Inter-group Theory
- Giles and Byrne
(1982) identified a number of factors that contribute to a group’s
‘ethnolinguistic vitality’—the key construct in the theory. They then
discussed the conditions under which subordinate group members (e.g. immigrants or members of an ethnic minority) are most likely to acquire native-like proficiency in the dominant group’s
language. These are (1) when in-group identification is weak or the L1
does not function as a salient dimension of ethnic group membership, (2)
when inter-ethnic comparisons are quiescent, (3) when perceived
in-group vitality is low, (4) when perceived in-group boundaries are
soft and open, and (5) when the learners identify strongly with other
groups and so develop adequate group identity and intra-group status.
- The salient variables involved in the Inter-group Model:
- Identification with own ethnic group:
- Inter-ethnic comparison:
- Perception of ethnolinguistic vitality:
- Perception of in-group boundaries:
- Identification with other social groups:
- These five conditions are associated with desires to integrate into the dominant out-group (an integrative orientation), additive bilingualism,
low situational anxiety, and the effective use of informal contexts of
acquisition. The end result is that learners will achieve high levels of
social and communicative proficiency in the L2.
- Learners from minority groups will be unlikely to achieve
native-speaker proficiency when their ethnolinguistic vitality is high.
This occurs if (1) they identify strongly with their own in-group, (2)
they see their in-group as inferior to the dominant out-group, (3) their
perception of their ethnolinguistic vitality is high, (4) they perceive
in-group boundaries as hard and closed, and (5) they do not identify
with other social groups and so have an inadequate group status. In such
cases, learners are likely to emphasise the importance of their own
culture and language and, possibly, engage in competition with the
out-group. they will achieve low levels of communicative proficiency in
the L2 because this would be seen to detract from their ethnic identity,
although they may achieve knowledge of the formal aspects of the L2
through classroom study.
- Whereas Schumann’s Acculturation Model
emphasises ‘contact’ as the variable that mediates between social
factors and L2 acquisition, Giles and Byrne see ‘interaction’ as
crucial. The factors they identified determine the extent to which
learners engage in upward convergence, and they defined L2 learning as
‘long-term convergence’. In this response, the Inter-group Model
integrates a macro and micro-linguistic approach to the study of L2
acquisition and serves as a good example of a Type 2 sociolinguistic
approach, one that uses ‘sociolinguistic discourse analysis’.
- Criticism: This model has focused only on the description and
explanation of local phenomena in learner language. As such, there has
not been any real test of the Inter-group Model.
- Tollefson
(1991) offered a lengthy critique of the Inter-group Model. His main
point was that it failed to consider the various historical and
structural variables that explain why learners from minority language
backgrounds make the choices they do. The concepts of ethnolinguistic
vitality and ethnolinguistic group can only be properly understood by
considering issues of power and domination in the majority and minority
groups involved.
Inter-group theory in language learning
Comments
Post a Comment