ABSTRACT
There is considerable debate over the definition, scope and orientation of intercultural communication (IC). One of the thorniest issues concerns essentialism: Is the research in question predicated on a notion of inherent behavioural and/or biological characteristics of socially defined groups (i.e. essentialist), which are typically categorised in terms of difference at the national level? Or, is such an assumption rejected in favour of seeing culture as a practice and cultural identities are dynamic, multiple, emergent and socially constructed? This chapter argues that while corpus linguistic methods lend themselves to studies of difference and comparison, and therefore facilitate an essentialist approach, IC can and should be analysed using corpus linguistic methods from an anti-essentialist orientation. The critical stance towards essentialism is based on methodological and ethical concerns, not least the argument that essentialism leads to increased levels of stereotyping and Otherisation. The study therefore outlines the essentialist and anti-essentialist positions and discusses how the “essentialist trap” can be avoided. A range of theoretical, descriptive, interpretative, comparative and critical studies that explore IC-related issues from an anti-essentialist orientation are then examined. After critically discussing corpus methods, a case study is presented which demonstrates how an anti-essentialist corpus-assisted intercultural analysis can be conducted.
