Aversion to loanwords may express itself in various ways: deliberate and motivated by ideology of linguistic purism or more implicit and motivated by the strength of one’s national identification and ethnolinguistic vitality. A study of Polish philology students assessed their tendency to choose loanwords versus synonymous native words. The results supported a two-path model of linguistic purism. Social identity (strength of identification) directly predicted avoidance of loanwords, whereas ideological concerns (conservative political views) predicted it indirectly, through purist ideology.
BilewiczM.WójcikA. (2010). Does identification predict community involvement? Exploring consequences of social identification among the Jewish minority in Poland. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 20, 72-79.
2.
BourdieuP. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
CameronJ. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239-262.
4.
CichockaA. (2016). Understanding defensive and secure in-group positivity: The role of collective narcissism. European Review of Social Psychology, 27, 283-317.
5.
CichockaA.BilewiczM.JostJ. T.MarrouchN.WitkowskaM. (2016). On the grammar of politics—or why conservatives prefer nouns. Political Psychology, 37, 799-815.
6.
DorianN. C. (1994). Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and language revival. Language in Society, 23, 479-494.
7.
GilesH.BourhisR. Y.TaylorD. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In GilesH. (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 307-348). London, England: Academic Press.
8.
GilesH.ByrneJ. L. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3, 17-40.
9.
GilesH.JohnsonP. (1987). Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychological approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 68, 69-99.
10.
Golec de ZavalaA.CichockaA.BilewiczM. (2013). The paradox of in-group love: Differentiating collective narcissism advances understanding of the relationship between in-group and out-group attitudes. Journal of Personality, 81, 16-28.
11.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ.JosephC. (2009). Above and below left–right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 110-119.
12.
HalldórssonH. (1979). Icelandic purism and its history. Word, 30, 76-86.
13.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14.
HomerK. (2005). Reimagining the nation: Discourses of language purism in Luxembourg. In LangerN.DaviesW. V. (Eds.), Linguistic purism in the Germanic languages (pp. 166-185). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
15.
JelínekM. (2002). Purismus [Purism]. In KarlíkP.NekulaM.PleskalováJ. (Eds.), Encyklopedický slovník češtiny [Encyclopedic dictionary of Czech]. Prague, Czech Republic: NLN.
16.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
17.
LinA. (2006). Beyond linguistic purism in language-in-education policy and practice: Exploring bilingual pedagogies in a Hong Kong science classroom. Language and Education, 20, 287-305.
18.
LipczukR. (2007). Geschichte und Gegenwart des Fremdwortpurismus in Deutschland und Polen [Past and present of the nationalistic purism in Germany and Poland]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
19.
MańczakW. (1970). Z zagadnień językoznawstwa ogólnego [Issues in general linguistics]. Wrocław, Poland: Ossolineum.
20.
MartínezR. A.HikidaM.DuránL. (2015). Unpacking ideologies of linguistic purism: How dual language teachers make sense of everyday translanguaging. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9, 26-42.
21.
MilroyJ. (2005). Some effects of purist ideologies on historical descriptions of English. In LangerN.DaviesW. (Eds.), Linguistic purism in the Germanic languages (pp. 324-342). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
22.
NieckulaF. (1987). O tzw. kryterium narodowym poprawności językowej [On the so-called national criterion of language correctness]. Rozprawy Komisji Językowej (Vol. 15, pp. 5-43). Wrocław, Poland: Wrocławskie Towarzystwo Naukowe.
23.
PettyR. E.FazioR. H.BriñolP. (2009). The new implicit measures: An overview. In PettyR. E.FazioR. H.BriñolP. (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 3-18). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
24.
RoccasS.KlarY.LiviatanI. (2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 698-711.
25.
SchatzR. T.StaubE.LavineH. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20, 151-174.
26.
SpitzmüllerJ. (2007). Staking the claims of identity: Purism, linguistics and the media in post-1990 Germany. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11, 261-285.
27.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW.AustinG.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
28.
TetlockP. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 118-126.
29.
ThomasG. (1991). Linguistic purism. London, England: Longman.
30.
WalshC. (2016). Gender and discourse: Language and power in politics, the church and organisations. New York, NY: Routledge.
