Page 312 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

290 Diana Eades

ences between general Australian English and Aboriginal English ways of com-
municating were explained, and suggestions were made about how to accom-
modate Aboriginal English ways in order to facilitate more effective inter-
cultural communication in the legal process. This difference approach underlies
much sociolinguistic research as well as practical applications to intercultural
communication. Driven to a considerable extent by a focus on linguistic equal-
ity, as well as cultural relativism and respect for different cultures, norms and
ways of speaking, the view is that an understanding of cultural differences in
communicative style can lead to more effective intercultural communication.
But there have been criticisms within sociolinguistics about this difference
approach to linguistic and cultural diversity, in relation to studies of intercultu-
ral communication, as well as language and gender. The main criticism has been
that it ignores social inequality and power relations, present in both intercultural
and inter-gender encounters (for example Freed 1992; Meeuwis and Sarangi
1994; Meeuwis 1994; Shea 1994; Sarangi 1994; Singh, Lele and Martohardjono
1988; Pennycook 2001; Rampton 2001). Despite these criticisms, it is not clear
to what extent studies of intercultural communication have taken up issues in-
volving power relations (see Thielmann in this volume). We will now turn to an-
other Queensland case, in which we see the explanatory inadequacy of the dif-
ference approach in the study of intercultural communication. We will see that
intercultural awareness does not necessarily lead to successful communication,
and further, that the communication difficulties in this case cannot be explained
without a consideration of layers of power struggles.

4.1. Pinkenba case

Some time after midnight on 10 May 1994, three Aboriginal boys aged 12, 13 and 14
were walking around a shopping mall near the Brisbane downtown area. The boys
were approached by six armed police officers who told them to get into three separate
vehicles. They were then driven 14 kilometers out of town and abandoned in an in-
dustrial wasteland in Pinkenba near the mouth of the Brisbane River, from where
they had to find their own way back.
The boys were not charged with any offence, nor were they taken to any police
station. According to police, the young people were ‘taken down to Pinkenba to re-
flect on their misdemeanours’ (ABC Four Corners, 8 March 1996). Following the
boys’ complaint to the Aboriginal Legal Service, an investigation was conducted by
the Criminal Justice Commission. This investigation recommended that criminal
charges be laid against the six police officers. As a result, the police officers were
charged that they had unlawfully deprived each of the boys of ‘his personal liberty by
carrying him away in a motor vehicle against his will’.
In February 1995, the boys were prosecution witnesses in the committal hearing,
which was the first stage in the trial process against the police officers. Most of the
four day hearing consisted of evidence from the three boys, which included lengthy
cross-examination by each of the two defense counsel who represented three of the