In this article I scrutinise a crucial tension in understanding the debate over shale gas production in Europe. On the one hand, analyses predominantly grasp the debate in terms of pro-and-con dialectics, as if the pro-shale gas camp faced the anti-shale gas camp in a dyadic clash of opposing voices. On the other hand, it is commonly recognised that this debate is driven by multi-party and multi-position argumentative dynamics. In this broader context, I focus on one pivotal contribution to the (...) debate – Gazprom’s press release from October 2013 outlining Russia’s energy giant’s strategy of dealing with unconventional gas production. I employ concepts and methods of argumentative discourse analysis to contend that an arguer to a multi-party debate – argumentative polylogue – faces a number of constraints and opportunities that cannot be adequately grasped in terms of dyadic pro-and-con dialectics. The analysis reveals how Gazprom needs to simultaneously design its discourse to address a number of other parties who might also disagree among themselves: from Greenpeace to European Union governments to shale gas companies. I show why and how a stakeholder analysis used in organisational communication might lead to a better understanding of this form of multi-party public argumentation. (shrink)

ABSTRACT‘Green’ concerns about nature, the environment or the climate have traditionally been juxtaposed with concerns about economic growth or job creation. Recently, however, a new type of conflict has appeared, in which different green concerns, for instance regarding mitigation of climate change and protection of landscape qualities, seem to collide. These environmental conflicts have so far received little scholarly attention. This article addresses the issue by a study of national and in particular local news media discussion on the construction of (...) wind turbines in Denmark, bringing together research traditions from environmental communication, discourse analysis, and place studies. Analytically, the study employs the notion of topos as the key meaning unit, referring to the premises upon which an argument is based. In addition to the empirical findings, the study points to methodological potential of the concept of topos to integrate qualitative and quantitative approaches within a discourse studie... (shrink)

Recent approaches to studying argumentation in institutions have pointed out the role of institutional rules in constraining argumentation that takes place in institutional contexts. However, few studies explain how these rules concretely affect actual argumentation. In particular, little work has been done as to the consequences of interactional asymmetry which often exists between participants in institutional contexts. While previous studies have suggested that this asymmetry exists as an aberration in the deliberative process, this paper argues that asymmetry is built into (...) day-to-day institutional practices as a means of achieving institutional agendas. This article draws upon findings from workplace and discourse studies to explicate particular dimensions of asymmetry that commonly occur within institutional settings, and establishes a methodological framework to account for how this asymmetry can be operationalized for arguments that favor institutional interests regardless of the underlying strength of the arguments being made. Drawing on a controversial case of institutional argumentation during a hearing of the US House Committee on Un-American Activities in the mid-1950s, this article demonstrates how in using these advantages, HUAC is able to overcome legitimate witness counterarguments to its claims and achieve its institutional goals for the hearing. Though the testimony is admittedly 60-years old, HUAC is a useful case study: the asymmetry in the exchange is clear and we have a historical record to verify the factual accuracy of the claims being made. Additionally, we can see how the subsequent legal reforms that reduced conditions of asymmetry for witnesses were responsible for HUAC’s eventual demise as an institutional force. Though this paper analyzes one particular interaction, these findings are applicable to analysis of argumentation in many institutional settings. (shrink)

Resumen: El artículo es la primera parte de un trabajo académico que estudia los fundamentos teórico-conceptuales de la propuesta metodológica de Norman Fairclough e Isabela Fairclough, especialmente la relación entre el concepto de contexto y deliberación con los que sustentan que el discurso político de un determinado actor político para ser político debe pertenecer a un contexto institucionalizado. Tesis que defienden desde la naturaleza política de Aristóteles concebida como un medio para llegar cooperativamente y a través de la acción de (...) la deliberación a asuntos de interés común. Si bien la naturaleza de la política en Aristóteles tiene como esencia la acción humana y la deliberación, también es claro en su política que los esclavos no deliberan. Se pretende mostrar la manera como Norman Fairclough e Isabela Fairclough lidian con la exclusión aristotélica para contribuir al desarrollo teórico-conceptual del análisis crítico del discurso.: This article is the first part of an academic work that studies the theoretical-conceptual foundations of the methodological proposal of Norman Fairclough and Isabela Fairclough, especially the relationship between the concept of context and deliberation with those who support that the political discourse of a given political actor must belong to an institutionalized context. Thesis that they defend from the concept of political nature from Aristotle, conceived to arrive cooperatively and through the action of deliberation to matters of common interest. While the nature of Aristotle's politics is based on human action and deliberation, it is also clear in its policy that slaves do not deliberate. It is intended to show the way Norman Fairclough and Isabela Fairclough deal with Aristotelian exclusion to contribute to the theoretical-conceptual development of critical discourse analysis. (shrink)