The social identity perspective has been an enormously fertile platform for understanding these processes, and many others besides, including intergroup ^^communication (Giles, Gallois, & Petronio, 1998). Reid, Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4020, USA [email: © 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) 8:3 211-214 DOI: 10.1177/1368430205053938Ģ001), the mass media (Harwood, 1999 Reid, Giles, & Abrams, 2004), and the internet (Postmes & Baym, 2005). Meanwhile, more phenomena and areas of investigation are recognizing the intergroup dimension: small group processes (Hogg & Tindale, 2005), organizational processes (Gardner, Paulsen, Gallois, Callan, & Monaghan,Īddress correspondence to Scott A. Barker, Giles, & Harwood, 2004).Ĭore research foci include language attitudes (Bradac, Cargile, & Hallett, 2001), multi-lingualism (Sachdev & Bourhis, 2005), aging (Williams & Nussbaum, 2001), health (Harwood & Sparks, 2003), inter-ability communication (Fox & Giles, 1997), gender (Reid, Keerie, & Palomares, 2003 Smith, 1985), intercultural relations (Hecht, Jackson, & Pitts, 2005), terrorism (Sparks, in press), and so on and so forth. Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2004 Giles & Coupland, 1991), parallel developments of ethnolinguistic identity theory (Giles & Johnson, 1981, 1987), anxiety/uncertainty reduction theory (Gudykunst, 1995), and many others (e.g. This work led, in part, to an elaboration of speech-Īnd later communication-accommodation theory (e.g. However, this began to change in the 1970s when Giles (1977, 1978) invoked social identity theory to explain the socio-linguistic phenomenon of language shifts. The social context of group behavior was all but absent, and language was treated very much as a functional property of group life. Nevertheless, much of this early work conceptualized language as nothing more than a vehicle for (intra) group and psychological processes, notably decision making and leadership (e.g.

Language and communication received their first sustained attention in the group dynamics tradition, particularly with reference to the development of social comparison and dissonance theories (Festinger, 1954). However, such a case has not always been easy to make, although it is clearly evident in a plethora of aspects of our communicative lives, including dress styles, cosmetics, marches, vigils, festivals, websites, music, etc.

It is not difficult to argue that language and communication processes are a core element of the social psychology of intergroup relations (Clément, 1996 Giles & Reid, 2004 Gudykunst, 1986 Lambert, 1967) indeed, they are integral constituents of our group identities (Cargile, Giles, & Clément, 1996) and what differentiates us from other relevant outgroups. Intergroup Relations: Its Linguistic and Communicative Parameters

Protection by S.A. Reid