Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 127–148

Chapter 6
Interpersonal style(s) in diplomatic argumentation online

A study of argument schemes and evaluation in press releases of UNSC permanent members

This chapter contributes to a growing body of research on diplomatic argumentation with a corpus study of variation in interpersonal style, conducted from an integrated perspective of argument schemes and appraisal theory. Based on 50 press releases taken from the foreign ministry websites of five prominent countries, the study aimed to ascertain whether internationally shared conventions of the kind regulating subjectivity in traditional argumentation settings still operate in the contemporary global, online context. Scheme types (Walton et al, 2008), directives, and the appraisal categories of authorial attitude and graduation (Martin and White, 2005) were taken as markers of interpersonal style and their frequencies calculated for the whole corpus and the five component sub-corpora. The results showed a relatively small range of argument schemes, free use of authorial attitude overall, and considerable variation between the five sub-corpora. Discussion of the different configurations of schemes and appraisal resources focuses on their construction of interpersonal style and government identity.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The corpus of press releases
  • 3.Analytical tools
    • 3.1Appraisal
      • 3.1.1Voice
    • 3.2Walton’s argument schemes
  • 4.Frequency data for schemes and authorial attitude
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 2 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.07swa
References
Amgoud, L., & Vesic, S.
(2011) A formal analysis of the outcomes of argumentation-based negotiations. Journal of Logic and Computation, 22 (5), 957–978. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barston, R. P.
(2014) Modern Diplomacy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berridge, G.,& James, A.
(2001) A Dictionary of Diplomacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berridge, G.
(2010) Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bower, A.
(2015) Arguing with law: strategic legal argumentation, US diplomacy, and debates over the International Criminal Court. Review of International Studies, 41, 337–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coffin, C.
(2002) The voices of history: Theorising the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text, 22 (4), 503–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen-Wiesenfeld, S.
(2004) L’inscription de la subjectivité dans le discours diplomatique. Semen, 17 (2), 41–58.Google Scholar
(2009) Argumentation logique et subjectivité masquée : le cas de la note diplomatique. In V. Atayan & D. Pirazzini (Eds), Argumentation: Théorie – Langue – Discours. Actes de la section ‘Argumentation’ du XXX. Deutscher Romanistentag, Vienne, Septembre 2007, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Donahue, R. T., & Prosser, M. H.
(1997) Diplomatic Discourse. International Conflict at the UN. Addresses and Analysis. Greenwich, CN: Ablex.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. A., & Valenzano, J. M.
(2007) Bill Clinton’s “new partnership” anecdote: Towards a post-cold-war foreign policy rhetoric. Journal of Language and Politics, 6 (3), 303–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. et al.
(1996) Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. L.
(1991) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin (2nd edition).Google Scholar
Gaselee, S.
(1939) The Language of Diplomacy. Being the Gregynog Lectures. London: Bowes & Bowes.Google Scholar
Goodnight, G. T.
(1998) Public argument and the study of foreign policy. American Diplomacy, 8, [URL].
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I .M.
(2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan R.
(1989) Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Socio-Semiotic Context. Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayden, C.
(2007) Arguing public diplomacy: The role of argument formations in US foreign policy rhetoric. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2, 229–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) The role of audience in public diplomacy. In Conference Proceedings of the alTa conference on argumentation of the American National Communication Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
(2012) The Rhetoric of Soft Power: Public Diplomacy in Global Contexts. Lanham MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Kerr, P. L.
(2010) Diplomatic Persuasion: An Under-investigated Process. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5 (3), 235–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurbalija, J.
(Ed.) (2013) Persuasion: The Essence of Diplomacy. Diplofoundation: Malta.Google Scholar
Lassen, I.
(2006) Is the press release a genre? A study of form and content. Discourse Studies, 8(4), 503–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R.
(1989) Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R.
(2005) The Language of Evaluation. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolson, H.
(1969) Diplomacy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Partington, A.
(2003) The Linguistics of Political Argument: The Spin-doctor and the Wolf Pack at the White House. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Provis, C.
(2004) Negotiation, persuasion and argument. Argumentation, 18 (1), 95–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I.
(2009) Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Satow, E. M.
(1917) A Guide to Diplomatic Practice. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Seib, P.
(2012) Real-time Diplomacy: Politics and Power in the Social Media Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, E.
(2014) Mood metaphor in diplomacy: From bilateral correspondence to the web. Unpublished paper presented at 25th European Systemic Functional Linguistic Conference, 10–12 July, Paris, France.
(2015) (Im)politeness in a diplomatic context: The case of the Zinoviev letter. In M. Busà & S. Gesuato (Eds), Studi in Onore di Alberto Mioni (pp. 863–874). Padova: CLEUP.Google Scholar
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F.
(2008) Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, P. R. R.
(2003) Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23 (2), 259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) [URL].
(2011) English-language hard-news style as a strategic stance: understanding the rhetorical potential of the “objective” news report. Unpublished paper presented at the 12th international pragmatics conference 3–8 July, Manchester, UK.
Wodak, R., & Vetter, E.
(1999) The small distinctions between diplomats, politicians and journalists: The discursive construction of professional identity. In R. Wodak, & C. Ludwig (Eds), Challenges in a Changing World (pp. 209–238). Vienna: Passagen.Google Scholar