No abstract

The goal of this study is to examine the argumentative functions of concessive yes, but… constructions. Based on (N=22) interview transcripts, we examine the ways environmental activists negotiate their agreements and disagreements over climate change through yes, but… constructions. Starting from conversational analyses of such concessive sequences, we develop an account grounded in argumentative discourse analysis, notably pragma-dialectics. The analysis focuses on how in conceding arguments speakers re-present others' discourse, what types of criticism they exercise through particular sequential patterns, and which argumentative techniques they saliently use. We show in particular that, in disputing the standpoints supported by the complex argumentation they encounter, speakers raise different types of criticism (sufficiency, relevance, acceptability). We discuss how examining not only the sequencing of agreements and disagreements, but also to the argumentative relations that generate these, may extend our understanding of such concessive constructions.

No abstract

This article examines how two conflicting views regarding science-society relations—science as the arbiter of truth and as a social endeavor—perpetuate a tension in the way scientific consensus and evidence are called upon in climate change debate. In our analysis of interviews with climate change campaigners, we employ argumentation theory and social representations theory to identify and account for three discursive strategies of responding to climate contrarian arguments: direct confrontation by dichotomous arguments, de-dichotomization by addressing background assumptions, and concession to minor scientific uncertainties. We discuss these strategies emphasizing the science-society relations evident in each.

No abstract