Confrontational Maneuvering by Dissociation in Spokespersons’ Argumentative Replies at the Press Conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs



Within the framework of pragma-dialectics, this paper analyzes the use of dissociations in the spokespersons’ replies at the press conferences held by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs between 2015 and 2017. As shown in the research results, to cut down the authority of their opponents in criticizing China and to convince the international general public of the Chinese standpoints, four subtypes of dissociation are used, which can be differentiated as: “distorted” Term I versus “authentic” Term II, “ambiguous” Term I versus “univocal” Term II, “broadened” Term I versus “exact” Term II, and “narrowed” Term I versus “exact” Term II. The strategic maneuvering carried out by the spokespersons in confronting their immediate opponents by means of the various subtypes of dissociation is in the first place directed at their primary audience, i.e. the international general public. To make a convincing case, in using dissociations the spokespersons not only adapt in their strategic maneuvering to the demands of their primary audience but also in their selection from the topical potential and the presentational devices.


Confrontational maneuvering Dissociation Pragma-Dialectics Press conference of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Strategic maneuvering 



This article is part of the research project “Investigating the Argumentation in Sino-US Trade Disputes” (No. 14CYY053) sponsored by China’s National Social Science Fund; it is also part of the research project “Investigating the Argumentative Strategies in the Spokespersons’ replies at China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs” (No. 2016SJB740019) sponsored by the Bureau of Education of Jiangsu Province.


  1. Andone, C. 2013. Argumentation in political interviews: Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, J.M. 1988. Our masters’ voices: The language and body language of politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Barkin, S.M. 1983. Eisenhower’s television planning board: An unwritten chapter in the history of political broadcasting. Journal of Broadcasting 27 (4): 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoit, W.L. 2000. Comparing the Clinton and Dole advertising campaigns: Identification and division in 1996 presidential television spots. Communication Research Reports 17: 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhatia, A. 2006. The critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society 17: 173–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ekström, M. 2006. Politicians interviewed on television news. Discourse & Society 12: 563–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eshbaugh-Soha, M. 2003. Presidential press conferences over time. American Journal of Political Science 47 (April): 348–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eshbaugh-Soha, M. 2013. The politics of presidential press conferences. American Politics Research 41: 470–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fairclough, N. 1998. Political discourse in the media: An analytical framework. In Approaches to media discourse, ed. A. Bell and P. Garrett. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Fairclough, I., and N. Fairclough. 2012. Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, F., and H. Forester. 2012. The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Durham & London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraser, B. 2011. Hedging in political discourse: The 2007 Bush press conference. Linguistics Journal 5 (1): 169–196.Google Scholar
  13. Garssen, B.J. 1997. Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek [Argument schemes in a pragma-dialectical perspective. A theoretical and empirical research]. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
  14. Grootendorst, R. 1999. Innocence by dissociation. A pragma-dialectic analysis of the fallacy of incorrect dissociation in the Vatican document ‘We Remember: A reflection on the Shoah’. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, eds. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, & Ch.A. Willard, 286–289. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  15. Kienpointner, M. 2013. Strategic maneuvering in the political rhetoric of Barack Obama. Journal of Language and Politics 12 (3): 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manheim, J.B. 1979. The honeymoon’s over: The news conference and the development of presidential style. Journal of Politics 41: 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  18. Reisigl, M., and R. Wodak. 2001. Discourse and discrimination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Ryfe, D.M. 1999. Betwixt AND between: Woodrow Wilson’s press conferences and the transition toward the modern rhetorical presidency. Political Communication 16: 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schaffner, C. 1997. Analyzing political speeches. London: Short Run Press.Google Scholar
  21. Schiappa, E. 1985. Dissociation in the arguments of rhetorical theory. Journal of the American Forensic Association 22: 72–82.Google Scholar
  22. Schiappa, E. 1993. Arguing about definitions. Argumentation 7: 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schiappa, E. 2003. Defining reality: Definitions and the politics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  24. The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. 2015. Workbook for governmental press conferences. Beijing: Wu Zhou Publishing House.Google Scholar
  25. van Dijk, T.A. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary study. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Eemeren, F.H. 2013. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1): 11–32.Google Scholar
  28. van Eemeren F.H. 2019. Argumentative style: A complex notion. Argumentation 33(3) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  29. van Eemeren, F.H., and B. Garssen. 2012. Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament. In Exploring argumentative contexts, ed. F.H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 43–58. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragmadialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. van Eemeren, F.H., R. van Grootendorst, and T. Kruiger. 1978. Argumentatietheorie [Argumentation theory]. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.Google Scholar
  33. van Eemeren, F.H., R. van Grootendorst, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. van Rees, A. 2006. Strategic maneuvering with dissociations. Argumentation 20 (4): 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Rees, A. 2009. Dissociation in argumentative discourse: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu, P. 2017. Strategic maneuvering by strategic maneuvering by personal attack in spokespersons’ argumentative replies at diplomatic press conferences. Journal of Argumentation in Context 6 (3): 282–314.Google Scholar
  37. Yan, Yi., and Tsan.-Kuo. Chang. 2012. Institutionalizing public relations in China: A sociological analysis of the Chinese Premier’s press conference. Public Relations Review 38: 711–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zarefsky, D. 2004. Presidential rhetoric and the power of definition. Presidential Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 607–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zarefsky, D., F.E. Miller, and C. Miller-Tutzauer. 1984. Reagan’s safety net for the truly needy: The rhetorical use of definition. Central States Speech Journal 35: 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jiangsu University/ILIASZhenjiangChina

Personalised recommendations