Communication Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by PETRONIO, S.
Right arrow Articles by GALLOIS, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Communication Research, Vol. 25, No. 6, 571-595 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/009365098025006001

(Mis)communicating Across Boundaries

Interpersonal and Intergroup Considerations

SANDRA PETRONIO

NAOMI ELLEMERS

HOWARD GILES

CYNTHIA GALLOIS

The metaphor of boundary is ubiquitous and has guided much research on interpersonal and intergroup communication. This article explores the metaphor by reviewing the literature on boundaries with a focus on miscommunication and problematic talk. In particular, the tensions around privacy and self-disclosure, and rules about family communication are good examples of communication and miscommunication across interpersonal boundaries. In the intergroup arena, the negotiation of boundaries implicates the sociostructural relations between groups and the choices individuals make based on the identities that are salient to them in a given context. We argue that miscommunication can best be conceived of as indicator of tension in negotiating boundaries as they emerge and change in interaction.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
S. A. Reid and H. Giles
Intergroup Relations: Its Linguistic and Communicative Parameters
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2005; 8(3): 211 - 214.
[PDF]