(Giles, 1977a;Giles& Saint-Jacques, 1979).Acertain speech style or ...... BeYlens, '1' H cu & R. N. St. Clair (cds), Language and Social language divergence 111.
16
MUL TILl
GUAL AND MUL TICUL T
RAL DEVELOPMENT
Lambert, W.E., & Tucker, G.R. (1972) Bilingual Education oj Children. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (1979) The immersion centre and the dual-track school: A study of the relationship between school environment and achievement in a French immersion program. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Macnamara, ]., Svarc, ]., & Horner, S. (1976) Attending a Primary School of the Other Language in Montreal. In Simoes, A. (ed.) The Bilingual Child, New York: Academic Press, 113-131. Shapson, S., & Kaufman, D. (1976) French Immersion: a Western Perspective. Canadian Society for the Study oj Education Yearbook, 3, 8-26. Shapson , S., Kaufman, D., & Durward, L. (1978) B.C. French Study: An Evaluation of Elementary French Programs in British Columbia. Burnaby, B.C.: Simon Fraser University, Faculty of Education. Shapson, S., & Kaufman, D. (1978) Overview of Elementary French Programs in British Columbia: Issues and Research. The Canadian Modem Language Reuieui, 34, 586-603. Spilka, 1. V. (1976; Assessment of Second Language Performance in Immersion Programs. The Canadian Modem Language Reuieui, 32, 543-561. Stern, H.H. (1978) French Immersion in Canada: Achievement and Directions. The Canadian Modem Language Reuieui, 34, 836-854. Stern, H.H., Swam, M., McLean, L.D., Friedman, R.]., Harley, B., & Lapkin, S., (1976) Three Approaches to Teaching French. Toronto: Ministry of Education, Ontario. Swain, M. (1974) French Immersion Programs across Canada: Research Findings. The CanadIan Modem Language Reuieui, 31,117-129. Swain, tv\. (1978) French Immersion: Early, Late or Partial? The Cillwd,ill, Modem Language Reuieui, 34, ;77-585. Swain, M. (1979) Target Language use in the wider environment as a factor in its acquisition. Paper presented at the 13th Annual TESOL Convention, March, 1979. Swain, lv\. & Barile, H.C. (1976) Fnie Years oj Primary Frencn ImmerslOll. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Andrew. C. (1981) Early French Immersion Later On. Journal oj Multilingual awl Multicultural Development, 2, 1-23.
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 & 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 nationalistic 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. 0143-463282/01/(\017-24 $02.S00 JOURNAL OF MUL TILlNGUAL
© AND MULTICULTURAL
17
1982 HOWARD GILES DEVELOPMENT
& JA1\E 1.. BYRNE Vol. 3, No.1, 1982
III
MULTIUNGUAL
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 sociostructural 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 sociolinguistic, sociological and communication breakdown approaches.
AN INTERGROUP
A Social Psychological
APPROACH
19
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 propositional terms with an outline of five conditions considered necessary for individuals to desire to maintain, accentuate, or create a favourably-valued ethnolinguistic 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 defined 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 ejhnic 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
20
MULTILI
GUAL AND MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
val.ued dimensions result in a negative ethnic identity for ingroup members, Tajfel & Turner O?79) propose that the latter will adopt one or more of the strategies of lIldlVl~ual mobility, social creativity or social competition in search o.f a more sat.lsfac.to:y self-concept. Most of these strategies can be seen to ha~e Im~ort.mt linguistic correlates (Giles & Johnson, 1981) and these will ~e briefly u:ltwduced together with some of the conditions considered most likely to bnng about their occurrence. Individual mobilit:>:re~ers to ~hat strategy whereby individuals wish to pass out of th~ ~roup which IS causing them so much evaluative discomfort into a more positively-valued one, usually the dominant ethnic collectivity. To this end, the? Will att~mpt to acquire, or at least aspire towards, the characteristics (physical or psychological) of this other group and thereby s.ecure for themselves a more adequate social identity. This strategy is most likely to be used by grou~ members possessing a negative ethnic identity when .mterg~oup boundanes are perceived soft and permeable and when objections .rll1S,~dby either group for so doing are not considered strong. At the ~ame time howeve.r, 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 ~o~iljty. i,: such a situation is of course a convergence towards the outgroup s linguistic ch~racteristics.(Giles & Powesland, 1975; Giles, 1977b) and hence the attenuanon of the mgroup's ethnic speech markers (Giles, Sche~er & Taylor, 1979). Large numbers of the group acting in this manner can glv~ ris~ to linguistic assimilation with its collective consequences finding expression in the s~-called 'erosion' or even 'death' of the ingroup language; such. a process .mlght be more appropriately termed 'language suicide' (Denison, .1977) m accord with social identity principles. Individual mobility then ~s 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 mg~oup, these. strategies a~e aimed at protecting the group's identity ~nd resto:mg It~ positive dlstlllctiveness: In this sense, they are considered group-onented even though. these solutions as opted for by individuals may not actually alter the objective relationship existing between ingroup and outgroup on. the s.ubordinate-dominant dimension. It is thought likely that ~hese. strat~gIes 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 a~tlng no~ III accord with their ethnic group membership. In other word'), social creativity strategies, of which there are at least three should be adopted when individuals find it impossible to leave their ethnic
AN INTERGROUP
APPROACH
21
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 stigrnatised 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
22
MULTILINGUAL
A
D MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
the~r old speech characteristics and also create new ones for private use in ~heir own mgroup. domains, but they will move to have these recognised as Ju.st as acceptable m 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 pos~ibility ~f ethnoli~guistic 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 distinctive~ess. As soo.n as members of the dominant group who identify str~ngly 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 level~ of proficiency and numbers that it dilutes the dominant group's cultural distinctiveness, the latter may respond by diverging from these p.assers 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 .u~e 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 c~mpetition on linguistic dimensions. In this vein, we would argue that the differc?-ces 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 th~ accentuation and attenuation of ethnic speech markers appears to depend III 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 aff~ctin~ 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
AN INTERGROUP
APPROACH
23
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-srructural 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 vitality' 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, de~r~.pEL and institutional support. The status factors include economic, politicafsocial, 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
24
MULTILINGUAL
AND MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPME
T
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 psycho linguistic 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; Pauls ton & 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) catc-gorisation of self and others into cleary defined 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).
AN INTERGROUP
APPROACH
25
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 identification 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
Multiple group memberships
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:
Indi viduals 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 therefore likely to influence the perceived salience of the ethnic boundary for individuals and by implication the strength of their personal identificationwith 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 anyone of them than individuals who are members of just a few social groups. Ethnic attachment
While these propositions may not cover all possible conditions contributing towards positive linguistic differentiations such as the accentuation of
(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 other social categories each of which provides them with inadequate group identities and low intragroup statuses.
26
MULTJI.INGUAL
AND MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
AN INTERGROUP
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 Inter-Ethnic Contexts
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 & Desrochcr (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 the 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
lndividual
drffcrcncc-,
Second-language
aU4UI'>I!IUn
contexts
Outcomes
Language aputudc
in
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, 197~j; Clement, 1980a; 1980b). Gardner's
Socia! rnihcu
27
APPROACH
.\\uuvauon
SIIU,IlIl)!}tll
Figure 1.
Schematic
anXII;!V
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
28
MULTILINGUAL
AND MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
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. III 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
AN INTERGROUP
APPROACH
29
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 a~Q.ffiie (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 (l980a) takes up the challenge of explaining how aspects of the social milieu influence individuals' linguistic outcomes in the L2 acquisition process. An important dynamic feature of his analysis is that particular
30
MULTILINGUAL
AND MULTICULTURAL
AN INTERGROUP APPROACH
DEVELOPMENT
INTEGRATIVENESS FEAR OF ASSIMILATION
Primary Motivational Process NEGATIVE I avoidance)
POSITIVE (approach)
.;
UNICULTURAL
MULTICULTURAL
UNICULTURAL
Resulting Tendency Composition of Community
I
Frequency
X Quality of Contact
Secondary Motivational Process
SELF-CONFIDENCE
MOTIVATION
c=
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE -------:~--
DOMIN1\NT
INTEGRATION
Figure 2.
II I
I
L
Indivicual Outcome
NON-DOMINANT
ASSIMILATION
Relative Status of First Culture Social Outcome
Schematic Representation a/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.
31
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 (L1) would greatly facilitate L2 acquisition. Clement, however, considers this might be possible only where there is a strong identification with the L1 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 L1 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 L1 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 L 1 counterpart, i.e. perceived
vitality of L2
perceived
vitality of Ll
Where little or no L1 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 Ll 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 L 1 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
32
MULfILINGUAL
AND MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
that a 'secondary motivational process' is also operative. This is related to the self-confide~ce 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 commUDlCatlve com?eten.ce 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 settl~gs, It IS hypothesised that individuals' L2 competence would be deter~Illn~d by both the primary and secondary motivational p~ocesses oper.atmg IH sequence, such that competence will be a function of high ,levels of mtegratIveness and self-confidence (see Figure 2). Clement suggests that the acquisition of an L2 can result in various social consequences, .two of the mo:-e important being that individuals may lose c~mplet~ly the~r Ll and. pass into the outgroup (i.e. assimilate) or they mav ~tIll retain t. elr. Ll while participating in both cultural communities (i.e. mte~rate).. Having recourse to Lamy's (1978, 1979) research on the rclatlonS~llp between bilingualisrn and ethnic identity, Clement proposes that a co~lectlve ut~ome of l?tegra~lOn will occur if the Ll community was a d0I?-Ir:an~ one :-vIth a relatively high perceived ethnolinguistic vitality whereas assimilation wI!1be more likely if the original culture was subordinate to the L2 group having a lo~er perceived ethnolinguistic vitality. Finally, it is su~gested that these social outcomes fashion the very nature of the milieu in which second !angua?e lea~ners find themselves thereby affecting in feedback fashion the climate 111which integrativeness or fear of assimilation will be constructed for or by the individual.
A critique . All e?cou:passing as Clement's model appears to be, we would wish to take Issue. WIth him O? three counts. First, it may be recalled that Gardner's model provides theoretical status to two distinctions, namely formal versus informal acquisinon contexts (cf. Krashen, 1978) and linguistic versus non-linguistic outcomes, as we I! as to the two individual difference variables, intelligence and language a~tJt~de. Unfortunately, Clement provides little rationale for the ne~lect or dlsI?-lssal of the aforementioned in his own framework, a state of aifal~s which IS regrettable given the importance they are afforded so convincingly by Ga:dner. Furthermore, it could be argued that Clement's use of the concepts ll1tegratIveness and fear of assimilation could feasibly be subsumed und~r the rubric 'social attitudes' in Gardner's model. In this way, these antagorusnc tendencies would exert their influence by acting as mouvauonal supports in different learning contexts resulting in different outcomes. Sec~nd,. ~hile ~e find Clement's (1980b) inclusion of perceived ethnohngUlsllc vitality into his framework as commendable we would nevertheless take issue with his conception of it as well as his view of its role
AN INTERGROUP
APPROACH
33
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 their 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'
34
MULTILINGUAL
AND MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPME
T
(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 psyc ological aspects of second language acquisition in inter-ethnic settings. The former's approach, while not claiming to be thoroughly predictive, docs 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 propositional 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 Ll is not a salient
A
INTERGROUP
APPROACH
3S
dimension of ethnic group membership; quiescent inter-ethnic comparisons exist (e.g. no awareness of cognitive alternatives to inferiority); (3a) perceived in group vitality is low; (4a) perceived ingroup boundaries are soft and open; (Sa) 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-Sa) 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 (l b- 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: (lb) 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 (l974) notion that learning an L2 can be 'subtractive' to minority group identity can be (2a)
36
MULTILINGUAL
A
D MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPME
AN I TERGROUP
T
more precisely determined by propositions 1b-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 Ll 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 J aspars, 1982). For example, those characterised by propositions 1b-Sb 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-Sa, 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-Iadened empirical research into aspects of bilingual education (Edwards, 1980b, 1981) might well be enriched by an approach such as ours which explores intergroup J)rocesses 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;
37
APPROACH
shen 1978) as well as more societally-based (e.g. Lamy,.1978; Fbis.hman, K ra , d d ~ . I nguage learrung as emg an 1980) perspectives on secon an oreign a essential priority for the future.
References Ad' A B (1979) The survival of ethnolinguistic minorities: Canadian and c~llparative n e~:~~~rch. in H. Giles & B. Saint-Jacques (cds), Language and Ethnic Relations. crgarnon: . Oxf~d( B anton, 1 .
1978) A theory of race and ethnic relations: rationa~ choice. (Research ..' 1) Wk' r P pers on Ethnic Relations, 8.
Barth~t~ni~1 ~6e~)t~t71~;icU~',~:;;t~n~ :~:~,:~a~esO~i::,gSo~al B
b Li~le& Bl~::g~:r~ Jc~~~al~y~~~~:~l~dation ee ~~ng~age dialects. Presented at the TESOL
Organisation
of Culture
Unit on Difference.
theory: all explanaciOlI for style shif.ti~g ~ secOI~~ and SociolingUlstlcS ColloqUIUm 0 t c anona
TESOL Conference, Detroit, Michigan, March.. '. roach. In H. hi R Y (l979) Language in ethnic mtcraction: a social psychologICal app our ~~les B. Saint-Jacques (eds), Language and Ethnic Relations. Pergamon: Oxfo:d: . R Y & Gil H (1977) The language of intergroup dlstlnctlveness. In H. Giles (cd), Bourhisv R. I es, . . P L d L E h . 'r and Intergroup Relations. AcademiC ress: on on. .' .anguage c IlICIY H L J P & Taifcl H. (l979) Psycholinguislic distlnctlveness: Bourhis , R. Y ". Giles, ..' BeYlens, '1' H cu R. N. St. Clair (cds), Language and Social language divergence 111 e glum. n . I es Psychology Blackwell: Oxford. . .f "S bi . hi R Y' G'I . H & Rosenthal D. (l981) Notes on the COllStmctlO1I OJ a u -jecnue Bour IS, . ., I es, .. " . ".' G JMMD 2-2 145-155. Viwlity QuesrlOlllwzre for Ethnolinguisuc roups. . d 'F A The Psychological Carroll, J. B. & Sapon, S. M. (1959) Modem Language Apuru e em, omz .
B
&
&
T.
Corporation: New York. . t.li i I t tional R (1978) Motivational characterntics of Fl£lncophOlzes learning ting zs L n erna I ernent , . 1 U' . Q cbec City Center for Research on Bilingualism, Lava ruversny ; u. . d l' .' I (1980a) 'Ethnicity contact and communicative competence 111 a se~on I a;;gu1g~ '. ~ H. Giles, W. Robinson & P. M. Smith (eds), Language: ocza syc 10 ogzca
Cle
P.
Perspectives. Pergamon: Oxford. . .' . h d . i t(l980b) An integrated framework of inter-ethnic commwzzcalWIL Unpubhs e manuscr P .1 D nt of Psychology University of Ottawa, Canada. . ,. research proposa. iar~me& Sm the, P. (l977) Motivational characteristics 01
C.
Clem~;:~c:p'hO~:sr~~~~'ing
Engiish'.
Clyne, M. (1979) Communicative
Res~arch
competences
Bul/eun, .
111
No. 408. University OAf WcI·stderLnOntutflo. .t ITL' A Revzew of pp ze mguzs ICS, .
contac .
43, 17-37. . . . " tenancc in minority Cummins, J. (l978) Educational implications of mother tongue main . Ian ua e groups. The Canadialz Modem Language Revzew, 34, 395-416. . . _(I97~) Bflingualism and educational development in Anglophone and rrunoruy Francophone Cziko
groups in Canada. Lntercharge, 9, 40-51. T k G R (1980) "Graduates of early G A Lambert, W. E., Sidoti, N. & uc er, . '. "R N S immersion: Retrospective views of grade eleven students ~nd their parents . In . . L Clair & H. Giles (eds), The Social and Psychologzcal ContexlS of Language. Erlbaum:
Hillsdale, N. J. Denison, . (1977) Language
. IJ I death or language suicide? [ntemuuona ounw
.1
the Sociology
of
OJ
Language, 12, 13-22. .' U . d S . In H Giles & Drake, G. F. (1979) Ethnicity, values and language policy 111 the nue rates. . B Saint-Jacques (eds), Language and Ethnic Relations. Pergamon: ?xlord. . _(1980) The social role of slang .. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson & P. M. Smith (cds), Language. Social Psychologzcal Perspefllves. Pergamon: Oxford.
38
MULTILINGUAL
AND MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. K. (1974) New perspectives on the creative construction process in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 253-278. . Edwar?s, .1: R. (1977) Ethnic identity and bilingual education. In H. Gi/c" (ed), Language, Ethnicuy and Intergroup Relations. Academic Press: London. (1980a) Critics and criticisms of bilingual education. Modem Language f ournul, 64,40':)-415. (I980b) Bilingual education: facts and values. Canadian Modem Language Reuieui, 37, 123-127. (1981) The context of bilingual education. f oumal oj Mululingual & Mull/cullUral Deuelopmeni, 2:1, 25-44. Fishman, J. A. (1972) Language and Nationalism. Newbury House: Rowlev, Mass. (1977) Language and ethnicity. In H. Giles (ed), Language Ethnicuy and Lntevgroup Relations. Academic Press: London. (1980) Bilingualism and hiculturism as individual and as societal phenomena. f oumal of Mululinguu! & Multicultural Deuelopment, L 3-15. Gardner R. C. (1979) Social psychological aspects of second-language acquisition. In H. Giles & R. N. SI. 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. 50 I. University of Western Ontario. Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972) Auuudes & Mocivacion in Second Language Learning. Newbury House: Rowley, Mass. Giles, H. (ed), ,[977a). Language, Ethnicuy and l ntergroup Relations. Academic Press: London. Giles, H. (l977b) Social psychology and applied linguistics: towards an integrative approach. ITL: Reineui oj Applied Linguistics, 35,27-42. (1978) Linguistic differentiation in ethnic groups. In H. Tajfcl (cd), Differenuation Benoeen Social Groups. Academic Press: London. (1979) Erhnicity markers in speech. In K. Scherer & H. Giles (cds r, Social ,Harkers /II Speech. Carnbridg : University Press: Cambridge. Giles, H. Bourhis, R. Y. & Taylor, D. M. (1977) Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (cd), Language Ethnicuy 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 Eualaiion. Academic Press: London. Giles, H. & Saini-jacques, B. (cds), (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 cthnicitv: The sociological and educational significance of the concept. In P. R. de Laccv & M. E. Poole (eds), Mosaic or Meillng POl. Harcourt Brace Janovich Group: Sydney. Hewstone , M. & Jaspers, J. (1982) Intergroup relations and attribution processes. In H. Tajfel (ed), Social Ldentity and Lntergroup Relations. Cambridge niversity Press: Cambridge. Jones, E. E. ~, Davis, K. E. (1965) From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in perception. In L. Berkowitz (ed), Advances ill Social Psychology; I I. Academic Press: New York. Khleif, Bud, B. (l979a) Insiders, outsiders and renegades: towards a classification of ethnolinguistic labels. In H. Giles & B. Saini-jacques (cds), Language and Ethnic Relauons. Pergamon: Oxford. (I 979b) Language as an ethnic boundary in Welsh-English relations. Lnternutional f ournal of the Sociology oj Language, 20, 59-74. Kochman, T. (1976) Perceptions along the power axis: a cognitive residue of inter-racial encounters. Anthropoligical Lingusuu:s, 18,261-273. Krarnarae , C. (1981) Women and Men Speaking: Frameworks [or ,\na(vsls. Newburv House: Rowley, Mass.
AN INTERGROUP
APPROACH
39
Krashen, S. D., et al. (197ll) How important is instruction? English Languages Teaching f ournal, 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 Modem 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 l. Haas & W. Shaffir (eds), Shaping I dentuy in Canadian Society Prentice Hall: Canada. (1979) Language and ethnolinguistic identity: the bilingualism question. l ntemationul JOllmal oj the Sociology oj 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 Lssues, Mouton: The Hague. Liebkind, K. (1979) The social psychology oj minoricy identity: a case study oj intergroup identificauon. Research reports, Department of Social Psychology, University of Helsinki, Finland. McKirnan, D. J. & Hamayan, E. V. (1980) Language norms and perceptions of cthnolinguistic group diversity. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson & P. M. Smith (eds), Language: Social Psychological Perspectiues. 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 f oumal of Social Psychology, 10,295-301. Pauls ton, C. B. & Paulston, R. G. (1980) Language and ethnic boundaries. Language Sciences, 2, 69-10 I. Ross, F. (1979) M ulciple group membership, social mobility and intergroup relations. An inuestigation oj group boundaries and boundary crossing. Doctoral dissertion: University of Bristol, England. Ross, J. (1979) Language and mobilisation of ethnic identity. In H. Giles & B. Saini-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 Acquisicion and Foreign Language Teaching, Arlington Va., Center for Applied Linguistics. Segalowitz , N. (1976) Communicative incompetence and nonfluent bilingualism. Canadian Jounzal oj Behauioural Science, 8, 122-131. Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. I nternational 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 l nfonnauon, 13,65-93. __ (1978a) Dif'[erenuation benoeen Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. (ed) Academic Press: London. _(l978b) The Social Pscyhology oj M,noncies. 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 Universitv Press: Cambridge.
1 40
MULTILINGUAL
Tajfe~
Ii' ~~~I~~t('J-)C;
Ca
liforn: 1 orma.
AND MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
(1979) An,integrative theory of intergroup e s , The Social I sychology oj Intergroup Relations.
conflict. Brooks
,.
In W. C. Austin Cole' Monterey
)
Taylor, D. M. Meynard R & Rhea It E (1977)l'h '" lcarnin 'In H .,. u ,. '. rcat to ethnic identity and second-language Press. g. . GIles (ed), Language, Ethnicu» & Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Taylor, D. M. II· Royer L (1980) G ' .. . . ,. . roup processes affecting anucrpared languagc choice in I~tergroup relations. In H. GIles, W. P. Robinson & 1'. M. Smith (cds) L .S . I I sychological Perspecuues. Pergamon: Oxford. ' anguage. OCla
PITFALLS IN THE MULTICULTURAL DIAGNOSTIC/REMEDIAL PROCESS: A CENTRAL AMERICAN EXPERIENCE
=:
D,'I M. I&RSimard, L. (1975) Social interaction in a bilingual setting Canadian , 'YCIOOglca eineuis, 16,240-254. . lhakerar, J. N., Giles, H. . & Ch es hiIre, J . (1982) P sychological . ' .. and linguistic parameters of specc I1 accommodation theory In C F . & K R S h , I : . raser " c erer (cds), Adv
