Arab Cultural Communication Patterns

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/222304936
Arab cultural communication patterns
Article in International Journal of Intercultural Relations · August 1997

DOI: 10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00005-9
CITATIONS READS
165 11,617
1 author:
Ellen Feghali
INDEVCO Group
1 PUBLICATION 165 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ellen Feghali on 04 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Inr. J. Ink-rculfural Rel. Vol 21, No. 3, pp. 345-378, 1997
I$) 1997 Elsevier Science I.!d
Pergamon All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
0147-1767/97 $17.00+0.00
PII: SO147-1767(97)00005-9
ARAB CULTURAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS
ELLEN FEGHALI
Beirut, Lebanon
ABSTRACT. In response to Shuter’s (Shuter, 1990) call.for the examination of

communicative phenomena in particular societies worldwide, this article critically
reviews the existing and, in some cases, contradictory research on cultural com-
munication patterns in the Arab world. The articleJirst clarifies the term “Arab”
and provides boundaries for discussing communicative phenomena in the region. It
then reviews recent investigations of Arab cultural communication patterns from an
interdisciplinary perspective. More specifically, it focuses on several themes evident
and available in the literature: (a) basic cultural values, (b) language and verbal
communication, and (c) nonverbal andparalinguisticpatterns. Following each theme
are directionsforfuture research. Finally, the article proposes strategies to overcome
barriers to research in the Arab region and concludes with an extensive bibliography
qfresources. It is a hope that this article will stimulate scholarly interest in the Arab
world and serve as a catalyst for the inclusion of Arab communication patterns in the
teaching of intercultural communication, as well as in future research and theory.
development. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
KEY WORDS. Arab, values, language, nonverbal communication, paralinguistics
Although intercultural scholars have clearly concentrated research efforts

on a limited number of world regions, the opportunity exists more than
ever to seek a comprehensive and valid conception of intercultural com-
munication. As Shuter (1990) suggests, global conditions require us to
refocus on intracultural communication patterns. Such an alteration of
research agendas will: (a) provide a conceptual framework for analysing
interaction within a society and world region; (b) demonstrate the inex-
tricable linkage between communication patterns and sociocultural forces;
The author would like to express thanks to Antoine Feghali, Judith Martin, and Charles
Braithwaite for their valuable comments.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Ellen Kussman Feghali: Director of Research &
Development, TimezerO s.a.r.l., Abou Jaoude Street, near La Tour Building. Baouchrieh,
Beirut, Lebanon or e-mail: timezero@sodetel.net.lb
345
346 E. Feghali
and (c) provide a conceptual basis for making intercultural comparisons

between dissimilar societies (p. 243).
The intent of this article is to critically review the existing limited and,
in some cases, contradictory research on cultural communication patterns
in the Arab world. Published investigations of communicative phenomena
in this region have been largely absent in the field of intercultural com-
munication (cf. Adelman & Lustig, 1981; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1989;
Shuter, 1990). For instance, Speech Communication Association @CA)
publications throughout the 1980s printed only five articles related to
communication in the Middle East (Shuter, 1990). None of the articles
addressed Arab cultural patterns but rather focused on non-Arab groups
in Israel (Frank, 1981; Griefat & Katriel, 1989; Hopper & Doany, 1989;
Katriel, 1987) and in Iran (Heisey & Trebing, 1983).
While descriptions of Arab communicative patterns do not adequately
capture the dynamic nature of human interaction, the meta-analysis and
general evaluation which follows should serve as a catalyst for more
extensive, inclusive, and valid intercultural research. More specifically, this
article will:
1. Clarify the term “Arab” and the boundaries for discussing com-
municative phenomena in the region;
2. Review recent descriptive and empirical investigations of Arab cultural
communication patterns from an interdisciplinary perspective; and
3. Conclude with strategies to overcome barriers to research in the Arab
region. An extensive bibliography of resources is also provided for
interested scholars.
CLARIFICATION OF THE TERM “ARAB”

Why is it important to clarify the term “Arab”? Recognition of simi-
larities and diversities among people in the region is necessary in order to
design and conduct valid and reliable research, as well as accurate cross-
cultural training programs. While defining culture according to geo-
graphical boundaries or group memberships is problematic (Collier, 1989;
Collier & Thomas, 1988) these two characteristics require clarification
prior to designing investigations which rely on national identity or regional
groupings as an independent variable.
First, what is “Arab”? The term Arab has erroneously been used inter-
changeably with the “Middle East” and the “Muslim world”. For example,
on the January 18, 1993, NBC Nightly News, anchor Tom Brokaw
reported a U.S. bombing attack on Iraq. Going live to correspondent Tom
Aspell in Baghdad, Brokaw asked about the reaction of “the Muslim
world” to the bombing. Aspell replied, “The reaction in the Arab world
Arab Cultural Communicrrtion Patterrrs 347
is.. ” Such subtle incidents contribute to a lack of differentiation between

and broad stereotyping of groups in this world region.
Though Patai’s (Patai, 1983) writings of “the Arab mind” are problem-
atic,’ his description is useful in providing communication scholars with
accurate and consistent boundaries of the Arab world:
to the north and east, the Arab world borders on the non-Arab Muslim
Middle Eastern countries of Turkey. Iran, Afghanistan. and Pakistan; while to
the south, in Africa, the Arab world gradually gives way to the non-Arab
Muslim Middle Eastern areas of the Saharan and Sudanic countries (p. 1I ).
In other words, the Arab world is included in the Middle East, which is
further encompassed by the worldwide Islamic community. While Arab
countries are considered Middle Eastern. not all Middle Eastern countries
are Arab. And while approximately 85-90% of the Arab population is
Muslim, only around 20% of the world’s Muslims are Arabs (Kimball.
1984). For a perspective on diversity within the Arab Muslim community,
see AI-Shahi (1987).
Another means of identifying “Arab” countries, albeit problematic. is
the League of Arab States, formed in March 1945 to promote cooperation
among countries of Arab culture and language. Membership presently
includes 22 sovereign states (see Table 1). The organization may link states
politically and economically. However, to say that the countries belonging
to the Arab League are similar in terms of predominant cultural attitudes.
behaviors. and discourse would be highly misleading. Nationals of African
countries such as Mauritania, Somalia, and the Sudan often do not speak
Arabic but tribal languages, and traditional practices may be more related
to an African heritage.
In another example, members of the Christian Maronite community in
Lebanon are strikingly different from Saudi Arabian Muslims in attitudes.
behaviors, and general lifestyle. Both the geography of Lebanon and its
location as a “gateway” to the Middle East have contributed to its plural
and cosmopolitan nature. Friedman (1990) writes that the Maronites
survived “by entrenching themselves in the rugged terrain of Mount
Lebanon, and by regularly seeking help from, and forging alliances with.
Christians in the West-from the Crusaders to modern France” (p. 1 I).
As a result, the community is one in “constant vacillation between Eastern
and Western national and cultural loyalties-between Arab Eastern Chris-
‘Although I use Patai’s (Patai. 1983) framework for understanding the boundaries of the
Arab region, much of his work has served to dichotomize the West and the Arab world. A.\
Said (1978) states, Patai’s writing-particularly in The Arab mid -aims at “a very particular
sort of compression and reduction. he describes the Middle East as a ‘cultural area’ but
the result is to eradicate the plurality of differences among the Arabs in the interest of one
difference. that one setting Arabs off from everyone else” (p. 309).
348 E. Feghali
TABLE 1
Members of the League of Arab Statesa
Area Country
North Africa Algeria

Djibouti
Egypt
Libya
Mauritania
Morocco
Somalia
Sudan
Tunisia
The Fertile Crescent Iraq

Jordan
Lebanon
Palestine
Syria
The Arabian Peninsula Bahrain

Kuwait
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
Mozambique Channel Comoros Islands
“The data in this table is from The Middle East & North Africa (1995, p. 232). London:
Europa Publications Limited.
tian and Western French Catholic” (Ayoub, 1994, p. 244). Saudi Arabians,
on the other hand, maintain a comparatively closed society by requiring
conformity to rigid gender roles and Islamic sharia law and by strictly
regulating interaction with the multitude of foreigner workers living sep-
arately on compounds. According to Mackey (1987), “Saudi Arabia never
was nor is likely ever to be a melting pot. Its society, built on family and
tribe, is incapable of assimilating outsiders even on a casual basis” (p. 37).
While national boundaries and membership in the League of Arab
States have been discussed, the second question arises, Who is “Arab”?
Arab has been predominantly viewed as an a priori classification and
group membership. Westerners frequently group Iranians with Arabs as
Arab Cultural Communication Patterns 349
well, in spite of the fact that members of the two groups view themselves
quite distinct from one another in terms of language, customs, and ident-
ity.2 Faris and Husayn (1955) suggest that unifying features of Arabs
include: “a common language, a common history and mentality, an all-
but-common religion, and common economic interests” (p. 21). Almaney
and Alwan (1982), on the other hand, explain that “the term ‘Arab’
becomes strange and baffling when you dig into just what it means” (p.
30).
It is easier to specify what an Arab is not rather than what s/he is. Arab
is not a race, religion, or nationality (Almaney & Alwan, 1982, pp. 3&
31). Throughout the region, people vary in terms of such physical charac-
teristics as hair, eye and skin color. Although Arab countries are pre-
dominantly Muslim, Lebanon and Egypt have substantial Christian
populations, though figures are inconsistent. Estimates of Lebanon’s pre-
sent Christian population range from 30 to 38% (Cobban, 1985, p. 16;
Fisk, 1990, p. 67; Khalaf, 1993, p. 117) down from 51% cited in the one
and only official census taken in 1932. Egypt’s Christian community is
estimated at 7720% (Mansfield, 1985, p. 410; Rugh, 1986, p. 157) includ-
ing two to five million Copts (The Middle East & North Africa, 1995;
Polk, 1991, p. 22). The diversity of religious groups in these countries has
both promoted understanding of alternative perspectives and agitated
competition for influence and resources.
‘Problematic descriptions of Arabs in basic intercultural texts have transmitted both incorrect
information and potentially dangerous generalizations. In one introductory intercultural
text, for example, the authors illustrate negative connotations of the Persian word for
“compromise”. Within the example, however, the authors explain how Arabs view mediators,
then describe Kurt Waldheim’s failed 1980 negotiation visit to Iran (Samovar & Porter,
199Ia, p.240). It is likely, or indeed probable, that undergraduate students in the U.S. are
unable to distinguish Iranians as predominantly Shi’a Muslims, Farsi (or Persian) speakers
with a culture distinct in many ways from those who consider themselves Arab. While
features of Iranian negotiation style may be similar to those of Arabs, more accurate examples
or wording will permit readers to discern differences between Arab and non-Arab Middle
Eastern groups.
Second, some researchers who have investigated communicative phenomena in one Arab
country have titled their pieces “Arab” or “Middle Eastern”. Anderson (1989190) for
instance, analyzed Saudi Arabian and American advocacy advertisements published during
the 1973 oil embargo. The title of her article, “A comparison of Arab and American
conceptions of ‘effective’ persuasion”, may give the impression that rules for political debate
in Saudi Arabia may be applied to people of the entire region. Despite the fact that Saudis
projected the image of Arabs as a unified group in their advocacy advertisement. it is
important to note that people from other Arab countries view themselves as quite different
from Saudis, proud of their own national heritages, and may object to being grouped by
Saudis as “one” people. The point here is not to encourage extreme relativism but to consider
the generality of our words, Only after we have investigated communicative phenomena
throughout the region can we speculate about what is Arab in a broader, generalizable sense.
At that time. we will be able to make more valid statements and cross-cultural comparisons.
350 E. Feghali
Finally, while some Arab nationalists may desire one nation, a single
Arab state or nationality does not exist. Faour (1993) provides a com-
prehensive historical analysis of ideological movements in the region.
From its beginnings in the late nineteenth century, pan-Arabism (al-gaw-
miyya al-‘Arabiyyu) came to dominate Middle East politics in the 1950s
and 60s. However, its failure to offer feasible solutions to economic and
political problems, as well as its failure to take into account genuine
differences among the Arab countries, resulted in its decline. The 1978
Camp David Accords’ near-fatal wounding of the pan-Arabism movement
gave rise to contemporary competing ideologies: territorial nationalism
(wutuniyyu) and Islamism. While ruling elites of Arab nations endorse
territorial nationalism and state sovereignty, Shi’a and Sunni Islamists
advocate contrasting strategies and goals in support of the establishment
of theocracies in Muslim-majority countries. “Which side will emerge
victorious will depend largely on three factors: the fate of the Middle East
peace talks, the state of each country’s economy, and the prospects for
democratization within each nation” (Faour, 1993, p. 75). At the micro-
level, these movements have stimulated communicative differences along
intrareligious and interreligious lines: in language, dress, appearance, use
of identity symbols (Rugh, 1986), and segregation of common living spaces
(Khalaf, 1993) of groups around the region.
Perhaps the most accurate definition for “Arab” accepted for this review
is a native perspective offered by Jabra (1971): “. . . anyone who speaks
Arabic as his [or her] own language and consequently feels as an Arab”
(p. 174). This definition takes into consideration people outside the region
who identify with and take pride in the Arabic language, customs, and
historical accomplishments. In addition, it accounts for native Arabic
speakers within the region who do not identify themselves as Arab. Sch-
olars interested in investigating a group in terms of its shared beliefs,
values, and practices should likewise depend on participants’ attitudes and
interaction patterns which sustain their unique communal identity.
RECENT INVESTIGATIONS OF ARAB CULTURAL

COMMUNICATION PATTERNS
A search was conducted to locate publications within the last 20 years,

which addressed aspects of Arab cultural communication patterns. The
review included introductory intercultural communication texts (Condon
& Yousef, 1975; Dodd, 1991; Gudykunst & Kim, 1984,1992; Samovar &
Porter, 1988, 1991a, 1991b; Stewart, 1972); communication annuals and
yearbooks; and 25 journals devoted to communication and related fields3

Because less than 30 articles were found, the following analysis is sup-
plemented by research in anthropology, international relations, socio-
linguistics, sociology, psychology, and Middle Eastern/Near Eastern
studies.4 A great deal has been written by Westerners and relies heavily on
the work of anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1959, 1966); however, an
attempt has been made to incorporate, as much as possible and where
applicable, the works of scholars from the region.
Although research is readily available regarding politics, economics.
religion, and general social life in Arab societies, the review revealed no
extensive line of research on specific Arab cultural communication
patterns. By this, I mean that scholars have explored primarily the basic
phenomena identified in introductory communication texts. These
phenomena have been organized into three main themes: (a) basic cultural
values, (b) language and verbal communication, and (c) nonverbal and
paralinguistic patterns. Discussion of these themes highlights both simi-
larities and differences in cultural communication patterns of groups
across the region. Throughout the search, it also became apparent that
some empirical research contradicts commonly accepted-and frequently
cited-descriptions of Arab cultural communication patterns. These con-
tradictions are examined, along with directions for future research.S
Basic Cultural Values
Scholars have addressed an array of values considered prevalent in Arab

societies: endurance and rectitude (Khalid, 1977, pp. 127-128); loyalty
‘Journals reviewed for this article include: Communication, Communication Education, Com-
munication Monographs, Communication Research, Communication Quarterly,, Com-
munication Studies/Central Speech Journal, Communication Yearbook, Critical Studies in
Mass Communication, Howard Journal of Communication, Human Communication Research,
International & Intercultural Communication Annuals. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations. Journal of Applied Communication, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
Journal of Communication, Journal of Communication Inquir.y, Language and Communication,
Language in Society, Mass Communication Review, Media, Culture & Societ_v, Political
Conununication & Persuasion, Quarterly Journal of Speech, Southern Speech Journal, Text &
Performance Quarterly/Literature in Performance, and Western Journal of Communication.
Articles from Gazette and Journalism Quarterly were also used where appropriate.
“Scholars interested in additional resources should consult the following publications:
Anthropological Quarterly, Ethnic Groups, Ethnic and Racial Studies, International Journal of
Comparative Sociology, International Journal of Group Tensions, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, International Journal
of Women’s Studies, International Journal of World Peace, International Sociology, Journal
of Asian and African Studies, Journal of Comparative Cultures, Linguistic Anthropology,
Middle East Journal, and Middle East Studies.
‘While not discussed separately, readers should keep in mind the very strong influence of
Islam in the daily lives of both Arab Muslims and non-Muslims (See Lippman, 1990; Martin,
1982; Mostyn & Hourani. 1988, pp. 16G195; Rugh, 1986).
352 E. Feghali
and dignity (Nydell, 1987); generosity, courage, and self-respect (Patai,

1983, pp. 8496); and pride, rivalry and revenge (Almaney & Alwan,
1982, pp. 91-96; Boutros-Ghali, 1982). The basic values most commonly
mentioned include (a) collectivism, (b) hospitality, and (c) honor. The
influence of Bedouin values remains strong, despite the fact that around
90% of the population in the region presently resides in villages or cities
(Patai, 1983, pp. 7-3).
Collectivism. In contrast to U.S. Americans’ self-reliant and “individual-

centered” approach to life, social life in the Arab region is characterized
by “situation-centeredness”, in which loyalty to one’s extended family
and larger “in-group” takes precedence over individual needs and goals
(Nydell, 1987; Yousef, 1974).6 Khalid (1977) calls communal cohesion
“undoubtedly the most desired value” within Arabs’ value system (p. 127).
The strong emphasis on mutual interdependence influences social inter-
action patterns throughout the life span. Sharabi (1977) for instance,
examines child-rearing practices in urban Muslim, middle-class families.
“All mediating institutions [educational and religious]. . . reinforce the
values (and attitudes) into which the family socializes its members” (p.
245). The principal technique for child-rearing is shaming. “He is made to
feel ashamed because others see him as having acted wrongly, not because
he inwardly regrets having done wrong and judges himself accordingly”
(p. 248). Feelings of shame in Arab societies contrast with feelings of
guilt-or the internalized prohibitions against forbidden behavior-which
are more prevalent in Western societies. Because of the emphasis on
extended family relations, Arab children grow up “more intimate with and
sensitive to their elders than to their peers, while [mainstream] American
children are essentially oriented toward horizontal relationships with
others rather than vertical ones” (Yousef, 1974, p. 386). Farsoun and
Farsoun (1974) indicate that the collective family unit in Lebanon is the
critical institution which guarantees economic well-being and influences
patterns of association among kinsmen. Nydell (1987) more recently
emphasizes the importance of family background and social class in deter-
mining personal status in Arab societies (as opposed to individual charac-
ter or achievement). The strong sense of indebtedness to family in Arab
societies is generally maintained.
The concept of collectivism reaches beyond biogenetic relationships,
however. As Eichelman (1981) notes, “kinship and family relationships,
and cultural ideas concerning them, must be studied in the context of
complementary, locally-held notions such as patronage, neighborliness,
6Rugh (1984) characterizes Egyptians’ group relations as “corporateness” and juxtaposes it

with an American “collective” view in which individual rights supersede those of the group.
Arab Cultural Communication Patterm 353
and friendship” (p. 105). Behavior toward others as “kin” and “family”
is not totally accounted for by biogenetic terms. Anthropologists have
imported their own notions of “natural” ties in the past, which resulted in
overstressed genealogical kinship ideologies and emphasis on groupings
such as the “clan” or “tribe”. The limitation of kinship to blood relatives
or village neglects extensive relations of loyalty and obligation, as well as
active co-creation of Arabs in larger political and cultural organizations
(Said, 1978, p. 312).
In societies where interdependence rather than individual autonomy is
stressed, behaviors which enhance social relations are crucial. Nomadic
hospitality or diyafa dates to pre-Islamic times and emerged as a coping
mechanism in the desert environment, where individuals were utterly
dependent on the assistance of others during travel or for protection from
avengers or oppressors.
Hospitality. Almaney and Alwan (1982) indicate that “to a foreigner, the
Arabs’ outstanding trait may well be hospitality” (p. 91). Impressed on
children very early, hospitality reflects a desired personal quality and
symbolizes status. Hospitality predates the zakat, the Muslim duty of
giving 2:% of one’s wealth to the poor, and serves to counterbalance
disparity between rich and poor. Certain occasions require elaborate dis-
plays of hospitality. During “marriage, burial, circumcision, and the com-
pletion of house-building; during the holy month of Ramadan, village-
wide visiting and sharing of meals.. is common” (Patai, 1983, p. 86).
Hospitality in the guest-host relationship is guided by unmentioned and
subtle cultural rules which depend on territoriality, and the financial and
social statuses of the individuals involved. Yousef (1974) indicates that
social situations in America commonly require a verbal or written invi-
tation, while in Arab societies, the situation is vague, complex, and defined
by context. Scholars suggest, in general, that hospitality requires immedi-
ate and extensive welcomes or assistance (Almaney & Alwan, 1982; Nydell,
1987). Arabs expect hospitality from others, and one’s personal status and
reputation may be affected by the absence of such behavior.
Such an approach though fails to consider the nuances involved in
patterns of hospitality and visiting. Eichelman (198 1) indicates that “these
patterns vary considerably according to whether members of the family
are urban or rural, wealthy or poor, concentrated in one particular locality,
or widely dispersed” (p. 121). In her study of the etiquette of visiting in
the Tunisian village of Sidi Amur, Abu-Zahra (1974) found that paying
an uncalled-for visit puts the host in a vulnerable position. Prestige.
however, is manifest in one’s making few visits to others, while receiving
many. The host must have the wealth and ability to provide favors to
guests. In accordance with the set of highly elaborate rules which guide
visiting in Sidi Amur, “people should be either formally invited or should
354 E. Feghali
be paying back a visit, otherwise their uncalled-for visits are much

despised” (p. 127).
More recently, participant observation in several countries in the region
reveals that hospitality is offered and accepted selectively within a system
of checks and balances. If, for instance, a couple does not receive visits
from some extended family members or friends after their marriage or the
birth of a child, they respond with similar action/refusal to accept invi-
tations to the homes of those they felt slighted them. However, if they
meet in a third, neutral context and/or indirect apologies or valid jus-
tifications are given for the offense, normal relations can resume. Campo
(1991) explains more precisely that “greetings, visitations, and gift-giving
relations between the households usually cease until the violation has been
redressed” (p. 13 1).
Honor. According to Dodd (1973) honor or ‘ird is a “controlling value,

legitimating the family structure and the ‘modesty code’ required of both
men and women” (p. 40).7 Honor is manifested in sexual conduct and
behaviors which exhibit or regulate manliness, such as the number of sons
a man fathers and the extent of hospitality one bestows (Khalid, 1977;
Mackey, 1987). As Mackey (1987) further describes, “One’s honor deter-
mines one’s image. The key to saving face is the assiduous avoidance of
shame” (p. 125).
‘Ird appears to be a secular rather than a religious value, although
diverse religious teachings have indirectly supported it (Dodd, 1973). As
primary possessors of ‘ird, men-such as fathers, brothers, father’s
brothers, and paternal cousins-strictly enforce norms related to honor
by ensuring that the women of their family conduct themselves properly
‘A great deal of research has examined male-female relations in Arab societies, and a
discussion of it is beyond the scope of this article. In general, maleefemale relations in Arab
societies are discussed in negative tones and through biased comparisons, As Joseph (1983)
suggests, “perhaps in no [other] area of the world have western Gender biases more emphati-
cally polarized male and female images” (p. 2). An example from an introductory intercultural
text illustrates this point: “in Saudi Arabia, because of strict and specific Islamic laws, women
are raised in a style that is bound to influence how people in that culture view them-and in
my respects women are outside that culture. One grows up in Saudi Arabia knowing that
women have few legal rights and in most instances are not allowed to drive a car or even
obtain a passport without the written consent of a male family member. Arranged marriages
are still the rule. As you can see, women’s liberation (as least as North Americans perceive
it) has not yet arrived in Saudi Arabia” (Samovar & Porter, 1991a, p. 81).
Other scholars, however, have discussed women as powerful and dangerous beings (Mer-
nissi, 1987); the perception of the veil as a symbol of women’s status (MacLeod, 1991;
Patterson, 1987; Rugh, 1986; among others); the practice of female circumcision wrongly
associated with Islam (Ezzat, 1994; Gruenbaum, 1988); and Arab women’s lives from
women’s perspectives (Abu-Lughod, 1987; Atiyeh, 1982; Fernea, 1985; Jowkar, 1986;
Mernissi, 1987; Rassam, 1982; Shaarawi, 1987).
and, thus, maintain a chaste reputation. Even if a woman has not encour-
aged an advance that is observed or becomes known, her family may be
dishonored.
The ‘ird of a family can be raised or lowered, depending on the demeanor of

its women (and the conduct of men towards its women). the network of
norms surrounding ‘ird extends to many actions that are only remotely con-
nected with sex: loud speech, bearing, appearing in public places (p. 45).
Violations are a matter of reputation more than fact. In other words, the
penalty for loss of ‘irdis related to public acknowledgment of the violation;
further, light to severe penalties, including death, must be enacted pro-
mptly to protect the ‘ird of the family.
Dodd (1973) posits that urbanization, political revolution, and edu-
cation have not significantly changed the importance of ‘ird and its related
norms. To the present day, reports of “honor crimes” are periodically
published in contemporary media in the region. A June 1994 newspaper
article in the Jordan Times, for instance, reported that a 16-year-old girl
stabbed by her older brother was “the 12th woman to be reported killed
in a ‘crime of honour’ in Jordan this year” (Husseini, 1994). Aamiry
(1994) in a recent study of domestic abuse in Jordan, verifies that legal
systems uphold this practice by failing to negatively sanction men who
have killed female relatives in the name of family honor. It is reasonable
to maintain, at the present time, that dishonorable behavior is considered
disruptive and threatening to the social standing of families and communi-
ties. The concept of honor, in a metaphorical sense, may also be extended
to the national level (Dodd, 1973; Mackey, 1987). While Westerners
recognize the importance of honor and dignity, the concepts do not carry
the same connotation and passion as for members of Arab societies.
In sum, the collective nature of Arab peoples and their emphasis on
hospitality and honor function to ensure cohesion and group survival.
Maintenance of basic values depends on the conformity of group members
to preferred modes of behavior.
Research Directions. Based on the previous discussion, a number of key

problems are evident. First, limited studies have empirically addressed
basic Arab values. In Hofstede’s (Hofstede, 1984) examination of cross-
cultural work-related values in 67 countries, the data of respondents from
five Arab countries was eliminated from analysis, due to insufficient sample
size. Yet, Arab countries are frequently cited as “collective”, based on
descriptions which may not realistically reflect dynamic societal change in
certain areas of the region.
Second, the use of a priori frameworks relies primarily on dichotomies
to distinguish between-group differences [Rokeach (1972), terminal and
instrumental values; Hofstede (1984) cross-cultural value dimensions;
356 E. Feghali
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1960) value orientations]. For instance,

Wolfe and Mourribi (1985) utilized Rokeach’s (Rokeach, 1979) Value
Survey to compare the values of Christian and Muslim men and women
in Lebanon. In spite of the perception that major value differences were a
source of conflict during the Lebanese Civil War (1975-91) the authors
found that both religious groups highly ranked the same instrumental and
terminal values. They concluded that Lebanese Christians and Muslims
have more in common than has been popularly believed. Because this and
other studies fail to consider within-group variations, their results may
not represent valid assessments of cultural values. In other words, such
investigations require that members of a priori national or religious groups
respond to a priori value statements. As Collier and Thomas (1988) argue,
It may not be appropriate to predict from or to [Arab, Christian, Muslim, etc.]

since [these identities] may be defined differently by different individuals, may
be intensely claimed in contexts with individuals who are defined as minorities,
and may be weakly claimed in [other] contexts (p. 116).
Finally, the discussion above illuminates the role of context, which has
not been adequately considered in studies of cultural values. Mishler (1979)
reviews the paradox of knowing human action and experience are context
dependent while designing research which strips or controls contextual
features. The importance of context becomes apparent when we seek more
detailed information about the values described earlier. What types of
individualistic, rather than collective, behaviors are valued and condoned
in Arab societies? In what situations is inhospitable behavior used to
regulate interaction? What functions does it serve? What are dishonorable
behaviors, and when are they more functional than honorable behavior?
Given these problematic areas, we must consider how individuals and
groups evaluate departures from normative behavior, as well as the inter-
connectedness of changing values with the sociopolitical and economic
realities in Arab countries. Future research should adopt descriptive-
theoretical frameworks [Hymes’ (Hymes, 1972) ethnography of com-
munication; Sigman’s (Sigman, 1987) approach to social communication]
which first permit investigation of communicative phenomena natu-
ralistically and, second, provide the necessary foundation for later com-
parison of phenomena among dissimilar groups.
Language and Verbal Communication
Kim (1988) describes language as “a ‘veil’ over the reality of the culture
in which it is used, involving an agreement of its users about what there is
to be seen and how it should be seen” (p. 89). Studies related to the Arabic
language have focused primarily on: (a) the multiple forms of Arabic, (b)
codeswitching, and (c) communicative style.
Forms of Arabic. As one of the six official languages of the United

Nations, Arabic is spoken by approximately 200 million people today,
excluding non-Arab Muslims (Kimball, 1984, pp. 3,26). While the classical
Arabic of the &ran, Islam’s Holy Book, is considered the highest and
unequaled language (Almaney & Alwan, 1982) other forms of Arabic also
exist. Modern Standard Arabic or Fusha is the language of governments,
media, and public and religious speakers. Colloquial Arabic dialects have
developed within countries and are the languages of everyday interaction.
Because of the variability of local dialects, it is inaccurate to assume that
Tunisians and Iraqis, for example, readily understand one another in
intercultural interaction. Egyptian Arabic, however, is more readily under-
stood in the region than the multitude of other local dialects, mainly due
to its far-reaching and popular film industry.
Finally, recent research in sociolinguistics indicates that local prestigious
dialects compete with the modern standard form (Abd-el-Jawad, 1987).
For example, Shi’as in Bahrain switch from their local vernacular to the
Sunni dialect in a range of natural situations. Given the relative power of
the Sunnis who control local politics and economics, the Sunni dialect
represents a kind of local standard or prestigious form of Bahraini Arabic
(Holes, 1983). Abu-Haidar (1989) has also found that women, more than
men, use a prestige variety of Baghdadi Arabic which is similar to the
modern standard form. Her finding contradicts previous studies conducted
in the mid- 1960s.
Codeswitching. Not only do Arabic speakers codeswitch between the

different forms of Arabic, many also codeswitch between Arabic, French
and/or English, languages borrowed during colonial occupation. Bentahila
(1983) indicates that codeswitching by Arabic-French bilinguals in Mor-
occo contributes to facility of expression and effective communication. As
a rhetorical device, codeswitching allows bilinguals to select contextually
appropriate speech which carries certain connotations, emphasizes certain
points. and regulates the flow of discourse. Heath (1989) also provides a
comprehensive examination of codeswitching and language borrowing in
Morocco.
Communicative Style. Whether communicating in Arabic or other lan-

guages, research indicates that native Arabic speakers share common
features of communicative style which may conflict with styles of other
language speakers. Reported features include: (a) repetition, (b) indirect-
ness, (c) elaborateness, and (d) effectiveness (Adelman & Lustig, 1981;
Cohen, 1987, 1990a, 1990b; Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988, pp. lOO-
115; Suleiman, 1973).
Repetition. Johnstone Koch (1983) suggests that repetition, a major feature

358 E. Feghali
of Arabic discourse, occurs at the phonological, morphological and lexical,

syntactic, and semantic levels. In the public space of a Middle Eastern
souq or marketplace,
transactions are marked by language in which reiterations of pious formulas

and the swearing of religious oaths on the @ran and the Prophet are an integral
part. The fact that they are conventional, are formulas, are constantly and
automatically produced is testimony to their absorption into life and not to a
superficiality or insignificance (Gilsenan, 1983, p. 177).
Such pious formulas include inshallah (if God wills it), el hamdulillah,
hamdillah, kattirkhairallah and ishkorallah (Thanks be to God), and sm ‘al-
lah (In the name of God). In terms of complimenting behaviors, members
of Arab societies tend to use considerably more proverbs and preceded
ritualistic phrases to praise others (Wolfson, 1981). While language
reformers have indicated that the Arabic language should accommodate
for greater precision and simplicity, Berque (1978) indicates that repetition
is at the very heart of the language and discourse, a feature not easily
changed.
Indirectness. The second characteristic of Arabic communicative style

refers to a speaker’s concealment of desired wants, needs, or goals during
discourse (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). This characteristic is often
associated with Hall’s (Hall, 1966) high vs. low context communication.
Arab societies have been labeled high context, with little information coded
explicitly in a message but present in the physical context or internalized in
the interactants. Hall and Whyte (1960) describe courtesy and face-saving
as more important for members of high context cultures than what West-
erners consider truthfulness. In other words, interactants may respond in
agreeable or pleasant ways, when direct or factual answers might prove
embarrassing or distressing. Western societies, on the other hand, have
been characterized as low context, in which interactants clearly express
their ideas or thoughts, even if the content may be harsh, uncomfortable,
and unnecessarily straightforward.
In spite of the problematic nature of dichotomizing cultural patterns,
scholars continue to utilize Hall’s high vs. low context dimension to com-
pare Arab and non-Arab societies. Cohen (1987), for example, explains
that the indirect, smoothing style of Egyptians and the direct, “let’s get
down to business” style of Americans have resulted in turbulent diplomatic
relations over the past three decades. In relation to Egyptian and Israeli
relations as well, Cohen (1990a) describes that:
The tactic of shouting and table-banging, which is an integral part of political
life in Israel, and sometimes makes its appearance in Israel’s diplomatic
behavior, was worse than ineffective against the Egyptians. Diplomats with
experience in the Arab world are in no doubt that a loss of temper or display
of annoyance is a serious mistake when dealing with the Arabs. Avoidance of

confrontation is a precondition of successful business of any kind. Once an
Arab is angered and his pride aroused, he becomes immovable (p. 59).
Labeled genres of speech illustrate this tendency toward indirectness--

directness: Arab musuyara (literally to accommodate and go along with)
and dugri speech of Israeli Sabra culture (Griefat & Katriel, 1989; Katriel.
1986; Sharabi, 1977).
A major function of musayara is to constrain individual behavior in such a way

as to protect the social realm from the potential disruption that may result
from individual expression.. . a paradigmatic Sabra will speak his or her mind
under any circumstances [dugri]. firm in the belief that expressing oneself openly
will ultimately prove to be the most effective strategy, whatever the cir-
cumstances (Katriel, 1986, p. 112).
While the bulk of research supports the indirectness of Arabic speech,

one study’s findings are not consistent with this literature. In an exam-
ination of Egyptian and American complimenting behavior, both quan-
titative and qualitative data indicate that Egyptians compliment directly,
as Americans tend to do (Nelson, El-Bakary, & Al-Batal, 1993). The
authors suggest that “in a compliment situation, the behavior of praising
another can contribute to interpersonal or group solidarity and this is why
it can be direct. . . It is probable that Egyptians use both direct and indirect
communication depending on the context” (p. 311, italics added). From
personal experience, I have also found that both positive and negative
comments about personal appearance, such as hair style, clothing, and
jewelry, are often direct. Tendency toward indirectness in various cultural
settings is relative to such issues as social practices, notions of responsibility
or commitment, conceptions of truth and personhood, and attitudes
toward interpersonal life (Katriel, 1986, p. 113).
Elaborateness. The third characteristic of Arabic communicative style,

elaborateness, refers to rich and expressive language use. “Where a North
American can adequately express an idea in ten words, the Arabic speaker
will typically use one hundred words” (Samovar & Porter, 199 la, p. 157).
While it is unclear how accurate a word count is to our understanding of
Arab speech patterns, it might be more effective to simply state that
native Arabic speakers may use substantially more words to communicate
verbally than do speakers of some other languages.
Two rhetorical patterns contribute to the perception of elaborate Arab
communicative style: exaggeration (mubulughu) and assertion (tuwkiq
(Patai, 1983; Shouby, 1951). These patterns serve a crucial function of
regulating credibility during interaction:
When Arabs are communicating to each other, they are forced to exaggerate
360 E. Feghali
and over-assert in order not to be misunderstood. Yet non-Arabs [unaware of

the speaker’s linguistic tradition and style] are likely to misunderstand his intent
and thus attribute a great deal of importance to the over-stressed argument.
Secondly, when non-Arabs speak, simply and unelaborately, they are not
believed by the Arabs (Suleiman, 1973, p. 293).
During the 1950s a critical debate stirred over the exaggeration of

Arabic speech. Because only certain quotes and main points of the scholars
involved are frequently cited, the debate is not evident unless readers
examine the original research. Shouby (1951) described the Arabic lan-
guage as characterized by “general vagueness of thought”, “overemphasis
on linguistic signs”, and “overassertion and exaggeration”. To the present
time, this view continues to be cited consistently in descriptions of Arab
communicative style. Said (1978) suggests that Shouby’s view has gained
such wide authority not only because he is Arab but because “what he
hypostasizes is a sort of mute Arab who at the same time is a great word-
master playing games without much seriousness or purpose” (p. 320).
Prothro (1955) early on countered Shouby’s statements as assuming the
English (American) language as the “Golden Mean”.
It would be just as appropriate from Shouby’s data to say that American speech
is marked by understatement (if Arab speech is the norm) and that this speech
pattern causes Americans to conceal their thoughts and otherwise practice
duplicity in social intercourse (p. 706).
In order to test the claims of under and overstatement, Prothro (1955)

compared American and Lebanese ratings of certain statements on a
favorable-unfavorable scale. His findings-that American students were
more prone to understatement while Lebanese students were more given
to overassertion-have implications for the interpretation of written infor-
mation. Prothro indicates that statements which Arabs view as firm or
strong may sound exaggerated to Americans. What Americans perceive
as firm assertions may sound weak or doubtful to Arabs.
More recent research with Saudi Arabian and American managers ident-
ifies elaborateness of speech as an area of problematic intercultural com-
munication (Adelman & Lustig, 198 1). In survey responses, Saudi Arabian
managers indicated two main problems with Americans: lack of “knowl-
edge of language appropriate for formal and informal situations” and
“performance of social rituals”. American managers, on the other hand,
believed Saudis had problems “expressing ideas clearly and concisely”.
Both groups felt that Saudis encountered difficulties in “repeating, para-
phrasing or clarifying information”.
Affectiveness. The fourth characteristic of Arabic communicative style,

“intuitive-affective style of emotional appeal” (Glenn, Witmeyer, & Stev-
enson, 1977) relates to organizational patterns and the presentation of
ideas and arguments. According to Johnstone Koch (1983) Arabs use

predominantly “presentation” persuasion, in which people and not ideas
are responsible for influence. “Arabic argumentation is structured by the
notion that it is the presentation of an idea.. . that is persuasive, not the
logical structure of proof which Westerners see behind the words” (p. 55).
Repeated words, phrases and rhythms move others to belief, rather than
the “quasilogical” style of Western logic, where interlocutors use ideas to
persuade. In the latter, one’s status or use of language is not as relevant.
and decisions are not a matter of individual choice if a claim is true.
Johnstone (1989) suggests that presentation persuasion is most often
employed in cultural settings “in which religion is central settings in which
truth is brought to light rather than created out of human rationality” (p.
151).
In applied research, Adelman and Lustig ( 198 1) found that the affective
style, particularly in relation to organizing ideas, presents intercultural
communication difficulties between Saudi Arabian and American
managers. Americans perceived that their Saudi cohorts had difficulty
“displaying forethought and objectivity in decision-making”. Both groups
rated “identifying main ideas in messages” and “organizing ideas for easy
comprehension” as problematic for Saudi Arabian managers. In another
study, Anderson (1989/90) analyzed Saudi and American advocacy ads to
explain the 1973 Arab oil boycott. The ads resulted in misunderstanding
as a result of competing persuasive styles. As she writes, the Saudi ad
“circled around issues rather than proceeding in a linear fashion from one
topic to the next.. . Americans.. . were likely to view such an approach
as deliberately deceptive” (p. 92). In their ad, the Americans failed to
address the broader historical issues surrounding the immediate crisis,
which contributed to “Arab complaints that American portrayals are
arrogant, one-sided, and simplistic” (p. 92).
In sum, the speaking of different forms of Arabic, as well as code-
switching from Arabic to other languages (French or English), is context
dependent. In addition, the communicative style with which words are
uttered, per se, requires understanding in intercultural encounters in order
to avoid confrontations and negative stereotyping at any level.
Research Directions
Based on the previous discussion, opportunities for more extensive

research abound. A number of scholars have begun lines of research on
particular speech events such as storytelling and song among the Awlad’Ali
Bedouin women in northwestern Egypt (Abu-Lughod, 1993) cross-cul-
tural pragmatic failure in initial interaction between street hustlers and
American residents in Cairo (Stevens, 1994) and social confrontation
between Egyptians and Americans in Cairo (Kussman, 1994). Others have
362 E. Feghali
focused on more specific speech acts such as complimenting behavior

(Nelson, El-Bakary, & Al-Batal, 1993; Wolfson, 1981) refusal strategies
among native Arabic and English speakers (Stevens, 1993) and address
terms in Egyptian Arabic with focus on names and labels, family terms,
terms of respect, friendly and joking terms, and terms of abuse (Parkinson,
1985). Each of these areas may be further compared across Arab societies
or in intercultural interactions between participants of other cultural back-
grounds. New studies, on the other hand, may examine other speech
acts (greeting and leave-taking behaviors, sanctioning rule violations, and
negotiation patterns’), conflicting discourses,’ and crisis rhetoric in the
region.”
Second, given current research on the different forms of Arabic and
communicative style, additional research could investigate and propose
strategies for more effective language learning. Stevens (199 1), for instance,
asserts that pragmalinguistic failure often occurs on the part of non-Arabic
speakers in relation to the formulaic expressions of bukra (tomorrow),
inshalfah (If God wills it), mahlesh (never mind or I’m sorry!) and mumkin
(possible), which are frequently used in everyday discourse in the region.
Stevens (1993) also proposes strategies for Arab students of English to
avoid pragmalinguistic failure and cross-cultural miscommunication in
the second language.
Finally, scholars should note the potential for pitfalls in research meth-
odologies. During interviews, potential indirectness or socially desirable
answers may pose problems. Survey instruments, as well, require extensive
preparation, translation, and back-translation if ultimately analyzed by
non-Arabic speakers. As Kim (1988) indicates, pragmatic rules “pro-
‘While not discussed separately here, some research has examined and compared business
and political negotiation practices with Arabs. In particular, the following concepts are
discussed: “prenegotiation” as a must before decision-making (Scott, 1981; Weiss & Strip,
1985); selection of negotiators (Weiss & Strip, 1985); oral commitment vs. written contracts
(Almaney & Alwan, 1982; Samovar & Porter, 1991a); and communication patterns relevant
for successful business negotiations between the U.S. and Egypt (Cohen, 1987) and Israel
and Egypt (Cohen, 1990a, 1990b).
9A number of studies have examined discourse throughout the Arab-Israeli conflict, in
particular the relational, ideological, and situational dimensions of rhetorical transactions
between Arabs and Israelis (Heisey, 1970); projection of credibility in Anwar El-Sadat’s 1977
speech to the Israeli Knesset or Parliament (Ross, 1980); the shared rhetorical use of the
“refugee” symbol (Edelman, 1990); and common plotlines and characterizations of victims
and villains in Arab and Israeli stories (Collins & Clark, 1990). Others have examined the
evolution of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as an effective social movement
(Brock & Howell, 1988), the rhetorical functions of the Islamic pulpit or minbar in Egypt
and Iran (Fathi, 1979), and the role of discourse in the Persian Gulf crisis (Simmons, 1992).
“In examinations of presidential discourse and crisis rhetoric related to the Arab countries,
the speeches of former President Ronald Reagan regarding the suicide attack on American
Marines in Lebanon in October 1983 received a reasonable amount of attention (Birdsell,
1987; Dow, 1989; Klope, 1986; Proctor, 1987).
foundly involve cultural and sub-cultural connotations of verbal

expressions, particularly of slang, idiom, humor, and metaphors that are
highly contextual and so require an intimate knowledge of the relevant
experiences of users” (p. 89). Arab and non-Arab scholars experienced in
research design are encouraged to publish their experiences and serve as
mentors to fledgling researchers in the region.
Nonverbal and Paralinguistic Patterns
While it is not possible to provide an intricate description of Arab

nonverbal communication, an overview is necessary to emphasize the
importance of variance in behaviors. Table 2 briefly details the dimensions
TABLE 2
Arab Nonverbal Communication Patterns
Dimension of nonverbal General behaviors Communication research
General models Hall (1966)

Birdwhistell (1970)
Sparhawk (1981)
Gestures Direct body orientation Brewer (1970)

Safadi and Valentine (1990)
Eye contact Direct Watson and Graves (1966)

Extended Watson (1970)
Between same-sex
communicators
Lowered gaze submission or Safadi and Valentine (1990)
politeness
Touch “Contact” culture Hall (1966)

Restricted between males La Barre (1976)
and females
Nydell (1987)
Interpersonal distance Close Lomranz (1976)

Dependent upon sex and Mazur (1977)
relationship
Sanders et al. (1985)
Attitude toward time Polychronic Hall (1959)

Emphasis on relationships Patai (1970)
rather than schedules
Condon and Yousef (1975)
Reardon (1981)
Simultaneous involvements Safadi and Valentine (1990)
Connection to higher power
“inshallah”
364 E. Feghali
of (a) gestures, (b) touch, (c) interpersonal distance, (d) attitude toward
time, and (e) paralinguistics. Axtell (1985, pp. 71-77) and Lancaster (1988,
pp. 24-27) discuss appropriate nonverbal behavior in Arab societies in a
“how-to” format.
Gestures. Samovar and Porter (1991a) indicate that an Arab specialist

once cataloged at least 247 separate gestures Arabs used to accompany
speech (p. 193). The credibility of the statistic’s original source, however,
is questionable (Los Angeles Times, 1977). Safadi and Valentine (1990)
emphasize the existence of variations in gestural usage across Arab societ-
ies as “subtle physical differences that amount to great semantic vari-
ations” (p. 278), Again, generalizations serve to make a point, with
recommendations that the reader recognizes potential diversity across
Arab societies.
Safadi and Valentine (1990) have presented perhaps the most com-
prehensive classification schema of Arab gestures to date. They combine
previous models of nonverbal behavior developed by Hall (1966), Bird-
whistell(1970), and Sparhawk (198 l), along with personal observation in
the Middle East, in order to compare differences in Arab and American
meanings of gestures. Their study also seems to encompass previous work
by Brewer (1970), who delineated types of gestures used by Levantine
Arabs (from Beirut and Damascus). Readers should consult the original
article, which includes extensive descriptions of the gestures.
Eye Contact. While members of Arab communities selectively utilize

a predominantly indirect verbal style, they interact with a direct body
orientation. Direct eye contact between same-sex communicators for
extended periods, for example, allows interactants to ascertain the truth-
fulness of the other’s words, as well as to reciprocate interest (Watson,
1970; Watson & Graves, 1966). Lowering gaze, on the other hand, signals
“submission, expected of religious persons with strangers of the opposite
sex or politeness in children being chastised” (Safadi & Valentine, 1990,
p. 279).
Touch. Based on Hall’s (Hall, 1966) proxemic theory, Arab societies have
been commonly accepted as “contact” cultures, in which people tend to
stand close together and touch frequently. La Barre (1976) suggests that
touching in Arab societies “replaces” the bowing and handshaking rituals
of other societies. (Such a statement, of course, is relative to cultures in
which handshaking or bowing are the norm.) It is more accurate, however,
to stress tendencies toward same-sex touching. Dyads of men or dyads of
women frequently walk hand in hand or arm in arm down streets in Arab
countries.
Touching between members of the opposite sex occurs less often in
public and can be considered extremely offensive, especially in Saudi

Arabia and the Arabian Peninsula countries. As Nydell (1987) warns,
display of intimacy between men and women “is strictly forbidden by the
Arab social code, including holding hands or linking arms or any gesture
of affection such as kissing or prolonged touching” (p. 53). While these
behaviors are occurring among young people in certain contexts in less
traditional Arab countries, such as on university campuses in Lebanon,
they are nonetheless met with disapproval. Administrators at the American
University of Beirut, for instance, annually post a memo across campus
which details the restriction against and penalties for “amorous behavior”.
Interpersonal Distance. Watson and Graves (1966) and Watson (1970)

provide quantitative support for Hall’s contact vs. non-contact dimension.
Lomranz (1976), however, projects problems with Hall’s dichotomy.
Given his comparison of interaction distances of Iraqi, Argentinian. and
Russian students in Israel, he concludes that “the significant differences
found within the group of cultures usually designated as ‘contact cultures’
(i.e., Arabs and South Americans) indicate the importance of needed
differentiation and redefinition on a more accurate basis of that global,
generalized cultural concept” (pp. 25-26). The Iraqi respondents dem-
onstrated the least amount of interpersonal distance in any relationship,
friend or stranger.
Mazur (1977) targeted the Watson-Graves research for several limi-
tations in research design. Their American university setting was more
familiar for American students than international students. Experimenters
could not understand the conversations of Arab (and other foreign) inter-
actants. And differences in spacing could be explained by chance friend-
ships among the research participants. Mazur measured interpersonal
spacing of unacquainted males from the same race in situ, in the contact
cultures of Spain and Morocco and the noncontact culture of the United
States. His findings indicate no differences among the three societies.
“Under a given set of physical constraints. . the spacing pattern of
noninteracting strangers is similar across cultures” (p. 58). In a similarly-
designed study in three societies, Shuter’s (Shuter. lY77) findings failed to
support the contact vs. noncontact dimension.
A more recent study, which examined personal space among Egyptians
and Americans, varied degree of acquaintance and included both male
and female subjects (Sanders, Hakky, & Brizzolara, 1985). The authors
found that both cultural groups kept strangers farther away than friends
and that both sexes kept male strangers farther away than female strangers.
Egyptian females kept male friends almost as far away as male strangers.
The authors suggest that the personal space zones may reflect cultural
rules that govern and restrict interaction. In recognizing the possibility of
variation within Arab societies, they propose that “An even more extended
366 E. Feghali
pattern of personal space might be expected in those Arab countries which

are more conservative and traditional than Egypt” (pp. 15-16).
Relative to personal space, Arabs as compared with Westerners dem-
onstrate tolerance for crowding, pushing, and close proximity in public
places. Samovar and Porter (1991a) compare English and Arab per-
ceptions of space:
The English value personal space very highly. Arabs, on the other hand, view
space quite differently. In crowded shops, theaters, or train stations, the typical
Englishman “queues up” instinctively. An Arab, on the other hand, may crash
the line like an NFL inside linebacker attempting to sack a quarterback. The
British may perceive this Arabic response to lines and space as uncivil (p. 106).
While this description might encourage in Westerners images of bruteness

and disrespect, Nydell(1987) acknowledges that members of Arab societies
divide people into friends and strangers. As a result, “‘public manners’ are
applied and do not call for the same kind of considerateness” (p. 30).
Arabs do not distinguish between public and private self, which is common
in Western societies and representative of separation between mind and
body (Hall, 1966). Rather, privacy is gained through psychological rather
than physical separation from immediate surroundings.
The results of the previous studies strongly suggest that touch and
personal space are regulated by a wide variety of contextual variables. We
should be skeptical of stereotypical descriptions that suggest, for example,
Arabs are comfortable with an interpersonal distance of about two feet,
as compared to five feet for Americans (Almaney & Alwan, 1982, pp. 96
97). It is more effective to say that Americans in intercultural encounters
may feel disturbed by invasion of their personal space, because physical
nearness may carry sexual, aggressive, or belligerent connotations. Arabs,
on the other hand, may feel slighted or unattended to if Americans or
others back away from them.
Attitude Toward Time. Arab societies are characterized as polychronic

in their approach to time (Hall, 1959). Social interaction emphasizes
relational development and maintenance rather than adherence to sched-
ules, clocks or calendars. Lipson and Meleis (1983) and Witte (1991)
indicate that health care workers in the Arab region, in order to be effective
in their work, must take time to establish relationships and build rapport
with patients and families before proceeding with medical consultation.
Time provides merely a reference point, and simultaneous involvements
are common. For example, if one is meeting with the manager of an office
during a prearranged appointment, the manager may accept frequent
phone calls, interruptions and extended visits from others at the same
time. Safadi and Valentine (1990) have compiled information from other
researchers (Hall, 1966; Patai, 1970; Reardon, 1981) on this dimension.
The term inshduh (“If God wills it” or “God willing”) introduced
earlier is very frequently used by Arabic speakers and, according to Con-
don and Yousef (1975) reflects a present-orientedness in society. While
claims have been forwarded that such a worldview is fatalistic and has
negative consequences for business and national development, others state
more mundane roots of these problems (Palmer, Leila, & Yassin, 1988).
Nydell (1987) specifies that the “belief that God has direct and ultimate
control of all that happens” (p. 34) has been overemphasized by Westerners
and is far more prevalent among traditional, uneducated people in the
region.
Znshulluh is used in a variety of ways to regulate social interaction by
alluding to the possibilities that an action may or may not take place.
More specifically, inshalluh may mean: “yes” at some unspecified future
time; “no”, in terms of “a refusal to make a serious commitment, to take
personal responsibility, or even attempt to deflect the blame for failure for
promised action to take place” (Stevens, 199 1, p. 105); or simply ‘never”.
Stereotypes do exist within the region about people of certain nationalities
who use the term when they do not intend to fulfill their promises. Attend-
ing to the placement of inshdah in a sentence, the presence of the medial
glottal stop, and the intonation with which it is spoken may reveal which
response is being communicated (Stevens, 1991). This delineation of alter-
native meanings reflects active attempts to coordinate and control inter-
action.
Modernization has influenced approach to time in the Arab region.
particularly in regional business centers and other urban environments.
Relatively speaking, however, outsiders encounter less concern for punc-
tuality than Westerners. In part, the importance of maintaining pride and
face is related to bureaucratic gridlock and problems associated with long-
range planning. Of her own experiences in Saudi Arabia, Mackey (1987)
writes that concern over pride results in postponement of important
decisions when fears exist that a decision might be wrong. As a result,
Decisions are delayed until options have disappeared. When a decision is

finally forced, a Saudi tends to act on impulse of the moment. There is little
discrimination or sense of proportion in the action taken, or little consideration
of the consequences. In my work at the Ministry of Planning, projects would
be in limbo for weeks, waiting for decisions to come from Saudi officials. And
then suddenly work that should have taken a month at a reasonable pace had
to be completed within a week. Time after time I saw decisions made in
government and in business that had predictable consequences (p. 129).
Such intercultural encounters reveal the implications of different

approaches to time. Hall (1984) describes as well, “outsiders traveling or
residing in. . Mediterranean countries find the bureaucracies unusually
cumbersome and unresponsive. In polychronic cultures, one has to be an
368 E. Feghali
insider or have a ‘friend’ who can make things happen” (p. 50). The
process of using influence in one’s interpersonal network to receive favors,
known as was&, is a central feature of life in the region. The term wasta
signifies the person who mediates or intercedes on behalf of another, as
well as the act itself.
Cunningham and Sarayrah (1993) delineate both negative and positive
aspects of wasta at the individual and societal levels. Wasta suffocates
opportunities based on competence, improvement of weaknesses, and
development of confidence and self-esteem. It benefits current power hol-
ders in society, leaving those at the lower social strata in less fortunate
positions. On the other hand,
the wastaparadox includes a psychic haven amidst the chaos of social change,
providing individuals a sense of belonging to a social entity that provides
unconditional acceptance, and assistance to the novice in solving problems that
are more commonplace to someone more experienced (p. 191).
While wasta is the target of extensive criticism and complaining, it is so

widely practiced that it may be considered an essential survival strategy in
everyday life.
Paralinguistics. Paralinguistics-or vocalizations which impact how

something is said (Samovar & Porter, 199lathave distinct functions, yet
few empirical studies have examined paralinguistic phenomena in Arab
societies. Rather, introductory texts and other publications rely on descrip-
tive anecdotes to discuss volume and rate of speech, intonation, use of
silence, and the role of smell.
Members of Arab societies tend to speak fast and loudly (Samovar &
Porter, 199 1a) at “ . . . a decibel level considered aggressive, objectionable
and even obnoxious by North Americans. To Arabs loudness connotes
strength and sincerity, a soft one implies weakness or even deviousness”
(Gudykunst & Kim, 1984, p. 161).
Arabs often transfer preferred patterns of intonation when speaking
foreign languages. Thomas-Ruzic and Thompson-Panos (1980) indicate
that such patterns may carry unwanted negative meanings in English. The
Arabic stress pattern of accenting each word influences intonation. When
native Arab speakers, for example, ask information-seeking questions in
English, their intonation might sound accusing. When making declarative
statements, native English speakers might perceive the flat intonation as
disinterest. Finally, Arabic speakers tend to use a higher pitch range which
native English speakers might evaluate as more emotional, aggressive,
or threatening. Intonation allows one to distinguish between accident
indicators, signals of agreement and disagreement, and warnings (Safadi
& Valentine, 1990).
Given the examination of cultural uses of silence by Basso (1970) and

Braithwaite (198 1,1990), we can project that silence may serve the function
of psychological retreat in order to accommodate need for privacy in
societies which promote nearly constant contact with others. Silence sig-
nals the wish to be left alone. In addition, silence coupled with lack of eye
contact serves to regulate male-female relations on the street and protects
Egyptian and foreign women in Cairo from unwanted comments from
male strangers (Kussman, 1994).
Some scholars believe that smell plays an important role in Arab societ-
ies. Hall (1966) for example, writes that Arabs often breathe on one
another during conversation in order show their involvement with each
other, and smell may be conceived of as an extension of the other person.
“To smell one’s friend is not only nice but desirable, for to deny him your
breath is to act ashamed” (p. 160). A number of authors have since relied
on this anecdotal evidence (Dolphin, 1991; Gudykunst & Kim, 1984;
Samovar & Porter, 1991a). My students from around the region react to
this topic with incredulity and blaring laughter. Given that no studies have
been formally conducted on smell or “olfactory crowding” as Hall (1966)
terms it, we should question this dimension.
In sum, some aspects of Arab nonverbal and paralinguistic patterns
have received more attention than others. Gestures and interpersonal
distance now have a foundation with which to compare to other societies.
Additional empirical examination of eye contact, attitude toward time.
and paralinguistics is necessary.
Research Directions. Research rooted in brief and dated anecdotes has

been applied to all peoples in the region. Future studies could examine
and attempt to delineate nonverbal patterns in particular contexts. For
instance, in what situations is eye contact arnong Arab interactants avo-
ided? What functions does avoidance serve in maleefemale relations? What
are appropriate touching behaviors between men and women in public‘?
How are attitudes and behaviors toward time and space enacted with
increasing technology and industrialization in Arab countries? Spradley’s
(Sprddley, 1980) methods of domain or componential analysis, as well as
categorization of nonverbal behaviors in natural settings (similar to
Shuter, 1977) might provide starting points in research design.
Second, future studies can compare gestures and interpersonal space
across Arab societies, as well as non-Arab societies. With regard to par-
alinguistics, Safadi and Valentine (1990) suggest a range of phenomena
which require further investigation: speech errors, rate and quantity; tone
of voice; pauses and incoherent noises; and “ahs”. Explicit instruction in
spotting and interpreting paralinguistic signals is necessary for the serious
observer (Valentine & Saint Damian, 1985).
370 E. Feghali
CONCLUSION
The region known as the Arab World is a prime context in which to

develop, enrich, and validate intracultural and intercultural com-
munication theory. Throughout the 1990s Arab nations have experienced
tremendous social change, brought on by the macro dynamics of the
Middle East peace process and migration of people displaced by civil
war, economic hardship, political dissidence, and human rights violations.
Understanding of intergroup cooperation and conflict, emergent in such
processes as the recent self-rule of the Palestinians and the extensive return
migration of Lebanese to their home country in the post-civil war era, not
only has consequences for the communities themselves but also for societal
and international relations. Accessing the manner in which multiple ident-
ities are constructed and reaffirmed in communities throughout the region
is dependent upon more intimate awareness and comprehension of com-
municative behavior.
This review has suggested some initial, basic steps toward the inclusion
of Arab cultural communication patterns in the intercultural curriculum
and future research: by clarifying the label “Arab” and discussing the
general concepts of Arab value orientations, language and verbal com-
munication, and nonverbal-paralinguistic patterns. This review has also
exposed an unconscious political position regarding the importance which
intercultural scholars have placed on specific world regions. Indeed, a
number of barriers exist for conducting research in situ in Arab countries.
Many scholars do not have adequate Arabic skills to conduct research with
host populations. Even if they do, governments enforce travel restrictions
to/from certain countries (such as U.S. State Department travel bans to
Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Libya, as well as Saudi Arabia and some Gulf
States’ restrictions against foreigners entering their countries). If travel is
possible, some Arab governments selectively approve research permits,
and the process of acquiring one may literally take years. Finally, the
sociopolitical environment for certain foreign nationalities ranges from
potentially to extremely threatening in some countries.
Some of these barriers, however, can be overcome by utilizing alternative
means of learning about Arab societies and conducting research with Arab
populations. Scholars may take part in intensive summer or year-long
Arabic language training programs in the United States or Europe, in
addition to the Middle East. The Middle East Studies Association (MESA)
regularly publishes and provides information about language institutes.”
If financial concerns prohibit scholars from fieldwork in context, they
“The Middle East Studies Association (MESA) can be contacted at: University of Arizona,
1643 East Helen Street, Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A. Tel: 520-621-5850; fax: 520-321-7752; e-
mail: mesa@ccit.arizona.edu
should consider applying for the numerous fellowships specifically targeted

for research in the Middle East.‘* Funding organizations often help secure
research permits from foreign governments. Scholars should seek oppor-
tunities to foster and maintain relationships with Arab researchers, who
are interested in conducting collaborative, interdisciplinary research on
human communication and interaction patterns. Finally, professionals
with research experience in the Arab world should contribute their expert-
ise through descriptions of methodological issues related to the impact of
male/female roles in the research process, local attitudes toward types
of data collection (surveys, interviews, conversational topics, research
location, etc.), and translation/ interpretation issues which scholars will
likely encounter throughout research.
Through systematic naturalistic inquiry initially, followed by other
means of analysis, we can further identify emit features of Arab com-
municative patterns, which can then be compared in intercultural or cross-
cultural studies. We can come to understand how “system[s] of expressive
practices fraught with feeling, system[s] of symbols, premises, rules, forms.
and the domains and dimensions of mutual meanings associated with
those” (Carbaugh, 1993, p. 182) are invoked in everyday conversation and
behavior. Then, more accurate images and sensitivity toward Arab peoples
will be reflected in introductory texts and research which reach incredible
numbers of young people outside the region. As Shuter (1990) emphasizes,
“The 1990’s cry out for interculturalists who understand both culture
and communication-professionals with a deep understanding of specific
countries and world regions” (p. 246). The Arab societies comprise one
such region.
REFERENCES
Aamiry, A. (1994). Domestic violence against women in Jordan. Al-Raida, 6.5/66,

33-35.
Abd-el-Jawad, H. R. (1987). Cross-dialectical variation in Arabic: Competing
prestigious forms. Language in Society, 16, 359-368.
Abu-Haidar, F. (1989). Are Iraqi women more prestige conscious than men? Sex
differentiation in Baghdadi Arabic. Language in Society, 18, 47 1-48 1.
Abu-Lughod, L. (1987). Veiled sentiments: Honor andpoetry in a Bedouin society.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
“Scholars interested in grants, fellowship or teaching exchange programs should contact

their university office of grants and research. Some of the notable funding agencies are the
Social Science Research Council (SSRC), Fulbright Commission, the American Research
Centers in Egypt and Jordan, National Humanities Center. the Oxford Centre for Islamic
Studies. and Woodrow Wilson international Center for Scholars.
372 E. Feghali
Abu-Lughod, L. (1993). Writing women’s worlds: Bedouin stories. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.
Abu-Zahra, N. (1974). Material power, honour, friendship, and the etiquette of
visiting. Anthropological Quarterly, 47, 121-138.
Adelman, M., & Lustig, M. (1981). Intercultural communication problems as
perceived by Saudi Arabian and American managers. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 5, 349-364.
Al-Shahi, A. (Ed.) (1987). The diversity of the Muslim community: Anthropological
essays in memory of Peter Lienhardt. London: Ithaca Press.
Almaney, A. J., & Alwan, A. J. (1982). Communicating with the Arabs: A handbook
for the business executive. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Anderson, J. W. (1989/90). A comparison of Arab and American conceptions of
“effective” persuasion. Howard Journal of Communication, 2(l), 81-l 14.
Atiyeh, N. (1982). Khul-khaal: Five Egyptian women tell their stories. Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University Press.
Axtell, R. E. (1985). Do’s and taboos around the world. Elmsford, NY: The Benja-
min Co.
Ayoub, M. (1994). Lebanon between religious faith and political ideology. In D.
Collings (Ed.), Peace for Lebanon?: From war to reconstruction (pp. 231-240).
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Basso, K. H. (1970). To give up on words: Silence in Western Apache culture.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 26(3), 213-230.
Bentahila, A. (1983). Motivations for code-switching among Arabic-French
bilinguals in Morocco. Language and Communication, 3(3), 233-243.
Berque, J. (1978). Cultural expression in Arab society toda_y (Translated by R. W.
Stookey). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Birdsell, D. S. (1987). Ronald Reagan on Lebanon and Grenada: Flexibility and
interpretation in the application of Kenneth Burke’s pentad. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 73(3), 267-279.
Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Boutros-Ghali, B. (1982). The foreign policy of Egypt in the post-Sadat era.
Foreign Affairs, 60(4), 769-788.
Braithwaite, C. B. (1981). Cultural uses and interpretations of silence.Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of Washington, Scattle, WA.
Braithwaite, C. B. (1990). Communicative silence: A cross-cultural study of Basso’s
hypothesis. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cultural communication and intercultural
contact (pp. 321-327). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brewer, W. D. (1970). Patterns of gesture among the Levantine Arabs. In A.
Lutifiyya & C. Churchill (Eds.), Readings in Arab Middle Eastern societies and
cultures (pp. 713-719). The Hague: Mouton.
Brock, B. L., & Howell, S. (1988). The evolution of the PLO: Rhetoric of terrorism.
Central States Speech Journal, 39(3/4), 281-292.
Campo, J. E. (1991). The other sides of paradise: Explorations into the religious
meanings of domestic space in Islam. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina
Press.
Carbaugh, D. (1993). Communal voices: An ethnographic view of social inter-
action and conversation (Book review). Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79, 99-
113.
Cobban, H. (1985). The making of modern Lebanon. London: Hutchinson.
Cohen, R. (1987). Problems of intercultural communication in Egyptian-American
diplomatic relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, I I, 29-17.
Cohen, R. (1990a). Culture and conflict in Egyptian-israeli reiations: A dialogue of'
the deaf: Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
Cohen, R. (1990b). Deadlock: Israel and Egypt negotiate. In F. Korzenny & S.
Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communicating,for peace (pp. 13h-153). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Collier, M. J. (I 989). Cultural and intercultural communication competence: Cur-
rent approaches and directions for future research. international Journai of
Intercultural Relations, 13, 287-302.
Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective.
In Y. Y. Kim&W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication
(pp. 99-120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Collins, C-A., & Clark, J.E. (1990). Warring stories in the night: A narratirr
approach to cuhural conflict. Presented at the annual meeting of the Western
Speech Communication Association. Sacramento, CA.
Condon, J., & Yousef, F. (1975). An introduction to intercultural communication.
Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Cunningham, R. B., & Sarayrah, Y. K. (1993). Wasta: The hiddenJorce in Middle
Eastern Society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Dodd, C. H. (1991). Dynamics ofintercultural communication (3rd Ed.). Dubuque.
IA: William C. Brown.
Dodd, P. C. (1973). Family honor and the forces of change in Arab society.
International Journal of Middle East Studies, 4, 40-54.
Dolphin, C. Z. (1991). Variables in the use of personal space in intercultural
interactions. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural com-
munication: A reader (6th ed.) (pp. 32&331). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Dow, B. J. (1989). The function of epideictic and deliberate strategies in presi-
dential crisis rhetoric. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53. 294-3 IO.
Edelman, S. (February, 1990). Rhetorical strategies in the intercultural con$ict
between Israelis and Palestinians in the Intifada. Presented at the annual meeting
of the Western Speech Communication Association, Sacramento, CA.
Eichelman, D. F. (1981). The MiddLe East: An anthropologica/ approach. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ezzat, D. (1994). A savage surgery. The Middle East, January, pp. 35537.
Faour, M. (1993). The Arab world after Desert Storm. Washington, DC: United
States Institute of Peace Press.
Faris, N. A., & Husayn, M. T. (1955). The crescent in crisis: An interpretive ,studJ
of’thr modern Arab world. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
Farsoun, S., & Farsoun, K. (1974). Class and patterns of association among
kinsmen in contemporary Lebanon. Anthropological Quarter/-v, 47, 93-l 11.
Fathi, A. (1979). The role of the Islamic pulpit. Journal of Communication, 2913 i
102-l 13.
Fisk, R. (I 990). Pity the nation The abduction ot’lebanon. New York: Antheneum.
374 E. Feghali
Fernea, E. (Ed.) (1985). Women and the family in the Middle East. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Frank, D. (198 1). Shalom Achshave: Rituals of the Israeli peace movement. Com-
munication Monographs, 48, 165-l 82.
Friedman, T. L. (1990). From Beirut to Jerusalem. New York: Anchor Books.
Gilsenan, M. (1983). Recognizing Islam: Religion and society in the modern Arab
world. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Glenn, E. S., Witmeyer, D., & Stevenson, K. A. (1977). Cultural styles of
persuasion. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, I (3), 52-66.
Griefat, Y., & Katriel, T. (1989). Life demands musayara: Communication and
culture among Arabs in Israel. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.),
Language, communication and culture (pp. 121-138). (International and Inter-
cultural Communication Annual 13). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gruenbaum, E. (1988). Reproductive ritual and social reproduction: Female cir-
cumcision in Sudan. In O’Neill & O’Brien (Eds.), Economy and class in Sudan
(pp. 308-325). London: Gower.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers: An
approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw Hill.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1992). Communicating with strangers: An
introduction to intercultural communication (2nd Ed). New York: McGraw Hill.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1989). Theoretical perspectives for studying
intercultural communication. In M. F. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.),
Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 17746). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. & Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.) (1988). Culture and interpersonal
communication. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1984). The dance of life: Another dimension of time. New York:
Doubleday.
Hall, E. T., & Whyte, W. F. (1960). Intercultural communication: A guide to men
of action. Human Organization, 19, 5-12.
Heath, J. (1989). From code-switching to borrowing: Foreign and diglossic mixing
in Moroccan Arabic. London: Kegal Paul International.
Heisey, R. D. (1970). The rhetoric of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 46, 12-2 1.
Heisey, R. D., & Trebing, D. (1983). A comparison of the rhetorical visions
and strategies of the Shah’s White Revolution and the Ayatollah’s Islamic
Revolution. Communication Monographs, 50, 158-174.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International dtfjferences in work
related values (Abridged Ed). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holes, C. D. (1983). Patterns of communal language variation in Bahrain. Lan-
guage in Society, 12,433-457.
Hopper, R., & Doany, N. (1989). Telephone openings and conversational uni-
versals: A study in three languages. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.),
Language, communication and culture (pp. 158-174). (International and Inter-
cultural Communication Annual 13). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Husseini, R. (1994). Victim of incestuous rape killed by second brother. Jordan

Times, June 1.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz
& D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of corn-
munication (pp. 35571). New York: Holt, Rinehart&Winston.
Jabra, J. I. (1971). Arab language and culture. In M. Adams (Ed.), The Middle
East: A handbook (pp. 174-178). New York: Praeger.
Johnstone, B. (1989). Linguistic strategies and cultural styles for persuasive
discourse. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Language, communication,
und culture (pp. 139-156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Johnstone Koch, B. (1983). Presentation as proof. The language of Arabic rhetoric.
Anthropological Linguistics, 25 (1), 47-60.
Joseph, S. (1983). Working class women’s networks in a sectarian state: A political
paradox. American Ethnologist, lO( l), l-22.
Jowkar, F. (1986). Honor and shame: A feminist view from within. Feminist Issues.
6(l). 45-65.
Katriel, T. (1986). Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli Sabra culture. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katriel, T. (1987). Rhetoric in flames: Fire inscriptions in Israeli youth movement
ceremonials. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73,444-459.
Khalaf, S. (1993). Beirut reclaimed. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar an-Nahar.
Khalid, M. (1977). The sociocultural determinants of Arab diplomacy. In G. N.
Atiyeh (Ed.), Arab and American cultures (pp. 1233142). Washington, DC:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Philadelphia.
PA: Multilingual Matters.
Kimball, J. C. (1984). The Arabs 1984/85. Washington. DC: American Educational
Trust.
Klope, D. C. (1986). Defusing a foreign policy crisis: Myth and victimage in
Reagan’s Lebanon/Grenada address. Western Journal of Speech Communi-
cation, 50, 336349.
Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1960). Variations in ralue orientations. New
York, NY: Row, Peterson.
Kussman, E. D. (1994). American sojourners’ descriptions of problematic com-
munication with Egyptians: Toward a theory of social confrontation. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
La Barre, W. (1976). Paralinguistics, kinesics, and cultural anthropology. In L. A.
Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (2nd Ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lancaster, P. (Ed.), (1988). Traveller’s guide to the Middle East. Edison, NJ: IC
Publications Ltd.
Lippman, T. W. (1990). Understanding Islam: An introduction to the Muslim world
(Revised Ed). New York: Mentor.
Lipson, J. G., & Meleis, A. I. (1983). Issues in the health care of Middle Eastern
patients. The Western Journal of Medicine, 139(6/, 5&57.
Lomranz, J. (1976). Cultural variations in personal space. Journal of Social Psv-
chology. 99(l). 21-27.
376 E. Feghali
Los Angeles Times (1977) Arabic: The medium clouds the message. Section 1,
February 12.
Mackey, S. (1987). Saudis: Inside the desert kingdom. New York: Signet.
MacLeod, A. E. (1991). Accommodatingprotest: Working women, the new veiling,
and change in Cairo. Cairo: American University in Cairo.
Mansfield, P. (1985). The Arabs. New York: Penguin.
Martin, R. C. (1982). Islam: A culturalperspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Mazur, A. (1977). Interpersonal spacing on public benches in “contact” vs. “non-
contact” cultures. Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 53-58.
Mernissi, F. (1987). Beyond the veil: Male-female dynamics in modern Muslim
society (Revised Ed). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Mishler, E. G. (1979). Meaning in context: Is there any other kind? Harvard
Educational Review, 49(l), 1-19.
Mostyn, T., & Hourani, A. (Eds.). (1988). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the
Middle East and North Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, G. L., El-Bakary, W., & Al-Batal, M. (1993). Egyptian and American
compliments: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 17(3), 293-313.
Nydell, M. (1987). Understanding Arabs: A guide for Westerners. Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press.
Palmer, M., Leila, A., & Yassin, E.-S. (1988). The Egyptian bureaucracy. Cairo:
American University in Cairo Press.
Parkinson, D. B. (1985). Constructing the social context of communication: Terms
of address in Egyptian Arabic. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Patai, R. (1970). Israel between East and West. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Patai, R. (1983). The Arab mind (Revised Ed). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Patterson, M. A. (1987). The veil as an item of clothing: A sociological essay.
Unpublished masters thesis, California State University, Sacramento, CA.
Polk, W. R. (1991). The Arab world today. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Proctor, D. E. (1987). The rescue mission: Assigning guilt to a chaotic scene.
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51.245-255.
Prothro, E. (1955). ArabAmerican differences in the judgment of written mess-
ages. Journal of Social Psychology, 42,3. Also re-published in A. Lutifiyya & C.
Churchill (Eds.) (1970). Readings in Arab Middle Eastern societies and cultures
(pp. 704712). The Hague: Mouton.
Rassam, A. (1982). Towards a theoretical framework for the study of women in
the Arab world. Cultures, 8(3), 121-137.
Reardon, K. (1981). International businessgzft giving customs: A guide for American
executives. Janesville, WI: The Parker Pen Co.
Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values. New York: Free Press.
Ross, D. (1980). The projection of credibility as a rhetorical strateg in Anwar El-
Sadat’s address to the Israeli parliament. Western Journal of Speech Com-
munication, 44, 74-80.
Rugh, A. B. (1984). Family in contemporary Egypt. Cairo: American University in
Cairo Press.
Rugh, A. B. (1986). Reveal and conceal: Dress in contemporary Egypt. Cairo:

American University in Cairo Press.
Safadi, M., & Valentine, C. A. (1990). Contrastive analyses of American and Arab
nonverbal and paralinguistic communication. Semiotica. 82(3/4), 269-292.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1988). Intercultural communication: A reader (5th
Ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1991a). Communicution betlceen r~u1ture.s.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1991 b). Intercultural communication: A reader
(6th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sanders, J., Hakky, U. M., Brizzolara, M. M. (1985). Personal space amongst
Arabs and Americans. International Journal of Psychology, 20( I), 13-l 7.
Scott, B. (1981). The skills of negotiating. New York: Wiley.
Shaarawi, H. (1987). Harem years: The memoirs of an Egyptian,feminist (Translated
and edited by Margot Badran). New York: Feminist Press.
Sharabi, H. (1977). Impact of class and culture on social behavior: The feudal
bourgeois family in Arab society. In L. C. Brown&N. Itzhowitz (Eds.), Psycho-
logical dimensions of Near Eastern studies (pp. 24&256). Princeton, NJ: The
Darwin Press.
Shouby, E. (1951). The influence of the Arabic language on the psychology of the
Arabs. Middle East Journal, 5, 298-299. Also re-published in A. Lutifiyya & C.
Churchill (Eds.) (1970). Readings in Arab Middle Eastern societies and cultures.
The Hague: Mouton.
Shuter, R. (1977). A field study of nonverbal communication in German, Italy.
and the United States. Communication Monographs, 44141, 298-305.
Shuter, R. (1990). The centrality of culture. Southern Communication Journal, 55,
237-249.
Sigman, S. J. (1987). A perspective on social communic,ation. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Simmons, C. A. (1992, February). A \l’ar of words; The role of discourse codes in
the Persian Gulf crisis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western
Speech Communication Association (WSCA). Boise, ID.
Sparhawk, C. M. (1981). Contrastive identity features of Persian gesture. In A.
Kendon (Ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction andgesture (pp. 421-456).
Berlin, Germany: Mouton.
Spradley. J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Stevens, P. B. (1991). Conflicting pragmatic norms between English and Arabic
speakers in Egypt: A study of pragmatic failures. In Cairo studies in English:
Essays in honour of Saad Gamal El-Din (pp. 97-114). Giza, Egypt: Cairo Uni-
versity Department of English Language and Literature.
Stevens, P. B. (1993). The pragmatics of “No. 1”: Some strategies in English and
Arabic. Issues and Developments in English and Applied Linguistics, 6. 89-112.
Stevens, P. B. (1994). The pragmatics of street hustlers’ English in Egypt. World
Englishes, 13(l), 61-73.
Stewart, E. C. (1972). American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural perspective.
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
378 E. Feghali
Suleiman, M. W. (1973). The Arabs and the West: Communication gap. In M.

Prosser (Ed.), Intercommunication among nations and peoples (pp. 287-303).
New York: Harper & Row.
The Middle East & North Africa (1995). London: Europa Publications Limited.
Thomas-Ruzic, M., & Thompson-Panos, K. (1980). Contrastiue features of Arabic
and English and theirpractical applications. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Colorado at Boulder: Intensive English Center.
Valentine, C. A., & Saint Damian, B. (1985). An intercultural look at nonverbal
communication. In J. E. Crawford (Ed.), Communication discooery. Dubuque,
IA: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Watson, 0. M. (1970). Proxemic behavior: A cross-cultural study. The Hague:
Mouton.
Watson, 0. M., & Graves, T. D. (1966). Quantitative research in proxemic
behavior. American Anthropologist, 68, 971-985.
Weiss, S. E., & Strip, W. (1985). Negotiating with foreign businesspersons: An
introduction, for Americans with prepositions on six cultures. Working Paper No.
1. New York University: Graduate School of Business Administration.
Witte, K. (1991). The role of culture in health and disease. In L. A. Samovar & R.
E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (6th Ed.) (pp. 1999206).
Belmont. CA: Wadsworth.
Wolfe, G., & Mourribi, A. (1985). A comparison of the value systems of Lebanese
Christian and Muslim men and women. Journal of Social Psychology, 125(6),
781-782.
Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in cross-cultural perspective. TESOL Quarterly,
15(12), 117-124.
Yousef, F. S. (1974). Cross-cultural communication aspects of contrastive social
values between North Americans and Middle Easterners. Human Organization,
33(4), 383-387.
View publication stats

Arab Cultural Communication Patterns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arab Cultural Communication Patterns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Arab cultural communication patterns

Article in International Journal of Intercultural Relations · August 1997

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ARAB CULTURAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS

ABSTRACT. In response to Shuter’s (Shuter, 1990) call.for the examination of

KEY WORDS. Arab, values, language, nonverbal communication, paralinguistics

Although intercultural scholars have clearly concentrated research efforts

and (c) provide a conceptual basis for making intercultural comparisons

CLARIFICATION OF THE TERM “ARAB”

is.. ” Such subtle incidents contribute to a lack of differentiation between

Members of the League of Arab Statesa

North Africa Algeria

The Fertile Crescent Iraq

The Arabian Peninsula Bahrain

Mozambique Channel Comoros Islands

RECENT INVESTIGATIONS OF ARAB CULTURAL

A search was conducted to locate publications within the last 20 years,

yearbooks; and 25 journals devoted to communication and related fields3

Basic Cultural Values

Scholars have addressed an array of values considered prevalent in Arab

and dignity (Nydell, 1987); generosity, courage, and self-respect (Patai,

Collectivism. In contrast to U.S. Americans’ self-reliant and “individual-

6Rugh (1984) characterizes Egyptians’ group relations as “corporateness” and juxtaposes it

be paying back a visit, otherwise their uncalled-for visits are much

Honor. According to Dodd (1973) honor or ‘ird is a “controlling value,

The ‘ird of a family can be raised or lowered, depending on the demeanor of

Research Directions. Based on the previous discussion, a number of key

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1960) value orientations]. For instance,

It may not be appropriate to predict from or to [Arab, Christian, Muslim, etc.]

Language and Verbal Communication

Forms of Arabic. As one of the six official languages of the United

Codeswitching. Not only do Arabic speakers codeswitch between the

Communicative Style. Whether communicating in Arabic or other lan-

Repetition. Johnstone Koch (1983) suggests that repetition, a major feature

of Arabic discourse, occurs at the phonological, morphological and lexical,

transactions are marked by language in which reiterations of pious formulas

Indirectness. The second characteristic of Arabic communicative style

of annoyance is a serious mistake when dealing with the Arabs. Avoidance of

Labeled genres of speech illustrate this tendency toward indirectness--

A major function of musayara is to constrain individual behavior in such a way

While the bulk of research supports the indirectness of Arabic speech,

Elaborateness. The third characteristic of Arabic communicative style,

and over-assert in order not to be misunderstood. Yet non-Arabs [unaware of

During the 1950s a critical debate stirred over the exaggeration of

In order to test the claims of under and overstatement, Prothro (1955)

Affectiveness. The fourth characteristic of Arabic communicative style,

ideas and arguments. According to Johnstone Koch (1983) Arabs use

Based on the previous discussion, opportunities for more extensive

focused on more specific speech acts such as complimenting behavior

foundly involve cultural and sub-cultural connotations of verbal

Nonverbal and Paralinguistic Patterns

While it is not possible to provide an intricate description of Arab

Arab Nonverbal Communication Patterns

Dimension of nonverbal General behaviors Communication research

General models Hall (1966)

Gestures Direct body orientation Brewer (1970)

Eye contact Direct Watson and Graves (1966)

Touch “Contact” culture Hall (1966)

Interpersonal distance Close Lomranz (1976)

Attitude toward time Polychronic Hall (1959)

Gestures. Samovar and Porter (1991a) indicate that an Arab specialist

Eye Contact. While members of Arab communities selectively utilize