Cover not available
Introduction published In:
Environmental Argumentation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1] 2019
► pp. 1–11
Introduction

Environmental argumentation

| ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
| ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Article outline
  • Environmental argumentation in context
  • Overview of the issue
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 14 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00004.int
References (33)
References
Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. 2017. Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 2019. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.) 1993. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (Eds.) 2012. The argumentative turn revisited. Durham: Duke University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, K. (ed.) 2017. The role of language in the climate change debate. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, K., & Dahl, T. 2011. Climate change discourse: Scientific claims in a policy setting. Fachsprache, 3–41, 205–219.Google Scholar
Gardiner, S. M. 2011. A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, J. 2019. Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 40–64. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S. 2015. Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 29(3), 243–263. DOI logoGoogle 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), 91–111. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle 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), 112–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Jaspal, R. 2012. Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(2), 131–147. DOI logoGoogle 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, 281, 3–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N. 2015. Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus. WIREs Climate Change, 6(6), 613–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Buhagiar, Luke J. & Gordon Sammut
2023. The Minimal Model of Argumentation: Qualitative data analysis for epistemic speech, text and policy. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 53:4 ► pp. 535 ff. DOI logo
Egres, Dorottya
2021. Strategic maneuvering in extended polylogues. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Gâță, Anca
2021. Characteristics of a detached argumentative style in public policy analysis. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1 ► pp. 46 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Lewiński, Marcin & Dima Mohammed
2019. The 2015 Paris Climate Conference. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.