Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks in spokespersons’ argumentative replies at diplomatic press conferences
A pragma-dialectical study of the press conferences of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Wu Peng | Jiangsu University | ILIAS | Leiden University
Within the framework of Pragma-Dialectics, this article analyzes personal attacks in the spokespersons’ replies at the press conferences held by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs between 2012 and 2015. The research results show that, to cut down the credibility of their opponents in attempting to dismiss them, spokespersons adopt three subtypes of personal attack: the direct, the indirect, and the You too subtypes. Each of them can be further divided into several variants. Taking account of the institutional preconditions for making argumentative replies at governmental press conferences, this article analyzes how spokespersons maneuver strategically in attacking a secondary audience by means of the various subtypes and variants of personal attack. It then explains how these strategic maneuvers assist the spokespersons in convincing their primary audience.
1978 “Formal Dialectics: Instruments for the Resolution of Conflicts about Expressed Opinions.” Spektator 71: 307–341.
Bhatia, Aditi
2006 “Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences.” Discourse & Society 17(2):173–203.
Brinton, Alan
1985 “A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63(1): 50–63.
Brinton, Alan
1995 “The Ad Hominem.” In Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings ed. by Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto, 213–222. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Copi, Iving M.
1972Introduction to logic. New York: Macmillan.
Du Jiang
2005Theory and Practice for Spokespersons Chengdu: Sichuan people’s Publishing House.
Dou, Wei L. and Zhang, Xiao Y.
2008 “A Comparative Study of the Dodging Strategy Adopted by Chinese and American Spokespersons: The case of the North Korean nuclear issue.” Theory and Practice of Foreign Language Teaching 41: 53–57.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Garssen, Bart and Meuffels, Bert
2012 “The Disguised Abusive ad hominem Empirically Investigated: Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks.” Thinking & Reasoning 18(3): 344–364.
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Grootendorst, Rob
1992Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Grootendorst, Rob
1993 “The history of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century”. In Empirical logic and public debate: Essays in honour of Else M. Barth ed. by Erik C. W. Krabbe, Renee J. Dalitz, and Pier A. Smit, 49–68. Amsterdam: Rodopi
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Grootendorst, Rob
2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guang, Ke
2010 “Pragmatic Vagueness of Spokespersons in Sino-US Foreign Affairs’ Departments.” Journal of Hunan University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition) 13(2): 93–97.
Guang, Ke
2013 “Construction of Spokesperson’s Discourse: An Approach of Western New Rhetoric.” Journal of Hunan University of Science & Technology (Social Science Edition) 16(4): 153–156.
Hamblin, Charles L.
1970Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hong, Gang and Chen, Qian F.
2011 “A Contrastive Study of the Refusal Strategies Employed by Chinese and American Spokespersons.” Foreign Language Teaching and Research 43(2): 209–219.
Hu, Geng S. and Wang, Jing
2001 “The Analysis of the Language Use in Sino-foreign Press Conferences.” Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 16(3): 83–88.
Kahane, Howard
1973Logic and philosophy. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
Lan, Chun and Hu, Yi
2014 “Pragmatic Analysis of Foreign Ministry Spokesman’s Dodge Answer.” Chinese Foreign Language 61: 21–28.
Li, Xi G. and Sun, Jing W.
2007Course Book for Spokespersons. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.
Locke, John
1960An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Dent.
Ma, Zhi Q.
2013The Art of Language Communication. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House.
Minot, Walter S.
1981A Rhetorical View of Fallacies: Ad Hominem and Ad Populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 11(4): 222–235.
Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
1969The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Rescher, Nicholas
1964Introduction to Logic. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Tu, Guang J. and Gong, He
2009 “A Political Rhetorical Analysis of Official Press Release on Tibet in China and America.” Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication 81: 32–37.
2015 “A Research on Pragma-dialectical Approach of Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson’s Argumentative Replies at the Press Conference: Take Liu Weimin’s Reply about the Sino-US Tombarthite Trade Friction as Case Study.” Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication 91: 52–69.
Xiong, Yong H. and Peng, Xiao M.
2009 “An Analysis on the Pragmatic Strategy of Diplomatic Language: A Study on the Remarks at Press Conference Held by Foreign Ministry spokesman.” Journal of Hunan Agricultural University 31: 71–74.
Yang, Yao Z.
2015 “Narrative Rhetoric Study on News Conference of China and Japan in the Case of Maritime Collision.” Journal of Zhongzhou University 21: 89–92.
Yang, Zheng Q.
2005Theory and Practice for Spokespersons. Beijing: Communication University of China Press.
Yao, Xi S.
2010 “Language Style of Spokesperson’s Presentation”. Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences), 11: 28–29.
Zhang, Tao F.
2005 “Spokesperson: Skills Determine Success or Failure”. Decision 41: 49–51.
Zhang, Yang
2009 “On Spokesperson’s Language Style.” Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences) 61: 59–64.
2021. Studying Chinese Foreign Policy Narratives: Introducing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Conferences Corpus. Journal of Chinese Political Science 26:4 ► pp. 743 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2018. Distinguishing Between Different Kinds of Argumentative Practices. In Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [Argumentation Library, 33], ► pp. 129 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.