In dispute mediation, mediators, perhaps counterintuitively, make the disagreement between parties explicit and
formulate their interventions on the disagreement in such a way that the disagreement is made manageable. In this paper, three
functions of identifying and elucidating the parties’ disagreement that demonstrate the importance of making disagreement
salient – (1) uncovering real issues, (2) emphasizing conflict ownership, (3) making disagreements manageable – are presented.
Corpora of mediation simulation transcripts are used as empirical bases for the analyses of the means by which mediators make
disagreement explicit (the how) and for what specific functions they do so (the why). The three aspects of strategic maneuvering
(van Eemeren 2010) are used to analyze how mediators construct the interventions on
the disagreement in terms of: (a) the topics they select from the topical potential, (b) the adjustment of interventions to suit
their intended addressee(s), and (c) what presentational devices are used.
Aakhus, Mark. 2001. Designing web-based interactional tools to support learning from experience. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling, M. Schoop and J. Taylor Eds: 51–67.
Aakhus, Mark. 2003. Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation 17(3): 265–290.
Aakhus, Mark. 2007. Communication as design. Communication monographs 74(1): 112–117.
Berti, Emanuele. 2007. Scholasticorum studia. Seneca il Vecchio e la cultura retorica e letteraria della prima età imperiale. Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori.
Brenninkmeijer, Alex F. M., Karen van Oyen, Hugo Prein, and Paul Walters. 2005. Handboek mediation. The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.
Burr, Anne M.2002. Confidentiality in mediation communications: A privilege worth protecting. Dispute Resolution Journal 57(1): 64–70.
Burrell, Nancy A., and Sally M. Vogl. 1990. Turf-side conflict mediation for students. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 7(3): 237–250.
Colatrella Jr., Michael T.2000. Court-performed mediation in the People’s Republic of China: A proposed model to improve the United States federal district courts’ mediation programs. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 151: 391–424.
Currie, Cris. 2004. Mediating off the Grid. Dispute Resolution Journal 59(2): 8–15.
Deason, Ellen E.2001. The Quest for Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consistency or Crucial Predictability. Marquette Law Review 851:79–111.
Deng, Yiheng. 2012. Strategy to alleviate adversity in Chinese mediation: a discourse analysis on real Chinese mediation sessions. Chinese Journal of Communication 5(4): 417–436.
Freedman, Lawrence R., and Michael L. Prigoff. 1986. Confidentiality in Mediation: The Need for Protection. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 21: 37–46.
Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury, and Bruce Patton. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. London: Penguin Books.
Ghosh, Debanjan, Smaranda Muresan, Nina Wacholder, Mark Aakhus, and Matthew Mitsui. 2014. Analyzing argumentative discourse units in online interactions. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining: 39–48.
Greco Morasso, Sara. 2012. Argomentare per superare il conflitto: L’argomentazione nella mediazione. Sistemi Intelligenti 24 (3): 481–502.
Greco, Sara. 2018. Designing dialogue: Argumentation as conflict management in social interaction. Tranel – Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique 681: 7–15. Available open-access at [URL]
Haynes, John M.1994. The fundamentals of family mediation. New York: State University of New York Press.
Haynes, John M., and Gretchen L. Haynes. 1989. Mediating divorce. Casebook of strategies for successful family negotiation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Herman, Margaret S.2006. Handbook of Mediation: Bridging Theory, Research, and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 661: 251–265.
Jacobs, Scott. 2002. Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (10): 1402–1426.
Janier, Mathilde, and Chris Reed. 2017. Towards a theory of close analysis for dispute mediation discourse. Argumentation 31(1): 45–82.
Kim, Nam H., James Wall Jr, Dong-Won Sohn, and Jay Kim. 1993. Community and industrial mediation in South Korea. Journal of Conflict Resolution 37(2): 361–381.
Meier, Isaak. 2003. Mediation and conciliation in Switzerland. In Global Trends in Mediation, ed. by Nadja Alexander: 341–357. Köln: Centrale für Mediation.
Montefusco, Lucia. 1987. La funzione della “partitio” nel discorso oratorio. In Studi di retorica oggi in Italia, ed. by A. Pennacini, 69–85. Bologna: Pitagora.
Plantin, Christian. 1996. Le trilogue argumentatif. Présentation de modèle, analyse de cas. Langue Française 112: 9–30.
Porter, James E.1990. Divisio as em-/de-powering topic: A basis for argument in rhetoric and composition. Rhetoric Review 8(2): 191–205.
Putnam, Linda L., and Michael E. Holmer. 1992. Communication perspectives on negotiation. In Communication and Negotiation, ed. by Linda L. Putnam, and Michael E. Roloff, 128–155. Newbury Park: Sage.
Ran, Yongping, and Linsen Zhao. 2018. Building mutual affection-based face in conflict mediation: A Chinese relationship management model. Journal of Pragmatics 1291: 185–198.
Susskind, Lawrence. 2010. Looking at negotiation and dispute resolution through a CA/DA lens. Negotiation Journal 26 (2): 163–166.
Tabucanon, Gill M. P., James Wall Jr, and Wan Yan. 2008. Philippine Community Mediation, Katarungang Pambarangay. Journal of Dispute Resolution 2(5): 1–14.
Traverso, Véronique. 1999. L’analyse des conversations. Paris: Nathan.
van Eemeren, Frans H. (Ed.). 2001. Crucial concepts in argumentation theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
van Eemeren, Frans H.2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (Vol. 21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion (Vol. 11). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean H. M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.