* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Linguistic and discursive perspectives on climate change knowledge
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Myron Ebell wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Heaven and Earth (book) wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Linguistic and discursive perspectives on climate change knowledge Professor Kjersti Fløttum University of Bergen [email protected] Introduction Narrative analyses •The meaning that people ascribe to climate change (their understanding of the phenomenon, their perception of risks involved, the corresponding value judgments and emotional reactions) is closely related to how climate change is portrayed in different sources of communication. Narrative – a way of understanding climate change (CC) discourse? Many kinds of narratives … •People approach climate change from different perspectives, with different backgrounds, world views, interests, values and beliefs. There is now widening agreement that furthering the understanding of this global challenge requires improved analysis of individual and collective human dimensions – in which language is crucial. Global warming? Climate change? Climate vs weather? •There are multiple voices with different interests and world views interpreting scientific knowledge. •The voices of ”believers”, “sceptics” and “deniers” contribute to both consensus and controversy. Does language matter? •There is a general lack of knowledge about the role of language in contested messages which are science-based and concern a hotly debated issue involving a large number of global and local stakeholders. •In particular, what is the role of language in the construction, interpretation, circulation and reception of climate knowledge? •How are phenomena such as complexity and uncertainty, inherent to climate change (CC), represented verbally? •In a discursive and narrative perspective: What are the stories told ? -> narrative analysis •In a linguistic perspective: What is actually said, explicitly and implicitly, by whom? -> analysis of polyphony (multivoicedness) Materials 1) “Summary for policymakers”, 2007, in Synthesis Report, based on the 4th Assessment Report, edited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 22p. [IPCC] 2) “Position statement on climate change and related issues”, 2009, edited by the South-African Applied Center for Climate and Earth Systems Science (ACCESS), 9p. [SA-ACCESS] 3) “Overview” (Fighting climate change: human solidarity in a divided world) in the Human Development Report 2007/2008, United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP), 18p. [HDR] 4) “Overview” (Changing the Climate for Development) in World Bank’s World Development Report 2010, 36p. [WDR] 5) The Government of the Republic of South Africa: National Climate Change Response, 2010, 41 p. [SA-GP] •Why is communication on climate change so difficult? Classical narrative structure 1. Initial situation (or orientation) 2. Complication (something creating difficulties; release mechanism) 3. Re-action(s) 4. Resolution 5. Final situation, Moral (evaluation) •In CC narratives, the complication stage is typically climate change itself. However, this complication factor can give rise to new stories, new complications, according to different contexts, interests and values. Polyphonic analyses •In order to understand and explain the CC debate, containing various representations of and responses to climate knowledge, we need to know what is actually said and by whom. •One fruitful perspective to reach this understanding is linguistic polyphony (multivoicedness). •ScaPoLine theory (short for ”la théorie SCAndinave de POlyphonie LINguistiquE”, Nølke, Fløttum, Norén 2004) Explicit polyphony with identified voices Example of reported speech (external voice): Before his death, [Chico Mendes] spoke of the ties that bound his local struggle to a global movement for social justice: “At first I thought I was fighting to save rubber trees, then I thought I was fighting to save the Amazon rainforest. Now I realise I am fighting for humanity.” (HDR, p. 6) •Narratives have plots, constituting a problem or complication followed by events or actions to achieve some particular effect(s). Example of explicit presence of collective voice: We need to engender joy and love for life and the planet as opposed to fear of the future. (SAAccess, p.7) •Narratives typically have actors. How are they presented – as hero(es), villain(s) or victim(s)? Polyphony (multivoicedness): From harmonius song to verbal cacaphony •SA-ACCESS: Contains elements of complication related to CC, but more clearly dominated by political requirements for action (action component). Plot: Even though the authors recognise that South-Africa has a global responsibility because it is one of the major emitters, they clearly point to the advanced and rich economies as the villains. •WDR: Emphasis on (re-)action. •Main message: the necessity to promote growth in order to reduce poverty. CC is blamed (villain?) because it may hinder growth; and it is costly. •SA-GP: Dominated by recommendations and requirements of action (action component). The SA government assumes a triple role for South Africa – as victim, villain and hero. When combining the narrative with the polyphonic perspective, the SA government appears first and foremost as a particularly engaged actor, and as the hero of its own narrative. The narrative properties of the Green Paper can be seen as a strategy for building consensus on CC policy. Selectes references Adam, J.-M. 2008. La linguistique textuelle. Introduction à l’analyse textuelles des discours. 2e édition. Paris: Armand Colin Bakhtine, M. 1984 [1952]. Les genres du discours. Esthétique de la création verbale. Paris: Gallimard. 265−308. Bowman, T. E., et al. 2009. Creating a Common Climate Language. Science 3: 36−37. Boykoff, M.T. 2011. Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change. Cambridge: CUP. Budescu, D.V., Broomell, S., Por, H.-H. 2009. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Psychological Science 20 (3), 299-308. Eide, E., Kunelius, R., Kumpu, V. (eds). 2010. Global Climate, Local Journalisms. A Transnational Study of How Media Make Sense of Climate Summits, Bochum: Projekt Verlag. Fløttum, K. 2010a. EU discourse: polyphony and unclearness. Journal of Pragmatics 42(4), 990-999. Ex: With this, Government will continue to engage actively and meaningfully in international climate change negotiations, specifically the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations, in order to secure a binding, multi-lateral international agreement […]. [SA-GP] Through the use of the verb continue, the authors presuppose – through an implicit collective voice – that the government has already started to “engage actively and meaningfully in international climate change negotiations”. The effect of such a presupposition is not only presenting it as given, but also to construct it as accepted by the readers/audience. Integrating a positive self-representation by means of a presupposition can be rhetorically effective, since such linguistic content is backgrounded and thus not easily refutable. 4) EPISTEMIC MODALITY – modifiers which comment on the truth value of the utterance, related to (UN)CERTAINTY: certain, probable/-ly, likely, perhaps, maybe, it is possible …, uncertain, etc. (different from the IPCC calibrated expressions),and modal verbs like may, might, can, could, would Ex: Heavy rainfall and floods have become more common, and the damage from—and probably the intensity of—storms and tropical cyclones have increased. [HDR] RELEVANCE OF THE POLYPHONIC PERSPECTIVE The author(s) or speaker(s) may set up a polyphonic ‘play’ signaling the presence of both his/ her or their own voice and the voices of others. Different voices are given the floor, if not explicitly (for example by citation), then by some distinctive mark signaling polyphony. •HDR and WDR: The represented plot seems to be that those who have contributed least to CC are the ones who are most vulnerable to the consequences. Actors: No clear heroes; rich countries are presented as villains and poor countries as victims. •The battle against CC is part of the fight for humanity; CC may threaten human freedom. Focus on moral responsibility. 3) POLYPHONY IN PRESUPPOSITION – an underlying content which is taken for granted by the speaker, exempted from discussion, thus belonging to a collective voice; a mechanism for imposing consensus, by burying controversial “truths”. Pov1: ’the intensity of storms and tropical cyclones have increased’ Pov2: probably pov1 Pov2 is a ”comment” to the content of pov1, and the responsibility of the authors. Pov 1 can be the responsibility a) of the author, in another context, or b) correspond to another voice, or c) the proposition could reflect a discussion related to research findings. •IPCC Summary for policymakers: The ”story” is about the complexities and uncertainties (complication component) inherent in climate change. Implicit plot stating clearly the complications but with prudent recommendations for action. Actors: nature is the victim; human beings and society are the villains. •HDR: Emphasis on complication and evaluation. The speaker accepts that “such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales”. Implicitly this point of view is also orienting the discourse towards a conclusion that there is ‘no reason to worry now’. However, by the connective but, it is emphasised that what counts here and now for the speaker is that “more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded”, with an implicit conclusion saying ‘do worry!’. Implicit polyphony 1) POLEMIC NEGATION – a subtle way of representing hidden interaction: EX: Climate change is not human-induced. This play is created by the author in his or her own way and represents a subtle mode of interaction, where the source of the different voices or points of view is not necessarily explicit. The polyphonic perspective helps us identifying argumentative relations such as acceptance, concession, and refusal – all important relations in the CC debate. Two points of view (pov) are presented: Pov1: climate change is human-induced Pov2: pov 1 is not valid The inherent instruction of not tells us that the speaker is responsible for pov2 and refutes pov1. The isolated utterance does not indicate who is the source of pov 1; it might or might not be identified by the context. Final remarks 2) CONCESSIVE POLYPHONY – lets the speaker admit to a point of view without accepting its conclusion P (concession) BUT q (point of view of speaker) To understand the relation between linguistic representation and people’s responses, psychological and linguistic scientists must collaborate. EX: Such changes [referring to ‘sea level rise’] are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded. [IPCC] Fløttum, K. 2010b. A linguistic and discursive view on climate change discourse. La revue du GERAS, ASp 58, 19-37. Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., Kinn, T. 2006. Academic Voices – across languages and disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers. Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. 2011. Climate change discourse: scientific claims in a policy setting, Fachsprache 3-4, 205-219. Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. 2012. Different contexts, different “stories”? A linguistic comparison of two development reports on climate change. Language & Communication, 32 (1), 1423. Fløttum, K., Gjerstad, Ø. (submitted). Arguing for climate policy through the linguistic construction of narratives and voices: the case of the South-African Green Paper “National Climate Change Response” Giddens, A. 2009. The politics of climate change. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA, US: Polity Press. Haddad, H., Morton, T., Rabinovich, A. (Forthcoming). The roles of ‘tone of voice’ and To move forward, more linguistic analyses are needed, but also more multidisciplinary research: To understand the relation between sciencebased knowledge and what is actually said/written in public and private spheres, natural and linguistic scientists must collaborate. To explain patterns of consensus and controversy (actors, voices, topics), linguists must collaborate with social scientists within media, politics and economics. uncertainty when communicating climate change information. British Psychological Society Conference 2011, Cambridge. Hulme, M. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Cambridge: CUP. Jones, M.D., McBeth, M.K. 2010. A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies J. 38 (2), 329-353. Koteyko, N., et al. 2010. From Carbon Markets to Carbon Morality: Creative Compounds as Framing Devices in Online Discourses on Climate Change Mitigation. Science Communication 32 (1), 25–54. Nerlich, B., et al. 2010. Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Int. Reviews: Climate Change 1(1), 97-110. Nølke, H., Fløttum, K., Norén, C. 2004. ScaPoLine. La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Kimé. Painter, J. et al. 2011. Poles apart. The international reporting of climate scepticism. Reuters Institute. University of Oxford.