Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition 
vol. 6 (2), 2020, pp. 35–65

https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.7762

Teresa Maria Włosowicz
University of Economics and Humanities
in Bielsko-Biała (WSEH)

The Influence of Living and Working Abroad 
on the Identities of Researchers 

and Native Speaker Teachers 

A b s t r a c t

The study investigates the inf luence of living and working abroad on the identities of 
researchers and native speaker teachers. Following Block (2009), Hall (2012), and Pavlenko 
and Blackledge (2004), identity is assumed here to be dynamic and multiple, where the 
different identities of a person can be more or less relevant in a given context (Hall, 2012, 
p. 33). Moreover, identities at the time of globalization tend to be hybrid (Marotta, 2011) and, 
in the case of migration, they can be bicultural (Comănaru, Noels, & Dewaele, 2017), but as 
Comănaru et al. (2017, p. 539) observe, each bicultural person’s identity is different, depend-
ing on his or her life history, language proficiency, psychological traits, etc. Simultaneously, 
there is evidence that multilingualism increases cognitive empathy (Dewaele & Li, 2012) 
and makes people more open-minded (Włosowicz, 2019), so it could be assumed that the 
participants would recognize their hybrid identities as an enrichment rather than a threat to 
their native identities, even though identification with their native languages and cultures, 
with their families, etc. would remain an important part of their identity. The research tool 
used in the present study was a questionnaire completed by forty native speaker teachers and 
researchers living abroad. As the results show, the participants’ identities are indeed highly 
complex, hybrid, and inf luenced by different factors, however, the native language and the 
family remain very important components of identity, unlike, for example, one’s profession. 
Still, they also admitted that foreign language knowledge enriched them culturally, intellectu-
ally, and emotionally.

Keywords: identity, multilingualism, mobility, linguistic and cultural awareness

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8767-9332

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en


Teresa Maria Włosowicz36

Introduction

The purpose of the study has been an investigation of the identities of re-
searchers and native speaker teachers working abroad. The target group (lan-
guage teachers and researchers) was chosen on purpose. It was assumed that 
they would have higher linguistic and cultural awareness connected with their 
professions and that they would thus be more aware of the changes in their 
identity produced by constant contact with another language and culture, or 
even with other languages and cultures, since many native speaker teachers 
move from one country to another, as in the case of some English teach- 
ers or German teachers sent by the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst 
(the German Academic Exchange Service). In fact, such changes might be 
assumed to be relatively subtle. More precisely, as a hybrid identity (cf. 
Marotta, 2011) develops, it is gradually enriched by the language user’s 
intercultural experience, but while some elements of identity may change, 
others may remain stable. As Marotta (2011, p. 197) observes, in reference 
to Anthias (1999, as cited in Marotta, 2011, p. 197, see Section Identity and 
Mobility below), a hybrid identity does not have to mean greater openness, 
but in some cases, it may just involve the incorporation of minority cultural 
ideas and practices by members of the dominant culture. Certainly, here 
the situation is more complex: even though foreign language teachers and 
researchers belong to a minority in the country where they live, they may 
actually be regarded as members of a dominant culture, for example, teach-
ers of English as a global language in a country whose language is hardly 
ever studied abroad  

The study focused, in particular, on how living in a foreign country on 
the one hand, and knowledge of foreign languages on the other, influenced 
the respondents’ identity, their perception of their native language and culture, 
as well as their objectivity in both research (in the case of researchers) and 
teaching, and in their approach to their native language and culture. Indeed, 
the participants were all bilingual (one person) or multilingual (i.e., at least 
trilingual), although their language repertoires varied both in terms of the lan-
guages known and the proficiency levels. It could therefore be assumed that, 
while the participants would be aware of the changes in their identity, their 
identities would also be very complex and varied, which would be reflected in 
their responses to the questionnaire. Special attention was paid to the dynamic 
process of identity development and the different elements of identity which 
had changed due to the participants’ residence in non-native countries and, to 
some extent, due to their multilingualism and contact with other cultures, as 
well as to those elements of their identity which they perceived as stable and 
relatively immune to such influences. It was also attempted to find out what 



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 37

the participants generally identified with, and which elements of identity varied 
to a greater extent and were thus more individual.

Identity and Mobility

By and large, identity seems to be quite difficult to define and, while 
different definitions have been proposed, they vary considerably. On the one 
hand, some researchers equate identity with ethnicity or cultural identity 
and thus regard it as pre-determined and stable. For example, Friedman 
(1994, pp. 29–30, as cited in Tong & Cheung, 2011, p. 58) defines “cul-
tural identity” as “the attribute of a set of qualities to a given population,” 
which is “not practiced but inherent, not achieved but ascribed.” He adds 
that it is “expressed as heritage, or as cultural descent” (Friedman, 1994, 
pp. 29–30, as cited in Tong & Cheung, 2011, p. 58), which is learnt by all 
individuals and reflected in their individual behavior. In a similar vein, Hall 
(2004, p. 3, as cited in Block, 2009, p. 218) claims that “one’s identity can 
be thought of as the particular set of traits, beliefs, and allegiances that, in 
short or long term ways, gives one a consistent personality and mode of 
social being.” On the other hand, Gee (1999, p. 39, as cited in Block, 2009, 
p. 218) distinguishes between “socially situated” and “core identities.” While 
he defines socially situated identities as “the multiple identities we take 
on in different practices and contexts,” core identities, in his view, consti-
tute “whatever continuous and relatively “fixed” sense of self underlies our 
continually shifting multiple identities” (Gee, 1999, p. 39, as cited in Block, 
2009, p. 218).

However, as Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004, p. 5) remark, assuming a one-
to-one correlation between language and ethnic identity reflects a monolingual 
and monocultural bias. An example of that approach is the definition of ethnic 
identity as “a subjective feeling of belongingness to a particular ethnic group” 
(Noels, Pon, & Clément, 1996, p. 246, as cited in Pavlenko & Blackledge, 
2004, p. 15). Identity is not fixed, but rather, it evolves over time, and it can 
be negotiated, asserted, challenged, defined, etc. in different social contexts. 
Block (2009, pp. 218–219) questions Gee’s (1999) concept of a fixed, underlying 
sense of self and suggests that a better definition of identity is that proposed by 
Weedon (2004, p. 19, her emphasis, as cited in Block, 2009, p. 219): “the ‘limited 
and temporary fixing for the individual of a particular mode of subjectivity as 
apparently what one is.’” Thus, identity can only temporarily be perceived as 
fixed, but it changes over time. From the point of view of the so-called “left” 
theories of identity based on Lacan’s (1977, as cited in Block, 2009, p. 225) 



Teresa Maria Włosowicz38

work, identity is “fluid and unstable” (Block, 2009, p. 225), in response to both 
changes in the environment and to certain emotions. 

Indeed, just as a speaker’s dominant language can change as a function of 
his or her country of residence (Elwert, 1973, as cited in Hoffmann, 2001, p. 15), 
identity can also be influenced by moving to another country or even becoming 
multilingual. As Maines (1978, p. 242, as cited in Panicacci & Dewaele, 2017, 
p. 421) observed, “identities migrate every bit as much as bodies.” If, following 
Weedon (2004, as cited in Block, 2009, p. 219), one assumes that identity is sub-
jective and can be defined by what one apparently is, it can be supposed to be 
connected with one’s self-perception, which can certainly change. As Panicacci 
and Dewaele (2017, p. 423) conclude on the basis of a body of earlier research:

In summary, the literature suggests that migrants’ personality profiles, cul-
tural orientation and self-perception are pieces of a complex puzzle. While 
no researcher would disagree that migration experiences trigger changes 
across all aspects of an individual’s psyche (Dewaele, 2016), nobody has 
yet—to our knowledge—investigated the cumulative effects of personality, 
cultural orientation and sense of feeling different. Such a research is chal-
lenging since the directionality of the relationship between the variables 
can never be completely established. 

It can therefore be seen that identity and personality are interconnected. 
As has been remarked above, Hall (2004, p. 3, as cited in Block, 2009, p. 218) 
regards identity as the set of traits which contribute to a consistent personal-
ity. Still, as Mijatović and Tytus (2016, p. 231) have shown, the relationship 
between bilingualism and biculturalism on the one hand and a changed self 
on the other is highly complex. While bilinguals are sensitive to feedback 
from their interlocutors and adjust to it, bilingualism and biculturalism do not 
necessarily mean feeling different while using one language or the other. One 
trait which contributes to a feeling of a changed self is Agreeableness, which 
makes speakers seek harmony and thus change one’s behavior to please the 
interlocutor. Last but not least, as Mijatović and Tytus (2016, p. 231) observe, 
“[a] crucial role could further be attributed to cultural differences, a bilingual’s 
proficiency in the L2 as well as varying emotionality of both languages.” While, 
in the course of time, one acquires experience with two or more languages and 
cultures, one also tries to keep that experience coherent. As Drabarek (2018, 
p. 13) observes, one “strives towards a sense of continuity and inner identity 
by integrating past and present experiences.” In her view, “the content of 
identity will include individual beliefs, interests, needs, motivations, but also 
one’s way of thinking determined by axiological criteria” (Drabarek, 2018, 
p. 13). According to her (Drabarek, 2018, p. 14), identity might be regarded 
as synonymous with identification, which is related to social bonds, common 



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 39

interests, and the internalization of certain values. In the case of multilingual 
and multicultural individuals, these relationships can be even more complex, as 
their proficiency in the different languages varies even more and the language 
users’ experience with different cultures can be more varied too.

However, language is a salient marker of identity (Giles & Byrne, 1982, 
as cited in Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004, pp. 4–5), therefore, minority groups 
whose ethnolinguistic vitality (including the boundaries between the native and 
the second language) is weaker, learn the L2 and assimilate more easily than 
those whose ethnolinguistic vitality is stronger. Even so, identity does not have 
to be connected with a single language. Sometimes it is even difficult to de-
termine a person’s native language and some multilingual participants indicate 
two native languages (Kashema, 2003, pp. 163–164; Müller-Lancé, 1999, p. 86; 
Włosowicz, 2011, p. 496). As Boutan (2003, pp. 138–139) has concluded, it is 
the language of the mother rather than that of the country. Certainly, learning 
the national language is a necessity for the country’s citizens, but, at the same 
time, their native, minority languages should not be neglected (Boutan, 2003, 
p. 149).

Undoubtedly, there are differences between immigrants and other minority 
language speakers whose languages are not prestigious and who experience 
language anxiety and even subtractive bilingualism and L1 loss (Herdina & 
Jessner, 2002; Sharwood-Smith, 1989; Van Gelderen et al., 2003), and native 
speaker teachers and researchers, but exposure to the foreign language and cul-
ture and everyday contact with its speakers are likely to influence the foreign 
teacher or researcher, too. At this point, it is worth mentioning that this may 
also differ according to the person’s native language and the language of the 
country. Following Giles and Byrne’s (1982, as cited in Pavlenko & Blackledge, 
2004, pp. 4–5) suggestions concerning the role of ethnolinguistic vitality, there 
might be supposed to be a difference between a speaker of a less prestigious 
and less widely taught language (for example, a Romanian researcher in France) 
and a native speaker teacher of a more prestigious language (such as a native 
speaker of English in Poland), as well as a speaker of a language of a compa-
rable status (for instance, a Spanish speaker in France). 

At this point, it can be concluded that not only are identities dynamic and 
change over time, but they are also multifaceted or even multiple if different 
aspects of our identity are regarded as a number of “intersecting social identi-
ties” (Hall, 2012, p. 33). According to Hall (2012, p. 33), the relevance of our 
identities changes from one context to another, for example, a person’s identity 
as an American tourist is more relevant in one context, while in another the 
same person’s most relevant identity is that of an English language teacher. 

The fact that identities can be multilingual and multicultural has given 
rise to the notion of hybrid identity. According to Marotta (2011, p. 189), in 
the contemporary, globalized world, identities are often hybrid, or based on 



Teresa Maria Włosowicz40

“the intermingling or mixture of people from different cultural backgrounds.” 
Similarly, in their study on migrants’ acculturation, personalities and self-
perceptions, Panicacci and Dewaele (2017, p. 434) observe:

the coexistence of different cultures and languages in migrants’ minds 
might induce a sense of hybridity, especially visible in individuals’ psy-
ches. However, migrants’ appreciation of local practices and their ability 
to regulate emotional responses have the potential to minimise the sense 
of alienation emerging from switching languages, possibly transforming it 
in a sense of enrichment. 

Undoubtedly, migration—including employee mobility, student mobility, 
etc.— influences individuals’ identities very strongly. As Comănaru, Noels, 
and Dewaele (2017, p. 526) point out, migration

contributes to the complex dynamics of current societies, and individuals 
living in these changing contexts need to juggle their affiliations with the 
various social and cultural groups with which they interact, and, if possible, 
integrate them into a coherent sense of self. 

One of the kinds of hybrid identity is bicultural identity, which is the 
result of the integration of two cultures. In their model of bicultural identity 
integration, Roccas and Brewer (2002, as cited in Comănaru et al., 2017, 
p. 528) propose four different orientations in managing multiple cultural 
identities:
1  Hyphenated identities (a fusion of both the heritage and the host culture);
2. Cultural dominance (the host culture perceived as preferable);
3  Compartmentalization (alternating between both groups, as a function of 

contexts);
4. Integrated biculturalism, or “the formation of the identity as a world citizen, 

rather than belonging to one or more cultural groups” (Comănaru et al., 
2017, p. 528). 
On the basis of their study, Comănaru, Noels, and Dewaele (2017) conclude 

that bicultural people are different, and the patterns of bicultural identity are 
influenced by such factors as “life histories, family dynamics, language profi-
ciency” (Comănaru et al., 2017, p. 539), as well as other personal, psychologi-
cal, and contextual factors. It can be supposed that also the participants in the 
present study had developed largely bicultural identities or even, given their 
increased linguistic and cultural awareness as linguists and/or language teach-
ers, they had reached “integrated biculturalism.” 



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 41

Increased Language Awareness and Tolerance 
in Multilinguals

In general, multilingualism is not limited to the knowledge of foreign or 
second languages, but it is connected with a number of cognitive and affec-
tive effects. Following Grosjean (1992), it is assumed here that a bilingual is 
a person who uses two languages regularly, but is not necessarily fluent in both. 
For example, a native speaker teacher living in a foreign country may possess 
basic competence in the country’s language, but contact with that language and 
culture enriches him or her intellectually and, arguably, can also influence his 
or her identity. In fact, even a minimal knowledge of L2 means that one is no 
longer monolingual (De Angelis, 2007, p. 127). Similarly, a multilingual does 
not have to be fluent in all three or more languages. Therefore, assuming that 
there are different degrees of bi- and multilingualism, including, for example, 
minimal bilinguals (cf. Safont-Jordà, 2005, p. 26), it must be stated that all the 
participants in the study were bilingual or multilingual. 

However, it must be remembered that there are qualitative differences 
between bilingualism and multilingualism, which is why models of multilin-
gual competence should be based on multilingualism and not on bilingual-
ism (Hufeisen, 2018). According to the Factor Model 2.1 (Hufeisen, 2018, 
pp. 184–186), in contrast to L1 acquisition, based on neurophysiological fac-
tors and such learner-external factors as the learning environment and input, 
the factors involved in L2 learning additionally include educational aims, the 
cultural heritage, the L1, which is already in place, affective factors (motiva-
tion, attitudes towards languages and cultures, life experiences, the perceived 
language distance, etc.) and cognitive ones, such as language awareness, me-
talinguistic awareness, learning strategies and experiences, etc. On the other 
hand, L3 learning includes, apart from the factors already involved in learning 
L1 and L2, “Foreign Language Specific Factors” (Hufeisen, 2018, p. 186), for 
example, the previous interlanguage(s) and the L3 interlanguage, as well as 
“foreign language learning experiences and strategies,” such as “the ability to 
compare, transfer, and make interlingual connections” (Hufeisen, 2018, p. 186), 
which means increased language awareness developed while learning the L2. 
Indeed, as shown by Jessner (1999), multilingual learners possess increased 
language awareness. Yet, as the present study focuses on identity, language 
awareness is relevant here only to the extent to which it allows multilingual 
teachers and researchers to reflect on their language biographies and on the 
influence of foreign language learning, and especially mobility, on their identity, 
while the awareness of language structures is beyond the scope of this paper. 

Moreover, as shown by Dewaele and Li (2012), multilinguals have a higher 
level of cognitive empathy, defined as “the intellectual/imaginative apprehen-



Teresa Maria Włosowicz42

sion of another’s mental state” (Lawrence et al. 2004, p. 911, as cited in Dewaele 
& Li, 2012, p. 355). Yet, mere knowledge of multiple languages is not enough, 
as the effect is stronger in the case of frequent use of those languages (Dewaele 
& Li, 2012, p. 362). As Dewaele and Li (2012, p. 363) conclude, multiligual-
ism, combined with the frequent use of multiple languages, increases cognitive 
empathy and thus the ability to adopt the interlocutor’s point of view, which 
makes multilinguals more skillful in conversation. 

In fact, multilinguals perceive themselves as more open-minded and tolerant 
thanks to their knowledge of multiple languages (Włosowicz, 2019). However, 
as admitted by the participants, tolerance of other cultures is not unlimited, 
for example, if tormenting animals is a part of another culture, it cannot be 
tolerated. Similarly, even though knowledge of other languages increases open-
ness and tolerance and can contribute to international understanding, it is not 
legitimate to assume that it can lead to peace in the world, as international 
relations are highly complex and peace depends, in particular, on political and 
economic factors (Włosowicz, 2019, p. 225). 

Therefore, as multilingualism increases different aspects of language aware-
ness and, given greater cognitive empathy and the ability to see the world 
through the interlocutor’s eyes, also cultural awareness, it can be assumed that 
the participants in the present study were aware of the effects of multilingualism 
and mobility on their identity and that their answers would provide interesting 
insights into the role of mobility in multilingual identity development. However, 
taking into consideration the complexity and dynamics of language biographies, 
it must be remembered that, while certain observations might be common to 
a number of respondents, individual experiences could vary considerably and 
might not necessarily depend on the language repertoires or the status of the 
languages involved. 

The Study

Participants

The study was carried out with 40 participants teaching languages and/or 
academic subjects such as linguistics, literature, language teaching methodol-
ogy, etc., doing research or teacher training. One respondent (L1: Polish), in 
addition to teaching academic subjects and English as a foreign language in 
Norway, teaches history and philosophy in Norwegian at a secondary school. 
Similarly, an L1 Spanish speaker teaches Spanish geography and history in 
Spanish at a bilingual secondary school in Poland. One Frenchman living in 



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 43

Poland, in addition to teaching and research, makes professional translations and 
works as a consultant for French language examinations and advertisements. 
Only one person (a Polish L1 speaker living in Slovakia) is a manager and 
administrator in an international NGO, rather than a teacher or a researcher.

The participants’ language biographies are indeed complex. Their L1s in-
clude: English (9), Polish (7 participants, 4 of whom chose the questionnaire 
in English and 3 in French), Spanish (5; in fact, two indicated Spanish and 
Galician) and one Spanish-English bilingual, German (5), Russian (4), French 
(2) and one French-Dutch bilingual, Hungarian (2, they filled in the English 
questionnaire), and Portuguese (1), Uzbek (1, questionnaire in English), Greek 
(1; she lives in France, but she chose the English version) and Romanian (1; 
questionnaire in French). As was mentioned above, only one of them is bilin-
gual (in Grosjean’s (2012) sense), as she is a native speaker of English living in 
Poland and possesses a communicative (by her own admission) level of Polish. 
All others possess various levels of competence in three or more languages, 
from the beginner level (A1) to near-native (C2). The second or foreign lan-
guages in their language repertoires include: English (28 respondents), French 
(24), German (18), Polish (12), Italian (12), Russian (11), Spanish (10), Latin 
(5), Portuguese (4), Norwegian (3), Catalan (2), Ukrainian (2), Swedish, Dutch, 
Chinese, Japanese, Slovak, Czech, Finnish, Breton, Irish, Korean, Bosnian, 
Esperanto, Belarusian, Serbian, Croatian, Greek, Welsh, Hebrew, and Yiddish 
(one person each). 

They live and work in the following countries: Poland (14 participants), 
France (11) Austria (4), Spain (2), Italy (2), the United Kingdom (1), Norway (1), 
Slovakia (1), the Czech Republic (1), Portugal (1), Finland (1), and Kazakhstan 
(1). One (L1: English) respondent wrote he lived in Germany but worked 
in Poland and, similarly, one German L1 participant wrote: “Poland (and 
Germany).” By the time of the study, they had lived there from 1.3 years to 
36 years (mean 15.67 years, SD = 9.944). However, for twenty-four of them, 
the current country of residence is not the first foreign country they have lived 
in, as they used to live and work or study in other countries as well, both in 
Europe (for example, in Norway, Germany, Denmark, Russia, Italy, France, 
Spain or Sweden) and on other continents (the United States, Japan, South 
Korea, Georgia). It can thus be assumed that their experience of living abroad 
was sufficient to exert some effects on their identity and also to make them 
aware of those effects 

Method

The research tool used in the study was a questionnaire sent to the par-
ticipants be email. As identity is a highly personal matter, the participants had 



Teresa Maria Włosowicz44

the possibility of filling out the questionnaire in their native languages, or at 
least in their dominant foreign languages (they had a choice, but the English 
version was the basic one and they all received it as a point of reference). The 
questionnaire was written in five language versions: English, French, German, 
Spanish, and Portuguese. (The English one is presented in the Appendix at the 
end of the article.) 

The questionnaire included two kinds of questions: closed (both multiple 
choice questions and marking responses on a five-point Likert scale, from 
1—completely disagree, to 5—fully agree) and open ones, which involved 
commenting on the influence of knowing foreign languages and living abroad 
on their identity. Such a form was chosen in order to allow a combination 
of mixed methods—both qualitative and quantitative—which, according to 
Dörnyei (2007, pp. 45–46), is better than qualitative or quantitative methods 
alone, by eliminating the weaknesses of both approaches and increasing their 
strengths. While quantitative research is regarded as “systematic, rigorous, 
focused and tightly controlled” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 34) and enjoys a high 
reputation, averages do not reflect the complexity of individual lives, “[s]imilar 
scores can result from quite different underlying processes” (Dörnyei, 2007, 
p. 35) and they are not sensitive enough to explain the reasons for the phe-
nomena observed. By contrast, qualitative research can better make sense of 
complex and dynamic phenomena and answer “why” questions, but at the same 
time it may focus on individual stories and not be sufficiently generalizable, 
and there is a risk of creating theories that are either too complex or too 
narrow, based on individual cases (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 42). In the case of mixed 
methods, complex issues can be analyzed on multiple levels and the qualitative 
component adds depth to the results of the quantitative analysis, so the valid-
ity of research and the generalizability of results are improved (Dörnyei, 2007, 
pp. 45–46). In the present study, general tendencies revealed by the mean 
values of responses marked on the Likert scale can be supplemented with the 
participants’ autobiographical narratives. As Gabryś-Barker and Otwinowska 
(2012) have shown, personal narratives can reveal a lot about the development 
of multilingual systems, of learning strategies, language awareness, motivation, 
etc. It can thus be assumed that even short narratives (because of time limits, 
answering the open-ended questions) could provide interesting insights into the 
development of the participants’ identities. 

The research questions were as follows: First, what factors can be observed 
to influence the participants’ identities and to what extent? Second, how do 
they perceive the development of their identities? Third, what do the results 
reveal about the identities of multilingual teachers and/or researchers living in 
foreign countries? 



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 45

Results

First of all, the participants were asked what they did in the foreign coun-
tries, that is, whether they were teachers of their native language or another 
language, teachers of academic subjects, researchers, or whether they did some-
thing else (Table 1). As they could indicate more than one kind of work, the 
sum of the percentages is more than one hundred. However, as was remarked 
in Section “Identity and Mobility” above, it could be supposed that the status of 
the participants’ native languages in their countries of residence could also play 
a role in the development of their identity and their perception of it, as well as 
in the kind of work they did. For example, a Polish L1 speaker in France was 
more likely to be a researcher and/or a teacher of academic subjects (linguistics, 
literature, language teaching methodology, etc.) than a teacher of Polish. By 
contrast, an English or a French L1 speaker in Poland could be a teacher of his 
or her native language as well as a researcher or a teacher of academic subjects. 
However, a foreigner may not necessarily teach his or her native language, but 
also a non-native language, such as English. Therefore, the participants were 
divided into three groups: “more prestigious L1 speakers,” “less prestigious L1 
speakers,” and “speakers of comparably prestigious languages.” Certainly, this 
division is relative, as different factors can influence the status of a language, 
but it can be assumed that English as the world language is the most prestigious 
and the most desired language abroad, also in terms of the demand for native 
speaker teachers (Holtzer, 2001; Szczurkowska, 2007), so all native English 
speakers were classified as “more prestigious L1 speakers.” The same category 
included, for example, French, German, and Spanish teachers and researchers 
in Poland and in other countries whose languages are not widely studied, such 
as Finland or the Czech Republic, and consisted of 21 participants. By contrast, 

Table 1

The types of work done by the participants in the foreign countries

Work type
All (40) More prestigious L1 (21)

Less prestigious 
L1 (15)

Comparable 
languages (4)

N % N % N % N %

Teaching academic
subjects

27 67.50 15 71.43 9 60.00 3 75.00

Research 25 62.50 13 61.90 11 73.33 1 25.00
Teaching one’s native 
language

19 47.50 17 80.95 1 6.67 1 25.00

Teaching a foreign
language

6 15.00 2 9.52 4 26.67 0 0.00

Other 7 17.50 5 23.81 1 6.67 1 25.00



Teresa Maria Włosowicz46

speakers of less popular and less widely taught languages than those of the 
countries of their residence (e.g., native speakers of Polish, Greek or Russian 
in France) were classified as “less prestigious L1 speakers” (15 participants), 
while speakers whose languages had comparable prestige (e.g., a native Spanish 
speaker living in France or a Polish speaker in Slovakia) were labelled “speakers 
of comparably prestigious languages” (4). The percentages are calculated for 
all the participants and for each group separately.

As the figures indicate, the type of work done by the participants seems 
to depend on their native languages. While 80.95% of the more prestigious 
L1 speakers teach their native languages abroad, this is done by only one less 
prestigious L1 speaker (6.67%) who teaches Portuguese in France. On the other 
hand, the percentage of participants doing research abroad is higher among 
the less prestigious L1 speakers (73.33%) than among the more prestigious 
L1 speakers (61.9%). Because of the demand for their native languages, more 
prestigious L1 speakers are more likely to work abroad as language teachers, 
but, as the results show, they also tend to teach academic subjects (71.43%) 
more often than speakers of less prestigious L1s (60%). For example, academ-
ics who are native English speakers can teach English linguistics or literature 
abroad. In order to find out whether the type of work actually depended on the 
participants’ L1s, a chi-square analysis was carried out for the three groups and 
the results proved marginally significant at p = 0.01088 (df = 8). (The difference 
would not be significant at p < 0.01, but admitting p < 0.02, it might still be 
regarded as significant.) Therefore, there is a certain relationship between the 
status of one’s native language and the kind of work done abroad.

The next question concerned the languages they used in their countries of resi-
dence, as it was also assumed that language use played a role in the development 
of multilingual repertoires and could also influence the participants’ perception of 
their identity, for example, as more hybrid. The results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

The participants’ language use in their countries of residence

Language use
All (40) More prestigious L1 (21)

Less prestigious 
L1 (15)

Comparable 
languages (4)

N % N % N % N %

English as L1 9 22.50 9 42.86 0 0.00 0 0.00

English as a foreign 
language 

20 50.00 9 42.86 8 53.33 3 75.00

Native language
(not English)

16 40.00 11 52.38 5 33.33 0 0.00

The country’s
language

32 80.00 18 85.71 10 66.67 4 100.00

Other 8 20.00 2 9.52 4 26.67 2 50.00



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 47

Again, they are calculated for all the forty participants as well as for each 
group separately, and the sums of the percentages exceed one hundred, as the 
respondents could indicate more than one language. 

As the results show, most of them (80%) do use the language of the country 
they live in, whether their native language is more (85.71%) or less (66.67%) 
prestigious than the country’s language, or comparable in status (100%). English 
is certainly also used, whether as a native or a non-native language (in the case 
of one participant, English is also the country’s language, but he marked it only 
once, “English as a non-native language”), but, apparently, in the long run it is 
not enough if one lives in a foreign country, which supports Szczurkowska’s 
(2007, p. 42) observation on the limitations of English as a global language. 
Not surprisingly, speakers of more prestigious L1s use their native languages 
more often (52.38%) than speakers of less prestigious ones (33.33%), but they 
cannot use them everywhere either. Undoubtedly, a French L1 speaker can use 
French at the university department where he or she teaches, but he or she 
would be unlikely to communicate in French in Poland, for example, in shops. 
By contrast, the “other” category included languages used only in particular 
contexts, for example, Esperanto, or Spanish as the native language of a partici-
pant’s husband. The chi-square analysis comparing the use of languages by the 
three groups did not show any statistically significant difference between them, 
p = 0.08152, df = 8. This can be explained by the fact that, even though native 
speakers of English and other international languages were more likely to use 
their mother tongues abroad, they also used the languages of their countries 
of residence, just like the speakers of less widely used L1s, and that English 
as a foreign language was used by all groups. 

As for their attitudes towards the languages and cultures of their countries 
of residence, the participants were asked whether the language had become 
a part of their identity, whether they felt more emotionally attached to their 
native language or to still another foreign language, etc. (see questions 2b 
and 2c in the questionnaire). They could mark more than one answer be-
cause, given the complexity of the phenomena under investigation, one could, 
for example, know very well a language and regard it as a part of one’s 
identity, but still be more strongly attached to one’s native language. The 
percentages of their attitudes towards the countries’ languages are presented 
in Table 3. 

As the results indicate, for most of the participants (57.5%), the language 
of the country of residence has become part of their identity, especially in 
the case of speakers of less prestigious L1s (86.67%). It is possible that, while 
integration into the target society involves the use of its language, which, in 
turn, influences one’s identity, speakers of less prestigious languages, who 
cannot use their L1s in the foreign countries, are more likely to integrate the 
country’s language into their identities. However, regular use of a language 



Teresa Maria Włosowicz48

does not have to mean emotional involvement, as 20% of the speakers of less 
prestigious L1 and 25% of the speakers of languages of a comparable status 
claimed they were not emotionally attached to the country’s language, while 
only 4.76% of the more prestigious language speakers claimed not to be emo-
tionally attached to it. Quite surprisingly, the proportion of the participants less 
attached to the country’s language than to their native languages was relatively 
low (22.5%), and highest among the speakers of more prestigious L1s (33.33%), 
which suggests that, even though the native language remains an important 
part of one’s identity (see below), one also becomes emotionally attached to 
the language of one’s country of residence. (It could have been supposed that 
a higher percentage of the participants would stress the fact that, despite know-
ing the country’s language well, they were less attached to it than to their native 
languages.).

Table 3

The participants’ attitudes towards the languages of their countries of 
residence

Attitudes towards the 
languages 

All (40) More prestigious 
L1 (21)

Less prestigious 
L1 (15)

Comparable 
languages (4)

N % N % N % N %

It is a language I know 
very well, so it has be-
come a part of my identity.

23 57.50 8 38.10 13 86.67 2 50.00

It is just a language 
I teach or write in, but 
I do not feel emotionally 
attached to it.

5 12.50 1 4.76 3 20.00 1 25.00

I know it very well, but 
I feel less emotionally atta- 
ched to it than to my native 
language.

9 22.50 7 33.33 2 13.33 0 0.00

I know it well, but I am 
more emotionally attached 
to another foreign lan-
guage.

5 12.50 1 4.76 3 20.00 1 25.00

It is reserved for particular 
situations, such as talking 
with friends, but I do not 
teach or write in it, so my 
attitude towards it is quite 
personal.

5 12.50 4 19.05 0 0.00 1 25.00

I only have basic compe-
tence in it, so I can make 
myself understood in eve-
ryday life, but I do not 
identify with it.

3 7.50 3 7.50 0 0.00 0 0.00

I do not know it at all. 2 5.00 2 9.52 0 0.00 0 0.00



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 49

Table 4

The participants’ attitudes towards the cultures of their countries of residence

Attitudes towards the 
cultures

All (40) More prestigious 
L1 (21)

Less prestigious 
L1 (15)

Comparable 
languages (4)

N % N % N % N %

I have adapted to it very 
well and, in a way, I feel 
at home here.

32 80.00 15 71.43 13 86.67 4 100.00

I have adapted to it well 
enough to live in this 
country, but I still regard 
it as a foreign culture.

8 20.00 5 23.81 2 13.33 1 25.00

I do not feel the need to 
adapt to it, as I only work 
here as a researcher and/
or a teacher.

0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

I have tried to adapt to it 
but I have failed.

0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

I identify only with my 
native culture and I feel 
completely alienated here.

0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

I identify only with my na-
tive culture, but this count- 
ry’s culture is interesting 
and I enjoy discovering it.

2 5.00 2 9.52 0 0.00 0 0.00

Other 3 7.50 3 14.29 0 0.00 0 0.00

It can be seen (Table 4) that the overwhelming majority of the participants 
(80%) became adapted to the foreign cultures, especially the speakers of comparable 
languages (100%; here the cultures were also to some extent similar, for example, 
Polish and Slovak) and those of less prestigious L1s (86.67%). Certainly, even re-
spondents who had adapted to the foreign cultures could still regard them as foreign 
(20%), but no-one felt alienated, no-one felt any need to adapt to the country’s 
culture, and no-one had failed to adapt to it, which suggests that foreign language 
teachers and researchers’ high levels of linguistic and cultural awareness help them 
to recognize the need for adaptation and to adapt to the target culture better.

 The three groups’ answers were then compared by means of a chi-square 
test, but the difference between them did not prove to be statistically signifi-
cant, p = 0.116, df = 12. Similarly, the three groups’ attitudes towards the cul-
tures of the countries they lived in were compared by means of a chi-square 
test and, again, the difference between them was not statistically significant, 
p = 0.51217, df = 6 (the three items with 0% of positive responses in all groups 
were excluded). This indicates that neither the participants’ attitudes towards the 
languages nor towards the cultures of their countries of residence depended on 
the relative status of their native languages, and that members of all the groups 
had adapted to the foreign languages and cultures. 



Teresa Maria Włosowicz50

To investigate the participants’ views on identity, they were asked, first, 
what they immediately thought of in connection with their identity, and, sec-
ond, what they associated it with. The first question seems to have been quite 
difficult and, as one participant remarked, it was not a matter of an immediate 
decision. However, many participants did provide some immediate associations 
and wrote such things as: “work,” “Irish, followed by Polish and European,” 
“Belgian European Londoner,” “multicultural, multilingual, traveller, teacher,” 
“Earthling,” “unclear question: first of all, an educated European Catholic,” 
“Orthodox Christianity, Romania” (my translation from French), “my family 
(a difficult question),” “Russia and France” (my translation from French), “it 
depends on many factors, it can be Spanish, English or French” (my translation 
from Spanish), “my native region” (my translation from German), “Polish, but 
also a little French” (my translation from French), “nationality, customs, habits” 
(my translation from Spanish), “[I think] about perspective/perspective-taking 
and, through the stay abroad, about a change of perspective” (my translation 
from German), etc. As the responses show, their identities are not only varied, 
but also often hybrid  

Table 5 shows the percentages of the things the respondents identify with, 
calculated both for all the participants and for each group. Again, the percent-
ages exceed a hundred percent, as the participants could indicate more than 
one answer 

Table 5

Things the participants identify with

Element of identity All (40) More prestigious 
L1 (21)

Less prestigious 
L1 (15)

Comparable 
languages (4)

N % N % N % N %

Their nationality 22 55.00 12 57.14 8 53.33 2 50.00

Their native language 25 62.50 11 52.38 12 80.00 2 50.00

Their family 22 55.00 9 42.86 12 8.00 1 25.00
Being an international rese- 
archer or language teacher

12 30.00 7 33.33 4 26.67 1 24.00

Their profession or speciali-
zation

15 37.50 9 42.86 6 40.00 0 0.00

The country where they work 16 40.00 9 42.86 6 40.00 1 25.00
The university, school or 
company where they work

7 17.50 4 19.05 2 13.33 1 25.00

Being a citizen of the world 12 30.00 4 19.05 6 40.00 2 50.00

A hybrid identity 23 57.50 10 47.62 11 73.33 2 50.00

Difficult to say 3 7.50 1 4.76 2 13.33 0 0.00

Other 10 25.00 9 42.86 1 6.67 0 0.00



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 51

It can thus be observed that the participants identify most strongly with their 
native language (62.5%), especially among the speakers of less prestigious L1s 
(80%). This might be surprising, as speakers of more prestigious L1s might be 
supposed to be proud of their languages and cultures, and only 52.38% of them 
claimed to identify with their native languages. It is possible that speakers of 
less prestigious L1s regard the mother tongue as a salient marker of identity, or 
else they might lose their identity and simply become members of the domi-
nant society. At the same time, it is possible that more international languages, 
especially English, are no longer such strong markers of identity; for example, 
English might be regarded as the global language in the first place, rather than 
a marker of British, Irish, etc. identity, that is why its native speakers might 
identify with it less strongly than, say, Poles with Polish. However, taking into 
consideration the next result, the former interpretation seems more plausible. 
The majority of the participants (57.5%) marked a hybrid identity, yet, while this 
tendency was particularly pronounced among the speakers of less prestigious 
L1s (73.33%), only 47.62% of the speakers of more prestigious L1s indicated 
a hybrid identity. Thus, one may agree with Giles and Byrne (1982, as cited 
in Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004, pp. 4–5) that the ethnolinguistic vitality of 
a language plays a role here: prestigious languages such as English or French 
may have enough ethnolinguistic vitality to prevent their speakers from being 
“absorbed” by the dominant society. Still, some caution is needed here because, 
as was mentioned above, the status of an L1 in a foreign country is relative. 
For example, Portuguese is a relatively international language, as it is spoken 
in Portugal, in Brazil, in Mozambique, etc., but in France it is obviously less 
prestigious than French. 

The next, equally strong points of identification, were the family and one’s 
nationality (55%). However, there are visible differences between the groups: 
while the speakers of less prestigious L1s very strongly identified with their 
families (80%) and less strongly with their nationalities (53.33%), those of more 
prestigious L1s showed the opposite pattern: 57.14% identified with their na-
tionalities and only 42.86% with their families. By contrast, the percentages of 
the participants who identified with the countries where they lived and worked 
(40%), with their professions (37.5%) and with being international researchers 
or teachers (30%) are undoubtedly lower. This suggests that the profession is 
not a salient point of identification. Still, also only 30% identified with being 
citizens of the world (only 19.05% of the speakers of the more prestigious 
languages, more among those of less prestigious (40%) and comparable (50%) 
languages), which indicates that, while a hybrid identity may incorporate one’s 
nationality and identities related to one or a few countries one has lived in, 
being a citizen of the world is too broad a concept to identify with. Even so, 
while speakers of the more prestigious L1s rarely thought of themselves as 
citizens of the world, such a broad identity was more acceptable for speak-



Teresa Maria Włosowicz52

ers of less prestigious L1s and those of a comparable status, so the status of 
a language may also play a role in one’s identification with one’s nationality 
or, on the contrary, with being a world citizen. Finally, the “other” category 
included a number of different things, from religion, being European or being 
a EU citizen, gender, hobbies, books, personal experience, ancestry, regional 
identity, or even the local people’s attitude towards foreigners. 

However, the chi-square test carried out in order to check whether the par-
ticipants’ identification with particular things depended on the status of their 
native languages (more prestigious, less prestigious or of a comparable status) 
did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the three groups, 
p = 0.78, df = 20. Thus, even though some differences can be observed, they 
are not significant and the participants’ identity (following Drabarek, 2018, it is 
assumed here that identity can be regarded as identification) does not depend 
on the status of their native languages. 

The next part of the questionnaire focused more precisely on the partici-
pants’ perception of the influence of living and working abroad on their iden-
tities. The means and standard deviations of the results marked on the Likert 
scale are presented in Table 6, both for all the participants and for each of the 
three groups.

In general, the participants’ identities have been enriched by all the lan-
guages they know and they are quite unanimous about it, as the mean is 4.6923 
(SD = 0.655). This is particularly visible in the case of the speakers of less 
prestigious L1s (mean = 4.8667, SD = 0.5164), but even speakers of more pres-
tigious L1s recognize the identity-enriching potential of multilingualism (mean 
= 4.5714, SD = 0.7464). It has also been influenced by all the languages they 
know (mean = 4, SD =1.1239), in particular, by the best-known language (mean 
= 4.2, SD = 0.964) and, especially in the case of the impact of the best-known 
language, the respondents are fairly unanimous. However, living in a foreign 
country, regardless of their fluency in the country’s language, seems to have 
had less impact on their identities, but there are bigger differences between them 
(mean = 3.667, SD = 1.352). It is possible that, either, the very fact of living 
abroad has a lesser effect on a person’s identity than the character of his or her 
interactions with people, the length of his or her stay, the cultural differences 
between the native and the foreign countries, or that such effects are subtle and 
more difficult to notice than the effects of multilingualism, especially if the 
native and the foreign cultures are not very different. This hypothesis might 
be supported by the high standard deviation: while some participants noticed 
considerable changes in their identities brought about by living abroad, others 
did not. In fact, the way in which the statement was formulated, that is, that 
residence in a foreign country had an effect on one’s identity regardless of one’s 
fluency in the language, seems to support this result too. It can be supposed 
that knowing the country’s language allows one to make friends and to integrate 



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 53

better into the society than, for example, speaking only English as an interna-
tional language (Szczurkowska, 2007, p. 42), that is why in the former case the 
effect on identity is greater. Another possibility might be that the participants 
agree that living in a foreign country influences one’s identity, but some of 
them disagree that the influence is independent of their language proficiency. 
An example might be a German living in Poland, who used to live in Georgia 
for three years, and who indicated no proficiency in Polish or Georgian. He 
marked “1” (“completely disagree”), which suggests that language competence 
is an important factor and its lack makes it more difficult to experience an 
impact of living abroad on identity. 

Table 6

The participants’ perception of the influence of living abroad on their 
identities

Statement All More 
prestigious L1

Less 
prestigious L1

Comparable 
languages

Knowing a foreign language/for-
eign languages has enriched my 
identity. 

Mean 4.6923 4.5714 4.8667 4.667

SD 0.655 0.7464 0.5164 0.57735

My identity has been influenced 
by all the languages I know. 

Mean 4 3.6 4.333 4.75
SD 1.1239 1.095 1.1127 0.5

My identity has been influenced 
the most by the language(s) 
I know best.

Mean 4.2 4.056 4.4615 4.5
SD 0.964 0.8726 0.9674 0.577

My identity has been influenced 
the most by living in a foreign 
country, regardless of whether 
I am fluent in its language or not. 

Mean 3.667 3.7895 3.231 4.25
SD 1.352 1.357 1.235 1.5

Living in a foreign country has 
changed my perception of my 
native language and/or culture. 

Mean 4.1842 4.222 4.4 3
SD 1.159 1.2154 0.91 2

Because of living in a foreign 
country and having some experi-
ence of its culture, I can look at 
my native culture more objectively.

Mean 4.3077 4.3 4.4667 3.75
SD 0.922 0.65695 0.9155 1.893

Speaking or writing in a foreign 
language, I can be more objec-
tive as a researcher or a teacher 
than while using my native lan-
guage, because I am less emo-
tionally involved.

Mean 2.368 2.238 2.3077 3
SD 1.344 1.261 1.3156 1.633

Because of living in a foreign 
country, I feel even more strongly 
attached to my native language 
and culture than I would be if 
I lived in my native country.

Mean 2.8 2.619 2.8 3.75
SD 1.471 1.4655 1.373 1.893

I identify with the international 
academic community more than 
with any particular language and 
culture. 

Mean 2.7632 2.05 3.4286 4
SD 1.4225 1.05 1.4525 1.1547



Teresa Maria Włosowicz54

At the same time, living in a foreign country does have an effect on one’s 
perception of one’s native language and culture. Taking a distance and changing 
one’s perception of one’s native language and culture is a fairly visible result of 
living abroad (mean = 4.1842, SD = 1.159). More precisely, one acquires a more 
objective look at one’s own native culture (mean = 4.3077, SD = 0.922), and 
in this respect the participants seem quite unanimous. This applies especially 
to the speakers of less prestigious L1s (mean = 4.4667, SD = 0.9155), but also 
to those of the more prestigious L1s (mean = 4.3, SD = 0.65695), which sug-
gests that, because of contact with another culture, speakers of international 
languages (especially English, but also French, German or Spanish) can develop 
more objective views of their native cultures. However, such a changed per-
ception of one’s native culture can be a mixture of both positive and negative 
observations. As a Greek L1 respondent living in France remarked, she was 
aware of Greek flaws and Greek habits to which she had not paid attention 
before, but she had also got to appreciate Greek culture more and was becom-
ing more and more nostalgic with time. 

However, in the participants’ opinion, living in a foreign country and using 
a foreign language rather than the native one does not necessarily influence 
one’s objectivity as a researcher or a foreign language teacher (mean = 2.368, 
SD = 1.344). While looking at one’s native culture from a distance, one acquires 
a more objective approach to it, in contrast to people living in their native coun-
try and speaking their native language all the time, but a researcher has to be 
objective, whether he or she lives in his or her country or abroad. Thus, they 
may have learnt to be objective at the time of learning research methodology 
(during their studies, doctoral studies, etc.) and living abroad did not have much 
influence on their objectivity as researchers. Similarly, being a foreign language 
teacher requires some objectivity and the participants acquired it during their 
studies or teacher traineeships, rather than during their residence abroad. It is 
also possible that what they disagree with is the suggestion that they are more 
objective because of lower emotional involvement than if they used their L1s. 
A researcher should be objective and avoid an emotional bias while writing in 
any language, whether native or non-native. Yet, as the standard deviation is 
quite high, the participants’ opinions differ and some of them regard themselves 
as more objective teachers and/or researchers thanks to their residence abroad 
and foreign language use, while others do not. 

In contrast to the above statements, which presupposed some changes in 
one’s identity or some distance towards one’s native culture, the next one con-
cerned the opposite question: whether, because of living abroad, they actually 
felt more attached to their native cultures. It was possible that, because of some 
cultural differences and misunderstandings, they were more aware of belonging 
to a different culture and thus felt more emotionally attached to it. However, 
as the results show, living in a foreign country does not generally make one 



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 55

more strongly attached to one’s native culture than if one lived in one’s native 
country (mean = 2.8, SD = 1.471). 

On the other hand, identity is more strongly connected with one’s language 
and culture than with being a member of the international academic community. 
The participants do not generally identify more with the international academic 
community than with any language and culture: mean = 2.7632, SD = 1.4225. 
The highest level of identification with the international academic community 
was observed among the speakers of languages of a comparable status (mean = 4, 
SD = 1.1547), but, possibly, it is because three of them are academic teachers 
and/or researchers and one works for an international NGO. Indeed, the lowest 
mean (2.05, SD = 1.05) was observed among the speakers of more prestigious 
L1s, who are often teachers of their L1s but not necessarily researchers, so 
they may not necessarily identify with the international academic community. 
However, as was already mentioned above (see Table 5), the participants did 
not generally claim to identify with the international academic community, so 
both these results are consistent  

The participants were also asked to evaluate on a five-point Likert scale 
statements concerning their emotions and attitudes towards the languages of 
their countries of residence. Item 3b was aimed at respondents being able to 
speak the language, and item 3c—at those who did not speak the country’s 
language sufficiently well, but, as it turned out, participants with a basic 
knowledge of the country’s language filled in both 3b and 3c, at least partly. 
Moreover, only in the more prestigious L1 group were there respondents who 
admitted to no or insufficient knowledge of the languages of their countries 
of residence, so the earlier division into groups could no longer be used in the 
analysis. Rather, the means and standard deviations were calculated for the 
responses to items 3b and 3c. While speaking the language of the country they 
live in, the participants do not feel much different than while speaking their 
native languages, though their opinions in this respect differ (mean = 3.083, SD 
= 1.5). However, they no longer think the same way as a typical native speaker 
of their L1s (mean = 4.147, SD = 0.9888). They generally disagree that speaking 
the foreign countries’ languages they feel less authentic than when they speak 
their mother tongues (mean = 2.556, SD = 1.4029), and they even more strongly 
disagree that they do not feel authentic at all (mean = 1.7059, SD = 1.0597). At 
the same time, they generally admit that, while their identities are multilingual 
and multicultural, as language teachers and/or researchers, they can look at all 
those languages and cultures more objectively (mean = 4.09, SD = 0.9799). 

On the other hand, respondents who do not speak the country’s language 
(sufficiently), do not really identify with their countries of residence (mean = 3, 
SD = 1.095). Yet, they disagree that they identify only with their L1s and feel 
no need to learn the language of the country (mean = 1.5, SD = 0.83667). By 
contrast, they would rather integrate into those cultures better, but here their 



Teresa Maria Włosowicz56

opinions differ (mean = 3.833, SD = 1.472). To some extent, their knowledge 
of other languages allows them to observe the foreign countries’ cultures better 
and adjust to them (mean = 3.6, SD = 0.8944), and also, arguably, as teach-
ers and/or researchers they can look at their native cultures more objectively, 
even though they do not speak the languages of their countries of residence 
well (mean = 3.75, SD = 0.957). The former result suggests that, while the 
knowledge of foreign languages increases cultural awareness, getting to know 
a particular culture well requires learning its language. The latter indicates 
that being a researcher or a language teacher might theoretically make one 
more objective about one’s native culture and related cultures, but this is not 
necessarily the case  

Last but not least, the participants’ comments reflect their experiences, at-
titudes and to some extent the development of their identities. Some examples 
are presented below. 
Example 1 (a Polish L1 speaker living in Spain): 

[…] As a English young learner in England and an adult Spanish learner 
in Spain I have always identified myself with the target community which 
resulted from the need to communicate and integrate. Consequently, I devel-
oped various language identities from Polish (native) being affected by and 
developed into English which in turn has been influenced by the Spanish 
one. This complex transition process made me look at various cultural dif-
ferences in perspective. I became more tolerant and objective. Moreover, 
I feel significantly less emotionally attached to my native language. Finally, 
the experience of living in different countries has considerably enriched my 
international identity, at the same time decreasing the level of attachment 
to any particular […] language or culture. 

Example 2 (a Polish L1 speaker living in Norway):

Knowing other languages helps to see how my native language is a member 
of the European family of languages—with all the mutual influence on the 
form of loan words etc. It makes my perception of my country’s culture as 
less special, less exceptional but, on the contrary, as part of the common 
European tradition and an important contributor to this tradition. More 
inclusive rather than exclusive.

Example 3 (an English L1 speaker living in Poland):

Learning Polish has had a huge impact on my self-awareness. I now realize 
that I can learn other languages and, as a result, learn about new cultures. 
While I sometimes get a bit frustrated with certain aspects of Polish culture, 



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 57

it has given me fresh insights into the things I take for granted as a British 
citizen, and I do have more of an objective position when I reflect on my 
own country.) 

Example 4 (a Hungarian L1 speaker living in Austria):

I believe all the listed things have an impact on one’s identity, or to be 
more personal, they have had an impact on mine, and it is also true that 
languages are important for me, but I do not identify myself with any or 
all languages I know. I use the language as a tool, I enjoy using it to have 
access to “new worlds” and people. 

As the examples indicate, foreign language learning and living abroad in-
crease one’s cultural awareness and influence one’s identity, but the effects can 
differ from one person to another. While some people’s identities become more 
hybrid, others just take a more objective look at one’s native culture. Similarly, 
for one person a foreign language can become part of his or her identity and 
for another just a tool. Therefore, even though the impact of foreign languages 
and cultures on identity is generally undeniable, its role in the development of 
particular people’s identities is highly individual.

Conclusions

In general, the participants’ identities are indeed highly complex and in-
fluenced by a number of factors. To answer the research questions, first, the 
most important factors seem to be the knowledge of foreign languages, es-
pecially that of the language of one’s country of residence, and language use 
during one’s stay abroad. Living in a foreign country definitely influences 
one’s identity, but, as the participants themselves admit, not independently of 
one’s proficiency in the country’s language. On the one hand, multilingualism 
has been associated with a number of benefits, such as cognitive empathy 
and improved social skills (Dewaele & Li, 2012) as well as increased open-
mindedness and tolerance (Włosowicz, 2019), so it can be assumed that, be-
ing multilingual, the participants were able to adapt to the foreign cultures 
better, which, in turn, affected their identity. On the other hand, knowledge 
of the country’s language, rather than just English as the global language, 
allows one to make friends and to integrate into the foreign society more 
easily (Szczurkowska, 2007), so those who knew or learnt (as in the case 
of the Englishwoman who learnt Polish in Example 3) the language of the 



Teresa Maria Włosowicz58

country of residence could, arguably, understand the culture better and thus 
adapt to it. Undoubtedly, multilingualism is connected with higher linguistic 
and cultural awareness, so as a factor influencing one’s identity, it should 
be considered more broadly, not only as the knowledge of several languages, 
but also as a complex system of linguistic and cultural knowledge, combined 
with increased awareness. In fact, as the participants admitted, multilingual-
ism had enriched their identities.

A certain role is also played by the status of the native language in rela-
tion to the language of the foreign country, but it must be remembered that 
there was considerable variation among the participants. The fact that more 
speakers of less prestigious L1s indicated a hybrid identity than speakers of 
more prestigious L1s suggests that, on the one hand, a less prestigious L1 
speaker more strongly needs to learn the country’s language because he or 
she is unlikely to use his or her native language there, which allows him or 
her to integrate into the dominant society and develop a hybrid identity. On 
the other hand, to avoid being absorbed by the dominant culture, one needs 
to preserve one’s identity, for example, by maintaining one’s native language. 
However, such factors as nostalgia and identification with one’s family help one 
to preserve one’s native identity to some extent. Even though there were visible 
differences between the three groups in terms of the percentages of particular 
answers, the differences proved not to be statistically significant, so the status 
of the native language turned out to be a less important factor than it might 
have seemed.

Second, the development of the participants’ identities appears to be both 
complex and dynamic and, at the same time, largely individual. Generally, they 
admit that the foreign countries’ languages have become part of their identities 
(57.5%), especially in the case of speakers of less prestigious L1s (86.67%), who 
had to learn the languages well in order to communicate. They also adapted 
to the foreign cultures well, and no-one failed to adapt or felt no need to. 
Especially at the cultural level, the results indicate a subtle interplay between 
the linguistic and cultural awareness of the participants as both multilinguals 
and teachers or researchers, the interest in the target culture and the need to 
adapt to it, and, finally, an effect on their identities. They also notice a change 
in their perception of their native cultures, in particular, the development of 
a more objective approach. 

Third, the most important component of the identities of teachers and 
researchers living abroad seems to be the native language, as indicated by 
62.5% of the participants, which confirms Giles and Byrne’s (1982, as cited in 
Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004) statement that language is a salient marker of 
identity. What is particularly interesting is the fact that more participants indi-
cated a hybrid identity (57.5% of all the respondents, and as many as 73.33% of 
the speakers of less prestigious L1s) than claimed to identify with their nation-



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 59

alities (55% of all, 57.14% of the more prestigious L1 speakers, 53.33% of the 
less prestigious L1 speakers, and 50% in the case of languages of a comparable 
status). However, a hybrid identity does not necessarily mean being a citizen 
of the world: rather, one identifies with one’s native language/nationality and 
the country one lives in. The family is also a very important component of 
identity, while one’s profession or workplace is much less important, just like 
being a member of the international academic community. Moreover, some 
participants provided their own responses, ranging from religion, through the 
native region on the one hand and being a European or even an Earthling on 
the other, to such personal items as books and clothes. Therefore, while a hybrid 
identity may be characteristic of teachers and researchers working abroad and 
the native language may also serve as a salient marker of identity for them, 
identification with one’s family seems to be a rather universal component 
of identity  

What is particularly salient is the complexity of the participants’ identi-
ties, which cannot be easily generalized and summarized in a few sentences. 
As one of them remarked, if the present author wanted a simplified answer, 
he could just quote the nationality indicated in his passport. Indeed, the 
respondents themselves perceive their identities as very complex and, as the 
comments show, they admit that learning languages increases one’s aware-
ness of other cultures, tolerance, as well as awareness of the place of one’s 
native language among other European languages, and it enriches one cul-
turally, intellectually, and emotionally. At the same time, it makes one more 
objective, especially as regards one’s native language and culture, because 
objectivity as a teacher or researcher is acquired mainly through study and 
professional work. 

This might offer some implications for the training of foreign language 
teachers and researchers, who are mostly also academic teachers. First, apart 
from acquiring detailed knowledge of the language one is going to teach, 
some multilingual competence combined with linguistic and cultural aware-
ness would be advisable. In fact, one may learn practical grammar, vocabu-
lary, language teaching methodology, etc., but awareness-raising activities 
do not seem to be frequently included in the program of philology studies. 
Second, as living abroad and taking a different perspective makes people 
more objective, it might be capitalized on more in teacher and researcher 
training. For example, student exchange programs, such as Erasmus schol-
arships, might include more traineeships abroad for future teachers, rather 
than just lectures and classes. Similarly, there might be more exchange pro-
grams for doctoral students where they would learn to do research in other 
countries, broadening their perspectives as future researchers and academic 
teachers  



Teresa Maria Włosowicz60

References

Anthias, F. (1999). Beyond unities of identity in high modernity. Identities, 6(1), 121–144. 
Block, D. (2009). Identity in applied linguistics: The need for conceptual exploration. In V. Cook 

& W. Li (Eds.), Contemporary applied linguistics. Volume 1: Language Teaching and 
Learning (pp. 215–232). London and New York: Continuum. 

Boutan, P. (2003). Langue(s) maternelle(s): de la mère ou de la patrie? Études de linguistique 
appliquée, 130, 137–151. 

Comănaru, R.-S., Noels, K. A., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2017). Bicultural identity orientation of immi-
grants to Canada. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(6), 526–541. 

De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon–Buffalo–Toronto: 
Multilingual Matters Ltd. 

Dewaele, J.-M. (2016). Why do so many bi- and multilinguals feel different while switching 
languages? International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(1), 92–105. 

Dewaele, J.-M., & Li, W. (2012). Multilingualism, empathy and multicompetence. International 
Journal of Multilingualism, 9(4), 352–366.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed 
methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Drabarek, A. (2018). Identity as identification in a situation of threat to cultural security. 
Multicultural Studies, 1/2018, 11–23. 

Elwert, W. (1973). Das zweisprachige Individuum: ein Selbstzeugnis. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner 
Verlag. 

Friedman, J. (1994). Cultural identity and global process. London–Thousand Oaks–Kailash: 
Sage.

Gabryś-Barker, D., & Otwinowska, A. (2012). Multilingual learning stories: Threshold, stability 
and change. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(4), 367–384. 

Gee, J. P. (1999/2005). Introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
Giles, H., & Byrne, J. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal 

of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3(1), 17–41. 
Grosjean, F. (1992). Another View of Bilingualism. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing 

in bilinguals (pp. 51–62). Amsterdam: North Holland. Elsevier Science Publishers. 
Hall, J. K. (2012). Teaching and researching language and culture (2nd edition). London and 

New York: Routledge. 
Hall, D. (2004). Subjectivity. London: Routledge. 
Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism. Perspectives of Change 

in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Hoffmann, C. (2001). The status of trilingualism in bilingualism studies. In J. Cenoz, 

B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner, (Eds.), Looking beyond second language acquisition: Studies 
in tri- and multilingualism (pp. 13–25). Tübingen: Stauffenburg. 

Holtzer, G. (2001). Plurilinguisme et pluralité linguistique en Europe: une difficile diversifica-
tion des langues. In D. Abendroth-Timmer & G. Bach, (Eds.), Mehrsprachiges Europa. 
Festschrift für Michael Wendt zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 3–14). Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen.

Hufeisen, B. (2018). Models of multilingual competence. In A. Bonnet & P. Siemund, (Eds.), 
Foreign language education in multilingual classrooms (pp. 173–189). Amsterdam and 
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 

Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third lan-
guage learning. Language Awareness, 8 (3/4), 201–209. 



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 61

Kashema, L. M. (2003). Pour une autre médiation « culturelle » dans la compréhension de l’écrit 
de la L1 à la L2. Une introduction. In R. Sock, R. G. Kleiber, & L. M. Kashema (Eds.), 
Stratégies et parcours. De l’anticipation à la didactique du FLE. SCOLIA, 17, 163–177.

Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits: A selection. New York: W.W. Norton. 
Lawrence, E. J., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., & David, A. S. (2004). Measuring empa-

thy: Reliability and validity of the empathy quotient. Psychological Medicine, 34, 911–924. 
Maines, D. (1978). Bodies and selves: Notes on a fundamental dilemma in demography. Studies 

in Symbolic Interaction, 1(1), 241–265. 
Marotta, V. (2011). Hybrid identities in a globalised world. In J. Germov, & M. Poole (Eds.), 

Public sociology: An introduction to Australian society (pp. 188–204). Allen & Unwin, 
Crow’s Nest, NSW. 

Mijatović, M., & Tytus A. E. (2016). The bi-personal bilingual: A study of the perceived feeling 
of a changed self. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 
224–236. 

Müller-Lancé, J. (1999). Zur Nutzung vorhandener Fremdsprachenkompetenzen als Transferbasis 
für romanische Mehrsprachigkeit – ein empirischer Versuch und seine Psycholinguistische 
Relevance. Grenzgänge, 6, 81–95. 

Noels, K. A., Pon, G., & Clément, R. (1996). Language, identity and adjustment. The role of 
linguistic self-confidence in the acculturation process. Journal of Language and Social 
Psychology, 15(3), 246–264. 

Panicacci, A. & Dewaele, J.-M. (2017). ‘A voice from elsewhere’: Acculturation, personality 
and migrants’ self-perceptions across languages and cultures. International Journal of 
Multilingualism, 14(4), 419–436. 

Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Introduction: New theoretical approaches to the study of 
negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. In A. Pavlenko, & A. Blackledge (Eds.), 
Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 1–33). Clevedon–Buffalo–Toronto–
Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 

Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social 
Psychology Review, 6, 88–106. 

Safont-Jordà, M. P. (2005). Third language learners. Pragmatic production and awareness  
Clevedon–Buffalo–Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 

Sharwood-Smith, M. A. (1989). Crosslinguitic inf luence in language loss. In K. Hyltenstam & 
L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity and 
loss (pp. 185–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Szczurkowska, S. (2007). Europa anglojęzyczna czy różnorodność językowa? In S. Szczurkowska 
& M. Łopaciński (Eds.), Europejski wymiar edukacji w świetle projektu OBSER-Erasmus. 
Polscy studenci w uczelniach Europy (pp. 35–51). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły 
Pedagogicznej TWP w Warszawie.

Tong, H. K. & L. H. Cheng, (2011). Cultural identity and language: A proposed framework 
for cultural globalization and glocalisation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural 
Development, 32(1), 55–69. 

Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Snellings, P., Simis, A., Stevenson, 
M. (2003). Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and processing speed 
in L3, L2 and L1 reading comprehension. A structural equation modeling approach. 
International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 7–25. 

Weedon, C. (2004). Identity and Culture. Narratives of Difference and Belonging. Buckingham, 
UK: Open University Press. 



Teresa Maria Włosowicz62

Włosowicz, T. M. (2008/2009, published in 2011). Les influences interlinguales sur la com-
préhension des textes dans la troisième langue: Une approche cognitivo-pragmatique  
Villeneuve d’Ascq: Atelier National de Reproduction des Thèses.

Włosowicz, T. M. (2019). Multilingual competence as an important component of contemporary 
teacher education. In O. Mentz, & H. P. Burth (Eds.), Border studies. Concepts, positions, 
and perspectives in Europe. Conceptions, positions et perspectives en Europe. Konzepte, 
Positionen und Perspektiven in Europa (pp. 208–234). Wien–Zürich: LIT-Verlag.

A p p e n d i x

The questionnaire used in the study (English version)

QUESTIONNAIRE

Sex: F        /M       

1a) L1:                                 
L2:                                   Level of proficiency:                                            
L3:                                   Level of proficiency:                                            
What other languages have you studied? Please, indicate your proficiency levels:

1b) Which country do you live and work in?                                              
How long have you lived there so far?                                                     
Have you lived and worked in other countries in the past? If so, please, indicate where you 
lived and how long you lived there. 

1c) What do you do in the foreign country? (You can choose more than one answer.)
□ I teach academic subjects such as linguistics, literature, etc. 
□ I do research.
□ I teach my native language to foreigners.
□ I teach a foreign language (not my native language). 
□ something else (please specify)                                                     

1d) What language(s) do you use in the foreign country, both at work and in other situations? 
(You can choose more than one answer.)
□ English (as a native language)
□ English (as a non-native language) 
□ my native language (if it is not English)
□ the language of the country (if it is a bilingual or a multilingual country, please, specify 
which one:                                                      )
□ another language (please specify)                                             
If you use more than one language, which of these languages do you use the most often?



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 63

2a) If you think of your identity, what do you immediately think of? 
What do you associate your identity with? (You can choose more than one answer.)
□ my nationality 
□ my native language
□ my family
□ being an international researcher or language teacher
□ my profession or specialization 
□ the country where I live and work
□ the university/school/company where I work
□ being a citizen of the world
□ a hybrid identity (partly my nationality and partly the country I live in)
□ difficult to say
□ something else (please, specify)                                                  

2b) What is your attitude towards the language of the country you live in? (You can choose 
more than one answer.) If it is a bilingual or a multilingual country, please, specify which 
language you are referring to.                                                
□ It is a language I know very well, so it has become a part of my identity.
□ It is just a language I teach or write in, but I do not feel emotionally attached to it.
□ I know it very well, but I feel less emotionally attached to it than to my native language. 
□ I know it well, but I am more emotionally attached to another foreign language. If so, please, 
specify the language and explain why.                                                              
□ It is reserved for particular situations, such as talking with friends, but I do not teach or 
write in it, so my attitude towards it is quite personal.
□ I only have basic competence in it, so I can make myself understood in everyday life, but 
I do not identify with it 
□ I do not know it at all.

2c) What is your attitude towards the culture of the country you live in? (You can choose more 
than one answer.) 
□ I have adapted to it very well and, in a way, I feel at home here.
□ I have adapted to it well enough to live in this country, but I still regard it as a foreign culture.
□ I do not feel the need to adapt to it, as I only work here as a researcher and/or a teacher.
□ I have tried to adapt to it but I have failed.
□ I identify only with my native culture and I feel completely alienated here. 
□ I identify only with my native culture, but this country’s culture is interesting and I enjoy 
discovering it.
□ other (please, specify)                                                                               

3a) To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1 – completely disagree, 
5 – fully agree)
□ Knowing a foreign language/foreign languages has enriched my identity. 1 2 3 4 5
If so, in what way? 
□ My identity has been inf luenced by all the languages I know. 1 2 3 4 5
□ My identity has been inf luenced the most by the language(s) I know best. 1 2 3 4 5
□ My identity has been inf luenced the most by living in a foreign country, regardless of whether 
I am f luent in its language or not. 1 2 3 4 5



Teresa Maria Włosowicz64

□ Living in a foreign country has changed my perception of my native language and/or culture. 
1 2 3 4 5
If so, in what way? 
□ Because of living in a foreign country and having some experience of its culture, I can look 
at my native culture more objectively. 1 2 3 4 5 
□ Speaking or writing in a foreign language, I can be more objective as a researcher or a teacher 
than while using my native language, because I am less emotionally involved. 1 2 3 4 5
□ Because of living in a foreign country, I feel even more strongly attached to my native lan-
guage and culture than I would be if I lived in my native country. 1 2 3 4 5
□ I identify with the international academic community more than with any particular language 
and culture. 1 2 3 4 5 

3b) To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1 – completely disagree, 
5 – fully agree.) Please, answer these questions only if you can speak the language of the 
country where you live, at least to some extent. 
□ Speaking the language of the country where I live, I feel different from when I speak my 
native language. 1 2 3 4 5
□ I know more than two languages and speaking each of them makes me feel different (not only 
in terms of possible communication difficulties, such as insufficient vocabulary knowledge, but 
mainly in terms of the emotions the language makes me feel). 1 2 3 4 5 
□ Because of living in a foreign country and knowing a foreign language/foreign languages, 
I no longer think the same way as a typical native speaker of my L1. 1 2 3 4 5
□ Speaking the language of the country where I live, I feel less authentic than when I speak 
my native language. 1 2 3 4 5
□ I only use this country’s language as a tool for teaching, lecturing, writing, etc., but when 
I speak it, I do not feel authentic at all. 1 2 3 4 5 
□ The main problems I have encountered here are caused by cultural, not linguistic, differ-
ences. 1 2 3 4 5 
□ My identity is to some extent multilingual and multicultural, but at the same time, being 
a researcher or a foreign language teacher, I can look at all these languages and cultures more 
objectively. 1 2 3 4 5

3c) To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1 – completely disagree, 5 – 
fully agree.) Please, answer these questions only if you CANNOT speak the language of 
the country where you live, or if you only have basic competence in it. 
□ Even though I do not speak its language (well), I identify with this country and its language 
to some extent. 1 2 3 4 5
□ I identify with my native language and culture only, that is why I feel no need to learn the 
language of this country. 1 2 3 4 5
□ I only use this country’s language for basic communication, so I cannot identify with it.  
1 2 3 4 5
□ I would like to learn the language in order to integrate into this culture better. 1 2 3 4 5 
□ Even though I do not speak this particular language well, I know a few other languages and 
this allows me to observe this country’s culture more accurately and adjust my behaviour to 
it. 1 2 3 4 5 
□ Even though I do not speak this particular language well, as a researcher or a foreign lan-
guage teacher, I can look at it and at my native language, as well as at the related cultures 
more objectively. 1 2 3 4 5 



The Inf luence of Living and Working Abroad… 65

4) In a few sentences, please, comment on the impact of learning languages, travelling abroad, 
doing research in linguistics/literature/culture, working in a foreign country, etc. on your sense 
of identity. You can do it in your native language even if it is not English.

Teresa Maria Włosowicz

Der Einfluss der Fremdsprachenkenntnisse und des Kontakts 
zu einer fremden Kultur auf die Identität von wissenschaftlichen 

Mitarbeitern und Lehrkräften – im Ausland lebenden Muttersprachlern

Z u s a m m e n f a s s u n g

Der Untersuchungsgegenstand ist der Einf luss des Lebens und Arbeitens im Ausland 
auf die Identität von wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeitern und Lehrkräften – Muttersprachlern. In 
Anlehnung an Block (2009), Hall (2012) sowie Pavlenko und Blackledge (2004) wird angenom-
men, dass die Identität dynamisch und vielfältig ist, wobei unterschiedliche Identitäten dersel-
ben Person mehr oder weniger relevant in einem bestimmten Kontext sein können (Hall, 2012, 
S. 33). Darüber hinaus können Identitäten in Zeiten der Globalisierung hybrid (Marotta, 2011) 
und im Fall der Migration bikulturell sein (Comănaru, Noels & Dewaele, 2017). Die Identität 
jeder bikulturellen Person variiert allerdings, wie Comănaru et al. (2017, S. 539) betonen, in 
Abhängigkeit von ihrer Lebensgeschichte, ihren Sprachkenntnissen, ihren psychologischen 
Merkmalen usw. Außerdem gibt es Hinweise darauf, dass die Mehrsprachigkeit die kognitive 
Empathie (Dewaele & Li, 2012) und die Aufgeschlossenheit des Geistes erhöht (Włosowicz, 
2019), so dass man davon ausgehen kann, dass die Probanden ihre hybriden Identitäten eher 
als Bereicherung und nicht als Bedrohung für ihre einheimischen Identitäten betrachten, ob-
wohl die Identifikation mit ihrer Muttersprache und Kultur, mit ihrer Familie usw. ein wich-
tiger Teil ihrer Identität bleibt. Das Forschungsinstrument war ein Fragebogen, der von vierzig 
wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeitern und Lehrkräften – im Ausland lebenden Muttersprachlern – 
ausgefüllt wurde. Wie die Forschungsergebnisse beweisen, sind die Identitäten der Befragten 
in der Tat sehr komplex, hybrid und werden durch viele Faktoren beeinf lusst. Muttersprache 
und Familie bleiben jedoch, z.B. im Gegensatz zum Beruf, sehr wichtige Komponenten der 
Identität. Die Probanden gaben auch zu, dass die Fremdsprachenkenntnisse sie kulturell, in-
tellektuell und emotional bereichert hatten.

Schlüsselwörter: Identität, Mehrsprachigkeit, Mobilität, sprachliches und kulturelles Bewusstsein