Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy
- 745 Downloads
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).
KeywordsArgumentation Controversy Deliberation Design Disagreement space Fracking Infrastructural inversion Infrastructure Polylogue Venues
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.
- 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
- 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
- Bitzer, L.F. 1968. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
- Bowker, G.C., and S.L. Star. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Braet, A. 1987. The classical doctrine of “status” and the rhetorical theory of argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 20(2): 79–93.Google Scholar
- Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of talk. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Hutchby, I. 1996. Confrontation talk: Argument, asymmetries, power. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Johnson, R.H. 2002. Interpreting Shell’s ‘Clear Thinking in Troubled Times’. Informal Logic (Teaching Supplement) 21(3): TS39–TS47.Google Scholar
- Kennedy, G. 1963. The art of persuasion in Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Lewiński, M. 2010. Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy 47(2): 86–105.Google Scholar
- Lewiński, M. 2014. Practical reasoning in argumentative polylogues. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 8: 1–20.Google Scholar
- Lewiński, M. 2015. Argumentative discussion: The rationality of what? TOPOI: An International Review of Philosophy. doi: 10.1007/s11245-015-9361-0.
- 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
- 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
- Schön, D.A., and M. Rein. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Searle, J.R. 2001. Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Tindale, C.W. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
- 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.