The notion of "vitality" was introduced into the ethnolinguistic arena in the late 1970s. Fifteen years on, a growing body of research has adopted differing features of the group vitality framework to address a broad ränge of issues related to language, ethnicity, bilingualism, and intergroup communication. The first part of this paper provides a brief overview of the origin and development of the group vitality concept and its measurement. The second part presents a first attempt at a transactive model not only useful äs a conceptual framework for synthesizing extant research but also äs a heuristic for guiding future directions. This approach extends traditional work by focusing in part upon the nature of discourse concerning vitality issues in everyday life. It is proposed that discoursal analyses of vitality beliefs äs manifest during interpersonal conversations and within the mass media can constitute a useful complement to current quantitative research. During the unfolding of this framework, a series of research propositions will be presented äs an agenda for future work.
The origin of the ethnolinguistic vitality concept
The notion ofobjective group vitalityRelations between groups do not occur in a vacuum but rather are influenced by a ränge of sociostructural and situational factors that can fundamentally affect the nature and quality of intergroup contact between Speakers of contrasting ethnolinguistic groups. The notion of "ethnolinguistic vitality" was first introduced by Giles et al. (1977) and provided a conceptual tool to analyze the sociostructural variables affecting the strength of ethnolinguistic communities within intergroup settings. The vitality of an ethnolinguistic group was defined äs "that which makes a group likely to behave äs a distinctive and collective entity within the intergroup setting" (Giles et al. 1977: 308). It was proposed that the 0165-2516/94/0108-0167