Dissociating between ‘is’ and ‘ought’: Recognizing and interpreting positions in climate change controversies

Abstract

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.