Abstract
Dispute mediators are active but neutral facilitators of discussion. Their job is inevitably marked by the need to manage multiple competing demands. These competing demands are a paradigm case of the kind of situation that the pragmatics literature has identified as giving rise to the production of various complex, nonstraightforward ways of talking. This paper shows three tactics mediators use to manage their multiple competing demands: indirect advocacy, framing of advocacy, and equivocal advocacy. These tactics serve as functional substitutes for more simple and straightforward moves of direction, correction, disagreement, argument, and the like. In this way, mediators manage disputes while maintaining an appearance of neutrality.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
