The view from within: Gendered language ideologies of multilingual speakers in contemporary Berlin

Drawing on interview data Kiezdeutsch, we argue that a focus gendered language ideologies is much needed to understand the social meanings ascribed multiethnolectal practices. By attuning carefully nuanced, subjective ideological stances of young multilingual women, show at interactional level, Kiezdeutsch constructed as consequence interviewees' practice and thus activates sense belonging entitlement. At macro however, speech community tied up with representation racialized ethnicized ‘other’ in mainstream, dominant public discourse prevalent Germany. As males are more salient figure construction this ‘other’, then becomes indexed masculinity—even within peer group. Saying used among friends presents only partial picture how, for girls using socially sanctioned both sphere private settings. Anhand von Interviewdaten zu zeigen wir, dass ein genauerer Blick auf der Gender-Dimension Sprachideologien dringend erforderlich ist, um die sozialen Bedeutungen verstehen, mit multiethnolektalen Praktiken verbunden sind. Analyse nuancierter, subjektiver junger Frauen wird gezeigt, Interaktionsebene als Folge mehrsprachigen Praxis Befragten konstruiert und somit Gefühl Zugehörigkeit Berechtigung entsteht. Auf Makroebene ist einer Sprachgemeinschaft jedoch Repräsentation eines rassifizierten ethnisierten ‘Anderen’ im öffentlichen Mainstream-Diskurs verknüpft. Da junge Männer Konstruktion dieses hervorstechendste Figur sind, Männlichkeit indiziert—und dies auch innerhalb Peer-Group. Die Annahme, Freundeskreis verwendet wird, gibt also nur unvollständiges Bild davon wieder, wie Verwendung des Multiethnolekts für Mädchen sowohl privaten Bereich sozial sanktioniert wird. The last few decades have produced growing body research devoted linguistic practices urban, multiethnic spaces. To how processes identity not but avoided by individuals groups, shift ‘the aspects differentiation’ (Irvine & Gal, 2000, p. 35) has taken place sociolinguistic research. products, styles, sometimes reduced features perception, tend be associated categories ‘particular groups via metapragmatic stereotypes’ (Bucholtz, 2009, 147; referring Agha, 2007). This why stylistic should always interpreted regard they being to. previous accounts regimentation space (Hill, 1998), discourses who entitled speak differently than (perceived; white) norm gendered. In context, interested women ‘with migration background’1 living Berlin practices, and, crucially, self-report their use identity, whether identify speakers variety or not. Following Quist (2008, 44), define multiethnolect ‘a “something,” style, which developed urban communities mixed ethnic groups’. core paper idea while adopting some given style may rewarding situations investigating these permeated shaped broader ideologies, come actors, same time, distance themselves from stereotypes level. One varieties relatively present (local) (‘neighborhood German’). Although known spoken all genders (Bunk Pohle, 2019, 121; Wiese, 2017, 334), show, basis semi-structured interviews conducted women's centre Kreuzberg, needed. friends, other hand, consequence, females, speaking across contexts. sphere, seen negatively because it attached an failed integration. settings well—and crucial point—even disapproved deemed inappropriate girls. While expectedly interact, new aspect our study predominant role gender plays revolving around contrary what observations shown. divided follows. We first briefly review performances style. next section, describe were conducted, lead unique viewpoint. discussion level ‘direct indexicality’ (Ochs, 1992), connect forms stances, ‘indirect indexicality’, typical behaviors, situations, individuals, ‘become particular types believed take such stances’ 148). On basis, three themes spontaneously emerged interactions interviewees, appropriate vast majority one common strategy cope stigma pursue politics nonvisibility consistently trying avoid even group where tolerated. Mirroring biased participants construct product speakers, per extension, index people low status. central category interviewees internalized ‘verbal hygiene’ (Cameron, 1995) specifically geared towards pervades expectations, norms perceptions use. finally turn ways through resist metalinguistic assessments. Our indeed simultaneously boys’ oppose double standards subjected ‘double standards’, mean application different sets principles are, principle, same: whereas remains unmarked, females inappropriate. multiethnolects probably been exposed explicitly refer to, literally means ‘neighborhood German’. Note term Kiez positively connoted (Wardhaugh Fuller, 2015, 44) neighborhoods specifically. monolingual German (Wiese, 335), remains, ‘associated groups’ (Quist, 2008, 44). Per perceived having trajectory, if who, outside perspective, fall into category, it. Because young, remain held esteem ‘products decay’ amounting ‘real’ (Krämer, 115). Heated condemnatory debates combined general preservation pervasive many countries (see Straattaal Netherlands [Nortier, 2017], London Multicultural English United Kingdom [Kircher Fox, 2019], rinkebysvenska Sweden [Milani, 2010], multicultural Paris French France [Secova et al., 2018]). Germany, field investigation, users—or such, although way speaking—as ‘outsiders’ foreign nonstandard 2017). notion ‘impoverished’ background’ goes far beyond prestige regional dialectal standard languages various contexts, specificity revolves varieties, would deserve status dialect, For reason, incorporate elements languages, contrast, opposition language, German. will elements, turn, ‘non-Germanness’. Gendered styles complexify more, assessments uses often identities (Keim, 2007; Spreckels, 2006). Importantly, actually Thus, ethnographic (gendered) high school context (Eckert, 1989; Mendoza-Denton, 1996). Rather, Germany already widely studied, yet primarily phonological, morphosyntactic lexical (Auer, 2003; Kern Selting, 2006; 2009), propose move ideologies. stigmatization portrayed (Cano?lu, 2012; Dirim Auer, 2004; 340ff.), effects largely unexplored, so. recognize when asked say them, talked prefer represents. Both expected Kiezdeutsch. Within research, played spreading explored quantitatively. adopt men, stigmatized variants men (Labov, Especially youth ‘general pattern [is] least clear nonstandardisms (particularly grammatical) concerned, early adolescence on, them females’ 2014, 533). his Androutsopoulos (2005, 1500) contrasting shows found vernacular 1989). Another approach intersection between age, interaction Stenström, 2003) (Mendoza-Denton, 1996; Miller, 2004) 1990s, Ochs had underlined important investigate relation set could correlated look assessment constructing ideologies: Knowledge relates catalogue correlations sex referents, addressees, like. knowledge entails tacit understanding (1) can perform pragmatic work (such conveying stance action) (2) norms, preferences, expectations regarding distribution vis-à-vis addressees. discuss terms revealing simply identifying directly marking men's speech. 1992, 342) suggests indexical relationship meaning takes two levels. Direct indexicality refers imbued These become associated, indirect indexicality, groups—and play. Over anymore, performing certain larger groups. connecting ‘macro’ ‘micro’ levels, do exist ‘as ready-made platforms practice, life unfolded less intimate, proximate, local, grounded contained situations’ (Carr Lempert, 2016, 8). suggest that, constructs, micro levels give us insights make worlds allow see ‘explanatory power beliefs part systems organized’ (Cavanaugh, 2020, 55). in, then, ones ideologically linked gender, or, specifically, imagined personae. single feature does not, itself, build clusters semiotic signs, expressions particularly stand symbol type persona. typically borrowings. They full range disaffiliate represents main grounds. First, want framed Second, exposing intern contradictions inherent judgements, partly fulfill her training professional engagement, since 2018, Martina working aimed empowering racism facilitating career supporting educational path. white woman thirties. She grew European country speaks fluently identifies nonnative speaker, she spoke Italian school. mostly students voluntarily participate program offered women. association premises study, get advice hang out. Teachers, teacher trainees, workers offer individual consultations register beginning year. meet once week hours. eight interviews2 analysis involve (between 16 23 years old) born parents another nationality multilinguals. combination daily was Turkish specific criterion selecting interviews, system was. Indeed, position raised described migration’ inspired (on negative connotations Migrationshintergrund, Scarvaglieri Zech, 2013). Prior did assume expected, went go spend time (Kreuzberg), mentor coach Aylin, Fiona, Edna Kevser3 prepared Abitur (the A level) during apprenticeship. seeing each year close familiarity. Most reflect willingness enthusiasm participating eagerness share personal (including negative) experiences. Ruja student took ago, today herself trainee younger colleague Martina. (Esra, Selma Cynthia) know so closely before, frequent prior interviews. familiar place, feel confident comfortable. major difference compared studies, discussions school, usually classroom, extra room reserved extracurricular activities 102). conceived broadest possible, no assumption hear. order let unelicited accounts, 1-hr long structured loose topics ‘which allowed develop freely gain insight categorize account interaction’ (Laihonen, 674). included (a) biographical information; (b) codes repertoire; (c) perception; (d) own positioning. comparison, internal perception relied open guise shorter lived Kreuzberg 2019). Bearing mind communicative events mere reproduction think (Briggs, 1986), provide valuable discursively (re)construct 1993; Laihonen, 2008; Liebscher Dailey-O'Cain, 2009). phrasing questions influences unfolds, example turns answer question interviewer, proceed narratives. sum, approach, circulating models starting point local work’ (Wortham, 91). follows, dissociate ‘Kiezdeutsch speakers’ interrelated identities. motif It explained association, overt extension ‘foreigners’ socioeconomic group, it, viewed potentially harmful. disaffiliation seem paradoxical first: precisely speakers. authorized discussing supposed pointed out Hill US ‘white space’ heterogeneity multilingualism desirable asset majority, populations, subject devaluation hypervisibility 1998, 684). believe indexes multilingualism, ‘non-Germanness’, othering drive nonvisibility, relegate male covert settings, female possibilities find ‘linguistic disorder’ matter where, When presented patterns Kiezdeutsch,4 reject like this, still mention features, leading informants (partly involuntarily) ‘re-labelled’ again though openly state such: Example 1.‘I definitely don't that’ (Selma_2020.01.29_31:58-32:29). (1), Selma, 18-year-old lives clearly disaffiliates shown features. formal descriptive 2009): loaned migrant heritage including, particles yalla (from Arabic, ‘let's go’) lan Turkish, vocative particle address, roughly equivalent ‘dude’), phonological coronalization /ç/, yields pronunciations ‘isch’ ‘ich’ (but exclusive dialects, 2004, 207); grammatical ‘reduction’, including zero copula (omission linking verbs predicate), absent morphological inflection nouns verbs, tendency V3 (verb-third) word order. Interestingly, difficulty saying items distancing reductions, suggesting innovations accepted ones. Lexical borrowings regarded interviewee's Turkish-speaking community. (2), quoted divides world ‘pure Germans’ ‘people background’: 2.‘it's Germans speak’ (Selma_2020.01.30_15:00-16:43). explains captures fact just group’ pp. 48–49), populations descent, ‘families ONLY German’ (l. 20). Six confirm view, depending environment, example, indexing essentialism dichotomy versus non-German) reproduced. Regarded problematic (‘street German’, l. 1), functions marker (‘I counted me it’, 2), precisely, rest extract, ethnicity. ‘not 5). Selma's ‘Germans’ reports heard ‘teenagers I […] pure 8), air quotes 6) metapragmatically disaligns label ‘Germans’, altogether: well. looking explanations experience does, ‘unusual 4). navigating several judges those teenagers adults background, prestige, reflects everyday locus multiple acknowledged, valued. aware peers Kiezdeutsch: ‘there thought you German?’ 11). sense, but, ‘multiethnolect’ 2019; Nortier Dorleijn, 2013; sum up, Still, reconstruct deficient, legitimate ethnicity reflected Kevser, Edna, Esra), following extract successfully passed Abitur, qualification granted end secondary education, interview: 3.‘Germans pretend foreigner’ (Aylin_2019.08.22_21:00-22:23). crossing ‘Germans 1) instances (momentarily) switch ‘is generally “belong” them’ 2006, 490; Rampton, 1995). assuming possibly cool, ‘foreign’ mirroring (biased) perception. ‘foreigner’ (Ausländer) derogatory history exclusion non-German descent. (in 80s) process really exactly (and not) mean, distinguished culture’ (Mannitz Schneider, 81). Here again, discursive ‘conceptualisation non-German’ ‘alloethnic “foreigners” “migrants”’ 354)—that is, otherwise able ‘good home choosing strategies minimize visibility (4), Aylin connects facing transport: 4.‘typical people’ (Aylin_2019.08.22_18:32-19:27). t