A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
Discouraging climate action through implicit argumentation: An analysis of linguistic polyphony in the Summary for Policymakers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Authors: Kanerva Julia, Krizsan Attila
Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
Publication year: 2021
Journal: Discourse and Communication
Journal name in source: DISCOURSE & COMMUNICATION
Journal acronym: DISCOURSE COMMUN
Article number: ARTN 17504813211026512
Number of pages: 20
ISSN: 1750-4813
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211026512
Web address : https://doi.org/10.1177%2F17504813211026512
Self-archived copy’s web address: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/67825651
In this paper, we study on the ways the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) communicates scientific knowledge on climate change to policymakers in the Summary for Policymakers of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5); the most recent Assessment Report issued by the IPCC. We investigate implicit argumentation with a special focus on the ways the summary may direct the orientation of the discourse towards the evasion of climate action while appearing to be pro-action on the surface. The results of a systematic analysis of polyphonic constructions in the language of the text indicate that implicit argumentation represents climate action inevitably subordinate to economic goals. In a number of constructions, the discourse reconstructs pro-economic-growth-based frames in contrast to prioritising environmental values when encouraging political action in the context of climate change. Through such language use, the discourses mediated by an institution of such high societal importance and authority as the IPCC arguably have a considerable impact in maintaining conservative climate policies and delaying, even hindering, a transition into a carbon-neutral society. Thus, we conclude that even the most authoritative climate-science-policy institutions should reconsider their use of linguistic representations in terms of implicit argumentation in their communication in order to encourage climate action in a more straightforward manner. As long as the most authoritative actors in science-policy discourse on climate change continue to reinforce cognitive frames evading urgent action to mitigate climate change, it is questionable whether we can expect the policymakers to have the courage to take ambitious action even if the figures in the natural-scientific evidence sections of the reports were demonstrating clear worsening trends.
Downloadable publication This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |  |
