Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Argumentation
Erschienen in: Argumentation 1/2017

01.06.2016

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

verfasst von: Mark Aakhus, Marcin Lewiński

Erschienen in: Argumentation | Ausgabe 1/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper offers a new way to make sense of disagreement expansion from a polylogical perspective by incorporating various places (venues) in addition to players (parties) and positions (standpoints) into the analysis. The concepts build on prior implicit ideas about disagreement space by suggesting how to more fully account for argumentative context, and its construction, in large-scale complex controversies. As a basis for our polylogical analysis, we use a New York Times news story reporting on an oil train explosion—a significant point in the broader controversy over producing oil and gas via hydraulic fracturing (fracking).
Vorheriger Artikel Must a Successful Argument Convert an Ideal Audience?
Nächster Artikel Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Johnson (2002, p. 41) and Leff (2006, p. 203, n. 2) both make a similar argument in their analysis of this case. Indeed, looking from the perspective of the strategic objectives of a modern corporation, the entire argumentation in Shell’s advertorial is eventually subordinate to its claim of “future economic success”. Shell is addressing various stakeholders with complex argumentation, stating that they are a growing and socially responsible company which, therefore, is worth dealing with, whether as an investor, government, business partner, community member, activist, or customer.
 
2
In an endnote, Tindale himself recognizes that “we can imagine other interested subgroups”, and mentions Shell’s competitors and Nigerian expatriates opposing the government (1999, p. 215, n. 1).
 
Literatur
Aakhus, M. 2003. Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation 17(3): 265–290.CrossRef
Aakhus, M. 2013. Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 101–126.CrossRef
Aakhus, M., and M. Lewiński. 2011. Argument analysis in large-scale deliberation. In Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, ed. E. Feteris, B. Garssen, and A.F.S. Henkemans, 165–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Aakhus, M., and M. Lewinski. 2015. Toward polylogical analysis of argumentation: Disagreement space in the public controversy about fracking. In Proceedings of the 8th conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, and F. Snoeck Henkemans, 1–11. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Aakhus, M., and A. Vasilyeva. 2008. Managing disagreement space in multiparty deliberation. In Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 197–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Aakhus, M., S. Muresan, and N. Wacholder. 2013. Integrating natural language processing and argumentation theories for argumentation support. In OSSA 10: Virtues of argumentation, ed. D. Mohammed, and M. Lewiński, 1–13. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Baumgartner, F., and B. Jones. 1991. Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics 53(4): 1044–1074.CrossRef
Bitzer, L.F. 1968. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1(1): 1–14.
Bou-Franch, P., and P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich. 2014. Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics 73: 19–36.CrossRef
Bowker, G.C., and S.L. Star. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Braet, A. 1987. The classical doctrine of “status” and the rhetorical theory of argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 20(2): 79–93.
Bruxelles, S., and C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni. 2004. Coalitions in polylogues. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 75–113.CrossRef
Clark, H.H., and T.B. Carlson. 1982. Hearers and speech acts. Language 58(2): 332–373.CrossRef
Cramer, P.A. 2011. Controversy as news discourse. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of talk. Oxford: Wiley.
Hoppmann, M.J. 2014. A modern theory of stasis. Philosophy and Rhetoric 47(3): 273–296.CrossRef
Hutchby, I. 1996. Confrontation talk: Argument, asymmetries, power. New York: Routledge.
Jackson, S. 1992. “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In Argumentation illuminated, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.A. Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Jackson, S. 2012. Black box arguments and accountability of experts to the public. In Between citizens and scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, ed. J. Goodwin, 1–18. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66(3): 251–265.CrossRef
Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1981. The collaborative production of proposals in conversational argument and persuasion: A study of disagreement regulation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 2: 77–90.
Jacobs, S. 1989. Speech acts and arguments. Argumentation 3(4): 345–365.CrossRef
Jacobs, S., and M. Aakhus. 2002. What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(2): 177–203.CrossRef
Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 2006. Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser, and M.A. van Rees, 121–133. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, R.H. 2002. Interpreting Shell’s ‘Clear Thinking in Troubled Times’. Informal Logic (Teaching Supplement) 21(3): TS39–TS47.
Kennedy, G. 1963. The art of persuasion in Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 1997. A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics 7(1): 1–20.CrossRef
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 2004. Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 1–24.CrossRef
Kjeldsen, J.E. 2006. Mediated publics and rhetorical fragmentation. In Researching media, democracy, and participation, ed. N. Carpentier, P. Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, K. Nordenstreng, M. Hartmann, P. Vihalemm, and B. Cammaerts, 115–129. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Kjeldsen, J.E. 2013. A rhetorical approach to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s speech to the EU parliament. In Speaking of Europe: Approaches to complexity in European political discourse, ed. K. Fløttum, 19–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Leff, M. 2006. Rhetoric, dialectic, and the functions of argument. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser, and M.A. van Rees, 199–210. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Levinson, S.C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, ed. P. Drew, and A. Wootton, 161–227. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Lewiński, M. 2010. Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy 47(2): 86–105.
Lewiński, M. 2013. Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides, positions, and cases. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 151–177.CrossRef
Lewiński, M. 2014. Practical reasoning in argumentative polylogues. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 8: 1–20.
Lewiński, M., and M. Aakhus. 2014. Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation 28(2): 161–185.CrossRef
Lewiński, M., and D. Mohammed. 2015. Tweeting the Arab Spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital media. In Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA alta conference on argumentation, ed. C. Palczewski, 291–297. New York: Routledge.
Marcoccia, M. 2004. On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 115–145.CrossRef
Maynard, D.W. 1986. Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party disputes among children (and other humans). Human Studies 9: 261–285.CrossRef
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press (original work published 1958).
Schön, D.A., and M. Rein. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Searle, J.R. 2001. Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Searle, J.R. 2005. What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics 1(1): 1–22.CrossRef
Star, S.L., and K. Ruhleder. 1996. Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research 7(1): 111–134.CrossRef
Tindale, C.W. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traverso, V. 2004. Interlocutive ‘crowding’ and ‘splitting’ in polylogues: The case of a researchers’ meeting. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 53–74.CrossRef
van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 1999. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies 1(4): 479–497.CrossRef
van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Strategic manoeuvring: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRef
Ziek, P.E. 2012. Inter-organizational infrastructure for communication: A study of the generative aspects of the communication context on CSR strategy and instrumentation. Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey. doi:10.​7282/​T3FX78CB.
Metadaten
Titel
Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy
verfasst von
Mark Aakhus
Marcin Lewiński
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2016
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Argumentation / Ausgabe 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0920-427X
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

Argumentation 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence

OriginalPaper

Towards a Theory of Close Analysis for Dispute Mediation Discourse

BookReview

F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen (eds): Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory

BookReview

Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice

OriginalPaper

Institutional Argumentation and Institutional Rules: Effects of Interactive Asymmetry on Argumentation in Institutional Contexts

OriginalPaper

Must a Successful Argument Convert an Ideal Audience?

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise