Descripción del título
Argumentation in political ...
Dialectical approaches traditionally conceptualize argumentation as a discussion in which two parties debate on "two sides of an issue" (pro and con). However, many political issues engender multiple positions. This is clear in multi-party online deliberations in which often an array of competing positions is debated in one and the same discussion. A proponent of a given position thus addresses a number of possible opponents, who in turn may hold incompatible opinions. The goal of this chapter is to shed extra light on such "polylogical" clash of opinions in online deliberation, by examining t.
Monografía
monografia Rebiun23581293 https://catalogo.rebiun.org/rebiun/record/Rebiun23581293 m o d cr ||||||||||| 150421s2015 ne ob 001 0 eng 9789027268273 9027268274 9789027242648 UAM 991008028683404211 DLC eng pn DLC NT EBLCP YDXCP IDEBK CDX OCLCF OCLCQ JBG OCLCQ OCLCA CEF AU@ U3W UKAHL UNAV 320.01/41 23 Argumentation in political deliberation edited by Marcin Lewinski ; Dima Mohammed, Universidade Nova de Lisboa Amsterdam, Netherlands Philadelphia, PA John Benjamins Publishing Company [2015] Amsterdam, Netherlands Philadelphia, PA Amsterdam, Netherlands Philadelphia, PA John Benjamins Publishing Company 1 recurso electrónico 1 recurso electrónico EBSCO Academic eBook Collection Complete Benjamins current topics 76 Incluye referencias bibliográficas e índice Argumentation in Political Deliberation; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Argumentation in political deliberation; 1. Argumentation theory and political deliberation; 2. Overview of the volume; Acknowledgements; References; Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation; 1. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse; 2. Conventionalization of communicative practices in communicative activity types; 3. Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering; 4. Pragma-dialectical research of argumentative discourse in the political domain The place of counter discourse in two methods of public deliberation1. Introduction; 2. Two methods of public deliberation; 2.1 Consensus conference; French consensus conference on nanotechnology; 2.2 Public hearing; The public hearing on nanotechnology; 2.3 Public participation vs. public communication types of deliberation; 3. Defining public deliberation within argumentation studies; 4. Counter discourse in the two methods of public deliberation; 4.1 Counter discourse in the consensus conference; 4.2 Counter discourse in the public hearing; 5. Concluding remarks; Acknowledgements 3. Political online forums as argumentative communities4. Research design; The online forum Climategate.nl; Data selection; Method of analysis; 5. Analysis; Fragment A: 8-12 December 2009; Fragment B: 17 January-3 February 2010; Fragment Dialectical approaches traditionally conceptualize argumentation as a discussion in which two parties debate on "two sides of an issue" (pro and con). However, many political issues engender multiple positions. This is clear in multi-party online deliberations in which often an array of competing positions is debated in one and the same discussion. A proponent of a given position thus addresses a number of possible opponents, who in turn may hold incompatible opinions. The goal of this chapter is to shed extra light on such "polylogical" clash of opinions in online deliberation, by examining t. Forma de acceso: World Wide Web Lewinski, Marcin Mohammed, Dima