Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper presents the analysis of the Hungarian nuclear expansion controversy using a conceptual framework that links strategic maneuvering with an extended polylogical controversy and evaluates the strategic maneuvering of political, environmentalist and expert actors. The paper aims to show that the three aspects of strategic maneuvering (audience demand, topical potential, presentational devices) are flexible enough that they can be analyzed when the object of study is not a spatially and temporally localized argumentative situation, but a decade-long debate with multiple actors. In 2014, Hungary signed a deal with Russia to finance 80% of the investment costs and supply two new reactors to maintain the 40–50% of nuclear energy in the national energy production.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aakhus, Mark
    2009 “Transparency work and argumentation design in deliberation about business in society.” Proceedings of the 16th NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation, Alta UT, 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aakhus, Mark, and Marcin Lewiński
    2017 “Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy.” Argumentation31 (1): 179–207. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑016‑9403‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aakhus, Mark, Paul Ziek, and Punit Dadlani
    2016 “Argumentation in large, complex practices.” OSSA Conference Archive. 54. scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/54
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arlt, Dorothee, and Jens Wolling
    2015 “Fukushima effects in Germany? Changes in media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power.” Public Understanding of Science25 (7): 1–16. doi:  10.1177/0963662515589276
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515589276 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1979 “Public opinion does not exist.” Trans.Axtmann, M. C.InCapitalism, imperialism. Vol. 1 of Communication and class struggle, ed. byArmand Mattleart, and Seth Siegelaub, 124–30. New York: International General.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Crosswhite, James
    1996The rhetoric of reason: Writing and the attractions of argument. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Culler, Connie
    2015 Good Works: The Topoi of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Travel and Tourism Industry (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved fromUniversity of Central Florida, STARS, stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/1449/
  8. Demeter, Márton
    2018 “Propaganda against the West in the Heart of Europe. A masked official state campaign in Hungary”. Central European Journal of Communication11 (21): 177–97. doi:  10.19195/1899‑5101.11.2(21).5
    https://doi.org/10.19195/1899-5101.11.2(21).5 [Google Scholar]
  9. Egres, Dorottya
    2020 “Virtuális vitatér – A Paks 2 polilógus hyperlink hálózatának elemzése” [Virtual venues for argumentation – Analysis of the hyperlink network of the Paks 2 polylogue]. Információs Társadalom20 (1): 50–71. doi:  10.22503/inftars.XX.2020.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.22503/inftars.XX.2020.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Egres, Dorottya, and Petschner Anna
    2020 “The Paks Pact: Topoi in Hungarian Nuclear Energy Discourse.” InControversies and Interdisciplinarity. Beyond disciplinary fragmentation for a new knowledge model. ed. byJens Allwood, Olga Pombo, Clara Renna, and Giovanni Scarafile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/cvs.16.02egr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.16.02egr [Google Scholar]
  11. Einsiedel, Edna F.
    2008 “Public participation and dialogue.” InHandbook of public communication of science and technology, ed. byMassimiano Bucchi, and Brian Trench, 173–84. London and New York: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9780203483794
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203483794 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellwanger, Adam
    2017 “Reinventing doxa: public opinion polling as deliberative discourse.” Argumentation and Advocacy53 (3): 181–98. doi:  10.1080/00028533.2017.1337330
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2017.1337330 [Google Scholar]
  13. Eriksson, Anders
    2012 “Argumentative Topoi for Refutation and Confirmation”. InFrans H. van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (Eds.), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4041‑9_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_14 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fahnestock, Jeanne
    2009 “Quid pro nobis. Rhetorical stylistics for argument analysis.” InExamining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, 191–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/aic.1.12fah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1.12fah [Google Scholar]
  15. Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani
    1989 “Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.” American Journal of Sociology95 (1): 1–37. doi:  10.1086/229213
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229213 [Google Scholar]
  16. Guardian
    Guardian 2018 Russia poses greater threat than Isis, new British army chief warns. November24. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/24/russia-poses-greater-threat-than-isis-new-british-army-chief-warns (February6 2020)
  17. International Energy Agency
    International Energy Agency 2017Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Hungary 2017 Review. IEA Publications. https://webstore.iea.org/energy-policies-of-iea-countries-hungary-2017-review (February6 2020)
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, Jiyoun, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, and Michael Xenos
    2016 ““Shared” information in the age of Big Data: Exploring sentiment expression related to nuclear energy on Twitter.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly93 (2): 430–45. doi:  10.1177/1077699016640715
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016640715 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kristiansen, Silije
    2017 “Characteristics of the mass media’s coverage of nuclear energy and its risk: A literature review.” Sociology Compass11 (7): 1–10. doi:  10.1111/soc4.12490
    https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12490 [Google Scholar]
  20. Leff, Michael
    2006 “Up from Theory: Or I Fought the Topoi and the Topoi Won”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly36 (2): 203–11. doi:  10.1080/02773940600605560
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02773940600605560 [Google Scholar]
  21. Levasseur, David G.
    2005 “The role of public opinion in policy argument: An examination of public opinion rhetoric in the federal budget process.” Argumentation and Advocacy41 (3): 152–67. doi:  10.1080/00028533.2005.11821626
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2005.11821626 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lewiński, Marcin
    2010 “Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums.” Argumentation and Advocacy47 (2): 86–105. doi:  10.1080/00028533.2010.11821740
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2010.11821740 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2013 “Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation. Sides, positions, and cases.” Journal of Argumentation in Context2 (1): 151–77. doi:  10.1075/jaic.2.1.07lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.07lew [Google Scholar]
  24. 2016 “Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues.” Discourse & Communication10 (6): 553–75. doi:  10.1177/1750481316674773
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316674773 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lewiński, Marcin, and Mark Aakhus
    2014 “Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry.” Argumentation28 (2): 161–85. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  26. Lewiński, Marcin, and J. Anthony Blair
    2011 Monologue, dilogue or polylogue: Which model for public deliberation? OSSA Conference Archive. 52. scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA9/papersandcommentaries/52
  27. Lewiński, Marcin, and Dima Mohammed
    2015 “Tweeting the Arab Spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital media.” InDisturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation, ed. byCatherine Helen Palczewski, 291–7. London and New York: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9781315763965
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315763965 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lewiński, Marcin, and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
    2019 “Environmental argumentation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context8 (1): 1–11. doi:  10.1075/jaic.00004.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00004.int [Google Scholar]
  29. Mohammed, Dima
    2018 “Standing standpoints and argumentative associates. What is at stake in a public political argument?” Argumentation33 (3): 307–22. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑018‑9473‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9473-y [Google Scholar]
  30. Musi, Elena, and Mark Aakhus
    2018 “Discovering argumentative patterns in energy polylogues: A macroscope for argument mining.” Argumentation32 (3): 397–430. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑017‑9441‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9441-y [Google Scholar]
  31. Noella-Neumann, Elisabeth
    1974 “The Spiral of Silence. A Theory of Public Opinion.” Journal of Communication24 (2): 43–51. doi:  10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1974.tb00367.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Novikau, Aliaksandr
    2017 “Nuclear power debate and public opinion in Belarus: From Chernobyl to Ostrovets.” Public Understanding of Science26 (3): 1–14. doi:  10.1177/0963662516647242
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516647242 [Google Scholar]
  33. Palmieri, Rudi, and Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati
    2016 “Multiple audiences as text stakeholders: A conceptual framework for analyzing complex rhetorical situations.” Argumentation30 (4): 467–99. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑016‑9394‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9394-6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pariser, Eli
    2011The Filter Bubble. How the New Personalized Web is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN: 9780143121237.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1958La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pidgeon, Nick, and Christina C. Demski
    2012 “From nuclear to renewable: Energy system transformation and public attitudes.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists68 (4): 41–51. doi:  10.1177/0096340212451592
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340212451592 [Google Scholar]
  37. Prati, Gabriele, and Bruna Zani
    2012 “The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values.” Environment and Behavior45 (6): 782–98. doi:  10.1177/0013916512444286
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512444286 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rubinelli, Sara
    2009Ars Topica: The Classical Technique of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. doi:  10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9549‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9549-8 [Google Scholar]
  39. Simonovits, Bori
    2020 “The Public Perception of the Migration Crisis from the Hungarian Point of View. Evidence from the Field.” InGeographies of Asylum in Europe and the Role of European Localities, ed. byBrigit Glorus and Jeroen Doomernik. Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑030‑25666‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25666-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sarlós, Gábor
    2014 Risk and Benefit Perceptions in the Communication Narratives of Nuclear Energy in Hungary. Ph.D Dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2015a “A közvéleménykutatások szerepe a magyarországi atomenergia diskurzus alakításában [The role of opinion polls in shaping the nuclear discourse in Hungary].” Új jel-kép: kommunikáció, közvélemény, média4 (1): 20–38. doi:  10.20520/Jel‑Kep.2015.1.21
    https://doi.org/10.20520/Jel-Kep.2015.1.21 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2015b “Miért áll a konfliktusok középpontjában az atomenergia? [Why is nuclear energy at the center of conflicts?].” Presentation, Budapest, March 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2015c “Kockázatok és előnyök megjelenése az atomenergia magyarországi kommunikációs narratíváiban [Risk and Benefit Perceptions in the Communication Narratives of Nuclear Energy in Hungary].” Ph.D Dissertation summary. Eötvös Loránd University.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Than, Krisztina
    2015 Special Report: Inside Hungary’s $10.8 billion nuclear deal with Russia. Reuters, March30, World News. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-europe-hungary-specialreport/special-report-inside-hungarys-10-8-billion-nuclear-deal-with-russia-idUSKBN0MQ0MP20150330 (February6 2020)
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Thogmorton, James A.
    1993 “Planning as a rhetorical activity: Survey research as a trope in arguments about electric power planning in Chicago.” Journal of the American Planning Association59 (3): 334–46. doi:  10.1080/01944369308975884
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975884 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tindale, Cristopher W.
    2006 “Constrained maneuvering: Rhetoric as a rational enterprise.” Argumentation20 (4): 447–66. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑007‑9026‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9026-2 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2007 “Revisiting Aristotle’s Topoi”. OSSA Conference Archive 141. Available at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA7/papersandcommentaries/141/
  48. 2015The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781316181645
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181645 [Google Scholar]
  49. Turcanu, Catrinel, Tanja Perko, and Erik Laes
    2014 “Public participation processes related to nuclear research installations: What are the driving factors behind participation intention?” Public Understanding of Science23 (3): 331–47. doi:  10.1177/0963662513476405
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513476405 [Google Scholar]
  50. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser
    2009 “Strategic maneuvering: Examining argumentation in context.” InExamining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1–24. doi:  10.1075/aic.1.02eem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1.02eem [Google Scholar]
  51. van Eemeren, Frans. H.
    2010Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2015 “Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation.” InArgumentation in political deliberation, ed. byMarcin Lewiński, and Dima Mohammed, 11–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/bct.76.01eem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.76.01eem [Google Scholar]
  53. 2017 “Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse in political deliberation.” InContextualizing pragma-dialectics, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, and Wu Peng. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–44. doi:  10.1075/aic.12.08van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.08van [Google Scholar]
  54. 2018Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
  55. Woo, Jongroul, HyungBin Moon, Jongsu Lee, and Jinyong Jang
    2017 “Public attitudes toward the construction of new power plants in South Korea.” Energy & Environment28 (4): 1–19. doi:  10.1177/0958305X17705948
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X17705948 [Google Scholar]
  56. Ylönen, Marja, Tapio Litmanen, Matti Kojo, and Pirita Lindell
    2015 “The (de)politicisation of nuclear power: The Finnish discussion after Fukushima.” Public Understanding of Science26 (3): 260–74. doi:  10.1177/0963662515613678
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515613678 [Google Scholar]
  57. Zarefsky, David
    2009 “Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. InExamining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering.” ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 115–30. doi:  10.1075/aic.1.08zaf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1.08zaf [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation; deliberation; nuclear energy; policy; polylogue; strategic maneuvering
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