1.1.

Culture, language and identity - community as a subject of culture

1.1.1. Exploring cultural identity

Literature often makes an interconnection between linguistic and ethnic identification,
showing how those two dimensions of our personality are fundamental. Ethnicity as a broader
collective concept implies not only a certain language to be used, but also, more importantly,
a whole baggage of beliefs, attitudes, habits and lifestyle characteristic of a particular
community. As such, it can be viewed as a type of identity and the most essential component
of personality (Paleczny, 2007). “Removing one’s ethnic identity would thus be removing a
part of personality, the part that has grown in deep into our psyche, attitudes and behaviours.
An individual cannot get rid of one’s ethnicity, he/she can only ‘add’ another, parallel or more
universal one to it” (Paleczny 2007: 73). The below discussion of enculturation and
acculturation processes, parallel in their nature to language acquisition and language learning,
exemplifies this process of identity addition.
For many aspects of identity, culture proves to be the binding element, contributing to
its coherence and setting the direction for individuals’ creative actions. While all members of
a culture have their unique features and personalities, culture brings this uniqueness together
as individuals feel satisfied and fulfilled when completing tasks expected of them in their
social roles and functions. On the other hand, the established cultural framework of identity
results in a need for deeper and more personal integration of aspects of foreign culture, going
beyond simple and superficial imitation, if one’s identity is going to be enriched in the
process of social adaptation. The solid nature of the cultural framework even leads to mental
disruption or crisis in the process of identity change.
Cultural identity constitutes a central aspect of self-concept and social positioning,
reflecting both subjective belonging and the recognition of group membership within broader
social structures (Tajfel & Turner, 2003). The development of cultural identity is not only an
individual process of enculturation and affirmation but is also affected by intergroup
dynamics and behavioural mechanisms (Zheng et al., 2025).
The foundational perspective for the understanding of development of cultural identity
is provided, among others, by the Social Identity Theory and the Identity Negotiation Theory.
According to the former, self-definition is partially derived from group affiliations, which
enhance belonging and self-esteem; strong affirmation of membership esteem, private
collective self-esteem, public collective self-esteem and importance to identity reinforce
cultural identity, while negative or ambiguous evaluations undermine it (Tajfel & Turner,
1979, 2003; Ashfort & Mael, 1989). The Identity Negotiation Theory, on the other hand,
conceptualizes identity as a transactional and interactional process, which is shaped by
cultural norms and power relations as well as challenged or renegotiated in intercultural
contexts (Ting-Toomey, 2017; Ting-Toomey & Dorjee, 2018). The Social Identity Theory
highlights the group-based dimensions of belonging and evaluation, whereas the Identity
Negotiation Theory underscores the dynamic processes through which identity meanings are
reconstructed in intercultural and intergenerational texts (Zheng et al., 2025).
Sustaining cultural identity in minority communities across generations may be
difficult and is mediated by the abovementioned factors of membership esteem, private
collective self-esteem, public collective self-esteem and identity importance, however,
challenged by identity confusion and acculturation difficulties (Zheng et al., 2025). Older
community members may declare stronger cultural identity and lower psychological strain,
while younger ones experience greater confusion and adaptation stress. This reflects growing
pressures on minority heritage continuity in a globalizing environment (Zheng et al., 2025).
Thus, strengthening cultural identity requires substantive rather than only symbolic efforts,
including heritage education, intergenerational dialogue, and supportive multicultural policies
that address the challenges faced by younger generations.
Identity survival in interethnic group contexts may also be explained with the
ethnolinguistic vitality framework (Giles et al., 1977). The higher the vitality of a given
group, the more likely it is that the group will survive and function as a distinctive, collective
entity in the intergroup setting. Survival is conditioned by three factors: 1) the social status
dimension (economic status of a group, the prestige of its language and culture, and its
sociohistorical status); 2) the demographic dimension (the sheer number of members within
an ethnolinguistic group and their distribution throughout a particular territory); and 3)
institutional support (the extent to which an ethnolinguistic group obtains support from
relevant social institutions - Jaspal & Sitaridou, 2013). Perceived threats to ethnolinguistic
vitality at the intergroup level may disrupt identity functioning at the individual level. In
response to a perceived threat, individuals may employ the strategies of denial,
reconceptualization, principle salience, passing, and negativism (Jaspal & Sitaridou, 2013).

1.1.2. A discourse community as a source of cultural identification

A discourse community is formed as a result of similar communicative practices by its
members as a consequence of inscribing a certain collective identity through fulfilling roles or
accomplishing objectives essential for its members (Wilczyńska et al., 2019). These practices
reflect the relations between community members, the status reached by individuals and the
roles adopted towards other members and are governed by goals and purposes of group
members (Borg, 2003). The combination of these features influences variability of discourse
in particular relations within the community – the choice of register, the use of references or
allusions to certain symbols, the way of arguing or certain stylistic devices to ensure proper
contextualization of the message. While varied, the communicative style characteristic of a
discourse community strengthens bonds between its members and expresses its uniqueness.
The communities of family, friends, work colleagues, spirituality, recreation or self-
realization to which individuals belong construct their discourses and construe meanings in
different ways (Bakhtin, 1981: 262–3) even though they draw on the same lexicon and
grammar (Little et al., 2003).
A characteristic feature of a discourse community, which makes it different from
simply a group of people speaking the same language (a speech community), is the nature of
communication through genres – the organizational patterns of communication which help to
define the community (Swales, 1990). A speech community is traditionally defined as a
community sharing knowledge of rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech,
knowledge of at least one form of speech and of its patterns of use, where shared norms of
usage prevail over mere linguistic similarity (Hymes, 1974). Unlike a speech community,
membership in a discourse community is a matter of choice as its members actively share
goals and interact with other members to pursue them (Borg, 2003).
Major defining characteristics of DC, according to Swales (2016), are a broadly agreed
set of common public goals, mechanisms of intercommunication among its members, use of
its participatory mechanisms to provide information and feedback, possessing one or more
genres and some specific lexis serving the communicative furtherance of its aims, having a
threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise,
developing a sense of implied expected behaviours (“silental relations”) and a horizon of
expectations (defined rhythms of activity and value systems for what is good and less good
work). Swales’s list can be supplemented with that by Pogner (2005), who mentions aim
(producing or disseminating knowledge in texts and discourses), no formal membership
(persons who work on similar problems or share interests become members on their own),
common professional interest as a basis for cohesion and duration as long as there is
members’ interest in the problem.
Bond is founded on a certain agreement (sometimes only implied) on the acceptance,
positive valuing or even affirmation of the values, drives and intentions shared by the
community members. Community members feel, think and act similarly, often manifesting
their belonging through style of clothing, way of behaviour or code of communication.
Commitment to a discourse community provides support, but demands a certain degree of
conformity if acceptance by the community is to be assured (Little et al., 2003).
The particular features that contribute to the formation of the discourse community
also play a role in the development of identity of individuals forming the community, which
can take the form of a multiple entity. The process of community formation, according to
Tajfel and Turner (1979), starts with initial categorisation, when individuals classify
themselves into specific community groups based on certain (e.g., spatial, speech, cultural)
characteristics. In the second stage (identification), they reinforce group identity through
shared memories and values, while finally, they enhance self-esteem by contrasting with
external groups (the comparison stage).
Since an individual naturally belongs to different discourse communities (defined or
loose, voluntary or strongly determined - Little et al., 2003) and not necessarily to the same
extent, one’s cultural identity turns out to be a multi-layered construct, with higher-level (e.g.,
national) and lower-level (e.g., local, professional, pastime-based) communities, with their
scope and dynamics differing based on the level of an individual’s identification. Different
dimensions of one’s cultural identity become activated depending on encountered situations
or challenges and they usually reflect the functions performed and the relations entered into in
a particular community. Individuals are more or less active in different dimensions, their
identity expands with a growing scope of relations, accepting new roles or functions within
different communities, hence the dynamic nature of cultural identity. Community members
bring with them varying expertise, and are constantly co-creating their ‘selves’ in different
small-group discourse communities (McVittie, 2004).
The dynamic nature of cultural identity also necessitates negotiation between different
identity profiles within oneself – a university professor performing in a university folk dance
group with other members-students is at the same time a member of a wider community of
academic teachers and a narrower one of folk dance members. Having two conflicting
identities (that of a university professor and that of a peer dancer) needs negotiation of
identity within the very person as well as establishing relations with folk dance group
members, who also need to negotiate the way of perceiving and interpreting the professor.
In each such interaction, there is a certain negotiation of one’s multiple ‘self’, unless
the identification with a particular identity is enforced by the context (e.g., institutional
restrictions or obligations) or the history of a particular relation. At the same time, it is not
necessary for the negotiation of one’s identity to be extensive in a particular interaction as in
each communicative exchange there is a certain (differing upon context, interlocutors and
topic) level of uncertainty and our tolerance of the involved risk. The uncertainty is resolved
and the risk is managed by the activation of implied and contextual knowledge characteristic
for the culture of a particular community. Quite interestingly, in some cases it may be easier
to communicate with a member of a different higher-level culture (a person from a different
country) but sharing the same lower-level culture (e.g., a member of the same profession) due
to a greater amount of shared knowledge.
Discourse communities can be local or focal (Swales, 2016). The former comprise
residential (based on domicile), vocational (based on the same place of work) or occupational
(the same profession widely dispersed around some area, Swales, 2016). On the other hand,
focal DCs are “associations of some kind that reach across a region, a nation, and
internationally, which may be informal groupings or more formal ones with rules, elections
and paid memberships” (Swales, 2016, p. 6). Swales (2016) also distinguishes a hybrid type,
‘folocal’ discourse communities, which are “hybrid communities whose members have a
double—and sometimes split—allegiance, as they are confronted by internal and external
challenges and pressures” (p. 6). Such a situation involves, inevitably, a conflict between the
local and global demands.
While in intercultural communication it is useful to look at focal (higher-level)
discourse communities such as a nation, an ethnic group or a regional community, from the
individual perspective it is more useful to view a discourse community on the lower level,
created by a family, a neighbourhood, a professional or social milieu (Kramsch, 1998).
Members of such communities share specific functions or intentions, which determine their
more or less permanent communicative interactions. As their result, a community member
starts to share the ways of perceiving, expressing and interpreting established for the
community in the communicative way which is also typical of its members. While interacting,
community members adopt the patterns of the group, adapt them to their own needs, shape
them through their personal experience and disseminate further spreading to other community
members.

1.1.3. Bilingualism vs. biculturalism

While the interconnection between language and culture is widely acknowledged nowadays,
with numerous examples both from scholarship (e.g., Sapir, 1961; Whorf, 1956; Boroditsky,
2011) and practical experience, the expectation of a similar (or identical) degree of
bilingualism and biculturalism is a much more debated point. While bilingualism (or, in many
cases, tri/multilingualism) has become a characteristic feature of contemporary societies and
is viewed in a much more favourable way than before, with more than half of the children
having the potential for acquiring two languages in a natural way, different paths taken to
bilingual competence call for a less definitive and less radical definition of a bilingual person,
also in the area of cultural affiliation and perceived identity. While in the past a bilingual
person had to display equal identification with both language communities and had to be
perceived as an equal member by both, currently no such expectations are put forward
towards bilinguals. Thanks to that, bilingual persons are allowed to perceive varying levels of
affiliation to particular language communities, which is natural given the time spent in the
countries, the amount of exposure to the languages, the function of particular languages or the
emotional load attached to each. Due to general acceptance of ‘partial’ and ‘unequal’
bilingualism, which is differing levels of language competence between the two languages,
there is also widespread approval for unequal levels of acculturation, with bilinguals no
longer accused of disloyalty due to inadequate or socially inappropriate responses, which used
to be frequent before the climate for bilingualism started to change for better in mid-1960s
(Komorowska & Krajka, 2016).
As indicated before, even though acquisition of both languages by a bilingual does
assume acquisition of aspects of both cultures, despite widespread expectations the degree of
bilingualism is not necessarily equal to the degree of biculturalism. This is reflected in
behaviours, viewpoints and values of bilinguals, which they are often aware of. Lack of
identical affiliation and identification with both language communities leads to an awareness
of one’s identity, the perception of which language is first and which community is primary.
Therefore, defining biculturalism is much more complex and sensitive than it is in the case of
bilingualism as it cannot be based on relatively objective measures of language proficiency,
but needs to take into account also the perception of belonging by both parties – the bilingual
and the language community. Thus, it can be safely concluded that biculturalism “is a
complex and multidimensional phenomenon; there is not just one way of being bicultural”
(Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; p. 19).
According to Francois Grosjean (2010), biculturalism means perception of a bilingual
of belonging to two ethnic or national groups while at the same time
 participating in the activities of both communities, though not necessarily to the same
extent;
 using both languages relatively regularly for everyday interactions;
  practising behaviours, beliefs and values characteristic of both cultural communities.
According to LaFromboisc and others (1993), the notion of bicultural competence
contains six dimensions: Knowledge of Cultural Beliefs and Values, Positive Attitudes toward
Both Groups, Bicultural Efficacy, Communication Ability, Role Repertoire, and Social
Groundedness. A person can thus be more competent in one of these areas but not others,
which also means that biculturals are differently bicultural.
Biculturalism entails proficiency in the two cultures, which can be reflected in
language use, friend choice, and media preferences (Cabassa, 2003). True (‘equal’)
biculturalism involves integrating cultures into a personalized blend, creating an
individualized ‘idioculture’ (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002). Bicultural individuals often
navigate two cultures harboring differing values, practices, and a sense of identity for each
culture (Maffini & Wong, 2012). As they continue to grow and change, act and interact, they
shape both cultures, just as these two cultures continue to shape them. The heterogeneity and
complexities of individuals' identities and experiences of culture moves the evolution of
culture forward (Maffini & Wong, 2012).
Navigating between the two cultures (just like linguistic code-switching), termed
‘cultural frame switching’ (La Fromboise et al, 1993), is the process in which individuals who
identify with two distinct cultures and have different lenses associated with each culture that
impact how they interact with and view the world shift between perceptions, behaviors,
thoughts, and emotional experiences associated with each culture.
Similarly to the dynamic theory of multicompetence, according to which competence
levels in particular languages change at different points in time, increasing due to greater
exposure, motivation or willingness and decreasing due to neglect (Cook, 2007), also levels of
particular cultures fluctuate in a bilingual mind, with one culture even dominating the other at
times (Phinney, 1990). Varying cultures in a bilingual/bicultural mind enable the user to
switch into the mode of each particular culture consciously, as is the case with language code-
switching, or mix their elements together (similarly to language code-mixing). Some
biculturals may decide to keep their ethnic and mainstream identities separate in an effort to
affirm both their intragroup (ethnic) similarity and intergroup (national) differentiation
(Benet-Martinez & Hatitatos, 2005).
Biculturalism is not only about the acquisition of a set of cultural identity content (e.g.,
cultural behaviors such as language and dietary practices and preferences) but more
importantly the process of how beliefs about heritage or host groups are formed, how both
communities intersect, how individuals access and switch between multiple cultural frames
and how they ‘play up’ (increase) and ‘down’ (diminish) their particular cultural identities
(McKenzie et al., 2023). This process-oriented approach to biculturalism is a much more
prominent sphere of research as it focuses on a much broader range of cognitive processes.
Grosjean (2010: 113-114) illustrates unequal biculturalism with his own experiences
of interactions in French vs. English-speaking contexts, showing how differently he is
expected to greet, part or attract the waiter’s attention non-verbally in the United Kingdom,
France, the United States or in Switzerland and how uneasy he can be as a bilingual trying to
communicate in those situations. Partial biculturalism is thus quickest to observe in the area of
pragmatics, where due to insufficient acquisition of a particular culture one can fail to
communicate with the appropriate effect on the interlocutors, being interpreted as rude,
insufficiently polite, disrespectful, or treated with amusement or surprise, in the best case.
While bilinguals generally find their interactions with both cultures attractive
cognitively, they may also perceive extended contacts in multilingual and multicultural
contexts more tiresome and exhausting. This is due to increased mental burden
(communicative tension, interpretative insecurity), greater attention concentration and
heightened effort in processing linguistic and non-linguistic signals, but also incompatibility
of value systems that create tension or even crisis (McKenzie et al., 2023). The experience of
feeling different may lead to a sense of exclusion, isolation or marginalization within one’s
own community (Purpuri et al., 2024). Biculturals feel better in the company of persons
similar to them, who share their experiences in coping with otherness. On the other hand, they
are not necessarily highly skilled (nor willing to) in translating or interpreting between the
two languages when asked to do that by people around (Grosjean, 2010). This is also due to
the varying levels of cultural knowledge and awareness, which, apart from the linguistic
ability of transferring meaning across the two language systems, necessitates also knowledge
systems in both languages, high levels of cultural and pragmatic competences.
The general perception of biculturalism by bicultural speakers is usually positive,
enriching and contributing positively to both individual’s personal development and the
broader societal fabric (Purpuri et al., 2024), with expanded job opportunities and worldviews
quoted as most immediate benefits (McKenzie et al., 2023). On the one hand, bicultural
identities bring numerous positive psychological and sociocultural benefits for individuals,
but, on the other, misrecognising bicultural identities has potentially adverse consequences for
intergroup relations (Chu et al., 2017).

1.1.4. Culture acquisition: enculturation vs. acculturation

While the literature most often sees culture as referring to a certain (smaller or bigger)
community, perceived as a more or less uniformed entity, it also has its individual and
dynamic dimension reflected in particular individuals. After all, there are no cultures without
individuals joining them and starting to practise the norms and communicative systems
characteristic of them. Thus, the process of joining cultures is where the three dimensions
(cultural, linguistic and social) are brought together.
There are two distinct forms of culture acquisition, which are experienced by a child
raised in a particular environment or an adult joining a certain social group, namely
enculturation and acculturation. The former is the lifelong process of acquiring the normative
practices of a particular cultural community one is a native speaker of (Kirshner & Meng,
2012). It usually refers to the situation of a newcomer as an immature member of the cultural
community which he or she is being socialized into. A child raised in a particular environment
gradually enters a ready-made culture, acquiring its aspects naturally through the process of
becoming an adult, until they develop their cultural identity as a part of maturity process. In
this process individuals respond to the aspects of culture available in their environment as
stimuli, which come mostly from the family, education, peers, but also media. Enculturated
behaviour patterns and habits are usually stable, difficult to modify or eradicate in the adult
life, though not always consistent throughout one’s lifetime.
When properly supported by education and media, enculturation has a fundamental
influence on the survival of the cultural dimension of a particular community: its values,
norms, orders, duties, habits and practices. The process of creating a unified system of values,
as well as language (especially in writing) is largely shaped by the system of education, which
takes different shapes depending on the capacities, ambitions and ideals of a given
community. Quite predictably, formal educational frameworks are more likely to perpetuate
traditional patterns and interpretations, which strengthens group identity and provides its
members with security. On other hand, non-formal and informal education are more likely to
respond to new and often unexpected challenges as they are much less based on established
frameworks or published materials.
On the other hand, acculturation denotes the case in which the newcomer is not a
member of the cultural community (e.g., an immigrant) and instead acquires the normative
practices of the target culture due to instruction by cultural agents (e.g., parental scolding),
conscious emulation, and unconscious adaptation (Kirshner & Meng, 2012). Depending on
such factors as identification with the first/target culture by the assimilating person or
acceptance or denial by the majority culture to freely determine their affiliation, there can be
various acculturation outcomes (Berry, 1980): assimilation, rejection, integration or
deculturation, with such more specific variations of the process as assimilation by melting pot
or by pressure cooker, rejection by withdrawal or by segregation, integration by
multiculturalism or by pluralism, and deculturation by marginality or by ethnocide.
Dynamic transformations of individuals in their lifetimes, together with parallel social
developments, often extend the process of individuals’ culturation over their whole lifetimes,
with enculturation and acculturation dominating in different periods depending on the nature
of interactions. The lifelong process of acquiring new values, incorporating new rules and
accepting new norms results in a situation in which one’s identity initially established through
enculturation is not likely to remain unchanged throughout one’s lifetime. However, it is more
than certain that it will constitute an important background factor in one’s biography. Even if
one’s identity is going to transform or develop due to extended contacts with a different
cultural community, it is unlikely that it will result in full withdrawal from the initial ethnic
and linguistic identification and assimilation with a different community and its culture.
The acculturation processes tend to be mediated by consciously accessible feelings,
identity structures and political affiliations (Kirshner & Meng, 2012) while enculturation is
much more unconscious and much less subject to conscious mediation (Hall, 1966). As such,
the enculturation/acculturation distinction resembles the acquisition/learning dichotomy
conceptualized by Stephen Krashen (1982), with the former more natural, effortless, based on
interactions while the latter more conscious, rule-based, operating on applied strategies. This
parallel is yet another piece of evidence for the widely quoted interconnection between
language and culture as components of an individual’s identity. The role played by linguistic
communication and education can be seen in family, surrounding, school, in conceptualizing,
maintaining and revitalizing cultural practices. The enculturation/acculturation distinction
with the dynamic nature of one’s culturation throughout the lifetime is particularly interesting
in the case of individuals from ethnic communities experiencing cultural and linguistic revival
and revitalization.
Since childhood, the home language (native language) is an important vehicle for
enculturation and socialization as well as for conceptualization of the world. As a specialized
symbolic system it enables mental ordering of reality and reflects it in the process of
communication, in cooperation with other communication codes. Home language is often
called the primary language since it becomes the chief code for one’s thoughts which are in
the shape of neverending dialogues or monologues filled by the human mind when it is in the
stand-by mode. The primary language is indispensable in the process of enculturation as it is
not only a tool to experience the world around us but it also serves the purpose of introducing
us into the world. As a result, individuals are able to name it, conceptualize and interpret in a
given language, make judgments and evaluations about it. In this way they make the world
their own, familiar, predictable and possible to identify with it. Finally, all this process leads
to the point in which it is possible to distinguish ‘ourselvesness’ from ‘otherness’, with the
former not necessarily perceived in hostile or negative terms.

References
1. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy
of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. [Link]
2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
3. Benet-Martınez, V., & Hatitatos, J. (2005). Bicultural Identity Integration (BII):
Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015-1050.
[Link]
4. Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism:
cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural
identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 492–516.
[Link]
5. Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.),
Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder: Westview.
6. Borg, E. (2003). Discourse community. ELT Journal, 57(4), 398-400.
7. Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304, 62–
65. [Link]
8. Cabassa, L. J. (2003). Measuring acculturation: where we are and where we need to
go. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(2), 127–146.
[Link]
9. Chu, E., White, F. A., & Verrelli, S. (2017). Biculturalism amongst ethnic minorities: Its
impact for individuals and intergroup relations. Australian Journal of Psychology, 69(4),
229-236. [Link]
10. Cook, V. J. (2007). Multi-competence: Black-hole or worm-hole for second language
acquisition research. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 16–
26). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
11. Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Toward a theory of language in ethnic
group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 307–
348). London: Academic Press.
12. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
13. Hymes, D. A. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
14. Jaspal, R., & Sitaridou, I. (2013). Coping with stigmatized linguistic identities: identity
and ethnolinguistic vitality among Andalusians. Identity: An International Journal of
Theory and Research, 13(2), 95–119. [Link]
15. Kirshner, D.H., Meng, L. (2012). Enculturation and acculturation. In: Seel, N.M. (eds)
Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA.
[Link]
16. Komorowska, H., & Krajka, J. (2016). Monolingualism – bilingualism – multilingualism.
The teacher's perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
17. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
19. LaFramboise, T., Coleman, H., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of
biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395-412.
20. Little, M., Jordens, C. F. C., & Sayers, E.-J. (2003). Discourse communities and the
discourse of experience. health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of
Health, Illness and Medicine, 7(1), 73-86.
21. Maffini, C. S., & Wong, Y. J. (2012). Psychology of biculturalism. In G. R. Hayes and
M. H. Bryant (eds.), Psychology of Culture (pp. 87-104). New York: Nova Publishers.
22. McKenzie, J., Thai Lopez, C., Dionicio, N., Ford, S., Thao, M., & Virani, S. (2023).
Biculturalism as a double-edged sword: The perspectives of Mexican American emerging
adults. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 92, 101754,
[Link]
23. McVittie, J. (2004). Discourse communities, student selves and learning. Language
and Education, 18(6), 488-503. [Link]
24. Paleczny, T. (2007). Interpersonalne stosunki międzykulturowe. Kraków: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
25. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: A review of research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514.
26. Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification
among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 7, 3–32.
27. Pogner, K.-H. (2005). Discourse communities and communities of practice: on the social
context of text and knowledge production in the workplace. Paper presented at the 21st
EGOS Colloquium, June 30–July 2, 2005, Freie Universität Berlin, 1-21.
[Link]
munities_of_Practice_--
_On_the_social_context_of_text_and_knowledge_production_in_the_workplace
28. Purpuri, S., Mulatti, C., Filippi, R., & Treccani, B. (2024). Inside the kaleidoscope:
unravelling the “feeling different” experience of bicultural bilinguals. Frontiers in
Psychology, 15:1376076. [Link]
29. Sapir, E. (1961). Culture, Language and Personality. Selected Essays. ed. D. G.
Mandelbaum (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press).
30. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Swales, J. M. (2016). Reflections on the concept of discourse community. ASp, 69, 7-19.
[Link]
32. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
33. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47).
Brooks/Cole.
34. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2003). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In M.
A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Intergroup behavior and social identity (pp. 73–98).
Palgrave Macmillan.
35. Ting-Toomey, S. (2017). Identity negotiation theory. In The international encyclopedia
of intercultural communication (pp. 1–6). [Link]
ieicc0039
36. Ting-Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2018). Communicating Across Cultures (2nd ed.).
Guilford Publications.
37. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: selected writings of Benjamin
Lee Whorf. ed. J. B. Carroll. Technology Press of MIT.
38. Wilczyńska, W., Mackiewicz, M., & Krajka, J. (2019). Komunikacja interkulturowa.
Wprowadzenie. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
39. Zheng, J., Wang, S., & Wang, Z. (2025). Between heritage and belonging: Cultural
identity reconstruction among Malaysian Chinese across generations. Acta Psychologica,
261, 1-17. [Link]