Page 397 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

Discrimination in discourses 375

Ron and Suzie W. Scollon, who have also extensively worked on intercultural
communication, distinguish among different ways to use the word “discourse”.
In their introductory textbook on “intercultural communication”, they differenti-
ate among three meanings of the noun (see Scollon and Scollon 2003a: 107). The
first and technically most narrow meaning of “discourse” refers to a linguistic
unit composed of sentences that are connected by grammatical and other rela-
tionships, which constitute cohesion and are reconstructed by inferential pro-
cesses. The second meaning sees “discourse” as a functional entity relating to the
social environment and functions of language use, as situated social practice. The
third and broadest meaning of “discourse” is linked to a whole self-contained
system of communication with a language or jargon shared by a particular social
group, with a particular ideological position and with specific forms of interper-
sonal relationships among members of the group. This third denotation is more
adequately named “discourse system” rather than just “discourse”. 3
Ron and Suzie W. Scollon’s approach is known as “interdiscourse communi-
cation” approach (see Scollon and Scollon 2001: 544). According to them, lan-
guage users position themselves in every instance of actual communication
multiply within an indefinite number of discourses or, as they prefer to say, of
“discourse systems”, such as the so-called “gender discourse system”, “gener-
ation discourse system”, “professional discourse system”, “Utilitarian discourse
(system)” and “voluntary discourse system” (see Scollon and Scollon 2003a).
The two discourse analysts assume that each of these “discourse systems” is
realized in a complex network of different forms of discourse, face systems, so-
cializations and ideologies – the four basic elements of “discourse systems” (see
also Scollon and Scollon 2003a: 108). In contrast to other approaches to inter-
cultural communication, Scollon and Scollon avoid presupposing cultural mem-
bership and identity as given concepts. In their “mediated discourse analysis”,
as they also call their approach, they aim to analyse how, under which circum-
stances, for which purpose and with what consequences categories such as cul-
ture, social identity and social membership are produced in social interactions
as relevant categories for the participants. They take social and cultural groups
to be outcomes of social interactions and social change and argue against attribu-
ting to them the status of direct causal factors (see Scollon and Scollon 2001:
244–245). This implies that social discrimination in intercultural communi-
cation should not only be analysed by plain reference to categories of culture,
subculture, identity and social group membership as simple explanatory con-
cepts, but that discrimination, just as these culture- and identity-categories, arises
in social interactions, which have to be understood as mediated (inter)actions.
One of the most prominent German groups of researchers dealing with dis-
course and discrimination is the “Duisburg group”, directed by Siegfried and
Margret Jäger. This team of critical discourse analysts is strongly influenced by
Michel Foucault and Jürgen Link. Siegfried Jäger conceives “discourse” as “the