Cover not available
Article published In:
Argumentative Discourse in Contemporary China: A pragma-dialectical perspective
Edited by Peng Wu and Xu Cihua
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 6:3] 2017
► pp. 285–314

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

| 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.
Keywords: ad hominem , Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), institutional precondition, personal attack, Pragma-Dialectics, press conference, primary audience, secondary audience, spokesperson, strategic maneuvering
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Personal attack/ad hominem viewed from different theoretical perspectives
  • 3.Institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering by personal attack in spokespersons’ argumentative replies
  • 4.Personal attacks in spokespersons’ replies
    • 4.1Direct personal attacks
      • 4.1.1Attacking the person by accusation of bad character
      • 4.1.2Attacking the person by accusation of bad faith
      • 4.1.3Attacking the person by accusation of low intelligence
      • 4.1.4Attacking the person for lacking expertise
    • 4.2Indirect personal attacks
      • 4.2.1Attacking the person by accusation of suspicious motives
      • 4.2.2Attacking the person by ascribing suspicious interests
    • 4.3You too personal attacks
      • 4.3.1Inconsistency between someone’s words and actions
      • 4.3.2Inconsistency between someone’s past and present actions
      • 4.3.3Inconsistency between someone’s previous and present words
      • 4.3.4Just words but no actions
  • 5.Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks in making a convincing case
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17022.wu
References (35)
References
Barth, Else M. and Krabbe, Erik C. W. 1978. “Formal Dialectics: Instruments for the Resolution of Conflicts about Expressed Opinions.” Spektator 71: 307–341.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Aditi. 2006. “Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences.” Discourse & Society 17(2):173–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Alan. 1985. “A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63(1): 50–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
Copi, Iving M. 1972. Introduction to logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Du Jiang. 2005. Theory and Practice for Spokespersons Chengdu: Sichuan people’s Publishing House.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Grootendorst, Rob. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 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: RodopiGoogle Scholar
. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kahane, Howard. 1973. Logic and philosophy. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Lan, Chun and Hu, Yi. 2014. “Pragmatic Analysis of Foreign Ministry Spokesman’s Dodge Answer.” Chinese Foreign Language 61: 21–28.Google Scholar
Li, Xi G. and Sun, Jing W. 2007. Course Book for Spokespersons. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1960. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Ma, Zhi Q. 2013. The Art of Language Communication. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House.Google Scholar
Minot, Walter S. 1981. A Rhetorical View of Fallacies: Ad Hominem and Ad Populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 11(4): 222–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1964. Introduction to Logic. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Whately, Richard. 1848. Elements of Logic. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Woods, John and Walton, Douglas N. 1989. Fallacies: selected papers 1972–1982. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Peng and Zhu, Mi. 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Yang, Zheng Q. 2005. Theory and Practice for Spokespersons. Beijing: Communication University of China Press.Google Scholar
Yao, Xi S. 2010. “Language Style of Spokesperson’s Presentation”. Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences), 11: 28–29.Google Scholar
Zhang, Tao F. 2005. “Spokesperson: Skills Determine Success or Failure”. Decision 41: 49–51.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yang. 2009. “On Spokesperson’s Language Style.” Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences) 61: 59–64.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Wu, Peng & Tian-bao Zhou
2023. Argumentative patterns based on pragmatic argumentation at China’s diplomatic press conferences. Discourse Studies 25:4 ► pp. 549 ff. DOI logo
Hernández, Alfonso
2021. Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Mochtak, Michal & Richard Q. Turcsanyi
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. DOI logo
Wu, Peng
2021. The uncompromising confrontational argumentative style of the spokespersons’ replies at the regular press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1 ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Responding to Questions at Press Conferences [Argumentation in Context, 21], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 september 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.