Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 7:3 (2018) ► pp.285–315

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

Divide to unite

Making disagreement explicit in dispute mediation

 | Universita della Svizzera italiana
 | Universita della Svizzera italiana
Published online: 1 February 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17032.bij
Abstract
In dispute mediation, mediators, perhaps counterintuitively, make the disagreement between parties explicit and formulate their interventions on the disagreement in such a way that the disagreement is made manageable. In this paper, three functions of identifying and elucidating the parties’ disagreement that demonstrate the importance of making disagreement salient – (1) uncovering real issues, (2) emphasizing conflict ownership, (3) making disagreements manageable – are presented. Corpora of mediation simulation transcripts are used as empirical bases for the analyses of the means by which mediators make disagreement explicit (the how) and for what specific functions they do so (the why). The three aspects of strategic maneuvering ( 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (Vol. 21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) are used to analyze how mediators construct the interventions on the disagreement in terms of: (a) the topics they select from the topical potential, (b) the adjustment of interventions to suit their intended addressee(s), and (c) what presentational devices are used.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework
    • 2.1The space of disagreement in argumentative discussions
    • 2.2Making disagreement explicit as part of a mediator’s strategic maneuvering
  • 3.Methodological framework
    • 3.1Data collection
    • 3.2Data treatment
    • 3.3Analysis of the three aspects of strategic maneuvering
  • 4.Three functions and ways of making disagreement explicit
    • 4.1Uncover the real issue(s)
    • 4.2Emphasize the parties’ ownership of conflict
    • 4.3Make the disagreement manageable
    • 4.4One intervention, all three functions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (48)
References
Aakhus, Mark. 2001. Designing web-based interactional tools to support learning from experience. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling, M. Schoop and J. Taylor Eds: 51–67.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation 17(3): 265–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Communication as design. Communication monographs 74(1): 112–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berti, Emanuele. 2007. Scholasticorum studia. Seneca il Vecchio e la cultura retorica e letteraria della prima età imperiale. Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brenninkmeijer, Alex F. M., Karen van Oyen, Hugo Prein, and Paul Walters. 2005. Handboek mediation. The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burr, Anne M. 2002. Confidentiality in mediation communications: A privilege worth protecting. Dispute Resolution Journal 57(1): 64–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burrell, Nancy A., and Sally M. Vogl. 1990. Turf-side conflict mediation for students. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 7(3): 237–250.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2007. Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colatrella Jr., Michael T. 2000. Court-performed mediation in the People’s Republic of China: A proposed model to improve the United States federal district courts’ mediation programs. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 151: 391–424.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Currie, Cris. 2004. Mediating off the Grid. Dispute Resolution Journal 59(2): 8–15.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deason, Ellen E. 2001. The Quest for Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consistency or Crucial Predictability. Marquette Law Review 851:79–111.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deng, Yiheng. 2012. Strategy to alleviate adversity in Chinese mediation: a discourse analysis on real Chinese mediation sessions. Chinese Journal of Communication 5(4): 417–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freedman, Lawrence R., and Michael L. Prigoff. 1986. Confidentiality in Mediation: The Need for Protection. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 21: 37–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury, and Bruce Patton. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ghosh, Debanjan, Smaranda Muresan, Nina Wacholder, Mark Aakhus, and Matthew Mitsui. 2014. Analyzing argumentative discourse units in online interactions. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining: 39–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glasl, Friedrich. 2004. Selbsthilfe in Konflikten. Konzepte- Übungen – Praktische Methoden. Stuttgart/Bern: Freies Geistesleben.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco Morasso, Sara. 2008. The ontology of conflict. Pragmatics & Cognition 16 (3): 540–567. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Argomentare per superare il conflitto: L’argomentazione nella mediazione. Sistemi Intelligenti 24 (3): 481–502.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco, Sara. 2018. Designing dialogue: Argumentation as conflict management in social interaction. Tranel – Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique 681: 7–15. Available open-access at [URL]
Haynes, John M. 1994. The fundamentals of family mediation. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haynes, John M., and Gretchen L. Haynes. 1989. Mediating divorce. Casebook of strategies for successful family negotiation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herman, Margaret S. 2006. Handbook of Mediation: Bridging Theory, Research, and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 661: 251–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott. 2002. Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (10): 1402–1426.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janier, Mathilde, and Chris Reed. 2017. Towards a theory of close analysis for dispute mediation discourse. Argumentation 31(1): 45–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Nam H., James Wall Jr, Dong-Won Sohn, and Jay Kim. 1993. Community and industrial mediation in South Korea. Journal of Conflict Resolution 37(2): 361–381. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meier, Isaak. 2003. Mediation and conciliation in Switzerland. In Global Trends in Mediation, ed. by Nadja Alexander: 341–357. Köln: Centrale für Mediation. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montefusco, Lucia. 1987. La funzione della “partitio” nel discorso oratorio. In Studi di retorica oggi in Italia, ed. by A. Pennacini, 69–85. Bologna: Pitagora. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plantin, Christian. 1996. Le trilogue argumentatif. Présentation de modèle, analyse de cas. Langue Française 112: 9–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Porter, James E. 1990. Divisio as em-/de-powering topic: A basis for argument in rhetoric and composition. Rhetoric Review 8(2): 191–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Putnam, Linda L., and Michael E. Holmer. 1992. Communication perspectives on negotiation. In Communication and Negotiation, ed. by Linda L. Putnam, and Michael E. Roloff, 128–155. Newbury Park: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ran, Yongping, and Linsen Zhao. 2018. Building mutual affection-based face in conflict mediation: A Chinese relationship management model. Journal of Pragmatics 1291: 185–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Susskind, Lawrence. 2010. Looking at negotiation and dispute resolution through a CA/DA lens. Negotiation Journal 26 (2): 163–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tabucanon, Gill M. P., James Wall Jr, and Wan Yan. 2008. Philippine Community Mediation, Katarungang Pambarangay. Journal of Dispute Resolution 2(5): 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traverso, Véronique. 1999. L’analyse des conversations. Paris: Nathan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. (Ed.). 2001. Crucial concepts in argumentation theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(Ed.). 2009. Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (Vol. 11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (Vol. 21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion (Vol. 11). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Grootendorst, R. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol. 141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean H. M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2009. How should one respond to fallacious moves? Argumentation and Advocacy 45(4): 198–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Rees, M. Agnes. 1992. The use of language in conversation. An introduction to research in conversational analysis. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, Alena L. 2017. Strategic manoeuvring in dispute mediation. Argumentation & Advocacy 53 (3): 234–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wall, James A., Nimet Beriker, and Sharon Wu. 2010. Turkish community mediation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 401: 2019–2042. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wall, James A., and Timothy Dunne. 2012. Mediation research: A current review. Negotiation Journal 281: 217–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Greco, Sara, Sara Cigada & Chiara Jermini-Martinez Soria
2024. The naming of emotions in dispute mediators’ strategic manoeuvring: a case study using a French language corpus. Text & Talk 44:1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Greco, Sara & Chiara Jermini-Martinez Soria
2021. Mediators’ reframing as a constitutive element of a reconciliatory argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1 ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Bijnen, Emma van
2019. Dialogical power negotiations in conflict mediation. Language and Dialogue 9:1 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Argumentative Style [Argumentation in Context, 20], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 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