{"title":"在电视辩论中驳斥潜在的气候错误信息","authors":"Søren Beck Nielsen","doi":"10.1075/ps.23011.bec","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Experimental research recommends that climate change debaters actively contradict misinformation. This study\n examines discursively how participants do so during prominent televised Danish debates, that is, how they orient towards elements\n in other participants’ preceding talk about climate change causes and implications as factually wrong. Three types are considered:\n (i) contradictions produced by the interviewer in the next turn; (ii) contradictions produced by a co-participant after being\n allocated the turn by the interviewer; and (iii) contradictions produced by a co-participant in a self-selected turn. Analysis\n reveals that the contradictions are attuned to and limited by these sequential circumstances. The study overall finds that\n sequential context significantly impacts climate change debaters’ possibilities for contradicting misinformation; in particular,\n potential misinformation may be ‘smuggled’ into multi-unit turns, which can prove difficult for co-panelists to confront because\n of the format’s turn-taking provision.","PeriodicalId":44036,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatics and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contradicting potential climate misinformation during televised debates\",\"authors\":\"Søren Beck Nielsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/ps.23011.bec\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Experimental research recommends that climate change debaters actively contradict misinformation. This study\\n examines discursively how participants do so during prominent televised Danish debates, that is, how they orient towards elements\\n in other participants’ preceding talk about climate change causes and implications as factually wrong. Three types are considered:\\n (i) contradictions produced by the interviewer in the next turn; (ii) contradictions produced by a co-participant after being\\n allocated the turn by the interviewer; and (iii) contradictions produced by a co-participant in a self-selected turn. Analysis\\n reveals that the contradictions are attuned to and limited by these sequential circumstances. The study overall finds that\\n sequential context significantly impacts climate change debaters’ possibilities for contradicting misinformation; in particular,\\n potential misinformation may be ‘smuggled’ into multi-unit turns, which can prove difficult for co-panelists to confront because\\n of the format’s turn-taking provision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pragmatics and Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pragmatics and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23011.bec\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatics and Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23011.bec","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Contradicting potential climate misinformation during televised debates
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.