Intergroup Relations: Its Linguistic and Communicative Parameters

Abstract

IT IS not difficult to argue that language and communication processes are a core element of the social psychology of intergroup relations (Clement, 1996; Giles & Reid, 2004; Gudykunst, 1986; Lambert, 1967); indeed, they are integral constituents of our group identities (Cargile, Giles, & Clement, 1996) and what differentiates us from other relevant outgroups. However, such a case has not always been easy to make, although it is clearly evident in a plethora of aspects of our communicative lives, including dress styles, cosmetics, marches, vigils, festivals, websites, music, etc. Language and communication received their first sustained attention in the group dynamics tradition, particularly with reference to the development of social comparison and dissonance theories (Festinger, 1954). Nevertheless, much of this early work conceptualized language as nothing more than a vehicle for (intra)group and psychological processes, notably decision making and leadership (e.g. Bales, 1956). The social context of group behavior was all but absent, and language was treated very much as a functional property of group life. However, this began to change in the 1970s when Giles (1977, 1978) invoked social identity theory to explain the sociolinguistic phenomenon of language shifts. This work led, in part, to an elaboration of speechand later communication-accommodation theory (e.g. Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2004; Giles & Coupland, 1991), parallel developments of ethnolinguistic identity theory (Giles & Johnson, 1981, 1987), anxiety/uncertainty reduction theory (Gudykunst, 1995), and many others (e.g. Barker, Giles, & Harwood, 2004). Core research foci include language attitudes (Bradac, Cargile, & Hallett, 2001), multilingualism (Sachdev & Bourhis, 2005), aging (Williams & Nussbaum, 2001), health (Harwood & Sparks, 2003), inter-ability communication (Fox & Giles, 1997), gender (Reid, Keerie, & Palomares, 2003; Smith, 1985), intercultural relations (Hecht, Jackson, & Pitts, 2005), terrorism (Sparks, in press), and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, more phenomena and areas of investigation are recognizing the intergroup dimension: small group processes (Hogg & Tindale, 2005), organizational processes (Gardner, Paulsen, Gallois, Callan, & Monaghan, G P I R