The uncompromising confrontational argumentative style of the spokespersons’ replies at the regular press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs

IF 0.6 Q3 COMMUNICATION Journal of Argumentation in Context Pub Date : 2021-03-15 DOI:10.1075/jaic.20026.pen
Wu Peng
{"title":"The uncompromising confrontational argumentative style of the spokespersons’ replies at the regular press conferences of\n China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs","authors":"Wu Peng","doi":"10.1075/jaic.20026.pen","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n According to van Eemeren’s expose about the theoretical notion “argumentative style” (2019: 153–171), each of the four stages of an argumentative exchange in a certain institutional context can have its own\n argumentative style, but all of them may well belong to the same general category (for instance, “detached” or “engaged”). As the start of a\n broad project investigating argumentative styles used in the spokespersons’ argumentative replies at the regular press conferences of\n China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this paper focuses on the uncompromising confrontational style prototypically used by the spokespersons\n in responding to journalists, which is characterized by argumentative moves instrumental in strategies of silencing the other party,\n distracting the other party, and pressuring the other party. By means of an analysis of three argumentative replies given by Chinese\n spokespersons, this paper shows how this particular confrontational style takes shape and facilitates the spokespersons’ confrontational\n maneuvering by being at the same time detached.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20026.pen","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

According to van Eemeren’s expose about the theoretical notion “argumentative style” (2019: 153–171), each of the four stages of an argumentative exchange in a certain institutional context can have its own argumentative style, but all of them may well belong to the same general category (for instance, “detached” or “engaged”). As the start of a broad project investigating argumentative styles used in the spokespersons’ argumentative replies at the regular press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this paper focuses on the uncompromising confrontational style prototypically used by the spokespersons in responding to journalists, which is characterized by argumentative moves instrumental in strategies of silencing the other party, distracting the other party, and pressuring the other party. By means of an analysis of three argumentative replies given by Chinese spokespersons, this paper shows how this particular confrontational style takes shape and facilitates the spokespersons’ confrontational maneuvering by being at the same time detached.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国外交部发言人在例行记者会上的不妥协的对抗性辩论风格
根据van Eemeren关于“论证风格”(argumentative style)理论概念的揭露(2019: 153-171),在一定的制度背景下,论证交流的四个阶段中的每一个阶段都可以有自己的论证风格,但它们都很可能属于同一个一般类别(例如,“超然”或“参与”)。作为调查中国外交部例行新闻发布会上发言人辩论式回答中使用的辩论风格的广泛项目的开始,本文重点研究发言人在回答记者时典型使用的不妥协的对抗性风格,其特点是辩论动作有助于使对方沉默,分散对方注意力,并向对方施压。本文通过对中国发言人三次议论性回答的分析,揭示了这种独特的对抗性风格是如何形成的,同时又以超然的态度促进了发言人的对抗性操作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Journal of Argumentation in Context aims to publish high-quality papers about the role of argumentation in the various kinds of argumentative practices that have come into being in social life. These practices include, for instance, political, legal, medical, financial, commercial, academic, educational, problem-solving, and interpersonal communication. In all cases certain aspects of such practices will be analyzed from the perspective of argumentation theory with a view of gaining a better understanding of certain vital characteristics of these practices. This means that the journal has an empirical orientation and concentrates on real-life argumentation but is at the same time out to publish only papers that are informed by relevant insights from argumentation theory.
期刊最新文献
Tweeting fallacies The epistemological orientation of Ottoman argumentation theory and its relation to kalām Review of Wu (2023): Responding to questions at press conferences: Confrontational maneuvering by Chinese spokespersons Review of Serafis (2023): Authoritarianism on the front page: Multimodal discourse and argumentation in times of multiple crises in Greece Covid-19 and public debate over gain-of-function research on potentially pandemic pathogens
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1