Argumentative Style

A pragma-dialectical study of functional variety in argumentative discourse

image of Argumentative Style

Argumentative Style discusses the various ways in which the defence of a standpoint is given shape in argumentative discourse. In this innovative study the new notion – ‘argumentative style’ – introduced for this purpose is situated in the theoretical framework of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. This means that the choices involved in utilising a particular argumentative style do not only concern the presentational dimension, but also the topical selection and the audience adaptation of the strategic manoeuvring taking place in the discourse. In identifying the functional variety of the argumentative styles utilised in the political, the diplomatic, the legal, the facilitatory, the academic, and the medical domain, the point of departure is that these argumentative styles manifest themselves in the discourse in the argumentative moves that are made, the dialectical routes that are chosen and the strategic considerations that are brought to bear.


  1. Aakhus, M.
    (2003) Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation17(3), 265–290. 10.1023/A:1025112227381
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025112227381 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andone, C.
    (2017) The role of pragmatic and majority argumentation in reports of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 53–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. 10.1075/aic.11.04and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.04and [Google Scholar]
  3. Bachrach, P.
    (1967) The theory of democratic elitism: A critique. Boston: Little and Brown.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D. , & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  5. Billig, M.
    (2008) The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse & Society18(6), 783–800. 10.1177/0957926508095894
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508095894 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2011) Writing social psychology: Fictional things and unpopulated texts. British Journal of Social Psychology50(1), 4–20. 10.1111/j.2044‑8309.2010.02003.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02003.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Bijnen, E. S., van , & Greco, S.
    (2018) Divide to unite: Making disagreement explicit in dispute mediation. Journal of argumentation in context7(3), 285–315. 10.1075/jaic.17032.bij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17032.bij [Google Scholar]
  8. Bijnen, E. S. van
    (2020) Common ground in conflict mediation. An argumentative perspective. Doctoral dissertation USI - Università della Svizzera italiana.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolman, L. G. , & T. E. Deal
    (1991) Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. (1st ed. 1984) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Boudon, R.
    (2002) Sociology that really matters. European Sociological Review18(3), 371–378. 10.1093/esr/18.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/18.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, J. R.
    (1994) Smoke and mirrors. How science reflects reality. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bush, R. A. B. , & Folger, J. P.
    (2005) The promise of mediation. The transformative approach to conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Caffi, C.
    (2007) Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Claes, P. , & Hulsens, E.
    (2015)  Groot retorisch woordenboek . Lexicon van stijlfiguren [Grand rhetorical dictionary. Lexicon of figures of style]. Nijmegen: van Tilt.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Coleman, J.
    (1989) Rationality and the justification of democracy. In: G. Brennan & L. E. Lomansky (Eds.), Politics and process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511528156.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511528156.010 [Google Scholar]
  16. Corbett, R. , Jacobs, F. , & Nevillle, D.
    (2016) The European Parliament. London: John Harper.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Coser, L.
    (1959) The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dahl, R. A.
    (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Eemeren, F. H. van
    (2010) Strategic maneuvering. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 2. 10.1075/aic.2
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Eemeren, F. H. van
    (2015) Democracy and argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren , Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp.  827–841). Cham (Switzerland) etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 27. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_45
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_45 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2017a) Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 7–29). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. 10.1075/aic.11.02van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.02van [Google Scholar]
  22. (2017b) The dependency of argumentative patterns on the institutional context. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 157–180). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. 10.1075/aic.11.10van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.10van [Google Scholar]
  23. (2018) Argumentation theory. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham (Switzerland): Springer. Argumentation Library 33. 10.1007/9783319953816. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2019) Argumentative style: A complex notion. Argumentation33(2), 153–171. 10.1007/s10503‑019‑09478‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09478-y [Google Scholar]
  25. (2021) Examining argumentative style: A new theoretical perspective. Journal of Argumentation in Context10(1), 8–25. 10.1075/jaic.20022.eem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20022.eem [Google Scholar]
  26. Eemeren, F. H. van , & Garssen, B.
    (2010)  In varietate concordia – United in diversity. European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia7(1), 19–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Eemeren, F. H. van , & Grootendorst, R.
    (1984)  Speech acts in argumentative discussions . A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: De Gruyter. [Originally Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris.] 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  28. (1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2004)  A systematic theory of argumentation . The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Eemeren, F. H. van , Grootendorst, R. , Jackson, S. , & Jacobs, S.
    (1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Eemeren, F. H. van , Grootendorst, R. , & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2002) Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410602442
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602442 [Google Scholar]
  32. Eemeren, F. H. van , Houtlosser, P. , & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2007)  Argumentative indicators in discourse . A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. Argumentation Library12.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Elwyn, G. , Frosch, D. , Thomson, R. , Joseph-Williams, N. , Lloyd, A. , Kinnersley, P. , & Barry, M.
    (2012) Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine27(10), 1361–1367. 10.1007/s11606‑012‑2077‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Fahnestock, J.
    (2011)  Rhetorical style . The uses of language in persuasion. New York etc.: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199764129.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199764129.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Feteris, E. T.
    (2017) The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 71–91). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. 10.1075/aic.11.05fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.05fet [Google Scholar]
  36. Feteris, E. T.
    (2020) The role of the judge in legal proceedings. A pragma-dialectical analysis. In E. T. Feteris , A pragma-dialectical approach of legal argumentation. Selected essays (pp.  27–41). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Fisher, R. , Ury, W. , & Patton, B.
    (1991)  Getting to yes . Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Fleck, L.
    (1936) The problem of epistemology [in Polish]. English translation in R. S. Cohen & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition and fact. Materials on Ludwik Fleck (pp.  79–112). Dordrecht: Reidel 1986.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Foster, K.
    (2003) A study in mediation styles: A comparative analysis of evaluative and transformative styles. Available at: https://www.mediate.com/articles/fosterk1.cfm (last visitedJuly 2021).
  40. Franck, L. S. , & O'Brien, K.
    (2019) The evolution of family-centered care: From supporting parent-delivered interventions to a model of family integrated care. Birth Defects Research111(15), 1044–1059. 10.1002/bdr2.1521
    https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1521 [Google Scholar]
  41. Franck, L. S. , Waddington, C. , & O’Brien, K.
    (2020) Family integrated care for preterm infants. Critical Care Nursing Clinics32(2), 149–165. 10.1016/j.cnc.2020.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnc.2020.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Garssen, B.
    (2017a) Argumentative patterns with argumentation by example in legislative debate in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp.  109–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Argumentation in context 11. 10.1075/aic.11.07gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.07gar [Google Scholar]
  43. Garssen
    (2017b) The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns . Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp.  31–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. 10.1075/aic.11.03gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.03gar [Google Scholar]
  44. Garssen, B.
    (2022) The argumentative style of the opening speech in a debate in the European Parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context11(1), 47–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. de Girolamo, D.
    (2020) The opening statement in mediation: A Goffman analysis. In M. F. Moscati , M. Palmer , & M. Roberts (Eds.), Comparative dispute resolution (pp.  103–115). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 10.4337/9781786433039.00013
    https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786433039.00013 [Google Scholar]
  46. Givón, T.
    (1981) Typology and functional domains. Studies in Language5(2), 163–193. 10.1075/sl.5.2.03giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.5.2.03giv [Google Scholar]
  47. Greco, S.
    (2018) Designing dialogue: Argumentation as conflict management in social interaction. Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique, 2018, 68, 7–15. Available athttps://doc.rero.ch/record/322610/files/Greco_Sara_-_Designing_dialogue_argumentation_as_conflict_20180629.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Greco Morasso, S.
    (2011)  Argumentation in dispute mediation . A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 3. 10.1075/aic.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.3 [Google Scholar]
  49. Greco, S. , & Jermini-Martinez Soria, Ch.
    (2021) Mediators’ reframing as a constitutive element of a reconciliatory argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context10(1), 73–96. 10.1075/jaic.20019.gre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20019.gre [Google Scholar]
  50. Haaften, T. van & Leeuwen, M. van
    (2021) On the relation between argumentative style and linguistic style. Journal of Argumentation in Context10(1), 97–120. 10.1075/jaic.20014.haa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20014.haa [Google Scholar]
  51. Habermas, J.
    (1971) Knowledge and human interests. Transl. by J. J. Shapiro . Boston: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hall, J. A. , Carer, S. , Cody, M. J. , & Albright, J. M.
    (2010) Individual differences in the communication of romantic interest. Development of the flirting styles inventory. Communication Quarterly58, 365–393. 10.1080/01463373.2010.524874
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2010.524874 [Google Scholar]
  53. Harmon, J. E. , & Gross, A. G.
    (2007) The scientific literature: A guided tour. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Haynes, J. M. , & Haynes, G. L.
    (1989)  Mediating divorce . Casebook of strategies for successful family negotiations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Herring, J.
    (2018) Law Express: Medical Law (Revision Guide). London: Pearson UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hoppmann, M.
    (2017) Competition and conflict between communicative norms. Is reasonable to be polite?Journal of Argumentation in Context6(2), 220–246. 10.1075/jaic.6.2.05hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.2.05hop [Google Scholar]
  57. ICOR
    (2013) Transcription conventions of CLAPI, clapi.icar.cnrs.fr/ (last visitedMarch 2021).
  58. International Dyslexia Association
    (2020) Dyslexia basics. Available athttps://dyslexiaida.org/dyslexia-basics/.
  59. Jamieson, K. H.
    (1988)  Eloquence in an electronic age . The transformation of political speechmaking. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Janier, M. , & Reed, C.
    (2017a) Towards a theory of close analysis for dispute mediation discourse. Argumentation31(1), 45–82. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9386‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9386-y [Google Scholar]
  61. (2017b) I didn’t say that! Uses of SAY in mediation discourse. Discourse Studies19(6), 619–647. 10.1177/1461445617715180
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617715180 [Google Scholar]
  62. Jasinski, J.
    (2001)  Sourcebook on rhetoric . Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks etc.: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Jermini-Martinez Soria, C.
    (2021)  Reframing as an argumentative competence in dispute mediation . Doctoral dissertation USI – Università della Svizzera italiana. Available at: https://doc.rero.ch/record/330915.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.
    (2004) Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics36(1), 1–24. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00034‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00034-1 [Google Scholar]
  65. Konrad, T. R. , Link, C. L. , Shackelton, R. J. , Marceau, L. D. , von Dem Knesebeck, O. , Siegrist, J. , & McKinlay, J. B.
    (2010) It’s about time: Physicians’ perceptions of time constraints in primary care medical practice in three national healthcare systems. Medical Care48(2), pp. 95–100. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181c12e6a
    https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181c12e6a [Google Scholar]
  66. Kressel, K.
    (2020) Mediator styles. In M. F. Moscati , M. Palmer , & M. Roberts (Eds.), Comparative dispute resolution (pp.  217–230). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 10.4337/9781786433039.00022
    https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786433039.00022 [Google Scholar]
  67. Labrie, N. H. M.
    (2014) For the sake of argument. Considering the role, characteristics, and effects of argumentation in general practice consultation. Doctoral dissertation USI – Università della Svizzera italiana.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Lewiński, M. , & Aakhus, M.
    (2014) Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation28(2), 161–185. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  69. Linz, J.
    (1990) Transitions to democracy. Washington Quarterly, Summer, 143–164. 10.1080/01636609009445400
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01636609009445400 [Google Scholar]
  70. Lodewick, H. J. M. F.
    (1964) Literaire kunst [The art of literature]. [15th ed.] ‘s-Hertogenbosch: Malmberg. (1st ed. 1955.)
    [Google Scholar]
  71. McCorkle, S. , & Reese, M. J.
    (2019) Mediation theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. 10.4135/9781071800720
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071800720 [Google Scholar]
  72. Mellers, B. , Hertwig, R. , & Kahneman, D.
    (2001) Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science12 (4), 269–275. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00350
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00350 [Google Scholar]
  73. Menkel-Meadow, C.
    (2005) Roots and inspirations. A brief history of the foundations of dispute resolution. In M. L. Moffitt , & T. V. Bordone (Eds.) The handbook of dispute resolution (pp.  13–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Moore, C. W.
    (2014) The mediation process. Practical strategies for resolving conflict (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Morton, J.
    (2004)  Understanding developmental disorders . A causal modelling approach. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470773307
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773307 [Google Scholar]
  76. National Health Services
    (2021) Shared decision-making. Retrieved July 2021 viahttps://www.england.nhs.uk/shared-decision-making/
  77. Palmieri, R. , & Mazzali-Lurati, S.
    (2017) Practical reasoning in corporate communication with multiple audiences. Journal of Argumentation in Context6(2), 167–192. 10.1075/jaic.6.2.03pal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.2.03pal [Google Scholar]
  78. Pan, D.
    (2018) “Doctors killed my baby”: Argumentative patterns in medical disputes in China. Health Communication33(10), 1267–1276. 10.1080/10410236.2017.1351271
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1351271 [Google Scholar]
  79. Pan, D. , Chen, Y. , & Ju, S.
    (2018) Argumentative patterns in Chinese medical consultations. Argumentation32(1), 37–52. 10.1007/s10503‑017‑9428‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9428-8 [Google Scholar]
  80. Perelman, Ch. , & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    (1969) The new rhetoric. Treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame-London: University of Notre Dame Press. [English transl. of Perelman, Ch. , & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958)  La nouvelle rhétorique . Traité de l'argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.]
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Platt, J. R.
    (1964) Strong inference. Science146 (3642), 347–353. 10.1126/science.146.3642.347
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.146.3642.347 [Google Scholar]
  82. Princen, T.
    (1992) Intermediaries in international conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Putnam, L. L. , & Holmer, M.
    (1992) Framing, reframing and issue development. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp.  128–155). Newbury Park etc.: Sage. 10.4135/9781483325880.n7
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325880.n7 [Google Scholar]
  84. Rees, M. A. van
    (1992)  The use of language in conversation . An introduction to research in conversation analysis. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Rigotti, E. , & Greco, S.
    (2019)  Inference in argumentation . A topics-based approach to argument schemes. Cham: Springer. Argumentation Library 34. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑04568‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04568-5 [Google Scholar]
  86. Roter, D. , & Hall, J. A.
    (2006) Doctors talking with patients/Patients talking with doctors: Improving communication in medical visits. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Sander, F. E. A.
    (1979) Varieties of dispute processing. In A. L. Levin , & R. R. Wheeler (Eds.), 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 (pp.  65–87). St. Paul (Minnesota): West Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Schmitt, C.
    (1988) The crisis of parliamentary democracy [1st ed. 1923] Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Schumpeter, J. A.
    (1950) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper Bros.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Searle, J. R.
    (1975) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Retrieved from theUniversity of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/185220. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  91. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2017) The role of pragmatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 93–108). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. 10.1075/aic.11.06sno
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.06sno [Google Scholar]
  92. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. S. , & Mohammed, D.
    (2012) Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making. Journal of Argumentation in Contex1(1), 19–32. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.03moh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.03moh [Google Scholar]
  93. Susskind, L.
    (2010) Looking at negotiation and dispute resolution through a CA/DA lens. Negotiation Journal26(2), 163–166. 10.1111/j.1571‑9979.2010.00264.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2010.00264.x [Google Scholar]
  94. The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China
    (2015) Workbook for governmental press conferences. Beijing: Wu Zhou Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Traverso, V.
    (1999) L’analyse des conversations [The analysis of conversations]. Paris: Nathan.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Tseronis, A.
    (2017) Analysing multimodal argumentation within the pragma-dialectical framework. Strategic manoeuvring in the front covers of The Economist . In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Wu (Eds. 2017), Contextualizing pragma-dialectics (pp.  335–359). Amsterdam-Philadelphia. John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 12. 10.1075/aic.12.18tse
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.18tse [Google Scholar]
  97. Uzqueda, A. , & Frediani, P.
    (2002)  La conciliazione. Guida per la soluzione negoziale delle controversie [Conciliation. A guide for a negotiated solution of controversies]. Milan: Giuffrè.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Wales, K.
    (1991) A dictionary of stylistics. London-New York: Longman. (1st ed. 1989.)
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Walter, A. S.
    (2014) Choosing the enemy: Attack behaviour in a multiparty system. Party Politics20(3), 311–323. 10.1177/1354068811436050
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068811436050 [Google Scholar]
  100. Walter, A. S. , & Brug, W. van der
    (2013) When the gloves come off: Inter-party variation in negative campaigning in Dutch elections, 1981–2010. Acta Politica48(4), 367–388. 10.1057/ap.2013.5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2013.5 [Google Scholar]
  101. Walter, A. S. , Brug, W. van der , & Praag, P. van
    (2014) When the stakes are high: Party competition and negative campaigning. Comparative Political Studies47(4), 550–573. 10.1177/0010414013488543
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013488543 [Google Scholar]
  102. Whately, R.
    (1828[1963]) Elements of rhetoric. London/Oxford: J. Murray & J. F. Parker . [Reprint D. Ehninger (Ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press].
    [Google Scholar]
  103. White, S. , Milne, E. , Rosen S. , Hansen, P. , Swettenham, J. , Frith, U. , & Ramus, F.
    (2006) The role of sensorimotor impairments in dyslexia: A multiple case study of dyslexic children. With commentaries by D. V. M. Bishop , U. Goswami , R. I. Nicholson , A. J. Fawcett , & P. Tallal , and a reply by F. Ramus , S. White , & U. Frith . Developmental Science9 (3) 237–269. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2006.00483.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00483.x [Google Scholar]
  104. Wu P.
    (2017) Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks at press conferences of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Wu (Eds. 2017), Contextualizing pragma-dialectics (pp.  225–254). Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 12. 10.1075/aic.12.13wu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.13wu [Google Scholar]
  105. (2019a) Confrontational maneuvering by dissociation in spokespersons argumentative replies at the press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation33(1), 1–22. 10.1007/s10503‑018‑09477‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-09477-5 [Google Scholar]
  106. Wu P.
    (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. Argumentation33(4), 489–519. 10.1007/s10503‑019‑09504‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09504-z [Google Scholar]
  107. Wu P.
    (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 Context10(1), 26–45. 10.1075/jaic.20026.pen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20026.pen [Google Scholar]
  108. Zhang, Y.
    (2009) On spokesperson’s language style. Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences)6, 59–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Ziegler, A. , Best, K.-H. , & Altmann, G.
    (2002) Nominalstil. Etc: Empirische Text- und Kulturforschung2, 72–85.
    [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