Constructing the vicarious experience of proximity in a Marcellus Shale public hearing

Mando, Justin

doi:10.1080/17524032.2015.1133438

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, although praemonitio is a device that has long appeared in environmental communications, the figure sometimes fails to deliver the goods—the proximal urgency or what Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) call presence (cf. Mando, 2016 , on the spatially concerned “vicarious proximity”)—needed to address long-term environmental change. It remains, however, one of the more powerful rhetorical tools for rendering large-scale, temporally vast, and scientifically complex ideas into a foreseeable future vision.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Prolepsis and Rendering Futures in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports

Mehlenbacher,

Doody,

Eckert

et al. 2024

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rhetorical figures of speech provide important analytical frames to chart how arguments operate within genres and within genre ecologies. Varieties of the figure prolepsis allow for the rendering of future time or fact in the present, which can be a powerful rhetorical inducement toward social and political action. In this article, we examine how anticipatory arguments drawn from complex data shape a key genre for public and policy-facing work on the climate crisis—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Synthesis Report’s (SYR) Statement for Policy Makers (SPM). We examine how the rhetorical figure of prolepsis operates within this genre to understand the anticipatory arguments and logics emerging from the synthesis of scientific findings and their reporting. Pairing figural studies and Rhetorical Genre Studies, we further offer an approach to investigate how these patterned operations of language might intersect in their rhetorical workings.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Prolepsis and Rendering Futures in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports

Mehlenbacher,

Doody,

Eckert

et al. 2024

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, even when this literature identifies the ways that participants in the public hearings attempt to resist these constraints, for example by using meta-discourse to reframe issues and address concerns about the processes itself, it is generally concluded that such efforts do not result in influence (Buttny 2010(Buttny , 2015. Other research focused on public hearing transcripts starts with the assumption that public hearing processes provide participants with little influence over decisions, but concludes that analyses of participant comments are nonetheless meaningful because they provide insights into the perspectives, values, and rhetorical choices of participants (Mando 2016;Scarff 2021).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“All this Regulatory Uncertainty in the Air”: The Indispensability of Public Hearings in Guarding and Guiding Public Deliberation

Carroll

Bsumek

2021

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of Environmental Communication has often critiqued the shortcomings of public hearings, noting their limitations in bringing about effective and equitable public decision making. While this work has been significant, it has tended to limit the deliberative field to public hearings themselves, sometimes going so far as to assume that public hearings are the only spaces in which significant deliberations occur. Using a field analysis of the “No Coal Plant” campaign in Surry County, Virginia (2008–2013), the authors illuminate some limitations of existing literature. Their analysis suggests that while public hearings can be extremely limiting, even “failed” public hearings can play a critical role in constituting, organizing, and pacing formal and informal deliberative spaces, which are necessary for communities as they manage the stresses and strains of the decision-making process.

show abstract

“…These competing perceptions led to a politicization of hydrofracking and a polarization between advocates and opponents (Christenson et al, 2017). The conflict over hydrofracking has played out in newspapers and television (Metze, 2014;Metze and Dodge, 2016), on industry and state web pages (Guignard, 2013;Chen and Gunster, 2016), during municipal or town meetings (Wilber, 2015;Kroepsch, 2016;Mando, 2016;Auyero et al, 2017), or during inter-governmental hearings (Buttny, 2015(Buttny, , 2017. The hydrofracking debate, however, has not been studied during an actual debate on hydrofracking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Debating Hydrofracking: The Discursive Construction of Risk

Buttny

2019

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Constructing the vicarious experience of proximity in a Marcellus Shale public hearing

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

Prolepsis and Rendering Futures in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports

Prolepsis and Rendering Futures in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports

“All this Regulatory Uncertainty in the Air”: The Indispensability of Public Hearings in Guarding and Guiding Public Deliberation

Debating Hydrofracking: The Discursive Construction of Risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About