Representations in general, and most obviously representations through language, are a clear-cut instance of the semiotic mediation of social life, and hence an important focus for pragmatics. The concept of ‘the other’ is less obviously central to pragmatics, although it is increasingly used to explain how texts and practices position individuals and groups, especially as ways of deprecating or socially excluding them. This paper first comments on the process of representation itself, then traces how the concept of ‘the other’ has developed historically and in more recent usage. The main body of the paper outlines several of the most important discourse processes through which social distancing and what we might call ‘othering’ are achieved, such as homogenisation, pejoration, suppression and silencing, displaying 'liberalism, and subverting tolerance. It will be important to recognise that casting a person or a group as ‘other’ is not inherently and necessarily to marginalise or disparage them. In fact, one of the challenges for future studies is to demarcate how a wide range of social ‘effects’ can be achieved through patterns and contexts of representation. In the selected examples, the author emphasises the more negative and punitive effects of ‘other representation’, simply because this is where most of the evidence from existing research lies.These include instances from the context of interethnic relations, which is the focus of most sociolinguistic and pragmatic research. They also include some issues and examples from the intergenerational domain, where ‘othering’ discourses are also prevalent and where systematic research is needed. Through space constraints, ‘othering’ in the domain of gender, except one brief instance, cannot be adequately dealt with. Nor, for that matter, can George Herbert Mead’s famous observation that society as a whole stands for the ‘generalised other’ be observed. Yet another ‘casualty’ is intergroup theory in social psychology, although it can claim to be a rich and coherent, but resolutely non-pragmatic, alternative view of the role of language in intergroup relations. The final segment of this overview attends to the concept of groupness. It is suggested that the relative ‘correctness’ of the hybridity and intergroup models is largely an empirical matter.