“Then why not Show the Evidence?” Concluding Maneuvering by Appealing to Ignorance at China’s Diplomatic Press Conferences

IF 1.3 2区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Peng Wu, Jing Ping
{"title":"“Then why not Show the Evidence?” Concluding Maneuvering by Appealing to Ignorance at China’s Diplomatic Press Conferences","authors":"Peng Wu,&nbsp;Jing Ping","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09659-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Drawing upon the pragma-dialectical treatment of ‘appeal to ignorance’, the neutral counterpart of the fallacious <i>argumentum ad ignorantiam,</i> this article aims to reveal how this kind of argumentative move is used as a mode of concluding maneuvering by the spokespersons in their replies at China’s diplomatic press conferences. As expounded in Wu (2019a, 2019b, 2023), in responding to the journalists’ questions, the spokespersons conduct as a matter of fact simultaneously two critical discussions: one with the critics quoted by the journalists, the other one is with the international general public that may be deemed their primary audience. The first critical discussion is instrumental to the spokespersons in convincing the international general public of their stances in the second critical discussion. As the research results show, in the critical discussion with the critics, the Chinese spokespersons prototypically use three types of appeal to ignorance in the concluding stage, while in the critical discussion with the international general public they use the appeal to ignorance in the empirical counterpart of the argumentation stage with the aim to undermining or even negating the critics’ credibility/reliability before the international general audience.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 2","pages":"171 - 192"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-025-09659-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drawing upon the pragma-dialectical treatment of ‘appeal to ignorance’, the neutral counterpart of the fallacious argumentum ad ignorantiam, this article aims to reveal how this kind of argumentative move is used as a mode of concluding maneuvering by the spokespersons in their replies at China’s diplomatic press conferences. As expounded in Wu (2019a, 2019b, 2023), in responding to the journalists’ questions, the spokespersons conduct as a matter of fact simultaneously two critical discussions: one with the critics quoted by the journalists, the other one is with the international general public that may be deemed their primary audience. The first critical discussion is instrumental to the spokespersons in convincing the international general public of their stances in the second critical discussion. As the research results show, in the critical discussion with the critics, the Chinese spokespersons prototypically use three types of appeal to ignorance in the concluding stage, while in the critical discussion with the international general public they use the appeal to ignorance in the empirical counterpart of the argumentation stage with the aim to undermining or even negating the critics’ credibility/reliability before the international general audience.

“那为什么不出示证据呢?”中国外交新闻发布会上诉诸无知的总结策略
本文通过对“诉诸无知”的语用辩证法处理,揭示了中国外交新闻发布会发言人在回答问题时如何将这种诉诸无知作为一种结束语操作模式。正如Wu (2019a, 2019b, 2023)所阐述的那样,在回答记者的问题时,发言人实际上同时进行了两种批判性讨论:一种是与记者引用的批评者进行讨论,另一种是与可能被视为其主要受众的国际公众进行讨论。第一次关键性讨论有助于发言人说服国际公众他们在第二次关键性讨论中的立场。研究结果表明,在与批评者的批评性讨论中,中国发言人典型地在结论阶段使用三种类型的诉诸无知,而在与国际公众的批评性讨论中,他们在论证阶段的经验对应物中使用诉诸无知,目的是在国际公众面前破坏甚至否定批评者的可信度/可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Argumentation
Argumentation Multiple-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal. Its aim is to gather academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference and persuasion: communication, rhetoric (classical and modern), linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, psychology, philosophy, logic (formal and informal), critical thinking, history and law. Its scope includes a diversity of interests, varying from philosophical, theoretical and analytical to empirical and practical topics. Argumentation publishes papers, book reviews, a yearly bibliography, and announcements of conferences and seminars.To be considered for publication in the journal, a paper must satisfy all of these criteria:1.     Report research that is within the journals’ scope: concentrating on argumentation 2.     Pose a clear and relevant research question 3.     Make a contribution to the literature that connects with the state of the art in the field of argumentation theory 4.     Be sound in methodology and analysis 5.     Provide appropriate evidence and argumentation for the conclusions 6.     Be presented in a clear and intelligible fashion in standard English
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信