Page 445 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

Communicating Identity in Intercultural Communication 423

tribute, even though they differ from one another on the basis of countless other
attributes. By categorizing we decide which attributes of persons are to be set as
relevant and which are not: “The way in which things [or respectively persons]
are classed together reveals, graphically as well as symbolically, the perspec-
tives of the classifier” (Strauss 1969: 20).
Categorizations are especially problematic when persons are refused certain
rights merely on the basis of their membership in a specific category, when, e.g.,
women receive lower salaries for the same work merely on the basis of their bio-
logical sex, or when people are treated as potential criminals on the basis of their
skin color. Lakoff (1987: 85) writes in this regard: “[… social stereotypes] are
used in reasoning and especially in what is called ‘jumping to conclusions’. […]
Stereotypes are used in certain situations to define expectations, make judge-
ments, and draw inferences.” If social categories are linked with stigmata, these
are automatically transferred to each individual member. But just as categori-
zation is unavoidable in human interactions, so is stereotyping: “it is useless to
talk of trying to eradicate from the human mind the tendency to stereotype, to
designate nastily, and to oversimplify,” writes Anselm Strauss (1969: 21). With
Lakoff, he regards this tendency, however, as typically human: “This is not to
say that humans are brutish, but that they are thoroughly human”.
Harvey Sacks himself linked his concept of “category-bound activities”
with that of “stereotypes” (1992: 568). With both concepts it is a matter of the
generalizing ascription of behavioral modes to individuals as representatives of
specific larger units. Although Sacks sees the dangers that such a generalization
can entail, he emphasizes a certain value of categorizations (1992: 577). Many
other scientists besides Sacks have emphasized the connection between cat-
egories and stereotypes and offered various definitions, of which a few will be
briefly summarized.
Thus, e.g., Allport writes (1979: 191): “ … a stereotype is an exaggerated
belief associated with a category. […] A stereotype is not identical with a cat-
egory; it is rather a fixed idea that accompanies the category”. This means that
Allport also sees the proximity of both concepts, but separates them. Two other
definitions of ‘stereotype’ neglect the concept of ‘category’ and instead intro-
duce other central concepts. Schwarz and Chur (1993: 52) conceive the term
“stereotype” as “a mental representation in which aspects of an area of reality
are crudely generalized and strongly reduced to a few (in part not even appli-
cable) attributes.”
After a critical discussion of various approaches, Quasthoff formulates a
definition that shifts the linguistic realization of stereotypes to the center of at-
tention:
A stereotype is the verbal expression of a conviction applied to social groups or in-
dividual persons as their members that is widespread in a given community. It has
the logical form of a judgment that in an unjustifiably simplifying and generalizing