Abstract
As part of a research project on confrontational maneuvering in the spokespersons’ argumentative replies at the regular press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs between 2015 and 2018, this article analyzes, within the framework of Pragma-Dialectics, how the spokespersons declare a standpoint at issue unallowed or indisputable in order to avoid having to resolve a difference of opinion as it is, according to the questioning journalist, presented by their immediate opponents. Starting from the various rationales the spokespersons presuppose to be understood and regarded acceptable by the questioning journalist and the international general public, three subtypes of declaring a standpoint unallowed or indisputable are differentiated: the “Necessity Rationale” subtype, the “Desirability Rationale” subtype, and the “Feasibility Rationale” subtype. The confrontational maneuvering by declaring a standpoint unallowed or indisputable carried out by the spokespersons is directed both at the immediate opponent and at the international general public. However, it is the international general public that the spokespersons primarily intend to convince. For this purpose, they make in all three subtypes of the unallowed or indisputable declaration an effort to adapt their response to their primary audience’s demand by making strategic choices from the available topical potential and the available presentational devices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence were first put forward by China’s former Premier Zhou Enlai in December 1953 at a meeting with the Indian delegation for negotiations on bilateral relations in China's Tibet region. These principles were later incorporated in the Agreement on Trade and Intercourse Between the Tibet Region of China and India released on April 29, 1954. The Five Principles have also been incorporated in a series of major international documents, including declarations adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. These principles were reaffirmed in documents on China's establishment of diplomatic relations and in treaties as well as communiques China has signed with other countries. For background information about the Five Principles, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Principles_of_Peaceful_Coexistence and http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/20/content_435930.htm.
For the official explanation of the Five Principle of Peaceful Co-existence, see https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zwjg_665342/zwbd_665378/t1179045.shtml.
The original Chinese transcript of the expression “other countries are in no position to make irresponsible and indiscreet remarks” is “别国无权说三道四、指手画脚”(bie guo wu quan shuo san dao si, zhi shou hua jiao). The official translation of this expression, which can be found on the official website of China’s MoFA, is “other countries are in no position to say otherwise”. This official translation deviates from the actual statement of the spokesperson. Different translations lead to different understandings of which subtypes of declaring a standpoint unallowed or indisputable are used by the spokesperson. If a translation as “other countries are in no position to say otherwise” is used, the spokesperson declares the standpoint that it is a well-justified decision for China and these countries indisputable; if a translation as “other countries are in no position to make irresponsible or discreet remarks” is used, the spokesperson declares any standpoint held by the US State Department on the diplomatic move that China and these countries have made unallowed. In this article we choose to use the latter translation, which is in line with the original Chinese transcript, and hold that in this example the spokesperson uses the sub-mode of declaring a standpoint unallowed. For the official Chinese transcript of this reply, see https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/fyrbt_673021/jzhsl_673025/t1593694.shtml. For the official English translation of this reply, see https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceegy/eng/fyrth/t1593756.htm.
For more information, see https://www.nssmag.com/en/fashion/16855/dolce-gabbana-vs-china-here-is-what-happened.
After the signing of the Eulsa Treaty, according to which Korea was on the verge of being annexed by Japan, on October 26, 1909, Ahn Jung-geun assassinated Itō Hirobumi, then Prime Minister of Japan, who was also the former Resident-General of Korea. This assassination took the international society by surprise. Since then Ahn Jung-geun has been acknowledged as a righteous man by China as well as Korea (later also by both North Korea and South Korea), but the Japanese government considers him a terrorist. In June 2013, the former South Korean President Park Geun-Hye, while meeting with the Chinese President Xi Jinping during a visit to China, raised the idea of erecting a monument for An. Later, on 19 January 2014, a memorial hall honoring An Jung-Geun was opened in Harbin, where An murdered Itō Hirobumi. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Jung-geun for reference.
Under pressure from the United States, Total, which is France’s largest energy company, announced in August 2018 that they were pulling out of the South Pars Phase 11 gas projects in Iran. This withdrawal was sparked by a reinstatement of US sanctions which cover foreign firms doing business with Iran. For more information about this incident, see https://www.businessinsider.nl/total-pulls-out-of-48-billion-iranian-oil-project-under-us-pressure-2018-8?international=true&r=US.
For background information concerning this doctrine or principle, see http://politics.people.com.cn/GB/1024/13410653.html.
In February 2014 Russia occupied Crimea, where 70% of the residents are ethnically Russian. After the Euromaidan protests and the fall of the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych the Russians took control of the infrastructure and strategic positions within the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Russia then annexed Crimea after a referendum, in which, according to the Russian report of the official results, a majority of the Crimeans voted for joining the Russian Federation. For more information about the Russo-Ukrainian war, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014–present).
China has always claimed that the “One-China Principle” relates to China’s core interest.
References
The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. 2015. Workbook for governmental press conferences. Beijing: Wu Zhou Publishing House.
van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, and B. Meuffels. 2009. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: de Gruyter.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wu, P. 2017. Strategic maneuvering by personal attack in spokespersons’ argumentative replies at diplomatic press conferences. Journal of Argumentation in Context 6(3): 282–314.
Wu, P. 2019. Confrontational maneuvering by dissociation in spokespersons argumentative replies at the press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation 33(1): 1–22.
Wu, P. “What is China’s comment?”: Confrontational maneuvering in the spokespersons’ argumentative replies at the regular press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (To be published).
Acknowledgements
This article is part of the research project “Investigating the Argumentation in Sino-US Trade Disputes” (No.14CYY053) sponsored by China’s National Social Science Fund; it is also part of the research project “Investigating the Argumentative Strategies in the Spokespersons’ replies at China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs” (No. 2016SJB740019) sponsored by the Bureau of Education of Jiangsu Province. The author thanks the anonymous reviewers of the journal Argumentation very much for their insightful and helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, P. “I Have No Comment”: Confrontational Maneuvering by Declaring a Standpoint Unallowed or Indisputable in Spokespersons’ Argumentative Replies at the Regular Press Conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation 33, 489–519 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09504-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09504-z