Chap e 3
O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics:
Implica ions om labelling
Heike Wiese
Humbold -Uni e si ä zu Be lin
As a esul o Eu opean na ion-s a e building, socie ies in he Global No h end
o be domina ed by a monolingual and monoe hnic habi us ha cons uc s mul-
ilingual speake s as membe s o an ou -g oup. Labelling p ac ices in academic
publica ions e eal ha such O he ing pa e ns a e no es ic ed o public o “lay”
discou se. An analysis o O he ing h ough labelling in published wo k om lin-
guis ics and ela ed ields o sociology and educa ion e eals ecu ing opoi ha
eed in o h ee in e ela ed s ands o O he ing: O he ing wi h espec o e i o-
ial belonging, o na ional g oup membe ship, and o linguis ic owne ship. These
s ands mi o he ideological nexus o “one coun y, one na ion, one language”
in la ge socie y. Examples come om publica ions ac oss di e en pe spec i es,
subdisciplines, and esea ch domains, unde lining how widesp ead such p ac ices
a e in ou ield. I a gue ha a oiding such O he ing is no only impo an om
he poin o iew o schola ly e minology, bu also o ou esea ch pe spec i e:
i mul ilinguals a e cons uc ed as O he s, his can lead o an implici bias wi h
nega i e e ec s on ou esea ch.
1 Backg ound: Language- ela ed dicho omies in socie y
and academia
1.1 A monolingual and monoe hnic habi us in Eu opean na ion-s a es
Eu opean socie ies ha e a long adi ion o linguis ic di e si y. Today, we see
his, o ins ance, in u ban a eas whe e mul ilingualism is a no mal pa o li e
o many child en. The ollowing igne es cha ac e ise he linguis ic epe oi es
Heike Wiese. 2025. O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om la-
belling. 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?, 35–62. Be lin: Language Science P ess. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17132443
Heike Wiese
o h ee young people in my neighbou hood, Be lin-K euzbe g, illus a ing he
di e se linguis ic biog aphies and epe oi es ha o m a no mal pa o g owing
up in such neighbou hoods (o iginal names ha e been eplaced o he pu pose
o anonymisa ion):
Ina, age 5, was bo n in Be lin. He a he speaks Tu kish and Ge man wi h
he , he mo he Ge man. He ma e nal g and a he li es in Togo, and om is-
i ing him, she knows some F ench and Ewe. In kinde ga en, she mos ly speaks
Ge man and Tu kish. He pa e nal g andpa en s immig a ed om Ana olia and
speak a Tu kish dialec ha is di e en om he one she encoun e s a kinde -
ga en. She has Swabian-speaking cousins on he mo he ’s side, and Ba a ian-
speaking ones on he a he ’s side, and knows Kiezdeu sch, an u ban con ac
dialec o Ge man,1 om adolescen s in he neighbou hood.
Ch is ina, age 12, was also bo n in Be lin. He pa en s immig a ed om
Swi ze land. He mo he speaks I alian and (Ge many-)Ge man wi h he , he
a he English and (Ge many-)Ge man. He ma e nal g andpa en s immig a ed
o Swi ze land om I aly. He pa e nal g andpa en s mo ed om G eece o
Swi ze land, bu hen li ed o se e al yea s in he US, whe e he a he spen
some o his childhood. She lea ned some G eek om he pa e nal g andpa -
en s, and also unde s ands Swiss Ge man, which he pa en s use when alking
among hemsel es. In he neighbou hood and in kinde ga en, she mos ly speaks
Ge many-Ge man.
Yussu is 17 and led o Ge many om A ghanis an as a eenage , wi hou his
amily. In A ghanis an, he spoke mos ly Da i and Pash o, in addi ion o Uzbek
wi h some o his ela i es, and he lea ned some U du om popula mo ies. When
leeing o Ge many, he spen some ime in Tu key and lea ned some Tu kish
he e, which he also uses wi h some o his iends in Be lin. He lea ned Fā si in
he e ugee home whe e he ini ially li ed when coming o Be lin. He now li es
wi h os e pa en s and speaks Ge man wi h hem a home.
These b ie cha ac e isa ions al eady gi e an imp ession o he ich linguis-
ic epe oi es a ailable o speake s g owing up in such neighbou hoods, he
di e se esou ces hey can d aw on in hei daily in e ac ions, h ough di e en
si ua ional choices, code-swi ching and b icolage, and such di e si y has d awn
he in e es o sociolinguis ics, con ac linguis ics, and s uc u al linguis ics alike.
Ye , his mul ilinguis ic eali y clashes wi h a monolingual and monoe hnic ideal
ha is e iden in b oade socie y. In public deba es, educa ional policy and p ac-
ice, mul ilingualism ends o be ega ded as a de ia ion om a monolingual
no m and a di icul challenge o indi iduals and socie y (see also Sca aglie i
(2025 [ his olume])).
1See Şimşek & Wiese (2022) o a ecen o e iew o Kiezdeu sch.
36
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
This pe spec i e has i s oo s in 19 h cen u y Eu opean na ion-s a e building,
whe e he concep o a na ion as he bea e o a s a e played a key ole. C ucially,
his na ion was imagined as a homogeneous en i y a linguis ic and e hnic le -
els, wi h a common, “na ional” language ha is owned by one, dominan e hnic
g oup.2
Hence, na ion-s a e building elied on a “con a- ac ual ideological cons uc-
ion” (Bommes & Maas 2005: 182) o “one coun y, one na ion, one language” (see
also Helle & McElhinny 2017). This suppo ed a monolingual and monoe hnic
socie al habi us ha is s ill e y much in e idence in Eu opean na ion-s a es o-
day (Gogolin 2002, Hüning e al. 2012), as well as in such coun ies as he US o
Aus alia ha eme ged om o me Eu opean se le colonies.
The cons uc ion o na ion-s a es as monolingual and monoe hnic c ea es
“us/ hem” dicho omies be ween an in-g oup o monolingual na i e speake s
ha belong o he na ion, and an ou -g oup o o he s ha do no , e en hough
hey a e in ac pa o socie y. Such dicho omies ha e been analysed as p oxy
acism and (neo-)linguicism and ha e been shown o in e sec wi h social class
(Wiese 2015, Di im 2016).
Taking Ge many as an example, he monoe hnic habi us suppo s a ius sangui-
nis pe spec i e on who coun s as a p ope Ge man. When a e o m o he Ge man
ci izenship law made i easie o become na u alised, he census in oduced he
concep o “Mig a ionshin e g und” (“mig a ion backg ound”) o people who
hold Ge man ci izenship, bu we e no bo n o i o ha e a leas one pa en o
whom his holds. This means ha oday many Ge man ci izens who a e bo n and
aised in Ge many and ha e spen hei whole li es he e a e s ill no acknowl-
edged as p ope “Ge mans” ( he la e some imes called “Biodeu sche” “biological
Ge mans” in he public discussion).3Ins ead, in public deba es, policy, educa ion,
and e e yday usage alike, hey ge labelled as Ge mans wi h a “mig a ion back-
g ound”, which is o en used (e en in census publica ions) in e changeably wi h
“Mig an ”, despi e he ac ha hey do no ha e any mig a ion expe ience hem-
sel es, ha ing ne e li ed ou side he coun y o hei bi h.
Ha ing a “mig a ion backg ound” o being a “mig an ” is cons uc ed as an
ou side s a us ha is a p oblem o indi iduals and a challenge o socie y. The
2“E hnici y” is o be unde s ood as a social ca ego y ha cons uc s g oups belie ed o sha e
a common descen – ypically geog aphically associa ed – and cul u e. C . Mo an (2014) on
e hnici y and ace, Fough (2002) on e hnici y and speech communi ies; Wiese (2022) on he
ele ance o (mul i-)e hnici y o u ban con ac dialec s.
3See Sca aglie i & Zech (2013) o a co pus-linguis ic analysis o he O he ing in ol ed
in “Mig a ionshin e g und”; Fulle (2021) on e hnona ionalis a i udes e iden in he e m
“Biodeu sche”.
37
Heike Wiese
Ge man census mo i a es singling ou people wi h a “mig a ion backg ound” by
a guing ha hese a e “people o whom a need o in eg a ion can be iden i ied,
a leas in p inciple”.4In Be lin, he Sena e ea ed he p opo ion o child en and
adolescen s wi h a “mig a ion backg ound” as a p oblem o a neighbou hood,
using i as a nega i e indica o in he calcula ion o i s de elopmen al index.
The O he ing h ough “mig a ion backg ound” and “mig an ” asc ip ion is in-
e sec ional, wi h some social g oups ea ed mo e eadily as pa o he Ge man
in-g oup han o he s. The ele ance o e hnici y and social class is illus a ed by
he con as be ween wo a icles ha appea ed in he same issue o he Be lin
newspape “Tagesspiegel”, see headlines ep oduced in Figu e 1 below. The one
on he le is om an a icle on a planned minimum quo a o employees wi h a
“mig a ion backg ound” in Be lin’s public sec o as pa o a i ma i e ac ion and
di e si y managemen . In he newspape a icle, people wi h “mig a ion back-
g ound” a e labelled “mig an s” and con as ed wi h “Ge mans”, hus implying
ha someone wi h a “mig a ion backg ound” is no a Ge man, e en hough he
people in ques ion will usually ha e spen hei li e in Ge many and hold Ge -
man ci izenship. The a icle on he igh epo s on B i ish conduc o Simon Ra -
le’s plans o apply o Ge man ci izenship. This is ph ased as him becoming a
“Ge man”, while emaining a “Be line ”. So, in con as o he a icle on he le ,
someone who ac ually is a mig an (Ra le mo ed o Be lin om he UK) is con-
side ed as a “Ge man” once he is g an ed ci zenship, and locally emb aced as a
Be line .
Figu e 1: Two a icles om Tagesspiegel on Janua y 15 h, 2021; on he
le : “Mig an quo a in public se ice. Why a Ge man-cap can do mo e
ha m han good.”; on he igh : “B i Simon Ra le also wan s o become
a Ge man. He will emain a Be line .”
4“Menschen […], bei denen sich zumindes g undsä zlich ein In eg a ionsbeda es s ellen läss ”
(Fede al Census O ice / S a is isches Bundesam 2019: 4).
38
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
We hence see a s a k con as be ween, on he one hand, people bo n and
aised in Ge many who a e O he ed as “mig an s” and excluded om “Ge mans”
and, on he o he hand, someone who is a mig an bu will be accep ed as pa
o he Ge man in-g oup. To unde s and his con as , we need o look a he
g oups in ol ed: he a icle on he le is abou ma ginalised social and e hnic
g oups who would bene i om a i ma i e ac ion; he a icle on he igh , abou
a wo ld- amous B i ish a is . This indica es an in e ac ion o e hnic and social
O he ing wi h pa e ns o exclusion om he na ional in-g oup.
Linguis ic O he ing o ma ginalised g oups leads o widesp ead doub s abou
hei Ge man language compe ences. A Ge man schools, bilingual s uden s wi h
a “mig a ion backg ound” a e ou inely cons uc ed as in need o Ge man lan-
guage suppo (e.g., Oldani & T uan 2022).5
A la ge p og amme se up by he Ge man Fede al Minis y o Educa ion
and Resea ch in 2004 p o ided unding o esea ch on “suppo ing child en
and adolescen s wi h a mig a ion backg ound” (“Fö de ung on Kinde n und
Jugendlichen mi Mig a ionshin e g und”, Fö Mig). This p og amme had i s sole
ocus on p esumed p oblems wi h he language compe ences o hese young peo-
ple. In a p ess elease on he s a o he unding scheme, he minis e was quo ed
desc ibing as i s goal he “suppo and in eg a ion o mig an s”,6again using “mi-
g an ” in e changeably wi h “mig a ion backg ound”. This concep ualises mul i-
lingual speake s as “mig an s” who need o be in eg a ed in o he e y socie y
hey we e bo n in o, and who need o be suppo ed in he majo i y language o
his socie y.
This O he ing o speake s can lead o a pa hologisa ion o hei language use.
Bilingual pupils wi h a “mig a ion backg ound” a e o e diagnosed wi h language
diso de s in Ge many (Gaga ina e al. 2020). In speech- he apeu ic p ac ice, hey
migh hen be con on ed wi h e hnic O he ing up o acism: G oh & Tische
(2017) in e iewed speech he apis s abou hei adolescen pa ien s who used
Kiezdeu sch, an u ban mul ie hnolec . As illus a ed by he quo es in (1), he -
apis s o e ed a ange o cha ac e isa ions ha we e O he ing a linguis ic and
5C . Li Li (2021) on simila e idence om he UK: “They [s uden s om he i age-Chinese ami-
lies, H.W.] a e B i ish-bo n and “ha e no p oblem wi h English”. Ye because o hei ace, hey
a e ca ego ized as EAL (English as an addi ional language) lea ne s by he school, whose En-
glish is no expec ed o be “good enough o do an essay-based subjec ” a school o uni e si y.”
(Li Li 2021:6).
6P ess elease BMBF, Feb ua y 3 d, 2005: “Bundesbildungsminis e in Edelga d Bulmahn […]:
‚Die Fö de ung und In eg a ion on Mig an innen und Mig an en muss zu einem zen alen El-
emen de Bildung in allen Be eichen we den.” (h p://web.a chi e.o g/web/20050208063624/
www.bmb .de/p ess/1376.php, las access May 24 h, 2023)
39
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
wi h mul ilingual and “mig an -backg ound” speake s, i is assumed ha hese
speake s encoun e he majo i y language only a ely and a e ha dly exposed
o i a all be o e o mal schooling s a s, and (2) speake s a e cha ac e ised as
using, in p i a e domains, he he i age language almos exclusi ely.
To illus a e such assump ions, I quo e om a ecen handbook, Aalbe se e al.
(2019). I selec ed his handbook because i adop s an o e all posi i e app oach
o mul ilingualism and mul ilingual p ac ices, hence inding such claims he e
illus a es how pe asi e hey a e.
“In such a eas [Be lin-K euzbe g, H.W.], Tu ks encoun e ela i ely ew
membe s o he majo i y cul u e in hei daily li es“ (Aalbe se e al. 2019:
50)
“In HL [he i age language, H.W.] con ex s, he e is o en an almos exclu-
si e use o he HL in p i a e domains and an equally un i aled use o he
majo i y language in public ones” (Aalbe se e al. 2019: 48 )
I we unpack his, we ind some indica ions o p oblema ic e ec s o socie al
biases in ou esea ch. The label “Tu ks” o speake s e e s back o hei desc ip-
ion as “e hnic Tu ks” ea lie in he pa ag aph ci ed he e, which o eg ounds
e hnici y. This se s speake s ou side he na ional in-g oup o Ge man speake s
simila o Topos 3 abo e. This pe spec i e is u he unde lined when hey a e
con as ed wi h “membe s o he majo i y cul u e”. Acco ding o he la es mic o-
census in Ge many, mo e han a qua e (27.55%) o inhabi an s ha e immig a ed
hemsel es o ha e a leas one pa en who did, and mo e han a i h (20.05%)
do no only speak Ge man a home (S a is isches Bundesam 2023). One migh
hence easonably a gue ha he majo i y cul u e in Ge many is mul ie hnic and
mul ilingual. Howe e , in his case, only “e hnic” Ge mans o monolingual speak-
e s o Ge man seem o be cons uc ed as i s legi ima e membe s.
The claim ha e y ew o hese “membe s o he majo i y cul u e” a e en-
coun e ed by he i age-Tu kish speake s in Be lin-K euzbe g in hei daily li es,
is in and o i sel no an indica ion o a esea ch bias. Howe e , o my knowledge
he e is no empi ical backing o his: wea e s ill lacking sys ema ic e hnog aphic
s udies on daily linguis ic encoun e s in such neighbou hoods. This sugges s ha
such a claim is conside ed sel -e iden , o a leas no in need o u he e idence.
I ha e se e e doub s abou he u h o such claims, hough. One eason is
ha I ha e been li ing in ha a ea o Be lin o 30 yea s now, as a linguis who
is na u ally always in e es ed in language use, and as a pa en who aised wo
child en he e. In hese oles I ha e been obse ing and pa icipa ing in equen
50
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
encoun e s be ween people ac oss “e hnic” and mono- e sus mul ilingual back-
g ounds on a daily basis. Speake s o he i age-Tu kish, speake s o o he he i age
languages, and monolingually Ge man speake s mix and in e ac as neighbou s
a s ee es i als, a lib a y e en s and book nigh s, in ca és, a shops, in pa ks
and on playg ounds, and in local ci izenship ini ia i es; amilies mee and pa -
en s be iend each o he ac oss linguis ic and “e hnic” bounda ies when child en
a end local kinde ga ens, schools, and spo s clubs. Judging om his, he com-
muni y seems o be much less seg ega ed han popula s e eo ypes o “u ban
ghe os” sugges : he ac ha he e a e some shops and hai d esse s whe e i
is also possible o be se ed in Tu kish does no mean ha people a e isola ed
along language lines, o ha Ge man does no play a ole in a neighbou hood.
I means ha he neighbou hood is mul ilingual, and ha Tu kish is a ele an
he i age language.
Claims abou some kind o linguis ic isola ion o he i age speake s a e also
doub ul in iew o he demog aphic ac s: jus o e hal (55%) o K euzbe g es-
iden s ha e a “mig a ion backg ound” o ha e pa en s who do, acco ding o he
census (S a is isches Bundesam 2023). Hence nea ly hal o K euzbe g inhabi-
an s p esumably do no speak a he i age language, making i highly unlikely
ha he e will be only ew encoun e s wi h hem in daily li e.
Along he same lines, whe he he e is a s ic di ision o labou be ween an
exclusi e use o he i age languages a home and o majo i y languages in public
is an empi ical ques ion, bu we a e a p esen s ill lacking sys ema ic, la ge-scale
da a on ac ual language choices a home. I is doub ul whe he assump ions o
such a 1- o-1 co ela ion o languages along p i a e/public domains will hold up
o empi ical sc u iny. Apa om code swi ching and language mixing (which
Aalbe se e al. 2019 men ion as well), an impo an poin is he use o he majo i y
language in he p i a e domain: he e a e good easons o belie e ha majo i y
languages play a sys ema ic ole in p i a e se ings o he i age speake s.
No e ha he i age language esea ch has so a been mos ly concen a ed on
bilingual speake s who ha e g own up in coun ies wi h a monolingual bias and
an acco dingly dominan majo i y language. Tha he majo i y language is so
dominan means ha speake s a e bound o encoun e i in a b oad ange o
in o mal si ua ions om ea ly on in hei daily li e. I will be he language o
choice no only wi h monolingual speake s o he majo i y language, bu o en
also in encoun e s wi h speake s o o he he i age languages.
P i a e se ings ha hence a ou majo i y language use include in e ac ions
on he playg ound, in he s ee , and equen ly wi h iends. Gi en he domi-
nance o he majo i y language in many e e yday si ua ions, we should expec i
o en e amily communica ion as well, and he e is a leas some e idence o his
51
Heike Wiese
om speake s’ sel - epo s (see also de Houwe 2018: §7 o e idence on school
language use in amily in e ac ions). He e is a ansc ip om an in e iew wi h
a he i age-Tu kish speake , 18 yea s old, g owing up in Be lin-K euzbe g:23
“A home, I speak mos ly Tu kish – bu only wi h my pa en s [laughs]. Apa
om ha , I speak wi h my siblings ela i ely – only Ge man.”
I you g ow up in a coun y wi h a monolingual habi us, you canno a oid
encoun e ing he majo i y language om an ea ly age well be o e school and
kinde ga en, and wi h you siblings, you will p esumably use i egula ly wi hin
he amily.
This is also wha p ima y school child en om he i age language amilies
epo ed in a s udy we conduc ed wi h s uden s aged 9 o 12 om a s a e school
in Be lin-K euzbe g. Child en named Ge man as he main language hey used
wi h iends and siblings, ha is, in p i a e se ings including he amily, and i
was only o communica ion wi h olde gene a ions – pa en s and g andpa en s
– ha he i age languages (mos ly Tu kish and Ku dish) we e men ioned as being
ele an as well.24
No e ha he speake in he abo e quo e s a s epo ing Tu kish a he main
language a home, in line wi h p e ailing socie al language ideologies ha cas
speake s as Tu kish only. Only la e does he co ec himsel and es ic s he
use o Tu kish o communica ion wi h his pa en s. This sugges s ha he use o
Ge man wi hin amily communica ion migh be e en s onge han speake s a e
consciously awa e o (and, acco dingly, epo ). Expe iences om an ou each
p ojec wi h a Tu kish-Ge man bicul u al kinde ga en and a p ima y school in
Be lin-K euzbe g suppo his. In one o he modules, child en ook a plush oy,
a li le s o k, home wi h hem o e nigh , and hen he nex day old he g oup
wha ange o language use he s o k had obse ed in he child’s amily.25 47
child en aged 4 o 8 pa icipa ed in he p ojec , o whom 31 we e om amilies
wi h a he i age language. Among all child en, he e was no a single case whe e
Ge man had no been used a home. Du ing he cou se o he p ojec , a mo he
o one o he child en app oached me o ell me she was su p ised a wha she
had disco e ed abou he amily’s linguis ic p ac ices, saying
“I ha e always been unhappy wi h M.’s [he son’s, H.W.] Tu kish bu now I
ha e ealised we ha dly e e speak i a home; I hough we mos ly speak
23Full ideo a ailable a Wiese e al. (2014 ), module “Ballkon ak e” (www.deu sch-is -
ielsei ig.de).
24H. Wiese, P. Seege , J. Fulle 2015, unpublished in e iew da a.
25Wiese e al. (2014 ), module “S o ch Lingi”.
52
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
Tu kish in he amily, bu u ns ou we speak Ge man nea ly all he ime.
No wonde he s uggles wi h his Tu kish.”26
The dominance o Ge man in bilingual speake s’ epe oi es is also e iden
in some hing like “Who ian” e ec s we obse ed in bilingual Tu kish-Ge man
adolescen s in Be lin-K euzbe g. In a s udy a ge ing he in o ma ion-s uc u al
unde pinnings o V3, we asked pa icipan s o desc ibe a scene o an in e locu o
wi hou speaking, using only conc e e objec s and lamina ed p in -ou s o e bs
(in hei in ini i al o m). The scene in ol ed a amese e and a opic, oge he
wi h an ac ion, and we expec ed speake s o p esen bo h he amese e and he
opic be o e he ac ion (= he e b), in line wi h V3 pa e ns whe e an ad e bial
and a subjec a e placed be o e he e b.
This expec a ion was bo ne ou , bu he e we e also some in e es ing di e -
ences be ween speake g oups. We conduc ed he s udy wi h monolingual speak-
e s o Tu kish in Tu key, monolingual speake s o Ge man in Ge many, and bilin-
gual Tu kish-Ge man speake s in Ge many (Be lin-K euzbe g). Monolinguals
we e es ed in one language, bilinguals we e es ed wice, once in Ge man and
once in Tu kish (wi h Ge man and Tu kish e bs, and a Ge man- o Tu kish-
speaking expe imen e , espec i ely). The mos equen pa e n used ac oss all
g oups had he e b a he end, in line wi h V3. Howe e , o he wo g oups in
Ge many – in con as o he one in Tu key – his was closely ollowed by a pa -
e n wi h he e b in he middle, in line wi h V2. This sugges s ha Ge man V2
has an impac on linea isa ion pa e ns e en in ex a-g amma ical asks, and his
impac was e iden in bilingual speake s i espec i ely o whe he hey ac ed in
he Ge man o in he Tu kish condi ion, poin ing o Ge man as a s ongly domi-
nan language o hem (Wiese e al. 2017).
The assump ion ha he i age speake s do no speak he majo i y language in
hei amily and do no encoun e i excep in educa ional ins i u ions hence does
no seem o be suppo ed by empi ical e idence. Tha we ind his claim o be
so pe asi e in linguis ic esea ch migh be an e ec o he monolingual socie al
habi us om which we as esea che s a e no en i ely ee.
4 Conclusion
Resea che s om he Global No h domina e much o academia, including lin-
guis ics, and acco dingly, hei implici biases can ha e a subs an ial e ec . In he
26P ojec no es, Ge man o iginal, my ansla ion, H.W.
53
Heike Wiese
case o language- ela ed biases, we see a widesp ead monolingual and monoe h-
nic socie al habi us ha has i s oo s in Eu opean na ion-s a e building, wi h i s
language-ideological nexus o “one coun y – one na ion – one language”. In his
pape , I discussed he O he ing o mul ilingual speake s ha such a habi us os-
e s in public discussion, o he example o Ge many, wi h examples om media,
public policy and educa ion, including la ge esea ch unding schemes. Agains
his backg ound, I in es iga ed e idence o such O he ing in ou own p o es-
sional p ac ices as linguis s, s a ing om he hypo hesis ha a s ong monolin-
gual and monoe hnic socie al habi us migh lea e i s aces in esea che s who
g ew up in he Global No h, leading o implici biases.
I analysed labelling p ac ices o mul ilingual speake s in linguis ics and e-
la ed ields o sociology and educa ion and showed ha his is in ac he case.
Pa e ns o O he ing h ough labelling ha a e e iden in academic w i ing a e
no subs an ially di e en om hose ound in public discou se: I ound e idence
o labelling p ac ices in academia ha exclude mul ilinguals om geog aphic,
na ional, and linguis ic in-g oups and ma k hem as O he s.
Analysis e ealed h ee pai s o opoi in labelling p ac ices in academia:
• “Pe pe ual Mig an s”: Mul ilinguals a e mig an s.
“No om He e”: Mul ilinguals ha e a o eign o igin.
• “Fo eign Na ionals”: Mul ilinguals a e Tu ks, Chinese, …
“No Ou People”: Mul ilinguals a e no Ge man, Du ch, ….
• “No Na i e Speake s”: Mul ilinguals a e no na i e speake s o Spanish,
Du ch, …
“No o Ou Language”: Mul ilinguals a e no Ge man-, … speaking.
I showed ha each pai o opoi eeds in o one o h ee main, in e ela ed
s ands: (1) O he ing wi h espec o e i o ial belonging 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 lin-
guis ic O he s. These s ands hence mi o he ideological na ion-s a e nexus o
“one coun y, one na ion, one language”.
Examples came om publica ions ac oss di e en pe spec i es, subdisciplines,
and esea ch domains, unde lining how widesp ead such p ac ices a e in ou
ield. I a gued ha a oiding such labelling p ac ices is no only impo an om
he poin o iew o schola ly e minology, bu also o ou esea ch pe spec i e:
i mul ilinguals a e cons uc ed as O he s, his can lead o an implici bias ha
can ha e nega i e e ec s on ou esea ch.
54
3 O he ing o mul ilinguals in linguis ics: Implica ions om labelling
I illus a ed his p oblem wi h wo kinds o examples om esea ch on mul-
ilingual speake s, coming om he in es iga ion o u ban con ac dialec s and
he i age speake s, espec i ely. I showed ha in bo h a eas, we ind assump ions
ha ma ginalise mul ilingual speake s and hei linguis ic p ac ices wi h espec
o he socie y hey g ew up in: g amma ical pa e ns ound in mul ilingual speak-
e s we e alloca ed ou side he majo i y language g amma , and ele an a eas o
hei majo i y language p ac ices we e e ased. I a gued ha since hese claims
a e no backed by empi ical e idence, hey seem o be aken o sel -e iden , e-
lec ing implici biases. I showed ha he empi ical e idence a ailable so a is
in ac a odds wi h such claims, indica ing ha such biases can be misleading
o he linguis ic discussion and can p e en us om gaining no el insigh s in o
language s uc u e and language use.
Tha linguis ics is no ee om bias is no su p ising, o cou se – we a e pa
o socie y, and as such, we will be in luenced by i . Howe e , i we ind ecu ing
nega i e biases ac oss subdisciplines, i is impo an o e lec on his and aim o
o e come he ma ginalisa ion o mul ilinguals implici he e. The analysis o ou
labelling p ac ices and ela ed p oblems o ou esea ch pe spec i es has shown
ha despi e an ongoing discussion on mul ilingual pe spec i es in linguis ics,27
we s ill need o be awa e o ou own socie al p ejudices as esea che s.
As he examples sugges ed, he ma ginalisa ion o speake s migh lead us o
mo e eadily assume some kind o linguis ic isola ion o hem bo h a s uc-
u al and a usage le els. The associa ion o a coun y wi h a speci ic language
nega i ely a ec s ou pe spec i e on mul ilinguals, and i s associa ion wi h a
speci ic, e hnically imagined “na ion” will u he add o hei ma ginalisa ion i
hey come om a amily wi h mig a ion expe ience. The e hnolinguis ic impli-
ca ions inhe i ed om Eu opean na ion-s a e building lead o a cons uc ion o
such speake s as ou side s and a ec ou abili y as esea che s o app oach hem
as legi ima e speake s o hei languages, including he majo i y language o he
socie y hey g ew up in.
Re lec ing and o e coming such biases can also make ou esea ch mo e soci-
e ally ele an . In public discussion and poli ics, i could, o ins ance, suppo an
inclusion o mul ilinguals as membe s o he majo i y socie y and owne s o he
majo i y language. In he educa ional domain, i could lead o a di e en ocus,
one ha a ge s nega i e language ideologies in such key ac o s as eache s and
language he apis s, a he han p esumed insu icien language compe ences o
ma ginalised s uden s.28
27See, o ins ance, Canaga ajah (2007), Li (2016), Flo es (2017), Kupisch & Ro hman (2018),
Bay am e al. (2019), Wiese e al. (2021).
28See also Flo es (2019), Li (2021) on c i iques o assump ions on “academic language” in educa-
ion.
55
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
