Research on intergroup behavior and in the social psychology of language has examined the role of social categorization and language behavior in situations in which two ethnolinguistic groups come into contact. This study attempts to extend this domain of inquiry by addressing the role of coherence violations in topic progression during face-to-face intergroup communication. It is hypothesized that violations of neutral and local coherence toward out-group members are linguistic devices that participants in a conversation use to achieve positive social distinctiveness. An analysis of group discussions with highversus low-salient intergroup categorization-each between two East and two West Germans-confirms the hypothesis concerning the principle of neutral coherence. Violations of neutral coherence toward out-group members are significantly more frequent if intergroup categorization is of high salience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beck, D., & Orth, B. (1995). Wer wendet sich an wen?-Muster der Interaktion kooperierender Kleingruppen [Who is speaking to whom? Channels of communication in intergroup cooperation]. Zeitschrift far Sozialpsychologie, 26, 92-106.
2.
Bergmann, J. R. (1990). On the local sensitivity of conversation. In I. Markova & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 201-226). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
3.
Bradac, J. J. (1990). Language attitudes and impression formation. In H. Giles & W P Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 387-412). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
4.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30-48.
6.
Danek F. (1970). Zur linguistischen Analyse der Textstruktur [(bward a linguistical analysis of the structure of text]. Folia Linguistica, 4, 72-78.
7.
Duck, S., & Pittman, G. (1994). Social and personal relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 676-695). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Foppa, K (1990). Ibpic progression and intention. In I. Markova & K Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 178-200). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
9.
Frilling, S. (1993). "Du hast mich unterbrochen!" Zur sprechakttheoretischen Beschreibung unkooperativen Gesprachsverhaltens. In H. L6ffler (Ed.), Dialoganalyse IV (pp. 301-306). Tuebingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
10.
Fritz, G. (1982). Koharenz: Grundfragen der linguistischen Kommunikationsanalyse [Coherence: Basic questions of linguistic communication analysis]. Thebingen, Germany: Narr.
11.
Giles, H., & Johnson, P (1987). Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 68, 69-91.
12.
Harwood, J., & Giles, H. (1993). Creating intergenerational distance: Language, communication, and middle age. Language Sciences, 15, 15-38.
13.
Jones, E. S., Gallois, C., Callan, V. J., & Barker, M. (1995). Language and power in an academic context: The effects of status, ethnicity, and sex. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 431-461.
14.
Maas, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993.
15.
Ng, S. H., Bell, D., & Brooke, M. (1993). Gaining turns and achieving high influence ranking in small conversational groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 265-275.
16.
Oakes, P J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford: Blackwell.
17.
Piontkowski, U., Ohlschlegel-Haubrock, S., & Hoelker, P (1997). Annoaherung oder Abgrenzung? Ergebnisse einer Langsschnittstudie zur Wirksamkeit der Ost-West Kategorie [Assimilation or separation? Results of a longitudinal study concerning the relevance of the East-West category]. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, 26, 128-138.
18.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1995). Natural order: Why social psychologists should study (a constructed version of) natural language, and why they have not done so. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 216-222.
19.
Schreier, M., Groeben, N., & Blickle, G. (1995). The effects of (un)fairness and (im)politeness on the evaluation of argumentative communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 260-288.
20.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61-76). London: Academic Press.
21.
Thimm, C., Rademacher, U., & Kruse, L. (1995). "Power-related talk": Control in verbal interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 382-407.
22.
Tracy, K (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles & W P Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 209-226). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
23.
Thrner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. TIrner, M. A. Hogg, P Oakes, R. S. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A selfcategorization theory (pp. 42-67). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
