This interesting volume, edited and introduced by Anna Duszak, offers a range of perspectives on the construction of identity, particularly the formation and roles of contrasting reference groups, the “us and others” of the title. Disciplines in which the contributing studies are based include social anthropology, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, intercultural communication studies, cognitive linguistics, translation studies, neurolinguistics, neuropsychology, and social psychology. Contributing scholars present accounts of studies conducted in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Australia, and Europe. The 23 chapters are grouped under the headings “Discourses in space,” “Discourses in polyphony,” “Discourses of transition,” “Discourses of fear,” “Discourses of challenge,” and “Discourses through suppression.”

In the Introduction, Duszak describes the purpose of the collection as follows:

Having argued that it is natural for people to distinguish between us and others, Duszak refers to “the problem of us-them” and to “the us-them issue” and suggests that this natural process should be regarded as a problem or an issue when it relegates the other to the position of an object with whom there is or can be no dialogue. The categorization process itself is a central and therefore unavoidable component of identity construction.

For Duszak and the other contributors to this volume, identities of individuals and groups are not fixed but are constantly being constructed interactively. A key question for these scholars is whether language is (always) “a core value for how group boundaries are drawn” (3). They also consider the sense(s) in which the term “language” should be understood in the context of group differentiation. As the chapters show, what is linguistically salient in the construction of difference and similarity may be one or more of the following: named languages, dialects, lexical items, phonological and morphosyntactic features, discourse conventions, and genres.

Duszak briefly reviews the ways in which the relationship between a group and its use of language has been conceptualized by analysts working with notions of “speech communities,” “discourse communities,” “communities of practice,” “small cultures,” and “networks.” Her review shows that in recent years the emphasis has shifted from the assumption that there would be a one-to-one relationship among language, community, and world view, to a recognition that there are diverse subsystems within speech communities, and that some subsystems may operate across two or more communities. The chapters in the collection recognize and account for variability and nuances within broadly discernible patterns. This is one of the strengths of the book. Another is that the theoretical bases of the studies are, in most cases, strongly and clearly articulated, and well used in the interpretation of data. Unfortunately, space constraints do not allow for detailed engagement with all the chapters. This review therefore focuses on each of the sections in turn and comments on ways in which the issues have been approached.

The chapters of Part I, “Discourses in space,” work with the assumption that spatial relations are fundamental in human cognition, and show how they are metaphorically extended in constructing the oppositions “insider” and “outsider,” “proximity” and “distance” in social relationships. The first chapter in this section, by Johannes Helmbrecht, includes a very useful broad overview from a typological perspective of the range of functions that the first person non-singular pronoun can have. Helmbrecht shows how referentially complex this pronoun is, and accounts for the fact that the type of social group that “we” can refer to is rarely grammaticalized. Minglang Zhou's chapter focuses on the role of the spatial deictic verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’ in expressing social closeness or distance in Chinese. He argues that deictic verbs are needed for this function because the Chinese pronoun system, while fully developed for other key functions (such as the expression of politeness), is “underdeveloped” for the expression of speaker inclusiveness or exclusiveness. Soichi Kozai integrates cognitive and sociolinguistic approaches in explaining how social group membership which involves a shift of speaker's viewpoint is coded linguistically in Japanese. Also based in cognitive linguistics is Melinda Yuen-ching Chen's chapter, an illuminating analysis of the use of spatial schemata and switches in point of view in the discourses of marginalized groups in the United States. The last chapter in this section, by Birgit Apfelbaum, is a descriptive case study of identity construction in encounters in the virtual space provided by a synchronous interactive form of computer-assisted language learning.

The three chapters in Part II, “Discourses in polyphony,” examine ways in which language use may be involved in identity construction of groups and individuals in situations of language contact. One of the important things to emerge in this section is evidence that language (in the sense of “a particular language”) is not necessarily a core value in group identity. The writers show how speakers who command more than one language variety choose from their linguistic repertoire the language variety or strategy (such as code-switching) to enact different identities in different situations. The chapter by Clyne, Eisikovits, and Tollfree deals with variable use of ethnolects by members of communities that have undergone language shift, depending on the extent to which they wish to foreground their ethnic identity in particular interactions. Sinner's chapter provides a fascinating insight into perceptions of Catalan Spanish by its speakers and by speakers of other dialects, and also into the contemporary insider concept of Catalan identity, which is not tied to being a native speaker of Catalan. Nkonko Kamwangamalu analyzes the reported language choices among a group of bilingual young South Africans in the post-apartheid era. His study indicates that although there may be ambivalence about code-switching, it is sometimes an acceptable mechanism for positioning oneself in relation to an interlocutor, whereas code-crossing does not yet seem to be.

Part III deals with “Discourses of transition.” Most of the studies use textual analysis to examine ways in which newly formed groups use language to distinguish themselves from old ones and from other emerging groups in times when major political, social, and economic transition is affecting societal structures and relationships. Anna Duszak's paper deals with the reasons for and effects of lexical borrowing from English into Polish. She gives a sensitive analysis of this borrowing as a social index of interest groups and tensions between them in contemporary Poland. Through semantic analysis, Riitta Pyykkö shows how major political figures in different periods of Russia's 20th-century history used the first person plural pronoun to indicate their alignments, and to draw the reader into the “we” group. Krystyna Skarżyńska analyzes polarizing discourses in contemporary Poland from a psychological perspective, focusing particularly on affective polarization and different styles of thinking. Heiko Hausendorf and Wolfgang Kesselheim's excellent paper describe two types of group comparison that are used in the construction of relationships between groups. Through careful analysis of examples, they identify conversational moves and details that characterize these two comparative processes.

The studies described in Part IV, “Discourses of fear,” analyze strategies of othering and of alignment in contexts where fear is a key element in the construction of a threatening other. Two chapters explore the use of these strategies among powerful groups, and two examine their use in the discourses of minority groups. Angelika Brechelmacher's chapter is on media constructions of “us” and “them” during the period of Austria's presidency of the European Union's Council of Ministers. Her analysis of approximately 300 texts that deal with the possible enlargement of the EU shows how and why the “us” group is constructed sometimes as Austria and sometimes as the existing EU. The “them” group – always the (people of) countries that have indicated a wish to join the EU – is to varying degrees seen as a threat to the current comfort zone. Detailed textual analysis reveals strategies of marginalizing, patronizing, criminalizing, and in other ways derogating the outgroup. Krisadawan Hongladarom analyzes the working of three linguistic strategies in media constructions of ethnic minorities in Thailand, collectively referred to as chao khao ‘the hilltribes’. They are presented as an “other” that has criminal tendencies and is in various ways a threat to the environment and to the interests of the ethnic Thai majority. Monika Schmid's chapter focuses on constructions of Jews by others in Germany over a long period, and then on constructions of their own identity by Jews who left Germany at different stages of the Nazi period. Through detailed linguistic analysis of their oral testimonies, Lisa Wagner explores the linguistic strategies used by three Argentinian women, members of Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, in the organization's long campaign to obtain information on the whereabouts of their missing children. Choices of how and when to speak were severely limited by the repressive network of control exercised by those in power. The paper shows how the women exploited the linguistic resources available to them in order to reach the “others,” those who could provide the information they sought, while still being very opposed to them.

Part V, “Discourses of challenge,” provides analyses of resistant responses to prevailing categorizations of people and their expected behavior. These studies work with conversational data and show a range of strategies that speakers can use to challenge or subvert accepted norms and boundaries. Janet Holmes and Meredith Marra explore ways in which humor is used in dealing with group identities, both in the presence and in the absence of members of the “other” group. They argue that it is “an adaptable and practical strategy used by participants … for constructing, maintaining, reinforcing, and sometimes challenging, many different kinds of group boundaries” (396). Sükriye Ruhi's detailed analyses of compliment exchanges shows how, in Turkey, these exchanges may serve to reify gender differences even within friendship groups. Liliana Cabral Bastos studies the linguistic and discourse features used by a company employee whose job (dealing with queries and complaints about the company from members of the public) place her on the border between company and client. Bastos's careful analysis shows changes in several aspects of the employee's use of language over time as she decides where she wants to place herself in relation to clients.

The last section contains three fine but very different articles. In choosing to place them together in one section, entitled “Discourses of suppression,” Duszak is foregrounding one common aspect – each essay deals with the ways in which the powerful “other” can limit the options of the less powerful in positioning themselves. (This is, of course, also a prominent concern in some other chapters, for example in Part IV.)

Setting her inquiry within the framework of the philosophy of dialogue, Elżbieta Tabakowska identifies and illustrates a serious professional and ethical challenge facing translators. Positioned as they are between two “others” and having to intervene as mediators between two cultures, they face the question of whether or not to “domesticate” the original author's text, suppressing its foreignness in the translation so that it is accessible and acceptable to the target readership. Tabakowska sees the translator's responsibility as being “to tame ‘the Other’ in the eyes of ‘us’, so that ‘the Other-as-them’ may change into ‘the-Other-as-you’” (459), something that can not be achieved without a movement away from “translator's ego-centricity” (459).

Bhaskaran Nayar is concerned with the roots and effects of the ubiquitous distinction between native speaker (NS) and nonnative speaker (NNS) of English, a strong binary division into “us” and “them” which goes far beyond matters of linguistic proficiency. In “Ideological binarism in the identities of native- and non-native English speakers,” he directs a powerful spotlight on what lies below the surface of postings to an Internet interest group for people involved in the teaching of English to speakers of other languages. Critical linguistic analysis of these texts reveals sets of assumptions and prejudices about the inferiority of the cultures and personal and intellectual qualities of NNS learners of English.

Appropriately placed as the closing chapter is an accessible neurolinguistic account, by Maria Pąchalska and Bruce Duncan MacQueen, of one of the features of aphasia, the collapse of the “us-them” structure. One of the psychosocial consequences of aphasia may be bleak indeed: “Ultimately the patient no longer belongs to an us on any level, and the world is divided into me and them” (488).

This excellent book will be a valuable resource for academics and other people interested in the processes involved in the construction of individual and group identities, in the linguistic “clues” to underlying ideological categorizations, or in the consequences of “us/you/them” divisions and revisions. I believe that it would be appropriately placed not only in academic libraries but also in those that serve the general public.