Intercultural rhetoric and intercultural pragmatics are two linguistically based fields with many principles and processes in common: both examine the use of language systems in encounters between people with different L1s, coming from different cultures, but communicating in a common language. This chapter provides an overview of intercultural rhetoric highlighting the ways in which intercultural pragmatics and intercultural rhetoric parallel and complement one another. The chapter begins with a description of the evolution of intercultural rhetoric from contrastive rhetoric drawing particular attention to the shift to understanding culture dynamic, understanding the importance of analyzing texts in context, and drawing greater attention to the use of negotiation and accommodation. The chapter then explores the influences that intercultural rhetoric and intercultural pragmatics have exerted on English for Specific Purposes, English for Academic Purposes, and second language teaching, particularly noting the ways the two fields have complemented and paralleled one another and suggesting ways the fields can serve as a bridge across chasms that have formed in linguistics, second language writing, English as a Lingua Franca, and translingualism. The chapter ends with a short discussion of the future of intercultural rhetoric and suggestions for future trends.

Although the notion of “populism” goes back to Roman/Greek antiquity, the twenty-first century has seen a surge in both the success of such movements and academic interest in them, especially their rhetorics, discourse and politics. In engaging with populism, discourse studies has interfaced with political and social sciences and struggled to find a conceptually sound and empirically grounded definition, while avoiding an overly broad use of the term. In this, the field is far from homogenous, but it offers many insightful approaches to studying contemporary populist politics. A specific point of interest (and contention) is the interrelationships among rhetorical strategies, discourse-analytical concepts relating populism to hegemony or society (such as interdiscursivity, recontextualization and normalization) and the agenda of populist politics. Behind this looms the larger question of the status of populism itself. While some scholars regard populism as an ideology, others call it a movement or syndrome. While some argue that it is both a form and a content, others maintain that it is only a style or, rather, that it combines specific forms with specific contents. In terms of evaluation, some argue that (at least contemporary) populism is a danger to democracy or, more specifically, to liberal democracy, while others see it as an integral part of any democracy or even a positive force. Central among the traits identified in populist politics is its divisiveness and appeal to “the people”: It divides society into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, the “pure people” versus the “corrupt elite.” At the same time, it is antipluralist in claiming that it alone represents the true will of the people, claiming to raise that will over all else. This often links to a larger opposition constructed by populist politics: “national” versus “international” interests. Beyond such commonalities, populist politics, their rhetorics and discourse differ strikingly across the globe and across political affiliations. Empirical discourse studies engage with the specifics of the rhetorics employed by populist politics and how they relate to discourses within the respective contexts.