Introduction

There are a number of reasons why Anglo–Arab interaction may be judged to merit particular attention in a handbook of intercultural communication. First, there is the size and significance of the communities concerned; there are over 200 million native speakers of Arabic and over 400 million native speakers of English. It should, however, be acknowledged right away that both these communities are extremely diverse, and while commentators are generally conscious that there are differences between, say, American and British cultures, the term Arab is all too frequently used as if it designated a clearly defined and homogeneous group. In fact it covers people of varying backgrounds, originating from an area stretching from Morocco to the Persian Gulf; and although they are usually assumed to be linked via a common language, Arabic, the diglossic situation which holds across the Arab world means that in fact the spoken varieties used across the area are also very diverse, so that, for instance, an Egyptian may have great difficulty in understanding the everyday speech of a Moroccan. The educated elites of the various countries have a shared knowledge of the high variety, standard Arabic, used in writing and identified as the official language of these countries; but this variety is also a source of division, since the large numbers of illiterates in many Arab countries cannot use it at all. Thus, while we will cite here many remarks made by others about Arabs and Arabic speakers, and add more of our own, we invite caution in interpreting these generalizations.

A second reason why Anglo–Arab interaction is of interest is the fact that the two cultures are often felt to be extremely different, even diametrically opposed. Bruton and Stewart (1995) state with confidence that “Arab culture is probably one of the two most difficult of the major cultures for Americans to understand and to learn to work within” (1995: 2). Arabs often seem to be perceived as a mystery by Anglophones; thus Solberg (2002) writes of the “apparently ‘irrational’ behaviour of Arab organizations in their dealings with Western sellers” and refers to this behavior as “what most Western businessmen not only would qualify as peculiar, but as outright irregular” (2002: 2).

And thirdly, there is the unprecedented global political significance which such interactions have acquired in recent years. While exchanges between the Anglo and Arab cultures are of course nothing new, and have over the years inspired plenty of stereotypes and sometimes spirited refutations of stereotypes (Said 1978), world events in the last two decades have focused the attention of the two groups on each other as never before. In the US, for instance, the numbers of college students opting to study Arabic have risen sharply (Liu 2004), the amount of translation from English into Arabic has increased greatly (Harrison 2004), and the Koran rapidly became a bestseller after 9/11 (Blais 2001). The US is now directly targeting Arabic-speaking audiences via Radio Sawa, launched in March 2002, and the television channel Al-Hurra, launched in February 2004. Al-Jazeera launched its English-language news channel in November 2006, and the BBC World Service began broadcasting its Arabic-language news channel in March 2008, financing this in part via the closing down of radio broadcasts in a number of Eastern European languages – a shift of position which clearly reflects current priorities for intercultural communication. Today effective Anglo–Arab interaction is seen as important not only for what it may contribute to individual cross-cultural friendships and business cooperation, but also for its relevance to world politics.

A number of researchers have deplored the lack of useful materials. Feghali (1997) observes that while plenty of material is available on politics, religion, and social life in Arab societies, there is a dearth of studies specifically dealing with Arab cultural communication patterns. Veenstra (2004) complains at the lack of courses on Middle Eastern communication, and Kanso, Sinno, and Adams state firmly: “the available literature on inter-cultural variables between the American and the Arab cultures is scarce, and most of it is inaccurate” (2001: 78).

There are also complaints from those working in fields where good intercultural communication is crucial that not enough effort is put into training those concerned. For instance, Wunderle deplores the fact that the US military training for negotiators in Iraq does not “seem to take culture training very seriously” (2007: 33). Similarly, Loosemore and Al Muslmani’s study concludes that the UK nationals working on international construction projects in the Persian Gulf display clear insensitivities to Arab values and norms, and that these insensitivities “create significant potential for misunderstanding and conflict within The Gulf construction industry” (1999: 99). In short, the literature regularly evokes a sense of dissatisfaction with the current situation and an awareness of the urgent need to improve intercultural communication skills.

The readily available literature covers several types of work. First, there is scholarly research by theorists interested in areas such as comparative culture, contrastive discourse analysis and cross-cultural pragmatics, which reports the findings of empirical case studies and attempts to investigate communication patterns within established theoretical frameworks. Some general surveys reporting on Arabs’ perceptions and attitudes (Zogby 2002; Center for Strategic Studies 2005) may also shed light on possible communication problems. There are also many studies which examine interaction between Anglos and Arabs in specific domains, often providing practical recommendations for those involved; these tend to focus on structured situations involving the transaction of goods or services, notably in the areas of business, public diplomacy, negotiation, the military, police, and health services, and internet services. Finally, there are some general works purporting to lay bare the Arab psyche, such as Patai (1973) and Nydell (1996). It should be pointed out that the survey below focuses on literature written from the Anglo point of view; we have not come across materials aimed at advising Arabs on how best to interact with Anglophones.

Previous Work on Anglo–Arab Interaction

We may distinguish two types of study: those which focus on comparing the values, priorities and orientations judged to be typical of each culture, and those which focus more on actual communication, looking at the strategies and styles favored by the two groups and the ways in which these may affect understanding. The first type draws on anthropological and psychological approaches, the second on linguistics. Of course the two categories cannot be kept separate, for language use is felt to encode worldviews, and cultural values are invoked to explain linguistic behavior.

Among the content-based analyses, one of the most cited oppositions is Hall’s (1976) distinction between high-and low-context cultures. American and British cultures are taken as typical instances of low-context cultures, where the interpretation of a message depends largely on the code used rather than the context, so that the language used tends to be explicit and specific, while the Arab culture is often quoted as a typically high-context culture, where meaning is derived largely from contextual clues. In a low-context culture, it is the speaker who is largely responsible for ensuring the clarity of the message, whereas in a high-context culture the audience is expected to make more effort to decipher what is meant.

This opposition is evoked in many discussions of Anglo–Arab interaction which identify different communication preferences. There are many sweeping generalizations to the effect that Arabs prefer oral rather than written communication (Meleis 1982; Wilkins 2001); indeed, Hutchings and Weir (2007: 279) remark that Arabs consider their word of honor as binding, and therefore see no need for formal written contexts, and El Louadi (2004: 125) actually suggests that Arab business partners may be offended if asked to sign written contracts when they have already given their word orally. Likewise, Arabs are said to opt wherever possible for face-to-face interaction, and to seek to establish personal relations with those they have to deal with, whereas Westerners are supposedly happy to use more impersonal channels. The importance of respecting the traditionally lengthy exchanges of greetings is often stressed (for instance, by Adelman and Lustig 1981). Dedoussis remarks that “Arabs … avoid getting directly to the topic … An attempt to ‘get down to business’ right away, without first going through some obligatory small talk … is likely to be frowned upon, considered a sign of rude behaviour and impatience, by Arabs” (2004: 19). Those wishing to do business with the Arabs are often advised of the need to develop personal contacts before seeking to complete transactions (Mostafa and El-Masry 2008: 89) and of the extensive role of networking in Arab societies (Hutchings and Weir 2007).

It has even been suggested that these preferences lie behind Arabs’ relative failure to exploit internet resources, their reluctance to embrace e-business, internet banking, etc., where the interpersonal element is often lacking (Yasin and Yavas 2007; El Louadi 2004). On the other hand, an interesting study by Atifi (2003) reveals that Moroccans participating in internet forums still tend to preface their contributions by the kinds of elaborate greetings and expressions of good wishes typical of oral interaction in their culture, whereas other internet-users tend to dispense with such formalities.

It is also often claimed that high-context cultures tend to favor indirectness and implicitness, features which scholars repeatedly attribute to Arabic discourse (see, for instance, Cohen 1987), whereas low-context cultures are said to value clarity and frankness (thus Levine [1985] cites American norms as typically direct). Many researchers evoke Arabs’ preference for indirectness as a potential source of misunderstanding. Zaharna, testifying to Congress, observes that “President Bush’s penchant for ‘speaking straight’ may resonate positively with an American public that values directness. But the Arab public prefers more indirect messages, especially in public. Thus, irrespective of the message’s content, differences in delivery style can cause a message to resonate negatively” (2003, Section II).

Another set of sweeping claims that have been related to Hall’s original distinction are those that attribute to Arabs a preference for elaborate, long-winded forms of expression, repetition, and exaggeration, in contrast to Anglophones’ supposed preferences for brevity and understatement. Such contrasts have been related to other dichotomies such as the distinction between linear and non-linear cultures proposed by Dodd (1982) or that between essentially oral and literate cultures (Gold 1988). They can be linked to underlying attitudes to Arabic, a language which tends to be perceived “as something valuable in itself, and not just as a means of communicating ideas” (Bentahila 1983: 135). Shouby (1951), noted for his strong feelings about the inadequacy of Arabic style, goes so far as to declare that Arabic speakers give more importance to the words themselves than to the ideas they express, an idea echoed in Bateson’s remark that “the elegant expression of an idea may be taken as evidence of its validity” (1976: 80–1). It is evidently felt that Anglophones need to be made aware of these tendencies. Prothro (1955: 353) warns that Americans who fail to exaggerate may not convince Arabs: “a strong statement by an American sounds weak and doubtful to an Arab.” Misinterpretations may of course be made by both sides, so Kanso, Sinno, and Adams (2001: 73) advise that “an Arab practitioner may need to ‘tone down’ his or her messages for an American public, while an American practitioner may need to strengthen them.”

A further distinction which can be related to the high-/low-context opposition is that between monochronic and polychronic cultures (Hall 1959). Americans are classed in the first category: it is claimed that they tend to do one thing at a time, use schedules and advance planning, and value logic and data. Arabs, on the other hand, are said to be the prototype of a polychronic culture, doing many things at once, rejecting rigid schedules and preferring unstructured environments. Differing attitudes to time among Arabs and Americans are predicted to lead to frustration and impatience on the part of the latter. Thus Wunderle (2007: 35) warns US negotiators to be prepared for “slow deliberations and long negotiations,” while Lewis is categorical: “British, Americans and Northern Europeans will realize that they and Arabs are at the two ends of the monochronic-polychronic scale, therefore communication will not take place in a natural manner” (1998: 336, italics ours). The problem with this and so many of the other remarks cited here is that they emphasize differences between the two groups, overlook any variation within each group, and appear to assume that differences will automatically create communication problems.

Many researchers have used Hofstede’s (1980) framework for the comparison of cultures, which evokes five dimensions: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-versus short-term orientation. Hofstede’s survey (in which the Arab world was treated as a uniform entity, though it was represented by informants from only a few countries) found striking contrasts between Anglo and Arab cultures. For instance, the Arabs scored 80 for power distance, indicating an acceptance of hierarchical ranking and privileges, while the Americans scored only 40 and the British 35; with a score of 38 for the second dimension, the Arabs were rated as clearly collectivist, the British and Americans with 89 and 91 respectively ranking as highly individualistic; and with regard to uncertainty avoidance, the Arab score was 68, the British and American scores 35 and 46, suggesting that the Arabs have a much lower tolerance of uncertainty. Another relevant contrast is that expressed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) distinction between the value orientations of “doing” and “being,” American culture being considered to focus on activity and achievement, while Arab culture emphasizes birth and rank.

These differences are again predicted to lead to communication problems. In particular, the Arabs’ preference for collectivism and respect for hierarchy, their attachment to family and group loyalties and their respect for their superiors are evoked to account for reactions Anglos may sometimes not understand or appreciate. Thus Love and Powers report on the “uncertainty and anxiety” (2002: 224) felt by some Anglo faculty staff teaching female university students in the United Arab Emirates when they find students coming to consult a teacher as a large group rather than individually. On the other hand, Meleis, considering the problems of Arab students in Western universities, suggests that their tendency to respect authority and expect teachers to decide for them may lead Western faculty to perceive them as “lacking in autonomy and resourcefulness and unwilling to be accountable for their actions” (1982: 444).

Other studies emphasize differences in the values most prominent in Arab and Anglo cultures. In contrast to the traditional American attachment to freedom, equality of opportunity and tolerance, the values often cited as primordial for Arabs include hospitality, respect for age and tradition, fatalism, and honor. Manuals advising Americans on how to interact with Arabs often dwell at length on the implications of these values. These include simplistic instructions on what may seem relatively trivial matters of etiquette, as when US police are warned that to refuse offers of food or drink may be offensive (US Justice Department n.d.), or when El Louadi advises that one should refuse the first offer of refreshments and wait for a more emphatic second one (2004: 126). But they also include claims which may alarm their readers instead of inspiring confidence: Munter (1993), for instance, suggests that Americans’ efforts to set a deadline for completion of a building project may be unacceptable to Muslims who believe that God, and not a schedule, will determine the completion date, while Affourtit (2008) goes so far as to claim that Arabs’ fatalism leads them to acts of self-abasement, which may wrongly inspire disdain in the Marine advisers dealing with them. Fortunately, some scholars have been at pains to point out the dangers of such overgeneralizing remarks about Arab values (Feghali 1997; Haj-Yahia 1997; Kanso, Sinno, and Adams 2001).

An appreciation of the notion of face and honor is often said to be crucial for an understanding of Arab culture. Wilkins (2001), advising British instructors on handling Arab students in Dubai, warns that the latter will often not ask for clarification if they do not understand, and will be wary of displaying their own weaknesses in front of their colleagues; for this reason, he says, they may participate better if placed in a class of strangers. Likewise, instructors are often advised not to reveal any hesitations or to admit anything less than total mastery of their topic to an Arab audience (Bruton and Stewart 1995: 27). Farghal and Haggan (2006: 116) recount the story of a British teacher who told his class of Arab students that he knew nothing about English grammar, whereupon the students went to the administration to complain that they had been assigned an incompetent teacher. Wunderle claims that “losing face is the ultimate disgrace, and an Arab will go to almost any length to avoid it” (2007: 36). The claim that Arabs are motivated by shame rather than guilt is frequently reiterated (for one emphatic expression of this view, see Berman 2008), though others have argued that this value is actually a distinguishing feature of Mediterranean cultures rather than of Arab ones (Tillion 1966).

The concept of face is regularly evoked in comments on the reliability of what Arabs actually say. We are told, for instance, that Arabs rarely say either yes or no (El Louadi 2004: 127), that “Arabs are more likely to ignore something they disagree with, than openly reject or criticize it” (Loosemore and Al Muslmani 1999: 97) and that “most Middle Easterners will often say ‘yes’ when they really mean ‘no’ ” (Wunderle 2007: 35). Bruton and Stewart go so far as to assert: “To the Arabs a lie does not exist or is an insignificant happening. The Arabs value actions that maintain a modicum of social sensitivity in lieu of allowing ‘objective’ facts to intrude” (1995: 21). The new visitor to the Arab world who seeks advice in these works may well conclude that communication with such people will be quite impossible!

Related to these generalizations about sincerity is the claim that Arabs often assume that others’ refusals can be renegotiated into agreements. Love and Powers, for instance, report that Western instructors in the United Arab Emirates were extremely frustrated by what the authors term the “culture of negotiation” (2002: 223) which they encountered among their students, who would persist in asking for late work to be accepted, for grades to be revised or for lateness in coming to class to be disregarded.

The more action-oriented comparisons of Anglo and Arab cultures, which focus on actual communication strategies, include work done within the framework of pragmatics and speech act theory. Many of these are not intercultural studies but rather cross-cultural ones: rather than investigating what happens when Arabs encounter Anglos, they may compare the strategies each prefers to use within in-group communication. It may be helpful to set their findings against some of the generalizations noted above. For instance, a study by Stevens (1993) which compared refusals in English by Americans and Arabic-speaking learners of English and ones in Arabic by Arabic speakers found many common strategies, the differences that were observed not corresponding to a clear contrast in terms of indirectness. Nelson, Al Batal, and El Bakary (2002) and Nelson et al. (2002) also compared strategies used by Egyptians and Americans in making refusals; the first of these studies found that both groups used indirect strategies of similar types with similar frequency, but that the American refusals were actually longer than the Egyptian ones, thus failing to confirm the claims that Arabs favor greater indirectness and more elaborate expressions. Interestingly, though, the second study makes the point that the format used required the Egyptian informants to indicate how they would express a refusal in contexts where many of them claimed they would not really feel able to refuse at all (an observation in line with the remarks, noted above, concerning Arabs’ reluctance to openly reject a proposition).

The findings of such empirical investigations may thus offer useful corrections or confirmations of the often sweeping generalizations offered in value-based studies. As any speech act theorist would agree, of course, indirectness is not a blanket strategy but one used in specific circumstances, such as to perform certain categories of what are perceived as face-threatening acts (Brown and Levinson 1978). The fact that both Americans and Arabs prefer indirect strategies for refusing is naturally explained by the fact that such refusals are perceived by both groups as threatening the addressee’s positive face. Differences may emerge more clearly if other types of speech act are considered.

Brown and Levinson’s (1978) attempt to establish universal dimensions for the analysis of politeness phenomena draws an important distinction between positive politeness (the showing of concern for the interlocutor’s desire to be approved of) and negative politeness (the showing of respect for the interlocutor’s need to be unimpeded). Differences in the priorities given to each of these concerns mean that communities may contrast in what Brown and Levinson (1978: 248) refer to as “ethos,” or interactional quality; for instance, the British are often cited as a group preferring negative politeness (Hickey 1991; Stewart 2005) while Arab and Mediterranean societies are felt to favor positive politeness (Davies 1987; Belemlih 2002). To take a simple example of how these differences may be realized in every­day interactions, a British person, using negative politeness, might offer a guest more food by saying something like Would you like another piece of cake? whereas a Moroccan in the same circumstances, using positive politeness, would forcefully press more food on the guest, refusing to take no for an answer and swearing to God that she must accept it. One can easily imagine the misunderstandings that could arise on both sides here; the Moroccan guest might feel offended at the apparent coldness and lack of hospitality of her host, the British guest might be annoyed and embarrassed at being ordered about. Far from concluding that Arabs consistently prefer indirect strategies, then, we may suggest that in performing certain types of speech act, such as invitations, they are likely to adopt a more direct approach than Anglophones.

The two groups may also have contrasting views of what constitutes a face-threatening act. Brown and Levinson (1978: 108–9) include compliments among examples of positive politeness strategies, as expressions of interest in and approval of the recipient; however, in cultures which retain a belief in the evil eye (the fear that the possessor of something others envy may actually be harmed by others’ admiration of this possession), they may be perceived as dangerous threats to the recipient. In Morocco and other Arabic-speaking communities, complimenters are expected to use special formulas to protect those complimented from this danger. A striking example of how serious misunderstandings may arise because of differing perceptions of the consequences of this speech act is reported by Belemlih (2002: 620–1). A Moroccan woman who did a day’s housework at the home of an American resident in Morocco recounts how she actually fell ill the next day, attributing this to the fact that her employer had complimented her on her strength and speed at carrying out housework, without accompanying the remark by the required ritual phrase tbarek allah (God bless you). It is difficult for an Anglophone outsider to imagine just how shocking and alarming this obviously well-meant remark was for its recipient. But it illustrates just one of many circumstances where differing views of politeness may lead to communication breakdown. There is far more going on here than a simple preference for direct or indirect expression.

Nelson, Al Batal and Echols (1996) note the same trend for including formulaic expressions to ward off the evil eye in compliment responses by Syrians. They also observe a more general tendency for the Arab informants to use more formulas than Americans. Contrasts between the uses of politeness formulas in Arabic and English may be the cause of many types of intercultural misunderstanding, as is argued by Davies (1986, 1987, 1992) and Bentahila and Davies (1989). Similar formulas may exist in the two languages, but be used with different illocutionary forces (cf. English thank God and Arabic hamdu lillah), or a specific context may require an obligatory politeness formula in Arabic where a non-stereotyped response, or indeed no response at all, might be preferred in English. While Anglophones who are trying to use some Arabic often judge the easiest solution to be learning a few routine formulas, the use of these may be fraught with pitfalls. For instance, the contexts where an Anglophone would say thank you do not correspond to those where an act of thanking would be appropriate in Arabic, and where such an act is appropriate, quite sophisticated sociolinguistic knowledge may be required to choose the appropriate formula to use to a certain type of interlocutor for a certain type of service (Davies 1987).

Even if Anglophones do not venture to use Arabic politeness formulas themselves, many problems may arise if they interpret literally those that are addressed to them. For instance, Nelson, Al Batal and Echols (1996: 425) note that the type of compliment response most frequently used by their Syrian informants is a formula which literally means that the speaker is offering the object complimented on to the complimenter. As they point out, these expressions are not normally taken at face value by recipients (a point also made by Farghal and Haggan 2006), but outsiders might well believe the offer is sincere, with possibly embarrassing consequences.

The literal meaning of many commonly used formulas may contribute to the reinforcement of stereotypes. The classic example is of course the formula insha Allah (God willing), the frequent use of which in Arabic discourse is often cited as evidence for Arabs’ fatalistic outlook and unwillingness to commit themselves to any future course of action (see, for instance, Bruton and Stewart 1995). Interestingly, it has recently been noted that US servicemen who have served in Iraq have started using the phrase when speaking English, with some speculation as to whether this represents a process of acculturation and a shift of worldview (Murphy 2007). But insha Allah can be used to convey a wide range of subtle messages; Nazzal (2001) offers a detailed study of some of its communication functions. The British author of this chapter, for instance, who would certainly not describe herself as a fatalist, frequently uses it as an indirect means of declining an invitation, or in order to politely avoid expressing wholehearted commitment to a proposal.

This is of course just one of many Arabic formulas with religious content, standardly used to perform acts of thanking, congratulating, greeting, leave-taking, etc. (for a wealth of examples, see Emery 2000). The outsider who understands the literal meaning of these phrases but fails to recognize their formulaic nature will certainly have the impression his interlocutors’ worldview is deeply imbued with religion. Yet even agnostic or atheist speakers of Arabic certainly find themselves regularly using these formulas without reflecting about their literal meaning, any more than an Anglophone atheist would hesitate to use the word goodbye. Extreme caution should thus be exercised in drawing conclusions about individuals’ mindsets from the routines they use in everyday speech (Davies 1987, 1992).

Politeness issues may also pose problems in written communication. Al-Ali (2004) compared job application letters written in English by Americans and in Arabic by Jordanians, finding notable differences in the generic moves included and the rhetorical strategies adopted. A further study (Al-Ali 2006) examined intercultural communication, in the form of similar job application letters written by Jordanians in English, and found that these native Arabic speakers differed from native English speakers in using less negative politeness and much more positive politeness (notably the strategy of glorifying the institution to which they were applying). He concluded that “based on the inappropriate use of the pragmatic features on the part of the applicants, their responses would be negatively evaluated by English native speaker readers” (2006: 133). Bentahila (1992, 2002) likewise found that Moroccan students’ formal letters in English, addressed to their head of department for a variety of purposes (requesting permission for late submission of work, applying for grants, etc.), incorporated many instances of strategies such as flattery and appeals for pity which would probably not be judged appropriate by an English-speaking recipient.

Other investigations of written communication have looked at rhetorical features. Hatim (1997) and Hatim and Mason (1997) claim that argumentative texts in English frequently use the strategy of counter-argumentation (presentation of a claim which is later rejected in favor of a counter-claim), whereas in Arabic rhetoric there is a strong preference for through-argumentation (presentation of a claim followed by its substantiation). Hatim (1997) relates this preference to Arabic speakers’ tendency to perceive their audiences as supportive and to seek greater intimacy with them, counter-argumentation therefore appearing to them as too devious an approach. Such differing organizational patterns may lead one group to find the other’s discourse confusing or even impenetrable. Johnstone (1983, 1991) offers data to demonstrate the extensive use in Arabic persuasive discourse of repetition, parallelism and paraphrase, strategies which may not convince a Western audience. But while ethnocentric remarks by Anglophones criticizing Arabic discourse’s tendency towards redundancy and lack of rigor are not hard to find, Johnstone (1991: 120) points out that Anglophone patterns may appear equally mystifying to Arabs.

Yet another source of misunderstanding may be the subjects of conversation chosen by the participants in an Anglo–Arab interaction. Hinkel (1994) compared Anglophones with speakers of five other languages, including Arabic, with regard to the topics they judged appropriate for social conversations with casual acquaintances. The Arabic speakers differed significantly from the Americans in their judgments of what points could appropriately be talked about in discussions of age, money, recreation, weather, travel and themselves. Certainly offense may be caused or personality misjudged if these mismatches emerge in real-life conversations between members of the two communities.

Finally, a number of studies have looked at non-linguistic parameters such as gestures, eye contact and personal space, which may also have an impact on interlocutors’ perceptions of one another. For instance, Watson and Graves’ comparison of interactions between young Arab and young American males, found that the Arabs “confronted each other more directly than Americans … sat closer to each other” and “looked each other more squarely in the eye” (1966: 977). On the basis of these findings, Collett (1971) conducted an experiment and found that Arab subjects who held conversations with Englishmen expressed a preference for the experimental subjects who had been trained to adopt Arab norms in these respects over a control group who had received no such instruction.

However, once again absolute generalizations may be difficult. Lomranz (1976) investigated variations in the personal space required by Iraqi, Russian, and Argentine immigrants to Israel, and found that the Iraqis required by far the smallest amount of space, and made the least differentiation between the space required between friends and between strangers. On the other hand, norms for personal space clearly vary depending on whether the interlocutors are of the same or the opposite sex; larger distances are expected to be maintained between a male and a female. Thus the Western instructors surveyed by Love and Powers (2002) reported experiencing considerable stress in trying to determine how much space to leave when talking to their students; male instructors sometimes offended female students by standing too close, while female instructors were disturbed by the fact that girls crowded around them, coming closer than American norms would warrant. Claims about Arabs’ use of eye contact vary. Wunderle (2007), advising intercultural negotiators, maintains that Arabs use more eye contact than their American counterparts, but a US Department of Justice document (n.d.) for police training warns that in Arab culture it is disrespectful to maintain direct consistent eye contact. Here too, it is probably necessary to distinguish situations involving different sexes from same-sex interactions.

Reflections and Suggestions

Perhaps the most obvious problem in making pronouncements about Anglo–Arab interaction is that already noted in the introduction: the difficulty of interpreting the term Arab, repeatedly used in the literature as if it labeled a clearly specified and homogeneous culture. For Westerners, the prototype Arab may be an Arabic-speaking Muslim living somewhere in the Middle East. But the term covers the natives of an area extending from longitudes further west than Spain to latitudes further south than Senegal: people who do not represent a single distinct race, do not all share the same religion, and arguably do not constitute a single ethnic group (Bates and Rassam 2000). In many respects, the inhabitants of the southern shores of the Mediterranean may share more with their neighbors on its northern shores than with the desert nomads of the Arabian peninsula. The basic criterion for identification of the group would seem to be the Arabic language, but as already noted, the varieties of Arabic spoken across the region are not always mutually intelligible. Moreover, there are some who call themselves Arabs yet who do not speak Arabic, and some of those who speak Arabic nevertheless do not identify themselves as Arabs (Davies and Bentahila 2007).

Many of the generalizations made about Arabs would seem to exclude Arabic-speaking Middle Easterners who are Christian or Jewish (or indeed atheist), while possibly including other Muslims (for instance, in one 1980 poll 70% of Americans surveyed identified Iran as an Arab country [Shaheen 1997]). Conclusions about how Arabs think or behave are often based on an investigation of informants from just one or two countries (Affourtit [2008], for instance, bases remarks about Arabs on a study whose informants were all Jordanians), and even those who attempt to dispel one misconception sometimes only offer another, as when Crawford (2004: 30) corrects the confusion of the labels Arab and Muslim by remarking that “Arabic is a nationality.” Generalizations about Arabs often turn out to be true only for the inhabitants of certain countries; thus Hammad et al. (1999) cite the custom of referring to adults using the name of their first-born son, and offer a list of useful Arabic phrases for health workers to use with Arabs, but fail to note that this information is valid for only some parts of the Arab world. In addition, remarks made in the literature often fail to acknowledge that norms may vary considerably from one context to another; what is expected in a home context may not be required in the workplace, and individuals belonging to the same culture may react very differently depending on their social status, experience, education, etc. Instructions for how to deal with an illiterate peasant woman may not be applicable to interactions with a sophisticated businesswoman!

Discussions of Anglo–Arab intercultural discourse often fail to evoke other aspects of the relationship between the participants. Apart from cultural differences, relations of power and distance may play an important role in determining what communication strategies will be effective. Individual interactions do not take place within a vacuum, as some guides would seem to assume, but may be influenced by issues such as whether the exchange takes place in neutral territory or against the cultural background of one participant or the other, whether the participants are perceived as equals or not, and the extent of their previous experience of dealing with members of the other group.

It must also be noted that individual encounters take place against a global backcloth; “forms of contact between different groups, including avoidance, are largely determined by the socio-political structure within which these groups coexist” (Apitzsch and Dittmar 1987: 56). A recent survey of Arabs’ attitudes towards the West by Jordan’s Center for Strategic Studies (2005) suggests that tensions between the two are primarily due not to cultural differences but rather to political relations. While Arabs may not generally hold the individual Americans they meet responsible for their country’s foreign policy, interactions between individuals may well be influenced by the participants’ feelings about global issues such as terrorism and Middle East conflicts; Zogby (2002) concluded from an eight-country poll that the Palestinian issue is no longer simply a political question for Arabs, but has become “a personal issue.” Interactions between Arabs and their non-Arab compatriots in many parts of the world have been negatively affected by world events since 9/11 (Poynting and Mason 2006; Salaita 2006; Mansouri and Kamp 2007).

One point often taken for granted, yet which seems to us to require more reflection, is the assumption that differences between cultures will lead to communication difficulties. This position is not specific to discussions of Anglo–Arab discourse; for instance, much work in cross-cultural pragmatics, which identifies contrasts in the speech habits of different communities, seems to imply that these differences will inevitably surface in intercultural dialogue. However, this is not necessarily the case, as Levine, Park, and Kim (2007: 209) point out. It cannot automatically be assumed that participants in an intercultural exchange maintain the communication patterns they habitually use with their compatriots. Thus the fact that Arabic speakers prefer to express disagreements indirectly when talking among themselves, even if proven, does not allow us to conclude that they will use the same strategies when talking to Americans; they may well adapt their behavior in the light of what they know about or feel towards their interlocutors. In fact, the study by Stevens (1993) mentioned above found that in their English refusals the Arab informants, instead of transferring indirect Arabic communication strategies which would have yielded acceptable results, used other, more direct strategies which were not effective.

There is in fact a curious inconsistency of perspective in many of the works advising Anglos on how to interact with Arabs. While instructing the Anglos on how to adapt their behavior by accommodating to some degree to Arab norms, commentators rarely seem to raise the question of how the Arabs are likely to adjust their own behavior when interacting with Anglophones. Rather, they often seem to portray the Arab interlocutors as frozen within their own mindset, and to take for granted that these Arabs will behave when dealing with Westerners exactly as they would do in an in-group interaction.

Another criticism that might be made of the existing literature on Anglo–Arab interaction concerns the tendency to focus above all on the differences between the two cultures and on the contexts where communication is likely to fail. Those sent into the field with long lists of contrasts and complex instructions may feel daunted and discouraged before they begin. Insistent warnings about the dangers of causing offense or being misjudged may make interlocutors so inhibited that they restrict their interaction to an exchange of ritual formalities with no real engagement, thus missing the chance of a truly meaningful encounter with the Other. Yet human beings from very different backgrounds often do manage to communicate remarkably well, sometimes even without a common language. Surely attention should also be paid to what members of the two cultures share, a point which is emphasized by Levine, Park, and Kim (2007: 219) and Brislin (1981: 60).

On the other hand, there are also dangers in assuming common ground. One of Bruton and Stewart’s informants, an American sergeant who worked for some time with Arab forces in Saudi Arabia, remarked: “We found the longer we stayed with them – they are just like us.” But the authors call this reaction “disturbing” (1995: 11), and are at pains to point out instances where American servicemen falsely interpret Arabs’ reactions in terms of their American value systems, as when they confuse trust with a respect for knowledge (18) or interpret bargaining strategies as an attempt to overcharge (26). The alarm that Bruton and Stewart express here can perhaps be traced to another problem. While discussion of intercultural interaction often seems to focus on the productive side of the interaction, advising participants on how to talk to the Other, the receptive side is equally important. Americans need not only to know how to be polite when speaking to Arabs, but also to be able to interpret the Arabs’ own remarks in the spirit in which they are made, and not through the filter of their own culture. Misunderstandings arising from ethnocentric attribution are frequent, but may go unacknowledged (Lalljee 1987), especially in those who confidently assume that the Other’s behavior can be taken at its face value.

We would also like to call into question another common assumption. It often seems to be taken for granted in the literature on Anglo–Arab communication that the key to successful intercultural communication is knowledge of the Other’s culture. So often learning to interact with members of another culture seems to be equated with learning about this culture, simply by absorbing a set of facts and handy hints. There are a number of problems with this assumption, and we would agree with Shi-Xu and Wilson’s remark that “mere linguistic and cultural knowledge is not a necessary, not even a sufficient, condition for the success of intercultural communication” (2001: 78).

First, there is the danger that the provision of detailed information about the other culture may lull interactants into a false sense of security. Having studied the guidelines provided, they may become over-confident that, provided they meet the norms indicated, they will achieve successful communication. But of course, as noted above, the guidelines, while often quite rigid, are rarely entirely valid. And this is definitely a situation where a little knowledge may be a dangerous thing. A misused formula, a misleading gesture, or a misinterpreted remark may sometimes have far more serious consequences that a simple admission of ignorance.

Another danger is that Westerners who have been provided with detailed descriptions of how Arabs interact may then misjudge Arabs who do not conform to these stereotypes. Nelson, Al Batal, and El Bakary, for instance, point out that “Non-Arabs, who have been taught that Arabs use indirect communication, may perceive Arabs as impolite, rude, or arrogant if they use direct strategies in refusing or in other face-threatening acts” (2002: 53). For instance, if told that Arabs receiving a visitor will always bring out food and drink and insist that these be partaken of, an American visitor may assume hostility on the part of the Arab host who fails to do this; yet this host may in fact simply be opting to conform to American norms. As noted above, neither of the participants in an intercultural encounter need be expected to behave exactly as they would within their own group.

There is also a fine distinction between conforming to the norms of the Other’s culture in order to show a positive attitude and facilitate interaction, and adopting behavioral norms which may feel artificial, irksome or constraining. Nelson, Al-Batal, and Echols (1996: 430) note that Americans encouraged to use the lengthy formulaic utterances Syrians favor when paying compliments may end up “feeling phony and insincere.” It is of course difficult to draw the line between simply drawing the attention of interactants to ways in which their behavior may be perceived and laying down rules which may be felt to impinge on the individual’s powers of self-expression. This problem has been addressed in the context of foreign-language teaching, with warnings of the dangers of what might be seen as cultural imperialism (Littlewood 1983: 203; Davies, 1987: 82). Yet some researchers do not hesitate to make recommendations which may require not simply small adjustments of behavior, but the projection of a false persona. For instance, in their study comparing the types of humor favored by Americans, Lebanese, and Egyptian informants, Kalliny, Cruthirds, and Minor conclude that American managers should avoid using self-defeating or self-enhancing humor since “Arab followers are likely to misinterpret such overtures and form a negative impression which could be the basis of, or support, cross cultural communication problems” (2006: 131). Those receiving such instructions may feel that they are expected to disguise or alter their own personalities in order to get on with Arabs, which may in turn lead to feelings of self-consciousness or even resentment.

It often seems to be taken for granted that Westerners’ accommodation to Arab norms will automatically be welcome to the Arabs. However, over-accommodation may sometimes be viewed with mixed feelings; individuals may be disconcerted or suspicious at what they perceive to be an attempt to get too close, to step over the invisible line between courteous adaptation and infiltration of another’s intimacy (Christophersen 1973: 83; Davies 1987: 87). It may also on occasion be felt to have overtones of mockery, in the same way that language crossing, the superficial adoption of another’s language, may be used to ridicule rather than as an expression of solidarity (Hill 1995). Over-zealous attempts to converge to the Other’s norms may thus not always be well received.

This brings us to the issue of the underlying attitudes of interactants, which may not necessarily be altered by the learning of a few politeness formulas. Ethnocentrism, the feeling that one’s own culture is superior to that of one’s interlocutor, may remain an obstacle to effective communication even among those who slavishly follow their list of do’s and don’ts. Unfortunately, some of the materials purporting to promote Anglo–Arab communication may only reinforce Anglos’ negative perceptions of Arabs. An alarming example is the work of Badolato (n.d.), which was actually used in the training of US military personnel; his observations include references to Arabs’ basic propensity for conflict, the claim that Arabs “routinely express themselves by shouting, often with angry gestures,” and much more. His remarks here may perhaps be related to the fact that certain languages are habitually spoken more loudly than certain others; Abercrombie (1967: 96) actually cites Egyptian Arabic as an instance of a “loud” language. But to equate a loud voice with anger smacks of ethnocentrism. Were it not for the unfortunate consequences that may result from such negative stereo­typing, one could simply smile at such remarks, just as one may smile at the complacency of Nydell’s (1996: 40) lofty observation that “Arabs consciously reserve the right to look at the world in a subjective way.” In this, we fear, Arabs are no different from Americans.

Ultimately, the idea that, in accommodating to Arab norms, Anglophones are doing the Arabs a favor may need to be called into question. A little more honesty is perhaps required from those who present intercultural communication as a selfless act of openness towards the Other. Cohen (2001) takes a more realistic view: “If you want to do business with strangers, either in the diplomatic or commercial sense, you do them no favor by studying their ways and adopting appropriate behavior. Quite the reverse – you do yourself a favor by increasing the chances of avoiding gratuitous error and fostering a successful outcome” (2001: 159). In many of the studies of Anglo–Arab communication which focus on business transactions, the self-interest underlying concerns to adapt to Arab norms is quite clear. But we would like to suggest that the same motives underlie many if not most other discussions of the issue. Efforts to improve intercultural communication are rarely altruistic initiatives; they are undertaken because those concerned have a message to convey, a viewpoint to share, a goal to achieve, and often an interlocutor to manipulate.

And so we would argue that studies of Anglo–Arab intercultural communication need to address not merely the hows of such communication, but also the whys. Individual interactions take place against a socio-political background and a set of expectations, and they are affected not merely by cultural differences but by the dynamics of relations between the individuals involved and the communities they are perceived to represent. Communication may involve transmission of a message from a dominant to a dominated figure, from an instructor to those instructed, from a giver to a taker; or it may constitute a real two-way exchange of views. A knowledge of Arab norms and expectations, judiciously used, may well help Anglophones to understand and make themselves understood in an interaction with Arabs, but other qualities may be equally or more important; humility, open-mindedness, an awareness that communication and adaptation are not one-way processes, and a willingness to see that one’s own outlook is not a standard by which all others should be evaluated. Anglos need not only to look at their interlocutors with an open mind, but also to try and understand how these interlocutors look at them.

To close, we would like to evoke one striking example of ethnocentrism and inequality which features in so many of the discussions we have cited, yet which is rarely explicitly addressed. This is the recurrent assumption that Anglo–Arab discourse is likely to take place via the medium of English; Arabs are expected to learn English in order to interact with Anglophones, rather than the reverse. Some authors do note that Anglophones’ efforts to learn a little Arabic, or to insert some polite Arabic formulas into their conversation, will be much appreciated by their Arab interlocutors (Bruton and Stewart 1995: 16; Loosemore and Al Muslmani 1999: 98), but little recognition is given to the fact that the Arab participants have to struggle with a language they may not feel entirely comfortable with, as well as engaging with another culture. Yet in this act alone they may be making far more effort to accommodate than the Anglophones who simply adjust a few aspects of their usual behavior.

Underlying this trend are of course the power relations between the two cultures. It is noticeable that in the empirical studies we have surveyed here, the Anglo interlocutors are almost always in a position of power relative to their Arab interlocutors (American military personnel instructing their Arab counterparts, American and UK instructors teaching Arab students, etc.). Yet even the mighty may stumble if not enough attention is paid to what language is used, to how a message is formulated and how it may be received. A memorable example was the initial naming of the US campaign in Afghanistan Operation Infinite Justice, a label which, translated into Arabic, bore incongruous and unacceptable connotations of divine will; the name was of course quickly replaced. Clearly, thought needs to be given to linguistic issues as well as cultural ones, but Anglophones, taking for granted the hegemony of their language, often fail to realize this.

Conclusion

While the literature on Anglo–Arab intercultural communication is often thought-provoking and enlightening, it displays a number of weaknesses. Many remarks are over-general, some reinforce stereotypes, and much of the discussion takes an over-simplistic view of intercultural communication, assuming that difference is always a problem, and that knowledge of difference is always a solution. Documents aimed at helping those involved in Anglo–Arab interaction may make them too complacent or too self-conscious. Nevertheless, the growing interest in such intercultural encounters is encouraging, for it signals at least that efforts are being made and minds are being focused. An interaction between Anglo and Arab is ultimately no different from any other encounter involving strangers; its success or failure may depend as much on factors such as the relations between the individuals involved (power, distance, solidarity) and the physical, ideological, and socio-political context against which it is set as on the cultural elements evoked above. And even if misunderstandings remain frequent, efforts to achieve meaningful two-way communication across the Anglo–Arab divide will be worthwhile if they only bring interlocutors on both sides to an awareness of the importance of recognizing one’s own cultural bias as well as that of the Other.

NOTE

1 We would like to thank Kristopher Geda for his efficient and rapid help in obtaining some much needed references.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abercrombie, David. 1967. Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Adelman, Mara B. and Myron W. Lustig. 1981. Intercultural communication problems as perceived by Saudi Arabian and American managers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 5, 349–63.

Affourtit, Thomas D. 2008. Language of the mind: Cross-cultural preparation for marine advisers. United States Naval Institute Proceedings 134(7), 80–2.

Al-Ali, Mohammed N. 2004. How to get yourself on the door of a job: A cross-cultural contrastive study of Arabic and English job application letters. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 25, 1–23.

Al-Ali, Mohammed N. 2006. Genre-specific strategies in English letter-of-application writing of Jordanian Arabic-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9, 119–39.

Apitzsch, Gisela and Norbert Dittmar. 1987. Contact between German and Turkish adolescents: A case study. In Karlfried Knapp, Werner Enninger, and Annelie Knapp-Potthoff (eds.). Analyzing Inter­cultural Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 51–72.

Atifi, Hassan. 2003. La variation culturelle dans les communications en ligne: Analyse ethnographique des forums de discussion marocains. Langage et Société 104, 57–82.

Badolato, Edward V. n.d. Learning to think like an Arab Muslim: A short guide to understanding the Arab mentality. www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/0503arabs.html.

Bates, Daniel G. and Amal Rassam. 2001. Peoples and Cultures of the Middle East. 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bateson, Mary Catherine. 1967. Arabic Language Handbook. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Belemlih, Halima. 2002. Language as a mirror of culture: Invitations and compliments. Doctoral thesis, Mohammed I University, Oujda, Morocco.

Bentahila, Abdelali. 1983. Language Attitudes among Arabic-French Bilinguals in Morocco. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Bentahila, Abdelali. 1992. Moroccan contexts, English medium: A look at some Moroccan–English correspondence. In Mohammed Dahbi, Nadia Tahri, and Thomas Miller (eds.). American Studies in North African Universities. Rabat: Editions Guessous. 61–5.

Bentahila, Abdelali. 2002. The transfer of cultural and pragmatic norms: Examples from letter-writing. In Interaction entre culture et traduction: Actes du symposium international. Tangier: Ecole Supérieure Roi Fahd de Traduction. 75–82.

Bentahila, Abdelali and Eirlys E. Davies. 1989. Culture and language use: A problem for foreign language teaching. IRAL 27, 99–112.

Berman, Lazar. 2008. Understanding Arab culture. Small Wars Journal. http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/docs-temp/47-berman.pdf.

Blais, Jacqueline. 2001. People want to know, so Koran is best-seller. USA Today, October 18. www.usatoday.com/life/books/2001–10–18-koran.htm.

Brislin, Richard W. 1981. Cross-cultural Encounters: Face-to-Face Interaction. Elsford, NY: Pergamon.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Poli­teness phenomena. In Esther N. Goody (ed.). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cam­bridge University Press. 56–289.

Bruton, James K. and Edward C. Stewart. 1995. The Gulf War: An Analysis of Ameri­can and Arab Cross-cultural Encounters. Langley AFB, VA: Army-Air Force Center for Low Intensity Conflict.

Center for Strategic Studies. 2005. Revisiting the Arab Street: Research from Within. Amman: University of Jordan. www.mafhoum.com/press7/revisit-exec.pdf.

Christophersen, Paul. 1973. Second-Language Learning: Myth and Reality. Harmonds­worth: Penguin.

Cohen, Raymond. 1987. Problems of intercultural communication in Egyptian–American diplomatic relations. Inter­national Journal of Intercultural Relations 11, 29–47.

Cohen, Raymond. 2001. Living and teaching across cultures. International Studies Perspectives 2, 151–60.

Collett, Peter. 1971. Training Englishmen in the non-verbal behaviour of Arabs. Inter­national Journal of Psychology 6, 209–15.

Crawford, Alan Pell. 2004. Communicating with the Arab world. Public Relations Strategist 10, 30–2.

Davies, Eirlys E. 1986. Politeness and the foreign language learner. Anglo-American Studies 6, 117–30.

Davies, Eirlys E. 1987. A contrastive approach to the analysis of politeness formulas. Applied Linguistics 8, 75–89.

Davies, Eirlys E. 1992. Routines and realities: Some sources of misunderstand­ing in cross-cultural communication. In Mohammed Dahbi, Nadia Tahri, and Thomas Miller (eds.). American Studies in North African Universities. Rabat: Editions Guessous. 72–5.

Davies, Eirlys E. and Abdelali Bentahila. 2007. Ethnicity and language. In Kees Versteegh (ed.). Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Vol. 2, 58–64.

Dedoussis, Evangellos. 2004. A cross-cultural comparison of organizational structure: Evidence from universities in the Arab world and Japan. Cross Cultural Management 11, 15–34.

Dodd, Carey. 1982. Dynamics of Intercultural Communication. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

Donohoue Clyne, Irene. Finding common ground: Cross-cultural research in the Muslim community. www.informaworld.com/index/739495708.pdf.

El Louadi, Mohamed. 2004. Cultures et communication électronique dans le monde arabe. Systèmes d’Information et Management 9(3), 117–43.

Emery, Peter G. 2000. Greeting, congratulating and commiserating in Omani Arabic. Language, Culture and Curriculum 13, 196–216.

Farghal, Mohammed and Madeleine Haggan, 2006. Compliment behavior in bilingual Kuwaiti college students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9, 94–118.

Feghali, Ellen. 1997. Arab cultural communication patterns. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 21, 345–78.

Gold, Ellen Reid. 1988. Ronald Reagan and the oral tradition. Central States Speech Journal 39, 159–76.

Haj-Yahia, Muhammad M. 1997. Culturally sensitive supervision of Arab social work students in Western universities. Social Work 42, 166–74.

Hall, Edward T. 1959. The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday.

Hall, Edward T. 1976. Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.

Hammad, Adnan, Rashid Kysia, Raja Rabah, Rosina Hassoun, and Michael Connelly. 1999. ACCESS Guide to Arab Culture: Health Care Delivery to the Arab American Community. Dearborn, MI: ACCESS Community Health Center.

Harrison, Patricia S. 2004. Statement on the recommendations of the 9/11 Com­mission Report. www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/othertstmy/35568.htm.

Hatim, Basil. 1997. Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge.

Hickey, Leo. 1991. Comparatively polite people in Spain and Britain. ACIS Journal 4(2), 2–6.

Hill, Jane H. 1995. Mock Spanish: A site for the indexical reproduction of racism in American English. http://web.archive.org/www.language-culture.org/colloquia/symposia/hill-jane.

Hinkel, Eli. 1994. Topic appropriateness in cross-cultural social conversations. In Lawrence F. Bouton and Yamuna Kachru (eds.). Pragmatics and Language Learning. Mon­ograph Series 5. 163–79.

Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Cultural Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hutchings, Kate and David Weir. 2007. Understanding networking in China and the Arab world. Journal of European Industrial Training 30, 272–90.

Johnstone Koch, Barbara. 1983. Presentation as proof: The language of Arabic rhetoric. Anthropological Linguistics 25, 47–60.

Johnstone, Barbara. 1999. Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kalliny, Morris, Kevin W. Cruthirds, and Michael S. Minor. 2006. Differences between American, Egyptian and Leban­ese humor styles: Implications for international management. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6, 121–34.

Kanso, Ali, Abdul Karim Sinno, and William Adams. 2001. Cross-cultural public relations: Implications for American and Arab public relations practitioners. Competitiveness Review 11, 65–82.

Kluckhohn, Florence R. and Frank L. Strodtbeck. 1961. Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Lalljee, Mansur. 1987. Attribution theory and intercultural communication. In Karlfried Knapp, Werner Enninger, and Annelie Knapp-Potthoff (eds.). Analyzing Intercultural Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 37–49.

Levine, Donald N. 1985. The Flight from Ambiguity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levine, Timothy R., Hee Sun Park, and Rachel K. Kim. 2007. Some conceptual and theoretical challenges for cross-cultural communication research in the 21st century. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 36, 205–21.

Lewis, Richard D. 1998. When Cultures Collide: Managing Successfully across Cultures. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Littlewood, William. 1983. Contrastive pragmatics and the foreign language learner’s personality. Applied Linguistics 4, 200–6.

Liu, Betty. 2004. Rise of Arabic in US speaks volumes for war on terror. Financial Times, February 17, p. 11. www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1033.

Lomranz, Jacob. 1976. Cultural variations in personal space. Journal of Social Psychology 99, 21–7.

Loosemore, M. and H. S. Al Muslmani. 1999. Construction project management in the Persian Gulf: Inter-cultural communication. International Journal of Project Management 17, 95–100.

Love, Donald E. and William G. Powers. 2002. Communicating under uncertainty: Interaction between Arab students and Western instructors. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 31, 217–31.

Mansouri, Fethi and Annelies Kamp. 2007. Structural deficiency or cultural racism: The educational and social experiences of Arab-Australian youth. Australian Journal of Social Issues 42, 87–102.

Meleis, Afaf I. 1982. Arab students in Western universities: Social properties and dilemmas. Journal of Higher Education 53, 439–47.

Mostafa, Mohamed M. and Ahmed El-Masry. 2008. Perceived barriers to organizational creativity: A cross-cultural study of British and Egyptian future marketing managers. Cross Cultural Management 15, 81–93.

Munter, Mary. 1993. Cross-cultural communication for managers. Business Horizons 36(3), 69–78.

Murphy, Cullen. 2007. Inshallah. American Scholar 76(4), 14–15.

Nazzal, Ayman R. 2001. The pragmatic functions of Qur’anic verses: The case of INSHA’ ALLAH in Arabic discourse as a species of indirectness. Doctoral thesis, University of Albany, Ann Arbor, MI.

Nelson, Gaylel, Mahmoud Al Batal, and Waguida El Bakary. 2002. Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26, 39–57.

Nelson, Gaylel., Mahmoud Al Batal, and Erin Echols. 1996. Arabic and English compliment responses: Potential for pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 17, 411–32.

Nelson, Gayle L., Joan Carson, Mahmoud Al Batal, and Waguida El Bakary. 2002. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics 23, 163–89.

Nydell, Margaret. 1996. Understanding Arabs: A Guide for Westerners. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Patai, Raphael. 1973. The Arab Mind. New York: Scribner.

Poynting, Scott and Victoria Mason. 2006. “Tolerance, freedom, justice and peace”?: Britain, Australia and Anti-Muslim racism since 11 September 2001. Journal of Intercultural Studies 27, 365–91.

Prothro, E. 1955. Arab–American differences in the judgment of written messages. Journal of Social Psychology 42, 3–11.

Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Vintage.

Salaita, Steven. 2006. Beyond orientalism and Islamophobia: 9/11, anti-Arab racism, and the mythos of national pride. New Centennial Review 6, 245–66.

Shaheen, Jack G. 1997. Arab and Muslim Stereotyping in American Popular Culture. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding.

Shi-xu and John Wilson. 2001. Will and power: Towards radical intercultural communication research and pedagogy. Language and Intercultural Communication 1, 76–93.

Shouby, E. 1951. The influence of the Arabic language on the psychology of the Arabs. Middle East Journal 5, 284–302.

Solberg, Carl Arthur. 2002. Culture and industrial buyer behaviour: The Arab experience. Paper submitted for the 18th IMP Conference, Dijon, France. www.escdijon.eu/download/imp/pdf/084solberg.pdf.

Stevens, Paul B. 1993. The pragmatics of “no!”: Some strategies in English and Arabic. Ideal 6, 87–112.

Stewart, Miranda. 2005. Politeness in Britain: “It’s only a suggestion … ” In Leo Hickey and Miranda Stewart (eds.). Politeness in Europe. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 116–29.

Tillion, Germaine. 1966. Le Harem et les cousins. Paris: Le Seuil.

United States Justice Department. n.d. The first three to five minutes: Under­standing Arab and Muslim Americans. Transcript of training video. www.usdoj.gov/crs/training_video/3to5_lan/transcript.html.

Veenstra, Charles. 2004. Listening between Arabs and Americans. Listening Profes­sional 3, 5–30.

Watson, O. M. and T. D. Graves. 1966. Quantitative research in proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist 68, 971–85.

Wilkins, Stephen. 2001. Management development in the Arab Gulf states – The influence of language and culture. Industrial and Commercial Training 33, 260–5.

Wunderle, William. 2007. How to negotiate in the Middle East. Military Review March–April, 33–7.

Yasin, Mahmoud M. and Ugur Yavas. 2007. An analysis of e-business practices in the Arab culture: Current inhibitors and future strategies. Cross Cultural Manage­ment 14, 68–73.

Zaharna, R. S. 1995. Bridging cultural distances: American public relations practices and Arab communication patterns. Public Relations Review 21, 241–55. http://nw08.american.edu/∼zaharna/arab-comm.htm.

Zaharna, R. S. 2003. American public diplomacy and the Arab and Islamic world: A communication update and assessment. Panel two of a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, February 27, 2003. www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/us-sfrc-zaharna-022703.htm.

Zogby, James. 2002. What do Arabs think about? Media Monitors Network. www.mediamonitors.net/zogby73.html.