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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Andone, C. 2013. Argumentation in political interviews: Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Atkinson, J.M. 1988. Our masters’ voices: The language and body language of politics. London: Routledge.
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.
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.
Bhatia, A. 2006. The critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society 17: 173–203.
Ekström, M. 2006. Politicians interviewed on television news. Discourse & Society 12: 563–584.
Eshbaugh-Soha, M. 2003. Presidential press conferences over time. American Journal of Political Science 47 (April): 348–353.
Eshbaugh-Soha, M. 2013. The politics of presidential press conferences. American Politics Research 41: 470–496.
Fairclough, N. 1998. Political discourse in the media: An analytical framework. In Approaches to media discourse, ed. A. Bell and P. Garrett. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fairclough, I., and N. Fairclough. 2012. Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.
Fischer, F., and H. Forester. 2012. The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
Fraser, B. 2011. Hedging in political discourse: The 2007 Bush press conference. Linguistics Journal 5 (1): 169–196.
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.
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.
Kienpointner, M. 2013. Strategic maneuvering in the political rhetoric of Barack Obama. Journal of Language and Politics 12 (3): 357–377.
Manheim, J.B. 1979. The honeymoon’s over: The news conference and the development of presidential style. Journal of Politics 41: 55–74.
Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press.
Reisigl, M., and R. Wodak. 2001. Discourse and discrimination. London: Routledge.
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.
Schaffner, C. 1997. Analyzing political speeches. London: Short Run Press.
Schiappa, E. 1985. Dissociation in the arguments of rhetorical theory. Journal of the American Forensic Association 22: 72–82.
Schiappa, E. 1993. Arguing about definitions. Argumentation 7: 403–418.
Schiappa, E. 2003. Defining reality: Definitions and the politics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. 2015. Workbook for governmental press conferences. Beijing: Wu Zhou Publishing House.
van Dijk, T.A. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary study. London: Sage.
van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F.H. 2013. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1): 11–32.
van Eemeren F.H. 2019. Argumentative style: A complex notion. Argumentation 33(3) (forthcoming).
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.
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.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragmadialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., R. van Grootendorst, and T. Kruiger. 1978. Argumentatietheorie [Argumentation theory]. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
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.
van Rees, A. 2006. Strategic maneuvering with dissociations. Argumentation 20 (4): 473–487.
van Rees, A. 2009. Dissociation in argumentative discourse: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Berlin: Springer.
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.
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.
Zarefsky, D. 2004. Presidential rhetoric and the power of definition. Presidential Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 607–619.
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.
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.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, P. Confrontational Maneuvering by Dissociation in Spokespersons’ Argumentative Replies at the Press Conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation 33, 1–22 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-09477-5
- Confrontational maneuvering
- Press conference of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- Strategic maneuvering