Language practices are central to identity in Deaf communities. Deafness is not merely a sensory impairment but also a cultural–linguistic identity (Higgins & Lieberman, 2016; Marschark et al., 2017). Deaf communities coalesce around shared sign languages and norms, yet Deaf individuals are internally diverse and often straddle multiple social groups (Leigh, 2009). Many identify both with Deaf culture and with an ethnic heritage (Leigh & Crowe, 2015).

Deaf individuals are often bimodal multilingual (e.g. a sign language, written language and a spoken language) (Kusters et al. 2021) and may even navigate multiple sign languages if multi-ethnic (Lim, 2022). Contemporary Deaf education emphasizes a translanguaging approach – leveraging all of a Deaf child’s language modalities and codes fluidly – to support learning and identity. Swanwick (2016) found that Deaf children often engage in bimodal translanguaging, mixing sign and speech (or sign and print) in creative ways to fully express themselves. In multilingual minority settings, Deaf individuals often develop the ability to switch between or blend languages depending on context (Baker & Scott, 2016) Such code-blending is not seen as confusion but as a natural adaptation to a multilingual environment, reflecting a “multilingual habitus” (Benson, 2013) that flexibly navigates multiple languages. Research has found that allowing Deaf students to use all their languages (sign and spoken/written) flexibly improves academic achievement and self-esteem (Marschark & Spencer, 2011).

In multi-ethnic societies like Romania, Deaf people inhabit overlapping minority worlds. Ethnic Hungarian Deaf people in Romania exemplify this “double minority” status: they are simultaneously members of a national minority (Hungarian) and a linguistic minority within the Deaf population. These youths face stigma and marginalization as Deaf persons in the predominantly hearing society, while also encountering pressures on their Hungarian identity within the largely Romanian Deaf community. Romanian Sign Language (RSL) dominates in Deaf institutions and gatherings, which can create subtle pressure for Hungarian Deaf individuals to assimilate linguistically.

Schools are pivotal for identity development in the Deaf community. Residential Deaf schools—though historically aimed at “normalization”—often became incubators of Deaf culture. Many Deaf children (especially those from hearing families) first encounter a signing peer group at school, enabling them to communicate in their natural language and develop a positive Deaf identity (Lane, 1995). At the same time, for ethnic minority communities the language of schooling profoundly affects ethnic identity. In Romania, ethnic Hungarian Deaf children historically had two main options for primary education: attend the sole Hungarian-language Deaf school (in Cluj-Napoca, Transylvania) or enrol in a local Romanian-language Deaf school. Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) predicts divergent identity outcomes from these choices. A Deaf child educated in the minority-language (Hungarian) school receives institutional support for their heritage language and culture, likely reinforcing both Deaf in-group affiliation and Hungarian ethnic belonging.

This paper examines how school socialization affects the dual identities (Deaf and Hungarian) of youth in this multi-minority situation. Specifically, the research addressed three questions:

• Language socialization in school: How do language practices and peer interactions in Hungarian-medium vs. Romanian-medium Deaf primary schools influence students’ Deaf cultural identity and ethnic (Hungarian) identity development?
• Bicultural identity in Hungarian Deaf schools: In the Hungarian-language Deaf school environment, in what ways are Deaf identity and Hungarian national identity jointly fostered through formal instruction and informal student life?
• Transition and identity trajectories: What is the impact on identity when ethnic Hungarian Deaf students transition from a Hungarian primary school to a Romanian-language secondary/vocational school? How do they negotiate shifts in language environment and cultural affiliation during this stage?

This research employed a mixed-methods approach, centred on qualitative life history interviews and supported by a survey. I recruited 89 Deaf adults through the Oradea Deaf Association (which serves both Hungarian and Romanian Deaf members) to complete a questionnaire about their background, schooling history, language use, and identity attitudes. From this pool, I selected 30 ethnic Hungarian Deaf individuals (approximately age 28–55, roughly equal men and women) for in-depth semi-structured interviews about their life experiences and identity development. All interviewees had at least one Deaf or hearing Hungarian parent (or identified as ethnically Hungarian) – reflecting the composition of the local Deaf community we studied. I also conducted key-informant interviews with 5 long-time educators and staff from the Cluj Hungarian Deaf School (some hearing, one Deaf) to gain an institutional perspective. The survey gathered demographic data and information on participants’ language use in different contexts (school, home, etc.), as well as self-ratings of the strength of their Deaf identity and ethnic identity. The life history interviews (conducted in the participant’s preferred sign language – HSL for Cluj alumni, RSL or a mix for those who attended Romanian schools – with a certified interpreter when necessary) covered childhood and family background, school experiences (communication methods, friendships, positive or negative memories), perceptions of being Hungarian and Deaf during school, and transitions after leaving school. I also asked how they maintain or view their ethnic identity and Deaf identity in adulthood. Interviews were conducted with cultural sensitivity – the interviewers were fluent signers and, in one case, a member of the Deaf community – helping establish trust. All names and personal identifiers in this study are pseudonyms. I transcribed and translated interviews into written Hungarian or Romanian (and then into English) for coding and analysis. I used thematic analysis to code the qualitative data, focusing on key themes like language use, Deaf identity, ethnic identity, family influence, and life transitions. I paid special attention to contrasts between those who attended the Hungarian vs. Romanian schools. I then constructed individual case profiles and also synthesized cross-cutting patterns. The survey data were analyzed descriptively (frequencies and cross-tabulations) and used to triangulate and contextualize the interview findings. For example, if an interviewee mentioned that rural families tended to keep Deaf children in local schools, we checked the survey data – which indeed showed a higher local-school enrolment rate among village-origin Deaf youth. This mixed-methods triangulation increased confidence in my conclusions.

The results confirmed that school language and culture significantly shape the dual identities of Deaf minority youth. Minority-language schooling (in Hungarian) reinforced students’ Deaf pride and ethnic allegiance, while majority-language (Romanian) Deaf schooling often led to linguistic assimilation and a weaker connection to ethnic heritage. These early influences persisted into adulthood. The findings are consistent with other research emphasizing that multiple identities develop concurrently in Deaf youth. Intersecting factors – family language use, community attitudes, peer dynamics – all moderated the impact of schooling. Similar dynamics have been documented among Deaf immigrant communities or Deaf communities of colour (Leigh, 2009; Lim, 2023), but the Romanian Hungarian case adds the dimension of two sign languages and the legacy of state policies. It shows how historical and political factors (such as the communist-era suppression of minority languages and the lack of higher-level educational options in the minority language) reverberate in the micro-level experiences of Deaf individuals (e.g., the identity dilemmas faced when transitioning to a majority-language school). It underlines the importance of cultural and linguistic rights in education: the post-1990 maintenance of the Cluj Deaf School (and the introduction of sign-language classes there in recent years) is a positive development, but the lack of continuity into secondary education indicates room for policy improvement. The findings support educational approaches that are multilingual and multicultural: when a Deaf child’s home language and culture are validated at school, the child can thrive with a cohesive identity. Conversely, if one identity is neglected, the child may experience cultural loss or internal conflict. As the participants’ experiences show, Deaf students should never have to choose between their Deaf identity and their ethnic identity – effective education can and should nurture both.

Baker, S. & Scott, J. (2016). Sociocultural and academic considerations for school-age d/Deaf and hard of hearing multilingual learners: A case study of a deaf Latina. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(1), 43–55. 10.1353/aad.2016.0010 Benson, C. (2013). Towards adopting a multilingual habitus in educational development. In: C. Benson. and K. Kosonen Language issues in comparative education: Inclusive teaching and learning in non-dominant languages and cultures, Sense Publishers, 283-299. Higgins, M. & Lieberman, A. M.(2016). Deaf students as a linguistic and cultural minority: shifting perspectives and implications for teaching and learning. Journal of Education 196(1), 9 -18. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741619600103 Kusters, A., De Meulder, M., & Napier, J. (2021). Family language policy on holiday: Four multilingual signing and speaking families travelling together. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(8), 698-715. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1890752 Lane, H. (1995): Constructions of Deafness. Disability & Society, Volume 10, Issue 2, 1995, 171-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599550023633 Leigh, I. (2009). A lens on Deaf identities. Perspectives on Deafness. Oxford University Press. Leigh, G. , & Crowe, K. (2015). Responding to cultural and linguistic diversity among deaf and hard-of-hearing learners. In: and Marschark M. and Knoors H (eds. ) Educating deaf learners: Creating a global evidence base, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68-91. Lim, A. (2022). Translanguaging Practices of a Multiethnic and Multilingual Deaf Family in a Raciolinguistic World and Beyond. Languages, 7(4), 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040311 Lim, J. 2023). Immigrant deaf students of color: Raciolinguistic discourses on the axes of accommodation, acculturation, and racialization (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University). Marschark, M, Spencer, P. E. (2011)' Epilogue: What We Know, What We Don’t Know, and What We Should Know', In: Marc Marschark, and Patricia Elizabeth Spencer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education, Volume 1, 2nd edn, Oxford Library of Psychology (2011; online edn, Oxford Academic, 18 Sept. 2012), Marschark, M., Zettler, I., & Dammeyer, J. (2017). Social dominance orientation, language orientation, and Deaf identity. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22(3), 269 - 277. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enx018 Swanwick, R. (2016). Scaffolding learning through classroom talk: The role of translanguaging. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Deaf Studies: Language and language development. (pp. 420–430). Oxford University Press. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. 1979. “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. ”. In The social psychology of intergroup relations, Edited by: W. G Austin and S. Worchel 33–47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.