The Formal Address Forms in Heritage Polish in Germany: The Dynamics of Transgenerational Language Change

Abstract

This paper investigates transgenerational change in the use of formal address forms among Polish heritage speakers in Germany by analyzing their language attitudes and usage preferences. The survey-based study involved 100 bilingual Polish speakers with a migration background, including both late and early immigrants vs. representatives of the first and second generations, respectively. The survey included two parts: (1) a questionnaire assessing language attitudes toward formal address systems in Polish and German, respectively, and (2) an Acceptability Judgment Task evaluating respondents’ preferences for different address variants, including contact-induced hybrid forms, in simulated communicative situations. By comparing language attitudes and usage preferences among heritage speakers, the study seeks to identify mechanisms of transgenerational change in pragmatics of their heritage language. The findings reveal a discrepancy between language attitudes and actual language use by heritage speakers. While respondents recognize asymmetries between Polish and German formal address systems, their usage preferences align predominantly with the Polish monolingual norm, particularly in perceptually oriented tasks. However, the emergence of hybrid forms of formal address suggests a gradual shift toward increased tolerance and acceptance of contact-induced variations. This finding supports the hypothesis that pragmatics, like other linguistic levels, undergoes a transgenerational shift in migration settings, with language attitudes serving as earlier indicators of change.

1. Introduction

Changes in politeness reflect sociocultural shifts rooted in social, political, economic, and ideological transformations (Beetz, 1990, p. 243), so that as social conditions evolve, linguistic expressions of politeness also change (Assmann, 2002, p. 194; Lerchner, 1995, p. 107ff.; Neuland, 2010, p. 10; Watts, 2005, p. 48). In multilingual settings, bilingual speakers often adopt formal address titles from the dominant (societal) language, especially in formal settings, even when these titles do not have direct counterparts in the heritage language. This phenomenon is driven by pragmatic needs, social integration, and the prestige of the dominant language (Fishman, 1991; Clyne, 2003; Salmons, 2004; Mesthrie, 2006; López, 2010; Hornsby, 2011) and is especially notable in the subsequent generations of heritage speakers. Within this context, the present paper examines transgenerational change in formal address forms among Polish heritage speakers in Germany. Thereby, the paper (re)connects to the arguments made by Dauzat (Dauzat, 1927, pp. 49–55) and later Weinreich in favor of a diachronological interpretation of the transference phenomena:

“The synchronic slant has been so dominant in descriptive linguistics that students of interference have generally overlooked the possibility of studying contact-induced progressive changes in a language against the time dimension. Yet an attractive opportunity for short term diachronic observation is offered by languages freshly brought into contact, as through migration.”

(Weinreich, 1953, p. 103)

In fact, (migrant) heritage languages as minoritized languages acquired in a family environment against the backdrop of the dominance of another societal language offer a fertile ground for testing the conditions and mechanisms of language change due to their often unconventional usage and the modeling of noncanonical structures (Bakker & Mous, 1994; Labov, 2001; Thomason, 2001a, 2001b, 2017; Winford, 2003; Fought, 2006; Warditz, 2025). This is the first starting point of the present paper.

The second starting point arises from the specific nature of (migrant) heritage languages in the context of multilingualism. A migrant heritage language is typically the first language (L1) in terms of acquisition and use at home (Fishman, 2001). However, it is not the dominant language, either in society or in the minds of individuals when they reach adulthood. This definition refers effectively to the second and subsequent generations with a migrant background who acquire their heritage language in a multilingual environment. Among heritage speakers, their heritage language (in our case Polish) and societal language (in our case German) are functionally distributed: home vs. official domains, respectively. Consequently, multilingual variation becomes a distinctive feature of heritage speakers’ communication and is also promoted by the language attrition already noticeable in the first generation of migrants (Yagmur, 1997; De Bot & Clyne, 1994). In contrast to monolingual speakers, heritage speakers operate with polylingual variation, which can comprise (single) varieties within the same language as well as two or more typologically different languages (Franceschini, 1998; Léglise & Moreano, 2017). This results in a few different occasional variants, but also in variations with a systemic character that becomes part of the speakers’ linguistic repertoire (Clyne, 2003). These variation mechanisms can be qualified as a notable characteristic of heritage languages that is expressed in pragmatics, prosody, phonetics, syntax, grammar, and lexicon (for an overview, see Aalberse et al., 2019). Thereby, these concrete manifestations of multilingual language variation can represent occasional code-switching phenomena, but also systemic structural and lexical patterns that have either been borrowed or have emerged independently. The increased frequency of certain variation types is, furthermore, indicative of the language change (Gardani et al., 2005).

However, while language change by heritage speakers has been addressed in a number of studies (e.g., Heine & Kuteva, 2005; for an overview, see Warditz, 2025), there are relatively few studies focusing on pragmatics in multilingual settings, particularly in migrant communities. Furthermore, pragmatics has also hardly been considered in the general context of studies on language change in multilingual settings (for an overview, see Section 4). In doing so, the famous borrowing scale, which spans various linguistic levels affected by language transfer from a dominant societal language to a weaker minoritized language compiled by Thomason and Kaufman (1988, p. 74ff.) includes phonetics/phonology, lexicon, morphology, and syntax, thereby excluding pragmatics. However, previous studies on the pragmatics of Slavic heritage languages have demonstrated a significant contact-induced change in the use of address forms and in the restructuring of requests by heritage speakers (cf., among others, Avramenko et al., 2024; Dubinina et al., 2021; Warditz, 2012). Accordingly, the present paper assumes that a change in language pragmatics manifests in heritage speakers after a relatively short period of exposure to multilingual settings. This constitutes the third starting point of the study.

Within the described framework, the present paper examines transgenerational changes in formal address forms among Polish heritage speakers in Germany using a specially developed survey. The survey aimed to identify the language attitudes of Polish heritage speakers in relation to the specifics of Polish formal politeness—especially notable in contrast to German—on the one hand, and their preferences in using German, Polish, or hybrid noncanonical address forms within the Polish migrant community on the other hand. By comparing their attitudes and preferences in usage, the study wanted to identify (potential) mechanisms of pragmatic change in heritage speakers.

The paper is structured as follows: after the introduction in Section 1, Section 2 outlines the problem’s context, discussing the effects of language contact on address systems across time and space. Section 3 examines the Polish address system against the background of German, paying special attention to its historical reflections and reform proposals by Polish linguists. Section 4 considers address forms as a special case of language contact in the context of migration; it also formulates research questions and hypotheses in relation to the existing research context. Section 5 presents the empirical part of the study, including data evaluation. Section 6 discusses the study’s results and offers an outlook for future research.

2. Language Contact and Address Systems: Outline of the Problem’s Context

In this section, the role of language contact and of political and ideological context, as well as the interplay between them in the evolution of politeness systems, will be briefly addressed.

As a sensitive area of linguistic pragmatics, the system of address rarely remains resistant to political and social change (Ehlich, 2005). Moreover, it is often reformed by the (new) ruling power. Thereby, the reform of address systems frequently follows an ideologically compatible model that has already been tested in another cultural context. Language contact, in terms of its various effects, is therefore one of the most significant factors in the transformation of address systems. This can be observed in various examples from different countries and time periods. For instance, the language policies of the French Revolution in 1789 included fundamental changes to forms of politeness and address. Under a new law enacted on 31 October 1793, everyone was addressed with tu ‘you’ (2SING)1, and the terms Monsieur ‘sir’ and Madame ‘madam’ were replaced in both spoken and written communication with citoyen ‘comrade’ (MASC) and citoyenne ‘comrade’ (FEM) to reflect the principles of égalité and fraternité (Meyer, 2013, p. 85).

Although this reform of the French address system was short-lived, it served as a model for the Russian October Revolution of 1917 (Seliščev, 1928). The form of address тoварищ ‘comrade’, which had originally been used within small, anti-monarchist, revolutionary groups and thus functioned as a marker of the insider identity, became a commonly used, gender-neutral term of address in official discourse. Like its French equivalent, the new form of address in Soviet Russia was intended to reflect the proclaimed social equality in linguistic etiquette. Moreover, its use symbolized linguistic loyalty to the socialist ideology of power in Soviet Russia and later in the USSR. Initially reserved for the Russian language and the Soviet ruling elite, this new form of address was subsequently standardized for official communication in all languages of the multilingual country, as well as in all socialist states, though often with limited success (Warditz, 2019). In a manner like Russian (as detailed in Warditz, 2017, pp. 298–299), ideologically (socialist) connoted forms of address failed to gain acceptance in Polish outside the domains of party and military communication (key institutions of the state apparatus). According to Łaziński (2006, pp. 41–42), the equivalent address form towarzysz/towarzyszka ‘comrade’ (MASC/FEM) could hardly compete with pan ‘~Mr.’ in Polish, as it was practically limited to members of the United Polish Workers’ Party (PZPR). Mika (2005, p. 247), following Tomiczek (1983, pp. 89–90), also notes that this form of address was rarely seen as a viable alternative to pan ‘~Mr.’ in Polish.

Language contact is also at the core of the current transformation of the German address system, particularly in national business communication, which is strongly influenced by international etiquette patterns. It can be observed, for example, in the increasing preference of the informal Du ‘you’ (2SING) instead of the formal Sie ‘you’ (3PL) in formal contexts, as a sign of corporative solidarity. The adoption of the “American model” in German politeness has been reinforced by the contemporary business elite of German society (Ankenbrand, 2013, pp. 106, 131). As Aitchison (2001, p. 83) notes, language change occurs when one group, consciously or subconsciously, adopts another as a model and imitates the features of its speech.

These two exemplary cases demonstrate that the impact and scope of language contact can vary. Furthermore, at least two mechanisms of influence through language contact can be identified here: first, through reformative language policy measures (top-down), and second, through the intense and ongoing influence of a prestigious language whose usage aligns with linguistic trends (bottom-up) (Ankenbrand, 2013, pp. 79–82). In the former case, politeness patterns are prescribed; in the latter, they emerge within a specific domain of communication and gradually establish themselves as common usage, potentially expanding into other domains. Additionally, the often underestimated role of the ideological dimension in the use and evolution of politeness and, in particular, forms of address must be considered (Warditz, 2017).

A specific domain of communication where language contact becomes particularly evident is the multilingual context of migration. Speakers with a migration background navigate their multilingual daily lives using both their heritage language and the societal language of the host country. These two languages are functionally distributed: the heritage language is primarily used in informal settings, while the societal language dominates in formal communication. As a result, heritage speakers often do not master formal registers in their heritage language (Fishman, 1991; Clyne, 2003; Rampton, 2006; Terry, 2008; López, 2010; Hornsby, 2011). Furthermore, this dynamic creates ample opportunities for language mixing and reflection, including in the realm of politeness. However, the effects of language contact in the pragmatics of heritage Polish remain under-researched. The present paper addresses this gap by investigating the impact of language contact on the Polish system of address among Polish-speaking migrants in Germany.

3. Polish Address System in Comparison with German

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the interaction between the Polish and German address systems seems to offer a fascinating case for reform discussions. In the context of migration, the programmatic works of Aleksander Brückner (1916) and Andrzej Bogusławski (1996) have initiated or revived an ongoing discussion on the valuation of the Polish address system within contrastive Polish–German studies. Despite being separated by 80 years, both linguists advocated for a reform of the Polish system of address, reflecting it in the context of German and proposing its adaptation to the modern societal framework. For instance, the proposed transition from the traditionally honorific Pan/Pani ‘~Mr./Ms.’ to more egalitarian or practical forms mirrors broader societal shifts, as seen in other languages. This comparative lens highlights, in turn, the ideological dimensions underpinning forms of address. In this section, the specifics of the Polish address system will be discussed, referring to the above-mentioned works as analyzed in (Warditz, 2017).

The linguistic analysis of address systems has so far relied primarily on the simplified and predominantly English-focused framework developed by R. Brown and Gilman (1960), R. Brown and Ford (1961), and P. Brown and Levinson (1987). This ethnocentrically influenced concept—as noted, among others, by Bonacchi (2013, p. 70f.)—demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to existing cultural differences and excludes the cultural framework of the respective language’s politeness norms. However, Brown’s concept is useful for identifying the basic structure of different politeness systems. This framework distinguishes between two main forms of address: Pronominal Address, expressed through pronouns like you (2SING) or you (2PL), and Nominal Address, expressed using first names, kinship terms, or titles such as Mr./Ms. + Surname, Mr./Ms. + Title, or combinations like Mr./Ms. + Title + Surname (e.g., in German), as well as occasional forms of address. Another key aspect within Brown’s concept is the opposition that structures both the semantics and pragmatics of address systems: power vs. solidarity. This opposition helps identify the asymmetrical or symmetrical nature of a given address system.

The historical development of Pronominal Address systems, including within the Slavic linguistic area (Berger, 1995), reveals a general trend from asymmetry toward symmetry. However, this change has been particularly problematic in Polish. Therefore, both Brückner (1916) and Bogusławski (1996) argued that the Polish address system requires reform.

Aleksander Brückner, a pioneer in Slavic studies in Germany, was the first to note that the Polish address system significantly deviates both from other Slavic languages and in a broader European context (Brückner, 1916). Unlike the distant 2SING used in other Slavic languages, Polish employs indirect address forms 3 SING like pan/pani ‘~Mr./Ms.’ combining them accordingly with 3SING in verbal paradigms. Titles such as panie profesorze ‘Mr. Professor’ dominate, and specific titles exist for various professions, e.g., panie księże ‘Mr. Priest’ or panie mecenasie ‘Mr. Lawyer’ (Brückner, 1916, pp. 7, 10). Brückner criticized the use of these forms of address in formal interactions, arguing that they contradict the natural evolution of language, which tends toward simplicity and binary systems. He viewed nominal forms pan/pani ‘~Mr./Ms.’ used as pronominal address forms as negatively connoted with feudal authority and advocated for aligning Polish with Western European languages that employ clear binary systems for formal and in formal address (Brückner, 1916, pp. 6, 12).

Eighty years later, Andrzej Bogusławski distinguished between the anti-egalitarian Polish system, where individuals receive specific forms of address based on their social or professional group, and the allegedly egalitarian German system, which shows a general trend toward symmetry (Bogusławski, 1996, p. 84). He also supported reforming Polish to align with more egalitarian systems, particularly the German model. Efforts during the socialist era to introduce alternative address forms like towarzysz/towarzyszka ‘comrade’ (MASC/FEM) failed due to their ideological connotations, like the Russian equivalent тoварищ ‘comrade’, which did not gain traction outside institutional communication within administrative and ideological frameworks.

Despite historical linguistic trends, questions remain about whether remnants of the older Polish address system still reflect feudal social hierarchies. According to Stone (1981, p. 43), nominal forms like pan, pani, państwo ‘sir, madam, sirs and madams’ have transitioned from nouns to pronouns, losing their original semantics. Mika (2005, pp. 251–252) argued, in turn, from a cultural-semantic perspective, that titles express a structural necessity in Polish, comparable to German. However, Bogusławski (1996) viewed these forms as markers of social stigmatization or privilege, reinforcing Brückner’s earlier call for reform to align Polish with Western European languages, particularly German.

Despite concerns raised by Brückner (1916) and Bogusławski (1996), formal address in contemporary Polish continues to rely heavily on the pronouns Pan and Pani, which serve both as honorifics and as polite second-person pronouns within a pro-drop language system (Gajda & Kwiatkowska, 2017). These forms are used widely across social contexts to convey respect and maintain distance, often in combination with academic or professional titles (Puzynina, 2015; Bartmiński, 2007). The vocative case, though declining in informal speech, still plays a role in direct address, especially in formal or ceremonial contexts, adding grammatical complexity to expressions of politeness (Nitsch, 2006; Jaskuła, 2011). In current practice, the reciprocal use of Pan and Pani among adults is common regardless of differences in status, reflecting a shift toward more symmetrical politeness norms (Duszak, 1998; Puzynina, 2015). While younger speakers increasingly favor informal forms among peers, formal address remains dominant in education, healthcare, and other institutional settings (Gorzelak, 2012; Mleczko, 2020). Compared to German, where Anglo-American informal address conventions have become more widely adopted, Poland shows a more cautious adaptation of English-influenced politeness, with some generational and regional variation (Gorzelak, 2012).

In contrast to Polish, German has a binary pronominal system, using du ‘you’ (2SING) and ihr ‘you’ (2PL) in informal contexts and Sie ‘you’ (3PL) for both singular and plural address forms in formal communication. The German nominal address system consists of various forms, such as Herr/Frau ‘Mr./Ms.’ + Last Name, Herr/Frau ‘Mr./Ms.’ + Professional or Academic Title, and Herr/Frau ‘Mr./Ms.’ + Professional Designation or Academic Title + Last Name. The central and most used neutral form is Herr/Frau ‘Mr./Ms.’ + Last Name. These nominal variants are combined with the formal pronoun Sie ‘you’ (3PL). Peripheral forms include combinations such as Herr/Frau ‘Mr./Ms.’ + Last Name with du ‘you’ (2SING) or Herr/Frau ‘Mr./Ms.’ + First Name with Sie ‘you’ (3PL), along with some additional variants.

According to Ankenbrand (2013, pp. 133, 136, 149), the current shift in politeness in German is strongly influenced by Anglo-American norms. This often involves direct translations of English politeness patterns into German, driven mainly by internationally active German business professionals. The new economic elite promotes a style of politeness rooted in informality and familiarity, distancing itself from traditional, elaborate forms associated with older elites. By emphasizing humble origins, this group signals internal equality and social connectedness, while also asserting power through rule-breaking and stylistic confidence. As lower-status groups imitate this style (prestige imitation), the originally exclusive politeness model becomes normalized, marking a broader shift from distance-based to camaraderie-based politeness in German. Ultimately, American-style politeness functions as a means of linguistically simulating social equality in contemporary German discourse.

The perception of German address forms as more “democratic” than Polish ones likely stems from the binary structure of the German T:V system, which contrasts with the more complex and syntactically opaque system of formal address in Polish. While the seminal work of R. Brown and Gilman (1960) proposed that address pronouns reflect dimensions of power and solidarity, their model has been both influential and contested (cf., Wierzbicka, 1991; Watts et al., 2005). In the Polish context especially, Wierzbicka criticizes this framework for failing to account for culturally specific meanings embedded in address practices. Nonetheless, for heritage speakers, the greater transparency of the German system may align with lay perceptions of egalitarianism (House, 2005). This perception corresponds with how German speakers interpret American-influenced language use: adopting so-called “Americanisms” is often associated with modernity, informality, youthfulness, and camaraderie (Linke, 2006).

However, next to positive attitudes toward English address forms among German speakers and toward German address forms among Polish speakers, patterns from another language can also be perceived as neutral. The concept of neutrality in politeness forms has been already discussed by P. Brown and Levinson (1987), who acknowledge certain “off-record” or neutral forms—utterances that neither impose nor convey explicit politeness markers. These neutral forms can be understood as baseline or unmarked expressions that lack strong social signals. Sociolinguistic research further demonstrates that some address forms or pronouns may become socially neutral over time by losing strong associations with formality or intimacy. For example, the English pronoun you is often considered socially neutral because it does not explicitly encode social distance or hierarchy, unlike the T:V distinctions found in languages such as Polish, French, or German (R. Brown & Gilman, 1960; Holmes, 1995). Pragmatic studies typically define neutrality as the absence of explicit pragmatic force—that is, utterances that are neither polite nor impolite, neither formal nor informal—enabling them to serve as conversational defaults, especially in contexts where social relations are ambiguous or undefined (P. Brown & Levinson, 1987; Holmes, 1995). Taken together, these perspectives emphasize that neutrality in politeness systems should be understood as a relative, context-dependent concept rather than an absolute state.

The “reform proposals” by Brückner (1916) and Bogusławski (1996) were deeply supported by their comparative research of German and Polish, as well as their personal migration and international experiences. However, even if these proposals can be seen as provocative and are discussed controversially, they highlight sensitive areas in the Polish address system, which remain a focal point in Polish–German contrastive studies (Nagórko, 1992, 2005; Czochralski, 1994; Czachur, 2004, 2005; Huszcza, 2005, among others). For migration linguistics, these historical and ideological reflections underscore the relevance of studying how migration influences language use and language changes, particularly in address systems.

4. Address Forms in Heritage Polish: Stay of Research, Research Questions and Hypotheses

The Polish address system in the context of migration has scarcely been investigated. An exemplary study by Wolski-Moskoff (2018) examines the limited knowledge of Polish address forms among heritage Polish speakers in the United States. A pilot study by Warditz (2023) demonstrates initial indications of contact-affected changes in the use of formal address forms of heritage Polish in Germany. Nonetheless, studies on the pragmatics of other migrant heritage languages (Hendriks et al., 2023; Murray, 2017; Taguchi, 2019), especially on Russian as the language of the largest Slavic diaspora in the United States, Germany, and Israel, may be used as a base for further investigation of pragmatics in Polish heritage speakers. Thus, even though studies on pragmatics in Russian heritage speakers examine other politeness phenomena and do not focus on address forms (Dubinina et al., 2021; On & Meir, 2022; Avramenko et al. 2024), they confirm that heritage languages undergo contact-induced changes also in different domains of pragmatics. In doing so, these studies enrich previous evidence on contact-induced changes in heritage languages across their lexical, phonetical, prosodical, morphological, and syntactical levels (for Polish around the world, see Romanowski & Seretny, 2024; Dubisz, 2001; for Polish in Germany, see Warditz, 2016), when putting a focus on pragmatics. Moreover, previous studies on other heritage languages in different multilingual settings demonstrated that heritage speakers often do not master formal registers in their heritage language, when using a societal language of the host country in formal communication (Fishman, 1991; Clyne, 2003; Rampton, 2006; Terry, 2008; López, 2010; Hornsby, 2011).

Based on these observations, the present study examines the use of address forms in formal Polish communication within the context of migration. The study has adopted methodical and theoretical concepts established in previous studies on formal address forms in Russian and Polish heritage languages (Warditz, 2012, 2023). The justification for their comparison or for applying the results from one language to another is as follows. Sociolinguistically, both Polish and Russian as heritage languages in Germany are used under comparable conditions of functional bilingualism, and also by subsequent generations of the migrants, supported by well-developed Polish- and Russian-speaking social and institutional infrastructures in Germany, e.g., cultural associations, bilingual kindergartens, shops, and medical practices (Achterberg, 2005). These communities face analogous challenges, including language attrition, intergenerational language shift, and the influence of dominant societal languages in their respective host countries. Structurally, both Russian and Polish employ complex formal address systems, characterized by T:V distinctions and complex pronominal and nominal forms that encode nuances of politeness and social hierarchy. Their structural similarity further underscores their comparability. In the domain of politeness, both Slavic languages feature systems of address that deviate significantly within the European context and pose challenges for speakers due to the diffuse distribution of available variants.

In the first study, the following specifics in the address system of heritage Russian in Germany have been documented: (1) the use of conventional and the most frequent German address forms Herr/Frau ‘Mr./Ms.’ + Last Name instead of the Russian equivalents First Name + Patronymic and (2) due to this, the consequent loss of the central Russian address form First Name + Patronymic, replaced by the transfer (material or non-material) of the central German address form Herr/Frau ‘Mr./Ms.’ + Last Name in formal (academic) contexts. The reasons for this include gaps in the Russian (post-)Soviet system of address, such as the absence of ideologically neutral address forms without names (e.g., madame or monsieur ‘Mr./Ms.’ in French or mevrouw and meneer ‘Mr./Ms.’ in Dutch) that can also be used directly. Additionally, the complexity of the Russian system of formal address compared to German contributes to the preference for German variants; this complexity also entails a broader repertoire and greater variation in the distribution of address forms. Moreover, the weaker conventionality of Russian formal address forms compared to German ones makes learning or acquiring Russian politeness conventions even more challenging (Warditz, 2012).

The second study demonstrates indications of the transgenerational language shift in the use of formal address forms among Polish heritage speakers. A discrepancy between their (not always positive) language attitudes toward the Polish address system and their actual language use has shown the pivotal role of language attitudes in language change, especially in pragmatics (Warditz, 2023). However, due to the limited number of participants, the results of this pilot study are primarily indicative.

In summary, these studies demonstrate that heritage speakers, who draw on both their societal and heritage languages as part of a unified multilingual repertoire, tend to prefer more strictly distributed address variants. They prefer strictly distributed variants, such as a clear separation of T:V forms in Nominal Address and the use of first names versus Mr./Ms. + Surname in Pronominal Address as informal vs. formal variants, respectively. In doing so, they can clearly allocate address forms to formal versus informal modes of communication. In the Polish context specifically, the syntactic complexity of pronominal constructions using Pan/Pani combined with third-person-singular verb forms—as a central variant of formal address—can contribute to a tendency to avoid these forms altogether. Moreover, changing language attitudes by heritage speakers—particularly in favor of German norms—may reflect an emerging alignment with simulated egalitarianism, in which politeness strategies mirror contemporary ideals of social equality. The present paper aims to verify these findings based on a larger quantitative dataset, while also discussing them in the broader context of relevant research.

From these considerations, the research questions of the present paper emerge:

RQ 1: What language attitudes do bilingual Polish–German heritage speakers have towards the German and Polish address systems?

RQ 2: What specific characteristics in the use of Polish formal address forms can be observed?

RQ 3: Is there a correlation between the documented language attitudes, on the one hand, and the language-use phenomena, on the other hand?

The study is based on the following hypotheses:

(1)

Intense language contact between the heritage language and the dominant societal language, as well as functional bilingualism in heritage speakers, leads to pragmatic shift, which is prepared by the corresponding language attitudes of the migrant or minority group (cf., for other languages, Borbély, 1995; Clarke & Erskine, 2010; Priestly et al., 2009). Language attitudes are among the most crucial factors in language maintenance vs. language shift in migrant communities (Thomason, 2001b). It can be therefore expected that language attitudes against both address systems emerge among Polish heritage speakers before material language transfer takes place (Hypothesis 1);

(2)

Multilingual speakers select from the available contact languages as parts of their individual linguistic repertoire (Ptashnyk, 2010, p. 289). Multilingual variation encompasses therefore both diverse varieties within a single language and two or more typologically distinct languages (Veith, 2002, p. 135; Franceschini, 1998, p. 12). Accordingly, it can be expected that bilingual heritage speakers will incorporate elements from both languages in their address system (potentially influenced by language attitudes but also for other reasons, such as language economy or language attrition) (Hypothesis 2).

5. The Survey: Design and Evaluation

5.1. Study Design: Participants and Methods

The research questions were addressed through a specially designed survey, which was conducted anonymously via the online platform SurveyMonkey in February 2025. The survey targeted bilingual Polish–German heritage speakers from both the first and second generations. During data analysis, these groups were compared to explore transgenerational changes in language attitudes and language use, particularly regarding formal address forms.

Given that bilinguals follow different language norms to monolinguals (Cruz-Ferreira, 2010; García & Wei, 2014; Wei, 2018), monolingual norms cannot serve as a benchmark in analyzing bilingual language use (for a detailed argument, see De Houwer, 2023). Comparing bilinguals to monolinguals often fails to meet empirical control standards and may introduce biases in understanding bilingual language processing (Rothman et al., 2022). De Houwer (2023) suggests that research on bilinguals should focus more on the environments shaping language learning and processing within bilingual populations, rather than relying on monolingual comparisons. The mentioned studies collectively advocate for evaluating bilinguals based on their own linguistic experiences and competencies, recognizing the distinctiveness of bilingual language processing and avoiding biases rooted in monolingual-centric frameworks. Additionally, no comparable baseline situation for monolinguals can be recreated in the homeland, particularly one that mirrors functional language distribution in multilingual migration settings, where German is used as a societal language in formal contexts. This approach also acknowledges that bilinguals have unique linguistic systems, different from monolingual norms, and their linguistic environment significantly deviates from that of monolinguals (Rothman et al., 2022). Moreover, Polish monolinguals in the homeland are familiar with formal address forms in Polish and—if even to a different extent—with formal registers of the Polish language in general, which they use in official situations. By contrast, due to the abovementioned functional distribution of Polish and German in the context of migration, heritage speakers exhibit low proficiency in formal communication in their heritage language (see classical and more recent works such as Fishman, 1991; Clyne, 2003; Dubinina et al., 2021; Wiese & Bracke, 2021). However, owing to the vitality of the Polish language, the sizable diaspora population, and the well-established community infrastructure—including schools, religious gatherings, and ethnic events—heritage speakers continue to use Polish in formal contexts within the migrant community, albeit to a significantly lesser extent than German (Achterberg, 2005; Romanowski & Seretny, 2024).

Consistent with the aforementioned discussion, the present study adopts a methodology that focuses solely on bilinguals and their distinctive linguistic experiences.

The survey was formulated in Polish and consisted of three parts. The first part gathered the sociolinguistic data of respondents (age, gender, self-reported first language, and age of immigration) as well as language-biography information (language use of German and Polish in professional and family contexts). The second part explored language attitudes toward the Polish and German address systems. The third part tested, using three hypothetical communicative situations, whether and to what extent the Polish specifics of formal address (as described earlier) are preserved vs. are influenced by German. Additionally, this part examined how the effects of the pragmatic system of the dominant German language might manifest in these situations.

Methodologically, the study followed Fasold’s approach (Fasold, 1987) to gather language attitudes in language minority groups. With respect to the mixed-method approach of the entire study, direct questions about the address systems (formal address) of both languages were used, developed in line with the linguistic reflections presented earlier. To assess the language use of Polish formal address, the method of Acceptability Judgments (Myers, 2009; Weskott & Fanselow, 2011) was employed. The corresponding task, which involved rating individual sentences with various address forms—also developed based on the outlined specifics of Polish formal address in comparison with German—was extended with the option for participants to create their own variants, cf., methodological reflections on assessing productive and receptive language competence through Acceptability Judgment Tasks in variance research as described in Gerasimova and Lyutikova (2020). The combination of both methods (gathering language attitudes and Acceptability Judgment Tasks) serves the empirical verification of their applicability in the study of contact varieties within minority groups that primarily function in oral form in a multilingual context.

Within the outlined methodological framework, this study is not without limitations. Although it includes 100 respondents, this sample remains relatively small compared to the estimated Polish diaspora population of around 2 million—or potentially more when considering multiple generations. Such limited sample sizes are common in sociolinguistic and heritage language research due to practical constraints and the complexity of capturing diverse language use. Recent methodological discussions (e.g., Tagliamonte, 2016; Gries, 2013; Tamminga, 2020) emphasize that corpus and survey studies often face challenges in representativeness and scale, highlighting the need to interpret findings as indicative of emerging trends rather than definitive generalizations. Therefore, this study should be viewed as an exploratory step toward understanding linguistic patterns within the community, with future research needed to expand and confirm these results through larger and longitudinal datasets.

5.2. Evaluation of Empirical Data

5.2.1. Sociolinguistic Background of Respondents

The respondent group (N = 100) consisted of bilingual Polish speakers with a migration background, aged between 18 and 32 years. As such, the study aimed to create two experimental groups balanced in terms of age. In terms of gender, the group included 59 women and 41 men. However, this sociolinguistic criterion was not further considered in the evaluation of the empirical data. Based on their age at immigration to Germany, the group includes both early immigrants—effectively heritage speakers (n = 50) who were either born in Germany or moved there before the age of five—and late immigrants (n = 50) who arrived in the host country after completing their schooling in their home country, i.e., at the age of 18 or older.

According to self-reports, all participants stated that Polish is their first language (L1), while 23 of them also identified German as their first language. This means that 23 participants (23%) consider themselves balanced bilinguals without a dominant language. However, it is noteworthy that only eight representatives of the second generation (8%) reported German as their sole first language. Possibly, the question about the first language was interpreted as a question about proficiency in Polish. Further details can be found in

Table 1. First language (L1).

			First Generation		Second Generation
	Total Responses
	n	%	n	%	n	%
L1 German	8	8%	0	0%	8	8%
L1 Polish	77	77%	45	45%	24	24%
L1 Polish and L1 German	23	23%	45	45%	18	18%
Total	100	100%	50	50%	50	50%

.

The language biographical data of the participant group is presented in

Table 2. Language use with family and in the workplace.

			First Generation		Second Generation
	Total Responses
	n	%	n	%	n	%
German in the family (as a first home language)	34	34%	12	12%	22	22%
Polish in the family (as a first home language)	66	66%	38	38%	28	28%
Polish in the workplace	22	22%	16	16%	6	6%

. It illustrates the distribution of Polish and German in the group’s daily language use. According to self-reports, second-generation immigrants use German as a first home language more than the first generation (22% vs. 12%) and, respectively, less Polish (28% vs. 38%). This data corresponds with previous studies on language shift within migrant communities, where the dominant societal language increasingly replaces the heritage language in home settings (cf., among others, Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2005; Veltman, 1983). The question of whether Polish is also used in the workplace aims to determine whether respondents employ (or are required to employ) formal registers of Polish in professional communication. A total of 22 out of 100 respondents use Polish in their work, whereby 16 of these belong to the late immigrant group (first generation) and 6 to the early immigrant group (second generation). Therefore, most of respondents (78% out of 100%) do not use Polish formal registers in official contexts and, in particular, in business communication in Germany, even if they use Polish as a first or sole home language.

5.2.2. Attitudes

In the present paper, language attitudes are defined as evaluative reactions to language (Albarracin & Shavitt, 2018; Dragojevic et al., 2021), shedding light on essential factors affecting language maintenance versus language shift in multilingual contexts (Bradley, 2013). Language attitudes influence speakers’ identity construction, the implementation of language policy measures, as well as the maintenance or loss of a heritage or second language in a multilingual context (Li & Wei, 2022). They play a decisive role in language change, as they shape speakers’ preferences for competing certain variants, contributing to their adoption and establishment in language use (Fishman, 1966; Ryan et al., 1982; Baker, 1992; Thomason, 2001a; García, 2003), in particular, in historical language change (Warditz, 2017, 2019). This mechanism also applies to contact-induced language change in the context of migration as a special case of multilingualism (Tsaliki, 2004; Rampton, 2006; López, 2010).

The present survey examined the attitudes of bilingual speakers with a migration background toward the Polish system of address. The first question focused on the perception of the central form of German formal address in comparison to Polish, while the second question addressed Polish address forms that include professional titles vs. designations. Participants were allowed to select up to two answers per question, which is why the total number of responses exceeds the number of participants. The number and distribution of the identified language attitudes between the early and late immigrants vs. between both generations can be seen in

Table 3. Language attitudes: comparison of early and late immigrants.

Total Responses			Age of Immigration
			Early Immigrants (=Second Generation)		Late Immigrants (=First Generation)
1. Question: The German forms of address are…
… easier to use than Polish ones	59	59%	39	78%	20	40%
… more democratic than Polish ones	13	13%	4	8%	9	18%
… just as neutral	41	41%	18	36%	23	46%
… just as important for expressing social contrasts	29	29%	17	34%	12	24%
2. Question: The Polish forms of address with titles are…
… not neutral	54	54%	20	40%	34	68%
… neutral—just like in German	44	44%	28	56%	16	32%
… neutral—different from German	11	11%	6	12%	5	10%
… not important for expressing social contrasts	19	19%	13	26%	6	12%
… important for expressing social contrasts—just like in German	69	69%	38	76%	31	62%
… important for expressing social contrasts—different from German	15	15%	5	10%	10	20%

; Figure 1 and Figure 2 provide a visualization of the results. Table 3 compares the attitudes of early immigrants and late immigrants toward German forms of address in comparison to Polish ones (first question in the survey) and how early and late immigrants perceive Polish forms of address with titles, particularly in relation to neutrality and social contrasts (second question in the survey). As previously mentioned, the survey was conducted in Polish; however, for simplicity, only the English translation is provided in the main text. For both questions in the survey, multiple responses were possible. The percentage for each experimental group was calculated separately, i.e., out of 50 respondents in each group, respectively.

A notable pattern in the responses to the first question is that most respondents (59%) perceive the central German forms of address in formal speech (Herr/Frau ‘Mr./Ms.’ + Last Name or Sie ‘you’, 3PL) as easier to use than their Polish counterparts. However, they also rate them as just as neutral (41% vs. 44%). In line with this response, only 13% of participants rated German address forms as more democratic than Polish ones. Somewhat paradoxically, a relatively high percentage (29%) agrees with the statement that German address forms are just as important for expressing social contrasts as Polish ones. A preliminary conclusion here is that the bilingual respondents, who primarily use Polish in informal domains, assess the Polish and German variants mainly from a language economy perspective. For the second question, most respondents classify Polish address forms with titles as not neutral (54%). At the same time, the German equivalents are also perceived as important for expressing social contrasts (69%). Even among those who consider Polish address forms with titles to be neutral, 44% see no difference compared to the German system. This suggests that representatives of both positions view the formal address systems of the two languages as analogous. According to their attitudes, the two politeness systems do not contrast in this regard.

Based on the transgenerational comparison of responses, some main trends can be identified. See Figure 1 for first question and Figure 2 for second question.

The early immigrants, i.e., effectively heritage speakers, with a clear dominance of the German language in official and institutional domains (school, education, etc.), tend to perceive the use of German formal address as “easier” compared to the Polish one (78% vs. 40% for late immigrants). However, the late immigrants frequently perceive German address forms as more egalitarian compared to the hierarchical nuances they associate with Polish forms (18%), while only 8% of the early immigrants share this view. A total of 36% of the early immigrants and 46% of the late immigrants believe German and Polish forms of address are equally neutral. The slightly higher percentage among the late immigrants suggests they may see less of a distinction in formality between the two languages, possibly because they have not fully internalized the nuances of German. Similar situations were observed through attitudes towards expressing social contrasts. A total of 34% of the early immigrants and 24% of the late immigrants think German forms of address are just as important as Polish ones in expressing social contrasts. The higher percentage among the second-generation immigrants may indicate a deeper awareness of the social markers embedded in the German language, as they have grown up within the German-speaking social environment.

Comparable patterns were identified in the attitudes towards the Polish address system (second question). Most of the late immigrants (68% vs. 40% for early immigrants) perceive the Polish forms of address with titles as not neutral, while for the early immigrants, these are seen as neutral, just like in German (56% vs. 32% for late immigrants). This suggests that the first-generation immigrants, who were socialized in a Polish-speaking environment, recognize the formality and hierarchy embedded in Polish address forms more strongly. The low percentages (12% for early immigrants and 10% for late immigrants) suggest that very few respondents see Polish address forms as neutral in a way that is distinct from German norms. However, paradoxically—in comparison with the two previously preferred answers—both groups rate the Polish formal address with titles as a tool for expressing social contrasts, just like in German (76% for early immigrants and 62% for late immigrants), and the early immigrants slightly more often equate this function to German address forms. Whether the influence of other West Germanic languages, especially English, as well as the transition to the informal Du ‘you’ (2SING) in small-business and commercial contexts (Ankenbrand, 2013), is playing a role here, should be specifically tested in further research.

In summary, the documented patterns suggest that ease of use plays a crucial role in shaping the respondents’ perceptions of address forms. The fact that many still consider German forms just as neutral as Polish ones indicates that neutrality is understood in relative rather than absolute terms. Additionally, the notable agreement on their role in expressing social contrasts hints at an awareness of hierarchical structures in both languages, despite differences in their specific forms of address. Moreover, the perception of linguistic politeness forms depends on whether the speakers belong to the first or second generation of immigrants.

The data highlights differences in linguistic adaptation and perception between generations. The second-generation immigrants, having grown up in a German-speaking environment, find German address forms easier and more significant in expressing social differences. The first-generation immigrants perceive German address forms as somewhat more democratic and neutral, but they tend to perceive Polish address forms as less neutral and more important for marking social distinctions. The contrast between the two groups suggests a shift in linguistic perception over generations, with the second-generation immigrants adapting more to the German system while still recognizing some social distinctions in Polish. This pattern aligns with broader trends in language assimilation, where later generations gradually reinterpret the norms of their heritage language through the lens of their host country’s linguistic framework.

5.2.3. Language Use

The use of Polish formal address by Polish heritage speakers in Germany was tested based on three hypothetical communicative situations. This sample aimed to examine whether the functional distribution of languages (use of Polish as a heritage language in informal and German as a societal language in official domains) could lead to a preference for German forms of address in Polish-speaking migrant communication, eventually resulting in a language shift. Furthermore, it was investigated whether hybrid forms also emerge in the area of politeness, similarly to other fragments of the language system.

The three test situations referred to the asymmetries in the German and Polish address systems described above and assumed official (institutional or professional) relationships between the speaker and their interlocutor. According to the description of each situation, the respondents were asked to choose one or two variants that they considered most appropriate. The number of evaluated answers may therefore exceed the number of respondents themselves. Additionally, the option to provide their own variant was available. The test situations will now be presented and evaluated individually.

• Situation 1

• [Description:] W ramach praktyk pracuje Pan/Pani w polskiej organizacji, razem z inną praktykantką: Anną Lis. Jak poprosi ją Pan/Pani o pożyczenie czegoś do pisania?
• ‘As part of your internship, you work in a Polish organization, together with another intern, Anna Lis. How would you ask her to lend you a pen?’
• [Possible answers:]
• a. Pani Anno, czy mogłaby mi pani pożyczyć długopis?
• ‘Pani Anna [long form of the first name, vocative], could you lend me a pen?’
• b. Pani Aniu, czy mogłaby mi pani pożyczyć długopis?
• ‘Pani Anja [short form of the first name, vocative], could you lend me a pen?’
• c. Anno, czy mogłabyś mi pożyczyć długopis?
• ‘Anna [long form of the first name, vocative], could you lend me a pen?’
• d. Aniu, czy mogłabyś mi pożyczyć długopis?
• ‘Anja [short form of the first name, vocative], could you lend me a pen?’
• e. Pani Lis, czy mogłaby mi pani pożyczyć długopis?
• ‘Pani Lis, could you lend me a pen?’
• f. Frau Lis, czy mogłaby mi pani pożyczyć długopis?
• ‘Frau Lis, could you lend me a pen?’
• g. inaczej—jak?
• ‘in another way—how?’

The proposed answers include the same sentence “Could you lend me a pen?” with various forms of address. The spectrum of possible answers includes two variants with and without Pani ‘~Ms.’ with long and short forms of the first name in the vocative, one form with Pani ‘Ms.’ + Last Name, and a form transferred from German, Frau ‘Ms.’ + Last Name. In monolingual use, the first four forms are considered correct, with the choice between Du ‘you’ (2SING) and Sie ‘You’ (3PL) forms depending on customs at the respective institution as well as the relationship between the speaker and the addressee. Pani Lis ‘Ms. Lis’, as well as the hybrid form Frau Lis ‘Missis Lis’, are incorrect because such a pattern as Pan/Pani ‘~Mr./Ms.’ + Last Name cannot be used as a direct address form in Polish; syntactically, these Nominal Address forms, when used as pronominal, are to combine with 3 SING verbal forms. Figure 3 illustrates how the answers from the respondents were distributed.

The analysis of the preferred variants shows that most answers fall under the correct Polish forms of address. Therefore, the late immigrants exclusively chose variants that correspond with the Polish monolingual norm (variants a, b and d). The early immigrants demonstrate, by contrast, more loyalty toward the contact-induced variants such as Pani Lis ‘Ms. Lis’ (16%) and Frau Lis ‘Ms. Lis’ (10%). Obviously, these variants point to an increasing tolerance for transfer phenomena, which has already been observed in other language levels, especially notable in subsequent immigrant generations (cf., Warditz, 2016, for increasing loyalty toward hybrid variants of Polish and Russian verbal government in second generation speakers). The second key observation here is that the late immigrants, when addressing a peer and equal colleague, clearly preferred the short form of the first name combined with Du ‘you’ 2SING (variant d, 90% of late immigrants and 36% of early immigrants). Even if the late immigrants evaluate variants with Pani ‘Ms.’, they clearly prefer variant b, combined with the short form of the first name (42% vs. 16% variant b, with long form of the first name). In contrast, the early immigrants favored Sie ‘You’ 3PL variants with Pani ‘Ms.’ combined with both short and long forms of the first name (variants a and b, 28% and 32%, respectively). This could be interpreted as an indication that they are less familiar with the subtler nuances of the Polish address system, including the use of pronominal forms, as already shown in (Wolski-Moskoff, 2018).

• Situation 2

• [Description:] Studiuje Pan/Pani na uniwersytecie i ma zajęcia z Prof. Marią Kowalską. Jak zada jej Pan/Pani pytanie po zajęciach?
• ‘You study at the university and have a class with Professor Maria Kowalska. How would you ask her a question after the class?’
• [Possible answers:]
• a. Pani profesor, czy dostała pani mojego maila?
• ‘Pani Professor, have you received my email?’
• b. Proszę pani, czy dostała pani mojego maila?
• ‘[*Please], have you received my email?’
• c. Profesor Kowalska, czy dostała pani profesor mojego maila?
• ‘Professor Kowalska, have you received my email?’
• d. Pani Kowalska, czy dostała pani mojego maila?
• ‘Pani Kowalska, have you received my email?’
• e. Frau Kowalska, czy dostała pani mojego maila?
• ‘Frau Kowalska, have you received my email?’
• f. Pani profesor Kowalska, czy dostała pani mojego maila?
• ‘Pani Professor Kowalska, have you received my email?’
• g. Frau profesor Kowalska, czy dostała pani mojego maila?
• ‘Frau Professor Kowalska, have you received my email?’
• h. inaczej—jak?
• ‘in another way—how?’

This test situation examines the preferences of the speaker group regarding the address of a hierarchically superior person in an academic context. Since academic titles also function in German forms of address, this task opens up more options for transfer from German as well as for the creation of hybrid forms, cf., (Warditz, 2012). The second situation has two correct answers (variants a and b), while options c and d are not permissible in a direct address. All other options represent various transfer variants from German observed in the academic context through participatory monitoring. The preferences of the surveyed group in this regard can be seen in Figure 4.

Most of the early immigrants (74%) and nearly all of the late immigrants (98%) preferred the correct answer (variant a). Some also chose variant b, which could be interpreted as a “polite address without a direct form” or as an “address without an explicit addressee,” akin to German expressions such as Entschuldigen Sie! ‘Excuse me!’ or Entschuldigung! ‘Pardon!’. This was observed in 30% of the early immigrants and 9% of the late immigrants. However, against this background, it is notable that the early immigrants also perceived various hybrid forms, such as Profesor Kowalska (variant c), Frau Kowalska (‘Mrs. Kowalska,’ variant e), and Frau Profesor Kowalska (‘Mrs. Professor Kowalska,’ variant g), as viable alternatives, with relatively high endorsement rates of 38%, 30%, and 30%, respectively. This suggests a considerable openness among the early immigrants to address forms that integrate elements from both languages. Although less frequent, the perception of hybrid variants and deviations from the Polish monolingual norm among the late immigrants is also noteworthy. Variants c, d, f, and g received 8%, 8%, 6%, and 6% of responses, respectively, indicating that even among this group, there is some level of acceptance of multilingual address forms.

These findings can be seen as an initial indication of increasing tolerance for multilingual language use in the domain of politeness and, more broadly, pragmatics. This trend coexists with adherence to monolingual norms, suggesting the emergence of new multilingual conventions in the context of migration. The data reflects an evolving linguistic landscape in which traditional monolingual standards are being negotiated alongside new, hybridized forms of address. Similar phenomena have been observed in other language-contact situations, particularly in colonial and post-colonial contexts. For instance, studies on language contact in former French and English colonies have documented the incorporation of address terms from the dominant societal language into local academic and professional discourse (Mühleisen, 2002; Mesthrie & Bhatt, 2008). Research on English influence in South Asian and African educational institutions (Kachru, 1983; Makoni & Pennycook, 2007) has similarly highlighted the adoption of English honorifics and address conventions alongside indigenous linguistic structures. With regard to the Caribbean, Mühleisen (2002) discusses the impact of colonial languages on forms of address in formal settings, while in South Africa, Mesthrie and Bhatt (2008) explore how English titles and address norms interact with local languages. These cases demonstrate how power dynamics in academia shape address practices, leading to hybrid forms and linguistic transfer.

• Situation 3

• [Description:] Jest Pan/Pani u polskojęzycznego lekarza, Jana Lewandowskiego, który jutro zaczyna urlop. Jak zapyta go Pan/Pani o termin powrotu do pracy?
• ‘You are at a Polish-speaking doctor, Jan Lewandowski, who is starting his vacation tomorrow. How would you ask him when he will return to work?’
• [Possible Answers:]
• a. Panie doktorze, do kiedy jest pan na urlopie?
• ‘Herr Doktor [=Doctor], how long will you be on vacation?’
• b. Proszę pana, do kiedy jest pan na urlopie?
• ‘[Please], how long will you be on vacation?’
• c. Doktorze Lewandowski, do kiedy jest pan doktor na urlopie?
• ‘Doctor Lewandowski, how long will you be on vacation?’
• d. Panie Lewandowski, do kiedy jest pan na urlopie?
• ‘Mr. Lewandowski, how long will you be on vacation?’
• e. Herr Lewandowski, do kiedy jest pan na urlopie?
• ‘Mr. Lewandowski, how long will you be on vacation?’
• f. Panie doktorze Lewandowski, do kiedy jest pan na urlopie?
• ‘Dr. Lewandowski, how long will you be on vacation?’
• g. Herr Doktor Lewandowski, do kiedy jest pan na urlopie?
• ‘Dr. Lewandowski, how long will you be on vacation?’
• h. inaczej—jak?
• ‘in another way—how?’

This third test situation also examines the use of titles, but outside of the academic context and in reference to professional designation. The difference from the previous situation, however, is that while professional titles continue to be used in Polish forms of address, they are not permissible in the German system. Therefore, a positive transfer from the societal language cannot be expected in this case. Therefore, it is unlikely that a positive transfer from the societal language will occur in this case. The range of proposed answers here is identical to that in Situation 2: the first and second options are correct; all other options exhibit various deviations from the Polish monolingual norm, affected, among other factors, by language contact with societal German.

Most respondents preferred the first correct answer (variant a), with 80% and 74% in the early and late migrant groups, respectively. Like the evaluation of Situation 2, the second most preferred option was variant b, a polite address without an explicit address form, which also has an equivalent in societal German, such as Entschuldigen Sie! ‘Excuse me!’ or Entschuldigung! ‘Pardon!’ (chosen by 12% of early and 16% of late immigrants). As in Situation 2, the early immigrants also perceived various hybrid forms, such as Herr Lewandowski ‘Mr. Lewandowski,’ variant e and Herr Doktor Lewandowski ‘Mr. Doctor Lewandowski,’ variant g, as possible options, with notable endorsement rates of 18% and 16%, respectively. This could suggest a strong inclination among early immigrants toward an address system that integrates elements from both languages. At the same time, it may also reflect a decline in early immigrants’ proficiency in formal registers of Polish. This interpretation is further supported by their choice of variant c-a, a clear deviation from Polish monolingual address norms. In this context, the perception of hybrid variants and deviations among the late immigrants is equally noteworthy. Variants c, d, e, f, and g received 12%, 12%, 8%, 8%, and 8% of responses, respectively. Their selection suggests, in turn, a growing tolerance for language mixing and/or an increasing degree of language attrition in formal Polish.

The preferences of the surveyed group in the third test situation are presented in Figure 5.

6. Discussion and Outlook

The present study is embedded in the research context of the interplay between language attitudes and formal address forms in minoritized languages across different multilingual settings. See (Fishman, 1991; Clyne, 2003; López, 2010) for (endangered) indigenous heritage languages in the U.S. and Australia; (Salmons, 2004; Terry, 2008; Hornsby, 2011) for minority Germanic languages (e.g., Frisian, Low German), Welsh, and Gaelic, respectively; and (Rampton, 2006) for migrant heritage languages spoken in South Asian and Caribbean communities in the U.K.

Subsequently, the study examined intergenerational language shift in the use of Polish formal addresses among first- and second-generation Polish heritage speakers. In doing so, it documented their language attitudes toward the German and Polish address systems and analyzed whether and to what extent the Polish address system is influenced by language contact with societal German, which is predominantly used in official communication. The study aimed to explore the connection between the surveyed groups’ language attitudes and their language use as a potential mechanism of language shift in the domain of pragmatics. Therefore, the study was based on the following hypotheses: (1) language contact between Polish as a heritage language and German as the societal language, along with functional bilingualism, leads to pragmatic shifts that are strongly influenced by language attitudes, which emerge before language shift occurs, particularly in politeness systems and (2) because bilingual heritage speakers alternate between languages, using them as styles or registers within their multilingual repertoire, they are expected to integrate elements from both languages into their address system, with their choices influenced by their language attitudes.

Based on the evaluation of the data, the study revealed that respondents, regardless of their age of immigration (both early and late immigrants), critically reflected on both Polish and German formal address systems, perceiving them as potential markers of social inequality. Polish heritage speakers partially align therefore with earlier linguistic proposals for reforming Polish address forms (Brückner, 1916; Bogusławski, 1996). Additionally, their reflections appear influenced by the English address system, which has affected address forms in West Germanic languages such as Dutch, Swedish, and, to a lesser extent, German (Ankenbrand, 2013), including in academic contexts. This influence is particularly evident in the increasing use of Du ‘you’ (2SING) in formal and academic contexts in Germany, replacing traditional distinctions. A similar tendency can be observed in heritage Polish used in Germany, where the preference for a binary system—like German and English—seems to be emerging. Thereby, there is a noticeable connection between the use of Pronominal and Nominal Address forms. The use of German Du ‘you’ (2SING) or Polish ty ‘you’ (2SING) generally excludes the difficulty of employing the Polish formal address Pan/Pani ‘~Mr./Ms.’, which is combined with third-person singular verb forms, analogous with the Spanish formal form of address—usted ‘You’ (3SING). This suggests that pragmatic adjustments in pronoun usage influence Nominal Address choices as well, especially in the second generation of heritage speakers who are to a lesser extent familiar with Polish grammar and with Polish formal register. Analogous trends have been already shown in studies on Spanish speakers in the U.S. where English-speaking environments have influenced the reduction of formal pronouns like usted ‘You’ (3SING) in favor of the informal tú ‘you’ (2SING) (Gumperz, 1982). Similarly, research on heritage French speakers in Canada and Vietnamese–English bilinguals in the U.S. indicates that formal address distinctions in the heritage language are sometimes replaced with informal forms, influenced by the dominant language (Weinreich, 1953; Fought, 2006).

By analyzing linguistic reflections on Polish formal address, the present study confirms that migration evokes deeper awareness and metalinguistic reflection on address forms used in everyday life. Heritage speakers, faced with different pragmatic conventions in their environment, actively negotiate and reinterpret traditional address patterns. At the same time, a discrepancy was observed between quite radical attitudes toward the address system and only minor actual shifts in language-use preferences. This supports the first hypothesis, demonstrating that language attitudes toward politeness systems emerge prior to a significant language shift. In doing so, the study has confirmed observations based on other heritage languages in different multilingual settings, which have demonstrated that language attitudes serve as a driving force in the process of language shift, as they impact individuals’ choices regarding language use (see classical works such as, Fishman, 1966; Baker, 1992, and more recent studies Leung, 2004; Kroskrity, 2004; Tsaliki, 2004, among others). Regarding the second hypothesis, the study has confirmed that heritage speakers integrate elements from both languages into their address system. This trend was particularly pronounced among second-generation speakers, who primarily acquired their heritage Polish in informal settings, cf., the previous research on heritage language pragmatics that also highlights that bilingual speakers often develop hybrid address systems influenced by both their heritage and dominant languages (Holmes, 1995), among other factors, through the integration of nominal address forms from the dominant English or French (Fought, 2006; Mesthrie, 2006).

A comparison of the results from both test tasks shows that, while the respondents’ language attitudes indicate discrepancies in both German and Polish formal address, their language-usage preferences (as measured in a receptive task) predominantly align with the prescribed Polish monolingual norm. However, asymmetries between their openness to language shift in reflections and their primarily normative judgments of actual language use correspond to the evolutionary process of language change. Furthermore, in perceptually oriented test tasks, “correct” variants may be preferred. The selectively recorded preferences for various hybrid forms—resulting from language contact with the dominant societal language (German)—can potentially be interpreted as signs of increasing tolerance or acceptance (cf., similar evidence on transgenerational change in use of verbal government patterns in Polish and Russian heritage speakers in Warditz, 2016). Moreover, the study confirmed that the address system (apparently, like the entire politeness system) undergoes a pragmatic shift in the context of migration, with initial signs of this change first reflected in speakers’ language attitudes (Li & Wei, 2022; Thomason, 2001b). In doing so, the study further highlighted a pivotal role of language attitudes in shaping the pragmatic interface of contact varieties.

In addition to the factors discussed, it is important to consider the role of community infrastructure, language vitality, and attrition in shaping the use of Polish politeness forms among heritage speakers. The vitality of Polish within the diaspora is supported by well-developed infrastructures such as medical services, churches, and kindergartens, which facilitate the continued use of formal Polish address forms beyond the domestic sphere. Although German remains the dominant societal language in most formal settings, these community resources provide contexts where heritage speakers can practice Polish formal registers. At the same time, language attrition and reduced exposure—especially among second-generation speakers and already evident in other linguistic domains—inevitably impact the acquisition and consistent use of complex pragmatic features like formal address. These factors dynamically interact with language attitudes and language transfer, contributing to the observed patterns of pragmatic shift and hybridization in heritage Polish. Future research would benefit from the systematic investigation of the specific communicative contexts in which politeness markers are employed, to better understand the interplay between language use, attitudes, and community factors in heritage language maintenance.

Overall, the study demonstrates that pragmatics is a highly sensitive area in language-contact situations, with migrant heritage languages being no exception. The discussed findings contribute, therefore, to research on language evolution and change, emphasizing the significance of pragmatics—particularly address systems—within the borrowing scale (Thomason & Kaufman, 1988) that presents language phenomena from different language levels in contact-affected minorized languages, ranging from lexicon to morphosyntax. Future research could further explore how address-system variation in heritage languages interacts with broader societal and intergenerational language shifts.