Discourse and Communication 10 (6):553-575 (2016)

Abstract
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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1177/1750481316674773
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,247
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Law of Group Polarization.Cass R. Sunstein - 2002 - Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2):175–195.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The 2015 Paris Climate Conference.Marcin Lewiński & Dima Mohammed - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):65-90.
Environmental Manifestoes.Soledade Rodrigues, Marcin Lewiński & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):12-39.
Deontic Power and Institutional Contexts.Isabela Fairclough - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):136-171.
Environmental Argumentation.Marcin Lewiński & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):1-11.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies.Marcin Lewiński - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):193-218.
Argumentative Patterns of Right-Wing Populism.David Lanius - 2020 - In Catarina Dutilh Novaes, Henrike Jansen, Jan Albert Van Laar & Bart Verheij (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation. Groningen: College Publications. pp. 77-98.
Strategic Maneuvering in European Parliamentary Debate.Bart Garssen - 2013 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1):33-46.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-11-25

Total views
1 ( #1,499,791 of 2,448,488 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,843 of 2,448,488 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes