Chap e 2
O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
Claudio Sca aglie i
Uni e si é de Lausanne
This con ibu ion desc ibes ways o O he ing o mul ilinguals in public discou se.
Based on a co pus o 49 ex s om Ge many, Aus ia and Swi ze land, I i s demon-
s a e ha mul ilinguals a e cha ac e ized as di e en om he ‘We’ g oup and la-
belled wi h e ms ha dis ega d hei mul ilingual capabili ies and ins ead po ay
hem as geog aphic, na ional o eligious o he s. This ‘being-di e en ’ om ‘Us’
is egula ly e alua ed in nega i e e ms, wi h mul ilinguals being blamed o , e.g.,
an isemi ism o homophobia in ‘Ou ’ socie y. The da a also shows ha hese labels
and he unde lying dis inc ions be ween ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ pe sis agains c i icism
and ha hey a e used o explain new social phenomena (like he de elopmen
o a pandemic). Taken oge he , his s udy no only allows us o unde s and how
O he ing o mul ilinguals p oceeds in he in es iga ed socie ies, bu also o econ-
s uc a e y na ow concep o he pe cei ed ‘We’ g oup. As academia in gene al,
and linguis ics in pa icula , is in luenced by he socie al con ex in which i ope -
a es, such olk concep s o ‘Us’ s. ‘Them’ ha e he po en ial o in luence linguis ic
esea ch – as e idenced by he con ibu ions o his olume.
1 In oduc ion
O he ing has been desc ibed as a language p ac ice ha dema ca es indi iduals
o g oups as dis inc ly di e en om he g oup he cu en speake iden i ies
wi h (Dahinden 2011, B ons 2015). O he ing iden i ies people as “alien” (B ons
2015) om ‘Us’ – he speake ’s g oup – and as belonging o a di e en g oup.
His o ically, such o he ing p ocesses ha e o en led o nega i e e alua ions o
he O he g oup (Sca aglie i & Zech 2013, Dahinden e al. 2014; Sca aglie i &
Luginbühl 2023) and ha e a imes been a basis o d as ic and coe ci e social
and poli ical measu es di ec ed a ha g oup (D akulić 1993, Mülle -Funk 2016:
Claudio Sca aglie i. 2025. O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y. In A emis Alexiadou,
Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede & Heike Wiese (eds.), The cons uc ion o
mul ilinguals as O he s: Do we p ac ice wha we p each?, 11–34. Be lin: Language
Science P ess. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17132441
Claudio Sca aglie i
141). In his con ibu ion, I aim o desc ibe ways in which mul ilinguals a e po -
ayed as O he s in socie y. To his end, I examine da a om public discou se in
Ge many, Swi ze land and Aus ia.1The da a demons a es 1) ha mul ilinguals
in hese coun ies a e o en po ayed as di e en om he majo i y socie y, 2)
he ways in which such O he ing p oceeds and 3) he ypes o O he ing c ea ed.
I show ha s udying p ocesses and p ac ices o O he ing no only ells us abou
how he O he g oup is pe cei ed, bu ha i also allows us o be e unde s and
how he majo i y pe cei es hemsel es. By desc ibing and discussing O he ing
in socie y, his con ibu ion aims o lay he g oundwo k o he a icles in his
olume ha in es iga e O he ing in science. Since science is connec ed o social
p ocesses in mul iple ways, mul iple in e dependencies be ween he way mul i-
linguals a e pe cei ed in socie y and science a e o be expec ed. This con ibu ion
a gues ha a clea and objec i e concep o mul ilinguals and mul ilingualism
ha does no os acize mul ilinguals as O he s, needs o be he basis o a mo e
open and non-disc imina ing social discou se abou mul ilinguals.
In he ollowing, I i s p esen he exis ing esea ch abou O he ness and O h-
e ing and discuss he main s ands in he discou se analy ic li e a u e abou he
po ayal o immig an s in he mass media. I hen b ie ly desc ibe he analy ic
p ocedu e and he da ase ha was used in his s udy. The s udy is explo a o y in
na u e and ollows a quali a i e app oach ha allows o a a he de ailed, hick
desc ip ion (Gee z 1973) o O he ing p ocesses bu does no claim ep esen a-
i eness o s a is ical signi icance. Ins ead, i aims a unco e ing some o he
mos impo an pa e ns in which O he ing o mul ilinguals p oceeds in public
discou se. In he Findings sec ion, I analyze six examples ha illus a e he di -
e en pa e ns o O he ing in my da a.2I i s desc ibe p ac ices o O he ing and
secondly demons a e ha O he ing is no es ic ed o exis ing social deba es,
bu will also be applied o new eme ging p oblems, like he Co id-19 pandemic
o he 2022 New Yea ’s E e io s in Ge many. Thi dly I will show ha O he -
ing equen ly leads o nega i e e alua ions o he O he g oup ha allows his
g oup o be blamed o socie al p oblems and hus o po ay he ‘own’ g oup in
mo e posi i e, desi able e ms. In he discussion sec ion, I poin ou he p inci-
ples ha guide O he ing p ocesses and he unde lying olk concep s o ‘Us’ s.
‘They’, i.e., he ideas ha guide he c ea ion o g oup membe ship in he in es-
iga ed socie ies. I close by ouching on he connec ions be ween scien i ic and
social discou se and by a guing o a di e en concep ualiza ion o mul ilinguals
in linguis ics and language science.
1All h ee o hese coun ies a e mul ilingual. In his con ibu ion, I will only s udy he Ge man-
language discou se in hese coun ies.
2Some o hese examples ha e al eady been b ie ly discussed in Wiese e al. 2022.
12
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
2 Resea ch on O he ing
The dis inc ion o same s. di e en cons i u es a undamen al p inciple o hu-
man pe cep ion (F eud 1913, Ma u ana & Va ela 1980, Taube 2015). This no only
holds ue om a biological o psychological indi idualis ic pe spec i e bu can
also been ans e ed o social p ocesses – people egula ly dis inguish be ween
hose hey pe cei e as belonging o hei own g oups s. hose pe cei ed as
membe s o ano he g oup (Gillespie 2007; Mülle -Funk 2016: 66). While such
p ocesses migh be seen as “na u al” (c . Gadame 2010: 374) and no pe se p ob-
lema ic, he linguis ic p ac ice o O he ing has been desc ibed in mo e c i ical
e ms (Dahinden 2011, Dahinden e al. 2014; Wiese e al. 2022). Linguis ic O h-
e ing p oceeds in wo basic s eps: Fi s , a dis inc ion is d awn be ween an In-
and an Ou -g oup, a g oup ‘We’ belong o s. a g oup ‘They’ belong o (Reisigl
2014). While he In-g oup is o en no e e ed o explici ly – implying ha who
‘We’ a e is sel -e iden and does no need o be explained – he O he g oup
is o en iden i ied ia a speci ic e m, e.g., as Jews, Muslims, o people wi h a
‘mig a ion backg ound’ (see below).3In a second s ep, nega i e a ibu es (like
delinquency o abuse o he social wel a e sys em) a e egula ly asc ibed o his
O he g oup. Much linguis ic esea ch has desc ibed such O he ing p ac ices in
public discou se in he mass media (see o example Jung e al. 1997, Reisigl &
Wodak 2001, Wengele 2003, Bu e wegge & Hen ges 2006; Con ad & Aðals eins-
dó i 2017; Holzbe g e al. 2018; Jo is e al. 2018; Amo es e al. 2020, Figou eux
2021, Sca aglie i & Luginbühl 2023). While a comple e su ey o he li e a u e is
no in ended he e, i has been shown ha immig an s – and hei o sp ing, i.e.,
child en bo n and aised in he espec i e coun y o immig a ion – ha e been
po ayed in mo e nega i e han posi i e e ms, i.e., ha nega i e a ibu es a e
asc ibed o he O he g oup. Among such a ibu es, he desc ip ion o immi-
g an s as c iminals is one o he phenomena mos in es iga ed in he li e a u e
(see e.g., Wengele 2003, de Ridde 2010, To e al. 2016, Con ad & Aðals einsdó -
i 2017, Sca aglie i 2018, Jo is e al. 2018, Holzbe g e al. 2018, Figou eux 2021,
Czyma a & an Klinge en 2022). O he impo an ames in his con ex a e ha
o immig an s as in ude s ( an Go p 2006; Sca aglie i 2018, Rheindo & Wodak
3One o he s iking aspec s o hese labels is ha a i s sigh hey appea o deno a e a clea ly
de ined social g oup, while in eali y he bounda ies o hese ca ego ies a e o en e y po ous
and his o ically unde go a p ocess o g adual ex ension. In he Ge man Nazi-s a e, o exam-
ple, he ca ego y o Jews included amilies and indi iduals who did no p ac ice hei belie
o gene a ions o who did no iden i y as Jewish bu had Jewish ances o s. In con empo a y
discou se in many Eu opean coun ies, people a e iden i ied as Muslims i hey o hei ances-
o s come om a majo i y Muslim coun y, ega dless o whe he hey p ac ice hei belie ,
iden i y as a heis s, agnos ics o belong o a eligious mino i y.
13
Claudio Sca aglie i
2018) pene a ing ‘ou ’ space despi e no belonging ‘he e’ o ha hey p oduce
p oblems and inancial cos s o he majo i y socie y (Sca aglie i & Zech 2013,
To e al. 2016, Con ad & Aðals einsdó i 2017, Jo is e al. 2018, Figou eux 2021).
These a ibu ions no only p esen he O he g oup in a nega i e ligh , bu also
implici ly sugges clea pa hs o dealing wi h his O he g oup – c iminals need o
be punished, in ude s need o be sen away, e en mo e so i hey a e esponsible
o social p oblems and ising social wel a e cos s. Thus, e en i such measu es
a e no explici ly called o in he espec i e O he ing ex s, asc ibing such cha -
ac e is ics o a social g oup implies a ce ain cou se o ac ion owa ds hem. The
same holds ue o he wa e me apho s e y equen ly used o desc ibe immi-
g an s as a lood o wa e o people. These me apho s p esen O he s as a mass o
uncoun able and uncon ollable objec s ha h ea en o wash o e ‘Ou ’ coun-
y and need o be deal wi h in ways app op ia e o na u al disas e s (Rehbein
1993, Jung e al. 1997, Wengele 2003, Jo is e al. 2018). O cou se, O he ing in
p inciple also allows o desc ibing he O he g oup in mo e posi i e o neu al
e ms. Especially pe sons leeing om wa zones ha e been desc ibed as ic ims
in he mass media ( an Go p 2006, Con ad & Aðals einsdó i 2017, Jo is e al.
2018, Holzbe g e al. 2018) and some imes hey a e also being amed as use ul
o bene icial (mos o en in economic o demog aphic e ms). These ca ego ies
a e o en used in he media o y o balance he epo ing on immig an s and
po ay he O he g oup in a less nega i e ligh , also wi h he aim o no eeding
acis na a i es and s e eo ypes.
While esea ch has in gene al been e y in e es ed in he desc ip ion o immi-
g an s in public discou se, e en linguis s ha e so a igno ed he language aspec
o O he ing, i.e., he O he ing o immig an s based on hei mul ilingual compe-
encies. Resea che s ha e ye o demons a e language as a sou ce o O he ing
and o desc ibe he ways in which linguis ic O he ing in socie y p oceeds ( o a
i s s ep see Sca aglie i 2022). The e o e, he p esen con ibu ion pu sues he
ollowing goals:
1. Documen cases o O he ing o mul ilinguals in public discou se;
2. Di e en ia e be ween di e en kinds o O he ing o mul ilinguals;
3. Desc ibe he a ibu es and labels used o O he ing mul ilinguals;
4. Elabo a e how, based on he indings o 1)-3), he ‘We’ g oup is cons uc ed
s. he O he g oup.
In he ollowing sec ion, I desc ibe he da a co pus and he analy ic app oach
ha we e used o pu sue hese goals.
14
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
3 Da a and analy ic app oach
This explo a o y s udy is based on a co pus o 49 ex s, including audio- and ideo
iles, om Ge many, Swi ze land, and Aus ia4. All elemen s o he da abase
a e jou nalis ic a icles o in e iews ha con ibu e o public discou se. The
da a does no con ain o um discussions o con ibu ions o social media, only
con ibu ions o adi ional news media (online and p in e sions o newspape s,
adio- and -p og ams).
The da a we e collec ed by Heike Wiese, who g aciously allowed me o use he
da a, and by mysel . Sampling ollowed a basic he meneu ic app oach – newspa-
pe a icles o con ibu ions o adio o TV p og ams we e collec ed i a i s
sigh hey seemed o con ibu e o he O he ing o Mul ilinguals o – mo e gen-
e ally – people po ayed as immig an s. This o cou se explains he a he small
co pus – we did no ga he all ex s abou language, mul ilingualism, o immi-
g an s, bu only such sou ces ha we e deemed ele an o he opic o his con-
ibu ion.
Following a i s eading, lis ening, o wa ching o he da a, I ansc ibed he
audio and ideo iles. Fo ansc ip ion, I op ed o ollow con en ions es ablished
in media linguis ics (Bu ge & Luginbühl 2014: 523) ha ocus on he e bal con-
en o he con ibu ions, less on pa alinguis ic o non e bal in o ma ion (c . Je -
e son 2004). I hen analyzed he da a acco ding o es ablished me hods o dis-
cou se analysis (Wodak & Meye 2009, Spi zmülle & Wa nke 2011), ocusing
pa icula ly on wha was said abou mul ilinguals, how hey we e po ayed,
whe he O he ing occu ed and how i p oceeded. My analy ic app oach hus
o e s in e p e a ions o he meanings o ex s, si ua es hem in he con ex in
which hey occu and discusses how hei meanings is cons uc ed (c . Richa d-
son 2019). In a ou h analy ic s ep, I dis inguished be ween di e en ypes o O h-
e ing appa en in he sou ce ex s. This dis inc ion was mainly based on which
aspec s he O he ing was g ounded in (e.g., geog aphy s. e hnic o na ional be-
longing).
Sampling and analysis hus ollowed hese ou s eps:
1. Fi s iew ( eading, lis ening, wa ching) and decision abou including he
sou ce in he co pus;
2. T ansc ip ion o audio and ideo sou ces;
4The discou se in he Ne he lands and in Du ch-speaking Belgium shows e y simila pa e ns
(Van Maele 2021, Sca aglie i 2022), bu due o space es ic ions his con ibu ion will be
limi ed o Ge man-language da a.
15
Claudio Sca aglie i
3. Close linguis ic analysis o he sou ces wi h ega ds o O he ing o mul i-
linguals;
4. Di e en ia ion o ypes o O he ing.
As men ioned, he s udy is explo a o y in na u e and does no claim ep esen-
a i eness o public discou se as such. Based on he limi ed da ase , i is also no
possible o make s a emen s abou he o e all equency o he pa e ns o O h-
e ing appa en in my da a. Despi e hese limi a ions, his con ibu ion is able o
demons a e ha O he ing o mul ilinguals exis s in he public discou se o he
espec i e coun ies and how such O he ing p oceeds. My s udy hus also aims o
lay he g oundwo k o u u e s udies ha would hen be able o use o ins ance
s a is ical me hods and a la ge da abase o examine he ep esen a i eness and
equency o he pa e ns desc ibed he e.
4 Findings
Despi e sampling o O he ing o mul ilinguals, a i s look a my da a e ealed
ha e en in his ca e ully chosen subse o public discou se, language is o en
dis ega ded o ea ed as a side-issue wi h limi ed ele ance o he o e a ch-
ing poin o he a icle. This o en means ha mul ilingual immig an s o hei
child en o g andchild en a e O he ed, wi hou men ioning hei mul ilingual
capabili ies (see ex ac s 3 and 5 below o examples). One o he e ec s o his
phenomenon is ha mul ilinguals a e no amed as pe sons who – by speaking
mul iple languages – ha e mo e capabili ies han he a e age monolingual mem-
be o he majo i y socie y. No men ioning mul ilingualism when alking abou
– and O he ing – immig an s hus conceals an impo an asse o he objec s o
he con ibu ion, which in u n lends i sel o po aying hem no as impo an
and con ibu ing membe s o socie y, bu as de icien , p oblem-inducing O h-
e s in need o suppo (c . Sca aglie i & Zech 2013). Con a y o wha would
be expec ed, he concealing o hei mul ilingualism hus does no con ibu e o
‘no malizing’ mul ilinguals – as one o he a ibu es ha possibly di e en ia es
‘Them’ om ‘Us’ is no men ioned – bu can ins ead be a pa o po aying hem
in nega i e e ms. The no men ioning o he mul ilingualism o O he s hus con-
ibu es o he second s ep o O he ing men ioned abo e, he nega i e e alua ion
o O he s o “c ude o he ing” acco ding o B ons (2015: 71).
One i s inding is hus ha o en he mul ilingual capabili ies o he immi-
g an popula ion a e no men ioned in public discou se. Ins ead, mul ilinguals
16
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
a e po ayed as geog aphic, e hnic, o na ional O he s (c . Wiese e al. 2022),
wi hou e e ing o language.
A ela ed inding is ha language is o en used as a ai , o dema ca e mul ilin-
guals as, o example, ‘non-Ge man-speaking’. In hese cases, linguis ic compe-
encies a e ea ed like labels, used in e changeably wi h o he labels dema ca -
ing he O he g oup. A i s example om a discussion abou educa ional policy
in he s a e pa liamen o Be lin illus a es his p ac ice (emphasis added).
(1) Ex ac 1: “Unequal oppo uni ies in inishing school”, Tagesspiegel, 22. 3.
2017
Melze [membe o pa liamen ; C.,S. ] also wan ed o know how
s uden s om immig an amilies compa e o hose om
Ge man-speaking amilies. His ques ion was, howe e , no answe ed
– ins ead, Sec e a y o S a e Rackles ga e him he o e all igu es –
Ge mans and mig an s oge he – as well as he sepa a e igu es o
mig an s. To be able o calcula e he school comple ion a es
sepa a ely o child en wi h and wi hou a mig an backg ound, one
would i s ha e o g ab a calcula o . I you don’ do ha , all you
ind ou is ha 34 pe cen o mig an s g adua e om high school a
he A-le el, while he a e o Be lin o e all is 47.4%.5
In his ex ac , a dis inc ion is made be ween on he one side “Ge mans”, “chil-
d en wi hou a mig a ion backg ound”, and “Ge man-speaking amilies”, and on
he o he side “immig an amilies”, “mig an s” and “child en wi h a mig a ion
backg ound”. Language is hus used as a ai o cha ac e ize some membe s o
socie y – hose ha a e “Ge man-speaking” – and o dis inguish hem om o he
membe s who do no ha e his ai . I also becomes clea ha ‘Ge man-speaking’
is jus one o he labels assigned o one o he wo g oups, which by e e se ma ks
he O he g oup as non-Ge man-speaking. This label is used e en hough bo h
g oups a end he Ge man educa ion sys em and – o a la ge ex en a leas –
we e bo n and aised in Ge many and hus ac ually do speak Ge man. This la-
belling is hus less abou he ac ual abili y o speak Ge man, bu mo e abou
whe he he child en speak ano he language besides Ge man. This O he ing
p ac ice hus leads o he pa adoxical si ua ion in which a g oup o child en ha
speaks Ge man is po ayed as non-Ge man-speaking because hey speak Ge -
man along wi h ano he language. O he ing he e is based on child en speaking
no only Ge man, bu also ano he language.
5Ex ac s a e p esen ed in ansla ion. The Ge man o iginals a e p o ided in he appendix.
17
Claudio Sca aglie i
Example 1 also illus a es he many cases in my co pus in which language is
p esen ed as a ai acqui ed by bi h, as i is he ac ha hese child en we e
bo n in o a amily ha speaks ano he language besides Ge man ha leads o
hem being O he ed as non-Ge man-speaking. I is hus no su p ising ha his
label is used in e changeably wi h o he labels such as “immig an ”, “mig an ” o
“mig a ion backg ound” ha a e also pe manen ly a ibu ed o he O he g oup.
A simila case is ex ac wo, whe e language- ela ed labels a e again used
oge he wi h labels ela ed o e hnic o geog aphic o igin (emphasis added):
(2) subexamples Ex ac 2 “An isemi ism among Muslim you h”,
Tagesspiegel, 5. 4. 2017
Acco ding o cu en knowledge, i is assumed ha i was A abic- and
Tu kish-speaking classma es who so mal ea ed his you h […]. The
compa isons show ha adolescen s o Tu kish and A ab o igin had
signi ican ly highe an isemi ic a i udes han Ge man adolescen s […].
The O he g oup is i s labelled as „A abic- and Tu kish-speaking”, hen as
o “Tu kish and A ab o igin” and as such nega i ely compa ed wi h membe s o
he ‘We’ g oup, as “Ge man” adolescen s had “signi ican ly” lowe “an isemi ic
a i udes”. Simila o example 1, language is used as a ai o di e en ia e he ‘We’
g oup and he O he g oup, in e changeably wi h an e hnic and o geog aphic
label ( he use o “Tu kish” and “A ab” he e can be unde s ood as e e ing o he
geog aphic o he e hnic o igin o he g oup). This di e en ia ion was ob iously
also he basis o he s udies ha compa ed he a i udes among hese g oups and
ha he au ho is e e ing o. The headline o he a icle – An isemi ism among
Muslim You h – demons a es ha Tu kish- and A abic-speaking and Tu kish
and A abic o igin a e used as synonyms o “Muslim” – hese di e en e hnic
and linguis ic g oups a e he e hus g ouped oge he unde a eligious label ha
ames hem as di e en om he ‘We’ g oup in eligious e ms. In e es ingly,
he ‘We’ g oup is no – nei he in his a icle no in o he cases in my co pus –
e e ed o as “Ch is ian”, p obably because such a label would be seen as much
oo b oad o be applied o he eligiously di e se o neu al membe s o he ‘We’
g oup.
As in ex ac 1, he ac ha bo h g oups do in ac speak Ge man – since
he a icle is abou s uden s in seconda y schools in Ge many – is dis ega ded.
This again shows ha language is no seen in ela ion o communica i e abili y,
bu as a ai acqui ed by bi h, o be used al e na i ely wi h e hnic, eligious
o geog aphic labels. I is impo an o no e ha he ac ha hese p oblema ic
a i udes we e de eloped in Ge many, i.e., in ‘Ou ’ socie y, is no b ough up.
18
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
The esponsibili y o he majo i y socie y o he eme gence o such a i udes
is no discussed. Ins ead, hese a i udes a e po ayed as some hing ha was
b ough o ‘Us’, was b ough ‘He e’, by he O he g oup. The esul ing p oblem
– an isemi ic beha io – is hus po ayed as a consequence o he ac ha he
O he g oup is ‘He e’, is a pa o ‘Ou ’ socie y.6
Ex ac 2 hus demons a es 1) ha linguis ic labels a e used in e changeably
wi h o he labels ela ed o e hnic, eligious o geog aphic amings (c . ex ac
1); 2) ha O he ing ca ego ies a e used o e alua e he O he g oup in decidedly
nega i e e ms and hold hem esponsible o p oblems in ‘Ou ’ coun y (c . be-
low ex ac 3); and 3) ha O he ing labels a e o en e y b oad (“Muslim”), while
he ‘We’ g oup seems o be seen in much mo e speci ic e ms. Nex o his, his
example also illus a es a endency in he Ge man da a ha ce ain labels (like
mig a ion backg ound) a e o en applied o you h whose pa en s o g andpa en s
come om Tu key o om A abic-speaking coun ies.7
So a , we ha e seen examples in which mul ilinguals a e O he ed in ways
ha dis ega d hei mul ilingual communica i e capabili ies and ins ead ea
language as a ai , as i i was acqui ed by bi h, in o de o label hem as mem-
be s o he O he g oup. In my da ase , language is usually no he p ime eason
o O he ing (bu see my de ailed discussion o ex ac 5, below), bu appea s o
be used as simply one mo e al e na i e o e e ing o he O he g oup and lend-
ing a en ion o one mo e aspec in which ha g oup is di e en . This o cou se
suppo s he i s inding men ioned abo e, ha he mul ilingual capabili ies o
mul ilinguals a e usually no e e ed o as an asse , i.e., as an ad an age ha he
O he g oup migh ha e o e ‘Ou ’ g oup o a esou ce hey con ibu e o ‘Ou ’
socie y ( o a dis inc ly posi i e pe spec i e on immig an mul ilingualism see
e.g., Rehbein 2013).
One o he al e na i es o he “non-Ge man-speaking” label is mig a ion back-
g ound (Mig a ionshin e g und in Ge man, mig a ie ach e g ond in Du ch), a
e m ha is used in all coun ies ha a e ep esen ed in my da ase . This label was
c ea ed in 2000 and has since gained popula i y bu has also ecei ed c i icism
(Sca aglie i & Zech 2013, Will 2018) because, among o he hings, i essen ializes
discou se as i canno be shed (a pe son will ha e a mig a ion backg ound hei
6In a e y simila example om Swi ze land, homophobic a i udes and beha io a e connec ed
o pe sons wi h “mig a ion backg ound”, again wi hou men ioning he ac ha hese O he
pe sons acqui ed hese a i udes in ‘Ou ’ socie y (Neue Zü che Zei ung, 20. 2. 2020, “Na ion-
ali y is no he eason why someone bea s up gays”).
7In ac , people ha e old me ha pe sons om Poland o o he Eas e n Eu opean coun ies did
no ha e a mig a ion backg ound as his label e e ed only o ‘Muslim’ you h o people om
he coun ies men ioned abo e (o al communica ion).
19
Claudio Sca aglie i
po ayed as a esou ce o an asse bu educed o no speaking Ge man. Sec-
ondly, he connec ion be ween immig a ion and mul ilinguals who do no speak
Ge man is amed e y nega i ely, mainly as p oducing p oblems in he Ge man
educa ion sys em (‘d agging classes down’ o building ‘pa allel wo lds’). Mul i-
ple imes du ing he exchange, speaking a language o he han Ge man a home
is depic ed as highly p oblema ic, wi h in e iewe , expe and e en a lis ene
ag eeing on his p oposi ion. One would expec ha his would lea e a s ong
imp ession on mos lis ene s o he p og am, especially since he connec ion
be ween mul ilinguals and p oblems o he educa ion sys em is made mul iple
imes in e y explici e ms and suppo ed by an in e na ionally enowned ex-
pe . Thi dly, i appea s as i coe ci e measu es a e sugges ed, designed o o ce
immig an amilies o speak Ge man (such a sugges ion is eminiscen o deeply
p oblema ic language policies ha his o ically ha e led o he ex inc ion o lan-
guages in some coun ies (B izic 2007)).
We also ind ha a clea dis inc ion is d awn be ween ‘Us’ and ‘Them’. This
is done o example by he expe poin ing ou ha membe s o educa ional
ins i u ions need o each ou o immig an pa en s and le hem know abou
he impo ance o speaking Ge man. Immig an s a e hus po ayed as special
cases ha , di e en ly om membe s o he majo i y socie y, need o be con ac ed
and in o med sepa a ely. Also, he no ion o “pa allel socie ies” is b ough up
mul iple imes, which sugges s ha immig an s ha e willingly chosen o o m
‘Thei ’ own socie y wi hin ‘Ou ’ socie y, o di e en ia e ‘Themsel es’ om ‘Us’.
Fu he mo e, he languages ha immig an s speak a home a e only men ioned
once – by he lis ene who is upse abou his neighbo speaking Tu kish wi h he
child – in all o he cases, he con e sa ion is conce ned wi h languages O he
han Ge man, which li e ally hin s a he O he ing ha is happening he e. This
is ein o ced in one o he ques ions – no e u ed by he in e iewee – ha
explici ly p esen s he ac ha he e a e less monolingual Ge man child en –
ou h g ade s who “always speak Ge man a home” – han en yea s ago as a
p oblem. Mul ilingualism is hus explici ly po ayed and accep ed as a p oblem
o ‘Ou ’ socie y.
Finally, he example demons a es ha he e is an en i e discou se s and ha
p oblema izes and O he s mul ilinguals, as a ious s udies o esea che s a e
e e ed o du ing he discussion. Those s udies a e used o suppo he O he ing
conduc ed in his con e sa ion, which makes i clea ha his discussion is no an
isola ed example bu based on p e-exis ing con ibu ions o public and scien i ic
discou se ha O he ing can ely on.
A six h and inal example illus a es ha linguis ic O he ing can also be ap-
plied o so-called au och honous mino i ies. As epo ed by nume ous ou le s
26
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
(ex ac 6: De Tagesspiegel , “Saxons s. So bs”, 7. 1. 2018; Neues Deu schland
“Hos ili y owa ds Na ionals”, 18. 1. 201813), he o me p ime minis e o he Ge -
man s a e Saxony, S anislaw Tillich, was publicly labelled non-Saxon: a e an-
o he poli ician had been elec ed as p ime-minis e , he mayo o a small Saxon
own s a ed ha “a leas now o he i s ime we ha e a Saxon as p ime minis-
e ” (De Tagesspiegel 7. 1. 2018) and la e explained ha he o he o me p ime
minis e s came om o he pa s o Ge many and he e o e could no be consid-
e ed Saxon, while Tillich, who was bo n and aised in Saxony, was a So b – a
membe o he o icially ecognized au och honous So bian mino i y in Saxony
– and hus no a Saxon. In his case, O he ing is hus no ela ed o immig a ion
bu o a pe son belonging o a mul ilingual mino i y. The ac ha Tillich was
bo n and aised in Saxony, s ongly iden i ies wi h he egion, and speaks Ge -
man as one o his na i e languages hus appa en ly does no su ice o him being
included in he ‘We’ g oup. Ins ead, him speaking a language besides Ge man
and iden i ying as a membe o a mino i y, leads o him being O he ed. We ind
ha a e y na ow concep o who ‘We’ a e unde lies his O he ing p ocess. I
discuss his concep in he nex sec ion and sum up wha I ound abou O he ing
o mul ilinguals in he da a.
5 Summa y and discussion
Be o e discussing he indings, I i s p esen a sho summa y o he pa e ns o
O he ing o mul ilinguals in public discou se ha a e isible in my da a.
• O he ing p oceeds by po aying people as di e en and labelling hem
wi h e ms ha exp ess O he ness (Wiese e al. 2022). In he examples
discussed abo e, some o hese labels we e ela ed o language (non-
Ge man speaking, Tu kish-speaking), o he s o e hnic (Tu kish, A ab) o
geog aphic o igin (mig an ) o eligion (Muslim). As poin ed ou , hese
labels a e o en e y b oad and do no desc ibe he O he g oup in much
de ail bu pick ou one aspec o dema ca e hem as O he .
• In my da ase , he mul ilingual capabili ies o mul ilinguals a e o en
no men ioned. Con a y o wha migh be expec ed, his does no wo k
agains O he ing, bu suppo s he nega i e e alua ion o he O he g oup
(‘c ude o he ing’ acco ding o B ons 2015: 71), as an impo an asse o he
g oup is concealed.
13This a icle can be ead he e: h ps://www.nd-ak uell.de/a ikel/1076671.inlaende eindlichkei .
h ml (las seen 22. 1. 2024)
27
Claudio Sca aglie i
• I language is men ioned in hese con ex s, i is almos always po ayed
as a ixed ai , no as communica i e abili y. The language label (non-
Ge man-speaking e c.) is hen used in e changeably wi h o he essen ialis
and b oad ways o labelling such as “immig an ”, “mig a ion backg ound”
o “Muslim”.
• Such essen ialis labels (“mig a ion backg ound” e c.) – be hey ela ed
o language o no –and he co esponding dis inc ions a e upheld and
eused e en agains explici c i icism. They a e also applied o new social
phenomena (like a pandemic, io s e c.).
• O he ing is o en combined wi h clea ly nega i e e alua ions o he O he
g oup, which makes i possible o blame social p oblems (homophobia, an-
isemi ism, bad pe o mance o he educa ion sys em) on he O he g oup.
This also has he e ec o po aying he ‘We’ g oup in mo e posi i e e ms
(c . Gillespie 2007: 580), as hey a e p esen ed as less esponsible o exis -
ing socie al p oblems.
• The dis inc ion o ‘Us’ s. ‘Them’ and he clea ly nega i e e alua ion o
he O he g oup can lead o he sugges ion o coe ci e measu es agains
his g oup (c . D akulić 1993, Sca aglie i & Zech 2013, B ons 2015).
• O he ing is no es ic ed o mul ilinguals who mig a ed o whose ances-
o s did so bu can also be applied o au och honous mino i ies (c . Wiese
e al. 2022).
These indings hus illus a e how O he ing p oceeds and he e ms in which
O he s a e po ayed and labelled. mul ilinguals a e labelled as linguis ic O he s,
geog aphic O he s, na ional, e hnic, o eligious O he s (Wiese e al. 2022). Since
he O he g oup is o en i no always po ayed agains he backd op o he ‘We’
g oup, my indings also allow o conclusions abou impo an ai s asc ibed o
his ‘We’ g oup. Acco ding o my da a, a pe son will be conside ed a membe o
he ‘We’ g oup i hey hold he ollowing ai s:
• ‘We’ we e bo n and aised ‘he e’, i.e., ‘We’ ha e no amilial o indi idual
expe ience o c oss-bo de mig a ion. ’He e’ is ela ed o na ional bo de s,
people who mig a ed wi hin a coun y a e gene ally accep ed as pa o
he ‘We’ g oup;
• ’We’ a e membe s o he socially dominan ‘e hnic’ (c . Redde 2011) g oup;
28
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
• ’We’ a e ‘na i e speake s’ o he socially dominan language and do no
speak ano he language on a na i e-like le el.
Anyone who di e s in one o mul iple o hese aspec s om hese ea u es is
pe cei ed and labelled as O he in ways discussed abo e. The da a also shows
ha he bounda ies be ween hese g oups a e pe cei ed as e y sha p – indi id-
uals o g oups a e po ayed as pa o ei he g oup, hey canno belong o bo h
he ‘We’ and he ‘They’ g oup.14
We hus ind ha in social public discou se, he e exis s a commonsense o olk
concep abou who ‘We’ a e s. who ‘They’ a e. Ehlich (1993: 210) unde s ands
such e e yday o olk concep s (All agskonzep e) as basic ideas abou eali y,
incl. na u e, socie y o cul u e, ha guide how we ac ou sel es and how we
unde s and he ac ions o o he s in o dina y e e yday con ex s. Due o hei e y
undamen al na u e, many indi iduals o en a e no consciously awa e o such
olk concep s, and hey migh pe cei e hem as sel -e iden p esupposi ions ha
need no be c i icized Such olk concep s migh hen appea impossible o discuss
o decons uc . Con a y o me hods o heo ies – which in science a e egula ly
made he objec s o in ense e lec ion, discussion and e ision – such basic ideas
and p e-concep s can he e o e become unanalyzed pa s o esea ch p ocesses
(Ehlich 1993). Since he e a e mul iple connec ions be ween science and socie y
– including pe sonal, inancial, in as uc u al, legal and epis emic connec ions
– science is in gene al in luenced by he social sys em in which i is conduc ed
(e.g., MacIn y e 1987, Rosa 1998). This holds especially ue o ideas abou who
we a e and wha cons i u es us as a socie y – ideas ha o m he ounda ion
o collec i e and indi idual iden i y (Taylo 1989). As he con ibu ions o his
olume show, he unanalyzed, o en unconscious no ion ha Mu lilinguals a e
O he s, is no only p esen in public discou se bu has con inued o in luence
language science o decades and has o en o med one o he s a ing poin s
o scien i ic unde akings in he linguis ic ield. I a gue ha linguis ics needs o
discuss and decons uc his dis inc ion o be able o push o a mo e open and
egali a ian socie al discou se abou linguis ic belonging.
14The e a e ew excep ions o his ule, namely a icles ha po ay indi iduals in de ail and
discuss con adic o y eelings o belonging, o en o mul ilingual immig an s o hei child en.
In hese con ibu ions howe e , i is usually poin ed ou ha po aying someone as eeling
like hey belong o mul iple g oups is uncon en ional and di icul and ha i goes agains he
gene al way o unde s anding iden i y and belonging.
29
Claudio Sca aglie i
Acknowledgemen s
I hank my co-edi o s as well as wo anonymous e iewe s o ex ensi e and e y
help ul commen s on his s udy. I also hank he pa icipan s o he O he ing
wo kshop conduc ed in Be lin in July 2022 o hei commen s on his s udy.
Re e ences
Amo es, Ja ie J., Ca los A cila-Calde ón & Bea iz González-de-Ga ay. 2020.
The gende ed ep esen a ion o e ugees: Using isual ames in he main Wes -
e n Eu opean media. Gende Issues 37(4). 291–314. DOI: 10.1007/s12147-020-
09248-1.
B izic, Ka ha ina. 2007. Das geheime Leben de Sp achen: Gesp ochene und e -
schwiegene Sp achen und ih Ein luss au den Sp ache we b in de Mig a ion
(In e na ionale Hochschulsch i en 465). Müns e : Waxmann.
B ons, Lajos. 2015. O he ing, an analysis. T anscience 6(1). 69–90.
Bu ge , Ha ald & Ma in Luginbühl. 2014. Mediensp ache: Eine Ein üh ung in
Sp ache und Kommunika ions o men de Massenmedien. 4. neu bea bei e e und
e wei e e Au lage. Be lin: de G uy e .
Bu e wegge, Ch is oph & Gud un Hen ges (eds.). 2006. Massenmedien, Mig a-
ion und In eg a ion: He aus o de ungen ü Jou nalismus und poli ische Bildung
(In e kul u elle S udien 17). Wiesbaden: VS. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-531-90207-4.
Con ad, Maximilian & Hug ún Aðals einsdó i . 2017. Unde s anding Ge many’s
sho -li ed “cul u e o welcome”: Images o e ugees in h ee leading Ge man
quali y newspape s. Ge man Poli ics & Socie y 35(4). 1–21.
Czyma a, Ch is ian S. & Ma ijn an Klinge en. 2022. New pe spec i e? Com-
pa ing ame occu ence in online and adi ional news media epo ing on
Eu ope’s “mig a ion c isis”. Communica ions 47(1). 136–162. DOI: 10.31235/os .
io/h3 py.
Dahinden, Janine. 2011. „Kul u “ als Fo m symbolische Gewal : G enzziehungsp o-
zesse im Kon ex on Mig a ion am Beispiel de Schweiz. Neuchâ el.
Dahinden, Janine, Ke s in Duemmle & Joëlle Mo e . 2014. Disen angling eli-
gious, e hnic and gende ed con en s in bounda y wo k: How young adul s
c ea e he igu e o “ he opp essed muslim woman”. Jou nal o In e cul u al
S udies 35(4). 329–348. DOI: 10.1080/07256868.2014.913013.
de Ridde , Ka leen. 2010. De wi e media: O waa om “alloch onen” al ijd slech
nieuws zijn. Tiel : Lannoo.
Des a is. 2021. Be ölke ung und Demog a ie: Auszug aus dem Da en epo 2021.
Wiesbaden: S a is isches Bundesam .
30
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
D akulić, Sla enka. 1993. The Balkan exp ess: F agmen s om he o he side o wa .
New Yo k: No on.
Ehlich, Kon ad. 1993. Quali ä en des Quan i a i en: Quali ä en des Quali a i en:
Theo e ische Übe legungen zu eine gängigen Un e scheidung im Wissen-
scha sbe ieb. In Johannes-Pe e Timm & Helmu J. Vollme (eds.), Kon o-
e sen in de F emdsp achen o schung (Bei äge zu F emdsp achen o schung),
201–222. Bochum: B ockmeye .
Figou eux, Ma ie. 2021. “S ange dange !”: Mapping he (coun e -) aming, pe cep-
ion o , and esponse s a egies o mig a ion and adicalisa ion in Belgium. Leu-
en: KU Leu en. (Doc o al disse a ion). h ps://li ias.kuleu en.be/3519199.
F eud, Sigmund. 1913. The in e p e a ion o d eams. T ans. by Ab aham A. B ill.
New Yo k: Macmillan.
Gadame , Hans-Geo g. 2010. Wah hei und Me hode: G undzüge eine philosophi-
schen He meneu ik. 7., du chgesehene Au lage. Tübingen: Moh .
Gee z, Cli o d. 1973. The in e p e a ion o cul u es: Selec ed essays. New Yo k:
Basic Books.
Gillespie, Alex. 2007. Collapsing sel /o he posi ions: Iden i ica ion h ough di -
e en ia ion. The B i ish Jou nal o Social Psychology 46(P 3). 579–595. DOI:
10.1348/014466606X155439.
G esch, Co nelia & Co nelia Ki s en. 2011. S aa sbü ge scha ode Mig a ions-
hin e g und? Ein Ve gleich un e schiedliche Ope a ionalisie ungsweisen am
Beispiel de Bildungsbe eiligung. Zei sch i ü Soziologie 40(3). 208–227.
Holzbe g, Billy, K is ina Kolbe & Ra al Zabo owski. 2018. Figu es o c isis: The
delinea ion o (un)dese ing e ugees in he Ge man media. Sociology 52(3).
534–550. DOI: 10.1177/0038038518759460.
Je e son, Gail. 2004. Glossa y o ansc ip symbols wi h an in oduc ion. In
Gene H. Le ne (ed.), Con e sa ion analysis: S udies om he i s gene a ion
(P agma ics & beyond 125), 13–31. Ams e dam: Benjamins.
Jo is, Willem, Leen d’Haenens, Baldwin an Go p & S e an Me ens. 2018. The
e ugee c isis in Eu ope: A ame analysis o Eu opean newspape s. In Sai Fe-
licia K ishna-Hensel (ed.), Mig an s, e ugees, and he media (Global in e disci-
plina y s udies se ies), 59–80. Abingdon: Rou ledge.
Jung, Ma hias, Ma in Wengele & Ka in Böke (eds.). 1997. Die Sp ache des Mi-
g a ionsdisku ses: Das Reden übe „Auslände “ in Medien, Poli ik und All ag. Op-
laden: Wes deu sche Ve lag.
Lako , Geo ge & Ma k Johnson. 1980. Me apho s we li e by. Chicago: Uni e si y
o Chicago P ess.
Lange, Imke & Ing id Gogolin. 2010. Du chgängige Sp achbildung: Eine Hand ei-
chung. Müns e : Waxmann.
31
Claudio Sca aglie i
Lohndal, Te je, Jason Ro hman, Tanja Kupisch & Ma i Wes e gaa d. 2019. He -
i age language acquisi ion: Wha i e eals and why i is impo an o o -
mal linguis ic heo ies. Language and Linguis ics Compass 13(12). e12357. DOI:
10.1111/lnc3.12357.
MacIn y e, Alasdai . 1987. A e i ue: A s udy in mo al heo y. 2. (co .) ed. (wi h
Pos sc ip ). London: Duckwo h.
Ma u ana, Humbe o & F ancisco Va ela. 1980. Au opoiesis and cogni ion. Do -
d ech : Reidel.
Meche il, Paul & İnci Di im. 2010. Die Schlech e s ellung Mig a ionsande e :
Schule in de Mig a ionsgesellscha . In Paul Meche il, Ma io do Ma Cas o
Va ela, İnci Di im, Anni a Kalpaka & Claus Mel e (eds.), Mig a ionspädagogik
(S udium Paedagogik), 121–149. Weinheim: Bel z.
Mon ana i, Elke. 2019. Mi zwei Sp achen g oß we den: Meh sp achige E ziehung
in Familie, Kinde ga en und Schule. 14 h edn. München: Kösel.
Mülle -Funk, Wol gang. 2016. Theo ien des F emden (Uni-Taschenbüche 4569).
Tübingen: F ancke. DOI: 10.36198/9783838545691.
OECD. 2009. Childen o immig an s in he labou ma ke s o EU and o he OECD
coun ies: An o e iew. Pa is.
Redde , Angelika. 2011. „E hnizi ä “ und Meh sp achigkei . Linguis ik und Li e a-
u wissenscha 64. 71–92.
Rehbein, Jochen. 1993. „Und diese unkon ollie e Zus om...“: Anme kungen
zum poli ischen Disku s heu e. In Wol Pe e Klein & Ingwe Paul (eds.),
Sp achliche Au me ksamkei , 156–164. Heidelbe g: Win e .
Rehbein, Jochen. 2013. The u u e o mul ilingualism: Towa ds a HELIX o soci-
e al mul ilingualism unde global auspices. In K is in Büh ig & Be nd Meye
(eds.), T ans e ing linguis ic know-how in o ins i u ional p ac ice (Hambu g
s udies on mul ilingualism), 43–83. Ams e dam: John Benjamins.
Reisigl, Ma in. 2014. Ös e eichische Rech spopulismus im Zei al e on Medi-
endemok a ie und mediale E lebnisgesellscha . In F anz Januschek & Ma -
in Reisigl (eds.), Populismus in de digi alen Mediendemok a ie (Osnab ücke
Bei äge zu Sp ach heo ie), 71–99. Osnab ück: Uni e si ä s e lag Rhein-
Ruh .
Reisigl, Ma in & Ru h Wodak. 2001. Discou se and disc imina ion: Rhe o ics o
acism and an isemi ism. London: Rou ledge.
Rheindo , Ma kus & Ru h Wodak. 2018. Bo de s, ences, and limi s: P o ec ing
Aus ia om e ugees: Me adiscu si e nego ia ion o meaning in he cu en
e ugee c isis. Jou nal o Immig an & Re ugee S udies 16(1-2). 15–38. DOI: 10.
1080/15562948.2017.1302032.
32
2 O he ing o mul ilinguals in socie y
Richa dson, John E. 2019. Analysing newspape s: An app oach om c i ical dis-
cou se analysis. 3 d edn. London: Macmillan.
Rosa, Ha mu . 1998. Iden i ä und kul u elle P axis: Poli ische Philosophie nach
Cha les Taylo . F ank u a. M.: Campus.
Sca aglie i, Claudio. 2018. Das F emde in de Linguis ic Landscape: Die Plaka e
de Schweize SVP und ih e disku si e Ve a bei ung. In Melanie Ulz & Ch i-
s oph Rass (eds.), Mig a ion ein Bild geben (Mig a ions egime), 327–355. Hei-
delbe g: Sp inge .
Sca aglie i, Claudio. 2022. The socie al con ex o O he ing in linguis ics. Talk
gi en a he Wo kshop “Do we p ac ice wha we p each?”, a Humbold -
Uni e si ä zu Be lin, 11 h July 2022.
Sca aglie i, Claudio & Ma in Luginbühl. 2023. The social semio ics o Swi ze -
land’s a igh : How campaign pos e s by he Swiss Na ional Pa y commu-
nica e ac oss di e en domains. Social Semio ics 34(4). 671–696. DOI: 10.1080/
10350330.2023.2178295.
Sca aglie i, Claudio & Claudia Zech. 2013. „Ganz no male Jugendliche, alle d-
ings meis mi Mig a ionshin e g und“: Eine unk ional-seman ische Analyse
on „Mig a ionshin e g und“. Zei sch i ü Angewand e Linguis ik 58. 201–
227.
Spi zmülle , Jü gen & Ingo Wa nke. 2011. Disku slinguis ik: Eine Ein üh ung in
Theo ien und Me hoden de ans ex uellen Sp achanalyse. Be lin: de G uy e .
Taube , Al ed I. 2015. “The o he ” wi hin: F eud’s ep esen a ion o he mind. In
Da id Goodman & Ma k Philip F eeman (eds.), Psychology and he o he , 71–93.
Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. DOI: 10.1093/acp o :oso/9780199324804.003.
0005.
Taylo , Cha les. 1989. Sou ces o he sel : The making o he mode n iden i y. Cam-
b idge: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
To , Maheba Nu ia Goedeke, La s Guen he & Geo g Ruh mann. 2016. Von k im-
inell bis willkommen: Wie die He kun übe das mediale F aming on Ein-
wande e n en scheide . Medien & Kommunika ionswissenscha 64(4). 497–517.
DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2016-4-497.
T acy, Rosema ie. 2008. Wie Kinde Sp achen le nen und wie wi sie dabei un e -
s ü zen können. 2nd edn. Tübingen: Na F ancke A emp o.
an Go p, Baldwin. 2006. F aming asiel: Ind inge s en slach o e s in de pe s. Leu-
en: Acco.
Van Maele, Ina. 2021. Massenmediale Disku se übe Mig a ion in Deu schland und
Belgien: Ein Ve gleich zwischen Männe n und F auen. Ghen : Ghen Uni e si y.
(MA hesis).
33
Claudio Sca aglie i
Wengele , Ma in. 2003. Topos und Disku s: Beg ündung eine a gumen a ionsan-
aly ischen Me hode und ih e Anwendung au den Mig a ionsdisku s (1960-1985)
(Reihe ge manis ische Linguis ik 244). Tübingen: Niemeye .
Wiese, Heike, A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i & Ch is oph Sch oede .
2022. Mul ilinguals as O he s in socie y and academia: Challenges o belong-
ing unde a monolingual habi us. Wo king Pape s in U ban Language & Li e a-
cies 302. h ps://wpull.o g/wp-con en /uploads/2022/10/WP302-Wiese-e -al-
2022-Mul ilinguals-as-o he s.pd .
Wiese, Heike, Rosema ie T acy & Anke Sennema. 2020. Deu schp lich au dem
Schulho ? Wa um wi Meh sp achigkei b auchen. Mannheim: Duden.
Will, Anne-Ka h in. 2018. Mig a ionshin e g und im Mik ozensus: Wie we den Zu-
wande e und ih e Nachkommen in de S a is ik e ass ? Be lin: Mediendiens
In eg a ion.
Wodak, Ru h & Michael Meye (eds.). 2009. Me hods o c i ical discou se analysis.
2nd edn. Los Angeles: SAGE.
34
