Index
A
- abusive personal attack
see direct personal attack
- accusation of bad character
66–67, 85, 165
- accusation of bad faith
67–68, 85, 165
- accusation of low expertise
70–71, 85, 165
- accusation of low intelligence
69, 85, 165
- accusation of suspicious interests
72–73, 85, 165
- accusation of suspicious motives
71–72, 85
-
ad baculum fallacy
see argumentum ad baculum
-
ad hominem fallacy
see argumentum ad hominem
-
ad misericordiam fallacy
see argumentum ad misericordiam
- agreeing to resolve the difference of opinion
41–42, 164
- alleviation rather than tension
105–106
- “ambiguous” Term I
52–53, 60, 165
- analytically relevant argumentative move
150, 164
- analytic overview
20, 149–150, 164
- analytic reconstruction150
- antagonist
17, 37, 47–49, 57–58, 88, 128, 148, 167
- appealing to sympathy
see putting/exerting (emotional) pressure on the other party by appealing to sympathy
- argumentational strategy
18, 142, 175
- argumentation stage
17, 21, 23–24, 36–37, 48, 88–89, 115, 118, 135, 148, 167, 169
- argumentation theory
17, 49, 118, 127
- argumentative characterization
19, 24, 36–38, 172
- argumentative means (and criticisms)
19, 24, 36, 38
- argumentative move
20, 149–154
- argumentative strategy
18, 66, 142, 174
- argumentative style
20, 23, 25, 147–160, 171, 176
- argumentative (sub-)pattern
20, 149–150, 175
- argument from authority
see authority argumentation
-
argumentum ad baculum
137
-
argumentum ad hominem
19, 63–66, 79
-
argumentum ad misericordiam
138
-
argumentum ad verecundiam
19
- ascribing suspicious interests
see accusation of suspicious interests
- aspect of strategic maneuvering
see strategic maneuvering
- attacking someone for lacking expertise
see accusation of low expertise
- audience demand
18–21, 25, 30, 41, 57–58, 79, 84, 86, 91, 108, 110–111, 123, 136, 149, 153, 155, 169
- “authentic” Term II
50–52, 60, 165
- authority argumentation
19, 79, 85
B
- bad character
see accusation of bad character
- bad faith
see accusation of bad face
- balance between reasonableness and effectiveness
see integration dialectical and rhetorical perspectives
- “broadened” Term I
54–55, 60, 165
C
- change of difference of opinion120
- change of subject
119–120, 166
- changing the topic
15, 40, 42, 117–126, 143, 145, 152, 164–166, 168–169
- circumstantial personal attack
64–65, 71–73, 79, 82, 84–85, 153, 165
- code of conduct for reasonable discussants
17, 61, 65, 92, 126, 128, 137–138, 144–145, 174
- combining modes of strategic maneuvering/argumentative strategies
138–146, 166, 173, 175
- communicative activity type
18–22, 24, 30–31, 36–38, 41, 87, 115, 128, 171–172, 175
- compromising (confrontational) argumentative style
149, 154–156, 160, 171
- concluding stage
17, 19, 21, 23–24, 36, 48, 118, 148, 161
- concluding strategy
18, 142, 175
- confrontational (argumentative) style
23, 25, 148–150, 152, 159, 170
- confrontational (mode of strategic) maneuvering
22–23, 30, 39–40, 42–43, 49–50, 55, 54, 63, 66–78, 84–86, 113, 115–117, 119, 150–151, 159, 161–167, 169–174
- confrontational strategy
18, 142–144, 166
- confrontation stage
16, 22–24, 36, 47, 89, 150
- critical discussion
16–18, 23–24, 36
- critical question
2–4, 48, 176
D
- declaring a standpoint taboo/sacrosanct92
- declaring a standpoint unallowed/indisputable
41, 86–115, 140, 144, 151–152, 163–165, 167–168, 170, 173
- deliberation
see political deliberation
- democratic political culture31
- derailed strategic maneuvering19
- Desirability Rationale
93, 98–102, 106, 165
- detached argumentative style
20, 149, 153–155, 158, 160, 171
- dialectical aim
19, 23–24, 39
- dialectical approach
16–17
- dialectical perspective
see dialectical approach
- dialectical reasonableness
4, 15, 17–18, 20–21, 48, 85, 147, 174–175
- dialectical route
20, 149–150
- dimension of argumentative style149
- diplomatic press conference
1–5, 7, 11, 14–16, 22, 24, 30–31, 110, 153–155, 157, 161–162, 172
- direct personal attack
64–71, 79–85, 140, 165
- direct refusal strategy10
- disagreeing to resolve the difference164
- discussion rules
see code of conduct for reasonable discussants
- discussion strategy
see general (argumentative) strategy
- dissociation
40, 42–62, 139, 152, 164–165, 167, 169
- “distorted” Term I
50–52, 165
- Distracting the other party
143, 154, 159, 173
- doctrine of alleviation rather than tension
see alleviation rather than tension
E
- effectiveness
see rhetorical effectiveness
- emotional mode of argument127
- emotive meaning of terms128
- engaged argumentative style
20–21, 149, 153, 160, 171
- evasive answer
see evasion
- “exact” Term II
54–56, 60, 165
- excluding standpoints
see exempting the difference of opinion/standpoint
- exempting the difference of opinion/standpoint from critical discussion
40–42, 90, 164
- expressing agreement
39, 164
- extended pragma-dialectical theory
19, 21, 171
- externalized standpoint118
- extrinsic constraint
19, 21–22, 30
F
- fallacious personal attack
see argumentum ad hominem
- fallacy
17, 19, 61, 64–65, 92, 114, 126, 128, 137–138, 145, 170
- fallacy of declaring a standpoint taboo/sacrosanct
see declaring a standpoint taboo/sacrosanct
- Feasibility Rationale
93, 102–106, 114, 166
- Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence
33, 37, 94, 96–98, 108, 141, 144, 163
G
- general argumentative/discussion strategy
18, 142, 175
- general soundness criteria
19, 173
- global connection between the speakers’ utterances117
H
- human rights
35, 55–56, 139–141, 153, 156
- hybrid communicative activity type162
I
- ideal model of a critical discussion
see critical discussion
- imaginary critical discussion
see projected (imaginary) critical discussion
- immediate opponent
33–34, 36–37, 40, 49, 52–53, 56–57, 60–61, 78, 81, 83–85, 106–108, 114, 126, 134–135, 137–138, 140, 144–146, 154–157, 165–171
- implicit critical discussion
34, 36, 38, 57
- inconsistency between past and present actions
74–75, 85, 165
- inconsistency between previous and present words
75–77, 85, 165
- inconsistency between words and actions
73–74, 85, 165
- indirect personal attack
see circumstantial personal attack
- indirect refusal strategy10
- indisputable
see declaring a standpoint unallowed/indisputable
- informative question
2–4, 133, 176
- initial situation
19, 22, 24, 36, 38–39
- institutional constraint
see institutional precondition
- institutional goal
see institutional point
- institutional (macro-)context
19–21, 149, 175
- institutional point
18, 26, 30–31, 34, 162
- institutional precondition
21–22, 24–25, 30–37, 40–43, 53, 59–61, 63, 79–85, 92, 107, 110, 113–115, 123–126, 128, 137, 145, 147, 149, 155, 161–163, 175
- integration dialectical and rhetorical perspectives
17, 21
- international general public
33–34, 60, 63, 78, 82, 84–85, 153, 159, 166–167, 169
J
- just words no actions
77–78, 85, 165
L
- language style
5–8, 11, 14–15
- linguistic indicator of dissociation46
- local connection between the speakers’ utterances117
- low expertise
see accusation of low expertise
- low intelligence
see accusation of low intelligence
M
- macro-context
see institutional (macro-)context
- material starting point
19, 37–38
- meta-theoretical analysis175
- meta-theoretical evaluation175
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs
1–5, 158
- mixed difference of opinion
see mixed position
- mixed position
36, 40, 67
- mode of confrontational maneuvering
22, 24–25, 28, 42, 49–56, 63, 66, 86, 132, 138, 141, 146
- mode of strategic maneuvering
19–21, 23, 27, 39–40, 43, 48–49, 63, 65, 77, 79, 86, 145, 164
- MoFA
see Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- MoFA’s regular press conferences
see diplomatic press conference
N
- “narrowed” Term I
55–56, 60, 165
- Necessity Rationale
93–98, 114, 141, 165
- negative sanction
see sanction
- Non-intervention in internal affairs35
- non-mixed difference of opinion
see non-mixed position
- non-mixed position
36–38, 40, 75, 77
- normative argumentation theory17
O
- One-China policy/principle
35, 68, 95, 111
- only words without actions
see just words no actions
- opening stage
17–18, 21, 23–24, 36, 48, 61, 88–89, 115, 118
- opening strategy
142, 175
P
- parallel critical discussions
see simultaneous critical discussions
- personal attack
19, 27, 40, 63–85, 164–165, 167, 169
- persuasion/persuasiveness
127, 173
- pointing at a negative sanction
see putting/exerting pressure on the other party by pointing at a negative sanction
- political communicative activity type31
- political deliberation
31, 38
- political press conference
see diplomatic press conference
- pragma-dialectical treatment of dissociation
43, 47, 49
- pragmatic approach/perspective16
- pragmatic strategy
8–11, 14–15, 49
- preliminary discussion
11, 88–90, 95, 99, 104, 115
- presentational device/dimension
18–21, 25, 30, 58, 60, 79, 81–82, 84, 91, 114, 123, 149, 155, 169
- press conference
see diplomatic press conference
- Pressurizing the other party
144, 159, 173
- primary audience
21, 33–34, 36, 38, 49, 56–58, 60–61, 78–79, 84–85, 92, 106, 108, 114, 123, 134, 153, 155, 159, 161, 163, 166–167, 169, 171–172, 174
- primary institutional precondition
see institutional precondition
- procedural starting point
17, 37–38
- progressive diplomatic approach/style
157–159
- projected (imaginary) argumentative exchange
see projected (imaginary) critical discussion
- projected (imaginary) critical discussion
43, 56–57, 61, 78–79, 106, 153, 156, 159
- protagonist
17, 37–38, 47–49, 128, 148
- prototypical argumentative style152
- prototypical argumentative (sub-)pattern175
- prototypical confrontational argumentative style25
- prototypical mode of argumentational maneuvering175
- prototypical mode of concluding maneuvering175
- prototypical mode of confrontational maneuvering
22, 24, 39–42, 63, 174
- prototypical mode of opening maneuvering175
- prototypical mode of strategic maneuvering
41, 86, 116, 161
- prototypical strategic design108
- putting/exerting (emotional) pressure on the other party by appealing to sympathy
41, 132, 135, 138, 164–166, 168–169
- putting/exerting pressure on the other party
27–28, 116–117, 126–138, 145, 165, 168–169
- putting/exerting pressure on the other party by pointing at a negative sanction
41, 143, 152, 164–166, 168–169
R
- reasonableness
see dialectical reasonableness
- redefining the difference of opinion
39–40, 42, 145, 148, 152, 156, 164
- redefining the other party’s position of doubt/opposition
40–42, 164
- redefining the propositional content of the standpoint
40, 152
- resident foreign journalist2
- resolving a difference of opinion17
- resolving a difference of opinion on the merits
see resolving a difference of opinion
- rhetorical aim
16–18, 23–24, 39, 161
- rhetorical approach
16–17
- rhetorical effectiveness
15, 17–18, 20–21, 48, 85, 147, 174
- rhetorical perspective
see rhetorical approach
- rhetorical strategy
8, 15
- rhetorical treatment of dissociation46
- rules for critical discussion
17, 19, 65, 78, 126, 128, 137–138, 144–145, 171, 175
S
- secondary audience
33–34, 38, 49, 56–57, 60, 78–79, 83–84, 106, 114, 134, 159, 163, 166
- secondary institutional precondition
see institutional precondition
- Silencing the other party
142, 154, 159, 173
- simultaneous critical discussions
106–107, 125–126, 135, 144, 146, 155, 159, 166–169, 172
- soundness (criteria)
19–20, 144, 169, 171, 173
- specific soundness criteria
20, 173
- spokespersons’ replies
5–6, 14–15, 158
- standard treatment of the fallacies127
- starting point(s)
19, 24, 36, 38, 48–49, 61, 88–89, 106, 115
- stereotypical mode of (confrontational) strategic maneuvering
174–175
- strategically combining modes of strategic maneuvering
see combining modes of strategic maneuvering
- strategic consideration
20, 58, 149–150, 154, 157
- strategic design
20, 25, 27–28, 58, 86, 108, 114, 123, 135, 149–150, 152, 161, 169, 176
- strategic maneuvering
16, 18–23, 25, 30, 39–42, 56–57, 65, 79, 86, 113, 116, 161
- strategic scenario
20–21, 150
- strategic use of declaring a standpoint unallowed/indisputable
106–113
- strategic use of dissociation
56–60
- strategic use of personal attack
78–84
- straw man fallacy
61, 126, 145
- sub-discussion
88–89, 106, 132
- subject of discussion
118–124, 145, 166, 170
- suspicious interests
see accusation of suspicious interests
- suspicious motives
see accusation of suspicious motives
T
- Term I
44–46, 50–56, 59–60, 139, 165
- Term II
44–46, 50–56, 59–60, 139, 165
- Tibet-related issue
35, 96
- topical choice/potential/selection
18–21, 25, 30, 79–81, 84, 91, 123, 149, 155, 169
- topic (of discussion)
40, 90, 116–117, 119–120
-
tu quoque
see You Too personal attack
U
- unallowed
see declaring a standpoint unallowed/indisputable
- uncompromising (detached) (confrontational) argumentative style
147–160, 171
- undermining the opponent’s authority/credibility
167–168
- “univocal” Term II
52–53, 60, 165
Y
- You Too personal attack
64–66, 73–79, 83–85, 165