Cover not available
Part of
Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu and Stanca Măda
[Dialogue Studies 26] 2015
► pp. 145–160

Argumentation at work

 | Transilvania University of Brasov (Romania)
The paper analyses argumentation in two different professional contexts – the former, a joint company, which brings together Romanian and Belgian employees, and the latter, a Romanian company. The paper is structured in three parts – a theoretical presentation of argumentation, defined as a type of interaction whose aim is to solve differences of opinions between interlocutors, the data analysis part, and the conclusions. It reconstructs the argument, identifies its type, function and forms, and draws conclusions in terms of different argumentation strategies used in the two companies.
Published online: 1 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.07che
References (16)
References
Anscrombe, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la Langue. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.Google Scholar
Beamer, Linda, and Iris Varner. 2008. Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace. (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. 2011. “Giving Reasons. A Contribution to Argumentation Theory.” Theoria 26 (3): 273–277.Google Scholar
Cummings, Louise. 2005. Pragmatics A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Robert Grootendorst. 1983. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Argumentum ad Hominum – A Pragma-Dialectical Case in Point.” In Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. by Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 223–228. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Gheorghe, Mihaela, Stanca Măda, and Răzvan Săftoiu. 2009a. Comunicarea la locul de muncă. Corpus de interacţiune verbală în mediul profesional. Braşov: Editura Universităţii Transilvania din Braşov.Google Scholar
. 2009b. Comunicarea la locul de muncă. Schiţă de tipologie a textelor redactate în mediul profesional românesc. Braşov: Editura Universităţii Transilvania din Braşov.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Allen D. 2009. “Research on Conflict Talk: Antecedents, Resources, Findings, Directions.” In Conflict Talk – Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw, 280–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huţiu, Otilia. 2010. “Conversational Strategies in Management Unions Negotiations.” Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Series IV: Philology and Cultural Studies 3 (52): 192–210.Google Scholar
Missimer, Connie. 2005. Good Arguments – An Introduction to Critical Thinking. (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, Daniel F. 1992. “Two Concepts of Argument.” In Readings in Argumentation, ed. by William Benoit, Dale Hample, and Pamela J. Benoit, 79–90. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rovenţa-Frumuşani, Daniela. 2000. Argumentarea. Modele şi strategii. Bucureşti: Bic All.Google Scholar
Simons, Herbert W., Joanne Morreale, and Bruce Gronbeck. 2001. Persuasion in Society. Thousand Oaks California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werder, Axel V. 1999. “Argumentation Rationality of Management Decisions.” Organization Science 10 (5): 672–690. DOI logoGoogle Scholar