Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 179–207 | Cite as

Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy

  • Mark AakhusEmail author
  • Marcin Lewiński
Article

Abstract

This paper offers a new way to make sense of disagreement expansion from a polylogical perspective by incorporating various places (venues) in addition to players (parties) and positions (standpoints) into the analysis. The concepts build on prior implicit ideas about disagreement space by suggesting how to more fully account for argumentative context, and its construction, in large-scale complex controversies. As a basis for our polylogical analysis, we use a New York Times news story reporting on an oil train explosion—a significant point in the broader controversy over producing oil and gas via hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

Keywords

Argumentation Controversy Deliberation Design Disagreement space Fracking Infrastructural inversion Infrastructure Polylogue Venues 

Notes

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented during the 8th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) held at the University of Amsterdam, 1–4 July 2014. Marcin Lewiński acknowledges support of two Grants of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT): SFRH/BPD/74541/2010 and PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014.

References

  1. Aakhus, M. 2003. Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation 17(3): 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aakhus, M. 2013. Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aakhus, M., and M. Lewiński. 2011. Argument analysis in large-scale deliberation. In Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, ed. E. Feteris, B. Garssen, and A.F.S. Henkemans, 165–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aakhus, M., and M. Lewinski. 2015. Toward polylogical analysis of argumentation: Disagreement space in the public controversy about fracking. In Proceedings of the 8th conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, and F. Snoeck Henkemans, 1–11. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  5. Aakhus, M., and A. Vasilyeva. 2008. Managing disagreement space in multiparty deliberation. In Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 197–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aakhus, M., S. Muresan, and N. Wacholder. 2013. Integrating natural language processing and argumentation theories for argumentation support. In OSSA 10: Virtues of argumentation, ed. D. Mohammed, and M. Lewiński, 1–13. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
  7. Baumgartner, F., and B. Jones. 1991. Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics 53(4): 1044–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bitzer, L.F. 1968. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  9. Bou-Franch, P., and P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich. 2014. Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics 73: 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowker, G.C., and S.L. Star. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Braet, A. 1987. The classical doctrine of “status” and the rhetorical theory of argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 20(2): 79–93.Google Scholar
  12. Bruxelles, S., and C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni. 2004. Coalitions in polylogues. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 75–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, H.H., and T.B. Carlson. 1982. Hearers and speech acts. Language 58(2): 332–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cramer, P.A. 2011. Controversy as news discourse. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of talk. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Hoppmann, M.J. 2014. A modern theory of stasis. Philosophy and Rhetoric 47(3): 273–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hutchby, I. 1996. Confrontation talk: Argument, asymmetries, power. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, S. 1992. “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In Argumentation illuminated, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.A. Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, S. 2012. Black box arguments and accountability of experts to the public. In Between citizens and scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, ed. J. Goodwin, 1–18. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, S. 2015. Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation 29(3): 243–263. doi: 10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66(3): 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1981. The collaborative production of proposals in conversational argument and persuasion: A study of disagreement regulation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 2: 77–90.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobs, S. 1989. Speech acts and arguments. Argumentation 3(4): 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobs, S., and M. Aakhus. 2002. What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(2): 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 2006. Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser, and M.A. van Rees, 121–133. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, R.H. 2002. Interpreting Shell’s ‘Clear Thinking in Troubled Times’. Informal Logic (Teaching Supplement) 21(3): TS39–TS47.Google Scholar
  27. Kennedy, G. 1963. The art of persuasion in Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 1997. A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics 7(1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 2004. Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kjeldsen, J.E. 2006. Mediated publics and rhetorical fragmentation. In Researching media, democracy, and participation, ed. N. Carpentier, P. Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, K. Nordenstreng, M. Hartmann, P. Vihalemm, and B. Cammaerts, 115–129. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kjeldsen, J.E. 2013. A rhetorical approach to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s speech to the EU parliament. In Speaking of Europe: Approaches to complexity in European political discourse, ed. K. Fløttum, 19–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krauss, C., & Mouawad, J. (2014). Accidents surge as oil industry takes the train. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/business/energy-environment/accidents-surge-as-oil-industry-takes-the-train.html?_r=0.
  33. Leff, M. 2006. Rhetoric, dialectic, and the functions of argument. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser, and M.A. van Rees, 199–210. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Levinson, S.C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, ed. P. Drew, and A. Wootton, 161–227. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lewiński, M. 2010. Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy 47(2): 86–105.Google Scholar
  36. Lewiński, M. 2013. Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides, positions, and cases. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 151–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewiński, M. 2014. Practical reasoning in argumentative polylogues. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 8: 1–20.Google Scholar
  38. Lewiński, M. 2015. Argumentative discussion: The rationality of what? TOPOI: An International Review of Philosophy. doi: 10.1007/s11245-015-9361-0.
  39. Lewiński, M., and M. Aakhus. 2014. Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation 28(2): 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewiński, M., and D. 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. C. Palczewski, 291–297. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Marcoccia, M. 2004. On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maynard, D.W. 1986. Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party disputes among children (and other humans). Human Studies 9: 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press (original work published 1958).Google Scholar
  44. Pralle, S.B. 2003. Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change: The internationalization of Canadian Forest Advocacy. Journal of Public Policy 23(3): 233–260. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X03003118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schön, D.A., and M. Rein. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. Searle, J.R. 2001. Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Searle, J.R. 2005. What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics 1(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Star, S.L. 1999. The Ethnography of Infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist 43(3): 377–391. doi: 10.1177/00027649921955326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Star, S.L., and K. Ruhleder. 1996. Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research 7(1): 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tindale, C.W. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  51. Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Traverso, V. 2004. Interlocutive ‘crowding’ and ‘splitting’ in polylogues: The case of a researchers’ meeting. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  55. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 1999. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies 1(4): 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Strategic manoeuvring: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ziek, P.E. 2012. Inter-organizational infrastructure for communication: A study of the generative aspects of the communication context on CSR strategy and instrumentation. Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey. doi: 10.7282/T3FX78CB.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Communication and InformationRutgers, The State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy, FCSHUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations