Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 10:2 (2021) ► pp.145170
References
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.
Aakhus, Mark, and Marcin Lewiński
2017 “Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy.” Argumentation 31 (1): 179–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, Mark, Paul Ziek, and Punit Dadlani
2016 “Argumentation in large, complex practices.” OSSA Conference Archive. 541. [URL]
Arlt, Dorothee, and Jens Wolling
2015 “Fukushima effects in Germany? Changes in media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power.” Public Understanding of Science 25 (7): 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre
1979 “Public opinion does not exist.” Trans. Axtmann, M. C. In Capitalism, imperialism. Vol. 1 of Communication and class struggle, ed. by Armand Mattleart, and Seth Siegelaub, 124–30. New York: International General.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, James
1996The rhetoric of reason: Writing and the attractions of argument. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Culler, Connie
2015Good Works: The Topoi of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Travel and Tourism Industry (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from University of Central Florida, STARS, [URL]
Demeter, Márton
2018 “Propaganda against the West in the Heart of Europe. A masked official state campaign in Hungary”. Central European Journal of Communication 11 (21): 177–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Társadalom 20 (1): 50–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egres, Dorottya, and Petschner Anna
2020 “The Paks Pact: Topoi in Hungarian Nuclear Energy Discourse.” In Controversies and Interdisciplinarity. Beyond disciplinary fragmentation for a new knowledge model. ed. by Jens Allwood, Olga Pombo, Clara Renna, and Giovanni Scarafile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Einsiedel, Edna F.
2008 “Public participation and dialogue.” In Handbook of public communication of science and technology, ed. by Massimiano Bucchi, and Brian Trench, 173–84. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellwanger, Adam
2017 “Reinventing doxa: public opinion polling as deliberative discourse.” Argumentation and Advocacy 53 (3): 181–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, Anders
2012 “Argumentative Topoi for Refutation and Confirmation”. In Frans H. van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (Eds.), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, Jeanne
2009 “Quid pro nobis. Rhetorical stylistics for argument analysis.” In Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 191–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani
1989 “Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.” American Journal of Sociology 95 (1): 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guardian
2018Russia poses greater threat than Isis, new British army chief warns. November 24. [URL] (February 6 2020)
International Energy Agency
2017Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Hungary 2017 Review. IEA Publications. [URL] (February 6 2020)
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 Quarterly 93 (2): 430–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, Silije
2017 “Characteristics of the mass media’s coverage of nuclear energy and its risk: A literature review.” Sociology Compass 11 (7): 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leff, Michael
2006 “Up from Theory: Or I Fought the Topoi and the Topoi Won”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 36 (2): 203–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Advocacy 41 (3): 152–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin
2010 “Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums.” Argumentation and Advocacy 47 (2): 86–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation. Sides, positions, and cases.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1): 151–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues.” Discourse & Communication 10 (6): 553–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, and Mark Aakhus
2014 “Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry.” Argumentation 28 (2): 161–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, and J. Anthony Blair
2011Monologue, dilogue or polylogue: Which model for public deliberation? OSSA Conference Archive. 521. [URL]
Lewiński, Marcin, and Dima Mohammed
2015 “Tweeting the Arab Spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital media.” In Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation, ed. by Catherine Helen Palczewski, 291–7. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2019 “Environmental argumentation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1): 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, Dima
2018 “Standing standpoints and argumentative associates. What is at stake in a public political argument?Argumentation 33 (3): 307–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musi, Elena, and Mark Aakhus
2018 “Discovering argumentative patterns in energy polylogues: A macroscope for argument mining.” Argumentation 32 (3): 397–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noella-Neumann, Elisabeth
1974 “The Spiral of Silence. A Theory of Public Opinion.” Journal of Communication 24 (2): 43–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Novikau, Aliaksandr
2017 “Nuclear power debate and public opinion in Belarus: From Chernobyl to Ostrovets.” Public Understanding of Science 26 (3): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmieri, Rudi, and Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati
2016 “Multiple audiences as text stakeholders: A conceptual framework for analyzing complex rhetorical situations.” Argumentation 30 (4): 467–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
1958La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Pidgeon, Nick, and Christina C. Demski
2012 “From nuclear to renewable: Energy system transformation and public attitudes.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 68 (4): 41–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Behavior 45 (6): 782–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubinelli, Sara
2009Ars Topica: The Classical Technique of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simonovits, Bori
2020 “The Public Perception of the Migration Crisis from the Hungarian Point of View. Evidence from the Field.” In Geographies of Asylum in Europe and the Role of European Localities, ed. by Brigit Glorus and Jeroen Doomernik. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarlós, Gábor
2014Risk and Benefit Perceptions in the Communication Narratives of Nuclear Energy in Hungary. Ph.D Dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
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, média 4 (1): 20–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015b “Miért áll a konfliktusok középpontjában az atomenergia? [Why is nuclear energy at the center of conflicts?].” Presentation, Budapest, March 2015.Google Scholar
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
Than, Krisztina
2015Special Report: Inside Hungary’s $10.8 billion nuclear deal with Russia. Reuters, March 30, World News. [URL] (February 6 2020)
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 Association 59 (3): 334–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tindale, Cristopher W.
2006 “Constrained maneuvering: Rhetoric as a rational enterprise.” Argumentation 20 (4): 447–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Revisiting Aristotle’s Topoi”. OSSA Conference Archive 141. Available at: [URL]
2015The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Science 23 (3): 331–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser
2009 “Strategic maneuvering: Examining argumentation in context.” In Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans. H.
2015 “Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation.” In Argumentation in political deliberation, ed. by Marcin Lewiński, and Dima Mohammed, 11–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse in political deliberation.” In Contextualizing pragma-dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Wu Peng. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woo, Jongroul, HyungBin Moon, Jongsu Lee, and Jinyong Jang
2017 “Public attitudes toward the construction of new power plants in South Korea.” Energy & Environment 28 (4): 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ylönen, Marja, Tapio Litmanen, Matti Kojo, and Pirita Lindell
2015 “The (de)politicisation of nuclear power: The Finnish discussion after Fukushima.” Public Understanding of Science 26 (3): 260–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zarefsky, David
2009 “Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. In Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering.” ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 115–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar