1887
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper shows that reframing of conflict can be considered as a constitutive element of a “reconciliatory argumentative style” (van Eemeren, 2019), 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.20019.gre
2021-02-04
2021-05-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, Mark
    (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. Bijnen, Emma van
    (2020) Common ground in conflict mediation: An argumentative perspective. PhD dissertation, USI – Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bijnen, Emma. van , and Sara Greco
    (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]
  4. Bush, Robert A. B. , and Joseph P. Folger
    (2005) The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chan, Cecilia L. W. , and Chi K. Law
    (2008) “Advocacy.” InComprehensive Handbook of Social Work and Social Welfare, 3, ed. by Karen M. Sowers , New York: Wiley. 10.1002/9780470373705.chsw003011
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470373705.chsw003011 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dascal, Marcelo
    (2008) “Dichotomies and types of debate.” InControversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen , 27–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.6.03das
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.6.03das [Google Scholar]
  7. Donohue, William A. , Mike Allen & Nancy Burrell
    (1988) “Mediator communicative competence.” Communication monographs55 (1): 104–119. 10.1080/03637758809376160
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376160 [Google Scholar]
  8. Drake, Laura. E. , and William A. Donohue
    (1996) “Communicative framing theory in conflict resolution.” Communication Research23(3): 297–322. 10.1177/009365096023003003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023003003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    (2010) Strategic manoeuvring 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]
  10. (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]
  11. (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]
  12. (2021) “Examining argumentative style: A new theoretical perspective”. This volume. 10.1075/jaic.20022.eem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20022.eem [Google Scholar]
  13. Eemeren, F. H. van , and Grootendorst, R.
    (1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Eemeren, Frans H. van , Rob Grootendorst , Sally Jackson , and Scott Jacobs
    (1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eemeren, Frans H. van , Peter Houtlosser , and Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans
    (2007) Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical perspective. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, Charles J.
    (1976) “Frame semantics and the nature of language.” InAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech280: 20–32. 10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1976.tb25467.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x [Google Scholar]
  17. (2006) Frame semantics. InCognitive Linguistics: Basic readings, ed. by D. Geeraerts , 373–400. Berlin: De Gruyter. (Original work published 1982). 10.1515/9783110199901.373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.373 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fisher, Roger , William Ury and Bruce Patton
    (1991) Getting to yes. Negotiating agreement without giving in (second edition). New York: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gata, A.
    (2021) “Characterizing a detached argumentative style: Text types as presentational choices”. This volume.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Greco Morasso, Sara
    (2008) “The ontology of conflict.” Pragmatics & Cognition16(3): 540–567. 10.1075/pc.16.3.06gre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.16.3.06gre [Google Scholar]
  21. (2011) Argumentation in dispute mediation: A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Greco, Sara
    (2018) “Designing dialogue: Argumentation as conflict management in social interaction.” Tranel68: 7–15. Available open access at: www.unine.ch/files/live/sites/tranel/files/Tranel/68/7-15_Greco.pdf (last visited: April 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2020) Dal conflitto al dialogo: Un approccio comunicativo alla mediazione. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Haaften, Ton van , and Leeuwen, Maarten van
    (2021) “On the relation between argumentative style and linguistic style: Integrating linguistic-stylistic analysis systematically into the analysis of argumentative style”. This volume. 10.1075/jaic.20014.haa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20014.haa [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. Hoffman, David A.
    (2011) “Mediation and the art of shuttle diplomacy.” Negotiation Journal27(3): 263–309. 10.1111/j.1571‑9979.2011.00309.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2011.00309.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoffmann, Michael H. G.
    (2011) Analyzing framing processes in conflicts and communication by means of logical argument mapping. InFraming 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]
  28. Jacobs, Scott , and Mark Aakhus
    (2002) “What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation”. Conflict Resolution Quarterly20(2): 177–203. 10.1002/crq.3890200205
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3890200205 [Google Scholar]
  29. Janier, Mathilde , and Chris Reed
    (2017) “Towards a theory of close analysis for dispute mediation discourse.” Argumentation31: 45–82. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9386‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9386-y [Google Scholar]
  30. Jermini-Martinez Soria, Chiara , and Sara Greco
    (2019) “Dispute mediators’ reframing as an argumentation competence.” InProceedings of the ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, 3–6 July 2018, ed. by Bart Garssen , 594–603. Available at: cf.hum.uva.nl/issa/ISSA_2018_proceedings.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jermini-Martinez Soria, Chiara
    . (In preparation). Reframing as an argumentative competence in dispute mediation. PhD dissertation, USI – Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lewiński, M.
    (2013) Polylogical fallacies: Are there any? OSSA Conference Archive. 104. Available at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/104
  33. Littleton, Karen and Neil Mercer
    (2013) Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203809433
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809433 [Google Scholar]
  34. Maley, Yon
    (1995) “From adjudication to mediation: Third party discourse in conflict resolution.” Journal of Pragmatics23: 93–110. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00030‑I
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00030-I [Google Scholar]
  35. Meier, I.
    (2003) “Mediation and conciliation in Switzerland.” InGlobal Trends in Mediation, ed. by N. Alexander , 341–357. Köln: Centrale für Mediation.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Moore, Christopher W.
    (2014), 4th ed.The mediation process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Passmore, Jonathan
    (2007) “An integrative model for executive coaching.” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research59(1): 68–78. 10.1037/1065‑9293.59.1.68
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.59.1.68 [Google Scholar]
  38. Putnam, Linda. L.
    (2004) “Transformation as a critical moment in negotiations.” Negotiation Journal20(2): 275–295. 10.1111/j.1571‑9979.2004.00023.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2004.00023.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Putnam, Linda. L. , and Majia Holmer
    (1992) “Framing, reframing and issue development.”, inCommunication and negotiation, ed. by Linda L. Putnam and Michael E. Roloff , 128–155. Newbury Park (etc.): Sage. 10.4135/9781483325880.n7
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325880.n7 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ran, Yongping , and Linsen Zhao
    (2018) “Building mutual affection-based face in conflict mediation: A Chinese relationship management model.” Journal of Pragmatics129: 185–198. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ran, Yongping , Zhao, Linsen , and Dániel Kádár
    (2020) “The rite of reintegrative shaming in Chinese public dispute mediation.” Journal of Pragmatics30(1): 40–63. 10.1075/prag.19019.ran
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19019.ran [Google Scholar]
  42. Rigotti, Eddo , and Sara Greco
    (2019) Inference in argumentation: A topics-based approach to argument schemes. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑04568‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04568-5 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rocci, Andrea and Margherita Luciani
    (2016) “Semantics and verbal communication.” InVerbal communication, ed. by Andrea Rocci and Louis De Saussure , 57–76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110255478‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255478-005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sander, F.
    (1979) “Varieties of dispute processing.” InThe 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]
  45. Shmueli, Deborah F.
    (2008) “Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: Theory, methodology and three case studies.” Geoforum39: 2048–2061. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ury, W.
    (1993) Getting past no: Negotiating in difficult situations. New York: Bantam.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Vasilyeva, Alena L.
    (2015) “Identity as a resource to shape mediation in dialogic interaction.” Language and Dialogue5 (3): 355–380. 10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.20019.gre
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.20019.gre
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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