Bargaining Through Arguing: An Empirical Analysis Based on Speech Act Theory

Abstract

In a recent debate in political science, the terms "bargaining and arguing" have been construed as semantic opposites. The present article rejects this dichotomy and offers a new theoretical approach to clarify the logical and pragmatic relationship of bargaining and arguing as modes of the resolution of conflicts through communication. On the basis of speech act theory, a method for the empirical analysis of bargaining and arguing is developed and demonstrated with an example of conflict resolution by mediation. Four conclusions can be drawn. First, in empirical processes of communicative conflict resolution, in almost all cases both arguing and bargaining will be present. Second, only in the rare cases of pure conflicts over solely facts or values will arguing appear. Third, within the context of an interest conflict, arguing is not an alternative to bargaining, but a means for bargaining. Fourth, although bargaining and arguing have the potential to resolve certain types of conflicts, their success is difficult to predict and cannot be taken for granted.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 97 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.