Introduction published in:
Environmental Argumentation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1] 2019
► pp. 1–11

Environmental argumentation

| ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
| ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Published online: 14 February 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00004.int
References

References

Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M.
2017 Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baber, W. F., & Bartlett, R. V.
2005 Deliberative environmental politics: Democracy and ecological rationality. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
Chakrabarty, D.
2009 The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 197–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. S.
2000 Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 The politics of the Earth: Environmental discourses. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J.
2018 The politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M.
2014 Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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), XX–XX.Google Scholar
Fischer, F., & Forester, J.
(Eds.) 1993 The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H.
(Eds.) 2012 The argumentative turn revisited. Durham: Duke University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, K.
(ed.) 2017 The role of language in the climate change debate. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, K., & Dahl, T.
2011 Climate change discourse: Scientific claims in a policy setting. Fachsprache, 3–4, 205–219.Google Scholar
Gardiner, S. M.
2011 A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gjerstad, Ø.
2017 Competing climate change narratives: An analysis of leader statements during COP21 in Paris. In K. Fløttum (ed.), The role of language in the climate change debate (pp. 31–48). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J.
2019 Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), XX–XX.Google Scholar
Habermas, J.
1989 The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (transl. by T. Burger). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1962).Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O., & Hirsch Hadorn, G.
(Eds.) 2016 The argumentative turn in policy analysis: Reasoning about uncertainty. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R., Brockmeier, J., & Mühlhäusler, P.
1999 Greenspeak: A study of environmental discourse. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hulme, M.
2009 Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S.
2015 Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 29(3), 243–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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), XX–XX.Google Scholar
Latour, B.
2004 Politics of nature: How to bring sciences into democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M.
2016 Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues. Discourse & Communication, 10(6), 553–575. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Practical argumentation in the making: Discursive construction of reasons for action. In S. Oswald, T. Herman & J. Jacquin (Eds.), Argumentation and Language. Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations (pp. 219–241). Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
2016 Argumentation theory. In K. B. Jensen, R. Craig, J. Pooley & E. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy (pp. 1–15). New York: John Wiley & Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), XX–XX.Google Scholar
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), xx–xx.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Jaspal, R.
2012 Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(2), 131–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N.
2015 Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus. WIREs Climate Change, 6(6), 613–626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, S., Lewiński, M., & Üzelgün, M. A.
2019 Environmental manifestoes: Argumentative strategies in the Ecomodernist Manifesto . Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), XX–XX.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Egres, Dorottya
2021. Strategic maneuvering in extended polylogues. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2 ► pp. 145 ff. Crossref logo
Gâță, Anca
2021. Characteristics of a detached argumentative style in public policy analysis. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1 ► pp. 46 ff. Crossref logo
Lewiński, Marcin & Dima Mohammed
2019. The 2015 Paris Climate Conference. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 65 ff. Crossref logo
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2013.  In Handbook of Argumentation Theory, ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2014.  In Handbook of Argumentation Theory, ► pp. 677 ff. Crossref logo
Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali & João Rui Pereira
2020. Beyond the co-production of technology and society: The discursive treatment of technology with regard to near-term and long-term environmental goals. Technology in Society 61 ► pp. 101244 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.