Cover not available

In:Responding to Questions at Press Conferences: Confrontational maneuvering by Chinese spokespersons
Peng Wu
[Argumentation in Context 21] 2023
► pp. 185–188

Get fulltext from our e-platform

Download Book PDF

Download Book EPUB

Index

Published online: 22 March 2023

https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.21.index

A

abusive personal attack see direct personal attack

accusation of bad character 66–67, 85, 165

accusation of bad faith 67–68, 85, 165

accusation of low expertise 70–71, 85, 165

accusation of low intelligence 69, 85, 165

accusation of suspicious interests 72–73, 85, 165

accusation of suspicious motives 71–72, 85

ad baculum fallacy see argumentum ad baculum

ad hominem fallacy see argumentum ad hominem

ad misericordiam fallacy see argumentum ad misericordiam

agreeing to resolve the difference of opinion 41–42, 164

alleviation rather than tension 105–106

ambiguity fallacy61

“ambiguous” Term I 52–53, 60, 165

analytically relevant argumentative move 150, 164

analytic overview 20, 149–150, 164

analytic reconstruction150

antagonist 17, 37, 47–49, 57–58, 88, 128, 148, 167

appealing to sympathy see putting/exerting (emotional) pressure on the other party by appealing to sympathy

argumentation16

argumentational strategy 18, 142, 175

argumentation stage 17, 21, 23–24, 36–37, 48, 88–89, 115, 118, 135, 148, 167, 169

argumentation theory 17, 49, 118, 127

argumentative characterization 19, 24, 36–38, 172

argumentative means (and criticisms) 19, 24, 36, 38

argumentative move 20, 149–154

argumentative strategy 18, 66, 142, 174

argumentative style 20, 23, 25, 147–160, 171, 176

argumentative (sub-)pattern 20, 149–150, 175

argument from authority see authority argumentation

argumentum ad baculum 137

argumentum ad hominem 19, 63–66, 79

argumentum ad misericordiam 138

argumentum ad verecundiam 19

ascribing suspicious interests see accusation of suspicious interests

aspect of strategic maneuvering see strategic maneuvering

association44

attacking someone for lacking expertise see accusation of low expertise

audience demand 18–21, 25, 30, 41, 57–58, 79, 84, 86, 91, 108, 110–111, 123, 136, 149, 153, 155, 169

“authentic” Term II 50–52, 60, 165

authority argumentation 19, 79, 85

B

bad character see accusation of bad character

bad faith see accusation of bad face

balance between reasonableness and effectiveness see integration dialectical and rhetorical perspectives

“broadened” Term I 54–55, 60, 165

C

change of difference of opinion120

change of subject 119–120, 166

changing the topic 15, 40, 42, 117–126, 143, 145, 152, 164–166, 168–169

circumstantial personal attack 64–65, 71–73, 79, 82, 84–85, 153, 165

code of conduct for reasonable discussants 17, 61, 65, 92, 126, 128, 137–138, 144–145, 174

combining modes of strategic maneuvering/argumentative strategies 138–146, 166, 173, 175

communicative activity type 18–22, 24, 30–31, 36–38, 41, 87, 115, 128, 171–172, 175

comparative studies176

compromising (confrontational) argumentative style 149, 154–156, 160, 171

concluding stage 17, 19, 21, 23–24, 36, 48, 118, 148, 161

concluding strategy 18, 142, 175

confrontational (argumentative) style 23, 25, 148–150, 152, 159, 170

confrontational (mode of strategic) maneuvering 22–23, 30, 39–40, 42–43, 49–50, 55, 54, 63, 66–78, 84–86, 113, 115–117, 119, 150–151, 159, 161–167, 169–174

confrontational strategy 18, 142–144, 166

confrontation stage 16, 22–24, 36, 47, 89, 150

convincingness173

covert evasion9

critical discussion 16–18, 23–24, 36

critical question 2–4, 48, 176

D

declaring a standpoint taboo/sacrosanct92

declaring a standpoint unallowed/indisputable 41, 86–115, 140, 144, 151–152, 163–165, 167–168, 170, 173

deliberation see political deliberation

democratic political culture31

derailed strategic maneuvering19

Desirability Rationale 93, 98–102, 106, 165

detached argumentative style 20, 149, 153–155, 158, 160, 171

dialectical aim 19, 23–24, 39

dialectical approach 16–17

dialectical dimension17

dialectical perspective see dialectical approach

dialectical reasonableness 4, 15, 17–18, 20–21, 48, 85, 147, 174–175

dialectical route 20, 149–150

difference of opinion36

dimension of argumentative style149

diplomatic press conference 1–5, 7, 11, 14–16, 22, 24, 30–31, 110, 153–155, 157, 161–162, 172

direct personal attack 64–71, 79–85, 140, 165

direct refusal strategy10

disagreeing to resolve the difference164

discursive strategy173

discussion rules see code of conduct for reasonable discussants

discussion strategy see general (argumentative) strategy

dissociation 40, 42–62, 139, 152, 164–165, 167, 169

“distorted” Term I 50–52, 165

Distracting the other party 143, 154, 159, 173

doctrine of alleviation rather than tension see alleviation rather than tension

E

effectiveness see rhetorical effectiveness

emotional mode of argument127

emotive meaning of terms128

engaged argumentative style 20–21, 149, 153, 160, 171

ethotic argument64

evasion 10, 14

evasive answer see evasion

“exact” Term II 54–56, 60, 165

excluding standpoints see exempting the difference of opinion/standpoint

ex concessis argument65

exempting the difference of opinion/standpoint from critical discussion 40–42, 90, 164

expressing agreement 39, 164

extended pragma-dialectical theory 19, 21, 171

externalized standpoint118

extrinsic constraint 19, 21–22, 30

F

face 9–10, 114

fallacious personal attack see argumentum ad hominem

fallacy 17, 19, 61, 64–65, 92, 114, 126, 128, 137–138, 145, 170

fallacy of declaring a standpoint taboo/sacrosanct see declaring a standpoint taboo/sacrosanct

Feasibility Rationale 93, 102–106, 114, 166

first order condition41

Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence 33, 37, 94, 96–98, 108, 141, 144, 163

Freedom Rule 86, 92, 114

G

general argumentative/discussion strategy 18, 142, 175

general soundness criteria 19, 173

global connection between the speakers’ utterances117

H

human rights 35, 55–56, 139–141, 153, 156

hybrid communicative activity type162

I

ideal model of a critical discussion see critical discussion

imaginary critical discussion see projected (imaginary) critical discussion

immediate opponent 33–34, 36–37, 40, 49, 52–53, 56–57, 60–61, 78, 81, 83–85, 106–108, 114, 126, 134–135, 137–138, 140, 144–146, 154–157, 165–171

implicit critical discussion 34, 36, 38, 57

inconsistency 83–84

inconsistency between past and present actions 74–75, 85, 165

inconsistency between previous and present words 75–77, 85, 165

inconsistency between words and actions 73–74, 85, 165

indirect personal attack see circumstantial personal attack

indirect refusal strategy10

indisputable see declaring a standpoint unallowed/indisputable

informative question 2–4, 133, 176

initial situation 19, 22, 24, 36, 38–39

institutional constraint see institutional precondition

institutional goal see institutional point

institutional (macro-)context 19–21, 149, 175

institutional point 18, 26, 30–31, 34, 162

institutional precondition 21–22, 24–25, 30–37, 40–43, 53, 59–61, 63, 79–85, 92, 107, 110, 113–115, 123–126, 128, 137, 145, 147, 149, 155, 161–163, 175

integration dialectical and rhetorical perspectives 17, 21

international general public 33–34, 60, 63, 78, 82, 84–85, 153, 159, 166–167, 169

issue of discussion118

J

just words no actions 77–78, 85, 165

L

language style 5–8, 11, 14–15

linguistic indicator of dissociation46

local connection between the speakers’ utterances117

low expertise see accusation of low expertise

low intelligence see accusation of low intelligence

M

macro-context see institutional (macro-)context

material starting point 19, 37–38

media domain 31, 162

meta-theoretical analysis175

meta-theoretical evaluation175

Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1–5, 158

mixed difference of opinion see mixed position

mixed position 36, 40, 67

mode of confrontational maneuvering 22, 24–25, 28, 42, 49–56, 63, 66, 86, 132, 138, 141, 146

mode of strategic maneuvering 19–21, 23, 27, 39–40, 43, 48–49, 63, 65, 77, 79, 86, 145, 164

MoFA see Ministry of Foreign Affairs

MoFA’s regular press conferences see diplomatic press conference

multiple audience172

N

“narrowed” Term I 55–56, 60, 165

Necessity Rationale 93–98, 114, 141, 165

negative face9

negative sanction see sanction

Non-intervention in internal affairs35

non-mixed difference of opinion see non-mixed position

non-mixed position 36–38, 40, 75, 77

normative argumentation theory17

O

One-China policy/principle 35, 68, 95, 111

only words without actions see just words no actions

opening stage 17–18, 21, 23–24, 36, 48, 61, 88–89, 115, 118

opening strategy 142, 175

outcome 19, 24, 36–39

overt evasion9

P

parallel critical discussions see simultaneous critical discussions

personal attack 19, 27, 40, 63–85, 164–165, 167, 169

persuasion/persuasiveness 127, 173

pointing at a negative sanction see putting/exerting pressure on the other party by pointing at a negative sanction

politeness10

political communicative activity type31

political deliberation 31, 38

political domain 31, 162

political press conference see diplomatic press conference

positive face9

pragma-dialectical treatment of dissociation 43, 47, 49

pragmatic approach/perspective16

pragmatic strategy 8–11, 14–15, 49

pragmatic vagueness11

preliminary discussion 11, 88–90, 95, 99, 104, 115

presentational device/dimension 18–21, 25, 30, 58, 60, 79, 81–82, 84, 91, 114, 123, 149, 155, 169

press conference see diplomatic press conference

Pressurizing the other party 144, 159, 173

primary audience 21, 33–34, 36, 38, 49, 56–58, 60–61, 78–79, 84–85, 92, 106, 108, 114, 123, 134, 153, 155, 159, 161, 163, 166–167, 169, 171–172, 174

primary institutional precondition see institutional precondition

procedural starting point 17, 37–38

progressive diplomatic approach/style 157–159

projected (imaginary) argumentative exchange see projected (imaginary) critical discussion

projected (imaginary) critical discussion 43, 56–57, 61, 78–79, 106, 153, 156, 159

protagonist 17, 37–38, 47–49, 128, 148

prototypical argumentative style152

prototypical argumentative (sub-)pattern175

prototypical confrontational argumentative style25

prototypical mode of argumentational maneuvering175

prototypical mode of concluding maneuvering175

prototypical mode of confrontational maneuvering 22, 24, 39–42, 63, 174

prototypical mode of opening maneuvering175

prototypical mode of strategic maneuvering 41, 86, 116, 161

prototypical phenomena42

prototypical strategic design108

putting/exerting (emotional) pressure on the other party by appealing to sympathy 41, 132, 135, 138, 164–166, 168–169

putting/exerting pressure on the other party 27–28, 116–117, 126–138, 145, 165, 168–169

putting/exerting pressure on the other party by pointing at a negative sanction 41, 143, 152, 164–166, 168–169

R

rational judge36

reasonableness see dialectical reasonableness

redefining the difference of opinion 39–40, 42, 145, 148, 152, 156, 164

redefining the other party’s position of doubt/opposition 40–42, 164

redefining the propositional content of the standpoint 40, 152

resident foreign journalist2

resolving a difference of opinion17

resolving a difference of opinion on the merits see resolving a difference of opinion

rhetorical aim 16–18, 23–24, 39, 161

rhetorical approach 16–17

rhetorical device 11–14

rhetorical dimension17

rhetorical effectiveness 15, 17–18, 20–21, 48, 85, 147, 174

rhetorical perspective see rhetorical approach

rhetorical skills12

rhetorical strategy 8, 15

rhetorical treatment of dissociation46

rhetorical trope 5, 26

rules for critical discussion 17, 19, 65, 78, 126, 128, 137–138, 144–145, 171, 175

S

sanction 129, 152, 168

secondary audience 33–34, 38, 49, 56–57, 60, 78–79, 83–84, 106, 114, 134, 159, 163, 166

secondary institutional precondition see institutional precondition

second order condition41

shift of subject118

Silencing the other party 142, 154, 159, 173

simultaneous critical discussions 106–107, 125–126, 135, 144, 146, 155, 159, 166–169, 172

soundness (criteria) 19–20, 144, 169, 171, 173

South China Sea issue58

specific soundness criteria 20, 173

spokespersons’ replies 5–6, 14–15, 158

standard treatment of the fallacies127

Standpoint Rule145

starting point(s) 19, 24, 36, 38, 48–49, 61, 88–89, 106, 115

stereotypical mode of (confrontational) strategic maneuvering 174–175

strategically combining modes of strategic maneuvering see combining modes of strategic maneuvering

strategic consideration 20, 58, 149–150, 154, 157

strategic design 20, 25, 27–28, 58, 86, 108, 114, 123, 135, 149–150, 152, 161, 169, 176

strategic maneuvering 16, 18–23, 25, 30, 39–42, 56–57, 65, 79, 86, 113, 116, 161

strategic scenario 20–21, 150

strategic use of declaring a standpoint unallowed/indisputable 106–113

strategic use of dissociation 56–60

strategic use of personal attack 78–84

straw man fallacy 61, 126, 145

sub-discussion 88–89, 106, 132

subject of discussion 118–124, 145, 166, 170

suspicious interests see accusation of suspicious interests

suspicious motives see accusation of suspicious motives

T

Term I 44–46, 50–56, 59–60, 139, 165

Term II 44–46, 50–56, 59–60, 139, 165

third order condition41

Tibet-related issue 35, 96

topical choice/potential/selection 18–21, 25, 30, 79–81, 84, 91, 123, 149, 155, 169

topical shift 118–120

topic (of discussion) 40, 90, 116–117, 119–120

tu quoque see You Too personal attack

U

unallowed see declaring a standpoint unallowed/indisputable

uncompromising (detached) (confrontational) argumentative style 147–160, 171

undermining the opponent’s authority/credibility 167–168

“univocal” Term II 52–53, 60, 165

usage declarative48

V

virtual standpoint118

X

Xinjiang-related issue35

Y

You Too personal attack 64–66, 73–79, 83–85, 165