Despite a surge in research on post-conflict reconciliation, the specific factors which promote reconciliation remain a subject of debate. In particular, the possible role of shared language in fostering reconciliation has received little scholarly attention. This paper examines two possible channels through which shared language may facilitate reconciliation, and tests these using a new survey dataset of 446 individuals from Serbia. As expected, the results indicated that shared language reduces the negative effect of conflict on intergroup trust and friendship, two crucial components of reconciliation. Furthermore, the results suggest that in the former Yugoslavia this effect is generated by the communication-enabling aspects of a shared language, rather than its other properties such as acting as a marker of ethnic or cultural identity.
AjdukovicDBiruskiD. C.2008. “Caught between the Ethnic Sides: Children Growing up in a Divided Post-War Community.” Int J Behav Development32, 4: 337‐347.
2.
AllportG. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Perseus Books. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub Co.
3.
Anderson. 1983. Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin And Spread Of Nationalism. London: Verso Books.
4.
AxelrodRHamiltonW. D.. 27 March 1981. “The Evolution of Cooperation.” Science (New York, N.Y.)211: 44891390–44891396.
5.
BailynJF. 2010. “To What Degree Are Croatian and Serbian the Same Language?: Evidence from a Translation Study.” J Slavic Linguistics18, 2: 181–219.
6.
Bar-TalDBenninkG. 2004. “The Nature of Reconciliation as an Outcome and as a Process.” In From Conflict Resolution to ReconciliationYaacov Bar-Siman-Tov and Yehudith Auerbach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
BoasT. C.ChristensonD. P.GlickD. M.. ‘Recruiting Large Online Samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics.’ Pol Sci Res Meth8, no. 2 (April 2020): 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.28
8.
BormannN-C.CedermanL-E.VogtM.. 2017. Language, Religion, and Ethnic Civil War. Journal of Conflict Resolution61, no. 4 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002715600755
9.
BuzasiK. 2015. “Languages, communication potential and generalized trust in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence based on the Afrobarometer Survey.” Soc Sci Res49: 141–155.
10.
CedermanL-E.VogtM.. 2017. “Dynamics and Logics of Civil War.” J Conflict Resolution.
11.
CehajicS.BrownR.CastanoE.. 2008. “Forgive and Forget? Antecedents and Consequences of Intergroup Forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Polit Psychol29, 3: 351–367.
12.
CollierP.HoefflerA.. 2002. “On the Incidence of Civil War in Africa.” J Conflict Resolution46: 113–28.
13.
DelheyJ. 2007. “Do Enlargements Make the European Union Less Cohesive? An Analysis of Trust between EU Nationalities.” JCMS: J Common Market Stud45, 2: 253–279.
FearonJ. D.LaitinD. D.. 2003. “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War.” Am Polit Sci Rev97: 75–90.
17.
FriedmanVictor A. 2017. Languages of the Balkans. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
Gellner. 1983. Ernest, and Director of the Center for the Study of Nationalism Ernest Gellner. Nations And Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
19.
GerritsenD.LubbersM.. 2010. “Unknown Is Unloved? Diversity and Inter-Population Trust in Europe.” Eur Union Polit112: 267–287.
20.
GibsonJ. L. 2004. “Does Truth Lead to Reconciliation? Testing the Causal Assumptions of The South African Truth and Reconciliation Process.” Am J Polit Sci48: 2.
21.
GibsonJ. L. 2007. “Truth” and “Reconciliation” as Social Indicators.” Soc Indicators Res81, 2: 257–281.
22.
GinsburghV.Ortuño-OrtínI.WeberS.. 1 June 2005. “Disenfranchisement in Linguistically Diverse Societies: The Case of the European Union.” J Eur Econ Assoc3, 4: 946–965.
23.
GranovetterM. S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” Am J Sociol78, 6: 1360–1380.
24.
GreenbergR. D. 2004. Language and Identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
HaarmannH. 1999. In Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, edited by FishmanJ., ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
HabyarimanaJ.HumphreysM.PosnerD. N., et al. 2007. “Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision?.” Am Polit Sci Rev101, 4: 709–725.
27.
HewstoneM.KenworthyJ.Cairns, et al. 2008. “Stepping Stones to Reconciliation in Northern Ireland: Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and Trust.” In Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press
28.
HrochM. 1999. “The Slavic World.” In Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, edited by FishmanJoshua, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The Conflicts. International Criminal Tribunal For the Former Yugoslavia. (2018). Accessed 8 October 2018.
30.
KamC.FranzeseR.. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31.
KingRobert. 2001. “The Poisonous Potency of Script: Hindi and Urdu.” Int J Sociol Lang150: 43–59
32.
KosicA.TauberC. D.. 2010. “Promoting Reconciliation through Youth: Cross-Community Initiatives in Vukovar, Croatia.” Peace Conflict: J Peace Psychol16, 1: 81–95.
33.
KriesbergL. 2007. “Reconciliation: Aspects, Growth, and Sequences.” Int J Peace Stud12: 1
34.
KumoveM. 2020. “Diversity, Semi-Communication and Cross-Country Trust: A Quantitative Analysis.” Soc Sci Res86: 102392.
35.
LacinaB.Nils Petter Gleditsch. June 2005. “Monitoring Trends in Global Combat: A New Dataset of Battle Deaths.” Eur J Popul/Revue Européenne de Démographie21, 2: 145–166.
36.
LaitinD. D. May 2000. “Language conflict and violence: the straw that strengthens the camel's back.” Eur J Sociol41: 97–1137.
37.
LevayK. E.FreeseJ.DruckmanJ. N.. ‘The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples’. SAGE Open6, no. 1 (1 January 2016): 2158244016636433. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433
38.
LiuA. H. 2015. Standardizing Diversity: The Political Economy of Language Regimes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
39.
LupuN.PeisakhinL.. 2017. “The Legacy of Political Violence across Generations.” Am J Polit Sci61, 4: 836–851.
40.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M., et al. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annu Rev Sociol27: 415‐444.
MitchellD.MillerM.. 2019. “Reconciliation through Language Learning? A Case Study of the Turas Irish Language Project in East Belfast.” Ethnic Racial Stud42, 2: 235–253.
43.
NoorM.BrownR.GonzalezR., et al. 2008a. “On Positive Psychological Outcomes: What Helps Groups With a History of Conflict to Forgive and Reconcile With Each Other?.” Personal Soc Psychol Bull
44.
NoorM.James BrownR.PrenticeG.. 2008b. “Precursors and Mediators of Intergroup Reconciliation in Northern Ireland: A New Model.” Br J Soc Psychol47, 3: 481–495.
45.
OstlerN. 2005. Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World. New York: HarperCollins.
46.
OstromE. 2003. “Toward a Behavioural Theory Linking Trust, Reciprocity, and Reputation.” In Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons From Experimental Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
47.
PattenA. 2010. “The Most Natural State: Herder and Nationalism.” Hist Polit Thought51, 4: 657–689.
48.
PettigrewT. F. 1998. “Intergroup Contact Theory.” Annu Rev Psychol49: 65–85.
49.
PutnamRobert. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
50.
ReidyC.TaylorL.MerrileesC., et al. March 2015. “The Political Socialization of Youth in a Post-Conflict Community.” Int J Intercultural Relations45.
51.
RettigM. 2008. “Gacaca: Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation in Postconflict Rwanda?.” Afr Stud Rev51, 3: 25–50. (December
52.
SamuelsDavid J.ZuccoCesar. 2013. ‘Using Facebook as a Subject Recruitment Tool for Survey-Experimental Research’. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
53.
ShnabelNNadlerA. 2008. “A Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation: Satisfying the Differential Emotional Needs of Victim and Perpetrator as a Key to Promoting Reconciliation.” J Personal Soc Psychol94, 1 January 2008: 116–132.
54.
ShortD. 2005. “Reconciliation and the Problem of Internal Colonialism.” J Intercultural Stud26, 3: 267–282.
55.
SigelmanL.WelchS.. 1993. “The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Black-White Interaction and Positive Racial Attitudes.” Social Forces71, 3: 781–795.
56.
SimkusA. 2007. “Guest Editor's Introduction: The SEESSP Project.” Int J Sociol37: 3–314.
StaubE. 2013. “Building a Peaceful Society: Origins, Prevention, and Reconciliation after Genocide and Other Group Violence.” Am Psychol68, 7: 576–589.
59.
StaubE. 2006. “Reconciliation after Genocide, Mass Killing, or Intractable Conflict: Understanding the Roots of Violence, Psychological Recovery, and Steps toward a General Theory.” Polit Psychol27, 6: 867–894.
60.
TakševaT. 2019. “Post-War Yugoslavism and Yugonostalgia as Expressions of Multiethnic Solidarity and Tolerance in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” New Diversities21‐1.
61.
TamT.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ. B., et al. June 2008. “Postconflict Reconciliation: Intergroup Forgiveness and Implicit Biases in Northern Ireland.” J Soc Issues64: 303–2320
62.
TroppL.HawiD.O'BrienT., et al. “Intergroup Contact and the Potential for Post-Conflict Reconciliation: Studies in Northern Ireland and South Africa.” Peace Conflict J Peace Psychol23: (16 February 2017). https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000236.
63.
Van ParijsP. 2006. “Linguistic Diversity: What Is It? And Does It Matter?.” In Understanding Diversity: Mapping and Measuring. Milan, Italy: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
64.
VociA.HadziosmanovicE.CakalH., et al. 2017. “Impact of Pre-War and Post-War Intergroup Contact on Intergroup Relations and Mental Health: Evidence from a Bosnian Sample.” Peace Conflict: J Peace Psychol23, 3: 250–259.
65.
ŽeželjI. L.Maria IoannouR. F.PsaltisC., et al. 2017. “The Role of Inter-Ethnic Online Friendships in Prejudice Reduction in Post-Conflict Societies: Evidence from Serbia, Croatia and Cyprus.” Comput Hum Behav76, November: 386–395.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
