Article published in:
Environmental Argumentation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1] 2019
► pp. 6590
References

References

Aakhus, M.
2006The act and activity of proposing in deliberation. In P. Riley (Ed.), Engaging Argument: Selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 402–408). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M.
2017Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P.
2006Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, 152(2), 157–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clémençon, R.
2016The two sides of the Paris Climate Agreement: Dismal failure or historic breakthrough? The Journal of Environment & Development, 25(1), 3–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K.
1995Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5(3), 248–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Depledge, J.
2005The Organization of Global Negotiations: Constructing the Climate Regime. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, R.
2016The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doelle, M.
2016The Paris Agreement: Historic breakthrough or high stakes experiment? Climate Law, 6(1–2), 1–20.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, E. M.
1984Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, I.
2019Deontic 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), pp. XX–XX.Google Scholar
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N.
2012Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Feteris, E.
2002A pragma-dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation, 16(3), 349–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F., & Forester, J.
1993The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. London: UCL Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, K., & Dahl, T.
2011Climate change discourse: Scientific claims in a policy setting. Fachsprache, 3–4: 205–219.Google Scholar
Fløttum, K., & Drange, H.
2017The Paris COP21 Agreement – Obligations for 195 countries. In K. Fløttum (ed.), The Role of Language in the Climate Change Debate (pp. 130–148). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gjerstad, Ø.
2017Competing 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.
2019Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. XX–XX. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, J.
2016The Paris Climate Change Agreement: China and India. Climate Law, 6(1–2), 171–181.Google Scholar
Historic Paris Agreement on Climate Change2015, http://​newsroom​.unfccc​.int​/unfccc​-newsroom​/finale​-cop21/
Hitchcock, D.
2002Pollock on practical reasoning. Informal Logic, 22(3), 247–256.Google Scholar
2011Instrumental rationality. In P. McBurney, I. Rahwan & S. Parsons (Eds.), Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 1–11). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ihnen Jory, C.
2016Negotiation and deliberation: Grasping the difference. Argumentation, 30(2), 145–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S.
1980Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W.
2019Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises: The 2015 Paris agreement in Dutch parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. XX–XX.Google Scholar
Lahsen, M.
2007Trust through participation? Problems of knowledge in climate decision making. In M. E. Pettinger (Ed.), The social construction of climate change (pp. 173–196). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M.
2014Argumentative polylogues: Beyond dialectical understanding of fallacies. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(1), 193–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M.
2015Practical reasoning and multi-party deliberation: The best, the good enough and the necessary. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), The Eighth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) (pp. 851–862). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M.
2016aShale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues. Discourse & Communication, 10(6), 553–575. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M.
2016bHow to conclude practical argument in a multi-party debate: A speech act analysis. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński (Eds.) 2016 Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015. Vol. I (pp. 403–420). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M.
2017Practical argumentation as reasoned advocacy. Informal Logic, 37(2), 85–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018Practical 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). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M.
2014Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
2015Tweeting the Arab Spring: Argumentative Polylogues in Digital Media. In C. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing Argument: Selected Works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp. 291–297). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
2016Argumentation 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
McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., & Parsons, S.
2007The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 95–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, D.
2016aGoals in argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments. Argumentation, 30(3), 221–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016bNot just rational, but also reasonable: Critical testing in the service of external uses of public political arguments. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński (Eds.) 2016 Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015. Vol. I (pp. 499–514). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
2018aArguing inter-issue in public political arguments. In S. Oswald & D. Maillat (Eds.), Argumentation and inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017 (Vol. 2, pp. 509–524). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
2018bArgumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Accusations of Inconsistency in Response to Criticism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Jaspal, R.
2012Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(2), 131–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pauwelyn, J.
2013The end of differential treatment for developing countries? Lessons from the trade and climate change regimes. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 22(1), 29–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., et al.
2015Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus. WIREs Climate Change, 6, 613–626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
1969The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (transl. by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958.)Google Scholar
Pickering, J., McGee, J. S., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., & Wenta, J.
in press). Global climate governance between hard and soft law: Can the Paris Agreement’s ‘crème brûlée’ approach enhance ecological reflexivity? Journal of Environmental Law, Crossref
Rajamani, L.
2016Ambition and differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretative possibilities and underlying politics. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(2), 493–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, S., Lewiński, M., & Üzelgün, M. A.
2019Environmental manifestoes: Argumentative strategies in the Ecomodernist Manifesto . Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. XX–XX. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Savaresi, A.
2016The Paris Agreement: A new beginning? Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 34(1), 16–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R.
1969Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1975A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Günderson (Ed.), Language, mind, and knowledge, vol. 7 (pp. 344–369). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
2001Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Üzelgün, M. A., Lewiński, M., & Castro, P.
2016Favorite 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.
2015Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: An argumentative analysis. Discourse Studies, 17(4), 467–484. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, D., & Ferreira, F.
2016Differentiation in the Paris Agreement. Climate Law, 6(1–2), 58–74.Google Scholar
Walton, D.
2006How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14(3), 177–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Evaluating practical reasoning. Synthese, 157(2), 197–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zarefsky, D.
2008Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation, 22(3), 317–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Fairclough, Isabela
2019. Deontic power and institutional contexts. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1  pp. 136 ff. Crossref logo
Goodwin, Jean
2019. Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1  pp. 40 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
Laar, Jan Albert van & Erik C. W. Krabbe
2019. Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1  pp. 91 ff. Crossref logo
Lewiński, Marcin & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2019. Environmental argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Rodrigues, Soledade, Marcin Lewiński & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2019. Environmental manifestoes. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1  pp. 12 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 21 may 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.