ABSTRACT
In addition, identity is more than the looks of diversity in races, ethnicities, or genders. Rather, it is about a reflection of thinking rhetoric and communication patterns to show their sociocultural communities (Kaplan 1966, Lewis 2006, Lubin 2015). To cope with the principle of thinking rhetoric, Kaplan (1966) and Chovanec (2012) define five groups of thinking patterns based on the dissemination of cultures namely Oriental, English Semitic, Romance and Russian. Moreover, still coping with thinking rhetoric, Lewis (2006) and Lubin (2015) portray 27 communication patterns. Those phenomena also inform that each group carries different identity judgments for the members. For instance, Indonesian EFL speakers are stereotyped as circular thinkers as they are part of Oriental culture, while native speakers with English culture are straight forward (Kaplan 1966, Kuntjara 2004). Therefore, a person’s identity and thinking rhetoric are interconnected.
