Exportar Publicação

A publicação pode ser exportada nos seguintes formatos: referência da APA (American Psychological Association), referência do IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), BibTeX e RIS.

Exportar Referência (APA) 
Üzelgün, M. A.  & Castro, P. (2016). Dissociating between ‘is’ and ‘ought’: Recognizing and interpreting positions in climate change controversies. In Dima Mohammed, Marcin Lewinski (Ed.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation . (pp. 985-998).: College Publications.
Exportar Referência (IEEE) 
M. A. Uzelgun and F. P. Castro,  "Dissociating between ‘is’ and ‘ought’: Recognizing and interpreting positions in climate change controversies", in Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proc. of the 1st European Conf. on Argumentation , Dima Mohammed, Marcin Lewinski, Ed., College Publications, 2016, pp. 985-998
Exportar BibTeX 
@inproceedings{uzelgun2016_1764997125191,
	author = "Üzelgün, M. A.  and Castro, P.",
	title = "Dissociating between ‘is’ and ‘ought’: Recognizing and interpreting positions in climate change controversies",
	booktitle = "Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation ",
	year = "2016",
	editor = "Dima Mohammed, Marcin Lewinski",
	volume = "",
	number = "",
	series = "",
	pages = "985-998",
	publisher = "College Publications",
	address = "",
	organization = "",
	url = "https://ecargument.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Arg._Reasoned_Action_Vol.2_Covers_TOC.pdf"
}
Exportar RIS 
TY  - CPAPER
TI  - Dissociating between ‘is’ and ‘ought’: Recognizing and interpreting positions in climate change controversies
T2  - Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation 
AU  - Üzelgün, M. A. 
AU  - Castro, P.
PY  - 2016
SP  - 985-998
UR  - https://ecargument.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Arg._Reasoned_Action_Vol.2_Covers_TOC.pdf
AB  - This presentation focuses on the uses of dissociation in controversial debates.
We report findings from an argumentative analysis of (N=22) interviews, in
which participants were presented with contentious assertions concerning
climate change action. We show how the interview responses were
characterized by contrastive and concessive uses of the connective but, and
explore the – temporal and spatial – patterns through which dissociation was
used in enhancing the dialectical reasonableness together with the rhetorical
effectiveness of the arguments.

ER  -