Cover not available

Article published In: Argumentative Style
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1] 2021
► pp. 73–96

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

Mediators’ reframing as a constitutive element of a reconciliatory argumentative style

 | USI – Università della Svizzera italiana
 | USI – Università della Svizzera italiana
Published online: 4 February 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20019.gre
Abstract
This paper shows that reframing of conflict can be considered as a constitutive element of a “reconciliatory argumentative style” (. (2019). “Argumentative style: A complex notion.” Argumentation 33(2): 153–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), which is typical of dispute mediators, whose aim is to steer parties towards the resolution of their conflict. On the basis of a systematic empirical analysis of mediation cases, we first show that reframing encompasses a change of issue, which may or may not be justified by arguments. Then, we show how it is functional to the three aspects of mediators’ strategic manoeuvring, being used consistently by mediators in their effort to help parties solve their conflict on the basis of reasonable discussion.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical positioning: Reframing and argumentative style
    • 2.1A pragma-dialectical view of argumentative style
    • 2.2Dispute mediation as a genre
    • 2.3Reframing in mediation
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Empirical dataset
    • 3.2Analysis
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Mediators’ reframing as argumentation
    • 4.2Reframing as a constitutive element of a reconciliatory style
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (47)
References
Aakhus, Mark. (2003). “Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation.” Argumentation 17(3): 265–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bijnen, Emma van. (2020). Common ground in conflict mediation: An argumentative perspective. PhD dissertation, USI – Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bijnen, Emma. van, and Sara Greco. (2018). “Divide to unite: making disagreement explicit in dispute mediation.” Journal of argumentation in context 7:3: 285–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bush, Robert A. B., and Joseph P. Folger. (2005). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chan, Cecilia L. W., and Chi K. Law. (2008). “Advocacy.” In Comprehensive Handbook of Social Work and Social Welfare, 31, ed. by Karen M. Sowers et al., New York: Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. (2008). “Dichotomies and types of debate.” In Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 27–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donohue, William A., Mike Allen & Nancy Burrell. (1988). “Mediator communicative competence.” Communication monographs 55 (1): 104–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drake, Laura. E., and William A. Donohue. (1996). “Communicative framing theory in conflict resolution.” Communication Research 23(3): 297–322. 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
Eemeren, F. H. van, and Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical perspective. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. (1976). “Frame semantics and the nature of language.” In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech 2801: 20–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Frame semantics. In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings, ed. by D. Geeraerts, 373–400. Berlin: De Gruyter. (Original work published 1982). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, Roger, William Ury and Bruce Patton. (1991). Getting to yes. Negotiating agreement without giving in (second edition). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gata, A. (2021). “Characterizing a detached argumentative style: Text types as presentational choices”. This volume.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
Greco, Sara. (2018). “Designing dialogue: Argumentation as conflict management in social interaction.” Tranel 681: 7–15. Available open access at: [URL] (last visited: April 2020).
. (2020). Dal conflitto al dialogo: Un approccio comunicativo alla mediazione. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Higham, Lise. (2019). D’autres voix que la sienne. Manières de se faire écouter, modes d’écoute: Une étude des marqueurs d’écoute en séances de médiation. PhD dissertation, Université de Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffman, David A. (2011). “Mediation and the art of shuttle diplomacy.” Negotiation Journal 27(3): 263–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Michael H. G. (2011). Analyzing framing processes in conflicts and communication by means of logical argument mapping. In Framing matters: Perspectives on negotiation research and practice in communication, ed. by William A. Donohue, Randall G. Rogan and Sandra Kaufman, 136–164. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott, and Mark Aakhus. (2002). “What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation”. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(2): 177–203. 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 311: 45–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jermini-Martinez Soria, Chiara, and Sara Greco. (2019). “Dispute mediators’ reframing as an argumentation competence.” In Proceedings of the ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, 3–6 July 2018, ed. by Bart Garssen et al., 594–603. Available at: [URL]
Jermini-Martinez Soria, Chiara. (In preparation). Reframing as an argumentative competence in dispute mediation. PhD dissertation, USI – Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
Lewiński, M. (2013). Polylogical fallacies: Are there any? OSSA Conference Archive. 1041. Available at: [URL]
Littleton, Karen and Neil Mercer. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maley, Yon. (1995). “From adjudication to mediation: Third party discourse in conflict resolution.” Journal of Pragmatics 231: 93–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meier, I. (2003). “Mediation and conciliation in Switzerland.” In Global Trends in Mediation, ed. by N. Alexander, 341–357. Köln: Centrale für Mediation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moore, Christopher W. (2014), 4th ed. The mediation process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Passmore, Jonathan. (2007). “An integrative model for executive coaching.” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 59(1): 68–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Putnam, Linda. L. (2004). “Transformation as a critical moment in negotiations.” Negotiation Journal 20(2): 275–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Putnam, Linda. L., and Majia Holmer. (1992). “Framing, reframing and issue development.”, in Communication and negotiation, ed. by Linda L. Putnam and Michael E. Roloff, 128–155. Newbury Park (etc.): 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
Ran, Yongping, Zhao, Linsen, and Dániel Kádár. (2020). “The rite of reintegrative shaming in Chinese public dispute mediation.” Journal of Pragmatics 30(1): 40–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo, and Sara Greco. (2019). Inference in argumentation: A topics-based approach to argument schemes. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rocci, Andrea and Margherita Luciani. (2016). “Semantics and verbal communication.” In Verbal communication, ed. by Andrea Rocci and Louis De Saussure, 57–76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sander, F. (1979). “Varieties of dispute processing.” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on justice in the future. Proceedings of the national conference on the causes of popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice, ed. by A. L. Lewin and R. R. Wheeler, 65–87. St. Paul (Minnesota): West Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shmueli, Deborah F. (2008). “Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: Theory, methodology and three case studies.” Geoforum 391: 2048–2061. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ury, W. (1993). Getting past no: Negotiating in difficult situations. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, Alena L. (2015). “Identity as a resource to shape mediation in dialogic interaction.” Language and Dialogue 5 (3): 355–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Loureda, Óscar, Mathis Teucher, Adriana Cruz, Celia Hernández Pérez & Carlos Gelormini-Lezama
2025.  Cognitive processing of anaphoric encapsulation and coreference in native Spanish speakers: an experimental approach with eye tracking . Discourse Processes ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Jiewen & Ling Zhou
2025. Increasing mediators’ perceived responsibility: The role of persuasive attacks in vicarious relative-led family mediation. Discourse Studies 27:1 ► pp. 146 ff. DOI logo
Bates, Carolina Figueras
2024. The Effect of Empathic Mediation in Conflict Resolution. In Accessing the Public Sphere, ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Figueras Bates, Carolina
2024. Conflict resolution in online mental health support groups. Language and Dialogue 14:2 ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
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
Luciani, Margherita & Josephine Convertini
2024. Patients and psychotherapists using concessive counter‐argumentation: Co‐constructing new framings. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research 24:1 ► pp. 169 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