence are termed “host countries” (LA07/2019, LA08/2018). Occasionally, speakers are compared with speakers living in a “foreign country” (LI11/1984). 159 Oliver Bunk Othering by attributing national group labels is evident in terms like “Turkish”, “Koreans”, “Spanish”, “Turkish children”, and “Turkish friends”, when referring to speakers born and residing in another country, such as Germany, Australia, or the US (LA02/2023, LI10/2010, LA03/2022, LA06/2022, LA08/2018, LI14/2007). Some studies also include the term “living abroad” (LA02/2023) or “heritage country” (LA17/2020) for locally-born speakers. Regarding linguistic ownership, many studies categorize heritage speakers as “L2” learners, even if they began acquiring the majority language from birth or early childhood (LA01/2008, LA15/2010, LA17/2013, LA19/2007). Monolinguals are often portrayed as the bearers of a language, setting a benchmark that heritage speakers should “catch up” to, given perceived differences in proficiency or performance (LA02/2023, LA18/2018, LA03/2022). Speakers are also contrasted with “native” speakers (LA18/2018, LA03/2022, LI12/2016). 3.2 “Anxiety” and “Insecurity” The practice of Othering through labelling also encompasses terms like “anxiety” and “insecurity”. LA research traditionally takes Spielberger’s (1983) work on anxiety as a starting point. Spielberger focused on the psychological condition of anxiety, which is then frequently adapted to describe negative feelings and emotions in learners or heritage speakers. Given this context, using the label “anxiety” could inadvertently pathologize it, framing it as a “condition” or “disorder”. Pathologizing LA might divert attention from the external factors that contribute to it, including societal pressures, unrealistic expectations, linguistic hegemony, or discriminatory attitudes towards certain languages. Concurrently, even though LA is often described as situation-specific in contrast to trait and state anxiety (Horwitz et al. 1986, MacIntyre & Gardner 1989,) “anxiety” has a more recognized pathological aspect, while “insecurity” often refers to a common temporary human experience, which can lead to anxiety and anxiety disorders. Importantly, LA research seems to single out monolinguals from multilinguals. LA is seldom linked with monolinguals and anxiety towards their only language. Thus, monolinguals’ experiences are constructed as fundamentally distinct from those of multilinguals, potentially pathologizing LA in the latter group but not the former. Moreover, as FLA is traditionally studied in the classroom contexts (see Section 2 above), it is often ascribed to external, surmountable reasons. For learners, LA is presented as a natural phenomenon when learning a new language, and thus, it is depicted as resolvable with increasing proficiency (see Park 2021 for 160 8 The anxious heritage speaker? a critical discussion). In contrast, HLA is depicted as an inherent trait of heritage speakers. It is conceptualized as the result of a self-perceived lack of competence, leading to avoidance and social conflict. Given this perspective, research frequently champions heritage language instruction without delving into wider societal factors contributing to HLA, like prevailing ideologies and attitudes. The labelling practices highlighted above not only Other heritage speakers but also suggest a narrowed viewpoint on them. Including different perspectives in LA research might overcome this potential of Othering and provide new insights into LA in different speaker groups, as discussed in the next section. 4 Reconceptualizing perspectives in LA research 4.1 Speaker groups and societal contexts Research in LA/LI often generalizes speakers by concentrating on similar demographic groups. They tend to neglect different societal prestige associated with certain languages but focus on speaker groups that often face discrimination against them in specific countries, like heritage speakers of Turkish in Germany or heritage Spanish speakers in the US. However, speakers of languages with high societal prestige may experience LA/LI differently, revealing underlying hegemonic societal patterns. For example, a heritage speaker of German in Namibia or the US or a heritage speaker of English in Germany might face less discrimination and expectations, and therefore, LA/LI might affect them less strongly. This perspective shifts the focus from multilingualism as a potential threat to emotional well-being to larger societal issues related to power relations and the hegemonic status of specific languages, varieties and speakers. Grouping all multilingual speakers’ experiences under a singular narrative, risks obscuring broader societal challenges, especially prevalent ideologies and power dynamics. Within this context, focusing on societal circumstances that play a role in LA provides an important factor in understanding LA and LI. LA might arise less from a self-perceived deficiency in proficiency and more from ingrained notions of linguistic competence and expected judgments from one’s environment. The notion of competence is strongly shaped by the majority of society, whose members are themselves impacted by linguistic ideologies. In particular, in the Global North, monolingual ideologies strongly influence the conceptualization of language(s) and their speakers (Blackledge 2000, 2002). These ideologies prioritize monolingual linguistic practices, including the lack of language mixing and codeswitching and are often closely related to standard language ideology (LippiGreen 2012), valorizing standard varieties over other varieties. Both, monolin161 Oliver Bunk was, linguistically, not good enough. Both students confronted the teacher and demanded to complete the examination nonetheless. Their evaluation ended up being very positive. However, it left the student with anguish: (10) Wenn dieser Mensch schon im Vorfeld irgendwie voreingenommen ist und so ähm stereotypisch denkt oder auch so klischeehaft denkt und du dann auch noch wirklich so dich unter ihm positionierst und ihm das Gefühl gibst: “Ok, er hat das erreicht, was er erreichen wollte oder in dir auch bewirken möchte.” Da denke ich immer so: “Nein. Gib diesem Menschen nicht das Gefühl und beweis’ ihm das Gegenteil.” Aber im Endeffekt weiß er ja auch nicht, wie es in mir aussieht und so. Und sowas hinterlässt schon Spuren. (03Fbiac, Pos. 98) The quote highlights the student’s associations between mistakes pointed out by the teacher and the danger of being stereotyped, othered and devaluated due to their “migration background”. An important factor seems to be social hierarchies and power relations: being affected by stereotypes also comes with the risk of giving in to constructed power relations, placing the speaker below the other person, who is not affected by that particular type of stereotyping and Othering. The speaker in (10) tackles this aspect by applying another coping strategy that seems to emerge when facing potential language-based stigmatization: proactive confrontation, which might be related to the speaker’s need to prove stereotypes wrong, as indicated in the short inner dialogue. From a structural perspective, participants mentioned that they often avoided accents and adjusted their speech according to the communicative context, particularly in formal situations, as illustrated in (11). (11) Wenn ich in einer formellen Situation bin, habe ich das Gefühl, dass ich alles etwas, ich muss halt alles gehobener ausdrücken, die Formulierungen werden teilweise auch länger, und auch viel mehr Nebensätze. […] Entweder kantiger und mit viel Nebensätzen oder halt sehr kurz. Wohingegen, wenn ich jetzt unter meinen Freunden bin […], dann achtet man halt nicht auf jeden Satz, […] und man überlegt einfach ein bisschen weniger und man hat nicht das Gefühl darauf achten zu müssen, dass man sich jetzt besonders artikuliert ausdrückt (CS_hT, 17:02) While this strategy may not be unique to multilinguals, the interview data indicate that multilinguals amplify these differences, primarily due to their heightened awareness of the significance of adhering to Standard German. This aligns 168 8 The anxious heritage speaker? with previous studies, indicating multilinguals’ acute cognizance of their language use across diverse communicative contexts (Bunk & Pohle 2019) and a tendency to linguistically mark specific communicative situations more intensely. Wiese et al. (2022) e.g. found that bilinguals use more non-canonical patterns in informal situations than monolinguals. Such research has primarily focused on multilinguals’ informal language use, leaving formal registers relatively unexplored (but see Bunk (2024) for multilinguals’ language use in formal settings). The interview data indicate that multilinguals’ formal language might offer an interesting perspective regarding linguistic pressure, especially given that formal contexts are associated with Standard German and monolingual practices, certain multilingual speakers might feel the need to align with. 6 Conclusions and outlook This chapter explored Othering practices in research on language anxiety (LA) and linguistic insecurity (LI). I highlighted that these patterns align with previous findings (Wiese et al. 2021, Wiese, this volume) and include specific types of labelling referring to territorial belonging, national membership, and linguistic ownership. Additionally, the literature is dominated by specific perspectives on multilingual speakers and language anxiety, providing a basis for Othering. In particular, the terms “language anxiety” and “linguistic insecurity” might be problematic due to their specific connotations and pathological associations. I suggested the term “linguistic pressure” (LP) as an alternative. I argued that a shift in perspective concerning the speaker groups, the societal context, speakers’ linguistic competence, registers and agency might further diminish the threat of Othering in the field. By presenting interview data on linguistic pressure experienced by German speakers, I demonstrated how a change in perspective can deepen our comprehension of heritage speakers’ coping mechanisms in situations that evoke LP. The findings indicate that participants do not necessarily experience anxiety in the majority language but are aware of societal expectations they feel pressured to fulfill. Speakers feel they need to prove their German proficiency more than monolinguals, as they are often constructed as foreigners, questioning their place within society. In this process, formal, Standard German is particularly important, as it is not only used to present the speakers as intelligent and educated, features that are traditionally associated with Standard German. It is also viewed as a benchmark used by the monolingual majority to gauge whether a multilingual speaker belongs in society. Recognizing these factors, speakers employ distinct 169 Oliver Bunk extra-linguistic strategies to counter these challenges, e.g., performative actions. Interestingly, the awareness of the importance of Standard German also seem to play out in the structural plane, e.g. in language use in formal communicative situations. Bunk (2024), e.g., found that multilingual speakers use more markers of formal language and less markers of informal language than monolinguals to mark formal communicative situations. Multilingual speakers, at least those investigated in the interviews, demonstrate full command of their majority language and high meta-linguistic knowledge. They did not report feelings of anxiety or insecurity, even though when asked to describe how they feel in particular situations where they use German. However, they demonstrated a strong awareness of how others perceive their language use. Pressure was mainly caused by the evaluation by the majority society and not by a self-perceived lack of competence. While research primarily focuses on this aspect as one of the driving factors of anxiety, the societal aspect is often overlooked (but see Park 2021). In particular, negative societal attitudes towards multilingualism might strongly contribute to LP, as the interview data indicates. In societal contexts with a less negative perspective on multilingualism, LP might not be as strong or completely absent as multilingual practices are perceived as the norm. Given that most LP research involves speakers from the Global North, LA/LI research lacks an important perspective from the Global South, where multilingual practices are often perceived as the norm. Sevinç & Anthonissen (2022) offer first insights into such a context in their investigation of language anxiety in Cape Town, South Africa. They show that their informants exhibited only few negative emotions regarding their (multilingual) language use. Their study indicates that LP depends greatly on the societal context. Studies on LP predominantly focus on societies in the Global North, where monoglossic ideologies and a monolingual mindset (Clyne 2005) are particularly strong. Sevinç (2020, 2022) highlights that this type of ‘aggressive monolingualism’ can spread from one generation to another and amplify LP in heritage speakers, especially when monoglossic ideologies predominate the perspective on both majority and heritage language. Contexts that perceive multilingualism as the norm might lead to less LP for the individual and different coping mechanisms. Comparing LP in societies with monolingual orientations with societies with multilingual orientations might thus reveal the negative effects that certain ideologies towards multilingualism in most countries in the Global North have on individuals, especially multilingual ones. LP in the heritage language context is a genuine concern at an individual level. Research underscores its association with negative self-perceptions, shame, language loss and shift, which can lead to intergenerational tension and far-reaching 170 8 The anxious heritage speaker? psychological consequences for the individual (Purkarthofer 2020, Sevinç 2020). However, in addition to the individual level, considering the larger societal context is essential to the question of how LP emerges. This shift in perspective would also imply rethinking the source of LP. Many studies depict LP primarily as an intrinsic condition, mostly triggered by (self-)perceived lack of proficiency and competence that can be overcome by improving these areas (see Park 2021: 130). However, anxiety also results as a social and cultural construction if speakers feel they cannot meet certain societal expectations. Overlooking this societal component burdens the speakers, sidelining society’s significant role and the social macro context in which speakers navigate. Acknowledgments and funding Research for this article was funded by the Deutsche Forschungs-gemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) for the Research Unit “Emerging Grammars in Language Contact Situations” (FOR 2537, Projects P8/313607803 and P9/313607803) and the CRC 1412 “Register: Language Users’ Knowledge of Situational Variation” (Project C07/416591334). I thank the editors of this volume, two anonymous reviewers, and Annika Milena Schimpff for their valuable feedback. References Baldaquí Escandell, Josep-Maria. 2011. Relations between formal linguistic insecurity and the perception of linguistic insecurity: A quantitative study in an educational environment at the Valencian Community (Spain). Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 32(4). 325–342. DOI: 10.1080/01434632. 2011.579129. Blackledge, Adrian. 2000. Monolingual ideologies in multilingual states: Language, hegemony and social justice in Western liberal democracies. Sociolinguistic Studies 1(2). 25–45. DOI: 10.1558/sols.v1i2.25. Blackledge, Adrian. 2002. The discursive construction of national identity in multilingual Britain. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 1(1). 67–87. DOI: 10.1207/S15327701JLIE0101_5. Bretegnier, Aude & Gudrun Ledegen (eds.). 2002. Sécurité, insécurité linguistique: Terrains et approches diversifiés, propositions théoriques et méthodologiques. Paris: L’Harmattan. 171 Oliver Bunk Briesmaster, Mark & Judith Briesmaster-Paredes. 2015. The relationship between teaching styles and NNPSETs’ anxiety levels. System 49. 145–156. DOI: 10.1016/ j.system.2015.01.012. Bunk, Oliver. 2024. What does linguistic structure tell us about language ideologies?: The case of majority language anxiety in Germany. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 12(1). 91–116. DOI: 10.1515/eujal-2023-0049. Bunk, Oliver & Maria Pohle. 2019. “unter Freunden redet man anders”: The register awareness of Kiezdeutsch speakers. In Theresa Heyd, Ferdinand Mengden & Britta Schneider (eds.), The sociolinguistic economy of Berlin: Cosmopolitan perspectives on language, diversity and social space, 97–124. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781501508103-005. Calvet, Louis-Jean. 1996. Les ‘Edwiniens’ et leur langue: Sentiments et attitudes linguistiques dans une communauté créolophone. Revue québécoise de linguistique théorique 13. 9–50. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2008. Language shift and the family: Questions from the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(2). 143–176. DOI: 10. 1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00361.x. Chhuon, Vichet. 2011. Adolescent heritage speakers of less commonly taught languages in the United States. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(9). 666– 676. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00305.x. Cho, Jinhyun. 2015. Sleepless in Seoul: Neoliberalism, English fever, and linguistic insecurity among Korean interpreters. Multilingua 34(5). 687–710. DOI: 10.1515/ multi-2013-0047. Clyne, Michael. 2005. Australia’s language potential. Sydney: UNSW Press. Daftari, Giti Ehtesham & Zekiye Müge Tavil. 2017. The impact of non-native English teachers’ linguistic insecurity on learners’ productive skills. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 13(1). 379–399. Dağdeviren-Kırmızı, Gülin & Kayhan Inan. 2024. ‘They are asking me why I am speaking Gagauz’: Family language practices and the level of linguistic (in) security of adolescents speaking an endangered language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 45(6). 1834–1850. DOI: 10.1080/01434632. 2022.2026365. de Robillard, Didier. 1996. Le concept d’insécurité linguistique: À la recherche d’un mode d’emploi. In Claudine Bavoux (ed.), Français régionaux et insécurité linguistique: Approches lexicographoques [sic], interactionnelles et textuelles (Actes de la deuxième Table ronde du Moufia, 23–25 septembre 1994), 55–74. Paris: L’Harmattan. 172 8 The anxious heritage speaker? Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2007. The effect of multilingualism, sociobiographical, and situational factors on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety of mature language learners. International Journal of Bilingualism 11(4). 391–409. DOI: 10.1177/13670069070110040301. Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2010. Multilingualism and affordances: Variation in selfperceived communicative competence and communicative anxiety in French L1, L2, L3 and L4. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48(2-3). 105–129. DOI: 10.1515/iral.2010.006. Dewaele, Jean-Marc & Chengchen Li. 2022. Foreign language enjoyment and anxiety: Associations with general and domain-specific English achievement. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 45(1). 32–48. DOI: 10.1515/CJAL-20220104. Ergüt, Selçuk Emre & Bayram Baş. 2023. Exploring language anxiety among Turkish heritage language learners in Germany. Sustainable Multilingualism 22(1). 138–163. DOI: 10.2478/sm-2023-0006. Foo, Amanda Limin & Ying-Ying Tan. 2019. Linguistic insecurity and the linguistic ownership of English among Singaporean Chinese. World Englishes 38(4). 606–629. DOI: 10.1111/weng.12359. Francard, Michel, Geneviève Geron & Régine Wilmet (eds.). 1993. L’insécurité linguistique dans les communautés francophones périphériques. Vol. 1. (Actes du colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve, 10–12 novembre 1993). Lovain-la-Neuve: Institut de linguistique de Lovain. Gagliardi, Cesare & Alan Maley (eds.). 2010. EIL, ELF, global English: Teaching and learning issues (Linguistic insights 96). Bern: Peter Lang. Garcia De Blakeley, Marta, Ruth Ford & Leanne Casey. 2017. Second language anxiety among Latino American immigrants in Australia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 20(7). 759–772. DOI: 10.1080/13670050. 2015.1083533. Gardner, Robert C. & Peter D. MacIntyre. 1993. On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning. Language Learning 43(2). 157–194. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb00714.x. Gregersen, Tammy. 2020. Dynamic properties of language anxiety. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 10(1). 67–87. DOI: 10.14746/ssllt.2020. 10.1.4. Gregersen, Tammy & Elaine Kolker Horwitz. 2002. Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern Language Journal 86(4). 562–570. DOI: 10.1111/ 1540-4781.00161. 173 Oliver Bunk Horwitz, Elaine Kolker. 1986. Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a foreign language anxiety scale. TESOL Quarterly 20(3). 559–562. DOI: 10. 2307/3586302. Horwitz, Elaine Kolker. 2001. Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21. 112–126. DOI: 10.1017/S0267190501000071. Horwitz, Elaine Kolker. 2010. Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching 43(2). 154–167. DOI: 10.1017/S026144480999036X. Horwitz, Elaine Kolker, Michael B. Horwitz & Joann Cope. 1986. Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal 70(2). 125–132. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x. Huang, Shufen, Zohreh Eslami & Rou-Jui Sophia Hu. 2010. The relationship between teacher and peer support and English-language learners’ anxiety. English Language Teaching 3(1). 32–40. DOI: 10.5539/elt.v3n1p32. Hudson, Richard A. 1996. Sociolinguistics. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139166843. Jantri, Palatee & Pilanut Phusawisot. 2021. The influence of linguistic insecurity on Thai EFL teachers’ teaching performance. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation 4(8). 35–44. DOI: 10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.8.6. Jee, Min Jung. 2016. Exploring Korean heritage language learners’ anxiety: ‘We are not afraid of Korean!’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37(1). 56–74. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2020.1799321. Jee, Min Jung. 2022. Heritage language anxiety and major language anxiety experienced by Korean immigrants in Australia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25(5). 1713–1729. DOI: 10.0050.2020.1799321. Jin, Yinxing, Kees de Bot & Merel Keijzer. 2015. Factors associated with foreign language anxiety: A study of Chinese university learners of Japanese and English. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(1). 67–85. DOI: 10.1075/dujal.4.1. 07jin. Krashen, Stephen. 1998. Language shyness and heritage language development. In Stephen Krashen, Jeff McQuillan & Lucy Tse (eds.), Heritage language development, 41–49. Culver City: Language Education Associates. Kuckartz, Udo & Stefan Rädiker. 2022. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. 5th edn. (Grundlagentexte Methoden). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Labov, William. 2006. The social stratification of English in New York City. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lancereau-Forster, Nicole & Josiane Martinez. 2018. Interlinguistic insecurity in the workplace: An issue for higher education. Language Learning in Higher Education 8(2). 375–398. DOI: 10.1515/cercles-2018-0021. 174 8 The anxious heritage speaker? Lee, Jeong-Ah & In Chull Jang. 2023. From linguistic insecurity to confidence: Language emotion and ideology in South Korean study-abroad students’ postjourney reflections. Linguistics and Education 77. 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.linged. 2023.101206. Li, Wei. 1996. Three generations, two languages, one family: Language choice and language shift in a Chinese community in Britain (Multilingual matters 104). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lippi-Green, Rosina. 2012. English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. 2nd edn. Abingdon: Routledge. Liu, Hui-Ju. 2013. Effects of foreign language anxiety and perceived competence on learning strategy use. International Journal of English Linguistics 3(3). 76. DOI: 10.5539/ijel.v3n3p76. Luo, Han. 2013. Foreign language anxiety: Past and future. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 36(4). 442–464. DOI: 10.1515/cjal-2013-0030. MacIntyre, Peter D. 2017. An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its development. In Christina Gkonou, Mark Daubney & Jean-Marc Dewaele (eds.), New insights into language anxiety. Theory, research and educational implications, 11–30. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI: 10.21832/9781783097722003. MacIntyre, Peter D. & Robert C. Gardner. 1989. Anxiety and second-language learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning 39(2). 251–275. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00423.x. MacSwan, Jeff. 2017. A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal 54(1). 167–201. DOI: 10.3102/0002831216683935. Martínez, Glenn A. 2006. Mexican Americans and language: Del dicho al hecho. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. MAXQDA. 2022. MAXQDA 2022. VERBI Software. Berlin. maxqda.com. Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2006. Introducing sociolinguistics. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203966709. Owens, Thompson W. & Paul M. Baker. 1984. Linguistic insecurity in Winnipeg: Validation of a Canadian index of linguistic insecurity. Language in Society 13(3). 337–350. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500010538. Park, Joseph Sung-Yul. 2021. In pursuit of English: Language and subjectivity in neoliberal South Korea. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prada, Josh, Paola Guerrero-Rodriguez & Diego Pascual y Cabo. 2020. Heritage language anxiety in two Spanish language classroom environments: A comparative mixed methods study. Heritage Language Journal 17(1). 92–113. DOI: 10.46538/hlj.17.1.4. 175 Oliver Bunk Preston, Dennis R. 2013. Linguistic insecurity forty Years later. Journal of English Linguistics 41(4). 304–331. DOI: 10.1177/0075424213502810. Purkarthofer, Judith. 2020. Intergenerational challenges: Of handing down languages, passing on practices, and bringing multilingual speakers into being. In Andrea C. Schalley & Susana A. Eisenchlas (eds.), Handbook of Home Language Maintenance and Development. Social and Affective Factors, 130–150. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781501510175-007. Rothman, Jason. 2008. Linguistic epistemology and the notion of monolingualism. Sociolinguistic Studies 2(3). 441–458. Schroeder, Christoph. 2003. Der Türkischunterricht in Deutschland und seine Sprache(n). Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 14(1). 23–39. Sevinç, Yeşim. 2014. Linguistic and social factors in Turkish-Dutch contact across generations. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 3(1). 82–100. DOI: 10.1075/ dujal.3.1.05sev. Sevinç, Yeşim. 2016. Language maintenance and shift under pressure. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2016(242). 81–117. DOI: 10.1515/ijsl2016-0034. Sevinç, Yeşim. 2018. Language anxiety in the immigrant context: Sweaty palms? International Journal of Bilingualism 22(6). 717–739. DOI: 10 . 1177 / 1367006917690914. Sevinç, Yeşim. 2020. Anxiety as a negative emotion in home language maintenance and development. In Andrea C. Schalley & Susana A. Eisenchlas (eds.), Handbook of Home Language Maintenance and Development. Social and Affective Factors, 84–108. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781501510175005. Sevinç, Yeşim. 2022. Mindsets and family language pressure: Language or anxiety transmission across generations? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 43(9). 874–890. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2022.2038614. Sevinç, Yeşim & Christine Anthonissen. 2022. ‘What’s the problem? I am happy that you are my customer!’ African immigrant women’s emotional labour and resilience in a multilingual workplace. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 44(10). 952–967. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2022.2120614. Sevinç, Yeşim & A. Backus. 2019. Anxiety, language use and linguistic competence in an immigrant context: A vicious circle? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(6). 706–724. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2017. 1306021. Sevinç, Yeşim & Jean-Marc Dewaele. 2018. Heritage language anxiety and majority language anxiety among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(2). 159–179. DOI: 10.1177/1367006916661635. 176 8 The anxious heritage speaker? Shulist, Sarah. 2022. Insecurity through diversity: A case study from the Northwest Amazon. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 43(3). 200–213. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2022.2039674. Spielberger, Charles D. 1983. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Suárez Büdenbender, Eva-Maria. 2010. Comparing Dominican linguistic (in)security in the Dominican Republic and in the diaspora. In Claudia Borgonovo, Manuel Español-Echevarría & Philippe Prévost (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 148–159. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Tallon, Michael. 2009. Foreign language anxiety and heritage students of Spanish: A quantitative study. Foreign Language Annals 42(1). 112–137. DOI: 10.1111/j. 1944-9720.2009.01011.x. Tallon, Michael. 2011. Heritage speakers of Spanish and foreign language anxiety: A pilot study. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education. 15(1). 70. Thompson, Amy S. & Junkyu Lee. 2013. Anxiety and EFL: Does multilingualism matter? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16(6). 730–749. DOI: 10.0050.2012.713322. Versteegh, Hadewych. 2023. Heritage Language Anxiety in der MessengerKommunikation. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. (MA thesis). Wiese, Heike, Artemis Alexiadou, Shanley Allen, Oliver Bunk, Natalia Gagarina, Kateryna Iefremenko, Maria Martynova, Tatiana Pashkova, Vicky Rizou, Christoph Schroeder, Anna Shadrova, Luka Szucsich, Rosemarie Tracy, Wintai Tsehaye, Sabine Zerbian & Yulia Zuban. 2021. Heritage speakers as part of the native language continuum. Frontiers in Psychology 12. Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes, Cristina Suarez-Gomez, Mila Vulchanova, Antonella Sorace & Valentin Vulchanov (eds.). 209–227. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717973. Wiese, Heike, Artemis Alexiadou, Claudio Scarvaglieri & Christoph Schroeder. 2022. Multilinguals as Others in society and academia: Challenges of belonging under a monolingual habitus. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 302. https://wpull.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WP302-Wiese-et-al2022-Multilinguals-as-others.pdf. Xiao, Yang & Ka F. Wong. 2014. Exploring heritage language anxiety: A study of Chinese heritage language learners. The Modern Language Journal 98(2). 589– 611. DOI: 10.1111/modl.12085. 177