Contradicting pot ntial climat misinformation during t l vis d d bat s

Institut for Nordiske Studier og Sprogvidenskab (NorS)

Contradicting pot ntial climat misinformation during t l vis d d bat s

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Contradicting pot ntial climat misinformation during t l vis d d bat s. / Nielsen, Søren Beck.

I: Pragmatics and Society, 2024.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Nielsen, SB 2024, 'Contradicting pot ntial climat misinformation during t l vis d d bat s', Pragmatics and Society. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23011.bec

APA

Nielsen, S. B. (Accepteret/In press). Contradicting pot ntial climat misinformation during t l vis d d bat s. Pragmatics and Society. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23011.bec

Vancouver

Nielsen SB. Contradicting pot ntial climat misinformation during t l vis d d bat s. Pragmatics and Society. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23011.bec

Author

Nielsen, Søren Beck. / Contradicting pot ntial climat misinformation during t l vis d d bat s. I: Pragmatics and Society. 2024.

Bibtex

@article{23fb685025f8406e89b76464b96a8c63,

title = "Contradicting pot ntial climat misinformation during t l vis d d bat s",

abstract = "Experimental research recommends that climate change debaters actively contradict misinformation. This study examines discursively how participants do so during prominent televised Danish debates, that is, how they orient towards elements in other participants{\textquoteright} preceding talk about climate change causes and implications as factually wrong. Three types are considered: (i) contradictions produced by the interviewer in the next turn; (ii) contradictions produced by a co-participant after being allocated the turn by the interviewer; and (iii) contradictions produced by a co-participant in a self-selected turn. Analysis reveals that the contradictions are attuned to and limited by these sequential circumstances. The study overall finds that sequential context significantly impacts climate change debaters{\textquoteright} possibilities for contradicting misinformation; in particular, potential misinformation may be {\textquoteleft}smuggled{\textquoteright} into multi-unit turns, which can prove difficult for co-panelists to confront because of the format{\textquoteright}s turn-taking provision.",

keywords = "climate change communication, climate journalism, conversation analysis, debate, discourse analysis, institutional interaction, misinformation",

author = "Nielsen, {S{\o}ren Beck}",

year = "2024",

doi = "10.1075/ps.23011.bec",

language = "English",

journal = "Pragmatics and Society",

issn = "1878-9714",

publisher = "John Benjamins Publishing Company",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contradicting pot ntial climat misinformation during t l vis d d bat s

AU - Nielsen, Søren Beck

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - Experimental research recommends that climate change debaters actively contradict misinformation. This study examines discursively how participants do so during prominent televised Danish debates, that is, how they orient towards elements in other participants’ preceding talk about climate change causes and implications as factually wrong. Three types are considered: (i) contradictions produced by the interviewer in the next turn; (ii) contradictions produced by a co-participant after being allocated the turn by the interviewer; and (iii) contradictions produced by a co-participant in a self-selected turn. Analysis reveals that the contradictions are attuned to and limited by these sequential circumstances. The study overall finds that sequential context significantly impacts climate change debaters’ possibilities for contradicting misinformation; in particular, potential misinformation may be ‘smuggled’ into multi-unit turns, which can prove difficult for co-panelists to confront because of the format’s turn-taking provision.

AB - Experimental research recommends that climate change debaters actively contradict misinformation. This study examines discursively how participants do so during prominent televised Danish debates, that is, how they orient towards elements in other participants’ preceding talk about climate change causes and implications as factually wrong. Three types are considered: (i) contradictions produced by the interviewer in the next turn; (ii) contradictions produced by a co-participant after being allocated the turn by the interviewer; and (iii) contradictions produced by a co-participant in a self-selected turn. Analysis reveals that the contradictions are attuned to and limited by these sequential circumstances. The study overall finds that sequential context significantly impacts climate change debaters’ possibilities for contradicting misinformation; in particular, potential misinformation may be ‘smuggled’ into multi-unit turns, which can prove difficult for co-panelists to confront because of the format’s turn-taking provision.

KW - climate change communication

KW - climate journalism

KW - conversation analysis

KW - debate

KW - discourse analysis

KW - institutional interaction

KW - misinformation

U2 - 10.1075/ps.23011.bec

DO - 10.1075/ps.23011.bec

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85187928298

JO - Pragmatics and Society

JF - Pragmatics and Society

SN - 1878-9714

ER -

ID: 389380406