Page 403 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

Discrimination in discourses 381

or less implicit analogies, allusions, evocations, and presuppositions or impli-
cations. The visual predication of discriminatory stereotypes is realized by strat-
egies characterized below in section 5.5.
Two short examples must suffice for illustrating discriminatory predications
ascribed to social groups who are often discriminated against in discourses with
an intercultural dimension.
Among the most frequent discriminatory traits explicitly or implicitly
predicated to so-called “Ausländer” (“foreigners”) in the discourse about mi-
grants and migration in countries such as Austria and Germany, we find the
predications that “foreigners” would be bad, uncooperative work colleagues
and workmates, “socio-parasites”, unwilling to assimilate and integrate, dif-
ferent in culture and religion, culturally immature, less civilized and more
primitive, careless, dirty, infectious, backward, conspicuous, loud, inclined to
sexual harassment, sexism and patriarchal oppression, physically different,
aggressive, criminal, etc. (see Karl-Renner-Institut 1990; Reisigl and Wodak
2001: 55). And discourses about gypsies, for example in Germany and Aus-
tria, contain discriminatory predications against gypsies such as being tattered
and ragged, roguish and wicked, thieving, vagrant, unreliable and antisocial,
false and mendacious, superstytrous, inclined to cursing and witchcraft, and
so on.
Empirical discourse studies lead to analogous overviews of corresponding
discriminatory stereotypes directed against other social minorities and margi-
nalized groups (e.g. against Jews, see Wodak et al. 1990; Gruber 1991; Reisigl
and Wodak 2001: 91–143).
A potent discursive resource for fighting such stereotypes and the related
prejudices is argumentation. Argumentation, however, also represents a wide-
spread technique of discrimination.

5.3. Discrimination by argumentation

Social discrimination against others is often justified and legitimized by means
of arguments and argumentation schemes (argumentation strategies). In dis-
courses containing arguments for and against discrimination, argumentation
does not always follow rules for rational dispute and constructive arguing such
as the freedom of speech, the obligation to give reasons, the correct reference to
previous utterances by the antagonist, the obligation to “matter-of-factness”, the
correct reference to implicit premises, the respect of shared starting points, the
use of plausible arguments and schemes of argumentation, logical validity, the
acceptance of the discussion’s results and the clarity of expression and correct
interpretation (see van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992). Numerous violations
of these rules, i.e. many fallacies, can be identified in discourses on ethnic or in-
tercultural issues, where racist, ethnicist or nationalist legitimizing strategies