INTEGRATION OF LOGIC AND PSYCHOLOGY IN THE STUDY OF INTERCULTURAL ASPECTS OF PERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Abstract
The article highlights the pressing issue of establishing effective communication between representatives of different ethnic and cultural groups, which attracts the attention of scholars due to potential complications in interaction and behavioural strategies in the absence of mutual understanding. The integration of logical knowledge, psychology, and communication is relevant for improving opportunities for cooperation between nations, cultures, and ethnic groups. The results demonstrate how globalisation – a multifaceted process of creating networks of connections through the flow of people, ideas, and goods – blurs borders, integrating economies, cultures, and technologies. It is measured by indices such as KOF (economic, social, political dimensions), ATK/FP, with a focus on social globalisation: interpersonal (migration, tourism, education), informational (online interaction through networks, messengers), and cultural. Online communication complicates interaction due to the lack of visual contact and non-verbal cues (tone, timbre), creating barriers to understanding. The effectiveness of communication depends on understanding linguistic, cognitive, psychological, and logical structures formed by norms. An interdisciplinary approach integrates logic (the structure of arguments and dialogues) with psychology (motivation and perception). The logical structure of judgements (subject S – object of thought, predicate P – attribute, relation – relationship, quantifier – scope) differs from the grammatical forms of sentences (with secondary members: definition, complement, circumstance), allowing the formation of universal messages independent of national languages to avoid confusion in real time.
The conclusion is that logical structure creates universal messages, minimising misunderstandings in intercultural dialogues, especially when communicating online; the integration of logic with psychology adapts communicative behaviour, which is useful for various areas of tourism, business and education. All this reduces cultural bias, minimises the risks of interethnic conflicts, and strengthens trust in multinational communities.
References
2. Chin, Y.-C., Yang, Q., & Lu, Y. (2020). Fear-free cross-cultural communication: Toward a more balanced approach with insight from neuroscience. Frontiers in Communication, 5. 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00014
3. Clark, W.C. (2000). Governance in a Globalizing World, Environmental globalization. 86-108. Brookings Institution Press.
4. Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10). 1091-1110.
5. Eemeren, F.H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective.
6. Figge, L., & Martens, P. (2014). Globalisation continues: The Maastricht globalisation index revisited and updated. Globalizations, 7731(April). 1-19.
7. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., & Potrafke, N. et al. (2019) The KOF Globalisation Index – revisited. Rev Int Organ, 14. 543-574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2
8. Kearney, A.T. (2001). Measuring globalization. Foreign Policy, 122. 56-65.
9. Liu, D. (2023). Pragma-dialectical perspective to intercultural discussion as communicative activity. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10. 919. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02319-0
10. Liu, S., & Zhang, J. (2021). Developing intercultural communicative competence in the digital age: A blended learning approach. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 50(4). 345-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17475759. 2021.191007
11. Martens, P., Caselli, M., De Lombaerde, P., Figge, L., & Scholte, J.A. (2015). New directions in globalization indices. Globalizations, (August). 1-12.
12. Noels, K.A., & Clement, R. (2019). Western and heritage cultural internalizations predict EFL students’ language motivation. Frontiers in Education, 4. 85.
13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.0008
14. Noels, K.A., & Lou, N.M. (2022). A socio-ecological perspective on second language motivation and intercultural communication. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. 863237. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/ fpsyg.2022.863237/full
15. Noels, K.A., Vargas Lascano, D.I., & Saumure, K. (2019). The development of self-determination across the language course: Trajectories of motivational change and the dynamic interplay of psychological needs, orientations, and engagement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(4). 821-851.
16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000189
17. Norris, P. (2000). Governance in a Globalizing World, global governance and cosmopolitan citizens. 155-177. Brookings Institution Press.
18. Raab, M., Ruland, M., Schonberger, B., Blossfeld, H.-P., Hofacker, D., Buchholz, S., & Schmelzer, P. (2008). GlobalIndex: A sociological approach to globalization measurement. International Sociology, 23. 596-631.
19. Ting-Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2015). Intercultural and intergroup communication competence: Toward an integrative perspective. Handbook of communication competence. 503-538. De Gruyter Mouton. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303520390
20. van Eemeren, F.H. (2016). Pragmatic factors in the use of argumentation in intercultural communication. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 5(2). 123-140.
21. van Eemeren, F.H., & Grootendorst, R. (2016). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Argumentation-Analysis-EvaluationPresentation/van-Eemeren-Grootendorst-Snoeck-Henkemans/ p/book/9781138131934
22. van Eemeren, F.H. (2015). The Role of Logic in Analyzing and Evaluating Argumentation. Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Argumentation Library, 27. Springer, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_35
