Cover not available

In:Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 127–148

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 6
Interpersonal style(s) in diplomatic argumentation online

A study of argument schemes and evaluation in press releases of UNSC permanent members

Published online: 2 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.07swa
Abstract
This chapter contributes to a growing body of research on diplomatic argumentation with a corpus study of variation in interpersonal style, conducted from an integrated perspective of argument schemes and appraisal theory. Based on 50 press releases taken from the foreign ministry websites of five prominent countries, the study aimed to ascertain whether internationally shared conventions of the kind regulating subjectivity in traditional argumentation settings still operate in the contemporary global, online context. Scheme types (Walton et al, 2008), directives, and the appraisal categories of authorial attitude and graduation (Martin and White, 2005) were taken as markers of interpersonal style and their frequencies calculated for the whole corpus and the five component sub-corpora. The results showed a relatively small range of argument schemes, free use of authorial attitude overall, and considerable variation between the five sub-corpora. Discussion of the different configurations of schemes and appraisal resources focuses on their construction of interpersonal style and government identity.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The corpus of press releases
  • 3.Analytical tools
    • 3.1Appraisal
      • 3.1.1Voice
    • 3.2Walton’s argument schemes
  • 4.Frequency data for schemes and authorial attitude
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (37)
References
Amgoud, L., & Vesic, S. (2011). A formal analysis of the outcomes of argumentation-based negotiations. Journal of Logic and Computation, 22 (5), 957–978. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barston, R. P. (2014). Modern Diplomacy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berridge, G.,& James, A. (2001). A Dictionary of Diplomacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berridge, G. (2010). Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bower, A. (2015). Arguing with law: strategic legal argumentation, US diplomacy, and debates over the International Criminal Court. Review of International Studies, 41, 337–360. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coffin, C. (2002). The voices of history: Theorising the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text, 22 (4), 503–528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen-Wiesenfeld, S. (2004). L’inscription de la subjectivité dans le discours diplomatique. Semen, 17 (2), 41–58.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Argumentation logique et subjectivité masquée : le cas de la note diplomatique. In V. Atayan & D. Pirazzini (Eds), Argumentation: Théorie – Langue – Discours. Actes de la section ‘Argumentation’ du XXX. Deutscher Romanistentag, Vienne, Septembre 2007, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donahue, R. T., & Prosser, M. H. (1997). Diplomatic Discourse. International Conflict at the UN. Addresses and Analysis. Greenwich, CN: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edwards, J. A., & Valenzano, J. M. (2007). Bill Clinton’s “new partnership” anecdote: Towards a post-cold-war foreign policy rhetoric. Journal of Language and Politics, 6 (3), 303–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. et al. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. L. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin (2nd edition).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaselee, S. (1939). The Language of Diplomacy. Being the Gregynog Lectures. London: Bowes & Bowes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodnight, G. T. (1998). Public argument and the study of foreign policy. American Diplomacy, 8, [URL].
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I .M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan R. (1989). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Socio-Semiotic Context. Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayden, C. (2007). Arguing public diplomacy: The role of argument formations in US foreign policy rhetoric. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2, 229–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). The role of audience in public diplomacy. In Conference Proceedings of the alTa conference on argumentation of the American National Communication Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). The Rhetoric of Soft Power: Public Diplomacy in Global Contexts. Lanham MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerr, P. L. (2010). Diplomatic Persuasion: An Under-investigated Process. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5 (3), 235–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurbalija, J. (Ed.) (2013). Persuasion: The Essence of Diplomacy. Diplofoundation: Malta.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lassen, I. (2006). Is the press release a genre? A study of form and content. Discourse Studies, 8(4), 503–530. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nicolson, H. (1969). Diplomacy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partington, A. (2003). The Linguistics of Political Argument: The Spin-doctor and the Wolf Pack at the White House. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Provis, C. (2004). Negotiation, persuasion and argument. Argumentation, 18 (1), 95–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (2009). Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Satow, E. M. (1917). A Guide to Diplomatic Practice. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seib, P. (2012). Real-time Diplomacy: Politics and Power in the Social Media Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, E. (2014). Mood metaphor in diplomacy: From bilateral correspondence to the web. Unpublished paper presented at 25th European Systemic Functional Linguistic Conference, 10–12 July, Paris, France.
(2015). (Im)politeness in a diplomatic context: The case of the Zinoviev letter. In M. Busà & S. Gesuato (Eds), Studi in Onore di Alberto Mioni (pp. 863–874). Padova: CLEUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23 (2), 259–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). [URL].
(2011). English-language hard-news style as a strategic stance: understanding the rhetorical potential of the “objective” news report. Unpublished paper presented at the 12th international pragmatics conference 3–8 July, Manchester, UK.
Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (1999). The small distinctions between diplomats, politicians and journalists: The discursive construction of professional identity. In R. Wodak, & C. Ludwig (Eds), Challenges in a Changing World (pp. 209–238). Vienna: Passagen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Anisimova, Mariia & Šárka Zikánová
2025. Subjectivity in Diplomatic Discourse: a double annotation analysis. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture 15 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue