This chapter contributes to a growing body of research on diplomatic argumentation with a corpus study of variation in interpersonal style, conducted from an integrated perspective of argument schemes and appraisal theory. Based on 50 press releases taken from the foreign ministry websites of five prominent countries, the study aimed to ascertain whether internationally shared conventions of the kind regulating subjectivity in traditional argumentation settings still operate in the contemporary global, online context. Scheme types (Walton et al, 2008), directives, and the appraisal categories of authorial attitude and graduation (Martin and White, 2005) were taken as markers of interpersonal style and their frequencies calculated for the whole corpus and the five component sub-corpora. The results showed a relatively small range of argument schemes, free use of authorial attitude overall, and considerable variation between the five sub-corpora. Discussion of the different configurations of schemes and appraisal resources focuses on their construction of interpersonal style and government identity. It is suggested that rather than shape a global, homogeneous style of online diplomatic argumentation, global audiences and enhanced visibility on the web have led foreign ministries to adapt their argumentation styles in ways that reflect different identities, foreign policy priorities and goals and conceptualisations of audience.
