Being a much-studied concept in the social and political sciences and cultural studies ( Jenkins 2004 ; Chandra 2006 ; Phinney 2003 ; Phinney and Ong 2007 , and others) (ethnic) identity has become an object of study of linguistics and intercultural communication ( Besemeres and Wierzbicka 2007 ; Koller 2012 ; Leontovich 2017 ; Mole 2007 ; Regan and Chasaide 2010 ; Scollon and Scollon 2001 ; Sousa 2014 ; Spreckels and Kotthoff 2009; Kalyango and Kopytowska 2014 ; Larina and Ozyumenko 2016 , to name but a few). This is not surprising, as language is one of the most pivotal building blocks of identity, ethnic or otherwise. In addition, as daily interaction – professional, public, mediated, or otherwise – in an ever more globalized world requires finely developed intercultural skills, pragmatic competence and cultural fluency, having a deeper insight into the intricate relationship between language, communication and (ethnic) identity is of critical importance. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to shed more light on the role that language, and particularly discourse, play in constituting (ethnic) identity and, conversely, how identities could possibly assume an active role in the construction of discourse. It focuses on some discursive characteristics of Anglo (Wierzbicka 2006) and Slavonic (more specifically Russian and Serbian) ethnic identities, especially their perception of Self and modes of interaction with others. The corpus-informed analysis of Russian and Serbian languages and discursive practices indicates that, despite considerable changes in the demographic profile of the respective societies over the last couple of decades, the we-orientation is still overwhelmingly predominant in their collective and individual identities. Conversely, the I-orientation seems to be a typical preference of the representatives of the Anglo culture. The paper also suggests a possible interpretation of the differences in these orientations and their apparent embeddedness in the very structure of the languages in question (lexico-phraseological, morpho-syntactic, stylistic, etc.), potentially shaping its discursive characteristics as well. The theoretical framework is based on Larina’s approach to culture-specific communicative ethno-styles (2008, 2009, 2015, etc.), as well as a number of approaches within identity, discourse and intercultural studies ( Hofstede 1991 ; Jenkins 2004 ; Kalyango and Kopytowska 2014 ; Kurteš and Kopytowska 2015 ; Scollon and Scollon 2001 ; Wierzbicka 1991|/2003 , 1997 , 2002 , 2006 , etc.).