Constructing disagreement space

The study is a single case analysis and explores how disagreement space is constructed in a dialogue that addresses language ideology and identity issues in Belarus. Disagreement space is understood as a set of the interactant’s commitments, beliefs, intentions that can be reconstructed from their actions and “called out” by another participant (Jackson 1992). The interactional data includes the video-recording of the debate that was devoted to the issue whether Belarusian should be the only official language of Belarus. While two opponents are dominating parties in this debate, the host also plays an important role in this argumentative activity. The current study examines the host’s actions to shape disagreement space and argues that the host should be viewed as a valid party in a multi-party argumentative activity.

Deliberation digitized

A specific issue for argumentation theory is whether information and communication technologies (ICTs) play any role in governing argument — that is, as parties engage in practical activities across space and time via ICTs, does technology matter for the interplay of argumentative content and process in managing disagreement? The case made here is that technologies do matter because they are not merely conduits of communication but have a role in the pragmatics of communication and argumentation. In particular, ICTs should be recognized as communication-information services that are delegated degrees of responsibility for managing disagreements arising from practical activities. These services are organized around practical theories for designing disagreement space. However, recognizing this relationship between argument and technology requires accounting for procedures, techniques, or rules (i.e., such as found in technology) and speech acts that are not argumentative propositions in any strict sense but that are consequential for what becomes argumentation in any setting. An account about designing disagreement space, grounded in Jackson and Jacobs’s theory of Disagreement Management, is put forward to address these issues while more generally contributing to understanding argument in context.

Strategic maneuvering in diplomatic mediation

In diplomatic mediation, dissociation and definitions become tools of the mediator’s strategic maneuvering by means of which the disputants’ disagreement space is minimized, decision-making being thus facilitated. The mediator’s argumentative behavior is explored, investigating the way in which he succeeds in “maintaining a delicate balance” (van Eemeren and Houtlosser 2002) between the dialectical and the rhetorical aims in accordance with the institutional aim specific to mediation as an activity type. In order to argue reasonably and efficiently, the mediator assumes certain roles and adopts and develops a set of strategies in compliance with the goal and constraints of the particular activity type he argues within. Consequently, the mediator builds his argumentation case in full awareness of the specific circumstances, and of the types of constraints of the case, by making a pertinent choice from the topical potential, adjusting it to the particular audience, and exploiting the range of presentational devices accordingly.