Prologue: Language Challenges in the 21st Century

The Power of Language to Form and Perpetuate Stereotypes

Language is critical for shaping people’s social realities. With the global rise of political tensions, polarized ideologies (see Litan et al., 2019), and hateful rhetoric by politicians and on social media, the power language has to normalize hate against certain groups has been given considerable and well-deserved attention (e.g., Soral et al., 2017). Most recently, anecdotal evidence has linked the labelling of Coronavirus/COVID-19 as “Chinese flu” to increased racism against people of Asian descent and the term “foreign flu” to increased xenophobia (The New York Times Editorial Board, 2020). However, the way language serves to influence perceptions of individuals and groups is often so subtle that it can be nearly impossible to recognize (Barreto & Ellemers, 2015; Maass et al., 2014). For instance, research has demonstrated that something as simple as the order of target comparisons (e.g., Law students compared with Economic students vs. Economic students compared with Law students) can have implications for which groups are perceived to be normative and therefore hold power and status (Bruckmüller & Abele, 2010).

The current issue includes two articles that aim to gain insight into the power language has to shape ideas about groups. In experimental work, Burgers and Beukeboom (2020) show that when describing behaviors, subtle labeling (generic vs. specific) and choice of words (affirmative statements vs. negations about the same content) have independent effects on stereotyping and essentialism. These effects were observed using unknown and fictitious groups, demonstrating that language can contribute to the formation of stereotypes through multiple routes. Once stereotypes are formed, language can then serve to maintain and perpetuate them. In work by Bruckmüller and Braun (2020), the tendency to frame messages about gender inequality on women (rather than on men) results in a focus on changing women (rather than changing men) and as a result, can act as a barrier for addressing wider systematic change. Accordingly, the authors suggest ways to present these social inequalities more constructively.

When drawing attention to the ways that language can shape perceptions, there is a danger of evoking a sense of helplessness. After all, the subtleties in which language can perpetuate problematic notions are difficult, if not impossible, to curb. Hence, our aim is to raise awareness about the implications that framing can have on perpetuating social inequalities. Through a deeper understanding of this link, it may be possible to take advantage of language’s power in a way that benefits society, for instance, by promoting diversity and positive communication (Muñiz-Velázquez & Pulido, 2019; Pitts, 2019; Socha & Pitts, 2012).

Language as Integral to Intersectionality and Combined Identities

As one of the most essential dimensions of identity (Taylor et al., 1973) its linkage to multiple social groups means that language is by nature intersectional (see Levon, 2015). In addition to revealing clues to various social dimensions (e.g., gender, age, or social status; Giles & Marlow, 2011), language interacts with visual cues associated with these dimensions to influence impressions (Freeman & Ambady, 2011; see also Formanowicz & Suitner, 2020). As globalization continues to increase, so too does the presence of intersectionality, a development which poses significant challenges for researchers (Block & Corona, 2016; McCormick-Huhn et al., 2019). In this issue, we present two articles that consider how perceptions of targets are influenced by the intersect between language and other identity cues.

In research conducted in Germany, Rakić et al. (2020) investigated the effects of the intersectionality between ethnicity (cued by the presence or absence of an Arabic accent) and religiosity (cued by the presence or the absence of a headscarf) on categorization as a basic foundation of information processing. Whereas a matching task showed that memory of individual targets in a group setting was better when linguistic and visual cues were consistent, category subtyping emerged for targets with only one cue indicating a foreign identity (either an Arabic accent or a headscarf). In these less prototypical instances, participants confused targets and appeared almost blind to their individuality. Hence, in a world where combined identity cues are becoming more prevalent, people may tend to overlook the distinctiveness of others. Accordingly, the authors highlight the role language plays when intersectional identities are processed and the challenges this presents for changing stereotypes.

How intersectional identities translate into evaluations by British standard speakers was addressed by Birney et al. (2020). They found that, although weak accents have been shown to be preferred over strong accents (Nesdale & Rooney, 1996), reactions to accent strength depended on the perceived status of the speaker’s nationality. For instance, when a speaker’s nationality was low in status, British participants made more positive attributions in the interpersonal domain (e.g., judging the speaker as warm), but this also carried over to more negative attributions in the intergroup domain (e.g., reporting more feelings of threat from immigrants in general) when exposed to an accent that was strong rather than weak. Based on this, the authors suggest that researchers consider accents as intersectional and perceptions based on accents as both interpersonal and intergroup (on this latter point, see also Dragojevic & Giles, 2014).

In sum, these articles call for researchers to shift their focus away from investigating accents in isolation toward a perspective that accounts for the increased intermix of people’s identities across real and perceived borders. While the idea that other factors influence language perception is not new (see Giles & Marlow, 2011; Giles & Rakić, 2014), research in this area is still relatively underdeveloped. Many questions still remain: Which identities intersect when people are categorized? How do we increase the visibility of individuality? How do dynamics between communicators’ multiple backgrounds influence communication and social perceptions of the self, others, and groups? These are just some of the challenges facing researchers in the 21st century.

The Role of Language in Shaping Intergroup Relations

With so many people of different language backgrounds living and/or working together in many parts of the world, it is tempting to characterize their interactions as evidence of a so-called linguistic melting pot. Although it is true that speakers have developed ways to communicate with one another (for instance, by developing English as the lingua franca; see Murata, 2016), this metaphor may give the impression that intercultural communication is seamless. However, given the importance of language for both personal and group identities (e.g., Giles & Johnson, 1987; Ting-Toomey & Dorjee, 2014), it seems inevitable that differences in language varieties, language identities, and the changing linguistic landscape will play a role in shaping the relationship between groups. Across three articles in this issue, the role language plays in navigating, dividing, and healing intergroup relations is considered.

In work by Klar et al. (2020) in Israel, Palestinian minority members’ evaluations of in-group members for engaging in code-mixing (Arabic mixed with words in Hebrew or with words in English) was investigated. Palestinian participants evaluated code-mixers more negatively compared with speakers using pure Arabic. Apparently, mixing the in-group language with elements from majority languages evoked feelings of threat and signalled the possibility that in-group members might be deviating from group norms. Against this backdrop, the authors consider reactions to code-mixing as a social barometer for intergroup relations.

How threat shapes the relationship between groups is the focus of Jelić et al.s’ (2020) research which focused on multiethnic communities in Croatia. Ethnonationalism, which glorifies and views the in-group as superior, emerged as a catalyst for perceptions of out-group threat. Intriguingly though, in-group identification (when controlled for ethnonationalism) was linked to less threat and discrimination against out-groups. The authors conclude with recommendations to counter ethnonationalism while also fostering a healthy attachment to one’s ethnic group. Finally, Skrodzka et al. (2020) explore the role of using the in-group language to deal with historical trauma among the Lemko minority in Poland. These findings imply that using the minority in-group language can help groups cope with trauma-related thoughts and symptoms, for instance, by allowing group members to express their experiences and by offering a path for cultural continuity.

These contributions attest to the intricate and multifaceted role that language plays as groups struggle to improve and cement their position in changing societies. Indeed, it is a major challenge to reduce intergroup threat in contexts where linguistic diversity is present and there is a real (or perceived) loss of language identity at stake. A focus, therefore, is for researchers to learn to harness language diversity as a means for improving intergroup relationships, rather than as a means for creating divisions.