Gile and Byrne An Intergroup Approach To Second Language Acquisition

This article was downloaded by: [University North Carolina - Chapel Hill]
On: 23 June 2013, At: 04:38

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20
An intergroup approach to second language acquisition

a a
Howard Giles & Jane L. Byrne
a
University of Bristol
Published online: 14 Sep 2010.
To cite this article: Howard Giles & Jane L. Byrne (1982): An intergroup approach to second language acquisition, Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3:1, 17-40
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1982.9994069
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
AN INTERGROUP APPROACH TO SECOND
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Howard Giles and Jane L. Byrne
University of Bristol
Abstract. In this paper, we shall outline a recent social psychological

approach to language and ethnicity which attends to the issue: who in an
ethnic group uses what language variety, when and why? More
specifically, it allows us to understand the processes underlying group
members' desires to attenuate and even create their own distinctive
ethnolinguistic varieties (Giles, Bourhis & Taylor, 1977; Giles &
Downloaded by [University North Carolina - Chapel Hill] at 04:38 23 June 2013
Johnson, 1981). It is suggested that this framework is likely to advance

our knowledge of factors influencing successful acquisition of a second
language. Two current social psychological models of second language
acquisition in inter-ethnic contexts (Gardner, 1979; Clement, 1980a;
1980b) are then compared and evaluated critically. Whilst these models
exhibit significant theoretical advances in the area, it is argued that they
nonetheless possess certain deficiencies. Prime amongst these concerns is
their failure to take into account explicitly processes (such as ethnic
identification) which are accorded significance in current intergroup
theory (Tajfel, 1974, 1978a; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and formal status in
our own approach to language and ethnicity introduced at the outset of
this paper. Finally, an attempt is made to integrate the latter with
important aspects of Gardner's and Clement's models culminating in a
set of propositions concerned with specifying the social psychological
conditions which facilitate or inhibit members of a subordinate ethnic
group achieving near native-like proficiency in the language of a
dominant ethnic collectivity.
Language and Ethnicity
Throughout history there have been instances worldwide where nationalis-
tic movements have coincided with efforts at linguistic change (Weinstein,
1979), and in common with many scholars (e.g. Fishman, 1972; Lambert,
1979) we see language playing an oftentimes crucial psychological role in
inter-ethnic behaviour. (Giles, 1977a; Giles & Saint-Jacques, 1979). A certain
speech style or language can often be a necessary attribute for membership of
a particular ethnic group, a salient cue for inter-ethnic categorisation, an
important dimension of ethnic identity, and an ideal medium for facilitating
intragroup cohesion. On these grounds then, it is perhaps not surprising to
find language issues often at the focal point of inter-ethnic conflicts.
01434632/82/01/0017-24 $02.50/0 © 1982 HOWARD GILES & JANE L. BYRNE

JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Vol. 3, No. 1,1982
17
18 MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
Giles and Johnson (1981) have classified, although not in a mutually

exclusive fashion, existing approaches to language and ethnicity as being
primarily 'sociolinguistic', 'sociological' and 'communication breakdown'
perspectives. The first provides a linguistic taxonomy of ethnic markers in
the speech of groups with the same language and focusses on the variety of
ways in which individuals can manifest their ethnic membership through
speech (see Trudgill, 1974; Giles, 1979). The second approach concentrates
on examining why some ethnic minority languages survive and others do not
with the phenomenon of 'language erosion' being related to such
socio-structural factors as radical economic changes (see Lewis, 1979;
Anderson, 1979). The third approach focusses upon reasons for the
breakdown of inter-ethnic communication with an emphasis on such factors
as differential socio-cultural norms and motivational aspirations (see Taylor
& Simard, 1975; Clyne, 1979). While these three approaches (outlined albeit
simplistically above) have provided extremely fruitful avenues of empirical
inquiry, cumulative problems in the area such as vast differences in

inter-ethnic situations, language strategies and attitudes to an ingroup's
language have made generalised theoretical predictions from one ethnic
context to another impossible.
Recently, we have been adopting a social psychological approach to
language and ethnicity which attempts to clarify the empirical and theoretical
confusion by identifying common processes underlying diverse speech
strategies and language attitudes as well as taking into account socio-
structural influences on the groups as perceived by their members. Arguably
this perspective, although admittedly embryonic, is the best equipped
currently to explore the important question of who uses which language
strategies, when and for what purpose. Central to our orientation is a
preferred cognitive definition of ethnic group membership (Turner, 1981) as
those individuals who identify themselves as belonging to the same ethnic
category (cf. Barth, 1969; Harris, 1979). This ingroup identification may be
based on a common set of ancestral traditions or may stimulate the creation of
a unique set of traditions in other cases (Fishman, 1977; J. Ross, 1979). In
both instances, the main concern is in the establishment and maintenance of
distinct perceived ingroup boundaries. This then is a subjective definition of
ethnic group membership. It has the advantage that it avoids the
categorisation of individuals on the basis of supposedly 'objective' criteria
and that it does not rely on physical proximity, interpersonal similarity or
attraction between its members. Most importantly, this social psychological
orientation implicitly allows for the possibility of conditions when the same
individuals may act in terms of ethnic group membership (because they
self-identify strongly with that collectivity) and other conditions when they
may not. Let us now briefly outline our own approach to language and
ethnicity which may be considered a useful complement to the socio-
linguistic, sociological and communication breakdown approaches.
AN INTERGROUP APPROACH 19
A Social Psychological Approach to Language and Ethnicity

Our theoretical system, although having its predecessors in terms of
Giles, Bourhis and Taylor (1977), Giles (1978, 1979) and Bourhis (1979),
corresponds most closely with that of Giles and Johnson (1981) and includes
aspects of social identity theory, the concepts of perceived ethnolinguistic
vitality and perceived group boundaries and notions of multiple group
memberships. Social identity theory is the framework to which all the other
concepts relate and provides an analysis of strategies for so-called positive
distinctiveness which are related to linguistic differentiations as well as some
hypotheses about when they will be adopted. The other concepts are then
introduced and discussed as they specify more precisely some of the personal
and situational factors enhancing the salience of ethnic identification for
individuals and hence allow more concrete predictions concerning the
attenuation and accentuation of ethnolinguistic behaviours. This social
psychological approach to language and ethnicity concludes in prepositional

terms with an outline of five conditions considered necessary for individuals
to desire to maintain, accentuate, or create a favourably-valued ethno-
linguistic distinctiveness.
Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974, 1978a, 1978b, 1982; Tajfel & Turner,
1979) is built around a sequence of processes which can be expressed as
follows. Social categorisation of the world involves knowledge of our own
membership within certain groups. This knowledge of our category
memberships together with the values, positive or negative, associated with
them is denned as our social identity and has meaning only through social
comparison with other relevant groups. Social identity forms an important
part of the self-concept and it is proposed that we try to achieve a positive
sense of social identity in such a way as to make our own social group
favourably distinct from other collectivities on valued dimensions (e.g.
power, economic resources, intellectual attributes). This process of ingroup
differentiation enables individuals to achieve a satisfactory and secure social
identity and thereby enhances their own positive self-esteems (Oakes &
Turner, 1980). Therefore, when ethnic group membership becomes
important for individuals, and when ethnolinguistic style (be it a language,
dialect or slang, etc.) is considered to be a valued component of that
identification (Smolicz, 1979), individuals will wish to assume a positive
differentiation along linguistic dimensions in search of a positive ethnic
identity; a process termed 'psycholinguistic distinctiveness' (Bourhis & Giles,
1977; Bourhis, Giles, Leyens & Tajfel, 1979; Drake, 1980; Taylor & Royer,
1980). A positive social identity is achieved then to the extent that group
members can make social comparisons with respect to relevant outgroups in
their favour. However, should social comparisons with an ethnic group on
valued dimensions result in a negative ethnic identity for ingroup members,

Tajfel & Turner (1979) propose that the latter will adopt one or more of the
strategies of individual mobility, social creativity or social competition in
search of a more satisfactory self-concept. Most of these strategies can be seen
to have important linguistic correlates (Giles & Johnson, 1981) and these will
be briefly introduced together with some of the conditions considered most
likely to bring about their occurrence.
Individual mobility refers to that strategy whereby individuals wish to pass
out of the group which is causing them so much evaluative discomfort into a
more positively-valued one, usually the dominant ethnic collectivity. To this
end, they will attempt to acquire, or at least aspire towards, the
characteristics (physical or psychological) of this other group and thereby
secure for themselves a more adequate social identity. This strategy is most
likely to be used by group members possessing a negative ethnic identity
when intergroup boundaries are perceived soft and permeable and when
objections raised by either group for so doing are not considered strong. At
the same time however, people who still identify strongly with the original
ethnic group often assign derogatory labels to such passers for their cultural
betrayal (Kochman, 1976; Khleif, 1979a). An important tactic for individual
upward mobility in such a situation is of course a convergence towards the
outgroup's linguistic characteristics (Giles & Powesland, 1975; Giles, 1977b)
and hence the attenuation of the ingroup's ethnic speech markers (Giles,
Scherer & Taylor, 1979). Large numbers of the group acting in this manner
can give rise to linguistic assimilation with its collective consequences finding
expression in the so-called 'erosion' or even 'death' of the ingroup language;
such a process might be more appropriately termed 'language suicide'
(Denison, 1977) in accord with social identity principles. Individual mobility
then is quite a personal strategy in the sense that the original group's status
remains unaltered and such a lack of identification if widespread enough can
act so as to blur group boundaries even further, decrease ingroup
cohesiveness and reduce the potential for collective action.
Social creativity strategies refer to attempts at a redefinition of different
elements of the comparison between subordinate and dominant ethnic
groups. In contrast to the previous strategy, which implied an abandonment
of the ingroup, these strategies are aimed at protecting the group's identity
and restoring its positive distinctiveness. In this sense, they are considered
'group-oriented' even though these solutions as opted for by individuals may
not actually alter the objective relationship existing between ingroup and
outgroup on the subordinate-dominant dimension. It is thought likely that
these strategies will be adopted by individuals possessing a negative ethnic
identity either when intergroup boundaries are perceived as virtually
impermeable or when there are severe social sanctions imposed by the
ingroup for those acting not in accord with their ethnic group membership.
In other words, social creativity strategies, of which there are at least three,
should be adopted when individuals find it impossible to leave their ethnic
group and identification with it is unavoidable. The first of these strategies

refers to those individuals who avoid 'painful' comparisons with the outgroup
which is responsible for their negative ingroup image. Where there is a lack
of comparability between in- and outgroup, evaluative deficiencies should be
diluted and an inadequate identity less apparent. This can be achieved either
by individuals selecting other subordinate ethnic groups with which they can
make favourable comparisons or by fostering the intensity of intra- rather
than intergroup comparisons; both of these tactics can of course involve
linguistic comparisons. Sometimes, given the close proximity of the ethnic
groups, such a state of non-comparability is not feasible and other social
creativity strategies need to be undertaken. The second of these refers to
those individuals who attempt to change the values of the ingroup
characteristics in a more positive direction such that negative ingroup
comparisons are much reduced. Again, language assumes significance to the
extent that the often-termed 'inferior', 'substandard' or 'minority' language,
dialect, and slang of the ethnic ingroup are no longer stigmatised but are
proudly heralded within that group as symbols of cultural pride. Needless to
say, these circumstances promote tendencies of language retention and
dialect maintenance within the ethnic ingroup (Ryan, 1979). The third
strategy refers to a tendency to compare the ingroup with the outgroup on
some new dimensions. Instances of this occurring linguistically can be found
for example in the resurrection of dying languages (e.g. Hebrew), in the
modernisation of (technologically) lexically-inadequate languages, in the
creation of distinctive alphabets and orthographies as well as in the
development of ethnic dialects, slangs and so forth.
Social competition refers to the strategy adopted by certain individuals who
wish to reverse the perceived status of in- and outgroup on valued
dimensions. Such a strategy of direct competition is viewed as taking place
when group members (a) identify strongly with their ethnic group
membership and (b) intergroup social comparisons are still active (and
perhaps despite previous attempts at social creativity) or become operative.
One set of determinants, besides proximity and perceived similarity,
considered by Tajfel and Turner crucial in fostering (the latter) so-called
'insecure social comparisons' is the awareness of cognitive alternatives to the
groups' statuses. That is, for example, when subordinate group members are
aware that their inferiority is based on unfair advantages and is illegitimate as
well as believing that status differences are potentially changeable and
unstable, between-group comparisons will become more active than
quiescent. Hence, factors which promote ethnic identification (to be
discussed shortly) and insecure comparisons will lead subordinate group
members to challenge the superiority of the dominant group and initiate
strategies of psychological differentiation as well as psycholinguistic
distinctiveness. Examples of linguistic competition abound cross-nationally
(e.g. Wales, Spain, Sri Lanka) where individuals incite civil disobedience on
behalf of their beleagued languages. Not only will they wish simply to revalue
their old speech characteristics and also create new ones for private use in
their own ingroup domains, but they will move to have these recognised as
just as acceptable in more formal, public contexts. In this sense, people will
wish to accentuate their ingroup speech markers and actively diverge from an
outgroup speaker in face-to-face encounters.
Not only have we here the seeds of potential social conflict but also the
possibility of ethnolinguistic and social changes as dominant groups are
unlikely to ignore actions which do not simply increase the status of the
subordinate group but also by implication threaten their own valued
distinctiveness. As soon as members of the dominant group who identify
strongly with it make insecure social comparisons, they are likely to adopt
reciprocal strategies of social creativity and competition in order to restore
their positive ethnic identity (See Giles, 1978 for a fuller discussion). For
instance, if linguistic assimilation amongst ethnic minorities occurs with
such levels of proficiency and numbers that it dilutes the dominant group's
cultural distinctiveness, the latter may respond by diverging from these

passers and thereby create a new standard for comparison. In such
circumstances, surbordinate groups may find the second language (L2) or
prestige dialect an ever-moving target to pursue. Moreover, derogatory
language, abrasive verbal humour and oppressive political policies, etc. will
be aimed at the socially creative and competitive measures of the subordinate
group in an attempt by the dominant group to reassert its own
positively-valued distinctiveness.
By the use of certain derivations from social identity theory to the language
and ethnicity area, we have seen how the social psychological processes of
categorisation, identification, comparison and positive differentiation can
lead group members to seek a positive self-concept. The possible speech
strategies included in this regard are the accentuation, maintenance and
attentuation of ethnic speech markers, and redefinition of and social
competition on linguistic dimensions. In this vein, we would argue that the
differences reported in the literature in the use of different language
strategies across a vast array of ethnic groups as well as a great deal of
heterogeneity within many of these as well, could be afforded some
conceptual clarity. At the same time, obviously extensive empirical research
needs to be conducted to determine the framework's ultimate viability.
Factors Affecting the Salience of Ethnic Identification

As the accentuation and attenuation of ethnic speech markers appears to
depend in part on the strength of an individual's ethnic identification, Giles
and Johnson (1981) have attempted to extend social identity theory in a
modest way so as to explore some of the situational and personal factors
affecting the salience of a person's ethnic belongingness. These factors,
which included the concepts of perceived ethnolinguistic vitality and
perceived group boundaries, and multiple group membership notions, will
be briefly discussed below. At the conclusion of this section, we shall be in a

position to make more precise propositions concerning speakers' desires for
psycholinguistic distinctiveness which should have considerable significance
for our understanding of the social psychological processes involved in
second language acquisiton in inter-ethnic contexts.
Perceived Ethnolinguistic Vitality and Perceived Group Boundaries

A social psychological approach to intergroup behaviour in general, and
language and ethnicity in particular, should take into account individuals'
cognitive representations of the socio-structural forces operating in
inter-ethnic contexts. In an attempt to systematise the different structural
conditions operating between different ethnic collectivities, Giles, Bourhis
and Taylor (1977) compiled a taxonomy of so-called 'ethnolinguistic vitality1
factors. The more of these socio-structural factors a particular group has in its
favour the more vitality it is said to have. It was proposed that most of the
structural variables influencing ethnolinguistic vitality could be derived from
three factors, viz. status, demography and institutional support. The status
factors include economic, political, social, sociohistorical and language status
variables. Thus, the more a group has economic and political control over its
destiny, high social status, a strong tradition and history which is a source of
pride to the group, and an ethnic speech style which is highly valued (or even
of international status), the more vitality that group is said to have. The
demographic factors are those relating to the numbers of the group and their
distribution. Hence, the greater the concentration of the ethnic group in its
own territory, the higher the ethnic birth rate and the absolute number of the
group, and the lower the incidence of mixed marriages and emigration of
ingroup member as well as the immigration of outgroup members, the more
vitality the group is said to have. Finally, the institutional support factors
include representation of the ethnic group in the mass media, education,
government, industry, religion and culture. The more an ethnic group is
represented in these fashions, again the more vitality it is said to have. The
overall vitality of an ethnic group could be measured objectively and
characterised as occupying a position along a high-medium-low continuum
(cf. Liebkind, 1979; Kramarae, 1981). It has been proposed that the higher a
group's vitality, the more likely it will be to survive and be seen to thrive as a
distinctive collective entity.
Giles, Bourhis and Taylor (1977) drew a distinction between such
objectively-measured vitality and that perceived to be the case by the ingroup
itself. While in many cases the objective might overlap considerably with the
subjective assessment of vitality of those concerned, it could be that in many
other contexts no such correspondence accrues. Indeed, it has been suggested
that dominant ethnic groups, who often have a significant control over certain
information flows throughout society, have at their disposal a variety of
means of manipulating subordinate groups' perceptions of their own and
other groups' vitalities in such a way as to provide an ingroup with a feeling of

having socio-structural forces working against it. Thus, attention recently has
been focussed more theoretically upon perceived rather than actual (objective)
vitality as a mediator of inter-ethnic behaviour (Giles, 1978,1979) and in like
fashion, we have also been concerned with exploring empirically the
dimensions of ethnic groups' perceptions of in- and outgroup vitalities
(Bourhis, Giles and Rosenthal, 1981). Hence, Giles and Johnson (1981) have
proposed that high perceived ingroup vitality acts so as to increase the
situational salience of ethnic identification for group members and thereby
bolsters the likelihood of their accentuating their ethnic speech markers in
inter-ethnic contexts where insecure social comparisons are operating in
search of a positively-valued psycholinguistic distinctiveness.
Another set of factors affecting the situational strength of ethnic
identification relates to individuals' perceptions of their ethnic boundaries.
While a number of scholars have discussed the salience of group boundaries
with a view to strong ones being an optimal state for an ethnic group (e.g.
Banton, 1978; Khleif, 1979b; Paulston & Paulston, 1980), our emphasis lies
as it did above at the cognitive representational level. In this vein, Giles (1979)
proposed a distinction between perceived hard versus soft ethnic boundaries
suggesting that group members will alter their linguistic and non-linguistic
boundaries so as to maintain or to assume a high level of overall perceived
boundary hardness. One of the important factors contributing to the
perceived hardness-softness of group boundaries is the degree to which they
are perceived as 'open' or 'closed' (Weber, 1964; F. Ross, 1979); that is,
where individual mobility in and out of group membership is seen to be easy
or difficult respectively (cf. previous section on social creativity strategies).
Therefore, group boundaries which are closed and are linguistically
perceived to be so are then more likely to be perceived as hard. The
perception of hard and closed ethnic boundaries then facilitates
(a) cate-gorisation of self and others into cleary denned ethnic collectivities,
(b) the establishment of a concrete set of group norms guiding appropriate
inter-ethnic behaviours (McKirnan & Hamayan, 1980), and (c) a strong
sense of ethnic identification (F. Ross, 1979).
Multiple group memberships

Individuals are usually members of other social categories besides the
ethnic one, each of which can contribute to differing extents to their
self-concepts (Tajfel, 1974). These multiple group memberships are there-
fore likely to influence the perceived salience of the ethnic boundary for
individuals and by implication the strength of their personal identification'
with the ethnic category in at least the following three ways.
First, individuals who identify strongly with several social categories have
less stringent demands placed on their behaviour by any one of them than
individuals who are members of just a few social groups. Ethnic attachment
therefore is likely to be stronger and exist in a wider range of social contexts

for those who identify with few rather than many other social groups (e.g.
occupational, religious, gender categories). Moreover, the greater the
proportion of an ethnic group possessing high multiple group memberships,
the weaker the ethnic boundaries are likely to be perceived, and the less
influence the group will be able to exert over its members. In such instances,
situational variables promoting the salience of individuals' sense of
identification will have to be quite intense. Second, the adequacy of the
different group identities which multiple group membership affords is likely
to affect the strength of individuals' ethnic identification. Hence, it is
suggested that the more positive individuals' sense of ethnic identity
compared to those deriving from other social group memberships, the lower
the personal threshold for defining themselves in ethnic terms will be across a
wide range of different situations. Third, the status of individuals within their
different multiple group memberships may affect their degree of identifica-
tion with the ethnic category. For instance, if individuals have a higher status
in, and a greater involvement in the affairs of, their ethnic group than their
other social category memberships, the greater their ethnic attachment will
be (cf. Smith, Tucker & Taylor, 1977; Edwards, 1977). In sum then, the
strength of individuals' ethnic identification and hence their desires for
psycholinguistic distinctiveness will depend in part on their belonging to few
other social categories, each of which provides them with less satisfactory
identities and lower intragroup statuses than does their ethnic collectivity.
Propositions
The social psychological approach adopted by us in the area of language and
ethnicity has included aspects of social identity theory as well as the related
concepts of perceived ethnolinguistic vitality, perceived group boundaries
and multiple group membership notions. Consideration of these elements
allows an integration of all of them by means of a set of propositions which
goes some way to answering the question: who uses which language strategy,
when and why? It is therefore proposed that individuals are more likely to
define themselves in ethnic terms and adopt strategies for positive linguistic
differentiation to the extent that they:
(1) identify strongly with their ethnic group which considers language an
important dimension of its identity;
(2) make insecure inter-ethnic comparisons (e.g. are aware of cognitive
alternatives to their own group's status position);
(3) perceive their ingroup to have high ethnolinguistic vitality;
(4) perceive their ingroup boundaries to be hard and closed;
(5) identify strongly with few odier social categories each of which
provides them with inadequate group identities and low intragroup
statuses.
While these propositions may not cover all possible conditions contributing
towards positive linguistic differentiations such as the accentuation of
existing, and the creation of new, ethnic speech markers for use in
inter-ethnic contexts (see Giles & Johnson, 1981), they do nonetheless
encapsulate some of the most important factors and make sense of an
otherwise unstructured understanding of ethnic relations. The converse of
these propositions (e.g. weak ethnic identification, quiescent interethnic
comparisons, low perceived vitality) are likely to locate the conditions
deemed necessary for the attenuation of ethnic speech markers and linguistic
assimilation within the outgroup.
Social Psychological Models of Second Language Acquisition in

Inter-Ethnic Contexts
The above then relies heavily upon factors influencing the strength of
ethnic identification, notions of intergroup comparison, and the desire for
a positively-valued ethnic distinctiveness. We would argue that constructs

derived from and processes underlying this intergroup theory should have
much value for understanding a particular inter-ethnic context of interest to
readers of this journal, namely, the conditions which facilitate or inhibit
members of subordinate ethnic groups acquiring proficiency in the dominant
group's language. However, before underlining the relevance of our
approach explicitly for this area, let us examine two of the most recent and
important social psychological models of second language acquisition to date
(Gardner, 1979; Clement, 1980a; 1980b).
Gardner's Model
Gardner brings together admirably within one framework a set of factors
which have been considered important in the second language learning
literature for many years. From Figure 1, it can be seen that the framework
has four categories: social milieu; individual differences; learning contexts;
and outcomes. The first of these, social milieu, is included to emphasise the
need to take into account the larger context in which both the student and the
language learning programme exist and would include the social implications
of learning an L2 and developing bilingual skills. The second category,
individual differences, is composed of the four variables considered most
influential in L2 achievement (see Gardner & Desrocher (1980) for a full
account of a range of individual difference variables, e.g. sex, age, personality):
namely, intelligence; the aptitude for learning L2s as measured by die
Modern Language Aptitude Test (Carroll & Sapon, 1959); motivation; and
situational anxiety. Motivation here refers to those affective characteristics
orienting the student to try to acquire elements of L2 and include the desire
the student has for achieving such a goal as well as the amount of effort
expended in this direction. Situational anxiety refers to the tension
experienced in specific learning situations (e.g. classroom) where the student
feels embarrassed, unsure and awkward about speaking L2 publicly. The
Social milieu Individual differences Second-language acquisition contexts Outcomes
i i
Figure 1. Schematic Representation of Gardner's (1979) Model
third category involves a distinction between formal and informal acquisition

contexts. The former refers to classroom instruction or any other
teacher-pupil context, whereas the latter refers to those situations (e.g. casual
conversations with members of the L2 community, watching television in
L2) which allow students to become competent in second language skills
without direct instruction. The final category of the model, outcomes, is
divided into linguistic and non-linguistic. Linguistic outcomes refer to
indices such as course grades, vocabulary range, oral proficiency whilst the
non-linguistic outcomes of L2 acquisition refer to such factors as favourable
attitudes towards the other cultural community, an interest in further
language study, a general appreciation of other cultures, etc.
Gardner attempts by means of his model a detailed examination of how
these variables can operate together developmentally in the acquisition
process. The major distinction made with regard to the social milieu at this
initial stage in the formulation of the model is whether it is monolingual or
bilingual. It is proposed that cultural beliefs prevalent within the social
milieu influence the extent to which achievement in L2 is mediated by
different individual difference variables. For instance, Gardner (1979) found
that English Canadian adolescents' achievements in learning French in
Anglophone dominant areas of Canada were correlated more highly with
motivation than situational anxiety, whereas the reverse was the case in
provinces where bilinguality was more normative. The individual difference
factors were also argued to have different consequences for the two
acquisition contexts. As can be seen from Figure 1 above, Gardner argues

that in informal learning situations, motivation and situational anxiety are
considered more influential in L2 learning than either intelligence of
language aptitude (as indicated by the broken arrows), simply because they
would be more likely to determine whether or not the students became
involved in such contexts. Finally, it is proposed that the different
acquisition contexts themselves may foster particular outcomes in the sense
that formal ones are likely, for example, to promote good course grades in the
L2 as well as higher scores on grammar and vocabulary tests compared to
learning in more informal contexts which may better facilitate oral
proficiency and more favourable non-linguistic outcomes than the former
situation.
A number of other models also highlight the importance of a
postively-affective motivational component underlying the acquisition
process (e.g. Dulay, & Burt, 1974; Schumann, 1978). More specifically,
attention has been focussed on a favourable disposition towards the L2
speech community—the so-called 'integrative motive' (Gardner & Lambert,
1972)—as being often a necessary precondition for native-like proficiency in
an L2. Gardner, however, in an elaboration of his model in the same chapter,
argues for the need to distinguish explicitly between attitudes and
motivation. In his empirical research, Gardner (1979) found that while
attitudes were highly related to motivations which in turn were correlated
strongly with L2 achievements, there was no direct relationship between the
attitudes themselves and the latter. Hence, attitudes were argued to function
so as to provide motivational support for achievements. The same level of
motivation can of course be derived from separate attitudinal bases which
have been themselves moulded from distinctive cultural beliefs inherent in
different social milieux. Moreover, Gardner's model assumes an important
dynamic element by his proposing that these attitudes can also ultimately be
bolstered or deflated by learners' successful or unsuccessful L2 outcomes (cf.
Lambert, 1978; Cziko, Lambert, Sidoti & Tucker, 1980) which can facilitate
in feedback fashion or inhibit further L2 progress respectively.
A critique
Gardner's model with its focus on a developmental sequence of interacting
categories is a dynamic advance in the second language learning literature.
He himself, however, states that his exploration of the social milieu requires
greater sophistication in future theorising and it is here that we feel our own
contribution lies. It seems to us that although ethnolinguistic vitality is given
passing reference in his discussion, Gardner's model does tend to consider
the learning of another group's language in an intergroup vacuum at least to the
extent that it does not have recourse to the important constructs and
processes with which we commenced this paper. We would argue that there
is an urgent need to provide the concept of ethnic identification, the variables
affecting its strength as well as the perceived relationships operating between

ethnic groups, with formal theoretical status in the social psychology of
second language learning. More particularly, and in line with our earlier
propositions concerning ethnolinguistic differentiation, we suggest that the
more students identify strongly with their ethnic group and see their own
language as a valued dimension of its membership and make insecure
inter-ethnic comparisons, the more they will be reluctant to learn the
dominant group's language to anything like native proficiency. In such a
case, the learning of a second language would 'subtract' from the students'
ethnic identities and arouse feelings of cultural anomie (Lambert, 1974;
Taylor, Meynard & Rheault, 1977). Conversely, students who do not identify
strongly with their ethnic group and/or do not value language as a salient
dimension of that membership and make quiescent inter-ethnic comparisons,
the more they will be favourably disposed towards learning a second
language, particularly when such acquisition is seen to hold considerable
instrumental rewards for them. Such students might in fact be ideal

candidates for rapid assimilation into the dominant culture with little (if any)
feeling that the acquisition of a second language subtracted from their ethnic
identities (Merton, 1968; Lamy, 1979). Indeed, in such a case, second
language acquisition would almost certainly be perceived by learners as
'additive' (Lambert, 1974) and as contributing to a positive social identity. Of
course, these factors could be important determinants of, or contributors to,
the integrative motive. Indeed, Gardner himself proposes that it may well be
that the integrative motive is a potential determinant of L2 achievements only
in contexts where bilingualism could be viewed as additive. Clement,
Gardner and Smythe (1977) report that fears of assimilation experienced by
French Canadians when speaking English were highly negatively associated
with an integrative motive whilst those who were integratively-oriented had
no such fears of assimilation into English culture. We would then suggest
that a fear of assimilation could result directly from a strong identification
with one's own ethnic group amongst members who valued their language
highly and made insecure inter-ethnic comparisons. Although, as implied
earlier, it is recognised that these factors could be feasibly encompassed
within Gardner's category of social milieu as cultural beliefs with which one
enters the language learning context, it is felt that specific attention should be
drawn to them. At the present time in its development, Gardner's model has
limited predictive power and we shall attempt to go some way towards
remedying this state of affairs after a critical examination of a model which
also aspired in this direction.
Clement's Model
Clement (1980a) takes up the challenge of explaining how aspects of the
social milieu influence individuals' linguistic outcomes in the L2 acqui-
sition process. An important dynamic feature of his analysis is that particular
INTEGRATIVENESS
FEAR OF ASSIMILATION
Primary
Motivational
Process
NEGATIVE POSITIVE Resulting

(avoidance) (approach) Tendency
Composition
UNICULTURAL MULTICULTURAL UNICULTURAL of Community
Frequency
X
Quality of
Contact Secondary
Motivational
Process
SELF-CONFIDENCE
MOTIVATION
COMMUNICATIVE
Indivicual
COMPETENCE
Outcome
Relative Status
DOMINANT NON-DOMINANT of First
Culture
INTEGRATION ASSIMILATION Social

Outcome
Figure 2. Schematic Representation of Clement's (1980a) Model
shared individual outcomes can give rise to collective consequences (cf.

Fishman, 1980) such as, for example, assimilation of the group to the
dominant group's language which modifies the structure of the original social
milieu and through this the individual mediating process. In his framework,
Clement subsumes Gardner's linguistic and non-linguistic outcomes under
the term 'communicative competence' assuming the same processes are
responsible for the acquisition, maintenance and practice of both.
Although not accorded significance in the schematic representation of his

model (see Figure 2), Clement does provide the concept of ethnolinguistic
vitality theoretical status as it characterises for him important structural
features of the social milieu. He suggests that in multiethnic settings, the
language of the group with the highest vitality would predominate (Giles,
1978, 1979) and further posits a direct relationship between the
ethnolinguistic vitality of a culture and its attractiveness to outgroup
members. (This process is complicated by Cummins's (1978, 1979) research
on the 'interdependence hypothesis' which suggests that an adequate
knowledge of a first language (LI) would greatly facilitate L2 acquisition.
Clement, however, considers this might be possible only where there is a
strong identification with the LI cultural group which possesses a relatively
high vitality.) Clement argues that the individual mediational processes
operating between the conditions prevailing in the social milieu (i.e. the
relative ethnolinguistic vitalities of the ethnic in- and outgroups) and
communicative competence in L2 comprises in part for some individuals

what he terms the 'primary motivational process'. This includes the
operation of two antagonistic forces, namely 'integrativeness' versus 'fear of
assimilation'. The former represents the desire to become an accepted
member of the L2 culture and is the positive affective basis of the primary
motivational process, while the latter is the negative affective basis
represented in a fear that learning L2 will lead to a loss of LI and its cultural
correlates (Clement, 1978).
In a more recent unpublished document, Clement (1980b) provides a more
detailed account of his view of the primary motivational process highlighting
this time the concept of perceived vitality. In it, he proposes that important
determinants of the resulting tendencies of integrativeness and fear of
assimilation are the respective perceived ethnolinguistic vitalities of the LI
and L2 cultural groups. It is suggested that individuals' primary motivational
processes are a function of the ratio of the perceived vitality of the L2 group
over the LI counterpart, i.e.
perceived vitality of L2
perceived vitality of LI
Where little or no LI vitality is perceived by the ingroup, integrativeness
would be directly related to the perceived vitality of L2. On the other hand if
the L2 vitality equalled or grew more than that of LI fear of assimilation is
suggested to subside at some unknown point when the L2 was so strong that
the individual chooses not to retain the original LI cultural attributes. Thus,
the resulting motivational impetus released by the primary motivational
process is a delicate balance of integrativeness and fear of assimilation. In
unicultural settings, it is hypothesised that those for whom fear of
assimilation predominates would be less motivated to acquire and eventually
less competent in communicating in the L2 than those who have a relatively
high level of integrativeness. In multi-cultural settings, Clement proposed
that a 'secondary motivational process' is also operative. This is related to the

self-confidence experienced by individuals when communicating in the L2.
He bases this suggestion on results conducted in bilingual settings (Clement,
Gardner & Smythe, 1977; Gardner, 1979) showing that the situational
anxiety experienced by students when using L2 is a better predictor of
communicative competence than attitudes or motivation. Clement proceeds
to propose that the individuals' self-confidence is an interactive function of
the frequency and quality of contact with L2 group members. Hence, in
multicultural settings, it is hypothesised that individuals' L2 competence
would be determined by both the primary and secondary motivational
processes operating in sequence, such that competence will be a function of
high levels of integrativeness and self-confidence (see Figure 2).
Clement suggests that the acquisition of an L2 can result in various social
consequences, two of the more important being that individuals may lose
completely their LI and pass into the outgroup (i.e. assimilate) or they may
still retain their LI while participating in both cultural communities (i.e.
integrate). Having recourse to Lamy's (1978, 1979) research on the
relationship between bilingualism and ethnic identity, Clement proposes that
a collective outcome of integration will occur if the LI community was a
dominant one with a relatively high perceived ethnolinguistic vitality whereas
assimilation will be more likely if the original culture was subordinate to the
L2 group having a lower perceived ethnolinguistic vitality. Finally, it is
suggested that these social outcomes fashion the very nature of the milieu in
which second language learners find themselves thereby affecting in feedback
fashion the climate in which integrativeness or fear of assimilation will be
constructed for or by the individual.
A critique
All encompassing as Clement's model appears to be, we would wish to take
issue with him on three counts. First, it may be recalled that Gardner's model
provides theoretical status to two distinctions, namely formal versus informal
acquisition contexts (cf. Krashen, 1978) and linguistic versus non-linguistic
outcomes, as well as to the two individual difference variables, intelligence
and language aptitude. Unfortunately, Clement provides little rationale for
the neglect or dismissal of the aforementioned in his own framework, a state
of affairs which is regrettable given the importance they are afforded so
convincingly by Gardner. Furthermore, it could be argued that Clement's
use of the concepts integrativeness and fear of assimilation could feasibly be
subsumed under the rubric 'social attitudes' in Gardner's model. In this way,
these antagonistic tendencies would exert their influence by acting as
motivational supports in different learning contexts resulting in different
outcomes.
Second, while we find Clement's (1980b) inclusion of perceived
ethnolinguistic vitality into his framework as commendable, we would
nevertheless take issue with his conception of it as well as his view of its role
in the second language learning process. Clement equates perceived vitality

implicitly with the status dimension yet we would also like to see the
dimensions of demography and institutional support (Giles, Bourhis &
Taylor, 1977) given equivalent weight until such a time as empirical research
suggests otherwise. Clement also tends to treat relative perceived vitality as a
seemingly autonomous concept influencing directly individuals' motivations.
While we have similarly-considered vitality (objective and subjective) in the
past as affecting directly inter-ethnic language behaviours (e.g. Giles, 1978;
1979; Bourhis, 1979), we would now in accord with the initial discussion in
this paper prefer to view the concept as merely one of a set of factors
determining the salience of ethnic identification for individuals (Giles &
Johnson, 1981). In the same manner that Gardner suggested attitudes act as
motivational supports, we would argue that perceived ingroup vitality acts as
a support for ethnic identification. In other words, we would unlike Clement
not wish to see perceived vitality as being one of the prime determinants of
the motivational process but would wish to promote—as we did in our

critique of Gardner's model—the concepts of ethnic identification and
insecure inter-ethnic comparisons to such a status. A more explicit
elaboration of our own theoretical position will follow shortly.
Third, Clement suggests that individuals participating in a common milieu
will experience shared predispositions and L2 communicative competences
which will lead to collective outcomes afforded specific theoretical
consequences as outlined in his model above. While not wishing to
undermine the value of this orientation, Clement is implying unwarranted
intragroup homogeneity and we would prefer to adopt the concept of
perceived collective outcomes varying greatly according to the strength of
individuals' ethnic identifications. In the face of extremely dominant L2s,
Clement generally would argue that communicative competences among
members of non-dominant groups would result in collective outcomes of
assimilation which in turn would dilute their fears of assimilation and
promote integrativeness. In contrast, however, we would propose under the
same circumstances that those subordinate group members who maintained a
strong sense of ethnic belongingness would experience such a perceived
collective outcome of assimilation as increasing their fear of assimilation and
decreasing integrativeness which might even result in a resurgence of LI
skills as well. Finally, and related to the notion of perceived collective
outcomes, Clement's model appears a little static in the sense that it assumes
implicitly that assimilation or integration will be allowed by the outgroup
under all conditions; perceived collective outcomes have significance for the
out- as well as the ingroup. As discussed in the opening part of this paper,
dominant groups have a number of strategies available to them when they
perceive the social outcome of subordinate group assimilation as threatening
then" sense of positive distinctiveness. To this end, the dominant group may
change subtly and even create new forms of their language thereby making
assimilation to it more difficult (cf. Ullrich, 1971). Such 'upward divergence'
(Giles, 1977b; Giles and Powesland, 1975) underlines the fact that an L2 need
not necessarily be a static target towards which learners aspire but may be a
continually evolving form often, and perhaps non-consciously, just beyond
their reaches.
An Intergroup Approach to Second Language Acquisition

Overall, then, Gardner's and Clement's dynamic models have contributed
significantly, with their emphases on the social milieu, to our understanding
of social psychological aspects of second language acquisition in inter-ethnic
settings. The former's approach, while not claiming to be thoroughly
predictive, does provide explicit theoretical status to four specific individual
difference variables and examines these in the light of different acquisition
contexts and individual outcomes in a development sequence. The latter's
approach while being valuable in its process-orientation as well as pointing to
the important functions of collective outcomes in L2 acquisition is felt to

have somewhat limited predictive power due to its preoccupation with
relative perceived vitality as being the prime motivational determinant. We
agree with these models to the extent that motivation is central to any
understanding of L2 proficiency. We also concur with the notion that there
may be conflicting tendencies within the individual given the perceived
instrumentality of learning an L2 on the one hand and a desire to retain the
valued ethnic tongue on the other. Central to our own position are concepts
and processes derived from intergroup theory which have not been taken into
account either in Gardner's or Clement's approaches. More specifically, we
are referring here to factors affecting individuals' strength of ethnic
identification and their perceptions of the social relationships operating
between ethnic in- and outgroups. Rather than lay down yet another
schematic model, our preferred mode of presentation is in terms of outlining
the conditions, in prepositional form, favouring the occurrence and
non-occurrence of native-like proficiency in a dominant group's language. It
seems to us that theoretical neglect of the other side of the coin, that is factors
impeding L2 proficiency cannot be condoned if we are ever to understand
fully the process facilitating the acquisition process. By narrowing our focus
on subordinate ethnic groups learning a dominant outgroup's language and
yet widening it to include an integration of some of Gardner's and Clement's
constructs, we may be better able to provide a more viable predictive
approach than any hitherto formulated. Moreover, a description of this
intergroup approach in mainly propositional terms avoids the schematic
representation of causal links which are undoubtedly too complex to be
represented in simple flow diagrams.
Assuming instrumental value in acquiring L2, we propose that subordinate
group members will most likely acquire native-like proficiency in the dominant
group's language when:
(la) ingroup identification is weak and/or LI is not a salient
dimension of ethnic group membership;

(2a) quiescent inter-ethnic comparisons exist (e.g. no awareness
of cognitive alternatives to inferiority);
(3a) perceived ingroup vitality is low;
(4a) perceived ingroup boundaries are soft and open;
(5a) strong identification exists with many other social
categories, each of which provides adequate group identities
and a satisfactory intragroup status.
We suggest that the above five conditions promote a strong motivation to
learn the L2—that is provide an integrative orientation—which is personally
'additive' for them (Lambert, 1974). Under these facilitative conditions,
situational anxiety assumes considerable importance to the extent that
ultimate proficiency will be dependent on learners expressing self-confidence
about speaking the L2 in quite public domains. Under these conditions,
then, learners are more likely also to avail themselves of the benefits of
informal acquisition contexts for the furtherance of their L2 skills. This

would be reflected in positive outcomes mostly in oral proficiency,
sociolinguistic competence and accommodative flexibility (Segalowitz, 1976;
Thakerar, Giles and Cheshire, 1982, Beebe and Zuengler, 1981), and
favourable non-linguistic consequences. The perceived collective outcome of
such proficiency among a sizeable proportion of the subordinate ethnic group
is likely to foster integrativeness further with respect to those learners
similarly characterised by the above propositions (la-5a) but might act as a
catalyst to powerful members of the outgroup to create a modified L2
'standard' if such assimilation is seen by them as threatening their positive
ethnic distinctiveness. At the same time, this same collective outcome may
also be perceived so as to act in increasing fear of assimilation and thereby
decrease the motivation to learn the L2 amongst those individuals
characterised by the following set of propositions (lb-5b).
Even assuming instrumental value in acquiring L2, we propose that
subordinate group members will most likely not achieve native-like proficiency in
the dominant group's language when:
(1b) ingroup identification is strong and language is a salient
dimension of ethnic group membership;
(2b) insecure inter-ethnic comparisons exist (e.g. awareness of
cognitive alternatives to inferiority);
(3b) perceived ingroup vitality is high;
(4b) perceived ingroup boundaries are hard and closed;
(5b) weak identification exists with few other social categories,
each of which provides inadequate group identities and an
unsatisfactory intragroup status.
Here the learning of the dominant group language may well be a viable
strategy economically and politically but at extreme social cost to group
members who identify strongly with their group. Lambert's (1974) notion
that learning an L2 can be 'subtractive' to minority group identity can be
more precisely determined by propositions lb-5b with the resulting

motivational tendency being equivalent in Clement's terms to a fear of
assimilation. Moreover, and in contrast to Schumann (1978), we would argue
that learners' fear of assimilation would be stronger the closer the linguistic
boundaries between L2 and LI were felt to be, as under these circumstances
positive group differentiation is being threatened most severely. In this milieu,
then, there would be few tendencies to engage in informal acquisition
contexts beyond the formal learning situations imposed upon them.
Therefore, and in line with Gardner, positive non-linguistic outcomes would
be minimal and with respect to linguistic ones, the only likelihood of
successes would be in terms of course grades and grammar tests which
themselves would be highly correlated with learners' intelligence and
language aptitude.
While Clement did not consider the collective outcomes of a lack of L2
communicative competences, we believe that they may be worthy of further
theoretical consideration particularly in terms of how people attribute causes

and motives behind these social outcomes (Jones and Davis, 1965; Hewstone
and Jaspars, 1982). For example, those characterised by propositions lb-5b
may perceive such widespread, what may be called, 'non-assimilation' as a
successful, conscious and valued attempt at maintaining their own cultural
distinctiveness (Ryan, 1979) feeding back into and contributing further to
their lack of motivation to learn L2. Others characterised more by
propositions la-5a, and who have successfully acquired L2, may see this
collective outcome as a group 'failure' arising from poor social and economic
conditions as well as inadequate educational facilities and pedagogical
materials. Such a perspective, especially when shared by certain
liberal-minded members of the dominant group, might stimulate an interest
in cultural pluralism and language planning, issues which are of course being
hotly debated at the present time (e.g. Drake, 1979; Edwards, 1980a).
Indeed, current pleas in this wider arena for more objective,
non-value-ladened empirical research into aspects of bilingual education
(Edwards, 1980b, 1981) might well be enriched by an approach such as ours
which explores intergroupjjrocesses distinguishing between and highlighting
the linguistic consequences arising from those who identify strongly with
their ethnic groups and those who do not. Finally, members of the dominant
group may see such a collective outcome of non-assimilation as justifying
their ideology of the subordinate group as being generally intellectually and
cognitively deficient (cf. Tajfel, 1981).
By way of concluding, let us emphasise the fact that we see our own
intergroup approach to second language acquisition as distinctly embryonic.
Obviously much empirical research needs to be conducted to test the validity
of some of our basic premises. In addition, we foresee no mileage whatsoever
in attempting to social psychologise this area of inquiry. Quite to the
contrary, as we would advocate an integration of the above approach with
more linguistic and cognitive (e.g. Selinker, 1972; Dulay and Burt, 1974;
Krashen, 1978) as well as more societally-based (e.g. Lamy, 1978; Fishman,

1980) perspectives on second and foreign language learning as being an
essential priority for the future.
References
Anderson, A.B. (1979) The survival of ethnolinguistic minorities: Canadian and comparative
research. In H. Giles & B. Saint-Jacques (eds), Language and Ethnic Relations. Pergamon:
Oxford.
Banton, M. (1978) A theory of race and ethnic relations: rational choice. (Research Unit on
Ethnic Relations, University of Bristol). Working Papers on Ethnic Relations, 8.
Barth, F. (1969) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organisation of Culture Difference.
Little, Brown and Company: Boston.
Beebe, L. & Zuengler, J. (1981) Accommodation theory: an explanation for style shifting in second
language dialects. Presented at the TESOL and Sociolinguistics Colloquium of the National
TESOL Conference, Detroit, Michigan, March.

Bourhis, R. Y (1979) Language in ethnic interaction: a social psychological approach. In H.
Giles & B. Saint-Jacques (eds), Language and Ethnic Relations. Pergamon: Oxford.
Bourhis, R. Y & Giles, H. (1977) The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In H. Giles (ed),
Language Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. Academic Press: London.
Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., Leyens, J.P. & Tajfel, H. (1979) Psycholinguistic distinctiveness:
language divergence in Belgium. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (eds), Language and Social
Psychology. Blackwell: Oxford.
Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H. & Rosenthal, D . (1981) Notes on the Construction of a "Subjective
Vitality Questionnaire" for Ethnolinguistic Groups. JMMD, 2:2, 145-155.
Carroll, J. B. & Sapon, S. M. (1959) Modern Language Aptitude Tests, Form A. The Psychological
Corporation: New York.
Clement, R. (1978) Motivational characteristics of Francophones learning English. International
Center for Research on Bilingualism, Laval University; Quebec City.
_____ (1980a) 'Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second language'. In
H. Giles, W. P. Robinson & P. M. Smith (eds), Language: Social Psychological
Perspectives. Pergamon: Oxford.
_____ (1980b) An integrated framework of inter-ethnic communication. Unpublished manuscript—
research proposal. Department of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Canada.
Clement, R., Gardner, R. C. & Smythe, P. C. (1977) Motivational characteristics of
francophones learning English'. Research Bulletin, No. 408. University of Western Ontario.
Clyne, M. (1979) Communicative competences in contact. ITL: A Review of Applied Linguistics,
43, 17-37.
Cummins, J. (1978) Educational implications of mother tongue maintenance in minority
language groups. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 395-416.
_____ (1979) Bilingualism and educational development in Anglophone and minority Francophone
groups in Canada. Intercharge, 9, 40-51.
Cziko, G. A., Lambert, W. E., Sidoti, N. & Tucker, G. R. (1980) "Graduates of early
immersion: Retrospective views of grade eleven students and their parents". In R. N . St.
Clair & H. Giles (eds), The Social and Psychological Contexts of Language. Erlbaum:
Hillsdale, N. J.
Denison, N. (1977) Language death or language suicide? International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 12, 13-22.
Drake, G. F . (1979) Ethnicity, values and language policy in the United States. In H. Giles &
B. Saint-Jacques (eds), Language and Ethnic Relations. Pergamon: Oxford.
_____ (1980) The social role of slang. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson & P. M. Smith (eds), Language:
Social Psychological Perspectives. Pergamon: Oxford.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. K. (1974) New perspectives on the creative construction process in child
second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 253-278.
Edwards, J. R. (1977) Ethnic identity and bilingual education. In H. Giles (ed), Language,
Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. Academic Press: London.
_____ (1980a) Critics and criticisms of bilingual education. Modern Language Journal, 64, 409-415.
_____ (1980b) Bilingual education: facts and values. Canadian Modern Language Review, 37,
123-127.
_____ (1981) The context of bilingual education. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural
Development, 2:1, 25-44.
Fishman, J. A. (1972) Language and Nationalism. Newbury House: Rowley, Mass.
_____ (1977) Language and ethnicity. In H. Giles (ed), Language Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations.
Academic Press: London.
_____ (1980) Bilingualism and biculturism as individual and as societal phenomena. Journal of
Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 1, 3-15.
Gardner R. C. (1979) Social psychological aspects of second-language acquisition. In H. Giles &
R. N . St. Clair (eds), Language and Social Psychology. Blackwell: Oxford.
Gardner, R. C. & Desrocher, A. M. (1980) Second-language acquisition and bilingualism:
research in Canada (1970-1979). Research Bulletin No. 501. University of Western Ontario.
Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972) Attitudes & Motivation in Second Language Learning.
Newbury House: Rowley, Mass.
Giles, H. (ed), (1977a). Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. Academic Press: London.
Giles, H. (1977b) Social psychology and applied linguistics: towards an integrative approach.
ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 27-42.
_____ (1978) Linguistic differentiation in ethnic groups. In H. Tajfel (ed), Differentiation Between
Social Groups. Academic Press: London.
_____ (1979) Ethnicity markers in speech. In K. Scherer & H. Giles (eds), Social Markers in Speech.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Giles, H. Bourhis, R. Y. & Taylor, D. M. (1977) Towards a theory of language in ethnic group
relations. In H. Giles (ed), Language Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. Academic Press:
London.
Giles, H. & Johnson, P. (1981) The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J. C. Turner &
H. Giles (eds), Intergroup Behaviour. Blackwell: Oxford.
Giles, H. & Powesland, P. F . (1975) Speech Style and Social Evalation. Academic Press: London.
Giles, H. & Saint-Jacques, B. (eds), (1979) Language and Ethnic Relations. Pergamon: Oxford.
Giles, H . , Scherer, K. & Taylor, D. M. (1979) Speech markers in social interaction. In
K. Scherer & H. Giles (eds), Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.
Harris, R. McL. (1979) Fever of ethnicity: The sociological and educational significance of the
concept. In P. R. de Lacey & M. E. Poole (eds), Mosaic or Melting Pot. Harcourt Brace
Janovich Group: Sydney.
Hewstone, M. & Jaspers, J. (1982) Intergroup relations and attribution processes. In H. Tajfel
(ed), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Jones, E. E. & Davis, K. E. (1965) From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in
perception. In L. Berkowitz (ed), Advances in Social Psychology, II. Academic Press: New
York.
Khleif, Bud, B. (1979a) Insiders, outsiders and renegades: towards a classification of
ethnolinguistic labels. In H. Giles & B. Saint-Jacques (eds), Language and Ethnic Relations.
Pergamon: Oxford.
_____ (1979b) Language as an ethnic boundary in Welsh-English relations. International Journal of
the Sociology of Language, 20, 59-74.
Kochman, T. (1976) Perceptions along the power axis: a cognitive residue of inter-racial
encounters. Anthropoligical Lingusitics, 18, 261-273.
Kramarae, C. (1981) Women and Men Speaking: Frameworks for Analysis. Newbury House:
Rowley, Mass.
Krashen, S. D., et al. (1978) How important is instruction?. English Languages Teaching Journal,
32, 257-261.
Lambert, W. E. (1974) Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F. Aboud
& R. D. Meade (eds), Cultural Factors in Learning. Western Washington State College
Press: Bellinham, Washington.
_____ (1978) Cognitive and socio-cultural consequences of bilingualism. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 34, 537-547.
_____ (1979) Language as a factor in intergroup relations. In H. Giles & R. N . St. Clair (eds),
Language and Social Psychology. Blackwell: Oxford.
Lamy, P. (1978) Bilingualism and identity. In I. Haas & W. Shaffir (eds), Shaping Identity in
Canadian Society. Prentice Hall: Canada.
_____ (1979) Language and ethnolinguistic identity: the bilingualism question. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 20, 23-36.
Lewis, G. (1979) A comparative study of language contact: the influence of demographic factors
in Wales and the Soviet Union. In W. C. McCormack & S. A. Wurm (eds), Language and
Society: Anthropological Issues. Mouton: The Hague.
Liebkind, K. (1979) The social psychology of minority identity: a case study of intergroup
identification. Research reports, Department of Social Psychology, University of Helsinki,
Finland.
McKirnan, D. J. & Hamayan, E. V. (1980) Language norms and perceptions of ethnolinguistic
group diversity. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson & P. M. Smith (eds), Language: Social
Psychological Perspectives. Pergamon: Oxford.
Merton, R. K. (1968) Social Theory & Social Structure. Free Press: New York.
Oakes, P. J. & Turner, J. C. (1980) Social categorisation and intergroup behaviour: does
minimal intergroup discrimination make social identity more positive? European Journal of
Social Psychology, 10, 295-301.
Paulston, C. B. & Paulston, R. G. (1980) Language and ethnic boundaries. Language Sciences, 2,
69-101.
Ross, F. (1979) Multiple group membership, social mobility and intergroup relations. An investigation
of group boundaries and boundary crossing. Doctoral dissertion: University of Bristol,
England.
Ross, J. (1979) Language and mobilisation of ethnic identity. In H. Giles & B. Saint-Jacques
(eds), Language and Ethnic Relations. Pergamon: Oxford.
Ryan, E. B. (1979) Why do low prestige language varieties persist?. In H. Giles & R. N . St. Clair
(eds), Language and Social Psychology. Blackwell: Oxford.
Schumann, J. H. (1978) The acculturation model for second language acquisition in R. C.
Gringas (ed) Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching, Arlington Va.,
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Segalowitz, N. (1976) Communicative incompetence and nonfluent bilingualism. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 8, 122-131.
Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics and Language
Teaching, 10, 209-31.
Smith, P. M., Tucker, G. R. & Taylor, D. M. (1977) Language, ethnic identity and intergroup
relations: one immigrant group's reaction to language planning in Quebec. In H. Giles (ed),
Language Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. Academic Press: London.
Smolicz, J. J. (1979) Culture and Education in a Plural Society. Curriculum Development Centre:
Canberra.
Tajfel, H. (1974) Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13, 65-93.
_____ (1978a) Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations. (ed) Academic Press: London.
_____ (1978b) The Social Pscyhology of Minorities. Minority Rights Press: London.
_____ (1981) Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (eds), Intergroup
Behaviour. Pergamon: Oxford.
_____ (1982) Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. C. Austin

& S. Worchel (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Brooks, Cole: Monterey,
California.
Taylor, D . M., Meynard, R. & Rheault, E. (1977) Threat to ethnic identity and second-language
learning. In H. Giles (ed), Language, Ethnicity & Intergroup Relations. London: Academic
Press.
Taylor, D. M. & Royer, L. (1980) Group processes affecting anticipated language choice in
intergroup relations. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson & P. M. Smith (eds), Language: Social
Psychological Perspectives. Pergamon: Oxford.
Taylor, D. M. & Simard, L. (1975) Social interaction in a bilingual setting. Canadian
Psychological Reviews, 16, 240-254.
Thakerar, J. N . , Giles, H. & Cheshire, J. (1982) Psychological and linguistic parameters of
speech accommodation theory. In C. Fraser & K. R. Scherer (eds), Advances in the social
psychology of language, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Trudgill, P. (1974) Sociolinguistics. Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, Middlesex.
Turner, J. C. (1981) The experimental social psychology of intergroup behaviour. In J. C.
Turner & H. Giles (eds), Intergroup Behaviour. Blackwell: Oxford.
Ullrich, H. E. (1971) Linguistic aspects of antiquity: a dialect. Athropological Linguistics, 13,
106-113.
Weber, M. (1964) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Edited and translated by H. H. Gerth
and C. W. Mills. Oxford University Press: New York.
Weinstein, B. (1979) Language strategists: redefining political frontiers on the basis of linguistic
choices. World Politics, 31, 345-364.

Gile and Byrne An Intergroup Approach To Second Language Acquisition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gile and Byrne An Intergroup Approach To Second Language Acquisition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University North Carolina - Chapel Hill]

On: 23 June 2013, At: 04:38

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

An intergroup approach to second language acquisition

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1982.9994069

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Abstract. In this paper, we shall outline a recent social psychological

Johnson, 1981). It is suggested that this framework is likely to advance

01434632/82/01/0017-24 $02.50/0 © 1982 HOWARD GILES & JANE L. BYRNE

Giles and Johnson (1981) have classified, although not in a mutually

inquiry, cumulative problems in the area such as vast differences in

A Social Psychological Approach to Language and Ethnicity

psychological approach to language and ethnicity concludes in prepositional

Social Identity Theory

valued dimensions result in a negative ethnic identity for ingroup members,

group and identification with it is unavoidable. The first of these strategies

cultural distinctiveness, the latter may respond by diverging from these

Factors Affecting the Salience of Ethnic Identification

be briefly discussed below. At the conclusion of this section, we shall be in a

Perceived Ethnolinguistic Vitality and Perceived Group Boundaries

other groups' vitalities in such a way as to provide an ingroup with a feeling of

Multiple group memberships

therefore is likely to be stronger and exist in a wider range of social contexts

Social Psychological Models of Second Language Acquisition in

a positively-valued ethnic distinctiveness. We would argue that constructs

Figure 1. Schematic Representation of Gardner's (1979) Model

third category involves a distinction between formal and informal acquisition

acquisition contexts. As can be seen from Figure 1 above, Gardner argues

affecting its strength as well as the perceived relationships operating between

instrumental rewards for them. Such students might in fact be ideal

NEGATIVE POSITIVE Resulting

INTEGRATION ASSIMILATION Social

Figure 2. Schematic Representation of Clement's (1980a) Model

shared individual outcomes can give rise to collective consequences (cf.

Although not accorded significance in the schematic representation of his

communicative competence in L2 comprises in part for some individuals

that a 'secondary motivational process' is also operative. This is related to the

in the second language learning process. Clement equates perceived vitality

the motivational process but would wish to promote—as we did in our

An Intergroup Approach to Second Language Acquisition

the important functions of collective outcomes in L2 acquisition is felt to

dimension of ethnic group membership;

informal acquisition contexts for the furtherance of their L2 skills. This

more precisely determined by propositions lb-5b with the resulting

theoretical consideration particularly in terms of how people attribute causes

Krashen, 1978) as well as more societally-based (e.g. Lamy, 1978; Fishman,

TESOL Conference, Detroit, Michigan, March.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. C. Austin

You might also like