UNCORRECTED PROOF

AUTHOR’S QUERY SHEET

Author(s): J.R. Abrams et al. RMMM 337112Article title:Article no:

Dear Author

The following queries have arisen during the editing of your manuscript andare identified on the proofs. Unless advised otherwise, please submit allcorrections using the CATS online correction form.

AQ1 Please provide full reference details for [Ytsma, Viladot, and Giles(1985)].

AQ2 Please check the value in Table [1].

UNCORRECTED PROOF

An examination of the validity of the Subjective Vitality Questionnaire

Jessica R. Abramsa*, Valerie Barkerb, and Howard Gilesc

aDepartment of Communication Studies, California State University, Long Beach, USA;bDepartment of Communication, California State University, San Diego, USA; cDepartment ofCommunication, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA

(Received 18 April 2008; final version received 08 July 2008)

The concept of group vitality was developed over 30 years ago to assist inunderstanding of power relations between language groups. However, vitality hasalso been an important consideration when attempting to understand intergrouprelations more generally. Vitality researchers distinguish subjective vitality fromobjective vitality. This study focuses on subjective vitality. Specifically, the paperexamines the validity of the Subjective Vitality Questionnaire (SVQ), theinstrument frequently utilised to quantitatively assess vitality perceptions. Datacollected in the USA from three ethnic groups (African Americans, AsianAmericans and Hispanic Americans) who rated the vitalities of Caucasian,African, and Hispanic Americans, were analysed using both first-order con-firmatory factor analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Both types of analysisfailed to uncover the underlying factor structure of status, demography, andinstitutional support proposed by vitality researchers. Although the factors couldnot be validated, when the SVQ was analysed as a unidimensional measure, itposted strong reliability. The discussion offers suggestions on how to improve theSVQ in future research.

Keywords: ethnolinguistic vitality; subjective vitality; status; demography;institutional support; African Americans; Hispanic Americans; Asian Americans

Introduction

Ethnolinguistic vitality was introduced by Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977) as an

attempt to understand the complexity of intergroup relations between linguistic

groups. Reasoning that intergroup relations do not occur in a vacuum, they

contended that there were three-related sociostructural factors that influence group

vitality, specifically, the group’s status, demographic indicators and level of institu-

tional support. Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977) claimed that vitality can be

evaluated both objectively and subjectively. In other words, a group’s status,

demography, and institutional support can be measured by actual statistics or by

individuals’ perceptions. With regard to the latter, group members may perceive that

they have less social status (relative to outgroup members) than the quantitative/

objective data suggest. Subsequently, vitality researchers constructed the ‘Subjective

Vitality Questionnaire’ (SVQ) (Bourhis, Giles, and Rosenthal 1981) as a measure-

ment instrument.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

*Corresponding author. Email: jabrams@csulb.edu

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Vol. 00, No. 0, Month 2008, 1�14

ISSN 0143-4632 print/ISSN 1747-7557 online

# 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/01434630802369452

http://www.informaworld.com

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:3 Ce: Dj

UNCORRECTED PROOF

Over the years, research has clearly demonstrated the relevance of vitality to the

intergroup arena, however, interest in how subjective vitality is measured has been

sparse. With this in mind, the present investigation focuses on the psychometric

properties of the SVQ (for an alternative measure see Allard and Landry 1986). The

focus on subjective vitality is significant because vitality researchers claim that

‘subjective vitality data may provide advance indication that a particular minority

group is to mobilise in an ethnic revival phase not otherwise foreseeable solely on the

basis of ‘‘objective’’ vitality information’ (Bourhis, Giles, and Rosenthal 1981, 147).As well, Giles (2001, 1) stated more recently that ‘the real intent, and challenge, of the

vitality framework was, however to provide a subjective assessment of how members

of ethnic collectivities judged societal conditions impinging on their own and relevant

outgroups’.

Since vitality was originally conceived to understand the use of language, the

literature is replete with examinations of perceptions of ethnolinguistic vitality in the

USA (e.g. Barker et al. 2001; Gao, Schmidt, and Gudykunst 1994; Kristiansen,

Harwood, and Giles 1991), as well as around the world (e.g. Ellinger 2000; Yagmur,de Bot, and Korzilius 1999). Research suggests that subjective vitality perceptions

influence language acquisition and bilingual development on the part of subordinate

groups’ (see also Cenoz and Valencia 1993; Clachar 1997; Clement 1980; Garrett,

Giles, and Coupland 1989; Giles and Byrne 1982; Hamers and Blanc 1982, 1989;

Landry and Allard 1991, 1992, 1994a) and subordinate groups’ language main-

tenance and loss (e.g. Giles, Leets, and Coupland 1990; Landry and Bourhis, 1997;

Leets and Giles 1995; Yagmur, de Bot, and Korzilius 1999). Vitality is not static, but

rather a malleable social construction that is affected by social group membership,context, and sociopolitical circumstances. Moreover, consistent with vitality

researchers’ predictions, the more vitality individuals consider their social group to

possess, the more likely they will invest their energies in preserving the ingroup’s

identity, activities, and influences (see also Landry and Bourhis 1997; Leets and Giles

1995; Sachdev and Bourhis 1993).

As vitality assessments can have major repercussions for the intergroup setting, it

is not surprising that vitality has developed from a major concept of ethnolinguistic

identity theory (e.g. Giles and Johnson 1987) to an evolving theory in its own right(Harwood, Giles, and Bourhis 1994) and has been used to account for intergroup

behaviour across a range of settings (see Abrams 2008; Barker and Giles 2002; Giles

et al. 2000; Florack and Piontkowski 1997; Harwood et al. 1994; Kramarae 1981;

Mays et al. 1992). Therefore, given vitality researchers’ concentration on subjective

assessments of vitality, and the significance of vitality to intergroup relations, a

concentrated effort to examine the SVQ is important. Here, SVQ data from three

ethnic groups in the USA will be factor analysed and compared. Based on results

from the analyses, suggestions for a revised measurement of subjective vitality will beoffered. First though, a more detailed description and discussion of the theoretical

underpinnings and research findings with regard to intergroup vitality are necessary.

Vitality

Based on the premise of social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel and Turner 1979, 1986),

which contends that individuals strive for positive group identity, ethnolinguistic

vitality relates to the social comparison process language group members use to

determine their place in the linguistic group pecking order. By examining their

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

2 J.R. Abrams et al.

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:3

UNCORRECTED PROOF

position in a particular context, whether it is in relation to status, demography, or

institutional support, group members are able to gauge how they fare in comparison

to relative outgroups (see Figure 1). Status consists of four variables that pertain to

the prestige of the group. Economic status encompasses the degree of control that a

group has gained over its economic life. Social status describes the degree of esteem a

group affords itself. Sociohistorical status addresses whether the group has a prideful

or shameful past. Language status refers to the prestige of a group’s language and

culture. A group possesses high status if it has economic control over its destiny,

consensually high collective-esteem, and pride in its past.

Demography comprises the distribution and sheer number of group members

(Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977). Eight variables contribute to the demographic

vitality of a group. Group distribution is the numeric concentration of group members

in a particular territory, country, or region, their proportion relative to outgroup

members, and whether the group occupies its own traditional or national homeland.

Number factors refer to the absolute number of group members, a group’s birth rate in

relation to the outgroup(s), the extent to which mixed-marriages between ingroups

and outgroups take place, and whether large numbers immigrate to or emigrate from

the group. Guided by the notion of strength in numbers, large groups possess more

vitality.

Institutional support means the degree to which a group has gained formal and

informal representation in the various institutions of a nation, region, or community,

namely government, industry, mass media, education, religious, political, and cultural

domains (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977). Groups that have both formal and

informal support have considerable leverage, and hence, high vitality.

The more strength members of a group have on each of the three dimensions, the

more vitality they are considered to possess (Kraemer 1992; Landry, Allard, and

Theberge 1991). According to Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977), a group’s strengths

90

95

100

105

110

Figure 1. The vitality construct. Source: Bourhis, Giles, and Rosenthal (1981).

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:3

UNCORRECTED PROOF

on each of the three domains can be assessed so as to provide a classification of low,

medium, or high vitality. Groups with high vitality are likely to prosper and flourish,

whereas groups with low vitality are likely to atrophy, and ultimately disappear as

distinct entities (Giles and Johnson 1981).

Subjective Vitality Questionnaire (SVQ)

Although research has established the heuristic value of vitality as a concept, explicit

attention has yet to be paid to the SVQ’s success in measuring it (see the debate,Husband and Khan 1982; Johnson, Giles, and Bourhis 1983). Perhaps, the SVQ has

not been examined in detail because in one of the first attempts to validate the

measure, the researchers were able to confirm the posited structure fairly convin-

cingly albeit with four factors. Specifically, when Giles, Rosenthal, and Young (1985)

investigated vitality by looking at Greek, Australians and Anglo Australians, four

factors emerged from the data (institutional support and power, demography I,

status, and demography II). Since these results provided a relatively strong validation

for the SVQ, there was little reason to challenge or reconsider the measure. Now thatmore than two decades have past, numerous studies utilising the SVQ have resulted in

a variety of outcomes that make it pertinent to revisit the measure and critically

examine its psychometric properties.

Close inspection of the literature reveals that researchers rarely examine the

underlying structure of the data when using the SVQ. In cases where this has

happened, some weaknesses emerge. First, when researchers have examined the

validity of the SVQ, they have not consistently been able to confirm a three-factor

solution. For example, when Currie and Hogg (1994) factor analysed their data onsocial adaptation among Vietnamese refugees in Australia using the SVQ, a six-

factor solution emerged. However, three of the six were indistinct and contributed

minimally to the total variance, and therefore, what remained was a three-factor

solution. Importantly, the remaining factor structure did not confirm the three

separate vitality factors. In their words, the factors reflect: (1) political and economic

vitality; (2) language vitality; and (3) cultural and religious vitality rather than the

expected vitality factors of status, demography, and institutional support. Similarly,

in their work using the SVQ to address relative vitality, Kraemer, Olshtain, andBadier’s (1994) factor analysis produced a four-factor solution (although the fourth

factor only comprised one item). Their data produced two status factors, group status

and language/cultural status factor, and a demography factor.

Some research attests to the reliability of the SVQ without first examining the

validity. For example, in their investigation of the relationship between ethnolinguis-

tic vitality and second language proficiency, Labrie and Clement (1986, 279) report

that the ‘internal consistency reliability coefficients obtained for the perceived vitality

scales support the reliability of the corresponding construct’. However, since only oneCronbach alpha (0.85) is reported and the intercorrelations between subscales are

described rather than subscale reliabilities, the data do not appear to have been factor

analysed. In other words, the underlying structure of the data was not validated.

Failure to confirm the three factors appears to be somewhat common when using

the SVQ (see Allard and Landry 1994; Clement 1986; Ytsma, Viladot, and Giles

1985). Indeed, in commenting on the structure of the vitality construct, Sachdev and

Bourhis (1993, 39) stated that even ‘after fifteen years of vitality research only a few

studies have assessed the factorial structure of subjective vitality’. One exception is

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

AQ1

4 J.R. Abrams et al.

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:4

UNCORRECTED PROOF

Willemyns, Pittam, and Gallois’s (1993, 494) examination of perceived ethnolinguis-

tic vitality of Vietnamese and English in Australia. Using confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA), they were able to validate the three indicators of vitality. However,

several items posted low loadings, and more important only 12 of the 19 items on the

SVQ were included and analysed. Given that the researchers handpicked the 12

items, the outcome is not particularly surprising. Even so, they acknowledge that

‘some variables clearly worked better than others . . . Part of this problem is probably

due to unreliability in the measures . . .’.A related shortcoming of the SVQ is that the items do not consistently load on

their intended factor (Hogg, d’Agata, and Abrams 1989; Kraemer, Olshtain, and

Badier 1994). For instance, Currie and Hogg (1994) found that items designated to

load on specific factors, loaded on other factors, and some items had multiple

loadings on factors (e.g. education and mass media). And, although the overall

reliability for the entire 21-item scale was convincing (Cronbach’s Alpha�0.88; see

also Giles et al. 2000; Harwood et al. 1994; Ytsma, Viladot, and Giles 1994), the

reliability of the three subscales was low (0.59, 0.65, and 0.71). In reaction to their

trouble validating SVQ, Landry and Allard (1994b) remarked that it was difficult tountangle the three factors. This is possibly why many researchers who used the SVQ

have analysed the items separately rather than multidimensionally, as originally

constructed (e.g. Gibbons and Ashcroft 1995; Giles, Rosenthal, and Young 1985;

Karahan 2004; Yagmur and Kroon 2003; Young, Giles, and Pierson 1986). After

Bourhis and Sachdev (1984, 124) analysed their data in this manner, they concluded

that ‘more basic empirical work remains to be done to establish the internal and

external validity of the Subjective Vitality Questionnaire’.

There is little doubt that the SVQ has contributed to the understanding of

intergroup relations and that the three factors � status, demography, and institutional

support � are conceptually robust because the essence of the original conceptualisa-

tion has been widely supported by research. Still, research using the SVQ clearly

reveals some ambiguities with regard to operationalisation in particular, whether the

SVQ can effectively uncover three dimensions with the expected items loading on

them. Although, some researchers were able to uncover a factor solution using the

SVQ, to date no empirical evidence truly validates the three-factor solution. The

present study then represents a definitive attempt to validate the SVQ. Specifically,

the vitality perceptions of three ethnic groups in the USA were investigated using theSVQ.

Method

Two versions (items were reverse ordered to avoid response fatigue) of an 83-item

questionnaire were administered to undergraduate students (all US citizens)

enrolled in communication courses at universities and community colleges in

Southern California. Some of the data from the questionnaire have been previously

published. The sample reflects self-identified African Americans’ (n�154; age range

16�38, M�22.17, SD�6.18; 63% female), Hispanic Americans’ (n�162; age

range18�41, M�20.7, SD�4.10, 73.5% female), and Asian Americans’ (n�114;

age range17�49, M�20.9, SD�4.28; 58% female) perceptions of subjective vitality

of Caucasians, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans in the USA.1 Somestudents earned course credit for their involvement. Participation was voluntary,

and responses were anonymous.

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 5

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:4

UNCORRECTED PROOF

Perceptions of group vitality

The SVQ (Bourhis, Giles, and Rosenthal 1981) items were modified to reflect ethnic

and racial groups for this study. For example, the item ‘How well-represented are the

following languages in Melbourne mass media (e.g. TV, radio, newspapers)’ on

the original SVQ was changed to ‘How well-represented are the following groups

in the U.S. mass media (e.g. TV, radio, newspapers)’. Participants answered questions

regarding their perceptions of status, demography, and institutional support for all

three ethnic groups (African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Caucasians).

Items (except the estimated percentage population question) were closed-ended and

asked participants to respond on a seven-point Likert-like measure. The order in

which the ethnic groups appeared was counterbalanced to avoid a response set.

Factor analyses

The approach was two pronged. First, for each of the ethnic groups (African

Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans), a first-order CFA of the

vitality measures (using structural equation modeling) was undertaken for all three

groups assessed in the questionnaire (African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and

Caucasians). CFA is used to determine if the number of factors and their indicator

variables conform to a priori expectations. That is, it is used to determine if measures

created to represent latent variables (the three factors associated with vitality) load

together appropriately and that the three dimensions are related (as would be

expected in this case). This is sometimes referred to as a measurement model because

the goal is to assess the value or otherwise of the measures used as indicators of latent

(unmeasured) variables. The model is then evaluated using goodness-of-fit measures.

Next, in order to assess if the indicators would load as expected when they were

free to load on any factor, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted of the

ethnic groups’ (African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans)

vitality perceptions of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Caucasians.

EFA is used to find a latent structure of observed variables by uncovering the

underlying common structure (Park, Dailey, and Lemus 2002). Three EFAs were

conducted for each ethnic group, where the number of factors retained were those

posting eigen values of greater than one. Maximum likelihood was chosen as the

means of extraction to allow for optimal goodness-of-fit (Costello and Osborne 2005;

Park, Dailey, and Lemus 2002). And finally, direct oblimin as an oblique method of

rotation was employed because of the assumption that the factors were likely to be

correlated (Costello and Osborne 2005). As suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell

(2001) as a rule of thumb for minimum loading, 0.32 was specified in all cases.

Results

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) (African American, Hispanic American, andAsian American Data)

A total of nine CFAs were conducted of the ethnic groups’ (African Americans,

Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans) vitality perceptions of African Amer-

icans, Hispanic Americans, and Caucasians. Only two of the nine CFAs owned

indicators that loaded on their factors as expected and posted even acceptable fit

(African American vitality assessments of African Americans and Hispanic American

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

250

6 J.R. Abrams et al.

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:4

UNCORRECTED PROOF

vitality assessments of African Americans). That said, these models showed that the

relationship between perceptions about status and perceptions of institutional

support was exceptionally strong (standardised regression coefficients�0.99, 0.95,

respectively), a pattern closely mirrored in the remaining models. This suggests that

these factors were not discrete; in other words, they overlapped to such an extent that

they were almost collinear. With regard to the remaining seven CFAs, their most

common shortcoming was that many or all of the demography indictors did not load

at all on that factor. All of the coefficients relating to each confirmatory model are

shown in Table 1, and the goodness-of-fit statistics are shown in Table 2.

Exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) (African American, Hispanic American, andAsian American Data)

As in the case of the CFAs, nine EFAs were conducted � three for each of the three

ethnic groups in the sample: African Americans’, Hispanic Americans’, and Asian

Americans’ vitality perceptions of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and

Caucasians. The results indicated that the percentage of variance accounted for

ranged from 40 to 54%, and the number of factors produced ranged from four to five,

with five being the most common. One factor model converged after only six

iterations, other models needed several more (in one case 23), and two models failed

to converge after 25 iterations (African Americans’ assessments of Hispanic

Americans’ vitality and Asian Americans’ assessments of African Americans’

vitality). Obviously, the failure to produce a pattern matrix within these data is

problematic. In the pattern matrixes that did result, the outcomes partially mirrored

the findings from the CFAs: the three-factor structure could not be confirmed; many

items did not consistently load on their appropriate factor (as shown in Figure 1) and

some items split-loaded, loaded negatively on the factors, or did not load on any

factor.2 These outcomes and their implications are addressed in more detail in the

discussion section.

Discussion

The original intention of the SVQ was to provide a means of measuring subjective

linguistic group vitality perceptions with regard to demographic indicators, status,

and institutional support. However, since its inception, this instrument has been used

in a variety of intergroup contexts to assess social comparison processes in relation to

group vitality. The goal here has been to assess and discuss the validity of the SVQ.

After analysing responses to the SVQ from participants of a variety of ethnic

backgrounds, the three factors � status, demography, and institutional support �could not be validated. Specifically, in an effort to identify the vitality structure (see

Figure 1), the data were factor analysed using two methods. First, CFAs for each

sample were conducted in an attempt to confirm the expected factor structure. The

two most common outcomes from these factor analyses were that the demographic

indicators did not load together (See Table 1) and that when the status and

institutional support indicators did load significantly, the resulting factors often

appeared to be collinear. In short, this suggests that these SVQ items were not

measuring discrete latent variables but essentially provided a unidimensional measure

of overall vitality perceptions.

255

260

265

270

275

280

285

290

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:4

UNCORRECTED PROOF

Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis: standardized regression weights.

Regression weights

African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans

Latent variable indicators AA Hispanic Caucasian AA Hispanic Caucasian AA Hispanic Caucasian

DemographyEmigrate 0.29 (n.s.) (n.s.) 0.46 0.47 (n.s.) (n.s.) 0.29 (n.s.)Immigrate 0.31 0.31 (n.s.) 0.21 0.24 (n.s.) (n.s.) (n.s.) (n.s.)Minority/majority 0.61 (n.s.) (n.s.) 0.52 0.62 (n.s.) (n.s.) �0.21 (n.s.)Birth rate dec/increasing 0.48 (n.s.) (n.s.) 0.21 (n.s.) (n.s.) (n.s.) �0.82 (n.s.)Percentage population 0.46 0.50 (n.s.) 0.31 0.61 (n.s.) (n.s.) (n.s.) (n.s.)Marry in/out (n.s.) (n.s.) (n.s.) 0.24 (n.s.) (n.s.) (n.s.) (n.s.) (n.s.)

StatusProud heritage 0.29 (n.s.) (n.s.) 0.27 (n.s.) 0.23 0.50 0.34 (n.s.)Respected 0.74 (n.s.) (n.s.) 0.60 (n.s.) 0.70 0.54 0.55 (n.s.)Wealth 0.72 (n.s.) (n.s.) 0.64 (n.s.) 0.75 0.60 0.78 (n.s.)Active 0.60 (n.s.) (n.s.) 0.66 (n.s.) 0.31 0.66 0.56 (n.s.)Future 0.57 (n.s.) (n.s.) 0.47 (n.s.) 0.38 0.59 0.47 (n.s.)

Institutional supportBusiness 0.77 0.66 0.70 0.73 0.64 0.64 0.73 0.72 0.61Economy 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.78 0.88 0.88 0.69 0.77 0.87Culture 0.47 0.27 0.33 0.51 0.45 0.30 0.49 0.50 0.34Government 0.72 0.64 0.58 0.67 0.58 0.69 0.66 0.61 0.72Media 0.61 0.55 0.51 0.58 0.53 0.49 0.45 0.34 0.65

AQ2 Politics 0.77 0.77 0.73 0.74 0.79 0.78 0.71 0.79 0.73

8J.R

.A

bra

ms

eta

l.

Y:/T

aylo

r&

Fra

ncis/R

MM

M/A

rticles/RM

MM

33

71

12

/RM

MM

33

71

12

.3d

[x]

Frid

ay2

8th

No

vem

ber

20

08

21

:26

:5

UNCORRECTED PROOF

The literature indicates precedence for treating vitality as a unidimensionalconstruct. For instance, in defending their decision to pool all items to form a

composite vitality scale, Pittam, Gallois, and Willemyns (1991, 453) asserted that ‘as

originally conceived, the SVQ comprised a unidimensional scale with three aspects:

status, institutional support and demography’. Consistent with previous research, the

unidimensional index (with one item deleted � estimate the percentage of a particular

population) in the current data produced solid reliability estimates (ranging from

0.73 to 0.88).

The second set of factor analyses was exploratory; that is, the data were not

constrained to the original three factors. Instead, the goal was to see if the three

factors would result when the SVQ items were allowed to load on any factor. Once

again, the outcome from these analyses failed to uncover the expected three-factor

structure. In the cases where the factor analyses did converge, typically there were five

factors with only one or two having any real meaning. There were a number of other

trends in the data.

First, the items that asked about perceptions regarding group strength in the

present and then in the future were strongly related in all seven of the final models.

Clearly, these items may well hold the key to obtaining an overall sense of perceptions

of group vitality. Indeed in a future version of the SVQ, this could form an added

dimension. Second, on all except one of the EFAs that converged, three items always

loaded together. Specifically, the items that addressed economic and business control,

political control, and wealth consistently loaded across all groups (see also Barker and

Giles 2002). Obviously, these items should play a key role in future iterations of the

SVQ. Nevertheless, it should be noted that according to the SVQ, economic and

business control, and political control represent institutional support, whereas wealth

represents status.

Third, further evidence suggests that the status and institutional support factors

should be reconsidered because they appear to be similar. Specifically, in four out of the

resulting seven models, status and institutional support items loaded on the same factorsuggesting that these two concepts (as measured by the SVQ) were highly correlated

(see also, Husband and Khan 1982). In Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977, 310) original

discussion of the variables underlying the three factors, they claim that the individual

variables themselves are not ‘necessarily mutually exclusive’. If, as vitality researchers

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis: goodness of fit statistics.

Models CMIN CFI TLI RMSEA

AA participantsAfrican American* 1.96 0.98 0.98 0.079Hispanic 2.92 0.97 0.96 0.112Caucasian 2.40 0.98 0.98 0.100

Hispanic participantsAfrican American* 1.82 0.99 0.98 0.071Hispanic* 1.74 0.99 0.99 0.068Caucasian 2.42 0.98 0.98 0.094

Asian participantsAfrican American 2.94 0.96 0.95 0.131Hispanic 2.23 0.97 0.96 0.104Caucasian 2.41 0.97 0.97 0.112

*Acceptable fit.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:5

UNCORRECTED PROOF

suggest, the variables underlying the three-factor structure are not mutually exclusive,

then the variables should not load discretely on the three factors. However, the current

data indicate they are too similar as measured by the SVQ. For example, the item ‘How

well represented are the following groups in business institutions in the U.S.’ can

possibly reflect both status and institutional support. That is, if a social group is well

represented in business, then it also probably has status. This same argument applies for

other institutions as well. For instance, the social group that controls media, an

important institution in most societies, arguably has status. Future research could

attempt to conceptually differentiate status from institutional support.

Future research should also examine the language used to operationalise the

institutional support items. For example, several items that should load on the

institutional support factor are phrased as ‘How well represented . . .’ While this

language is intended to signify institutional support, the language can just as easily

reflect status or demography (see also Landry and Allard 1994b). In fact, in almost

every analysis conducted on the present data, every item that began with ‘How well

represented . . .’ loaded on the first factor, which was most reflective of group status.

The one exception was the item, ‘How well represented are the following groups inthe cultural life of the U.S. (e.g. festivals, concerts, art exhibitions)’, which frequently

split-loaded on the factors. Instead of asking ‘how well represented’ are groups in the

mass media, the item could ask ‘What kind of support does the group have from

mass media’ or ‘How often does the group appear in mass media’. Similarly, the item

that asks ‘How well represented are groups in the cultural life’ could be changed by

asking ‘How well supported are groups in the cultural life’.

And finally, as in the EFAs, the demographic indicators did not load together in

any of the models; in fact, one would describe them as being all over the conceptual

map. For example, the analysis indicates that the item that asks participants to write

in ‘What percentage of the population is made up of a group’ lacks reliability.

Because participants have a difficult time estimating the size of a group, the answers

they give vary greatly. This item would probably be better constructed as a closed-

ended question. The items ‘Estimate the birth rates of the following groups in the

U.S.’ and ‘To what extent do the following groups in the U.S. marry only within their

own group’ frequently loaded on the other factors. The two items that more

consistently loaded together that are reflective of demography are ‘How many of the

following groups immigrate into the U.S. each year’ and ‘How many of the followinggroups emigrate from the U.S. to other countries each year’. While the language of

these two items could be simplified for participants who may not know the definition

of immigrate and emigrate (e.g. ‘How many of the following groups come from

another country to live each year’ and ‘How many of the following groups leave the

country to live in other countries each year’), they seem to tap into something more

indicative of social comparison concerns. This is consistent with the Barker and Giles

(2002) finding that Anglo Americans’ belief that Latinos are increasing in numbers

predicted their support for English-only policies. It seems important then to revisit

the demographic dimension in terms of face validity.

Conclusion

This study underscores the value of vitality in understanding intergroup relations.Clearly, the concept has strong predictive and explanatory power, as well as heuristic

value. Even so, researchers wishing to measure subjective vitality using the SVQ

330

335

340

345

350

355

360

365

370

10 J.R. Abrams et al.

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:5

UNCORRECTED PROOF

should be aware of its shortcomings (and maybe engage group-focused discussions

before finalising it in any one intergroup setting). Still, our analysis indicates that

(with the exception of one demographic item), the SVQ is reliable when measuring

subjective vitality unidimensionally. And, although the focus of the present study has

been on the validity of measuring subjective vitality quantitatively, researchers should

continue invoking the tripartite conceptual structure when conducting objective

analyses of intergroup settings or assessing vitality with qualitative methods (Bourhis

2008; Komondouros and McEntee-Atalianis 2007; Sayahi 2005). Our hope is thatthis paper initiates the discussion about the psychometric properties of a valuable

construct.

Notes

1. These ethnic groups were selected because they include both minority and majority groups.Importantly, we do not believe that the groups themselves are of importance for the focusof this particular study. Any intercultural comparison could fulfill the aim of theexamination.

2. Space precluded inclusion of the tables summarising the results of the EFAs. Interestedreaders should obtain these from the first author.

References

Abrams, J.R. 2008. African Americans’ television activity: Is it related to perceptions ofoutgroup vitality? Howard Journal of Communications 19: 1�18.

Allard, R., and R. Landry. 1986. Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality viewed as a belief system.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7: 1�12.

Allard, R., and R. Landry. 1994. Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality: A comparison of twomeasures. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108: 117�44.

Barker, V., and H. Giles. 2002. Who supports the English-only movement? Evidence formisconceptions about Latino group vitality. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment 23: 353�70.

Barker, V., H. Giles, K. Noels, J. Duck, M. Hecht, and R. Clement. 2001. The English-onlymovement: A communication analysis of changing perceptions of language vitality. Journalof Communication 51: 3�37.

Bourhis, R.Y., ed., 2008. The vitality of the English-speaking communities of Quebec: Fromcommunity decline to revival. Montreal, QC: CEETUM, Universite de Montreal.

Bourhis, R.Y., H. Giles, and D. Rosenthal. 1981. Notes on the construction of a ‘subjectivevitality questionnaire’ for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment 2: 144�55.

Bourhis, R.Y., and I. Sachdev. 1984. Vitality perceptions and language attitudes: SomeCanadian data. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 3: 97�126.

Cenoz, J., and J.F. Valencia. 1993. Ethnolinguistic vitality, social networks and motivation insecond language acquisition: Some data from Basque Country. Language, Culture, andCurriculum 6: 113�27.

Clachar, A. 1997. Ethnolinguistic identity and Spanish proficiency in a paradoxical situation:The case of Puerto Rican return immigrants. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment 18: 107�24.

Clement, R. 1980. Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second language. InLanguage: Social psychological perspectives, ed. H. Giles, W.P. Robinson, and P.M. Smith,147�54. Oxford: Pergamon.

Clement, R. 1986. Second language proficiency and acculturation: An investigation of theeffects of language status and individual characteristics. Journal of Language and SocialPsychology 5: 271�90.

Costello, A.B., and J.W. Osborne. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Fourrecommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Researchand Evaluation 7: 1�9.

375

380

385

390

395

400

405

410

415

420

425

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 11

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:5

UNCORRECTED PROOF

Currie, M., and M.A. Hogg. 1994. Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality and social adaptationamong Vietnamese refugees in Australia. International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 108: 97�115.

Ellinger, B. 2000. The relationship between ethnolinguistic identity and English languageachievement for native Russian speakers and native Hebrew speakers in Israel. Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development 21: 292�307.

Florack, A., and U. Piontkowski. 1997. Identification and perceived vitality: The Dutch andthe Germans in the European Union. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develop-ment 18: 349�63.

Gao, G., K.L. Schmidt, and W.B. Gudykunst. 1994. Strength of ethnic identity andperceptions of ethnolinguistic vitality among Mexican Americans. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences 16: 332�41.

Garrett, F., H. Giles, and N. Coupland. 1989. The contexts of language learning: Extendingthe intergroup model of second language acquisition. In Language, communication, andculture: Current directions, ed. S. Ting-Toomey and F. Korzenny, 201�20. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Gibbons, J., and L. Ashcroft. 1995. Multiculturalism and language shift: A subjective vitalityquestionnaire study of Sydney Italians. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment 16: 281�99.

Giles, H. 2001. Ethnolinguistic vitality. In Concise encyclopaedia of sociolinguistics, ed. R.Mesthrie, 472�3. Oxford: Elsevier.

Giles, H., R.Y. Bourhis, and D.M. Taylor. 1977. Towards a theory of language in ethnicgrouprelations. In Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations, ed. H. Giles, 307�48.London: Academic Press.

Giles, H., and J.L. Byrne. 1982. An intergroup approach to second language acquisition.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3: 17�40.

Giles, H., and P. Johnson. 1981. The role of language in ethnic group relations. In Intergroupbehavior, ed. J. Turner and H. Giles, 199�243. Oxford: Blackwell.

Giles, H., and P. Johnson. 1987. Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychologicalapproach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68:69�99.

Giles, H., L. Leets, and N. Coupland. 1990. Minority language group status: A theoreticalconspexus. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 11: 37�56.

Giles, H., K. Noels, H. Ota, S.H. Ng, C. Gallois, E.B. Ryan, A. Williams et al. 2000. Agevitality across eleven nations. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21:308�23.

Giles, H., D. Rosenthal, and L. Young. 1985. Perceived ethnolinguistic vitality: The Anglo-andGreek-Australian setting. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6: 253�69.

Hamers, J., and M. Blanc. 1982. Towards a social psychological model of bilingualdevelopment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 1: 29�49.

Hamers, J., and M. Blanc. 1989. Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Harwood, J., H. Giles, and R.Y. Bourhis. 1994. The genesis of vitality theory: Historicalpatterns and discoursal dimensions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108:167�206.

Harwood, J., H. Giles, H.D. Pierson, R. Clement, and S. Fox. 1994. Vitality perceptions of agecategories in California and Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment 15: 311�8.

Hogg, M., P. d’Agata, and D. Abrams. 1989. Ethnolinguistic betrayal and speaker evaluationsamong Italian Australians. Genetic. Social and General Psychology Monographs 115:153�81.

Husband, C., and V.S. Khan. 1982. The viability of ethnolinguistic vitality some creativedoubts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3: 193�205.

Johnson, P., H. Giles, and R.Y. Bourhis. 1983. The viability of ethnolinguistic vitality: A replyto Husband and Khan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 4: 255�69.

Karahan, F. 2004. Ethnolinguistic vitality, attitudes, social network and code-switching: Thecase of Bosnian-Turks living in Sakarya, Turkey. International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 165: 59�92.

430

435

440

445

450

455

460

465

470

475

480

12 J.R. Abrams et al.

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:6

UNCORRECTED PROOF

Komondouros, M., and L. McEntee-Atalianis. 2007. Language attitudes, shift and ethno-linguistic vitality of the Greek Orthodox community in Istanbul. Journal of Multilingualand Multicultural Development 28: 365�84.

Kraemer, R. 1992. Ethnolinguistic vitality perceptions in Israel in the wake of the Intifada.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 13: 482�503.

Kraemer, R., E. Olshtain, and S. Badier. 1994. Ethnolinguistic vitality, attitudes, and networksof linguistic contact: The case of the Israeli Arab minority. International Journal of theSociology of Language 108: 79�95.

Kramarae, C. 1981. Women and men speaking. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Kristiansen, T., J. Harwood, and H. Giles. 1991. Ethnolinguistic vitality in ‘‘the Danish capital

of America’’. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 12: 421�48.Labrie, N., and R. Clement. 1986. Ethnolinguistic vitality, self confidence and second language

proficiency: An investigation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7:269�82.

Landry, R., and R. Allard. 1991. Can schools promote additive bilingualism in minority groupchildren? In Language, Culture and Cognition: A collection of studies in first and secondlanguage acquisition, ed. L. Malave and G. Duquette, 198�231. Clevedon, UK: Multi-lingual Matters.

Landry, R., and R. Allard. 1992. Ethnolinguistic vitality and the bilingual development ofminority and majority group students. In Maintenance and loss of minority languages, ed.W. Fase, K. Jaespaert, and S. Kroon, 223�51. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.

Landry, R., and R. Allard. 1994a. The Acadians of New Brunswick: Demolinguisticrealitiesand the vitality of the French language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language105/106: 187�215.

Landry, R., and R. Allard. 1994b. Diglossia, ethnolinguistic vitality, and language behavior.International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108: 15�42.

Landry, R., R. Allard, and R. Theberge. 1991. School and family French ambiance and thebilingual development of Francophone western Canadians. Canadian Modern LanguageReview 47: 878�915.

Landry, R., and R.Y. Bourhis. 1997. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: Anempirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16: 23�49.

Leets, L., and H. Giles. 1995. Intergroup cognitions and communication climates: Newdimensions of minority language maintenance. In The state of minority languages:International perspectives on survival and decline, ed. W. Fase, K. Jaspaert, and S. Kroon,37�74. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Mays, C.M., S.D. Cochran, G. Bellinger Jr, R.G. Smith, N. Henley, M. Daniels, T. Tibbits,G.D. Victorianne, O.K. Sei, and D.K. Birt. 1992. The language of black gay men’s sexualbehavior: Implications for AIDS risk reduction. Journal of Sex Research 29: 425�34.

Park, H.S., R.M. Dailey, and D. Lemus. 2002. The use of exploratory factor analysis andprincipal components analysis in communication research. Human CommunicationResearch 28: 562�77.

Pittam, J., C. Gallois, and M. Willemyns. 1991. Perceived change in ethnolinguistic vitality bydominant and minority groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 12:449�57.

Sachdev, I., and R.Y. Bourhis. 1993. Ethnolinguistic vitality: Some motivational and cognitiveconsiderations. In Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives, ed. M. Hogg andD. Abrams, 33�51. New York: Harvester-Wheatsheat.

Sayahi, L. 2005. Language and identity among speakers of Spanish in northern Morocco:Between ethnolinguistic vitality and acculturation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9: 95�107.

Tabachnick, B.G., and L.S. Fidell. 2001. Using multivariate statistics, 4th edn. Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon.

Tajfel, H., and J.C. Turner. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The socialpsychology of intergroup relations, ed. W.C. Austin and S. Worchel, 33�53. Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Tajfel, H., and J.C. Turner. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. InPsychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. S. Worchel and W.G. Austin, 7�24. Chicago, IL:Nelson.

485

490

495

500

505

510

515

520

525

530

535

540

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 13

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:6

UNCORRECTED PROOF

Willemyns, M., J. Pittam, and C. Gallois. 1993. Perceived ethnolinguistic vitality of Vietnameseand English in Australia: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development 14: 481�97.

Yagmur, K., K. de Bot, and H. Korzilius. 1999. Language shift and ethnolinguistic vitality ofTurkish in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20: 51�69.

Yagmur, K., and S. Kroon. 2003. Ethnolinguistic vitality perceptions and languagerevitalization in Bashkortostan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 4:319�36.

Young, L., H. Giles, and H. Pierson. 1986. Sociopolitical change and perceived vitality.International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10: 459�69.

Ytsma, J., M. Viladot, and H. Giles. 1994. Ethnolinguistic vitality and ethnic identity: SomeCatalan and Frisian data. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108: 63�78.

545

550

14 J.R. Abrams et al.

Y:/Taylor & Francis/RMMM/Articles/RMMM337112/RMMM337112.3d[x] Friday 28th November 2008 21:26:6