Intersection of Discourse Analysis and Intercultural Communication

The term 'discourse analysis' means a lot because the studies on language can be handled from different angles. Because we have a social environment, the feelings, thoughts, opinions and ideas, habits and behaviours that we share are reflected in the texts 'discourse analysis' will have different perspectives. 1991 (McCarthy,' discourse analysis 'has some principles e.g. 'language analysis', 'French structuralism', communication today Ethnography, Hallidayan functional linguistics, philosophy of language, conditions and change analysis ; Schiffrin 1994)' discourse analysis ' the formation of such disciplines is due to his ability to look at it from a critical, social and historical perspective. As a result, this indicates that he is very versatile. Just as mentioned, Gee defines discourses as 'ways or ways of life of being in the world that combine words, verbs, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities, as well as gestures, stares and body positions. 'cited in (Gee 1996: 117) 'Some problems arise when analyzing 'Intercultural communication' and 'cross-cultural communication'. In addition, ambiguities of meaning arise in the use of the terms' intercultural 'and 'cross-cultural - because although we see it as' intercultural communication', there is actually no agreement in terms of discourse. Accordingly,' the comparative analysis “comes into play and compares the differences between different cultural groups socially and culturally.

The Coming Together of Discourse Analysis and Intercultural Communication

If we want to do research in this area McCarthy (1991) should consider the thesis, he argues that 'discourse analysis' is a corrected title by Harris in 1952. In addition, another important point is Beteson's 'culture contact and schismogenesis' (1935). He presents two problems, the first of which is that we have to accept cultures as connected and related entities with each other and that we should not think of them separately. The other problem is that when talking about differences between different cultures and different groups (people with different sexes, people with different social status, young or old), a new and analytical language specific to differences should be created. Similar to this approach, there are other names suggesting the same ideas, for example Bakhtin (1981), Vygotsky (1978) and Volosinov (1986). Towards the end of the 1970s, intertextuality and discursivity became an essential element in determining the quality of texts. It points out that each work is unique and has its own characteristics and language. Gumperz (1982) conducted a research with his students to establish a connection between 'discourse analysis' and 'intercultural communication'. In this perspective, the main principles of intercultural communication are conceptualization and assumptions that problematize united cultures and other groups.

Nondiscursive Cross-cultural and Intercultural Communication

Hofstede (1993) conducted research in the field of cross-cultural, business and organizations. He conducted this research with two different groups and the most distinctive feature of this research is that it is experimental and quantitative research. His research focused on the works and writings of nationally or internationally accepted cultures as required by cultural elements. As mentioned earlier, the other group was Cole, Wertsch and Gee, who focused on individual-community behaviour and sought to find objective results. Wertsch's (1991) view is the role of texts and a tool for society. In summary, when all views are considered, 'linguistic, discursive or interactional sociolinguistic studies' at some point show an intersection, if not entirely. Thus it's beyond the field of view of such a section to take into account it here, it has been claimed that most of the study on cross-cultural communication as described here adopts effectively from strategic or political surveys of cultural identity (Bateson 1972; Benedict 1946) early stages during the Second World War and afterward broadened by Hall and others at the Foreign Service Institute in Washington DC. even under wartime harsh conditions, the traditional research of 'cultures' on the favor of companies, army, and police institutions were conducted without much problematization.

Foucaultian Discouse

In the serial books of sociologist Foucault, he aimed to rebuild modern social sciences and focused on sociocultural structure and historical periods in his works. Foucault's composing is the idea that inside sociocultural and recorded periods are specific methods for seeing, examining, and acting on the nature which circulates power with the end goal that members in these periods assume the control of experienced their periods' talks. While Thomas Kuhn's examination of scientific ideal models was centred all the more barely around the changes in outlook which occur now and again in science. Closely related to intercultural studies and discourse analysis, it considers earlier mentioned, additively separated between that and what Gee (1986) named the scientists of the 'Great Divide.' Persons who regarded ability as an extensive socio-cultural and instantiated item which equipped community and social authorities improved with this unique reflective fund with the technology by which community was founded. Analyzing the creation of literate activities with talking and communicating attitudes that define writers and readers as participants of specific cultural divisions take the uncertainty off of literature. There is still a conflict among determinism based on its own finishes via discourse and equal human action linked with the adaptation of cultural values by controlled activity.

The Viability of the Concept of “Culture” in Intercultural Communication

Including the 'Soviet' team, for whom the work was generally unreferenced in the West since the late 1970s or even just early 1980s, the study was never undertaken entirely separately from one another. It may be true to assume that since the early 1970s, the idea of culture has slowly but surely been revised into other systems or discourses that were seen as examples of cultural traditions. The basic issue is whether or not in a post-critical country of discourse there is still a beneficial belief of way of life. Societal groups are transformed into boundless types of intertextuality and interdiscursivity inside discourse analysis and intercultural communication. The community has been increasingly reduced to the rank of a minimal discursive form. This is, in every specific case of conversation, society in the case of 'Chinese culture' or 'European culture' can be used as one from a wide variety of discourses at hand. Culture can be viewed as maybe more like some kind of series or collection of other discursive structures.

Scientists are working in the evaluation of socio-cultural discourse understand of their own historical common ancestor from the Russian school of socio-cultural analysis. Nevertheless, in other situations, this line of descent actually took also very odd pulls. In China, for instance, in the toughest research lab studies, what is named 'sociocultural historical psychology' originated from in the Russian empire in the style of Pavlovian training. Its type of research was questioned all through the Russian revolution of having almost nothing to do with everyone's real lifestyles and study was expelled in this pattern (Zhu 1989; Pan and Jing 1991).

Discourse as Constitutive of Cultural Categories

During all researchers have actually come from really various aspects to the place, then maybe we can mention that over the current era, a highly central theme of discourse analysis and intercultural communication was that all transmission is foundational of social types. On this perspective, the attention turned down from contrasting societies or persons to keeping the focus on the co-constructive features of interaction.

REFERENCES

1. Bakhtin, M. M. 1981 (Originally published 1934–5). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
2. Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.
3. Benedict, Ruth. 1946. Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
4. Gee, James Paul. 1986. Orality and literacy: from “The Savage Mind” to “Ways with Words.” TESOL Quarterly 20: 719–46.
5. Gee, James Paul. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. Second edn. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.
6. Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Hofstede, Geert. 1993. Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive 7(1): 81–93.
8. McCarthy, Michael. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge: Blackwell.
10. Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H. (2011). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. John Wiley & Sons. KİTABIMIZZZ
11. Volosinov, Valentin N. 1986. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Wertsch, James V. 1991. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Zhu Zhixian. 1989. Xinlixue dacidian (The Great Dictionary of Psychology). Beijing: Bejing Shifan Daxue Chubanshe.
15. Pan Shu and Jing Qicheng. 1991. Zhongguo da baike quanshu: Xinlixue (The Great Chinese Encyclopedia: Psychology). Beijing and Shanghai: Zhongguo Da Baike Quanshu Chubanshe.