Debating Hydrofracking: The Discursive Construction of Risk

2Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This study examines a debate among experts sponsored by Cornell University in 2014 on whether or not to allow hydrofracking in New York State. The focus is on the question-answer portion of the debate to see how risk is discursively constructed from experts' claims and rejoinders as well as audience participation. The granular methodology of discursive analysis is used to examine how risk gets talked into being and amplified or mitigated through interaction in the question-answer portion of the debate. Risk gets constructed through participants' practices of metadiscourse - how they formulate what has been said, report the speech or actions of others, or repeat certain locutions into lists for rhetorical effect. These metadiscourse practices provide a resource for the debater to critically characterize other's words or deeds prior to presenting their preferred position.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Buttny, R. (2019). Debating Hydrofracking: The Discursive Construction of Risk. Frontiers in Communication. Frontiers Media S.A. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free