Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 6:2 (2017) ► pp.167–192

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

Practical reasoning in corporate communication with multiple audiences

 | University of Liverpool
 | Università della Svizzera italiana
Published online: 27 October 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.2.03pal
Abstract
Corporate strategic communication has to be designed by considering multiple audiences of stakeholders. In this paper, we study the connection between the audience structure of corporate messages and the structure of the practical argumentation advanced to persuasively justify a business proposal. To this purpose, we combine a conceptual and analytical framework for the reconstruction of multiple audiences – the Text Stakeholders model (Palmieri, R., & Mazzali-Lurati, S. (2016). Multiple audiences as text stakeholders. A conceptual framework for analysing complex rhetorical situations. Argumentation 30(4), 467–499. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), with a conceptual and analytical framework for the reconstruction of argument schemes – the Argumentum Model of Topics (Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2010). Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components. Argumentation, 24(4), 489–512. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). A takeover proposal made by Ryanair for Aer Lingus is examined as an illustrative case in which this integrated framework is applied. We focus our analysis on Ryanair’s offer document to show how the particular structure of the audience is reflected in the selection of specific value and goal premises (endoxa) and in the activation of specific inferential relations (maxims) of practical reasoning.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Practical argumentation from the AMT perspective
    • 2.1Practical reasoning in proposal speech acts
    • 2.2The AMT reconstruction of practical argumentation
  • 3.Multiple audience: The notion of text stakeholders
  • 4.The case: Ryanair’s second hostile offer for Aer Lingus
    • 4.1Audience analysis
    • 4.2Argumentative analysis
      • 4.2.1Dealing with the composite addressee
      • 4.2.2Accounting for ratified readers
        • (A)The Aer Lingus board
        • (B)The European Commission
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (62)
References
Aakhus, M. (2006). The act and activity of proposing in deliberation. In P. Riley (Ed.), Engaging argument. Selected papers from the 2005 National Communication Association/American Forensic Association Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 402–408). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aakhus, M., & Lewinski, M. (2011). Argument analysis in large-scale deliberation. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics (pp. 165–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benoit, W. L., & D’Agostine, J. M. (1994). The Case of the Midnight Judges and Multiple Audience Discourse: Chief Justice Marshall and Marbury V. Madison. The Southern Communication Journal 59(2), 89–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitzer, L. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 11, 1–14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1980). Functional communication: A situational perspective. In E. White (Ed.), Rhetoric in transition: Studies in the nature and uses of rhetoric (pp. 21–38). University Park & London: Pennsylvanian State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bratman, M. (1999). Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Standford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, N. M., C. Daly, & C. Harrington. (2010). Rhetoric, Argument and Impression Management in Hostile Takeover Defence Documents. British Accounting Review, 42 (4), 253–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broome, J. (2002). Practical reasoning. In J. L. Bermùdez, & A. Millar (Eds), Reason and nature: essays in the theory of rationality (pp. 85–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam [etc.]: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004): A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. – Cambridge University Press.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
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & 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: Kluver. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Values as premises in practical arguments: Conceptions of justice in the public debate over bankers’ bonuses. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds), Exploring Argumentative Contexts (pp. 23–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (2002). A pragma-dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation, 16(3), 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure. Berlin: Foris/De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garssen, B. (2001). Argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 81–99). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gobber, G., & Palmieri, R. (2014). Argumentation in institutional founding documents. The case of Switzerland’s Foedus Pactum. In G. Gobber, & A. Rocci (Eds), Language, reason and education. Studies in honor of Eddo Rigotti by his students and colleagues (pp. 171–191). Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, J. (2002). Designing issues. In F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: the warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 81–96). Springer Science and Business Media. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1964). The neglected situation. American anthropologist, 66(6_PART2), 133–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, S. E. (2004). A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 653–669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haan-Kamminga, A. (2006): Supervision on Takeover Bids: A Comparison of Regulatory Arrangements. – Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartelius, E. J., & Browning, L. D. (2009). The application of rhetorical theory in managerial research: a literature review. In S. R. Clegg (ed.), SAGE Directions in Organization Studies (pp. 379–404). SAGE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hitchcock, D. (2001). Pollock on practical reasoning. Informal Logic, 22(3), 247–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ihnen, C. (2010). The analysis of pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates: Second reading of the terrorism bill in the British House of Commons. Controversia, 7(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14(3), 261–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewinski, M. (2014). Practical reasoning in argumentative polylogues. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación, 81, 1–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewinksi, M., & Aakhus, M. (2014). Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry. Argumentation 281, 161–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzali-Lurati, S. (2011). Generi e portatori di interesse: due nozioni-chiave per la scrittura nelle organizzazioni. Cultura e comunicazione, 041, 12–18.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzali-Lurati, S., & Pollaroli, C. (2013). Stakeholders in promotional genres. A rhetorical perspective on marketing communication. In G. Kišiček & I.Ž. Žagar. (Eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives (pp. 365–389). Ljubljana: Digital Library of Slovenia & Windsor Studies in Argumentation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1999). Participant roles, frames, and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 221, 595–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohammed, D., & Lewinski, M. (2016). Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, 9–12 June 2015 (Volume I1). College: London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, F. (1999). Political Argumentation and the Composite Audience: A Case Study. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 851, 55–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmieri, R. (2008). Reconstructing argumentative interactions in M&A offers. Studies in Communication Sciences, 8(2), 279–302.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmieri, R., & Mazzali-Lurati, S. (2016). Multiple audiences as text stakeholders. A conceptual framework for analysing complex rhetorical situations. Argumentation 30(4), 467–499. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmieri, R., Rocci, A., & Kudrautsava, N. (2015). Argumentation in Earnings Conference Calls. Corporate standpoints and analysts’ challenges. Studies in communication sciences, 15(1), 120–132 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrecths-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinto, R. C. (2001). Argument, inference and dialectic. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive carpentry: A blueprint for how to build a person. Mit Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholders management and organizational wealth. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, E. (2014). The nature and functions of loci in Agricola’s De inuentione Dialectica . Argumentation 28(1), 19–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Whether and how classical topics can be revived in the contemporary theory of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. J. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 157–178). New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Locus a causa finali. In G. Gobber, S. Cantarini, S. Cigada, M. C. Gatti, & S. Gilardoni (Eds), Word meaning in argumentative dialogue. Special issue of L’analisi linguistica e letteraria XVI(2): 559–576.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Relevance of context-bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage. Argumentation 20(4), 519–540. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). La linguistica tra le scienze della comunicazione. In A. Giacalone-Ramat, E. Rigotti, & A. Rocci (Eds), Linguistica e nuove professioni (pp. 21–35). Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2010). Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components. Argumentation, 24(4), 489–512. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Rocci, A. (2006). Towards a definition of communication context. Foundations of an interdisciplinary approach to communication. Studies in Communication Sciences, 6/21, 155–180.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rocci, A. (2009). Manoeuvring with voices. In: F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Examining Argumentation in Context (pp.257–283). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Modality and its conversational backgrounds in the reconstruction of argumentation. Argumentation 221, 165–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Pragmatic inference and argumentation in intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(4), 409–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. (ed.). (1959). Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). (1958). Aristotelis Topica et Sophistici Elenchi. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vega, L., & Olmos, P. (2007). Deliberation: A paradigm in the arena of public argument. In H. V. Hansen et al. (Eds), Dissensus and the search for common ground (pp. 1–11), CD-ROM. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Von Wright, G. H. (1963). Practical inference. The Philosophical Review, 159–179. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1990). Practical reasoning: goal-driven, knowledge-based, action-guiding argumentation. Savage: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Palmieri, Rudi & Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati
2021. Strategic Communication with Multiple Audiences: Polyphony, Text Stakeholders, and Argumentation. International Journal of Strategic Communication 15:3 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2021. Characterizing Argumentative Style: The Case of KLM and the Destructed Squirrels. In The Language of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 36], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Browning, Larry D. & E. Johanna Hartelius
2018. Rhetorical Analysis in Management and Organizational Research, 2007–2017. In The Handbook of Organizational Rhetoric and Communication, ► pp. 81 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