1887
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Environmental argumentation, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/jaic.00004.int-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.00004.int
2019-02-14
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M.
    2017 Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207. 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9403‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baber, W. F., & Bartlett, R. V.
    2005Deliberative environmental politics: Democracy and ecological rationality. Cambridge: MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chakrabarty, D.
    2009 The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 197–222. 10.1086/596640
    https://doi.org/10.1086/596640 [Google Scholar]
  4. Dryzek, J. S.
    2000Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2013The politics of the Earth: Environmental discourses. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J.
    2019The politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M.
    2014Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fairclough, I.
    2019 Deontic power and institutional contexts: The impact of institutional design on deliberation and decision-making in the UK fracking debate. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 136–171. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18014.fai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai [Google Scholar]
  9. Fischer, F., & Forester, J.
    (Eds.) 1993The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press. 10.1215/9780822381815
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822381815 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H.
    (Eds.) 2012The argumentative turn revisited. Durham: Duke University Press. 10.1215/9780822395362
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822395362 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fløttum, K.
    (ed.) 2017The role of language in the climate change debate. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315456935
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456935 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fløttum, K., & Dahl, T.
    2011 Climate change discourse: Scientific claims in a policy setting. Fachsprache, 3–4, 205–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gardiner, S. M.
    2011A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195379440.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195379440.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gjerstad, Ø.
    2017 Competing climate change narratives: An analysis of leader statements during COP21 in Paris. InK. Fløttum (ed.), The role of language in the climate change debate (pp.31–48). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315456935‑3
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456935-3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodwin, J.
    2019 Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 40–64. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18008.goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18008.goo [Google Scholar]
  16. Habermas, J.
    1989The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (transl. byT. Burger). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1962).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hansson, S. O., & Hirsch Hadorn, G.
    (Eds.) 2016The argumentative turn in policy analysis: Reasoning about uncertainty. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑30549‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Harré, R., Brockmeier, J., & Mühlhäusler, P.
    1999Greenspeak: A study of environmental discourse. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hulme, M.
    2009Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511841200
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841200 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jackson, S.
    2015 Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 29(3), 243–263. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9353‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W.
    2019 Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises: The 2015 Paris agreement in Dutch parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 91–111. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18009.laa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18009.laa [Google Scholar]
  22. Latour, B.
    2004Politics of nature: How to bring sciences into democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lewiński, M.
    2016 Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues. Discourse & Communication, 10(6), 553–575. 10.1177/1750481316674773
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316674773 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2018 Practical argumentation in the making: Discursive construction of reasons for action. InS. Oswald, T. Herman & J. Jacquin (Eds.), Argumentation and Language. Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations (pp.219–241). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_10 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
    2016 Argumentation theory. InK. B. Jensen, R. Craig, J. Pooley & E. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy (pp.1–15). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2019 The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 65–90. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18017.lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18017.lew [Google Scholar]
  27. Musi, E., & Aakhus, M.
    2019 Framing fracking: Semantic frames as meta-argumentative indicators for knowledge-driven argument mining of controversies. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 112–135. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18016.mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18016.mus [Google Scholar]
  28. Nerlich, B., & Jaspal, R.
    2012 Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(2), 131–147. 10.1080/10926488.2012.665795
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2012.665795 [Google Scholar]
  29. Palsson, G., Szerszynski, B., Sörlin, S., Marks, J., Avril, B., Crumley, C., Hackmann, H., Holm, P., Ingram, J., Kirman, A., Buendía, M. P., Weehuizen, R.
    2013 Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research, Environmental Science and Policy, 28, 3–13. 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  30. Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N.
    2015 Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus. WIREs Climate Change, 6(6), 613–626. 10.1002/wcc.366
    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.366 [Google Scholar]
  31. Rodrigues, S., Lewiński, M., & Üzelgün, M. A.
    2019 Environmental manifestoes: Argumentative strategies in the Ecomodernist Manifesto. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 12–39. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18036.rod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18036.rod [Google Scholar]
  32. Üzelgün, M. A., Lewiński, M., & Castro, P.
    2016 Favorite battlegrounds of climate action: Arguing about scientific consensus, representing science-society relations. Science Communication, 38(6), 699–723. 10.1177/1075547016676602
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016676602 [Google Scholar]
  33. Üzelgün, M. A., Mohammed, D., Lewiński, M., & Castro, P.
    2015 Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: An argumentative analysis. Discourse Studies, 17(4), 467–484. 10.1177/1461445615578965
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615578965 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.00004.int
Loading
  • Article Type: Introduction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error