1. Introduction
Domestic work is a globally organized labor market. In this sector, several trends can be observed on a global scale. Firstly, there is a high demand on the part of private households to outsource domestic work to external service providers (see ILO 2024). Secondly, the majority of those employed in the low-wage domestic work sector are migrant women (see Gonçalves and Schluter Reference Gonçalves and Schluter2024, 11). Thirdly, at the local scale, an increased demand for English language skills is spilling over into the domestic labor market. The latter can be observed, for example, in the Spanish capital. A Madrid-based transnational employment agency specializing in the recruitment and placement of Filipino domestic workers (FDWs) advertises its services on a website as follows:
[…] a live-in Filipina employee in Madrid […] has the knowledge and training to teach your children their first words in English. In this sense, having a live-in Filipina employee in Madrid is beneficial for developing the bilingual potential of young children, helping them to become familiar with a new language and achieve a high level, even before starting school. (domestic.es. 2024, my translation, S. I.-D.).
These references to the English language skills and pedagogical abilities of FDWs are not an isolated case, but a pattern in the marketing strategies of transnational agencies of domestic work in the Madrid market (see Issel–Dombert Reference Issel–Dombert2025). This is not limited to Madrid but is widespread throughout the world in a large number of linguistic and cultural areas. The stereotyping commodification that FDWs have a high level of English proficiency is often justified by the status of English as one of the Philippine’s official languages.
To explore this link between domestic work and language(s), this paper adopts an understudied perspective on the linguistic side of this highly feminized and ethnicized employment sector by focusing on the perspectives of FDWs in Madrid. It combines migration linguistics, critical ethnographic sociolinguistics, and multilingualism research. The aim is to gain insights into the mechanisms of (re)production of social inequalities through English and multilingualism by focusing on biographical narratives of FDWs in Madrid. This speaker-centered approach provides insights into the lived experiences with multilingualism, as well as into the dynamics of linguistic repertoires at different stages of life. It can shed light on several desiderata for research on World Englishes in the Philippines, too. Borlongan (Reference Borlongan2022, 69) emphasizes that linguistic data from FDWs are fundamentally different from dominant research designs that focus primarily on sedentary populations. Most studies consider the urban center of Manila as well as highly educated speakers (see Martin Reference Martin, Bolton, Botha and Kirkpatrick2020, 491). The low-wage sector of domestic work opens up access to ‘sociolinguistic accounts of grassroots individuals […] and situations in which world Englishes are increasingly used as a second or additional language, at times acquired without the support of formal education’ (Meierkord and Schneider Reference Meierkord, Schneider, Meierkord and Schneider2021, 11–12).
The paper is arranged as follows: Section 2 gives an overview of the role of English in the Philippines, considering the linguistic diversity of the archipelago. Then it is shown how English is made fruitful in the context of globalized labor markets to set the scene for the empirical part. Section 3 discusses the data and methodology, focusing on biographical narratives. Section 4 presents a qualitative analysis of two biographical narratives. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the main findings.
2. English in the Philippines: the linguistic legacy of colonialism in globalized and neoliberal labor markets
The Philippines is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural state in Southeast Asia that is characterized by a high degree of linguistic diversity. However, this linguistic diversity is not reflected at the level of official languages – only English and Filipino have this status. The origins of this linguistic configuration can be traced back to various colonial language policies. The language policies of Spanish colonization (1565–1898) did not result in a widespread dissemination of Spanish. In contrast, the U.S. colonial power (1898–1946) used English as a tool of colonization and established a monolingual English school system to spread English from the beginning of the American colonial period (see Martin Reference Martin, Bolton, Botha and Kirkpatrick2020, 480). It lasted until 1974, when it was replaced by the so-called Philippine Bilingual Education Policy (BEP, 1974–2009), a system in which English and Filipino became the official languages of instruction. In 2009, the last major change was introduced with the so-called Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB–MLE) (see Lorente Reference Lorente2018, 49). The U.S. language policies during five decades of U.S. colonization continue to shape the archipelago’s linguistic ecology to this day. Beyond the realm of education, English remains deeply entrenched in politics, the legal system, the economy, and the mass media (see Martin Reference Martin, Bolton, Botha and Kirkpatrick2020, 496).
Although English is widely used in the above-mentioned areas, a wide range of sociolinguistic realities and linguistic practices have developed around English in the multilingual everyday life in the Philippines (see Lising Reference Lising and Borlongan2023) – beyond the speakers of the so-called standard variety of Philippine English. To better understand this complex linguistic situation, Martin (Reference Martin, Bolton, Botha and Kirkpatrick2020, 491) coined the term ‘Pinoylish’:
The message that is not communicated is that there are a variety of Englishes that multilingual Filipinos constantly use in a variety of situations and contexts. I refer to these Englishes as Pinoylish – Philippine Englishes in constant flux, in continuous construction, always fluid, occupying various points in a line of centrality and peripherality, drawing from a repertoire of local languages, including English as a Philippine mother tongue, as well as other modes of communication that shape what is meaningful to the Pinoy (Filipino).
Beyond this fluid and hybrid concept of multilingualism in a postcolonial society, it is also instructive to look at language ideologies and attitudes related to English. One of these is the neoliberal construction of English proficiency as embodied human capital (see Piller et al. Reference Piller, Butorac, Farrell, Lising, Motaghi–Tabari and Tetteh2024, 9). English language skills are economically valuable as they offer better employment opportunities in the Philippines. This applies in particular to the so-called OFWs (Overseas Filipino Workers), Filipino migrant workers employed outside the Philippines. Labor migration is of paramount importance in the Philippines. Since the 1970s, when the Philippine economy entered a crisis accompanied by high unemployment and underemployment, the state has undergone a transformation that Rodriguez (Reference Rodriguez2010) describes as a ‘labor broker state’. Since then, the Philippines has become the world’s largest exporter of workforce to global labor markets in various industries, with workers employed in nearly 200 countries (see Tyner Reference Tyner2008, 54). The origins of this labor migration are deeply rooted in the colonial period. As early as the Spanish colonial period, Filipino seafarers were part of the crews of the Spanish colonial power (see Lorente Reference Lorente2018, 31). During the American colonial period, Filipino men were particularly recruited to work in the military and agriculture, and Filipina women as nurses (see Lorente Reference Lorente2018, 32). In the present, various trends are emerging. Firstly, more women than men are migrating, leading to what is referred to as a ‘feminization of labor migration’ (see Parreñas Reference Parreñas2015, 3). Secondly, the vast majority of women are employed in the international domestic work sector (see Parreñas Reference Parreñas2015, 2–3).
In the Philippines, FDWs are often recruited, trained, commodified, and placed all over the world with the help of employment agencies and other institutions (for a critical review, see Rodriguez Reference Rodriguez2010). In this context, language, i.e., English and multilingualism, comes into play. As early as the 1970s, a marketing strategy was to position FDWs as cheap, well-educated, and Anglophone (see Lorente Reference Lorente2018, 40–41). Some 30 years later, the marketing of English proficiency was modified in order to differentiate and remain internationally competitive. The marketing focus shifted from well-educated English-speaking workers to well-educated multilingual workers who could easily adapt to all target languages and cultures of labor-receiving countries (see Lorente Reference Lorente2018, 41).
3. Data and methods: Exploring linguistic repertoires and social structures through biographical narratives
The data in this study come from a project that aims to better understand how multilingualism (re)produces social inequalities in the Spanish domestic work sector (see Issel–Dombert Reference Issel–Dombert2025). Collected in Madrid over a period of three years, the corpus includes field notes, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, language maps and language portraits of 23 FDWs who migrated to the Spanish capital between 1971 and 2017. Access to this group was fraught with difficulties. On the one hand, these challenges stemmed from my etic position as a white European woman, which often led to my initial perception as a potential employer during fieldwork. On the other hand, access is generally hindered by the nature of domestic work in private homes and thus in ‘hidden spaces’ (Gonçalves and Schluter Reference Gonçalves and Schluter2024, 10). In a similar vein, Borlongan (Reference Borlongan2022, 68) foregrounds the vulnerability of FDWs and the challenges associated with data collection in this context. Access to FDWs in Madrid was granted to me primarily through locally organized diaspora groups, such as a Filipino church. I seek to address unequal power hierarchies and dynamics in the production of knowledge by adopting a participatory approach and considering a doubly engaged ethnography (Pacheco–Vega and Parizeau Reference Pacheco–Vega and Parizeau2018) for a respectful and reciprocal research design. To work with FDWs – in the sense of Cameron et al. (Reference Cameron, Frazer, Harvey, Rampton and Richardson1992) – the data were partially collected through participatory methods and discussed in joint reflections at various stages of the project.
The data for the qualitative analysis (see section 4) are based on semi-structured in-depth interviews focused on the life story. They were conducted after obtaining informed consent. The interviews took place in informal settings, such as a picnic in the park, in a café, go-along interviews on the street or in my apartment, depending on the preferences of the participants.
The qualitative analysis concentrates on the narratives in the interviews. Narratives are a fundamental way to understand, share, and make sense of experience (see De Fina Reference De Fina2003). Based on this premise, the analysis of narratives has also become an established method within migration linguistics, providing unique insights from the perspective of speaking subjects into their experiences, networks, motivations, sense of belonging, and agency (see Capstick 2021, 24–27).
Biographical narratives provide insights into different moments of life. They also shed light on how the linguistic repertoire develops and changes across the lifespan through various events such as school, work, migration and so on. Such speaker-centered, biographical data illuminate the links and interactions between linguistic and social factors. Biographical narratives take into account the perspective of the individual, but they are also embedded in societal structures and power relations (see Purkarthofer Reference Purkarthofer2022, 558). From an epistemological perspective, it should be emphasized that biographical narratives do not provide a factual account of a life. Rather, they are retrospective and (sometimes) prospective reconstructions that are partial and co-constructed in a conversational situation (see De Fina Reference De Fina2003; Purkarthofer Reference Purkarthofer2022, 559). Following Wodak (Reference Wodak2018, 349), narrated life stories ‘serve to place fragmentary, incomprehensible experiences into a framework that is not simply individual, but socially “meaningful”.’
The paradigm of World Englishes can benefit in several ways from migration linguistics, particularly through language biographical interviews. First, language biographies capture speakers’ personal experiences and perspectives. This can provide valuable insights into the development and use of World Englishes in different spatial and social contexts. Second, from a speaker-centered perspective, language biographical interviews reveal how English functions within multilingual repertoires and interacts with other linguistic resources. Third, these interviews provide insights into language ideologies, linguistic practices, and language regimes that are relevant in the context of migration. Moreover, migration linguistics deals with language contact phenomena that are also relevant to World Englishes (see Zipp Reference Zipp, Schreier, Hundt and Schneider2019 for an in-depth discussion).
At the core of the qualitative analysis are the biographical narratives of Kate and Elena; all names are pseudonyms except mine. Both grew up in rural areas of Mindanao, a region with a low socio-economic level (see Lorente Reference Lorente2018, 127), located in the south of the archipelago. Kate started her professional life in a mall as a saleswoman in Mindanao. Then, she began working as an au pair in two Scandinavian countries, spending two years in each. Since 2015, she has lived and worked in private households in the Spanish capital. I met Kate in Madrid after a Filipino festival. First, we communicated through WhatsApp for several weeks, and then we met again in person. Several interviews took place in a park in the capital.
Elena is married and has two children. For a couple of years, she worked in a mall in the Philippines. Then, she went abroad to work as a live-in in Kuwait and Jordan. She has been living in Madrid since 2017, where she works in a private household while her family is in the Philippines. Transnational families like Elena’s, with children and other family members physically separated, are a common reality for many FDWs (see Parreñas Reference Parreñas2015, 53). I met Elena in a church in Madrid. The in-depth interview took place at my accommodation in Madrid during a dinner.
4. Analysis and discussion
This section explores experiences with English across different life stages and spatial contexts, focusing on how it is embedded within inequalities. Section 4.1 discusses unequal access to English during childhood and schooling in the Philippines. Then, the focus shifts to language practices and language regimes in the context of labor migration abroad (sections 4.2 and 4.3).
4.1 In the Philippines, access to English is unequal
To better understand the role of English and multilingualism in the Philippines, a holistic perspective on both the linguistic ecology of the society and the linguistic repertoires of speakers is required. This also means that other linguistic resources than English and their use in everyday contexts must also be considered. In the following, Kate and Elena offer a rare glimpse into their lived experiences and their sociolinguistic situation during their childhood. Kate reconstructs in (1) the linguistic practices with her family and with her friends:
(1)
Sandra: Mhm ((agrees)). And (—) when you were a child, a little girl and you lived at home and with your family, what languages did you spokeFootnote 1 with grandparents, with your parents?
Kate: I speak Tagalog and Ilocano.
Sandra: Mhm ((agrees)). [omission 00:02:51]
Kate: And also, if (—) ah if I have ehm I heard from my friends or classmates, they speak another language. I ask them to teach me your language, I mean, your dialect. So, I learnt from them like Ilonggo, Bisaya.
Kate reports that Tagalog and Ilocano were her family languages. As she got older, her linguistic repertoire expanded and diversified in non-family contexts. Through friends, she acquired linguistic resources in Bisaya and Ilonggo. It was in school that Kate first came into contact with English:
(2)
Kate: When I was a kid, I speak ahm not really English you know, because I don’t understand because my parents speak Tagalog or, usually, Tagalog or Ilocano, and English they can also teach us but not really. Well, I can hear English in school, but when I was a kid, I don’t understand. When I was grow up, okay (—) I understand a little uh (—).
Sandra: And how did you manage ((Kate laughs)) because (—)
Kate: I don’t know, because ((Sandra laughs)) I don’t know, I I speak it. I mean, how did I manage? Maybe I studied. But in my country is more on, for example, we have subject in English but not really English. This they translated to, for example, English write it in English and then the teacher explain, if we don’t understand this, explain in my own language. So, mhm not really English, maybe in in Manila, because I live in Mindanao, in Manila is more in English, because the high school high school or universities, but in my in my eh school which is a small town, so they don’t really speak in English. So that’s why, little English.
Sandra: And ah you said that they couldn’t teach you English?
Kate: I mean, they teach English, but I mean (—) oh okay, we wrote English. We and then the teacher explained in Tagalog, so we can understand.
Sandra: Ah okay.
Kate: Because not all the students speak English, so that’s why. We we we have we have subject and also they translated if which is but is what is the meaning of this, what is the meaning of that, so we know it. The teacher also translated into Tagalog so we can we understand the English word which is there in the book.
Kate explains that her school was only able to provide an inadequate set of English skills that were neither receptive nor productive (‘When I was a kid, I speak ahm not really English you know, because I don’t understand’). She attributes this to a limited use of English and teaching methods that did not meet her needs (‘they don’t really speak in English’). Furthermore, she also addresses the varying reach and distribution of English in the Philippines. In this context, Kate identifies disparities between urban centers (‘Manila’) and rural areas (‘Mindanao’) as a crucial factor in the uneven spread of and accessibility to English. Similar observations can be found for instance in Kenya (Michieka Reference Michieka2009) and Uganda (Isingoma and Meierkord Reference Isingoma, Meierkord, Meierkord and Isingoma2016). Theoretical foundations are provided by Biewer (2013), Michieka (Reference Michieka2009), Isingoma and Meierkord (Reference Isingoma, Meierkord, Meierkord and Isingoma2016), and Schneider and Schröder (Reference Schneider, Schröder and Schroder2021). Kate adds that higher education institutions are concentrated in the metropolitan area of the capital, in stark contrast to her hometown. Thus, Kate names a) rural vs. urban spaces, and b) educational institutions – private vs. public schools – key factors that lead to unequal access to symbolic and economically valuable linguistic capital. Unsurprisingly, c) the socio-economic background is also another key factor in this context (see Lorente Reference Lorente2018, 127).
In the following, Elena describes language practices and language policies during her childhood:
(3)
Sandra: When you were at home ahm (—) which language do you spoke?
Elena: We’re spoking Bisaya.
Sandra: Aah.
Elena: Bisaya, yes but in the school, it’s normally we are English or Tagalog.
Sandra: And (—)
Elena: Because Bisaya is not totally in the school. Only the Tagalog and English.
Sandra: How did you manage that? To learn Tagalog and English ahm when you only spoke ahm Bisaya at home? Elena: ((laughs)) Maybe because it’s interesting for the child and that you like to speak all the languages. And especially in the school, your Bisaya is not acceptable ((laughs)). You will, you will love to speak Bisaya but not inside in the school because it’s required to speak eh, talk and listen in English and Tagalog only […]. Sandra: How did you learn Tagalog and English in school?
Elena: […] maybe I learned too much on reading a book, watching the TV in English movie or watching series for long time ((laughs)) yeah.
When Elena started school, her language practices changed. While she spoke Bisaya with her family, her school adopted a bilingual language policy (‘English and Tagalog only’). This policy marginalized and devalued her linguistic repertoire (‘especially in the school, your Bisaya is not acceptable’). Furthermore, she explains that English was only accessible through informal acquisition without guidance and based on media such as books, movies, and series.
Both Elena and Kate had limited access to English in school and through mass media in the Philippines. However, outside these social spaces, other linguistic resources and multilingual practices dominated their daily life. This is not exceptional. Lorente (Reference Lorente2018, 127–128) identifies similar linguistic biographies of FDWs in Singapore. She draws on Sibayan and Segovia’s (Reference Sibayan and Segovia1984) concept of controlling and non-controlling domains of language use to explain such patterns. According to this model, English is associated with the controlling domains of education, legislation, business, etc., while the non-controlling domains of family, neighborhood, etc. are dominated by other linguistic resources. Lorente (Reference Lorente2018, 128) concludes from a use of English that remains limited to school that FDWs ‘were not part of the “controlling domains” where the values of linguistic and other forms of capital are being determined and distributed.’
4.2 Communication with employers is in English – all over the world
Compared to the childhood and schooldays, the status of English changes with entry into the workforce, as English becomes a necessary part of the linguistic repertoire for labor migration. In this context, Kate remembers that she immediately needed to mobilize English skills when she arrived in Spain:
(4)
Sandra: In which language do you spoke with her? Kate: Uh English, of course. I’m new here, so I don’t know to speak Spanish. ((laughs))
Elena is also constantly confronted with English in her workplace:
(5)
Sandra: Ahm how did you communicate? Which languages do you spoke with your employers in Kuwait?
Elena: English. It’s all English.
Sandra: It’s all English. Did the agency prepare you with a language class or something?
Elena: No because in the agency, you should have the ah, you speak English. You have an interview to your employer via (—) in ahm a video call and they know that you can speak English. If not, you have a problem when you come ah, when you are going to the Arab country because English only is the language. But you will learn how to speak Arabic also.
Elena reports that her linguistic repertoire is expanding as a result of her labor migration (‘But you will learn how to speak Arabic also’). But she also emphasizes that English is the most important part of her linguistic repertoire for communicating with employers. English proficiency is already required when applying for a job, which means it is a prerequisite for upward economic mobility (‘If not, you have a problem’). Elena also explains how she makes sense of English in the communication with her employers in Spain:
(6)
Elena: My employer is Spanish and they have a children, three children, but the two children speak good English, but my señora is not. My employer, my, the (—) señor speak English but my señora is not.
Sandra: Aah.
Elena: And the young is not speak English. I want to try to speak English, but she don’t answer.
Sandra: Aah.
Elena: Because I try, I try because my señora told me to speak her English to. I said ‘why she don’t communicate me in the English?’ She don’t answer me, I know she understand, but she don’t communicate me and my señora speak me Spanish. Maybe sometimes my Spanish it’s not applying but I learn with them. I want them to speak with them in Spanish and Spanish because I want also to, to learn my Spanish and this is very important for me because everything here in (—) in ahm doctors, cita previa, you need to take it in Spanish.
Elena’s employers in Spain want to speak English with her, too. This ties in with the marketing of transnational employment agencies for FDWs in Madrid (see section 1), which commodify Filipino women as Anglophone and affordable domestic workers. These women are simultaneously promoted as capable of teaching English to children or other family members while performing household tasks. Although her employer expects Elena to communicate in English, the language practices in the home conflict with that expectation, as the predominant mode of communication within the household is Spanish rather than English. From Elena’s perspective, however, proficiency in Spanish is a prerequisite for social participation in Spain, and thus she considers the language use in her workplace as an advantage for her.
4.3 English is not sufficient: On the difficulties of finding another employment in Spain beyond paid domestic work
This section explores how monolingual Spanish language regimes, reinforced by the language ideology of integration through language, may pose barriers to finding employment in Spain outside the domestic work sector. In (7), Kate narrates how she experienced that proficiency in Spanish is crucial in most social spaces in Madrid:
(7)
Kate: So I, I go to school this one week, after that one week practical and then training, para hacer la camas, todo eso en lo hotel. And then (—) as I heard today in the basement where we are eating with the supervisors with them (—) the higher position was in there and I was there, too. [Omission of recording, 5 seconds]. I was there sitting in the last table. And then (—) and they are talking, I heard them talking about me. I know, in Spanish, but I understand but I don’t know to response them. I don’t know how to response it. So, I just keep quiet ((laughs)) and then they said that they don’t know if they like me to work here or not, I think (—) there is, there is a possible that mh no, because I don’t really speak Spanish. So that’s my side, I mean, the negative that mh there is possibi possibility that they cannot give me to work in this job. Because of languages. It is because of Spanish, not because of the work. It’s because of the language. Because ahm I have to speak Spanish, they said that I spoke to the highest position. I asking through English, but she understand of of course she understand me and then she said to my co-worker that ‘you have to tell her (—) to that she must speak Spanish, because she, she still our, she she’s living here in Spain. So she must speak Spanish, not English.’ [omission of recording, 3 seconds]. I feel bad. Ah, it’s okay. I mean, I feel I like to this job because I think mh (—) I like this job and I wa, I, I’m goi (—) I need money, of course. I like this job and I’m willing to learn, but my problem is the Spanish.
Kate shares her experience as an unpaid intern at a hotel in Madrid, hoping it would lead to a permanent position. During a lunch break in the basement, she overhears her supervisors discussing her future. Kate follows the conversation that took place in Spanish. She learns that she probably will not be offered an employment because her supervisors expect her to speak Spanish (‘It is because of Spanish, not because of the work. It’s because of the language. Because ahm I have to speak Spanish’). Kate experiences that access to employment in the housekeeping service of a hotel does not depend on qualifications or the quality of the work performed. Instead, proficiency in Spanish is declared as a central requirement. Her proficiency in English does not afford her any advantage in this context. In contrast, it results in linguicism (Skutnabb–Kangas Reference Skutnabb–Kangas1988) when Kate addresses her supervisor in English. The supervisor refused to answer Kate directly. Instead, she used her powerful position in the asymmetrical relationship and instructed a colleague to explain to Kate that she needs to learn Spanish because she lives in Spain (‘you have to tell her (—) to that she must speak Spanish, because she, she still our, she she’s living here in Spain’). The linguistic discrimination is underpinned by a language ideology of integration through language. In Europe, this ideology is widespread and grounded in the idea that proficiency in the lingua franca of a host society plays a central role in the successful integration of migrants. It is reflected and manifested in laws, educational policies, and societal expectations (see Flubacher Reference Flubacher2014). However, the language ideology of integration through language devalues multilingual repertoires and operates in a discriminatory and punitive manner, as seen in Kate’s case, by unilaterally assigning responsibilities to migrants.
5. Conclusion
Paid domestic work is an important workplace for migrant women around the world. In this contribution, I focused on the lived experiences of FDWs in Madrid. Drawing on in-depth interviews and adopting a qualitative approach, the aim was to better understand the role of English as linguistic capital for labor migration, given its global status in business, higher education, etc. There is often a mismatch between the advantages for social upward mobility ascribed to English on the one hand and the lived experiences on the other hand. Therefore, a second aim was to gain a better understanding of the ways English and multilingualism (re)produce social inequalities in the global sector of paid domestic work. Against this backdrop, I first focused on the society of origin, the Philippines, and examined the status of English on the multilingual archipelago. The analysis focuses on the biographical narratives of Kate and Elena, who work as FDWs in Madrid. This methodological approach enables a holistic view of linguistic phenomena in the context of migration experiences and social structures, as narrative methods in migration linguistics capture the multiple aspects of language and migration while focusing on the speakers’ perspectives. This aims to illuminate World Englishes from new, previously overlooked perspectives. From a biographical perspective on the linguistic repertoire, the value of English changes over the life span. Kate and Elena provided insights into their childhood in the Philippines and the unequal access to English. For both, the importance of English increases first within the educational system and then particularly in the labor market. English proficiency is essential for securing employment outside the Philippines. However, the value of English is heavily dependent on the social context. Kate and Elena experienced that English has a limited scope in Spain. Instead, Spanish, the dominant lingua franca in the host society, plays a crucial role. A lack of Spanish could lead to exclusionary practices and discrimination in social participation, everyday life, and the workplace.
Acknowledgements
My deepest gratitudes go to the participants for generously sharing their time and their life stories with me. Without them, this contribution would not have been possible. I would also like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments and efforts towards improving this contribution.
Competing interests
The Author is employed at Ruhr University of Bochum and has received a grant from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG, Project Number 465412443). Within this context, fieldwork and data were conducted in Madrid and in Manila.
SANDRA ISSEL–DOMBERT holds a PhD in Romance Linguistics. Her research areas include multilingualism, migration linguistics, and sociolinguistic aspects of French and Spanish. Using multiple approaches, including ethnography and discourse analysis, she is currently working in a project with FDWs in Madrid, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Email: sandra.issel-dombert@rub.de.
Open access
