Page 396 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

374 Martin Reisigl

Researchers studying “intercultural communication” usually presuppose a
very general understanding of “discourse”. The interactional sociolinguist
John J. Gumperz was one of the first to connect discourse analysis and inter-
cultural communication (see Scollon and Scollon 2001: 540; see also Hinnen-
kamp 1991, 2001, 2003). He adopts a rather broad understanding of “dis-
course” and regards it as language (first and foremost, as spoken language)
used in social contexts. Gumperz discussed early on the relationship between
intercultural misunderstanding and social discrimination. He found out that
various breakdowns in intercultural communication are due to inferences
based on undetected differences in contextualization strategies (see Gumperz
1982: 210; see also Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz in this volume), and that cul-
tural misunderstandings can lead to discrimination, or are sometimes read as
discrimination, even though they may be misinterpretations resulting from un-
recognized cultural differences (see Gumperz 1982: 174). Gumperz draws the
conclusion that if more people begin to understand culture- and language-
bound differences in contextualization cues, discrimination will be lessened.
He further concluded that conversation analysis can serve as the diagnostic tool
to determine whether there are communicative differences among members of
different cultures.
The results of Gumperz’ investigations are less relevant for the analysis of
“overt discrimination” against minorities, which in western industrialized so-
cieties has significantly decreased (see Gumperz 2001: 226), than for the analy-
sis and assessment of “covert”, non-intentional, indirect, implicit or structural
discrimination associated with unobserved linguistic diversity which causes dif-
ficulties in social interactions. An explanation exclusively concentrating on this
cultural or linguistic diversity would, however, sometimes be too simplistic, as
critics of Gumperz’ approach state (see, for instance, Singh, Lele and Marto-
hardjono 1996; see also Scollon and Scollon 2001: 540), and as Gumperz him-
self notes in more recent works (see, e.g., Gumperz 2001: 225, where he also
focuses on factors such as language ideology).
Rajendra Singh, Jayant Lele and Gita Martohardjono (1996: 238) argue that
beyond the uncovering of and training to recognize cultural and linguistic dif-
ferences there is a need to take into consideration economic, political and his-
torical factors and the related structures of power asymmetry, hegemony and
dominance when analysing discrimination in intercultural encounters. They
maintain that miscommunications in multiethnic, industrialized societies is
often based on institutionally encouraged violations of principles of cooper-
ation, charity and humanity. This observation goes beyond the analytical scope
of Gumperz’ approach. It is especially important for the study of “institutional
discrimination”, but also of “intersectional discriminations” characterized by
the simultaneous and concurrent intersection of different discriminating factors
in one and the same social field and situation.