Neutral Ground and Naming: The Implications of Tar Sands and Oil Sands for Environmental Debates in Alberta.

Lexical choices reflect stances of evaluation and position speakers in relation to each other. With highly controversial issues however, speakers' terms can index polarized positions, leaving little room for those who wish to indicate a more neutral stance. This paper explores how speakers name the controversial Athabasca tar/oil sands during public debates. Two roundtable discussions were recorded in Alberta in 2010, and the panelists completed a short questionnaire about their practices and attitudes regarding the terms tar sands and oil sands. An analysis of naming practices, drawing on stance theory and a critical approach to discourse, shows that these terms can be problematic for speakers. Participants employ various strategies to direct the interpretation of the speaker's stance and to avoid positioning on either side of the controversy. These findings contribute to stance-taking in highly contested political contexts while also having practical implications for naming practices of the tar/oil sands in Alberta. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]