Article published in:
Argumentative Style
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1] 2021
► pp. 73–96

Mediators’ reframing as a constitutive element of a reconciliatory argumentative style

| USI – Università della Svizzera italiana
| USI – Università della Svizzera italiana
This paper shows that reframing of conflict can be considered as a constitutive element of a “reconciliatory argumentative style” (van Eemeren, 2019), which is typical of dispute mediators, whose aim is to steer parties towards the resolution of their conflict. On the basis of a systematic empirical analysis of mediation cases, we first show that reframing encompasses a change of issue, which may or may not be justified by arguments. Then, we show how it is functional to the three aspects of mediators’ strategic manoeuvring, being used consistently by mediators in their effort to help parties solve their conflict on the basis of reasonable discussion.
Keywords: strategic manoeuvring, argumentative style, reconciliatory style, dispute mediation, reframing
Published online: 04 February 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20019.gre
References

References

Aakhus, Mark
(2003) “Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation.” Argumentation 17(3): 265–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bijnen, Emma van
(2020) Common ground in conflict mediation: An argumentative perspective. PhD dissertation, USI – Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Bijnen, Emma. van, and Sara Greco
(2018) “Divide to unite: making disagreement explicit in dispute mediation.” Journal of argumentation in context 7:3: 285–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bush, Robert A. B., and Joseph P. Folger
(2005) The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Chan, Cecilia L. W., and Chi K. Law
(2008) “Advocacy.” In Comprehensive Handbook of Social Work and Social Welfare, 3, ed. by Karen M. Sowers et al., New York: Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo
(2008) “Dichotomies and types of debate.” In Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 27–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, William A., Mike Allen & Nancy Burrell
(1988) “Mediator communicative competence.” Communication monographs 55 (1): 104–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drake, Laura. E., and William A. Donohue
(1996) “Communicative framing theory in conflict resolution.” Communication Research 23(3): 297–322. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van
(2010) Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) “Argumentative style: A complex notion.” Argumentation 33(2): 153–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2021) “Examining argumentative style: A new theoretical perspective”. This volume. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, and Grootendorst, R.
(1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs
(1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans
(2007) Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical perspective. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
(1976) “Frame semantics and the nature of language.” In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech 280: 20–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Frame semantics. In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings, ed. by D. Geeraerts, 373–400. Berlin: De Gruyter. (Original work published 1982). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Roger, William Ury and Bruce Patton
(1991) Getting to yes. Negotiating agreement without giving in (second edition). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gata, A.
(2021) “Characterizing a detached argumentative style: Text types as presentational choices”. This volume.Google Scholar
Greco Morasso, Sara
(2008) “The ontology of conflict.” Pragmatics & Cognition 16(3): 540–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Argumentation in dispute mediation: A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greco, Sara
(2018) “Designing dialogue: Argumentation as conflict management in social interaction.” Tranel 68: 7–15. Available open access at: http://​www​.unine​.ch​/files​/live​/sites​/tranel​/files​/Tranel​/68​/7​-15​_Greco​.pdf (last visited: April 2020).
(2020) Dal conflitto al dialogo: Un approccio comunicativo alla mediazione. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli.Google Scholar
Haaften, Ton van, and Leeuwen, Maarten van
(2021) “On the relation between argumentative style and linguistic style: Integrating linguistic-stylistic analysis systematically into the analysis of argumentative style”. This volume. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higham, Lise
(2019) D’autres voix que la sienne. Manières de se faire écouter, modes d’écoute: Une étude des marqueurs d’écoute en séances de médiation. PhD dissertation, Université de Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
Hoffman, David A.
(2011) “Mediation and the art of shuttle diplomacy.” Negotiation Journal 27(3): 263–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Michael H. G.
(2011) Analyzing framing processes in conflicts and communication by means of logical argument mapping. In Framing matters: Perspectives on negotiation research and practice in communication, ed. by William A. Donohue, Randall G. Rogan and Sandra Kaufman, 136–164. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott, and Mark Aakhus
(2002) “What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation”. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(2): 177–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janier, Mathilde, and Chris Reed
(2017) “Towards a theory of close analysis for dispute mediation discourse.” Argumentation 31: 45–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jermini-Martinez Soria, Chiara, and Sara Greco
(2019) “Dispute mediators’ reframing as an argumentation competence.” In Proceedings of the ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, 3–6 July 2018, ed. by Bart Garssen et al., 594–603. Available at: http://​cf​.hum​.uva​.nl​/issa​/ISSA​_2018​_proceedings​.pdf
Jermini-Martinez Soria, Chiara
In preparation). Reframing as an argumentative competence in dispute mediation. PhD dissertation, USI – Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
Lewiński, M.
(2013) Polylogical fallacies: Are there any? OSSA Conference Archive. 104. Available at: https://​scholar​.uwindsor​.ca​/ossaarchive​/OSSA10​/papersandcommentaries​/104
Littleton, Karen and Neil Mercer
(2013) Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maley, Yon
(1995) “From adjudication to mediation: Third party discourse in conflict resolution.” Journal of Pragmatics 23: 93–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meier, I.
(2003) “Mediation and conciliation in Switzerland.” In Global Trends in Mediation, ed. by N. Alexander, 341–357. Köln: Centrale für Mediation.Google Scholar
Moore, Christopher W.
(2014), 4th ed. The mediation process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Passmore, Jonathan
(2007) “An integrative model for executive coaching.” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 59(1): 68–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Linda. L.
(2004) “Transformation as a critical moment in negotiations.” Negotiation Journal 20(2): 275–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Linda. L., and Majia Holmer
(1992) “Framing, reframing and issue development.”, in Communication and negotiation, ed. by Linda L. Putnam and Michael E. Roloff, 128–155. Newbury Park (etc.): Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ran, Yongping, and Linsen Zhao
(2018) “Building mutual affection-based face in conflict mediation: A Chinese relationship management model.” Journal of Pragmatics 129: 185–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ran, Yongping, Zhao, Linsen, and Dániel Kádár
(2020) “The rite of reintegrative shaming in Chinese public dispute mediation.” Journal of Pragmatics 30(1): 40–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo, and Sara Greco
(2019) Inference in argumentation: A topics-based approach to argument schemes. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rocci, Andrea and Margherita Luciani
(2016) “Semantics and verbal communication.” In Verbal communication, ed. by Andrea Rocci and Louis De Saussure, 57–76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sander, F.
(1979) “Varieties of dispute processing.” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on justice in the future. Proceedings of the national conference on the causes of popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice, ed. by A. L. Lewin and R. R. Wheeler, 65–87. St. Paul (Minnesota): West Publishing.Google Scholar
Shmueli, Deborah F.
(2008) “Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: Theory, methodology and three case studies.” Geoforum 39: 2048–2061. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ury, W.
(1993) Getting past no: Negotiating in difficult situations. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, Alena L.
(2015) “Identity as a resource to shape mediation in dialogic interaction.” Language and Dialogue 5 (3): 355–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar