In:Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peng Wu
[Argumentation in Context 12] 2017
► pp. 225–254
Chapter 13Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks at press conferences of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Published online: 12 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.13wu
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.13wu
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Personal attack/ad hominem viewed from different theoretical perspectives
- 3.Institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering by personal attack in spokespersons’ argumentative replies
- 4.Personal attacks in spokespersons’ replies
- 4.1Direct personal attacks
- 4.1.1 Attacking the person by accusation of bad character
- 4.1.2Attacking the person by accusation of bad faith
- 4.1.3Attacking the person by accusation of low intelligence
- 4.1.4Attacking the person for lacking expertise
- 4.2
Indirect personal attacks
- 4.2.1Attacking the person by accusation of suspicious motives
- 4.2.2Attacking the person by ascribing suspicious interests
- 4.3
You too personal attacks
- 4.3.1Inconsistency between someone’s words and actions
- 4.3.2Inconsistency between someone’s past and present actions
- 4.3.3Inconsistency between someone’s previous and present words
- 4.3.4Just words but no actions
- 4.1Direct personal attacks
- 5.Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks in making a convincing case
- 6.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (37)
Barth, Else M. and Krabbe, Erik C. W. (1978). “Formal Dialectics: Instruments for the Resolution of Conflicts about Expressed Opinions.” Spektator, 7: 307–341.
Bhatia, Aditi. (2006). “Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences.” Discourse & Society, 17(2):173–203.
Brinton, Alan. (1985). “A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 63(1): 50–63.
. (1995). “The Ad Hominem.” In Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. by Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto, 213–222. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Du,Jiang. (2005). Theory and Practice for Spokespersons, Chengdu: Sichuan people′s Publishing House.
Dou, Wei L. and Zhang, Xiao Y. (2008). “A Comparative Study of the Dodging Strategy Adopted by Chinese and American Spokespersons: The case of the North Korean nuclear issue.” Theory and Practice of Foreign Language Teaching, 4: 53–57.
van Eemeren, Frans H. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Garssen, Bart and Meuffels, Bert. (2012). “The Disguised Abusive ad hominem Empirically Investigated: Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks.” Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3): 344–364.
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Grootendorst, Rob. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
. (1993). “The history of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century”. In Empirical logic and public debate: Essays in honour of Else M. Barth, ed. by Erik C. W. Krabbe, Renee J. Dalitz, and Pier A. Smit, 49–68. Amsterdam: Rodopi
. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guang, Ke. (2010). “Pragmatic Vagueness of Spokespersons in Sino-US Foreign Affairs’ Departments.” Journal of Hunan University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 13(2): 93–97.
. (2013). “Construction of Spokesperson’s Discourse: An Approach of Western New Rhetoric.” Journal of Hunan University of Science & Technology (Social Science Edition), 16(4): 153–156.
Hong, Gang and Chen, Qian F. (2011). “A Contrastive Study of the Refusal Strategies Employed by Chinese and American Spokespersons.” Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 43(2): 209–219.
Hu, Geng S. and Wang, Jing. (2001). “The Analysis of the Language Use in Sino-foreign Press Conferences.” Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 16(3): 83–88.
Lan, Chun and Hu, Yi. (2014). “Pragmatic Analysis of Foreign Ministry Spokesman’s Dodge Answer.” Chinese Foreign Language, 6: 21–28.
Li, Xi G. and Sun, Jing W. (2007). Course Book for Spokespersons. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.
Ma, Zhi Q. (2013). The Art of Language Communication. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House.
Minot, Walter S. (1981). A Rhetorical View of Fallacies: Ad Hominem and Ad Populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 11(4): 222–235.
Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Tu, Guang J. & Gong, He. (2009). “A Political Rhetorical Analysis of Official Press Release on Tibet in China and America.” Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication, 8: 32–37.
Wu, Peng and Xiong, Ming H. (2015). “Strategic Maneuvering: A Rhetorical Extension of Pragma-Dialectics.” Journal of Fujian Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 3: 64–69.
Wu, Peng and Zhu, Mi. (2015). “A Research on Pragma-dialectical Approach of Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson’s Argumentative Replies at the Press Conference: Take Liu Weimin’s Reply about the Sino-US Tombarthite Trade Friction as Case Study.” Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication, 9: 52–69.
Xiong, Yong H. and Peng, Xiao M. (2009). “An Analysis on the Pragmatic Strategy of Diplomatic Language: A Study on the Remarks at Press Conference Held by Foreign Ministry spokesman.” Journal of Hunan Agricultural University, 3: 71–74.
Yang, Yuan and Tian, Tian. (2006). “An Analysis of the Use of Convert Evasion by China Foreign Ministry Spokesmen and Its Pragmatic Functions.” Hubei University of Technology, 6: 121–124.
Yang,Yao Z. (2015). “Narrative Rhetoric Study on News Conference of China and Japan in the Case of Maritime Collision.” Journal of Zhongzhou University, 2: 89–92.
Yang, Zheng Q. (2005). Theory and Practice for Spokespersons. Beijing: Communication University of China Press.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Liu, Donghong
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 march 2026. 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.
