1
Cross-cultural Argument Interactions Between
Israeli-Jews and Palestinians
By Don Ellis and Ifat Maoz
In : Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 181-194
(2002).
There are numerous cultural and political gaps that
create distance and tension between groups. Such gaps are
particularly wide when groups from different cultures
argue. The study of argument has a long history in
philosophy (Toulmin, 1988), rhetoric (Perelman, 1982),
communication (Meyers, 1989), and discourse studies (Van
Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Henkemans, 1996). And more
contemporary communication perspectives have examined
argument in contexts such as interpersonal relations
(Canary & Sillars, 1992) and organizational contexts
(Garrett & Meyers, 1991), among others. All of these
studies point to different approaches to the production and
interpretation of arguments. In this paper we test
predictions about arguments between groups in political
conflict (Israeli-Jews and Palestinians) from two
theoretical perspectives, namely, a cultural communication
perspective and theories of majority/minority relations.
The intercultural context is one arena of inquiry that
has received relatively little attention with respect to
2
argument. There is certainly tremendous interest in
intercultural communication in general, and in the various
discourse strategies and "speechways" of different groups
(cf. Hymes, 1974). Moreover, the ways in which the
communication patterns that characterize different cultural
groups promote miscommunication and stereotypes has been of
particular interest (e.g. Orbe, 1998). But studies that
examine actual argument exchanges between cultural groups,
Arabs and Israeli-Jews in particular, are rare. There are
studies that describe the argument styles and strategies of
single cultures. Hatim (1991), for example, studied
argumentation as a text type and found that Arabic as a
language lacked a particular form of counter-argumentation,
and this produced a communicative deficiency that had
pragmatic implications. The Jewish-Israeli preference for
direct argument has been noted by Shiffrin (1984) and
Katriel (1986).
Different cultural patterns of argument lead to
miscommunication, stereotypes, confusions, breaches of
decorum, and face threats. Johnstone (1986) suggested that
strategies of logical argumentation and persuasive style
attributable to Arab and western differences were
responsible for an abusive and failed interview with Iran's
Ayatollah Khomeini. Other scholars (e.g. Lippi-Green, 1997)
3
explain how numerous linguistic variations between cultures
lead to discrimination and miscommunication in
intercultural encounters. Such situations typically
exacerbate tensions between different cultures especially
when one is powerful and the other is not.
There is very little research that examines crosscultural argument interactions between cultures engaged in
extreme macro-political conflict. This study addresses this
deficiency in the research by analyzing the argument
differences between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians. These
are two cultures engaged in extreme conflict over history,
politics, culture, and territorial resources. The context
of investigation was reconciliation-aimed grass-roots
dialogue groups of Israeli-Jews and Palestinians that
attempted to create an environment for the two groups to
communicate and learn more about each other. We begin with
a closer look and review of the cultural communication
styles that characterize the two groups.
Jewish-Israeli and Arab cultural communication patterns
Modern Arab and Jewish-Israeli cultures have each
emerged from the special circumstances of its history.
There is some documentation as to the different
4
communicative norms that have resulted from these histories
(cf. Katriel, 1986; Feghali, 1997). These contrasting norms
of communication make for difficult and uncoordinated
communication. This is particularly true for the role of
argument as a pragmatic feature of each culture.
Several researchers describe the Arab interactional
ethos of musayra.1 Katriel (1986) and Griefat and Katriel
(1989) explain how musayra shapes Arab communication
patterns. Musayra means "to accommodate" or "to go along
with" and is a communication pattern that orients the
speakers toward harmonious social relations, indirection,
and a concern for face saving for the addressee. Musayra
emerges from the core values of Arab culture that have to
with honor, hospitality, and collectivism.
There are four essential communication features of
musayra (see Feghali, 1997). The first is repetition which
is discourse marked by reiterations of conventional oaths
and formulas (Gilsenan, 1983). Repetitiveness is a remnant
of an oral tradition which relied on repetition as a memory
aid and facilitated understanding. Repetition in musayra is
used primarily for complimenting and praising others,
especially in asymmetrical status relations. Interestingly,
repetition is also related to Arab argumentative style
where repeated phrases and words move belief rather that
5
Western style logic (Johnstone Koch, 1983). The second is
indirectness, which is quite consistent with typical
collectivist and high context cultures. Indirectness is an
interactional strategy that reflects the cultural tendency
to be interpersonally cautious and responsive to the
context. It facilitates politeness and face saving.
Elaboration is a third feature of musayra and refers to an
expressive and encompassing style. Elaboration leads to a
deeper connection with the other speaker and helps to
affirm the social positions of the speakers. The final
characteristic is affectiveness or the intuitive-affective
style of emotional appeal. Again, affectiveness allows for
identification with the other and the maintenance of
positive face.
In sharp contrast are the cultural communication
patterns of Israeli-Jews. Their speech is direct,
pragmatic, and places an emphasis on assertiveness. This
sort of speech is termed dugri ("straight talk") and is
well documented and described by Katriel (1986). JewishIsraeli dugri speech is the opposite of musayra. It is
direct, explicit, and clear. It is
simple and to the point
with ideas and logic foregrouned and affective and
emotional appeals backgrounded. Dugri represents a dominant
Jewish-Israeli identity that emerged in reaction to
6
historical oppression and the Diaspora experience of Jews
(Bar-On, 1999). Dugri is the interactional code that
projects this identity into interaction. Face and
interpersonal considerateness in dugri are not determined
by the communication in a given situation, but realized in
other culture-specific ideas of strength, integrity, and
the ability to perform dugri.
A general pattern of dugri-like communication is
apparent in other research that focuses on Jewish oral and
conversational styles (Tannen, 1984; Schiffrin, 1984;
Zupnik, 2000). This pattern--which is direct, assertive,
polyvocal, and peppered with numerous interruptions and
turn exchanges--is consistent with the dugri concern for
directness and the speaker's identity and face saving
rather than the addressee's.
Cultural communication patterns and context. Dugri and
musayra have been studied in a variety of contexts and been
shown to be descriptive of Jewish and Arab cultures
respectively. Nevertheless, context shapes interactions and
can be expected to influence communication styles (Coover &
Murphy, 2000). Speakers may choose to insert and express
these speech styles, which are characteristic of their
culture, in one context but not another. Minorities, for
example, intensely claim their identity in some situations
7
and weakly claim it in others (Ethier & Deaux, 1994). Thus,
given cultural changes and particular situations it is
unreasonable to assume that dugri and musayra will always
be the preferred communication style.
Zupnik (2000) reports from ethnographic informants
that Arab speakers will employ musayra in situations of
self interest, and when less powerful speakers are
communicating with the socially more powerful. Also, there
are occasions when the more powerful use musayra toward the
less powerful; for instance, a man toward a women, a
healthy person toward a sick person, and when a powerful
person is behaving magnanimously. Musayra is increasingly
generational and subject to contextual constraints. The
same is true for Jewish-Israeli dugri speech. As the
construction of the dominant “Sabre” (native JewishIsraeli) identity gives way to other more complex
representations and constructions of identity (Bar-On,
1999), so does its interactional projection. Dugri is
expected to give way to other more complex and diverse
forms of communicating and relating to others. Israeli-Jews
make jokes about "doing dugri" or "being dugri" in a
conversation or with an individual, thus belying the notion
that it is a determinate style of communication. The dugri
cultural code softens and hardens as situations dictate.
8
One context of communication for Israeli-Jews and
Palestinians that has received very little research
attention has been the context of politically focused
dialogues between the two sides. Several studies have
examined effects of interaction in dialogic encounters
between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians (Bar and Bargal,
1995; Bargal, 1990; Katz and Kahanov 1990, Maoz, in press).
However, scarce research attention has been given to
systematic analysis of communication patterns that are
manifested within these dialogues (for exceptions see BarOn 1999; Zupnik, 2000), and no research concentrates
specifically on styles of arguments employed by each side
in political discussions.
It is difficult to predict the extent to which dugri
and musayra communication styles will be operational in the
context of political dialogues between Israeli-Jews and
Palestinians. This question is particularly interesting
given the macro political context of Jewish-Palestinian
relations these dialogues are embedded in. This is a
context in which the sides clearly see themselves as
adversaries and as members of national groups in conflict.
The nature of this political context may be thus more
predictive of argument than cultural communication styles.
9
Argument is a highly characteristic communicative
exchange in dialogues concerned with political conflict.
Both sides use argument in an effort to present themselves
as just and right to the other side. Thus, musayra and
dugri become potentially important predictors of how each
national group argues. Below we briefly describe arguments
in groups and then posit two theories that lead to
contrasting predictions about group argument. One approach
is based on cultural communication differences (dugri and
musayra), the other is political in nature and derived from
majority/minority power relations theory.
Argument in small groups
The research on conversational argument and group
decision-making (cf Brashers, Adkins, & Meyers, 1994;
Meyers, 1997) describes the character and structure of
argument in small groups. Meyers et al. (1991) found in
their study of the distribution of argument acts in groupdiscussions that argument was mainly characterized by
Assertions, Elaborations, and Agreement (p. 60). In another
study of the distribution of argument acts among male and
female group participants, Meyers et al. (1997), found that
10
women tended to be more cooperative and demonstrate more
connection in their argument than man.
The present study uses a multi-stage argument coding
procedure offered by Meyers and Brahsers (1995; 1998). This
scheme includes first order categories (Arguables
[Generative Mechanisms and Reasoning Activities],
Convergence-Seeking Activities, Disagreement-Relevant
Intrusions, and Delimitors). Each of the above first order
categories can be further classified into its respective
second order category (e.g. assertions, propositions,
elaborations, etc. see Table 1). The hypotheses presented
in the following sections relate to argument acts defined
within the above described classification scheme.
Cultural communication style and argument
Hubbard (1997) in her observations of grassroots
Israeli-Palestinian dialogue groups, noted that argument
was the most persistent characteristic of these groups. We
might expect from the previous discussion that dugri speech
would be characteristic of Israeli-Jews and the mode of
speech preferred by them during argument since Israeli-Jews
have a longer history of an argumentative style (Schiffrin,
1984). And musayra is not argument oriented at all.
11
Research has clearly identified that Jewish argument is
dugri-like and quite consistent with the entire dugri code.
Musayra is more bound up with politeness and addressee face
than with argument. Spolsky and Walters (1985) explain how
certain Jewish styles of worship and communication are
reminiscent of the learning style in the yeshivas (schools
of religious learning) that value equality and argument and
refutation.
The tendency for Jewish argument to reflect a linear
process of western style logic is well understood (cf.
Schiffrin, 1984). Interestingly, the little research that
exists on Arab argument patterns is consistent with
musayra. Hatim (1991) states clearly that argumentation in
modern Arabic "is closely bound up with politeness, 'saving
face' and other related pragmatic phenomena" (p. 189). Arab
argument shows a preference for what is called "through
argument" or the tendency to advocate a given stance and
make no direct concessions to an adversary. Johnstone
(1986) reported on an example of this in her article
analyzing a journalist's clumsy interview with Iran's
Ayatollah Khomeini. The interview collapsed because of the
incompatibilities of the two cultures and how they expected
each to argue. Given this line of literature, we pose the
following hypotheses with respect to argument and
12
differences in communication style between Israeli-Jews and
Palestinians.
H1:
For first order categories the pattern of argument for
Israeli-Jews will be consistent with the dominant/
assertive tradition of dugri. That is, Israeli-Jews
will produce more generative mechanisms, reasoning
activities, and disagreements. They will also produce
more of the second order categories that are
consistent with these such as assertions, and
elaborations.
H2:
For first order categories the pattern of argument for
Palestinians will be consistent with the musayra
accommodating communication style. That is,
Palestinians will produce more convergence seeking and
delimitors. They will also produce more of the second
order categories that are consistent with this style
such as frames and forestalling.
The majority/minority power relations approach to argument
The theory of majority/minority power relations and
the dual processes of influence (Moscovici, 1985) is a
13
second strand of research that informs this investigation.
The majority/minority approach becomes relevant when we
take into consideration, apart from cultural differences,
the macro political context of the relations between the
sides, which is characterized by considerable power
asymetry. Though the peace process has begun, the IsraeliPalestinian situation remains one of occupation and
domination of the Palestinians, and of the territory they
live in, by the Israeli state and army forces. The Israeli
government has strategic and military control over major
parts of the territories inhibited by Palestinians, has
control over resources such as water supply and work
permits in Israel for Palestinians, and restricts movement
of Palestinians both inside the territories and from the
territories to Israel.
Majority/minority research shows that there is an
expected influence of majorities in groups (in our case the
Israeli-Jews) but also a subtle process of minority
influence (in our case the Palestinians). Minorities can
exert considerable influence on group conditions (Crano,
1994). They can alter the internal states of majorities
when they argue and maintain a consistent position.
Argument from minorities in groups performs the
14
communicative functions of educating, confronting, and
gaining advantage.
Meyers, Brashers, and Jerzaks' (in press) research on
conversational argument and group decision making reports
on data that pertain quite explicitly to the present
investigation, and provide a theoretical foundation for
making predictions about how the relationship between
majorities and minorities should influence the
argumentative processes between Israeli-Jews and
Palestinians. Meyers et al. (in press) found that
majorities agree more and disagree less. This is explained
as producing repetitive agreement amongst themselves and
creating an environment of unity that is very persuasive.
Minorities, on the other hand, disagree more and tend to be
defensive. Secondly, Meyers, Brashers, and Jerzak found
that argumentative consistency was strongly related to
success. And finally, they found that majorities and
minorities simply argue differently with majorities
converging and agreeing more, and minorities disagreeing,
objecting, and reframing more.
Based on this power
relations' majority/minority approach to interaction, we
posit the following hypotheses with regard to communication
style and argument between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians.
15
H3:
Israeli-Jews will engage in more convergence and
less disagreement than will Palestinians for the
first order categories. Palestinians will engage
in more disagreement.
H4:
For the second order categories Israeli-Jews will
engage in more agreement and Palestinians in more
frames and objections
METHOD
Data and Participants
The data were collected in the spring of 1998 in a
series of workshops conducted in the framework of an
Israeli-Palestinian joint project designed to promote
coexistence and peace building between the sides.2
These workshops were held in the post-Oslo era during a
period of the rule of the more hawkish Likud party in
Israel. This period was marked by difficulties from both
sides in implementing agreements and arrangements, and by
stagnation in proceeding with the political process toward
a final peace agreement. The workshops investigated here
are similar to such other ongoing intergroup events that
16
foster communication between the two sides (Sulieman, 1997;
Maoz 1997; in press).
The workshops were organized within the framework of a
peace education project aimed at reconciliation between the
sides. In these workshops 15 and 16-year old youths from
pairs of Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian schools met for two
days to discuss social, cultural, and political issues.
Each workshop included approximately 20-23 youth from each
side. These were divided into smaller mixed groups of 5 to
8 Jewish-Israeli and 5 to 8 Palestinian youths. Each such
mixed small group was led jointly by a Jewish-Israeli and a
Palestinian facilitator.
The data discussed here are based on transcriptions of
four such meetings of mixed small recorded in three
separate workshops. For each group the entire meeting was
transcribed and excerpts are used in the current analysis.
The data were recorded and transcribed by the second
author. Moreover, workshop participants were interviewed
after each meeting to clarify and deepen understandings of
group members' impressions and experiences in the
discussions. The group meetings were conducted in English
that constitutes a sort of lingua franca for Israeli-Jews
and for Palestinians. On occasion individuals chose to
17
speak in their native language and these were translated by
the facilitators.
Coding Procedures
The coding scheme used to identify and track the
argument process appears in Table 1. It is the
Conversational Argument Coding Scheme developed by Canary,
Meyers, Seibold, and colleagues (Canary, Brossmann, &
Seibold, 1987; Meyers, Seibold, & Brahsers, 1991; Meyers &
Brahsers, 1998). As Meyers and Brashers (1998) continue to
point out, this coding scheme is reasonably complex and
requires training and practice. They suggest a multi-stage
process and describe this process in detail in Meyers and
Brashers (1995).
We followed this process and trained coders to use the
system. We began by reading transcripts carefully and
identifying different aspects of group arguments. Next, the
data were parceled to separate arguments from nonarguments.
Nonarguments were not used in this study. Each argument and
its supporting categories were highlighted. Finally, all
coders made sure they could identify the argument content
of each statement.
18
Following this procedure, the coders applied the
conversational Argument Coding Scheme. In accordance with
Meyers and Brahsers (1995; 1998) the coders began by coding
first order categories (Arguables [Generative Mechanisms
and Reasoning Activities], Convergence-Seeking Activities,
Disagreement-Relevant Intrusions, and Delimitors). Coders
then returned to the transcripts and coded each of the
above first order category into its respective second order
category (e.g. assertions, propositions, elaborations, etc.
see Table 1).
Coder training. Four people were trained on the coding
system. All of them completed the parceling task. Each
coder was taught the system and studied the coding
literature carefully (e.g. Meyers & Brashers, 1995). The
coders spent about three months learning the system and
perfecting their coding ability. They practiced on
transcripts different from those used in this study, and
discussed the process until all differences and confusions
were clarified. When the coders reached sufficient
agreement and skill with the coding system, they coded the
transcripts used in this study.
Intercoder reliability. Reliability was calculated
using Cohen's kappa. The reliabilities for this study are
considered very high. The index of reliability for
19
argument/nonargument was .83; it was .81 for first order
categories, and .80 for second order categories.
RESULTS
There were 232 coded units of which 131 were produced
by Palestinians and 101 by Israeli-Jews. The data were
subject to discriminate analysis and analysis of variance
(ANOVAs) using the argument codes (Table 1) as predictor
variables to predict membership in a particular group:
Jewish-Israeli or Palestinian. The data were converted to
ratios in order to minimize the influence of unequal
frequencies of different variables. This data strategy
boosted the conservatism of the test and increased the
confidence of significant results. Discriminate analyses
were performed on both the first order and second order
codes. The results of these analyses were used to confirm
or disconfirm the hypotheses and thereby test whether
cultural differences in communication style or
majority/minority power relations best explained the
resultant patterns of argument.
The first discriminant analysis was performed on
the first order variables and produced one significant
function, 2 (5) = 15.05, p < .01. This function
20
differentiated Israeli-Jews from Palestinians. There were
qualities, then, of argument that predicted membership in
each of the ethnic groups. The correlations between the
predictor variables and the discriminate function (Table 2)
indicate that these discriminating qualities consist of a
combination of delimitors, reasoning, and convergence. As
indicated by the correlations in Table 2 delimitors,
followed by reasoning and convergence, were the strongest
discriminators. The ANOVA on the argument variables yielded
significant main effects for the three highest correlations
in Table 2 only.
They were delimitors F(1,230) = 9.23, p <
.01; reasoning F(1,230) = 4.01, p < .05; convergence
F(1,230) = 3.97, p < .05. The means ratios in Table 3
indicated that Israeli-Jews engaged in significantly more
convergence and delimitors, and Palestinians reasoned more.
________________________
Insert Table 2
________________________
________________________
Insert Table 3
________________________
21
The discriminant analysis performed on the second
order variables also produced a single significant
discriminate function, 2(12) = 20.18, p < .05. This
function also differentiated between Palestinians and
Israeli-Jews. The correlations between predictor variables
and discriminate function (Table 4) indicate that frames,
acknowledgments, and elaborations were the most significant
predictors of group membership. The only significant
univariate ANOVA tests were for these three variables. They
were frames F(1,230) = 7.03, p < .01; acknowledgments
F(1,230) = 3.97, p < .05; and elaborations F(1,230) = 3.83,
p < .05. The mean ratios in Table 5 indicate that IsraeliJews engaged in more acknowledgments and frames, while the
Palestinians elaborated more.
______________________
Insert Table 4
______________________
______________________
Insert Table 5
______________________
22
Taken together these results suggest an interesting
pattern of argument that are more consistent with
expectations derived from the majority/minority power
relations approach (hypotheses 3 and 4) than with those
derived from the intercultural difference approach to
communication style (hypotheses 1 and 2). For the first
order variables the canonical discriminant function for the
group centroids was -.23 for the Palestinians, and .30 for
the Israeli-Jews. Thus, the negative correlations in Table
2 (reasoning and disagreement) are most characteristic of
the Palestinians, and the variables with positive
correlations (delimitors and convergence) are most
predictive of Israeli-Jews, even though some of these
variables are statistically insignificant (disagreement and
generative mechanisms). The centroids for the second order
variables were -.27 for the Palestinians and .35 for the
Israeli-Jews. The same pattern of directionality holds for
Table 4. Therefore, Palestinians engage primarily in
reasoning activities defined mainly as elaborations or
statements that provide evidence, support, or reasons for
their arguments. They also respond, challenge, and assert
more but not in a statistically significant manner.
Israeli-Jews, on the other hand, delimit as defined by
framing statements that contextualize their arguments. They
23
also converge by acknowledging or indicating their
comprehension of the others' point of view.
DISCUSSION
In this study we found that group argument patterns
during political dialogues between Israeli-Jews and
Palestinians were not consistent with predictions from
cultural communication theory. A theory of cultural
communication predicts that Israeli-Jews will employ more
assertive dominant patterns of argument, which are
consistent with the dugri ethos (Katriel, 1986). And
Palestinians, consistent with the musayra ethos, would
communicate in a manner more accomodating to the other, and
less overtly aggressive or dominant (Griefat & Katriel,
1989). We also posed an alternative theory rooted in the
minority/majority influence approach. This theory derives
its assumptions more from the political environment than
the cultural communication one, and poses the possibility
of minority influence through a more assertive
communication approach that facilitates minority interests.
This study tested predictions from these two
theoretical approaches in the context of political
grassroots dialogue between the two sides. The results
clearly indicate that argument patterns employed by both
sides in these dialogues do not follow cultural
24
communication styles predictions. In fact, the results are
the opposite and clearly supportive of expectations from
the assumptions of majority/minority power relations.
Palestinians manifested a more dominant and assertive
argument style. They spoke more and engaged in more
reasoning and elaboration. The Israeli-Jews were more
submissive, accommodating, and generally hesitant. They
used more delimitors, convergence, and frames.
The findings in this study are consistent with a
variety of other research programs and begins to formulate
a clearer picture of how group communication works as an
interplay between the political and the cultural. On the
one hand, the results of this study are supportive of
previous studies that illustrate how minority group members
become especially dominant and influential when the issue
discussed between groups represents the main points of
dispute (Mugni & Perez, 1991). Maoz (in press) also found
that Palestinians are more dominant—as defined by talking
turns and introducing new topics (Blum-Kulka, 1998)—when
the dialogues were centered on the main conflict between
the two sides. Interestingly, the same study found that
when the interaction was about generally non conflictual
issues such as school life or joint educational work the
Israeli-Jews were significantly more dominant than the
Palestinians.
The indigenous cultural style of each group is
modified by the political context. There is a very
25
interesting and important power issue at work here. The
attrition of musayra and dugri in the political context of
grassroots peace initiatives suggests that these cultural
communication styles are quite pliant and even reversable
in some contexts. Even though there are considerable power
differences between Israelis and Palestinians, aspects of
this power are reversed at the micro communication level.
The Palestinians are empowered by this context while the
Israeli-Jews are left as defensive and hard pressed to
defend themselves. This implies a new more symmetrical
relationship between the two groups that has implications
for egalitarianism and future interactions. This may be a
context where the two groups can meet and work together on
more equal grounds.
Zupnik (2000) found that dugri and musayra changed
from intergroup interactions to intragroup interactions.
When Israeli-Jews were talking to Israeli-Jews dugri was
the featured cultural style. The same was true for
Palestinians and musayra. In mixed situaitons each group
used its preferred cultural style more with one another
than with members of the other group. But Zupnik (2000) and
the data reported in this study suggests that cultural
commmunication styles are modified during intergroup
contact. It appears that reconciliation-based grassroots
dialogues are a powerful context for ameliorating
differences between these two groups. The Israeli-Jews
avoid their aggressive style, and the Palestinians take
26
advantage of the opportunity to make assertions regarding
their complaints, elaborate on these assertions, and argue
when necessary. Maoz (in press), for example, has reported
on how these dialogues are often uncomfortable for IsraeliJews because they are strongly challenged by Palestinians
who use the opportunity to present a version of Palestinian
suffering previously unfamiliar to the Israeli-Jews. They
explain Palestinian suffering and the injustices causes by
the conflict with the Israeli-Jews. The Israeli-Jews are
overwhelmed and unprepared for this kind of exchange. The
data in this study document more precisely the mechanics of
this process.
This study reports some of the first empirical
evidence of the communication patterns between Israeli-Jews
and Palestinians. In particular, it demonstrates the
interplay between culture and argument and how each is a
resource during political dialogue. Future research should
investigate contexts other than political ones and how they
may contribute to an environment of egalitarianism. Maoz
(2000) suggests that other non political and non
conflictual contexts of dialogue can elicit different
patterns of communication between both sides in which the
Jewish-Israeli majority group reassumes its dominant role.
It would be interesting, then, to further investigate how
such non politically-oriented dialogues influence argument
behavior of both majority and minority group members.
27
Convergence seeking is a powerful influence on what
happens in groups. Agreement and acknowledgement are the
distinguishing characteristics of convergence seeking.
Through convergence seeking the Israeli-Jews try to create
a less conflictual atmosphere. This pattern of an IsraeliJewish tendency to lessen the conflict combined with a
Palestinian tendency to use argumentative patterns to
promote conflict, has important implications for planning
future communication between these two national groups.
Moreover, the present study underscores how both power and
context must be a consideration. Understanding that
cultural communication patterns may be affected by these
two factors can help prepare groups for dialogue in the
future. Such preparation will lessen the chances of
miscommunication, misunderstanding, and frustration in
dialogues designed to promote reconciliation between the
sides.
28
TABLE 1
Conversational Argument Coding Scheme
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
I.
ARGUABLES
A.
Generative Mechanisms
1.
Assertions: Statements of fact or opinion
2.
Propositions: Statements that call for
support, action, or conference on
Argument-related statement.
B.
Reasoning Activities
3.
Elaborations: Statements that support other
statements by providing evidence, reasons,
or other support.
4.
Responses: Statements that defend arguables
met with disagreement.
5.
Amplifications: Statements that explain or
expound upon other statements in order to
establish the relevance of the argument
through inference.
6.
Justifications: Statements that offer
validity of previous or upcoming statements
by citing rule of logic (provide a standard
whereby arguments are weighed).
II.
CONVERGENCE-SEEKING ACTIVITIES
7.
Agreement: Statements that express agreement
with another statement
8.
Acknowledgment: Statements that indicate
recognition and/or comprehension of another
statement, but not necessarily agreement, to
another's point.
III. DISAGREEMENT-RELEVANT INTRUSIONS
9.
Objections: Statements that deny the truth
or accuracy of any arguable.
10. Challenges: Statements that offer problems
or questions that must be solved if
agreement is to be secured on an arguable.
IV.
DELIMITORS
11. Frames: Statements that provide a context
for and/or qualify arguables.
12. Forestall/Secure: Statements that attempt to
forestall refutation by securing common
ground
29
13.
V.
Forestall/Remove: Statements that attempt to
forestall refutation by removing possible
objections
NONARGUABLES--Statements not related to group argument
30
Table 2
Correlations Between First Order Predictor Variables and
Discriminant Function
Function 1
Delimitors
.76
Reasoning
-.50
Convergence
.50
Disagreement
-.13
Generative Mechanisms
Codes
.04
Table 3
Mean Ratios of First Order Variables
Palestinians(n=)
Israeli-Jews(n=)
Generative
.26
.27
Reasoning
.43a
.30b
Convergence
.01a
.30b
Disagreement
.23
.20
Delimitors
.06a
.20b
Ratios with different subscripts in the same row differ
significantly from each other. P < .05
31
Table 4
Correlations Between Second Order Predictor Variables and
Discriminant Function
Function 1
Frames
.56
Acknowledgement
.43
Elaborations
-.42
Forestall/Remove
.35
Propositions
.24
Forestall/Secure
.23
Response
-.20
Challenges
-.17
Assertions
-.06
Table 5
Mean Ratios of Second Order Variables
Codes
Palestinians(n=
Israeli-Jews(n=)
Frames
.02a
.10b
Acknowledgement
.01a
.03b
Elaborations
.24a
.12b
Forestall/Remove
.01
.03
Propositions
.02
.05
Forestall/Secure
.04
.08
Response
.07
.03
Challenges
.12
.09
Assertions
.24
.22
Ratios with different subscripts in the same row differ
significantly from each other. P < .05
32
REFERENCES
Almaney, A.J., & Alwan, A.J. (1982). Communicating with the
Arabs: A handbook for the business executive. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Bar, H., & Bargal, D., with the assistance of
Asaqla,J.(1995). Living with conflict: Encounters
between Jewish and Palestinian Israeli Youth. Jerusalem:
The Jerusalem Institute for Israel studies. [In Hebrew].
Bargal, D.(1990). Contact is not enough - The contribution of
Lewinian theory to inter-group workshops involving
Palestinian and Jewish youth in Israel. International
Journal of Group Tensions, 20: 179-192.
Bar-on, D.(1999). The 'Others' Within Us: A Sociopsychological Perspective on Changes in Israeli
Identity. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University [In Hebrew].
Brashers, D.E., Adkins, M., & Meyers, R.A. (1994).
Argumentation in compter-mediated decision groups. In L.
Frey (Ed.), Communication in context: Studies of
naturalistic groups (pp. 262-283). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Culture Patterns of
Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse. NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33
Canary, D.J., Brossmann, B.G., & Seibold, D.R. (1987).
Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern
Speech Communication Journal, 53, 18-37.
Canary, D.J., & Sillars, A.L. (1992). Argument in satisfied
and dissatisfied married couples. In W.L. Benoit, D.
Hample, & P.J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation
(pp. 737-764). New York: Foris.
Coover, G.E., & Murphy, S.T. (2000). The communicated self:
Exploring the interaction between self and social
context. Human Communication Research, 26, 125-147.
Crano, W.D. (1994). Context, comparison, and change:
Methodological and theoretical contributions to a theory
of minority (and majority) influence. In S. Moscovici,
A. Mucchi-Faina, & A. Maass (Eds.), Minority influence
(pp. 17-46). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Ethier, K., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity
when contexts change: Maintaining identification and
responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 243-251.
Feghali, E. (1997). Arab cultural communication patterns.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21,
345-378.
Garrett, D.E., & Meyers, R.A. (1991). Interactive complaint
communication: A reconceptualization of consumer
34
complaint behavior. In D.W. Parson (Ed.), Argument in
controversy: Proceedings of the seventh SCA/AFA
conference on argumentation (pp. 159-166). Annandale,
VA: Speech Communication Association.
Gilsenan, M. (1983). Recognizing Islam: Religion and
society in the modern Arab world. New York, NY Pantheon
Books.
Griefat, Y., & Katriel, T. (1989). Life demands musayra:
Communication and culture among Arabs in Israel. In S.
Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Language,
communication and culture (pp. 121-138). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Hatim, B. (1991). The pragmatics of argumentation in
Arabic: The rise and fall of a text type. Text, 11, 189199.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hubbard, A.S. (1997). Face to face at arm's length:
Conflict norms and extra-group relations in grassroots
dialogue groups. Human Organizations, 56, 265-274.
Johnstone, B. (1986). Arguments with Khomeini: Rhetorical
situation and persuasive style in corss-cultural
perspective. Text, 6, 171-187.
35
Johnstone Koch, B. (1983). Presentation as proof. The
language of Arabic rhetoric. Anthropological
Linguistics, 25, 47-60.
Katriel, T. (1986). Talking straight: Dugri speech in
Israeli sabra culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Katz, I. & Kahanov,M.(1990). A survey of dilemmas in
moderating Jewish-Arab encounter groups in Israel.
Megamot, 33: 29-47 [in Hebrew].
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent. New York:
Routledge.
Maoz, I.(1997). A decade of structured educational encounters
between Jews and Arabs in Israel', In D. S. Halperin
(Ed.), To live together: Shaping new attitudes to peace
through education (pp. 47-56). Geneva: Geneva University
and Paris: UNESCO International Bureau of Education.
Maoz, I.(in press). Power relations in inter-group encounters:
A case study of Jewish-Arab encounters in Israel,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations.
Maoz, I.(2000). Multiple conflicts and competing agendas: A
framework for conceptualizing structured encounters
between groups in conflict – The case of a
coexistence project between Jews and Palestinians in
Israel. Journal of Peace Psychology, 6, 135-156.
36
Meyers, R.A. (1989). Persuasive arguments theory: A test of
assumptions. Human Communication Research, 15, 357-381.
Meyers, R.A., Seibold, D.R., & Brahsers, D. (1991).
Argument in initial group decision-making discussions:
Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive
quantitative analysis. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 55, 47-68.
Meyers, R.A. (1997). Social influence and argumentation. In
L.R. Frey & J.K. Barge (Eds.), Managing group life:
Communication in decision making groups (pp. 183-201).
Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Meyers, R.A., & Brahsers, D.E. (1995). Multi-stage versus
single-stage coding of small group argument: A
preliminary comparative assessment. In S. Jackson (Ed.),
Argumentation and values: Procedings of the ninth
SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 93-100).
Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (1998). Argument in group
decision making: Explicating a process model and
investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication
Monographs, 65, 261-281.
Meyers, R., Brashers, D.E., and Jerzak, J. (in press).
Majority/minority influence: Identifying argumentative
37
patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal
of Communication.
Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In
G. Lindzey, E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social
psychology, 3rd ed., (Vol. 2, pp. 347-412). New York:
Academic Press.
Mugny, G., & Perez, J.(1991). The Social Psychology of
Minority Influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Orbe, M.P. (1998). Constructing co-cultural theory: An
explication of culture, power, and communication.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Perelman, Ch. (1982). The realm of rhetoric. Notre
Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press
Schiffrin, D. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability.
Language in Society, 13, 311-335.
Spolsky, B., & Walters, J. (1985). Jewish styles of
worship: A conversational analysis. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 56, 51-65.
Suleiman, R. (1997). The planned encounter between Israeli
Jews and Palestinians as a microcosm: A socialpsychological perspective. Iyunim Bechinuch, 1(2): 71-85
[In Hebrew].
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk
among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38
Toulmin, S.E. (1988). The uses of argument (9th ed.).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F.H., & Grootendorst, R. Henkemans, F.S.
(1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zupnik, Y,J. (2000). Conversational interruptions in
Israeli-Palestinian 'dialogue' events. Discourse
Studies, 2, 85-110.
39
Notes
1It
is important to warn the reader about the perils of
overgeneralizing and confusing the term "Arab." As Fegahli
(1997) explains, it is a mistake to confuse "Middle East"
and "Muslim" with Arab because not all Arabs are Muslim,
and the geography of the Middle East is complex. There are
non-Arab Muslim countries (e.g. Turkey, Iran, Pakistan) and
non-Arab Muslim Middle Eastern countries such as Sudanic
countries. There are even considerable differences among
the countries that share membership in the League of Arab
States, formed in 1945 to promote cooperation among
countries of "Arab" language and culture. Almaney and Alwan
(1982) specify that Arab is not a race, religion, or
nationality. We follow Feghali's (1997) lead by accepting
the best definition of "Arab" as anyone who speaks Arabic
and feels as an Arab. This captures anyone outside the
region of the Middle East, and includes those with pride,
knowledge, and competence in Arabic communication patterns
and customs. Although there are many differences among
Arabic communities there are still a collection of people
who share beliefs, values, and practices, and sustain a
communal identity.
2We
thank IPCRI--The Israel/Palestine Center for Research
and Information and Dr. Gershon Baskin the Israeli director
of IPCRI, Dr. Zakaria Al-Qaq the Palestinian Director and
Dr. Marwan Darweish, director of IPCRI's peace education
project, for providing access to these encounters.
40