Congruity Theory

Ossetian population. In this way, he could make sure that the internal ethnic conflict in Georgia would have hindered any secessionist initiative by Georgia; in this way, moreover, the central Sovietic power, based in Moscow, remained the supreme arbitrator of internal conflicts, thus consolidating its influence on Georgia and other so-defined republics (see the intervention by Sergio Romano on Corriere della Sera, August 10, 2008). 8 I will not discuss here whether war is always avoidable or not. Its brutal nature remains evident in all cases. In relation to labour disputes, it is worth mentioning the Swiss example as an unique way of handling conflict in the international panorama. Since 1937, in fact, the Antecedents Core process Outcomes

Biographical note Sara Greco Morasso conducts her research in the field of argumentation; in particular, she is concerned with the communicative and argumentative dimension of mediation as a conflict resolution practice. She is a member of the Institute of linguistics and semiotics of the Faculty of Communication sciences at the University of Lugano. She equally is the Project coordinator of the Swiss Virtual Campus project Argumentum (www.argumentum.ch), devoted to the construction of online courses on argumentation theory.

The fundamental thrust of consistency theories is to enforce equilibrium among one's cognitions. Man seeks haemostatic states among his cognitive elements or avoids conflicting stimuli. He loves the familiar; the unfamiliar is always discomforting and disturbing though common knowledge tells us that actual behaviour turns what seems novel at the pre-decision stage into familiar following series of learning and experience. The Heider's balance theory, Osgood's congruity model and Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory are the three popular schools of thought that provide the foundational theories of cognitive consistency This paper critically analyzed and synthesized the major theoretical and empirical body of knowledge of these schools with a view to proffering a tripartite approach (involving the consumers, the organizations and the governments) to solving inconsistency among cognitive elements (e.g.; values, beliefs, knowledge and attitudes). These schools were specifically looked into and assessed in terms of their individual real world application and/or empirical fertility. Each represents an improvement upon the other with Festinger's theory providing the most elaborate perspective of emphasizing on psychological tension and means of achieving consistency within and between the cognitive system and ultimately overt and covert behaviours.

The fundamental thrust of consistency theories is to enforce equilibrium among one's cognitions. Man seeks haemostatic states among his cognitive elements or avoids conflicting stimuli. He loves the familiar; the unfamiliar is always discomforting and disturbing though common knowledge tells us that actual behaviour turns what seems novel at the pre-decision stage into familiar following series of learning and experience. The Heider's balance theory, Osgood's congruity model and Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory are the three popular schools of thought that provide the foundational theories of cognitive consistency This paper critically analyzed and synthesized the major theoretical and empirical body of knowledge of these schools with a view to proffering a tripartite approach (involving the consumers, the organizations and the governments) to solving inconsistency among cognitive elements (e.g.; values, beliefs, knowledge and attitudes). These schools were specifically looked into and assessed in terms of their individual real world application and/or empirical fertility. Each represents an improvement upon the other with Festinger's theory providing the most elaborate perspective of emphasizing on psychological tension and means of achieving consistency within and between the cognitive system and ultimately overt and covert behaviours.

This paper makes a theoretical innovation by integrating two key principles –mutual-forbearance and the principle of congruity – into one general process model. It examines the micro-mechanisms underlying the formation of a mutual-forbearance agreement and explicates the role of time and of individual actions. We further understanding of the process of cooperation building by drawing a parallel between early stages of the formation process of mutual-forbearance and cooperation, and argue that mutual-forbearance may, under certain conditions, lead to long-term cooperation or, if mismanaged, completely smother any chances of it. A prospective agreement may be put at risk when potential contributions are evaluated differently by each party and no action to mitigate the consequences is taken; even more so in a mutual-forbearance context when the parties can only observe their counterparts’ actions through the market. Our model takes into account the micro-mechanisms associated with the time between the actions of one entity/individual (e.g. the top manager) and the reaction of another entity/individual, the boundary conditions of the background to those actions, and the alternative actions available during this time. Propositions for further exploration and implications are drawn.

This study investigates an under-researched topic: individual-to-individual or team-to-team interactions during the alliance pre-formation phase. We develop a general theory based on the principle of congruity for understanding the micro-dynamics of the alliance formation process. The attitudes of each party in an alliance towards their prospective partner depend on the level of mismatch between their initial evaluations of the contributions of each partner, and on their wish intensity and speed to reach congruity. The impact of different managerial cultural backgrounds (special theory) and mind-sets (special theory application) are theorized. Further applications are considered and all are presented as testable propositions.

The rise of populist governance throughout the world offers a novel opportunity to study the way in which populist leaders and parties rule. This article conceptualises populist policy making by theoretically addressing the substantive and discursive components of populist policies and the decision-making processes of populist governments. It first reconstructs the implicit ideal type of policy making in liberal democracies based on the mainstream governance and policy making scholarship. Then, taking stock of the recent populism literature, the article elaborates an ideal type of populist policy making along the dimensions of content, procedures and discourses. As an empirical illustration we apply a qualitative congruence analysis to assess the conformity of a genuine case of populist governance, social policy in post-2010 Hungary with the populist policy making ideal type. Concerning the policy content, the article argues that policy heterodoxy, strong willingness to adopt paradi...

This study investigates an under-researched topic: individual-to-individual or team-to-team interactions during the alliance pre-formation phase. We develop a general theory based on the principle of congruity for understanding the micro-dynamics of the alliance formation process. The attitudes of each party in an alliance towards their prospective partner depend on the level of mismatch between their initial evaluations of the contributions of each partner, and on their wish intensity and speed to reach congruity. The impact of different managerial cultural backgrounds (special theory) and mind-sets (special theory application) are theorized. Further applications are considered and all are presented as testable propositions.

In this paper post-truth mechanisms in discourse are taken into account and the attempt is made to understand how language is used in communication characterized by post-truth. A brief description of the word post-truth is given, together with some etymological notes which can shed light on how truth is conceptualized in various languages. The meaning of post-truth and its denotation are then discussed, and it is shown that people involved in communication about post-truth as well as in posttruth messages do not rely on personal common ground, which requires a serious ontological commitment and genuine interpersonal relations. Without such a commitment no communication can be taken seriously and only ideological constructs with poor relevance for human life are left.

The present special issue of Studies in Communication Sciences originates from the conference “Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction”, which was held in Lugano on July 1-4 2002. The conference, hosted by the Faculty of Communication Sciences of the University of Lugano, was jointly organized by three scholarly associations: the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), the International Association for Dialogue Analysis (IADA), and the International Association for the Study of Controversies (IASC). The conference’s chief aim was to explore the relationships between the objects of study of these three associations, as well as the differences and complementarities in the approaches adopted by the different research traditions these associations represent. We can say that the conference was a remarkable success, not only regarding the number of attendants and the quantity and quality of paper presented, but also for the quality of the scientific dialogues (arguments...

We describe and analyze an important cognitive obstacle in inter- and intra-community ar- gumentation processes, which we propose to call 'Cognitive Systemic Dichotomization' (CSD). This social phenomenon consists in the collective use of shared cognitive patterns based upon dichotomous schemati- zation of knowledge, values, and affection. We discuss the formative role of CSD on a community's collec- tive cognition, identity, and public discourse, as well as the challenges it raises to reasoned argumentation, and how different approaches to argumentation undertake to face this obstacle to the reasonable debate of issues of public concern.

Argumentation is a form of communicative interaction by means of which social realities-institutions, groups and relationships-are construed and managed. People develop argumentation in numerous purposeful activities: to make sound and well-thought decisions, to critically found their opinions, to persuade other people of the validity of their own proposals and to evaluate others' proposals. These activities are bound to the contexts in which they take place and are significantly determined by these contexts; thus argumentation too, as the bearing structure of these activities, moulds its strategies in connection with these very different contexts: from families and schools to social and political institutions, from financial markets to media discourse and journalism, from social and ethical debate to the economic and financial sphere.

The escalation of disagreement into overt conflict in social interaction can be avoided, if disagreement is managed through argumentative dialogue. This paper explores the characteristics of argumentative dialogue and presents the role of third parties who design spaces for others' dialogue. After discussing the prototypical example of dispute mediators, this contribution considers other informal third parties who have a similar role. This opens up a new perspective on informal third parties who work as designers of dialogue and build spaces to manage disagreement in social interaction.

Drawing on ideas from a cross-disciplinary examination of the concepts of “communication” and “argumentation”, the question of how communication can be optimized in a business setting is addressed. Philosophical hermeneutics suggests in general how genuine insights may be achieved from differing or incompatible starting points. The analogy between the structure of a company and that of the human body then illustrates how a company might be able to capture and use such insights. A three-tiered structure emerges which illustrates why informal contact, data availability and competitive discussion forums are all needed in order for a business to be successful in building a corporate identity and responding to market forces.

This paper examines the concept of thought leadership through interviews with eleven people who define the term. Representing business, ministry, education, media and psychology, these individuals provided answers to six questions about leadership. All interviewees are respected by their peers, are often admired by others outside their industry and have made notable contributions to their areas of expertise. The responses from each are synthesized into sections pertaining to each question in such a way as to compare and contrast their statements to divine similarities and differences from which conclusions can be drawn.

This study investigates an under-researched topic: individual-to-individual or team-to-team interactions during the alliance pre-formation phase. We develop a general theory based on the principle of congruity for understanding the micro-dynamics of the alliance formation process. The attitudes of each party in an alliance towards their prospective partner depend on the level of mismatch between their initial evaluations of the contributions of each partner, and on their wish intensity and speed to reach congruity. The impact of different managerial cultural backgrounds (special theory) and mind-sets (special theory application) are theorised. Further applications are considered and all are presented as testable propositions.

This chapter presents Congruity Theory as a valuable tool to enhance the understanding of multimodal discourse. We focus on the rhetorical organization of a product advertisement that performs the action of persuading somebody to buy something (the action in view of which text elements and semiotic resources are orchestrated in ads). After establishing an exhaustive inventory of text units independently of their semiotic mode (following recent research highlighting the need of overcoming pre-structured interpretations of multimodal texts), we employ Congruity Theory to function-pragmatically define the subordinate actions of text units in relation to the superordinate pragmatic function of the text.

To honor an illustrious friend on such an important occasion, it seems appropriate to present him a gift as worthy as possible-and useful, maybe: One that is meaningful for the givers themselves. Now, as our friend is one of the founders of modern argumentation theory, it seemed suitable to present him our modest contribution to the reflection on a major theoretical theme of his work, 1 by putting to good use our competence as semantic analysts in elucidating the semantics of the word reasonable.

the semantic and pragmatic properties of argumentative discourse in monologue and dialogue. Argumentative processes are shown to operate both at the interpersonal level (in dialogue), and at the intra-personal level in "monologue proper" or soliloquy. In fact, all persuasive processes contain, in order to succeed, an element of soliloquial argumentation: to persuade through argumentation means to induce somebody else to let him/herself be convinced by the argument. The extension of the semantic notion of reflexive predicate to connective predicates allows to interpret the individual decision making as a sui generis interaction between two participant roles (the arguer and the decider, i.e. the Aristotelian kritès) realized by the same person. The notion of connective predicate shows its usefulness also in addressing dialogue coherence. Two broad approaches are found recurrently in the literature. The first approach moves "from above" trying to define dialogue games, or similar constructs (Clark 1996: joint projects; Mann 2003: dialogue macrogames;: collective higher order illocutionary acts; Walton 1998: dialogue types), in order to justify dialogue coherence at a strategic level. Dialogue games appear necessary as both as sets of shared goals around which coherent dialogues are hierarchically structured, and as sets of rules regulating participant behavior and constraining interpretation. There are, however, important differences between discourse and dialogue coherence, which cannot be neglected: given the situated nature of communicative interaction, its precise segmentation into the concrete moves of each participant is partly determined by the largely unpredictable concomitant moves of the other participants. Hence the relevance of the second, more "local" approach to dialogue coherence, starting "from below" by defining the semantic-pragmatic roles (or argumentative roles, cf. Stati 1990) of utterances in adjacency pairs and, beyond that, the discourse relations holding between larger dialogue segments Taboada 2004). An extended notion of strategic manoeuvring (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, this volume) turns out to be a kernel conceptual instrument to explain how each participant develops his own manoeuvre by pursuing his own objectives, in the framework of an agreed upon dialogue game. An enriched version of the connective predicate, taking into account individual goals as well as game related shared goals is used to schematize how strategic manoeuvring manifests in the unfolding of an argumentative dialogue game.

I would like to thank Cristina Gatti, Sara Cigada, Sara Greco-Morasso and Fabrizio Macagno for their helpful comments. A special thanks goes to Prof. Egidio Moja and the research group of Medical Psychology at the Università degli Studi in Milan (Polo S. Paolo) for allowing me extensive use of their Archive of Videorecordings of Medical Consultations. 1 The concept of conflict in this context is not intended in the common sense of argument, but of difference of opinion, which is not disruptive per se but can become so if it is not properly managed (Greco-Morasso 2008). 2 On the relevance of this model for the description and analysis of interactions in the medical setting, see also Bigi (forthcoming).

To honor an illustrious friend on such an important occasion, it seems appropriate to present him a gift as worthy as possible-and useful, maybe: One that is meaningful for the givers themselves. Now, as our friend is one of the founders of modern argumentation theory, it seemed suitable to present him our modest contribution to the reflection on a major theoretical theme of his work, 1 by putting to good use our competence as semantic analysts in elucidating the semantics of the word reasonable.

“Sara Greco-Morasso is a prominent member of a group of young scholars that are spearheading research into the role of argumentation in a variety of concrete social, cultural and professional contexts and practices. Her book on the role of argumentation in mediation shines for theoretical finesse and for attention to detail in examining real practices and authentic conversational data. The palette of theoretical and methodological tools put to good use in the book is impressive, and most notably includes the use of lexical semantics in the clarification of key domain terms (like conflict) and the application of loci (topics) to the analysis of the inferential configurations of the arguments used by mediators.
With this sensitive and well informed book, argumentation quietly reclaims a domain that is naturally its own: the use of reason in dialogue to restore jeopardized relationships.”
Andrea Rocci, Università Della Svizzera Italiana (USI)


“A specific strength of this brilliant work is the very refined analysis of conflicts in their argumentative but also human, emotional as well as cognitive dimensions. In the actual practice of conflict resolution, these elements mutually scaffold each other for better or for worse. The reader will find a very detailed account of how the process of argumentation is co-constructed in the context of dispute mediation. In other words, this book re-reads the tenets of conflict resolution from a communicative viewpoint, showing how the fundamental principles of mediation are realized by means of the mediator’s contribution to the parties’ argumentative discussion. The consideration of the disputants' interests (guaranteed by the mediator) builds the necessary trust for them to shift from conflict to cooperation and opens the way to enter into a sound argumentative process. The mediator's argumentative awareness is a key-element in this respect: it enhances the possibility to reframe the problem and helps the parties build a creative solution to their problem. This very well informed book will fascinate all those who are interested in understanding argumentation and conflict mediation in context.”
Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, University of Neuchâtel

This paper is a review of Marcelo Dascal’s book Interpretation and
Understanding (2003), which collects a series of papers published by Dascal on
various topics related to the pragmatics of communication and, in particular, to
the hearer’s task of grasping meaning. The present work aims at discussing some
relevant issues which emerge in the volume, such as the concept of communicative
action (with the related notions of commitment and involvement), and a
deepening of the different possible types of individual and collective actions.
Moreover, a typology of difficult cases of communication is presented, ranging
from simple indirect communication, to misunderstandings, conflicts and controversies;
in these cases, a particular effort in understanding is required.