Cover not available
Part of
Persuasion in Specialized Discourse: A multidisciplinary perspective
Edited by Chiara Degano, Dora Renna and Francesca Santulli
[Argumentation in Context 22] 2024
► pp. 134–152

Chapter 6
Argumentative style in international adoption dossiers

| University of Trieste
Drawing on recent developments in Pragma-dialectics, this paper explores argumentation in a corpus of international adoption dossiers (IADs) issued by an Italian adoption agency facilitating adoptions from India. A collection of all the documents required by the native country of the adopted child, the IAD has an argumentative nature, as it aims at persuading Indian authorities to approve adoption. The study reveals that it is characterised by a coordinative argumentation structure and a hybrid argumentative style. This “combination” of detached and engaged styles is prototypical of the communicative activity type at issue, as it is functional to radiating objectivity and commitment alike, with a view to enhancing the acceptability of the standpoint concerning the eligibility of Italian prospective adoptive parents.
Keywords: argumentation structure, argumentative style, international adoption dossier (IAD), prospective adoptive parents (PAPs)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus and analytical methodology
  • 3.Argumentation in IADs
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.22.06bra
References (21)
References
Adamec, C., & Miller, L. C. (2007). The Encyclopedia of Adoption. New York: Facts On File (3rd edition).Google Scholar
Alperson, M. (1997). The International Adoption Handbook. How to Make an Overseas Adoption Work for You. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Brambilla, E. (2021). Translating the international adoption dossier: focus on the home study report. In S. Laviosa, G. Iamartino, & E. Mulligan (Eds.), Recent Trends in Translation Studies: An Anglo-Italian Perspective (pp. 160–178). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
CIA, Commission for Intercountry Adoption (2022). The Commission. Available at [URL] (last accessed 9th January 2022).
Dickens, C. (1985) [first published 1864–5]. Our Mutual Friend. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
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
Giltrow, J., & Stein, D. (2009). Genres in the Internet: innovation, evolution, and Genre Theory. In J. Giltrow, & D. Stein (Eds.), Genres in the Internet. Issues in the Theory of Genres (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harvey, L. (2012). Institutionalisation. Quality Research International – Social Research Glossary. Available at: [URL] (last accessed on 18th January 2022).Google Scholar
Hübler, A. (1983). Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moe, B. A. (2007). Adoption. A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara (CA): ABC-CLIO. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orsingher, L. (2007). L’adozione. Questioni sostanziali, processuali, internazionali, amministrative [Adoption. Substantial, judicial, international, administrative matters]. Matelica (Italy): Halley Editrice.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’Argumentation. La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles (6th edition).Google Scholar
Post, S. G. (2004). Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York: Macmillan Publishers.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2019). Argumentative style: a complex notion. Argumentation, 33, 153–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Examining argumentative style. A new theoretical perspective. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 10(1), 8–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Characterising an MEP’s argumentative style. Mr. Schlyter’s contribution to the debate on labelling fruit juices. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 11(1), 6–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2015). Strategic maneuvering: maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse (pp. 349–379). Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2017). Argumentation. Analysis and Evaluation. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walton, D. (2002). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park (PA): The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar