Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy

Aakhus, Mark; Lewiński, Marcin

doi:10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9

Cited by 45 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, many public polylogues over controversial issues such as shale gas spread beyond one single venue and relate to other issues. Polylogues thus involve a number of different, incompatible positions; parties (or players) which defend these positions; and places where discussion over multiple issues develops (Aakhus and Lewiński, 2016). As a result, arguers engage not in a simple expansion of a dyadic 'disagreement space' between two dialectical parties (Van Eemeren et al, 1993: 95ff.…”

Section: Multi-stakeholder Communication As Argumentative Polyloguementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, arguers engage not in a simple expansion of a dyadic 'disagreement space' between two dialectical parties (Van Eemeren et al, 1993: 95ff. ), but rather in a complex network of overlapping and criss-crossing disagreements which are called out and expanded by different parties (Aakhus and Lewiński, 2016). Accordingly, arguers need to employ forms of argumentation different from those designed for simple dyadic encounters, both in terms of their rational quality and strategic shape.…”

Section: Multi-stakeholder Communication As Argumentative Polyloguementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In such a view, 'voices and positions become important objects of study in order to understand the complexity of the debate' (Dahl and Fløttum, 2014: 402), while the crucial goal of the analysis 'is to explain how the interaction of claims and voices orients discursive argumentation related to the climate phenomenon' (Fløttum and Dahl, 2011: 206). Overall, the undeniable complexity of the global debate over climate change and energy policies -such as shale gas production -is increasingly seen as resulting from two basic factors: (1) the subtle management of uncertainty and knowledge claims between the expert and lay communities and (2) the multiplicity of players, positions and places shaping the debate (Aakhus and Lewiński, 2016;Fløttum and Dahl, 2011;Pearce et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues

Lewiński

2016

Discourse & Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I scrutinise a crucial tension in understanding the debate over shale gas production in Europe. On the one hand, analyses predominantly grasp the debate in terms of pro-and-con dialectics, as if the pro-shale gas camp faced the anti-shale gas camp in a dyadic clash of opposing voices. On the other hand, it is commonly recognised that this debate is driven by multi-party and multi-position argumentative dynamics. In this broader context, I focus on one pivotal contribution to the debate – Gazprom’s press release from October 2013 outlining Russia’s energy giant’s strategy of dealing with unconventional gas production. I employ concepts and methods of argumentative discourse analysis to contend that an arguer to a multi-party debate – argumentative polylogue – faces a number of constraints and opportunities that cannot be adequately grasped in terms of dyadic pro-and-con dialectics. The analysis reveals how Gazprom needs to simultaneously design its discourse to address a number of other parties who might also disagree among themselves: from Greenpeace to European Union governments to shale gas companies. I show why and how a stakeholder analysis used in organisational communication might lead to a better understanding of this form of multi-party public argumentation.

show abstract

Section: Multi-stakeholder Communication As Argumentative Polyloguementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Multi-stakeholder Communication As Argumentative Polyloguementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues

Lewiński

2016

Discourse & Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such theoretical work requires continuous empirical investigations of the practice of giving reasons in polylogues (Lewiński and Mohammed 2015;Aakhus and Lewiński 2015). Close attention to both the aspects of polylogues that have normative relevance and those which have exclusively descriptive or strategic relevance is needed.…”

Section: Theoretical Implications Of Takingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another way of adding a ''third dimension'' to polylogue analysis is to focus not only on positions and cases, but also on the multiple ''players'' supporting them and various ''places'' where argumentation over positions is carried out (Aakhus and Lewiński 2015). In this way, further layers of idealisations built into the normative dialectical models of argumentation are revealed.…”

Section: Theoretical Implications Of Takingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentative Discussion: The Rationality of What?

Lewiński

2015

Topoi

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most dialectical models view argumentation as a process of critically testing a standpoint. Further, they assume that what we critically test can be analytically reduced to (1) individual and (2) bi-polar standpoints. I argue that these two assumptions lead to the dominant view of dialectics as a bi-partisan argumentative discussion in which the yes-side (proponent) argues against the doubter or the no-side (opponent). I scrutinise this binary orientation in understanding argumentation by drawing on the main tenets of normative pragmatic and pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. I develop my argument by showing how argumentative practice challenges these assumptions. I then lay out theoretical reasons for this challenge. This paves the way for an enhanced conceptualisation of dialectical models and their standards of rationality in terms of multi-party discussions, or argumentative polylogues.

show abstract

Securitization, Emergency and the Rediscovery of Responsibility in Times of Pandemic: Analyzing Political Discourses from the European South

Boukala

Serafis

2022

The Pandemic of Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter intends to provide an argumentative perspective on the justification of securitization by Southern EU’s political leaders in times of a public health crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic by examining instances of public discourses, specifically addresses to the nation of four EU leaders with different ideological positioning, in different social settings of the European South. Based on the theory of securitization, we perceive public debate as a polylogical phenomenon where multiple actors, from multiple (ideological) positions, in multiple times and spaces interact, creating a complex network of public communication while expressing and supporting their claims. Through this prism, our aim is to shed light on argumentative polylogues by unveiling whether and how the state of emergency has been justified. We employ the frame of the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) to Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016) to study the socio-historically conditions against which established endoxical premises are (re)constructed by the political leadership and how these interrelate with specific argumentation strategies (topoi) in the social settings under scrutiny. We then draw on the quasi-Y structure provided by the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT) (Rigotti & Greco, 2019) to scrutinize the interplay of topical and endoxical premises in the development of single standpoint-argument couplings.

show abstract

Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy

Cited by 45 publications

References 32 publications

Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues

Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues

Argumentative Discussion: The Rationality of What?

Securitization, Emergency and the Rediscovery of Responsibility in Times of Pandemic: Analyzing Political Discourses from the European South

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About