Same but Different: Perceptions of Interpersonal Arguing In Two Arabic Populations (UAE & Lebanon)

Chrysi Rapanta, Dany Badran

Abstract


In a region characterized by internal socio-political differences and instabilities, such as the Middle East, the need to study and understand interpersonal arguing is becoming more and more critical. Our focus is on the perception of two socially different populations, the Emirati and the Lebanese, regarding their everyday argumentative interactions. Our sample consisted of 50 Lebanese and 34 Emirati young adults, all of them University students in different majors. The standardised interview used aimed at identifying how people define and perceive the process and outcomes of arguing with one another in different contexts. The Lebanese sample displayed a major understanding of efficient argumentative processes, while the Emiratis seemed more susceptible to the power of the speaker as a prerequisite to success in argumentation. Moreover, the Lebanese mainly defined argument as a process of learning from each other, whereas the Emirati mostly defined it as a fight or strong disagreement leading to an outcome.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. London, UK: Sage.

Badran, D. (2013). Democracy and Rhetoric in the Arab World. The Journal of the Middle East and Africa, 4(1): 65-86.

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 4th Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics. London, UK: Sage.

Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and quantity, 36(4): 391-409.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hample, D. (2005). Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hample, D., & Anagondahalli, D. (2014, November). Understandings of arguing in India: Argument frames, personalization of conflict, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.

Hample, D., Warner, B., & Young, D. (2009). Framing and editing interpersonal arguments. Argumentation, 23: 21-37.

Hills, R. C., & Atkins, P. W. (2013). Cultural identity and convergence on western attitudes and beliefs in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 13(2): 193-213.

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

Johnstone-Koch, B. (1987). Parataxis in Arabic: Modification as a model for persuasion. Studies in language, 11: 85-98.

McBath, J. (1984). “Rationale for Forensics,” in American Forensics in Perspective. Ed. Donn W. Parson. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association: 5-12.

Mercier, H. (2013). Introduction: Recording and explaining cultural differences in argumentation. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13(5): 409-417.

Merkin, R., & Ramadan, R. (2010). Facework in Syria and the United States: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(6): 661-669.

O’Keefe, D. J. (1992). Two concepts of argument. Readings in argumentation, 11, 79-90.

Rafizadeh, M. (August, 2011). The socio-politics of the Middle East. Aljazeera. Available at: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/08/2011818111549878104.html [Accessed on March 5, 2015]

United States Department of State (2011). International Religious Freedom Report. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Available at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/193107.pdf [Accessed on March 7, 2015]

Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Xie, Y., Hample, D., & Wang, X. (2014, July). A cross-cultural analysis of argument predispositions in China: Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and personalization of conflict. Paper presented at the ISSA (International Society for the Study of Argumentation) Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1-4 July 2014.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17349/jmc115109

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2015 Journal of Media Critiques [JMC]