Table of ContentsThe Bridging of Discourse Analysis and Intercultural CommunicationIntercultural and Non-Discursive Intercultural CommunicationFoucauldian DiscourseThe Viability of the Concept of “Culture” in Intercultural CommunicationDiscourse as constitutive of cultural categoriesREFERENCESThe term "discourse analysis" means a lot because language studies can be approached from different angles. Because we have a social environment, the feelings, thoughts, opinions and ideas, habits and behaviors that we share are reflected in 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 analysis of change; Schiffrin 1994) » discourse analysis « the formation of such disciplines is due to its ability to consider them from a critical, social and historical point of view. As a result, this indicates that it is very versatile. As mentioned, Gee defines discourses as "manners or ways of being in the world that combine words, verbs, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities, as well as gestures, looks, and body positions. ” cited in (Gee 1996: 117) “Some problems arise when analyzing “intercultural communication” and “intercultural communication”. Furthermore, ambiguities of meaning arise in the use of the terms "intercultural" and "intercultural" - because even if we think of it as "intercultural communication", there is actually no agreement in terms of discourse. As a result, comparative analysis comes into play and compares social and cultural differences between different cultural groups. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayThe Bridging of Discourse Analysis and Intercultural CommunicationIf we want to do research in this area, McCarthy (1991) should considering the thesis, he argues that "Discourse Analysis" is a title corrected by Harris in 1952. Furthermore, another important point is Beteson's "Cultural Contact and Schismogenesis" (1935). It presents two problems, the first being that we must accept cultures as entities connected and related to each other and that we must not consider them separately. The other problem is that when we talk about the differences between different cultures and different groups (people of different genders, people of different social status, young or old), we need to create a new analytical language specific to the differences. 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 essential elements in determining the quality of texts. He emphasizes that each work is unique and has its own characteristics and its own language. Gumperz (1982) conducted research with his students to establish a connection between “discourse analysis” and “intercultural communication.” From this perspective, the main principles of intercultural communication are the conceptualization and assumptions that problematize united cultures and other groups. Intercultural and non-discursive intercultural communicationHofstede (1993) conducted research in the field of intercultural, business and organizations. He ledthis 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, depending on the requirements of the cultural elements. As mentioned earlier, the other group consisted of Cole, Wertsch, and Gee, who focused on individual-community behavior and sought to find objective results. Wertsch's (1991) view is the role of texts and a tool for society. In summary, when all perspectives are considered, “linguistic, discursive, or interactional sociolinguistic studies” at some point show an intersection, if not entirely. It is therefore beyond the scope of such a section to take it into account here; It has been argued that most studies of intercultural communication as described here actually draw on strategic or political investigations of cultural identity (Bateson 1972; Benedict 1946) at the outbreak of World War II, and then expanded by Hall and others from the Foreign Service Institute in Washington, DC. even under difficult wartime conditions, traditional research on “cultures” in favor of business, the military and police institutions was carried out without much problematization. structure and historical periods in his works. Foucault's writing is based on the idea that within socio-cultural and recorded periods there are specific methods of seeing, examining and acting on nature that circulates power with the end goal that the members of these periods assume control of the lived discourses of their periods. While Thomas Kuhn's examination of scientific ideal models was all the more focused on the design changes that occur from time to time in science. Closely related to cross-cultural studies and discourse analysis, it views the studies mentioned above as being additively separated between these and what Gee (1986) called the "Great Divide" scientists. People who viewed capacity as an extended and instantiated socio-cultural element that endowed community and social authorities improved through this unique fund of thinking with the technology by which the community was founded. Analysis of the creation of literary activities with attitudes of speech and communication that define writers and readers as participants in specific cultural divisions eliminates uncertainty from literature. There is always a conflict between determinism based on one's own ends via discourse and equal human action linked to the adaptation of cultural values ​​through controlled activity. The viability of the concept of "culture" in intercultural communication Including the "Soviet" team, for which the These works were not generally referenced in the West since the late 1970s or even early 1980s; the studies were never undertaken entirely separately from each other. It is perhaps true to assume that since the early 1970s, the idea of ​​culture has been slowly but surely revised into other systems or discourses seen as examples of cultural traditions. The fundamental question is whether, in a land of post-critical discourse, there still exists a beneficial lifestyle belief. Societal groups transform into unlimited types of intertextuality and interdiscursivity within discourse analysis and intercultural communication. The community is increasingly reduced to the level of a minimal discursive form. In each specific case of conversation,.