Skip to main content

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

Abstract

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.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/.

References

  1. Andone, C. 2013. Argumentation in political interviews: Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhatia, A. 2006. The critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society 17: 173–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ekström, M. 2006. Politicians interviewed on television news. Discourse & Society 12: 563–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Eshbaugh-Soha, M. 2003. Presidential press conferences over time. American Journal of Political Science 47 (April): 348–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eshbaugh-Soha, M. 2013. The politics of presidential press conferences. American Politics Research 41: 470–496.

    Article  Google 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.

    Book  Google 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.

  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.

  15. Kienpointner, M. 2013. Strategic maneuvering in the political rhetoric of Barack Obama. Journal of Language and Politics 12 (3): 357–377.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Book  Google 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).

  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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. van Rees, A. 2009. Dissociation in argumentative discourse: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zarefsky, D. 2004. Presidential rhetoric and the power of definition. Presidential Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 607–619.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peng Wu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

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