1887
Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

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 model ( Palmieri & Mazzali 2016 ), with a conceptual and analytical framework for the reconstruction of argument schemes – the ( Rigotti & Greco Morasso 2010 ). 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.2.03pal
2017-10-16
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 Journal59(2), 89–96. doi: 10.1080/10417949409372928
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10417949409372928 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bitzer, L.
    (1968) The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric1, 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (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]
  6. Bratman, M.
    (1999) Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Standford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2010.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2010.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Clark, H. H.
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eemeren, F. H. van
    (2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam [etc.]: John Benjamins Publishing. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, F. H. van , & Grootendorst, R.
    (2004): A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. – Cambridge University Press.
  12. (1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eemeren, F. H. van , Grootendorst, R. , & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2002) Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9948‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. doi: 10.1075/aic.4.02fai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.4.02fai [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. doi: 10.1023/A:1019999606665
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019999606665 [Google Scholar]
  17. Freeman, R. E.
    (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
  18. Freeman, J. B.
    (1991) Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure. Berlin: Foris/De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110875843
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110875843 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. 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. doi: 10.3726/978‑3‑0352‑0268‑7/18
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-0268-7/18 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9948‑1_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_7 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1964) The neglected situation. American anthropologist, 66(6_PART2), 133–136. doi: 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00090
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00090 [Google Scholar]
  24. Greco Morasso, S.
    (2011) Argumentation in dispute mediation. A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.3 [Google Scholar]
  25. Green, S. E.
    (2004) A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 653–669.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Haan-Kamminga, A.
    (2006): Supervision on Takeover Bids: A Comparison of Regulatory Arrangements. – Deventer: Kluwer.
  27. 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]
  28. Hitchcock, D.
    (2001) Pollock on practical reasoning. Informal Logic, 22(3), 247–256. doi: 10.22329/il.v22i3.2591
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v22i3.2591 [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. Jacobs, S.
    (2000) Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14(3), 261–286. doi: 10.1023/A:1007853013191
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007853013191 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lewinski, M.
    (2014) Practical reasoning in argumentative polylogues. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación, 8, 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lewinksi, M. , & Aakhus, M.
    (2014) Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry. Argumentation28, 161–185. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  33. Mazzali-Lurati, S.
    (2011) Generi e portatori di interesse: due nozioni-chiave per la scrittura nelle organizzazioni. Cultura e comunicazione, 04, 12–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. McCawley, J.
    (1999) Participant roles, frames, and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 595–619. doi: 10.1023/A:1005563915544
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005563915544 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mohammed, D. , & Lewinski, M.
    (2016) Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, 9–12 June 2015 (VolumeI). College: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Myers, F.
    (1999) Political Argumentation and the Composite Audience: A Case Study. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 85, 55–71. doi: 10.1080/00335639909384241
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639909384241 [Google Scholar]
  38. Palmieri, R.
    (2008) Reconstructing argumentative interactions in M&A offers. Studies in Communication Sciences, 8(2), 279–302.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2014) Corporate argumentation in takeover bids. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.8 [Google Scholar]
  40. Palmieri, R. , & Mazzali-Lurati, S.
    (2016) Multiple audiences as text stakeholders. A conceptual framework for analysing complex rhetorical situations. Argumentation30(4), 467–499. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9394‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9394-6 [Google Scholar]
  41. 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 doi: 10.1016/j.scoms.2015.03.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scoms.2015.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  42. Perelman, C. , & Olbrecths-Tyteca, L.
    (1958) La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Pinto, R. C.
    (2001) Argument, inference and dialectic. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑0783‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0783-1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pollock, J. L.
    (1995) Cognitive carpentry: A blueprint for how to build a person. Mit Press.
  45. Poppel, L. van
    (2012) The strategic function of variants of pragmatic argumentation in health brochures. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(1), 97–112. doi: 10.1075/jaic.1.1.08pop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.08pop [Google Scholar]
  46. Post, J. E. , Preston, L. E. , & Sachs, S.
    (2002) Redefining the corporation: Stakeholders management and organizational wealth. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Rigotti, E.
    (2014) The nature and functions of loci in Agricola’s De inuentione Dialectica . Argumentation28(1), 19–37. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9303‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9303-1 [Google Scholar]
  48. (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. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9165‑0_12
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  49. (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 letterariaXVI(2): 559–576.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2006) Relevance of context-bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage. Argumentation20(4), 519–540. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9034‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9034-2 [Google Scholar]
  51. (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]
  52. 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. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑010‑9190‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9190-7 [Google Scholar]
  53. Rigotti, E. , & Rocci, A.
    (2006) Towards a definition of communication context. Foundations of an interdisciplinary approach to communication. Studies in Communication Sciences, 6/2, 155–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Rocci, A.
    (2009) Manoeuvring with voices. In: F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Examining Argumentation in Context (pp.257–283). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.1.15roc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1.15roc [Google Scholar]
  55. (2008) Modality and its conversational backgrounds in the reconstruction of argumentation. Argumentation22, 165–189. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9065‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9065-8 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2006) Pragmatic inference and argumentation in intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(4), 409–422. doi: 10.1515/IP.2006.026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2006.026 [Google Scholar]
  57. Ross, W. D.
    (ed.) (1959) Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (ed.) (1958) Aristotelis Topica et Sophistici Elenchi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Searle, J. R.
    (2001) Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 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]
  61. Von Wright, G. H.
    (1963) Practical inference. The Philosophical Review, 159–179. doi: 10.2307/2183102
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2183102 [Google Scholar]
  62. Walton, D. N.
    (1990) Practical reasoning: goal-driven, knowledge-based, action-guiding argumentation. Savage: Rowman & Littlefield.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.2.03pal
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.2.03pal
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