Cover not available

In:Responding to Questions at Press Conferences: Confrontational maneuvering by Chinese spokespersons
Peng Wu
[Argumentation in Context 21] 2023
► pp. 177–183

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

References

Published online: 22 March 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.21.refs
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric. (trans. George A. Kennedy). New York/Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. (1988). Our masters’ voices: The language and body language of politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barth, E. M. & Martens, J. L. (1977). Argumentum ad hominem: From chaos to formal dialectic: The method of dialogue-tableaus as a tool in the theory of fallacy. Logique et analyse, 20 , 76–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benoit, W. L. (2000). Comparing the Clinton and Dole advertising campaigns: Identification and division in 1996 presidential television spots. Communication Research Reports, 17(1), 39–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, A. (2006). The critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 173–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, A. (1985). A rhetorical view of the ad hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 63(1), 50–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). The ad hominem. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 213–222). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carozza, L. (2009). The emotional mode of argumentation: Descriptive, people-centred, and process-oriented. Dissertation York University.
Chen, L. J. [ 陈丽江] (2007). Cultural context and political discourse: A discourse analysis of government press conference [文化语境与政治话语：政府新闻发布会的话语研究]. Beijing: China University of Radio and Television Publishing House. [北京：中国广播电视大学出版社]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Copi, I. M. (1953/1972). Introduction to logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary study. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dou, W. 窦卫霖 & Zhang, X. [ 张晓莹] (2008). A comparative study of the dodging strategy adopted by Chinese and American spokespersons: The case of the North Korean nuclear issue. [中美政府发言人闪避策略的对比分析——朝核问题个案研究] Theory and Practice of Foreign Language Teaching [外语教学理论与实践], 4, 53–57.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du, J. [ 杜江] (2005). Theory and practice for spokespersons. [新闻发言人理论与实务] Chengdu: Sichuan people’s Publishing House. [成都：四川人民出版社]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 11–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Eds.), Prototypical argumentative patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 7–30). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Argumentative style: A complex notion. Argumentation, 33(2), 153–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Examining Argumentative Style: A new perspective. Journal of Argumentation in Context. 10(1), 8–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Garssen, B. (2012). Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts (pp. 43–58). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Greco, S., van Haaften, T., Labrie, N., Leal, F. & Wu, P. (2022). Argumentative Style: A pragma-dialectical study of functional variety in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B. & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 344–364. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: Theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1993). The history of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century. In E. C. W. Krabbe, R. J. Dalitz & P. A. Smit (Eds.), Empirical logic and public debate: Essays in honour of Else M. Barth (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. & Kruiger, T. (1978). Argumentatietheorie [Argumentation theory]. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Wu, P. (Eds.) (2018). Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekström, M. (2006). Politicians interviewed on television news. Discourse & Society, 12(5), 563–584. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2003). Presidential press conferences over time. American Journal of Political Science, 47(April), 348–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The politics of presidential press conferences. American Politics Research, 41, 470–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1998). Political discourse in the media: An analytical framework. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fan, W., Wang, Y. [ 范武邱、王昱] (2021). On the new discourse style and translation strategies of Chinese diplomatic spokespersons’ discourse since the 18th National Congress of the CPC. [十八大以来我国外交部发言人话语新风格及翻译策略探析] Foreign Language Education, [外语教学 42(2), 80–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, F. & Forester, H. (2012). The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Durham/London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (2010). Hedging in political discourse: The 2007 Bush press conference. In U. Okulska & P. Cap. (Eds.), Perspectives in politics and discourse (pp. 201–214), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.
(2022). The argumentative style of the opening speech of a debate in the European Parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 11(1), 47–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gâţă, A. (2007). Dissociation as a way of strategic manoeuvring. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, June 27–30 (pp. 441–448). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (1997). A simulation of the structure of academic science. Sociological Research Online, 2(2), 91–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, J. A. (1983). A move toward describing conversational coherence. In R. T. Craig & K. Tracy (Eds.), Conversational coherence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gong, X. [ 宫旭] (2011). Analyzing the language of spokespersons: The cases of spokespersons at China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [新闻发言人语言分析——以外交部新闻发言人为例 Unpublished MA thesis of Hei Longjiang University [黑龙江大学硕士学位论文].
Goodwin, J. (2002). Designing issues. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric (pp. 81–96). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. & Neufeld, S. (2010). Influence of different positive emotions on persuasion processing: A functional evolutionary approach. Emotion, 10(2), 190–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 286–289). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guan, K. [ 官科] (2010). Pragmatic vagueness of spokespersons in Sino-US foreign affairs’ departments. [中美外交部门发言人的语用含糊策略研究] Journal of Hunan University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), [湖南科技大学学报（社会科学版）] 13(2), 93–97.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
] (2013). Construction of spokesperson’s discourse: An approach of Western New Rhetoric. [基于西方新修辞学的新闻发言人话语建构] Journal of Hunan University of Science & Technology (Social Science Edition), [湖南科技大学学报（社会科学版）] 16(4), 153–156.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hample, D. (2005). Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
He, Z. [ 何自然] (2000). A further study on pragmatic vagueness. [再论语用含糊] Journal of Foreign Languages, [外国语], 23(1), 7–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hong, G. & Chen, Q. [ 洪岗、陈乾峰] (2011). A contrastive study of the refusal strategies employed by Chinese and American spokespersons. [中美新闻发言人拒绝策略对比研究] Foreign Language Teaching and Research, [外语教学与研究] 43(2), 209–219.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ju, Y. [ 鞠玉梅] (2007). Reflections on the classical theories of western and Chinese rhetoric. [关于中西修辞学传统的思考] Qilu Journal, [齐鲁学刊] 3, 79–83.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahane, H. (1973). Logic and philosophy. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kienpointner, M. (2013). Strategic maneuvering in the political rhetoric of Barack Obama. Journal of Language and Politics, 12(3), 357–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lan, C. & Hu, Y. [ 蓝纯、胡毅] (2014). Pragmatic analysis of foreign ministry spokespersons’ dodge answer. [外交部新闻发言人闪避回答的语用分析] Chinese Foreign Language, [中国外语] 6, 21–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewinski, M. (2010). Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
Li, X. & Sun, J. [ 李希光、孙静惟] (2007). Course book for spokespersons. [发言人教程] Beijing: Tsinghua University Press. [北京：清华大学出版社]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1960). An essay concerning human understanding. London: Dent.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2019). Emotive meaning in political argumentation. Informal Logic, 39(3), 229–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manheim, J. B. (1979). The honeymoon’s over: The news conference and the development of presidential style. Journal of Politics, 41, 55–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Minot, W. S. (1981). A rhetorical view of fallacies: Ad hominem and ad populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 11(4), 222–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The elaboration likelihood model. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 137–149). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pilgram, R. (2015). A doctor’s argument by authority: An analytical and empirical study of strategic maneuvering in medical consultation. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
van Poppel, L. (2013). Getting the vaccine now will protect you in the future!: A pragma-dialectical analysis of strategic maneuvering with pragmatic argumentation in health brochures. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
van Rees, A. (2006). Strategic maneuvering with dissociations. Argumentation, 20(4), 473–487. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Dissociation in argumentative discourse: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (1964). Introduction to logic. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schaffner, C. (1997). Analyzing political speeches. London: Short Run Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiappa, E. (1985). Dissociation in the arguments of rhetorical theory. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 72–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Arguing about definitions. Argumentation, 7(4), 403–418. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Defining reality: Definitions and the politics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simunich, B. A. (2008). Emotion arousing message forms and personal agency arguments in persuasive messages: Motivating effects on pro-environmental behaviors. Dissertation Ohio State University.
Sun, S. Y. [ 孙斯扬] (2012). On the deviation of cooperative principle in regular press conferences of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China. [中国外交部新闻发言人例行记者会中合作原则的偏离现象研究] Unpublished MA thesis of Northeast Normal University of China. [东北师范大学硕士学位论文]
Suzuki, T. & van Eemeren, F. H. (2019). “This painful chapter”: An analysis of Emperor Akihito’s apologia in the context of Dutch old sores. Argumentation & Advocacy, 41(2), 102–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China [中华人民共和国国务院新闻办新闻局] (2015). Workbook for governmental press conferences. [政府新闻发布工作手册] Beijing: Wu Zhou Publishing House. [北京：五洲出版社]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tonnard, Y. (2011). Getting an issue on the table: A pragma-dialectical study of presentational choices in confrontational strategic maneuvering in Dutch parliamentary debate. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
Tracy, K. (1984). Staying on topic: An explication of conversation relevance. Discourse Processes 7(4), 447–464. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tu, G. & Gong, H. [ 涂光晋、宫贺] (2009). A political rhetorical analysis of official press release on Tibet in China and America. [中美官方西藏主题新闻发布的政治修辞分析] Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication, [国际新闻界] (31) 8, 32–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (2000). Understanding pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wanphet, P. (2016). A conversation analysis of language teacher talk in lesson opening: Topic shift and negotiation. Discourse and Interaction, 9, 95–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (1979). New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whately, R. (1848). Elements of logic. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierda, R. (2015). Experience-based authority argumentation in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
Woods, J. & Walton, D. (1989). Fallacies: Selected papers 1972 1982. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019a). Confrontational maneuvering by dissociation in spokespersons argumentative replies at the press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation, 33(1), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019b). “I have no comment”: Confrontational maneuvering by declaring a standpoint unallowed or indisputable at the press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation, 33(4), 489–519. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, P. 吴鹏 & Zhu, M. [ 朱密] (2015). A research on a pragma-dialectical approach of Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s argumentative replies at the regular press conference: Take Liu Weimin’s reply about the Sino-US tombarthite trade friction as case study. [外交部发言人应答话语的语用论辩研究：以刘为民就中美稀土贸易摩擦答记者问为例] Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication, [国际新闻界] 37(9), 52–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xiong, L. [ 熊莉萍] (2013). A comparative study of refusal strategies used by Chinese and American Foreign Ministry spokespersons. [中美外交部发言人拒绝策略使用对比研究] Unpublished MA Thesis of Central China Normal University. [华中师范大学硕士论文]
Yang, Y. [ 杨跃珍] (2015). Narrative rhetoric study on the news conference of China and Japan in the case of maritime collision. [中日撞船事件新闻发布会的叙事修辞研究] Journal of Zhongzhou University, [中州大学学报] 32(2), 89–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Y. & Tian, T. [ 杨元、田甜] (2010). An analysis of the use of covert evasion by China Foreign Ministry spokespersons and its pragmatic functions. [外交部发言人答记者问的暗示闪避方式及功能] Hubei University of Technology, [湖北工业大学学报] 25(6), 121–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Z. [ 杨正泉] (2005). Theory and practice for spokespersons. [新闻发言人理论与实践] Beijing: Communication University of China Press. [北京：中国传媒大学出版社]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yi, Y. & Chang, T. (2012). Institutionalizing public relations in China: A sociological analysis of the Chinese Premier’s press conference. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 711–722. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zarefsky, D. (2004). Presidential rhetoric and the power of definition. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34(3), 607–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zarefsky, D., Miller, F. E., & Miller-Tutzauer, C. (1984). Reagan’s safety net for the truly needy: The rhetorical use of definition. Central States Speech Journal, 35(2), 113–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. [ 张洋] (2009). On spokesperson’s language style. [试论新闻发言人风格] Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences), [北华大学学报（社会科学版）] 10(6), 59–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
] (2011). On the construction of the language style of spokespersons. [政府新闻发言人语言风格的构建] Modern Communication (Journal of Communication University of China), [现代传播（中国传媒大学学报）] 33(1), 159–160.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
] (2012a). Investigating the factors and linguistic devices that shape spokespersons’ language style. [新闻发言人语言的风格要素及风格手段] Journal of Bohai University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), [渤海大学学报（哲社版）] 34(1), 94–109.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
] (2012b). On the personal language style of spokespersons. [新闻发言人个性化语言的传播价值] Modern Communication (Journal of Communication University of China), [现代传播（中国传媒大学学报）] 34(6), 151–152.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zou, J. [ 邹建华] (2011). Getting close to the spokespersons’ of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Strategies and skills for the spokespersons to respond to the questions. [走近外交部发言人：新闻发言人面对媒体的策略与技巧] Beijing: The Central Committee of C. P. C Party School Press. [中共中央党校出版社]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue