气候变化电视辩论中的观点编排

IF 2.4 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
S. B. Nielsen
{"title":"气候变化电视辩论中的观点编排","authors":"S. B. Nielsen","doi":"10.1177/09579265221117015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous research has tied the journalistic norm of ‘balance’ to an overarching tendency to polarize the climate debate between realists and contrarians. This study uses conversation analysis to advance our knowledge about how climate changes are debated verbally in practice. It builds upon a corpus of current televised climate change panel debates in Denmark. The corpus confirms a documented turn from debating if global warming is a fact to debating what we should do to reduce emissions. Analyses detail two methods, which the interviewer invokes to administer turn-taking: (a) stand-alone next speaker reference and (b) prefatory address term + interrogatives that implicitly project disagreement. These methods help interviewers sustain their formal neutrality. But the study also finds that perspectives are orchestrated to (re)produce multiple polarizations between representatives of different interests and ideologies, for example activists versus business representatives, which might not be helpful in solving the climate crisis.","PeriodicalId":47965,"journal":{"name":"Discourse & Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Orchestration of perspectives in televised climate change debates\",\"authors\":\"S. B. Nielsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09579265221117015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Previous research has tied the journalistic norm of ‘balance’ to an overarching tendency to polarize the climate debate between realists and contrarians. This study uses conversation analysis to advance our knowledge about how climate changes are debated verbally in practice. It builds upon a corpus of current televised climate change panel debates in Denmark. The corpus confirms a documented turn from debating if global warming is a fact to debating what we should do to reduce emissions. Analyses detail two methods, which the interviewer invokes to administer turn-taking: (a) stand-alone next speaker reference and (b) prefatory address term + interrogatives that implicitly project disagreement. These methods help interviewers sustain their formal neutrality. But the study also finds that perspectives are orchestrated to (re)produce multiple polarizations between representatives of different interests and ideologies, for example activists versus business representatives, which might not be helpful in solving the climate crisis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47965,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Discourse & Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Discourse & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265221117015\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse & Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265221117015","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的研究将“平衡”的新闻规范与现实主义者和反对者之间的气候辩论两极分化的总体趋势联系在一起。本研究使用对话分析来提高我们对气候变化在实践中如何口头辩论的认识。它建立在当前丹麦电视气候变化小组辩论的语料库上。该语料库证实了一个有记录的转变,即从辩论全球变暖是否为事实,转向辩论我们应该做些什么来减少排放。详细分析了面试官用来管理轮换的两种方法:(a)独立的下一位说话者引用和(b)前置称呼词+隐含表达不同意的疑问句。这些方法有助于面试官保持正式的中立。但该研究还发现,观点被精心策划,在不同利益和意识形态的代表之间(重新)产生了多重两极分化,例如活动家与商业代表,这可能无助于解决气候危机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Orchestration of perspectives in televised climate change debates
Previous research has tied the journalistic norm of ‘balance’ to an overarching tendency to polarize the climate debate between realists and contrarians. This study uses conversation analysis to advance our knowledge about how climate changes are debated verbally in practice. It builds upon a corpus of current televised climate change panel debates in Denmark. The corpus confirms a documented turn from debating if global warming is a fact to debating what we should do to reduce emissions. Analyses detail two methods, which the interviewer invokes to administer turn-taking: (a) stand-alone next speaker reference and (b) prefatory address term + interrogatives that implicitly project disagreement. These methods help interviewers sustain their formal neutrality. But the study also finds that perspectives are orchestrated to (re)produce multiple polarizations between representatives of different interests and ideologies, for example activists versus business representatives, which might not be helpful in solving the climate crisis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Discourse & Society is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal whose major aim is to publish outstanding research at the boundaries of discourse analysis and the social sciences. It focuses on explicit theory formation and analysis of the relationships between the structures of text, talk, language use, verbal interaction or communication, on the one hand, and societal, political or cultural micro- and macrostructures and cognitive social representations, on the other hand. That is, D&S studies society through discourse and discourse through an analysis of its socio-political and cultural functions or implications. Its contributions are based on advanced theory formation and methodologies of several disciplines in the humanities and social sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信