Responding to Questions at Press Conferences

Confrontational maneuvering by Chinese spokespersons

image of Responding to Questions at Press Conferences

Responding to Questions at Press Conferences makes clear how the spokespersons at China’s diplomatic press conferences maneuver strategically in defining the issues in the empirical counterpart of the confrontation stage when responding to the journalists’ questions and how this confrontational maneuvering is meant to be instrumental in convincing the intended audience. The detailed and systematic analysis of the various modes of confrontational maneuvering adopted by the spokespersons elucidate how China’s recently established “progressive” diplomatic style is shaped by its spokespersons’ argumentative discourse.


  1. Andone, C.
    (2013) Argumentation in political interviews. Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.5 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2022) Arguing through quotations: The case of European Commission press releases. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 11(1), 69–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aristotle
    Aristotle (1991) On rhetoric. (trans. George A. Kennedy ). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkinson, J. M.
    (1988) Our masters’ voices: The language and body language of politics. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 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. 10.1080/08838158309386499
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08838158309386499 [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. 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. 10.1080/08824090009388749
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090009388749 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhatia, A.
    (2006) The critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 173–203. 10.1177/0957926506058057
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506058057 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brambilla, E.
    (2022) Antifascist argumentation in Giacomo Matteotti’s 1924 speech to the Italian parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 11(1), 27–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brinton, A.
    (1985) A rhetorical view of the ad hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 63(1), 50–63. 10.1080/00048408512341681
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00048408512341681 [Google Scholar]
  11. (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]
  12. Brown, G. & Yule, G.
    (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carozza, L.
    (2009) The emotional mode of argumentation: Descriptive, people-centred, and process-oriented. Dissertation York University.
  14. 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]
  15. Copi, I. M.
    (1953/1972) Introduction to logic. New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. van Dijk, T. A.
    (1998) Ideology: A multidisciplinary study. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dou, W. & Zhang, X. [ 窦卫霖、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]
  18. 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]
  19. van Eemeren, F. H.
    (2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2013) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 11–32. 10.1075/jaic.2.1.01eem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.01eem [Google Scholar]
  21. (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. 10.1075/aic.11.02van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.02van [Google Scholar]
  22. (2018) Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2019) Argumentative style: A complex notion. Argumentation, 33(2), 153–171. 10.1007/s10503‑019‑09478‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09478-y [Google Scholar]
  24. (2021) Examining Argumentative Style: A new perspective. Journal of Argumentation in Context. 10(1), 8–25. 10.1075/jaic.20022.eem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20022.eem [Google Scholar]
  25. (2022) Characterising an MEP’s argumentative style: Mr. Schlyter’s contribution to the debate on labelling fruit juices. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 11(1), 6–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. 10.1075/aic.4.03van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.4.03van [Google Scholar]
  27. 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. 10.1075/aic.20
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.20 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
  29. van Eemeren, F. H. , Garssen, B. & Meuffels, B.
    (2009) Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑2614‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2012) The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 344–364. 10.1080/13546783.2012.678666
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2012.678666 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  32. (1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R.
    (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. van Eemeren, F. H. , Grootendorst, R. & Kruiger, T.
    (1978) Argumentatietheorie [Argumentation theory]. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. 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. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9948‑1_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_10 [Google Scholar]
  38. van Eemeren, F. H. & Wu, P.
    (Eds.) (2018) Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ekström, M.
    (2006) Politicians interviewed on television news. Discourse & Society, 12(5), 563–584. 10.1177/0957926501012005001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012005001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Eshbaugh-Soha, M.
    (2003) Presidential press conferences over time. American Journal of Political Science, 47(April), 348–353. 10.1111/1540‑5907.00024
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00024 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2013) The politics of presidential press conferences. American Politics Research, 41, 470–496. 10.1177/1532673X12462450
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X12462450 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N.
    (2012) Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 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]
  45. Fischer, F. & Forester, H.
    (2012) The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Durham/London: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. 10.1075/dapsac.36.16fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.36.16fra [Google Scholar]
  47. 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.
  48. (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]
  49. 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, June27–30 (pp.441–448). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Gilbert, N.
    (1997) A simulation of the structure of academic science. Sociological Research Online, 2(2), 91–105. 10.5153/sro.85
    https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.85 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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]
  52. 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].
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Goodwin, J.
    (2002) Designing issues. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric (pp.81–96). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9948‑1_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_7 [Google Scholar]
  54. Griskevicius, V. , Shiota, M. & Neufeld, S.
    (2010) Influence of different positive emotions on persuasion processing: A functional evolutionary approach. Emotion, 10(2), 190–206. 10.1037/a0018421
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018421 [Google Scholar]
  55. 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]
  56. 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]
  57. ] (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]
  58. Hamblin, C. L.
    (1970) Fallacies. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hample, D.
    (2005) Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 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]
  61. 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]
  62. 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]
  63. Kahane, H.
    (1973) Logic and philosophy. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Kienpointner, M.
    (2013) Strategic maneuvering in the political rhetoric of Barack Obama. Journal of Language and Politics, 12(3), 357–377. 10.1075/jlp.12.3.03kie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.3.03kie [Google Scholar]
  65. (2022) Viva la libertà! On persuasive definitions of “Liberty” within contemporary Italian political discourse. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 11(1), 110–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 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]
  67. Lewinski, M.
    (2010) Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
  68. 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]
  69. Locke, J.
    (1960) An essay concerning human understanding. London: Dent.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Macagno, F. & Walton, D.
    (2019) Emotive meaning in political argumentation. Informal Logic, 39(3), 229–261. 10.22329/il.v39i3.5493
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i3.5493 [Google Scholar]
  71. Manheim, J. B.
    (1979) The honeymoon’s over: The news conference and the development of presidential style. Journal of Politics, 41, 55–74. 10.2307/2129594
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2129594 [Google Scholar]
  72. Minot, W. S.
    (1981) A rhetorical view of fallacies: Ad hominem and ad populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 11(4), 222–235. 10.1080/02773948109390615
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02773948109390615 [Google Scholar]
  73. Moberg, U. & Eriksson, G.
    (2013) Managing ideological differences in joint political press conferences: A study of the strategic use of the personal pronoun ‘we’. Journal of Language and Politics, 12 (3), 315–334. 10.1075/jlp.12.3.01mob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.3.01mob [Google Scholar]
  74. Mohammed, D.
    (2018) Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time: Accusations of inconsistency in response to criticism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.15 [Google Scholar]
  75. O’Keefe, D. J.
    (2002) Persuasion: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. (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. 10.1002/9781405186407.wbiece011.pub2
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiece011.pub2 [Google Scholar]
  77. Omar, A. A.
    (2019) Strategic maneuvering for political change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.16
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.16 [Google Scholar]
  78. Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    (1969) The New Rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Pilgram, R.
    (2015) A doctor’s argument by authority: An analytical and empirical study of strategic maneuvering in medical consultation. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
  80. 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.
  81. van Rees, A.
    (2006) Strategic maneuvering with dissociations. Argumentation, 20(4), 473–487. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9024‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9024-4 [Google Scholar]
  82. (2009) Dissociation in argumentative discourse: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9150‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9150-6 [Google Scholar]
  83. Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R.
    (2001) Discourse and discrimination. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Rescher, N.
    (1964) Introduction to logic. New York: St Martin’s Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 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. 10.1080/105846099198785
    https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198785 [Google Scholar]
  86. Schaffner, C.
    (1997) Analyzing political speeches. London: Short Run Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Schiappa, E.
    (1985) Dissociation in the arguments of rhetorical theory. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 72–82. 10.1080/00028533.1985.11951304
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1985.11951304 [Google Scholar]
  88. (1993) Arguing about definitions. Argumentation, 7(4), 403–418. 10.1007/BF00711058
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00711058 [Google Scholar]
  89. (2003) Defining reality: Definitions and the politics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 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.
  91. 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]
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 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]
  93. 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]
  94. 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.
  95. Tracy, K.
    (1984) Staying on topic: An explication of conversation relevance. Discourse Processes7(4), 447–464. 10.1080/01638538409544600
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538409544600 [Google Scholar]
  96. 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]
  97. Verschueren, J.
    (2000) Understanding pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Wanphet, P.
    (2016) A conversation analysis of language teacher talk in lesson opening: Topic shift and negotiation. Discourse and Interaction, 9, 95–120. 10.5817/DI2016‑2‑95
    https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2016-2-95 [Google Scholar]
  99. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary
    Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (1979) New York: Simon & Schuster.
  100. Whately, R.
    (1848) Elements of logic. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Wierda, R.
    (2015) Experience-based authority argumentation in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
  102. Woods, J. & Walton, D.
    (1989) Fallacies: Selected papers 1972 1982. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110816082
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110816082 [Google Scholar]
  103. Wu, P.
    (2017) Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks in spokespersons’ argumentative replies at diplomatic press conferences: A pragma-dialectical study of the press conferences of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Journal of Argumentation in Context. 6(3), 285–314. 10.1075/jaic.17022.wu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17022.wu [Google Scholar]
  104. (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. 10.1007/s10503‑018‑09477‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-09477-5 [Google Scholar]
  105. (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. 10.1007/s10503‑019‑09504‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09504-z [Google Scholar]
  106. (2021) The uncompromising confrontational argumentative style of the Spokespersons’ replies at the regular press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 10(1), 26–45. 10.1075/jaic.20026.pen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20026.pen [Google Scholar]
  107. Wu, P. & Zhu, M. [ 吴鹏、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]
  108. 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]
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 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]
  110. 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]
  111. 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]
  112. 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. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  113. Zarefsky, D.
    (2004) Presidential rhetoric and the power of definition. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34(3), 607–619. 10.1111/j.1741‑5705.2004.00214.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2004.00214.x [Google Scholar]
  114. 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. 10.1080/10510978409368171
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10510978409368171 [Google Scholar]
  115. 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]
  116. ] (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]
  117. ] (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]
  118. ] (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]
  119. 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]
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error