1887
Volume 7, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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 (van Eemeren 2010) 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.17032.bij
2019-02-01
2019-08-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, Mark
    2001 Designing web-based interactional tools to support learning from experience. InProceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling, M. Schoop and J. TaylorEds: 51–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2003 Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation17(3): 265–290. doi:  10.1023/A:1025112227381
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025112227381 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2007 Communication as design. Communication monographs74(1): 112–117. doi:  10.1080/03637750701196383
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196383 [Google Scholar]
  4. Berti, Emanuele
    2007Scholasticorum studia. Seneca il Vecchio e la cultura retorica e letteraria della prima età imperiale. Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brenninkmeijer, Alex F. M., Karen van Oyen, Hugo Prein, and Paul Walters
    2005Handboek mediation. The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Burr, Anne M.
    2002 Confidentiality in mediation communications: A privilege worth protecting. Dispute Resolution Journal57(1): 64–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Burrell, Nancy A., and Sally M. Vogl
    1990 Turf-side conflict mediation for students. Conflict Resolution Quarterly7(3): 237–250.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Caffi, Claudia
    2007Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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 Resolution15: 391–424.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Currie, Cris
    2004 Mediating off the Grid. Dispute Resolution Journal59(2): 8–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Deason, Ellen E.
    2001 The Quest for Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consistency or Crucial Predictability. Marquette Law Review85:79–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Deng, Yiheng
    2012 Strategy to alleviate adversity in Chinese mediation: a discourse analysis on real Chinese mediation sessions. Chinese Journal of Communication5(4): 417–436. doi:  10.1080/17544750.2012.723386
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2012.723386 [Google Scholar]
  13. Freedman, Lawrence R., and Michael L. Prigoff
    1986 Confidentiality in Mediation: The Need for Protection. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution2: 37–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury, and Bruce Patton
    1991Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. London: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ghosh, Debanjan, Smaranda Muresan, Nina Wacholder, Mark Aakhus, and Matthew Mitsui
    2014 Analyzing argumentative discourse units in online interactions. InProceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining: 39–48. doi:  10.3115/v1/W14‑2106
    https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-2106 [Google Scholar]
  16. Glasl, Friedrich
    2004Selbsthilfe in Konflikten. Konzepte- Übungen – Praktische Methoden. Stuttgart/Bern: Freies Geistesleben.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Greco Morasso, Sara
    2008 The ontology of conflict. Pragmatics & Cognition16 (3): 540–567. doi:  10.1075/pc.16.3.06gre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.16.3.06gre [Google Scholar]
  18. 2011Argumentation in dispute mediation: A reasonable way to handle conflict (Vol.3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. doi:  10.1075/aic.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.3 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2012 Argomentare per superare il conflitto: L’argomentazione nella mediazione. Sistemi Intelligenti24 (3): 481–502.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Greco, Sara
    2018 Designing dialogue: Argumentation as conflict management in social interaction. Tranel – Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique68: 7–15. Available open-access atwww.unine.ch/files/live/sites/tranel/files/tranel/68/7-15_Greco.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haynes, John M.
    1994The fundamentals of family mediation. New York: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Haynes, John M., and Gretchen L. Haynes
    1989Mediating divorce. Casebook of strategies for successful family negotiation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Herman, Margaret S.
    2006Handbook of Mediation: Bridging Theory, Research, and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. doi:  10.2307/746145
    https://doi.org/10.2307/746145 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs
    1980 Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech66: 251–265. doi:  10.1111/b.9781405127424.2006.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405127424.2006.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Jacobs, Scott
    2002 Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree. Journal of Pragmatics34 (10): 1402–1426.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Janier, Mathilde, and Chris Reed
    2017 Towards a theory of close analysis for dispute mediation discourse. Argumentation31(1): 45–82. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9386‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9386-y [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim, Nam H., James Wall Jr, Dong-Won Sohn, and Jay Kim
    1993 Community and industrial mediation in South Korea. Journal of Conflict Resolution37(2): 361–381. doi:  10.1080/00335638009383524
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383524 [Google Scholar]
  28. Meier, Isaak
    2003 Mediation and conciliation in Switzerland. InGlobal Trends in Mediation, ed. byNadja Alexander: 341–357. Köln: Centrale für Mediation. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9386‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9386-y [Google Scholar]
  29. Montefusco, Lucia
    1987 La funzione della “partitio” nel discorso oratorio. InStudi di retorica oggi in Italia, ed. byA. Pennacini, 69–85. Bologna: Pitagora. 10.1177/0022002793037002006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002793037002006 [Google Scholar]
  30. Plantin, Christian
    1996 Le trilogue argumentatif. Présentation de modèle, analyse de cas. Langue Française112: 9–30. doi: 10.3406/lfr.1996.5358
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1996.5358 [Google Scholar]
  31. Porter, James E.
    1990 Divisio as em-/de-powering topic: A basis for argument in rhetoric and composition. Rhetoric Review8(2): 191–205. doi: 10.1080/07350199009388893
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07350199009388893 [Google Scholar]
  32. Putnam, Linda L., and Michael E. Holmer
    1992 Communication perspectives on negotiation. InCommunication and Negotiation, ed. byLinda L. Putnam, and Michael E. Roloff, 128–155. Newbury Park: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781483325880.n7
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325880.n7 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ran, Yongping, and Linsen Zhao
    2018 Building mutual affection-based face in conflict mediation: A Chinese relationship management model. Journal of Pragmatics129: 185–198. doi:  10.3406/lfr.1996.5358
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1996.5358 [Google Scholar]
  34. Susskind, Lawrence
    2010 Looking at negotiation and dispute resolution through a CA/DA lens. Negotiation Journal26 (2): 163–166. doi:  10.1080/07350199009388893
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07350199009388893 [Google Scholar]
  35. Tabucanon, Gill M. P., James Wall Jr, and Wan Yan
    2008 Philippine Community Mediation, Katarungang Pambarangay. Journal of Dispute Resolution2(5): 1–14. 10.4135/9781483325880.n7
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325880.n7 [Google Scholar]
  36. Traverso, Véronique
    1999L’analyse des conversations. Paris: Nathan. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  37. van Eemeren, Frans H.
    (Ed.) 2001Crucial concepts in argumentation theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. doi:  10.1111/j.1571‑9979.2010.00264.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2010.00264.x [Google Scholar]
  38. (Ed.) 2009Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (Vol.1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. doi: 10.1075/aic.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2010Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (Vol.2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. doi:  10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  40. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
    1984Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion (Vol.1). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi:  10.5117/9789053565230
    https://doi.org/10.5117/9789053565230 [Google Scholar]
  41. van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs
    1993Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Grootendorst, R.
    2004A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol.14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1075/aic.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1 [Google Scholar]
  43. van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean H. M. Wagemans
    2014Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:  10.1080/00028533.2009.11821708
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2009.11821708 [Google Scholar]
  44. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser
    2009 How should one respond to fallacious moves?Argumentation and Advocacy45(4): 198–206. doi:  10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  45. van Rees, M. Agnes
    1992The use of language in conversation. An introduction to research in conversational analysis. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
  46. Vasilyeva, Alena L.
    2017 Strategic manoeuvring in dispute mediation. Argumentation & Advocacy53 (3): 234–251. doi: 10.1080/00028533.2017.1341452
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2017.1341452 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wall, James A., Nimet Beriker, and Sharon Wu
    2010 Turkish community mediation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology40: 2019–2042. doi:  10.1080/00028533.2017.1341452
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2017.1341452 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wall, James A., and Timothy Dunne
    2012 Mediation research: A current review. Negotiation Journal28: 217–244. doi:  10.1111/j.1559‑1816.2010.00649.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00649.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.17032.bij
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): disagreement , dispute mediation , issues and strategic maneuvering
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