Article published in:
Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu and Stanca Măda
[Dialogue Studies 26] 2015
► pp. 161–178

Argumentation strategies in mediated professional interactions

| Transilvania University of Brasov (Romania)
Starting from the assumption that in professional interactions argumentation is one specific discursive activity through which participants advocate their positions on recommended actions, the paper analyses argumentation strategies in an international company in Romania, where English is used as the language of communication. Considering arguing as basically a form of contextualized speech behaviour, the theoretical frameworks used in this paper are pragma-dialectics and discourse analysis, investigating how speakers fit their contributions to accommodate various purposes and also how they defend their standpoint so that the other party is convinced of its acceptability. The data consist of telephone conferences via internet connections (Virtual Networking Communication sessions) which enable participants to communicate both verbally and via computer-human interface. Given the specific nature of the data, interactions in a technologically shaped context, the paper also addresses the question of enablements and constraints of technology in the way in which participants support or justify their actions.
Published online: 01 October 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.08cop
References

References

Cohen, Marvin S.
2002 Leadership, Critical Thinking, and Dialogue: Steps Toward an Integrative Framework. Cognitive Technologies, Inc. Available at www​.cog​-tech​.com​/Papers​/CriticalThinking.Google Scholar
Coposescu, Liliana
2010 “Discourse Analysis of Communication in International Companies.” In Globalization in English Studies, ed. by Maria Georgieva, and Allan James, 106–128. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
1984 Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht-Holland/ Cinnaminson USA: Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and Francesca Snoeck Henkemans
2007 Argumentative Indicators – A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Peter Houtlosser
2007 “Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation.” Argumentation 20: 381–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van
2010 Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs
2011 “Argumentation.” In Discourse Studies – A Multidisciplinary Introduction (2nd ed.), ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 85–106. Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian
1999 “Rhetorical Strategies in Audience Participation Debates on Radio and TV.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 32 (3): 243–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Wooffitt
1998 Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Iedemia, Rick, and Ruth Wodak
1999 “Introduction: Organizational Discourses and Practices.” Discourse and Society 10 (1): 5–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plantin, Christian
2002 “Argumentation Studies and Discourse Analysis: The French Situation and Global Perspectives.” Discourse Studies 4 (3): 343–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 “Giving a Source or Basis: The Practice in Conversation of Telling ‘How I Know’.” Journal of Pragmatics 8: 607–625. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rees, Agnes M. van
2007 “Discourse Analysis and Argumentation Theory: The Case of Television Talk.” Journal or Pragmatics 39: 1454–1463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar