Search

publishedVersion

As the effects of climate change begin to manifest themselves in different ways across the globe, scholars are increasingly interested in studying how such climate-related events are understood through narratives, or stories, and how the stories can be a precursor to action, at both individual and collective levels, to reduce emissions and to adapt to current and future changes. The future is also the object of narrative imaginings, in which expected or possible events form a narrative structure, comprising temporal and causal relations centered on a cast of characters, such as heroes, villains, and victims. Understanding how climate change narratives are constructed, how they circulate in society, and how they impact people’s understanding and willingness to act, may be of vital importance for developing the right communicative tools to stimulate action at all levels of society, from the individual to political institutions. This effort depends on contributions from a multitude of fields, such as climate science, psychology, sociology, linguistics, anthropology, and political science.

Le changement climatique (CC) concerne aussi bien notre mode de vie personnel que la maniere dont nous envisageons l’avenir de l’humanite. Le present article etudie la maniere dont les citoyens norvegiens expriment linguistiquement leur motivation pour changer ou non leur mode de vie afin de reduire les effets du CC. Il a pour point de depart 1 077 reponses librement formulees a des questions d’enquete ouvertes. A travers une analyse semi-automatique, les materiaux sont structures en neuf themes, allant de ceux qui sont motives pour contribuer a ceux qui affirment qu’ils vivent deja une vie respectueuse de l’environnement. Ceux qui affirment vouloir changer leur mode de vie ne le font pas pour des raisons economiques, mais pour des raisons ethiques ou environnementales. De plus, les repondants soulignent leur contribution dans un contexte societal tandis que les connaissances et les craintes du CC introduisent l’imperatif d’action a une echelle globale, impliquant l’humanite comme un agent collectif. Les resultats obtenus contribuent a la comprehension de l’emploi du langage et de la communication dans differents contextes pour traiter des defis et des solutions lies au CC. Cet article contribue egalement a nos connaissances du discours de changement climatique en tant que discours specialise.

Med utgangspunkt i et klimaperspektiv undersøker vi i denne artikkelen hvordan nordmenn uttrykker sine meninger om og sitt forhold til den fysiske naturen. Med et materiale i hovedsak hentet fra representative spørreundersøkelser, bestående av svar på åpne spørsmål, stiller vi to spørsmål: 1) hvilken rolle tillegges natur og menneske som årsak til klimaendringer, og 2) hvilken plass har naturen i folks liv og levemåte som et argument for livsstilsendringer. Teoretisk plasserer analysene seg innenfor lingvistisk polyfoni og leksikalsk semantikk. Studien belyser den betydelige kompleksiteten i klimaspørsmålet og peker på de mange spørsmål og valg knyttet til forholdet menneske-natur som deltakerne i vårt demokratiske samfunn må ta stilling til. publishedVersion

The present study proposes an analysis of climate change (CC) narratives in answers to an open-ended survey question, where we ask what a climate-friendly lifestyle may imply. The representative survey has been conducted online by the Norwegian Citizen Panel/DIGSSCORE, located at the University of Bergen. The survey provided 1,149 answers from respondents across Norway. The analysis combines a lexical and a text linguistic approach (Fløttum & Gjerstad, 2017), based on Adam's (2008) analysis of the narrative text sequence (initial situation–complication–(re)action–resolution–final situation), and inspired by the Narrative Policy Framework's (NPF) notions of plot and narrative characters (Jones et al., 2014). Our analysis identified four main topics: consumption, transportation, politics, and energy, while the cast of characters is dominated by the first-person singular, frequently portrayed as hero, and the first-person plural in a predominantly villainous role. The frequent use of negation and argumentative connectives reflects the contentious nature of the issue. publishedVersion

The present study employs an open-ended survey question from an online survey panel in Norway to explore ordinary citizens’ reasoning for supporting or opposing individual climate action. Through a mixed-methods approach, seven frequent themes among the answers are identified. These themes are then analysed with a dialogical perspective on the way in which the answers relate to and reply to climate change discourses circulating in society. The evidence from this study suggests that justification of lifestyle choices depends on questions related to the causes of climate change, the importance (or not) of the contribution of individual action, and moral preoccupations. La présente étude exploite les données d’une enquête en ligne en Norvège, qui visait à recueillir les arguments de citoyens ordinaires au sujet de leur soutien ou non à une action individuelle en faveur du climat. Grâce à la méthode mixte, sept thèmes récurrents parmi les réponses ont été identifiés et analysés. De plus, grâce au dialogisme, lumière a été faite sur la manière dont ces réponses se rapportent et répondent aux discours sur le changement climatique qui circulent dans la société. Les résultats laissent penser que la justification des choix de vie est liée aux causes du changement climatique, à l’importance (ou non) de l’apport de l’action individuelle et aux préoccupations d’ordre moral.

Cette contribution constitue la mise en œuvre d’une double perspective narrative et polyphonique, dans l’analyse de quatre déclarations à l’occasion de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU en septembre 2018. Les discours analysés sont ceux des Seychelles, de Finlande, du Népal et du Nigéria. Dans ce contexte diplomatique, quels sont les ‘récits climatiques’ racontés, et de quelles manières se rencontrent-ils dans les déclarations des uns et des autres ? Ces rencontres sont-elles implicites ou explicites, convergentes ou divergentes ? En considérant la polyphonie non seulement comme la rencontre de ‘voix’ sur des contenus propositionnels précis, mais aussi comme une rencontre de récits, l’analyse vise à élargir la perspective de l’hétérogénéité énonciative en situant chaque occurrence dans un contexte discursif plus étendu. Autrement dit, dans une situation d’enjeux politiques, l’interprétation polyphonique de marqueurs comme la négation, les connecteurs (contre-)argumentatifs, la phrase clivée, le discours rapporté, et autres, peut se concevoir comme l’émergence ponctuelle d’un récit autre que celui du locuteur. L’analyse des quatre déclarations montre un dialogue entre chacun des locuteurs et des voix qui ne sont pas identifiées dans les textes, mais qui représentent toutes une attitude d’inertie et d’autosatisfaction concernant le problème du dérèglement climatique et les efforts nécessaires pour le combattre. This contribution brings a dual narrative and polyphonic approach to the analysis of four speeches at the UN General Assembly in September 2018. The speeches are those of the Seychelles, Finland, Nepal and Nigeria. In this diplomatic context, which ‘climate stories’ are being told, and in what manner do they encounter each other in the various speeches? Are these encounters implicit or explicit, and are the narratives convergent our divergent? By considering polyphony not only as a meeting of ‘voices’ within the confines of specific propositional content, but also as a meeting of narratives, the analysis aims to broaden the perspective of “multivoicedness” by situating each occurrence in a larger discursive context. In other words, in a situation of political stakes, the polyphonic interpretation of markers such as negation, (counter-)argumentative connectives, cleft sentences, reported speech, etc., could be conceived of as the a particular emergence of a narrative other than that of the speaker. The analysis of the four speeches shows a dialogue between each of the speakers and voices that are not identified in the texts but that represent an attitude of inertia and self-satisfaction regarding the problem of climate change and the necessary efforts to fight it.

espanolThe present article claims that a polyphonic approach is a methodological tool enriching other approaches. This is shown through the analysis of three samples representing different text genres: Norwegian survey discourse, an editorial from Le Monde and a speech by Emmanuel Macron. All three focus on the issue of climate change. For the first sample, the polyphonic approach assists content analysis in unveiling a diversity of perspectives underlying the expressed content. For the second, the encounter between polyphony and narrative analysis portrays the discourse as a meeting point between different narratives. Finally, polyphony can support the ambition of discourse to convince/persuade. From an empirical viewpoint, the findings of the first analysis show that there is divergence in the Norwegian points of view concerning their role in reducing the dangerous effects of climate change. The second reveals a schism between different voices in the issue of implementing the Paris agreement, while in the third, the disagreement and critique expressed by Emmanuel Macron on the American strategy of withdrawal from this agreement comes out as clearer and more precise. In brief, through opening up towards other approaches, the polyphonic approach enriches them and may in turn itself be enriched. francaisDans cette contribution, nous posons que la polyphonie est un outil methodologique qui peut s’ouvrir en se mettant au service d’autres approches. Ceci est montre a partir de trois types de textes : un discours d’une enquete norvegienne, un editorial du Monde et un discours d’Emmanuel Macron. Tous les trois sont centres sur la question du changement climatique. D’abord la polyphonie se combine avec l’analyse du contenu et lui permet de degager la diversite des perspectives qui gisent sous des contenus exprimes. Ensuite l’articulation de la polyphonie et de l’analyse narrative envisage le discours comme un point de rencontre entre des recits sur le climat. Enfin la polyphonie structure l’ambition de convaincre/persuader par le discours. Sur le plan empirique, on peut retenir la divergence des points de vue des citoyens norvegiens au sujet de leur role en vue de reduire les effets nefastes des changements climatiques. Il ressort aussi un clivage qui oppose differentes voix au sujet de l’Accord de Paris. Enfin, le desaccord et la critique de Macron au sujet de la strategie du retrait americain se font plus clairs et precis. Somme toute, en s’ouvrant a d’autres approches, la polyphonie les enrichit et peut s’enrichir par ricochet.

Communication related to climate change as well as to its consequences constitutes a major challenge; all the more so since climate is a non-observable phenomenon, in stark contrast to the weather. In this perspective, language plays a crucial role in the conceptualisation and the framing of climate change discourse. In this paper, French and Norwegian data stemming from representative surveys in the two countries are compared. The participants are asked to answer an open-ended question concerning their conceptions of the expression “climate change”. The French data are collected from a survey undertaken in 2016 by ELIPSS at the Sciences Po (Institut d'études politiques de Paris). The Norwegian data are generated from a survey undertaken in 2013 by the Norwegian Citizen Panel/DIGSSCORE, at the University of Bergen. The answers are first analysed through a semi-automated structural topic modeling (STM) and then assessed through an in-depth manual evaluation. Further linguistic and enunciative analyses are undertaken of a selection of the respondents’ answer provided by the surveys. Given the difference in the energy mix of the two countries, different associations are expected to appear from the French and the Norwegian participants. At the same time, with the common global dimension of climate change, it seems reasonable to expect some similar associations concerning the reality of the changes, the consequences and the measures of adaptation or mitigation proposed or undertaken by the two countries. These issues are discussed within the theoretical frame of enunciation, including perspectives related to concession in a polyphonic perspective and to deontic modality.

Tackling climate change requires both policy and individual action. Mobilizing such action can be made more optimal with knowledge about how the public views climate change solutions and what they think needs to be done in the face of climate change. Yet most public opinion research to date uses either closed questions about agreement with various pre-determined statements (such as views on science, worry, and support for given policy options) or use open-ended questions eliciting generic associations with climate change. This article uses an open-ended survey question in a probability-based Internet survey panel in Norway, analyzing 4634 textual responses to the question of “what should be done” about climate change. Using structural topic modeling (STM), we induce seven topics: Transportation, energy transition, attribution of climate change, emission reduction, the international dimension, lifestyle/consumption and government measures. We find that Norwegians strongly emphasize mitigation over adaptation, as few responses mention the latter topic. Also, men seem to externalize the solutions to climate change, emphasizing energy policies, the international dimension, and discussions about the causes of climate change, while women to a larger extent understand climate action as an issue involving individual behavior, calling for better public transportation and lifestyle changes. Overall, our results suggest a willingness to accept stronger mitigation action, but also that central and local governments need to facilitate low-carbon choices, bridging policy and individual action to mitigate climate change.

Cet article explore la manière dont l’avenir est perçu dans des blogs portant sur les changements climatiques, extraits du corpus NTAP (Networks of Text and People). L’analyse, principalement entreprise dans une perspective lexicale, se concentre sur les périodes 2009-2010 et 2013-2014. Les résultats montrent que les perspectives négatives et pessimistes dominent grandement sur les perspectives positives et optimistes. This article investigates how the future is perceived in blogs related to climate change, extracted from the corpus NTAP (Networks of Text and People). The analysis, mainly undertaken in a lexical perspective, focuses on the periods 2009-2010 and 2013-2014. The results show that the negative and pessimistic perspectives are clearly more prevalent than the positive and optimistic ones.

Narration as a fundamental activity practiced among human beings dates from long before writing was invented, and spread throughout many different civilisations. Within cultural and literary studies it underwent a renaissance through the work of the Russian folklorist and scholar Vladimir Propp, who analysed the basic plot components of Russian folk tales (published in Russia in 1928, translated to English in 1958, Morphology of the Folktale). Then, with the breakthrough of text linguistics, the narrative perspective entered forcefully into analyses of non-fictional texts (Wehrlich 1976, van Dijk 1980, Adam 1992). There have been many discussions about the number of components in the narrative structure, but there is currently a more or less clear consensus on the 5 component schema: initial situation, complication, reaction, resolution, final situation. The narrative structure has also entered non-linguistic fields, such as psychology and political science, and more particularly into climate change discourse, where even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has described its reports as “narratives”. With this as a backdrop, we will in the present contribution discuss the notion of narrative and its relevance in the analysis of climate change discourse within different genres, to show that despite their differences in both content and structure, there is a common climate change narrativity. The comparison involves two very distinct genres, the first of which is the political speech, exemplified by French President François Hollande’s prepared remarks at the climate change conference (COP21) in Paris in late 2015. The second genre has not yet received a label, but can be called “survey discourse”. This corresponds to answers to open-ended questions in a survey undertaken by the Norwegian Citizen Panel in 2015, where respondents answer freely in their own words the following question: “Concerning climate change, what do you think should be done?” The differences between the two genres are manifold. A political speech is carefully drafted by professionals and represents an institutional commitment by a leader. Survey answers are formulated by anonymous respondents who most often are not specialists in the field, and who in no way are bound by their statements. Despite these differences, our findings will show how these texts belonging to very different genres comprise a plot, and how different characters (heroes, victims, and villains) are integrated into the unfolding ‘story’, thus reflecting the socially pervasive nature of narratives.

The 21st Conference of the Parties in late 2015 (COP21) was widely regarded as a pivotal moment in the international effort to curb climate change (CC) and deal with its consequences. On November 30, at the start of the conference, 150 leaders of state and government convened at the Leaders Event to mark the start of the negotiations (UNFCCC 2015). Among them were the leaders of China, India, South Africa, and the United States. All four countries are significant emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG), but their historical responsibilities for emissions and levels of economic development are vastly different. The author uses two main theoretical tools in his analysis: (1) Flottum and Gjerstad's approach to CC narratives (2013a, 2013b), and (2) the Scandinavian theory of linguistic polyphony, or ScaPoLine. He explains the theoretical framework, before the analysis, which is organized according to the narrative structure, beginning with the initial situation and ending with the final situation.

In late 2011 the South African government published a White Paper outlining climate change response policies for the coming decades. Among the main topics of the text were the socio-economic and climatic vulnerabilities of the country, including the situation of the poor. With the aim of analysing the argumentation regarding climate change and social justice we develop a combined linguistic and discursive approach, starting with occurrences of keywords pertaining to rights, equity and poverty. The White Paper's conceptualisation of climate change is explored as a narrative, at the level of the text as a whole. This combined analysis shows that the legal rights of the poor are hardly given any place in the argumentation, whereas less constricting political intentions are far more present. Furthermore, the text attributes a passive role to the poor, dependent on the benevolence of a government that attributes the role of hero to itself.

The purpose of the present paper is to examine a selection of macro- and micro-linguistic features (at text and sentence/word level respectively) of the South-African Green Paper “National Climate Change Response” from 2010. Our overarching assumption is that the Green Paper needs to handle competing interests, beliefs and voices in a narrative structure favouring specific courses of action. How does the government portray the complex natural and societal phenomenon of climate change, and how does it take into account the many and often competing national and international views and interests which come into play? Our hypothesis is that the Green Paper constructs a narrative and that it relates to a number of voices other than that of the authors, through linguistic markers of polyphony, such as negation, sentence connectives, adverbs and reported speech. Thus we propose a narrative and polyphonic analysis of the Green Paper, at the level of the text as a whole (macro-level) but also with attention to linguistic constructions of polyphony or “multi-voicedness” (micro-level). We find that the narrative-polyphonic properties of the Green Paper contribute to a strategy for building consensus on climate change policy. The South African government assumes the role of main hero in its own climate change “story”, and there are subtle forms of interaction with different and typically non-identified voices, such as concessive constructions and presuppositions. These results support our overarching interpretation of the whole document as striving to impose a South African consensus on the issue of climate change.

‘Stories’ used to communicate climate change knowledge shape opinions and preferences, and analyzing such narratives can help explain how they are constructed and how they influence us on personal and societal scales. The narrative perspective makes it possible to identify the presence or absence of typical components in a ‘story,’ such as initial situation, complication, reaction(s), resolution, and final situation, and to identify different actors or narrative characters (heroes, villains, victims). This article reviews the notions of narratives and frames, describes narrative analysis generally and more specifically how a text linguistic perspective can benefit from and contribute to the Narrative Policy Framework in narrative analysis. It illustrates how different approaches can be applied as analytical tools to explore the effects of conflicting narratives (frames) on public opinion of and attitudes towards climate change. Applied to various text genres, the analysis identifies different components of the ‘stories,’ at overarching levels of the text as a whole and at microlevels such as sentences. This may have rhetorical implications, as controversial points of view can be hidden from critical assessment through the condensation of narrative components into short expressions. When exposed to conflicting ‘stories,’ people get a diverse picture of climate change, a diversity which may, however, also lead to confusion about how to react. Concerning the narrative characters, recent research indicates that a clear hero role has a large persuasive impact. More experiments testing how people interpret various narratives should be undertaken in an interdisciplinary perspective, combining social science, and linguistic approaches. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e429. doi: 10.1002/wcc.429 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

This paper investigates how the notion of future is represented in a large corpus of English-language blogs related to climate change, with an overarching interest in exploring to what extent the perspectives of gloom-and-doom versus more positive perspectives of a sustainable society are represented. We address the following questions: (1) How are representations of the future expressed linguistically in public debates related to climate change? (2) What meanings do the representations convey? Our principal contribution is a set of nine meaning categories that characterize different representations of the future: the categories were derived by following a corpus-assisted discourse analysis approach. Within these categories, the large presence of characterisations related to sustainability, as well as frequent positive value-laden characterisations, are noteworthy. Representa- tions reflect various perspectives of a future for humanity, for nature, and for countries as well as for economies. Further, we have found that when climate change is viewed as a threat, it is in relation to nature, humans and security, while it is seen as an opportunity for growth in business and industry. The results provide knowledge on how people conceive the possible impacts of global climate and environmental change within two broad perspectives of a ‘‘gloom-and-doom’’ versus a ‘‘bright’’ future. This may contribute to an improved basis for political decision making on measures in order to avoid dangerous consequences as well as to encourage engagement in the shift toward a low-carbon future. acceptedVersion