Page 399 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

Discrimination in discourses 377

who use this language. However, one difference between the two forms of dis-
crimination just mentioned draws on the distinction between “object language”
and “metalanguage”: If language is an object of discrimination, the object
language becomes a metalinguistic matter of discrimination, especially with
respect to language policy or language policies and language planning. In
contrast to this, the use of language as a means of discrimination does not nor-
mally involve such a straightforward metalinguistic status.
Several discourse studies on racism, antisemitism, nationalism and right-
wing populism have been done on the example of Austria by the Viennese group
of critical discourse analysts (see, among others, Wodak et al. 1990, 1994, 1999;
Gruber 1991; Wodak and van Dijk 2000; Reisigl and Wodak 2001; Reisigl 2002,
2003). The analytical and methodological framework of this approach com-
bines, among others, discourse analysis, argumentation theory, rhetoric and sys-
temic function linguistics. It has been elaborated for the analysis of racist,
antisemitic and ethnicist language, but can also be employed in and adapted to
the analysis of other forms of social discrimination. In the following, this ap-
proach lays the theoretical and methodical foundations for analysing the reali-
zation of discrimination in discourses.

5.1. Discrimination by nomination
The first discourse analytical aspect of verbal discrimination I want to es-
pecially focus on relates to the question of how persons are named and referred
to linguistically, if they are discriminated against by means of discursive prac-
tices (nomination strategies). Discrimination by nomination can take many dif-
ferent forms, some of them being very explicit, as in the case of racist, ethnicist,
nationalist, sexist and antisemitic slurs employed in insulting speech acts or ver-
bal injuries, others being more implicit, as is the case of discrimination by
simple non-nomination or linguistic deletion.
There are numerous linguistic and rhetorical means and ways to realize dis-
crimination by nomination. These means are not discriminatory as such, but de-
pending on the concrete discursive context in which they are used (the follow-
ing list being far from complete):
(1) Phonological and prosodic features are sometimes employed as means of
intentional prosodic disparagement and slighting alienation of proper names.
This is the case if proper names are purposely articulated with a distorting pro-
nunciation (for an example see section 5.6).

(2) Among the potential morphological or morphosemantic means to realize
discriminatory nomination are degrading diminutives, depreciatory morphemes
and debasing antonomastic semisuffixes (such as German “-heini” in “Provinz-
heini”, meaning “provincial guy”, or “-susi/e” in “Heulsuse”, meaning “cry-