Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán các văn bản báo chí tiếng Anh về biến đổi khí hậu

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



LƯU THỊ KIM NHUNG

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
OF ENGLISH MEDIA TEXTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
A thesis submitted to the University of Languages and International Studies
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 62 22 15 01

Hanoi, 2016


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



LƯU THỊ KIM NHUNG

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
OF ENGLISH MEDIA TEXTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
A thesis submitted to the University of Languages and International Studies
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 62 22 15 01

Supervisors: Ha Cam Tam, Ph.D.
Tran Xuan Diep, Asso. Prof. Ph.D.

Hanoi, 2016


Abstract
This study critically analyzed how the power relation between the developed and
developing countries as well as the ideologies about these countries‟ responsibilities
for climate change were discursively constructed in The Independent and The New
York Times’ coverage of the Conferences of the Parties to the UNFCCC between
2004 and 2013. The method of analysis was a qualitative critical discourse analysis
with the support of corpus techniques.
The findings from the study showed that although the altering but consistent
ideologies were struggling with each other, they were all important. Three main
ideologies were decoded in response to the research questions. First, both unity and
conflict existed in the power relation between the developed and developing
countries at the global climate conferences, with the heavier weight on the conflict.
Second, the developed countries seemed reluctant and indifferent towards their
responsibility for climate change. Third, the developing countries were required to
take responsibility for climate change due to their rapid growth but they still
demanded aid from the developed countries. Consequently, no consensus could be
reached on a common framework for climate change, and the lengthy process of
global climate conferences yielded nothing but confusion and delayed action.
The linguistic features of lexical choice, lexical relation, metaphor, passivization,
nominalization and modality were found ideologically invested in the newspapers‟

portrayal of the power relation and ideologies. Also, the ideologies and the language
features that conveyed these ideologies were influenced by the two media outlets‟
political commitments, news values, news agenda, and the socio-economic and
historical background that embedded the discourse. All in all, the media bolstered
the asymmetrical power nexus and the ideologies about the responsibilities for
climate change in the interest of the developed nations.

i


Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I am especially indebted to my supervisors, Doctor Ha Cam
Tam and Associate Professor Tran Xuan Diep, for their challenging questions,
immeasurable guidance and support through every stage of my PhD journey so far.
I do really appreciate their astute advice, kind encouragement and insightful
feedback on my work.
I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to Professor Nguyen Hoa, Professor
Hoang Van Van, Associate Professor Le Hung Tien, Professor Nguyen Quang,
who, in one way or another, have inspired me into the field of linguistics in general
and critical discourse analysis in particular; to Doctor Huynh Anh Tuan, Associate
Professor Ngo Huu Hoang, Associate Professor Nguyen Van Do, and numerous
other lecturers at University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam
National University, Hanoi for their immensely helpful guidance and support during
my study.
I would also like to thank the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, University of
Languages and International Studies, and all its staff members for their constant
supply of information and advice on stages of my study; my fellow graduate students
who have built such a pleasant community to be part of.
I am really grateful to my colleagues at Faculty of English in particular, at Hanoi
National University of Education in general, for supporting me throughout my study.

My final but definitely not least thanks go to my beloved big family for their
unconditional support all along the way. I am particularly indebted to my late father
for his absolute confidence in my learning capacity and my devoted mother for
guiding me into this field of study since my very early years in life. A special thank
goes to my husband for showing his continuing concern during my studies and
beyond. Ultimately, a most loving thank to my son and daughter for their always
being proud of their mom, and for always being there to remind me of the real
significance in life.
ii


ONTENTS
Declaration ...................................................................................................................i
Abstract ........................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables and Figures ......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of Abbreviations................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. iii
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... CLXXII
1. Rationale for the study ................................................................................ CLXXII
2. Aim and objectives of the study ................................................................ CLXXIV
3. Research questions ...................................................................................... CLXXV
4. Significance of the study ............................................................................. CLXXV
5. Contextual background ............................................................................. CLXXVI
Social context ................................................................................................ CLXXVI
Discursive practices .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
6. Methodological considerations ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7. Scope of the study ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
8. Structure of the thesis ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW .............. Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.1 Critical Discourse Analysis ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1.1 Basic notions in CDA....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1.2 Major tenets in CDA ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1.3 CDA as a Conceptual Framework and Methodology .... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
1.1.4 Critiques of CDA ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2 Corpus techniques in CDA.................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3 Previous research on climate change discourse .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.1 Content analysis of media discourse on global warming and/or climate change
................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
iii


1.3.2 Discourse analysis of media discourse on global warming and/or climate
change........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.3 CDA of media discourse on global warming and/or climate change ...... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1 Research questions .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2 The study corpora ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.1 The sources ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.2 Corpus compilation .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3 Analytical framework.......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.1 Corpus tools used in this study ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.2 Fairclough‟s Dialectical-Relational analytical framework adopted in this study
................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 3. POWER RELATION ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1 Newsworthiness of the COPs in The Independent and The New York Times
................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2 The contextual background ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.3 The unity discourse ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4 The conflict discourse ......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4.1 The conflict between the developed and developing countries ............... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
3.4.2 The conflict among the developed, developing, and small countries ...... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 4. THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES’ RESPONSIBILITY FOR
CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1 The developed countries‟ responsibility for climate change ... Error! Bookmark
not defined.
4.2 The developed countries‟ responsibility for climate change is a possibility, not a
reality......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3 The developed countries‟ attitudes towards their responsibility................. Error!
Bookmark not defined.
iv


CHAPTER 5. THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES’ RESPONSIBILITY FOR
CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.1 The developing countries‟ responsibility for climate change .. Error! Bookmark
not defined.
5.2 The developing countries‟ attitudes towards their responsibility ............... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
5.3 The developing countries‟ demands ................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CONCLUSION ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. Recapitulation ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2. Implications ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1 Theoretical implications ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2 Methodological implications ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3 Practical implications .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.1 For the media.................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.2 For education ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3. Limitations ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4. Suggestions for further research............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
REFERENCES ............................................................................................. CLXXVII
APPENDIX ..................................................................................................... CLXXII

v


INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale for the study
This research work originated in our interest in the climate change issues and
the applicability of critical discourse analysis in exploring the manipulative power
exercised through media discourse on climate change.
Climate change has been considered one of the most crucial challenges that
faces every nation of the world today (see Betsill and Bulkeley, 2004; de Blij, 2005;
Dow and Downing, 2007; Hoffman and Woody, 2008; Held, Theros and FaneHervey, 2011; Singer, 2011; Filho and Manolas, 2012; Klein, 2014; Dunlap
and Brulle, 2015; to name but a few). It has adversely affected the lives of all
people, regardless of their socio-economic status. As a globally comprehensive
response to climate change, the annual United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change‟s (UNFCCC) Conferences of the Parties (COPs) – the biggest
international climate conferences - have been going on for over twenty years now.
Every year, assurances are said and expectations are raised but only partial solutions
are produced and little is achieved in terms of concrete tangible outcomes. As the
world is becoming ever more polarized between the developed and the developing
countries, the rich and the poor countries, even among the rich developed countries
themselves and among the developing countries themselves, more and more parties
with conflicting interests and benefits are joining the negotiation table at the climate

conferences. Particularly, when the issues of responsibility distribution and
economic contribution have become more apparent on the agenda of the
conferences, such conflicting interests and benefits have contributed to the
increased complexity and complication of the contested global debates about
climate change issues. Certainly, such a pivotal issue in such a lengthy process
involving so many governments and people must definitely resort to particular

CLXXII


linguistic and discursive means in the media to justify the different parties‟ interests,
attitudes and behaviors in ways that they appear fair on the one hand and avoid or
delay taking action for their own benefits on the other hand. The situation inspires
us to conduct this research to uncover how media language has been manipulated to
convey the power relation between the developed and developing countries as well
as their responsibilities for climate change.
As the climate change debate has become such a globally sophisticated arena,
multiple voices are getting heard. Among them, linguists have delved into the
analyses of rhetorical devices, discourse strategies, metaphors, framing, and other
aspects of text and talk on climate change. Typical examples include Arnal et al.
(2014), Boykoff and Boykoff (2004, 2007), Carvalho (2005, 2007), Doulton and
Brown (2009), Ereaut and Segnit (2006), Grundmann and Krishnamurthy (2010),
Moser and Dilling (2004, 2007), Nerlich and Koteyko (2009, 2011), Painter (2011),
Thaker and Leiserowitz (2014), Tillinghast and McCann (2013), Ukonu et al.
(2013), Wang (2009), Ward (2008), Wodak and Meyer (2012) who have all
commented on the significance of the language used in communicating climate
change issues. Despite such a body of literature, however, to our best knowledge,
virtually no study has focused on the linguistic realizations of the ideologies about
the developed and developing countries‟ responsibilities for climate change which
are discursively constructed in the media so as to interpret and explain these

countries‟ attitudes, behaviours and actions at the global climate debate. In
consideration of the increasingly changing power relations among countries in the
world, we believe it is significant to conduct a systematic and critical (discourse)
analysis employing linguistic tools with a fairly large sample of media language
focusing on the developed and developing countries at the global climate
conferences. In so doing, it is expected that the media‟s use of language and the
ideologies about these dichotomous countries‟ responsibilities for climate change
will be deciphered through the lens of the discursive and social practices that embed
the language in the media.

CLXXIII


2. Aim and objectives of the study
According to the prominent CDA scholars, such as Billig, Chilton, Fairclough,
van Dijk, van Leeuwen, and Wodak, one of the most significant purposes of CDA is
to decode the ideology embedded in language use. Considering discourse a form of
social practice, critical discourse analysts attempt to uncover the reciprocal
influences of language and social structure (see Fairclough, 1989, 2015; van Dijk,
1993). Also, CDA aims “to unmask ideologically permeated and often obscured
structures of power, political control and dominance as well as strategies of
discriminatory inclusion and exclusion in language use” (Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl
and Liebhart, 1999: 8). It could, hence, be deducted that ideology and power
relations are of great importance in CDA research.
On account of the issues stated in the rationale for this study and in line with the
main purpose and aim of CDA, this study was set out to uncover the ideologically
contested power relation(s) between the developed and developing countries at the
global climate conferences as well as the ideologies about these countries‟
responsibilities for climate change, which are manifested in the English media
discourse on climate change under study. In particular, we will analyze how the

developed-developing countries‟ power relation and the ideologies about these
countries‟ responsibilities for climate change are constructed via the language in
The Independent and The New York Times’ newspapers. Therefore, the objectives of
the study are:
- to analyze the linguistic features in the English media discourse on climate
change under study and uncover the power relation(s) between the developed
and developing countries at the global climate conferences; and
- to analyze the linguistic features in the discourse and decode the ideologies
about the developed and developing countries‟ responsibilities for climate
change conveyed via the discourse; and
- to interpret and explain the power relation(s) between the developed and
developing countries and the ideologies about these countries‟ responsibilities

CLXXIV


for climate change in light of the social, political, and historical context
embedding the discourse under study.

3. Research questions
In consideration of the aim and objectives stated above, the following research
questions were posed:
1. What kind of power relation between the developed and developing countries
is constructed in the English media discourse under study? How is this
relation linguistically manifested via the discourse?
2. What are the ideologies about the developed and developing countries‟
responsibilities for climate change? How are these ideologies linguistically
manifested via the English media discourse under study?

4. Significance of the study

From a practical perspective, this research work is expected to contribute to an
enhanced understanding of a global concern about the international climate
conferences during the period 2004 – 2013 and the newspapers‟ ideologies about
the developed and developing countries‟ responsibilities for climate change. More
importantly, it is hoped that, as a critical analysis of media discourse, the research
will help the newspapers‟ readers see the manipulative power of the media so as to
become critical in their reading of the news.
From a methodological point of view, this study seeks to not only contribute to
an enhanced understanding of how to apply and extend the methodology of CDA,
but also to offer insights into the benefits of using corpus techniques to support
CDA.
From a pedagogical perspective, the findings of the study can be used as a
reference for schools and other educational institutions in establishing their
educational programs about climate change and critical reading. It is also important

CLXXV


that the study contribute to raising faculty and students‟ awareness of the role of
CDA in education and the role of media language in constituting the society.

5. Contextual background
As analyses of mediated discourse often entail the examination of discursive
practices as well as the broader societal conditions that “frame discourse practices
and texts” (Fairclough, 1998: 144), this section provides the social and discursive
contexts embedding the study discourse so as to lay the background for the study.
Social context
Climate change officially emerged on the world‟s agenda at the Earth Summit
in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, which agreed on the importance of the problem and
created a framework, the UNFCCC, for international action, although it left actual

policy recommendations mostly for the future. Being the most prominent
spokesperson on the state of climate change(1), the UNFCCC aims at preventing
humans‟ dangerous interventions into climate. In 1995, there were international
talks in order to urge the whole world to respond to climate change. In 1997, the
UNFCCC met in Kyoto (Japan) and approved of the Kyoto Protocol. But it was not
until 2005 that the protocol came into effect. Under this protocol, industrialized
countries are encouraged to reduce their greenhouse gases emissions to 5% below
1990 levels to keep the global temperature within 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
Although the Kyoto protocol has been widely criticized as a weak and
indecisive agreement, it is the strongest international legal framework that the
world‟s countries have so far been able to agree upon. For the time being, however,
there are quite different attitudes towards the protocol. On the one hand, the rich
industrialized countries in the European Union, including Britain, were pioneers and
have achieved certain success in reducing greenhouse gases emissions. On the other
hand, such countries as the United States, Canada and Australia have been really

1

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, />
CLXXVI


reluctant to commit to the targets in the Kyoto protocol for fear that these targets
REFERENCES

Arnall, A., Kothari, U., & Kelman, I. (2014). Introduction to politics of climate
change: discourses of policy and practice in developing countries. The
Geographical Journal, 180(2), 98-101. doi: 10.1111/geoj.12054
Askehave, I. (2007). The impact of marketisation on higher education genres – the
international student prospectus as a case in point. Discourse Studies, 9, 723-742.

doi: 10.1177/1461445607082576
Asplund, T. (2011). Metaphors in climate discourse: an analysis of Swedish farm
magazines. Journal of Science Communication, 10(4), 1-8.
Baker, P. (2004). Querying Keywords: Questions of Difference, and Sense in
Keyword Analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 32(4), 346-359.
Baker, P. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., KhosraviNik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T.,
Wodak, R. (2008). A Useful Methodological Synergy? Combining Critical
Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics to Examine Discourse of Refugees
and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 273-306.
BASIC experts. (2011). Equitable access to sustainable development: Contribution
to the body of scientific knowledge. BASIC expert group: Beijing, Brasilia, Cape
Town
and
Mumbai,
Retrieved
from
/>on_the_brazilian_proposal_20130503.pdf on 1st September, 2015.
Betsill, M. & Bulkeley, H. (2004). Cities and Climate Change. Taylor & Francis.
Beyerlin, U. (2006). Bridging the North-South Divide in International
Environmental Law. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 66, 259-296.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: investigating
language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.
Billig, M. & Schegloff, E. (1999). Critical discourse analysis and conversation
analysis: An exchange between Michael Billig and Emanuel A. Schegloff.
Discourse & Society, 10(4), 543-582.

CLXXVII

Bishop, H. & Jaworski, A. (2003). “We beat „em‟: Nationalism and the hegemony
of homogeneity in the British press reportage of Germany versus English during
Euro 2000, Discourse & Society, 14 (3), 243-271.
Boykoff, M.T, & Boykoff, J.M. (2004). Balance as bias: global warming and the
US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125-136. doi:
.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
Boykoff, M. (2008). The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK
tabloids. Political Geography, 27, 549-569.
Boykoff, M. T. & Roberts, J. T. (2007). Media coverage of climate change: current
trends, strenghts, weaknesses: United Nations Development Programme.
Breeze, R. (2013). Corporate Discourse. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Caillaud, S., Kalampalikis, N., & Flick, U. (2012). The Social Representations of
the Bali Climate Conference in the French and German Media. Journal of
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 363-378. doi: 10.1002/casp.1117
Cannon, T. & Mueller-Mahn, D. (2010). Vulnerability, resilience and development
discourses in context of climate change. Natural Hazards. doi: DOI
10.1007/s11069-010-9499-4
Carvalho, A., (2005). Representing the politics of the greenhouse effect: discursive
strategies in the British media. Critical Discourse Studies, 2, 1-29.
Carvalho, A., & Burgess, J. (2005). Cultural circuits of climate change in the UK
broadsheet newspapers 1985-2003. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457-1470.
Carvalho, A. (2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific
knowledge: re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of
Science, 16, 223-243.
Carvalho, A. & Pereira, E. (2008). Communicating climate change in Portugal: A
critical analysis of journalism and beyond. In A. Carvalho (Ed.), Communicating
Climate Change: Discourses, Mediations and Perceptions. Universidade do
Minho: Centro de Estudos de Comunicação e Sociedade.
Castilla, E.B., Quesada, M., & Teruel Rodríguez, L. (2013). From Kyoto to Durban.

Mass Media Editorial Position about Climate Change. Revista Latina de
Communicación Social, 68, 420-435. doi: 10.4815/RLCS-2013-983en
Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Politics and Rhetoric. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

CLXXVIII


Chen, S. (2013). Corpus Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: A Case Study
on News Reports of the 2011 Libyan Civil War. Stream:
Culture/Politics/Technology, 5(1), 21-28.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London:
Routledge.
Chiras, D.D. (2014). Environmental Science. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Chouliaraki, L. (1999). Media discourse and national identity: Death and myth in a
news broadcast. In R. Wodak & C. Ludwig (Eds.), Challenges in a Changing
World: Issues in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 37-62). Wien: Passagen Verlag.
Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking
Chritical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Coffey, B. (2010). The Politics of ‘Sustainability’: A Critical Discourse Analysis of
Victorian Government Policy Discourse, 1999-2006. (PhD), The University of
Queensland.
Dahl, T. & Fløttum, K. (2014). A linguistic framework for studying voices and
positions in the climate debate. Text & Talk, 34(4), 401-420.
Das, R. C. (1998). The Environmental Divide: The Dilemma of Developing
Countries. New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation.
de Blij, H. (2005). Why Geography Matters: Three Challenges Facing America:
Climate Change, the Rise of China, and Global Terrorism. Oxford University
Press.
Dispensa, J. M, & Brulle, R. J. (2003). Media‟s social construction of
environmental issues: Focus on global warming – a comparative study. Science

Communication, 35(3), 334-357. doi: 10.1177/1075547012457470
Dongmei, W. (2013). Applying Corpus Linguistics in Discourse Analysis. Studies
in
Literature
and
Language
6(2),
35-39.
doi:
10.3968/j.sll.1923156320130602.4002
Doulton, H. & Brown, K. (2009). Ten years to prevent catastrophe? Discourses of
climate change and international development in the UK press. Global
Environmental Change, 19, 191-202.
Dow, K. & Downing, T. E. (2007). The atlas of climate change: mapping the
world's greatest challenge. University of California Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

CLXXIX


Dunlap, R. E. & Brulle, R. J. (2015). Climate Change and Society: Sociological
Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Ellermann, C., Höhne, N., & Müller, B. (2011). Differentiating historical
responsibilities for climate change. In P. G. Harris (Ed.), China's responsibility
for climate change: Ethics, fairness and environmental policy: Policy Press.
Ereaut, G. & Segnit, N. (2006). Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story
and can we tell it better? London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
Eskjaer, M. F. (2009). Communicating Climate Change in Regional News Media.
International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 1(4), 356–

367.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995a). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995b). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language.
London; New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995c). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. van Dijk
(Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction - Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary
Introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, New Language? London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Critical discourse analysis, organizational discourse, and
organizational change. Organization Studies, 26, 915-39.
Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and Power (3rd ed.). London: Longman.
Filho, W. L. & Manolas, E. (2012). English through Climate Change. Democritus
University of Thrace: Department of Forestry and Management of the
Environment and Natural Resources.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock
Publications.
Fowler, R. (1985). Power. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis
(Vol. 4, pp. 61-82). London: Academic Press, Inc.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press.
London: Routledge.

CLXXX


Fowler, R. (1996). On critical linguistics. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M.
Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis

(pp. 3–14). London: Routledge.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and Control.
London: Routledge.
Gallagher, S. (1998). An Intercultural Reading and Critical Analysis of the
Discipline of Educational Psychology. PhD thesis. University of Loyola Chicago.
Goddard, P., Robinson, P., & Parry, K. (2008) “Patriotism Meets Plurality:
Reporting the 2003 Iraq War in the British Press.” Media, War and Conflict, 1
(1), 9–30.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. NowellSmith, Trans.).
Grundmann, R. & Krishnamurthy, R. (2010). The Discourse of Climate Change: A
Corpus-based Approach. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across
Disciplines, 4(2), 113-133.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1 ed.). London:
Arnold.
Hansen, A. (1991). The media and the social construction of the environment.
Media, Culture, and Society, 13(4), 443-458.
Held, D., Theros, M., & Fane-Hervey, A. (2011). The Governance of Climate
Change. Polity Press.
Hernández, A. M. (2014). Strategic Facilitation of Complex Decision-Making: How
Process and Context Matter in Global Climate Change Negotiations. Springer.
Hoffman, A. J. & Woody, J. G. (2008). Climate Change: What's Your Business
Strategy? Harvard Business Press.
Hulme, M. (2007). Newspaper scare headlines can be counter-productive. Nature,
445, 818.
Huq, S. & Sokona, Y. (2001). Climate Change Negotiations: A View from the
South. Opinion: World Summit on Sustainable Development. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development.
Jäger, S. & Maier, F. (2012). Theoretical and methodological aspects of
Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak &
M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Anlysis. London: Sage.

CLXXXI


Janks, H. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool. Discourse Studies
in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(3), 329-342.
Jeffries, L. & Walker, B. (2012). Key words in the press - A critical corpus-driven
analysis of ideology in the Blair years (1998- 2007). English Text Construction,
5(2), 208-229.
Johnson, S. & Esslin, A. (2006). Language in the news: Some reflections on
keyword analysis using Wordsmith Tools and the BNC. Leeds Working Papers
in Linguistics, 11.
Kandil, M. A. (2009). The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in American, Arab, and
British Media: Corpus-Based Critical Discourse Analysis. (PhD), Georgia State
University. Retrieved June 2013 from
/>Kean-Wah, L. & Ming, T. S. (2010). A Critical Discourse Analysis of the
Malaysian Smart Schools (mss) Conceptual Blueprint and Implications to
Implementation. The International Journal Of Language Society And Culture,
30(20), 142-154.
Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. The Climate. USA:
Simon and Schuster.
Koch, H.J., König, D., Sanden, J., & Verheyen, R. (2012). Climate Change and
Environmental Hazards Related to Shipping: An International Legal
Framework: Proceedings of the Hamburg International Environmental Law
Conference 2011. M. Nijhoff Publishers.
Koller, V. (2012). How to Analyze Collective Identity in Discourse – Textual and
Contextual Parameters. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across
Disciplines, 5(2), 19-38.
Koteyko, N., Jaspal, R., & Nerlich, B. (2013). Climate change and „climategate‟ in
online reader comments: a mixed methods study. The Geographical Journal,

179(1), 74–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00479.x
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Lillian, D. L. (2008). Modality, Persuasion and Manipulation in Canadian
Conservative Discourse. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across
Disciplines, 2(1), 1-16.

CLXXXII


Linder, S. H. (2006). Cashing-in on risk claims: on the for-profit inversion of
signifiers for “global warming”. Social Semiotics, 16(1), 103-132.
Livesey, S. M. (2002). Global Warming Wars: Rhetorical and Discourse Analytic
Approaches to ExxonMobil‟s Corporate Public Discourse. Journal of Business
Communication, 39(1), 117-148.
Luke, A. (2002). Beyond Science and Ideology Critique: Developments in Critical
Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 96-110.
Macko, D. (2012). The Use of Software for the Analysis of Lexical Properties of
Legal Discourse. Studies about Languages, 20.
Mautner, G. (2012). Checks and Balances: How Corpus Linguistics can Contribute
to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
McComas, K. & Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling Stories About Global Climate
Change: Measuring the Impact of Narratives on Issue Cycles. Communication
Research, 26(1), 30-57. doi: 10.1177/009365099026001003
Mejia, D. A. (2010). The Evolution of the Climate Change Regime: Beyond a
North-South Divide? Barcelona, Spain: Institut Cata la Internacional per la Pau.
Merkl-Davies, D.M. & Koller, V. (2012). Metaphoring‟ people out of this world: A
Critical Discourse Analysis of a chairman‟s statement of a UK defense firm.
Accounting Forum, 36(3), 178-193.

Moser, S.C. & Dilling, B. L. (2004). Making climate hot: communicating the
urgency and challenge of global climate change. Environment, 46(10), 32-46.
Moser, S. C. & Dilling, B. L. (2007). Creating a Climate for Change
Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge
University Press.
Mulderrig, J. (2011). Manufacturing Consent: a corpus-based critical discourse
analysis of New Labour‟s educational governance. Journal of Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 43(6).
Najam, A. (2005). Why Environmental Politics Looks Different from the South. In
P. Dauvergne (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental Politics (pp. 111-126).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Nerlich, B. & Koteyko, N. (2009). Compounds, creativity and complexity in climate
change communication: The case of „carbon indulgences‟. Global Environmental
Change, 19(3), 345–353.

CLXXXIII


Nerlich, B., Evans, V. & Koteyko, N. (2011). Low carbon diet': reducing the
complexities of climate change to human scale. Language and cognition, 3(1),
45-82.
Olausson, U. (2009). "Global Warming - Global Responsibility" Media Frames of
Collective Action and Scientific Certainty. Public Understanding of Science,
18(4), 421-436.
Painter, J. (2011). Poles Apart: The international reporting of climate change
scepticism. Oxford: RSIJ: Oxford University.
Parks, B. & Roberts, J.T. (2010). Climate change, social theory and justice. Theory,
Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 134-166.
Penetrante, A. M. (2010). Politics of Equity and Justice in Climate Change
Negotiations in North-South Relations. In H. G. Brauch, U. Spring, C. Mesjasz,

J. Grin, P. Kameri-Mbote, B. Chourou, P. Dunay & J. Birkmann (Eds.), Coping
with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security - Threats,
Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Risks (Vol. 5). Berlin, Heigelberg & New York:
Hexagon Springer-Verlag.
Penetrante, A. M. (2011). The Entanglement of Climate Change in North-South
Relations: Stumbling Blocks and Opportunities for Negotiation. In K. Richardson,
S. Will & D. Livermann (Eds.), Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and
Decisions (pp. 356-359). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Penetrante, A. M. (2013). Common but Differentiated Responsibilities. The NorthSouth Divide in the Climate Change Negotiations. In G. Sjostedt & A. M.
Penetrante (Eds.), Climate Change Negotiations. A Guide to Resolving Disputes
and Facilitating Multilateral Cooperation (pp. 249-276). London: Routledge.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R (2012). The discourse historical approach. In R. Wodak &
M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 87-121). London:
Sage.
Reynolds, D.W. (1995). Repetition in Non-native Speaker Writing. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 17, 185–209.
Richardon, J. E. (2007). Analysing newspapers: an approach from critical
discourse analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richards, M. (2001). A Review of the Effectiveness of Developing Country
Participation in the Climate Change Convention Negotiations. Retrieved 25

CLXXXIV


March 2014 from />Ringius, L., Frederiksen, P., & Birr-Pedersen, K. (2002). Burden Sharing in the
Context of Global Climate Change. A North-South Perspective (pp. 90).
Denmark: National Environmental Research Institute.
Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & O‟Garro, Joseph G.
(2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature.
Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 365-416.

Saichaie, K. (2011). Representation on college and university website: an approach
using critical discourse analysis. (PhD Dissertation), University of Iowa.
Retrieved
24
December
2014
from
/>Scheffran, J., Broszka, M., Brauch, H.G., Link, P.M. & Schilling, J. (2012). Climate
Change, Human Security and Violent Conflict: Challenges for Societal Stability.
Berlin: Springer Verlag, Hexagon.
Schelling, T. C. (1995). Intergenerational Discounting. Energy Policy, 23(4/5), 395401.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H.E. (2008). The Handbook of Discourse
Analysis: Wiley.
Schneider, S.H.; Rosencranz, A.; Mastrandrea, M.D.; Kuntz-Duriseti, K. (2009).
Climate Change Science and Policy. Island Press.
Schulzinger, R. D. (2006). A Companion to American Foreign Relations. Blackwell
Publishing.
Scollon, R. (2002). What's the point? Can mediated discourse analysis stop the war?
Retrieved 08 April 2012 from. />Scott, M. (2012). WordSmith Tools version 6.0. Retrieved 15 June 2013 from
/>Sharrock, W. W., & Anderson, D. C. (1981). Language, thought and reality again.
Sociology, 15, 287–293.
Sinclair, J.M. (1996). The search for units of meaning. Textus, 9, 75–106.
Sinclair, J.M. (1998). The lexical item. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive Lexical
Semantics (pp. 1– 24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

CLXXXV


Sinclair, J.M. (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London:

Routledge.
Sinclair, J. M. (2005). The phrase, the whole phrase and nothing but the phrase.
Paper presented at the Phraseology 2005, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Stubbs, M. (1994). Grammar, text and ideology. Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 201-223.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf's children: Critical comments on critical discourse
Analysis. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language (pp. 110116). Cleavedom: BAAL in association with Multilingual Matters.
Teubert, W. (2010). Meaning, Discourse and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Thaker, J., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). Shifting discourses of climate change in India.
Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1059-6
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative
Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27 (2), 237-246. DOI:
10.1177/1098214005283748.
Tillinghast, W. A., & McCann, M. (2013). Climate Change in Four News
Magazines: 1989- 2009. Online Journal of Communication and Media
Technologies 3(1), 22-48.
Trumbo, C. (1996). Constructing climate change: claims and frames in US news
coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science, 5(3), 269-283.
Ukonu, M.O., Akpan, C.S., & Anorue, L.I. (2013). The Media and the
Contradictions in Commitments to the Fight against Climate Change. Afrrev
International Journal of Arts and Humanities, 2(1), 1-16.
United Nations. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change.
Retrieved
30
August
2014
from

/>van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Ideological discourse analysis. New Currant, 4, 135-136.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998a). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell & P.
Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse. Massachusetts: Blackwell
Publishers Inc.

CLXXXVI


van Dijk, T. A. (1998b). Ideology - A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage
Publications.
van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H.
E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 352-371).
Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
van Dijk, T.A. (2004). From text grammar to critical discourse analysis (a brief
academic autobiography).
van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and Discourse Analysis. Journal of Political
Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
van Dijk, T. A. (2012). Critical discourse studies: a sociocognitive approach. In R.
Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
Sage.
van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. Caldas-Coulthard
& M. Coulthard (Eds.).
Verschueren, J. (2001). Predicaments of criticism. Critique of Anthropology, 21, 59-81.
Wang, F. (2009). A Corpus-based Discourse Analysis of Global Warming in
British, American and Chinese newspapers. Paper presented at the Corpus
Linguistics Conference CL 2009, University of Liverpool, UK.
Ward, B. (2008). A higher standard than „balance‟ in journalism on climate change
science. Climatic Change, 86, 13–17.
Weingart, P., Engels, A. & Pansegrau, P. (2000). Risks of communication:

discourses on climate change in science, politics and the mass media. Public
Understanding of Science, 9, 261-283.
Weiss, G., & Wodak, R., (2002). Critical Discourse Analysis. Theory and
Interdisciplinarity. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wetherell, I. (1998). Positioning and interpretive repertoires: Conversation analysis
and poststructuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9, 387-412.
White, R. (1993). North, South, and the Environmental Crisis. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1995a). Discourse analysis: A critical view. Language and
Literature, 4(3), 157–152.
Widdowson, H. G. (1995b). Review of Fairclough Discourse and Social Change.
Applied Linguistics, 16(4), 510–516.

CLXXXVII


Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Discourse and interpretation: Conjectures and refutations
[Reply to Fairclough, 1996]. Language and Literature, 5(1), 57-69.
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). On literature and representation of linguistic realities.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(1), 89-97.
Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (1999). Critical Discourse Analysis at the End of the 20th Century.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32 (1/2), 185-194.
Wodak, R, & Ludwig, C. (1999). Challenges in a changing world: Issues in Critical
Discourse Analysis. Vienna: Passagenverlag.
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl M. and Liebhart, K. (1999). Discursive
Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Wodak, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium,
& D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 197–213). London:

Sage.
Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. A. (Eds.). (2005). A new agenda in (critical) discourse
analysis. Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins
Pub. Co.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2012). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
Sage.
Wood, L.A., & Kroger, R.O. (2000). Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for
Studying Action in Talk and Text. SAGE Publications.
Yamin, F., & Depledge, J. (2004). The International Climate Change Regime, A
Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures. Sussex and Cambridge: Institute of
Development Studies/Cambridge University Press.

CLXXXVIII