气候知识还是气候辩论?

IF 0.9 4区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Terminology Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1075/term.00076.bur
Pauline Bureau
{"title":"气候知识还是气候辩论?","authors":"Pauline Bureau","doi":"10.1075/term.00076.bur","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While media coverage of climate change has been shown to imply selective knowledge transformation (Carvalho 2007; Brand & Brunnengräber 2012; Kunelius & Roosvall 2021), studies assessing the potential for climate experts’ terminology to acquire ideological undertones as it enters mediatic discourses are still scarce. Through this article, we aim to compare the meaning climate experts and the media give to terms pertaining to climate change in English discourses and to determine whether potential cotextual variation in the discourses produced by these two communities have ideological implications. To this aim, we use the deep learning algorithm Word2vec (Mikolov et al. 2013; González Granado 2021) to identify terms whose cotext of occurrence is prone to high variability depending on whether it is included in a newspaper corpus on climate change or one composed of reports from intergovernmental organizations. We then rely on statistical tools from corpus linguistics to compare the main co-occurrences of two of the terms identified – adaptation and energy security –, which we combine with Critical Discourse Analysis (Baker et al. 2008) to interpret the variation in terms of meaning and ideological significance. Results suggest that the appropriation of expert terminology by the media does entail a certain degree of conceptual variation, which notably seems to allow for bringing issues of social justice, financing and energy transition into focus and assessing expert knowledge along those lines.","PeriodicalId":44429,"journal":{"name":"Terminology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Climate knowledge or climate debate?\",\"authors\":\"Pauline Bureau\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/term.00076.bur\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While media coverage of climate change has been shown to imply selective knowledge transformation (Carvalho 2007; Brand & Brunnengräber 2012; Kunelius & Roosvall 2021), studies assessing the potential for climate experts’ terminology to acquire ideological undertones as it enters mediatic discourses are still scarce. Through this article, we aim to compare the meaning climate experts and the media give to terms pertaining to climate change in English discourses and to determine whether potential cotextual variation in the discourses produced by these two communities have ideological implications. To this aim, we use the deep learning algorithm Word2vec (Mikolov et al. 2013; González Granado 2021) to identify terms whose cotext of occurrence is prone to high variability depending on whether it is included in a newspaper corpus on climate change or one composed of reports from intergovernmental organizations. We then rely on statistical tools from corpus linguistics to compare the main co-occurrences of two of the terms identified – adaptation and energy security –, which we combine with Critical Discourse Analysis (Baker et al. 2008) to interpret the variation in terms of meaning and ideological significance. Results suggest that the appropriation of expert terminology by the media does entail a certain degree of conceptual variation, which notably seems to allow for bringing issues of social justice, financing and energy transition into focus and assessing expert knowledge along those lines.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Terminology\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Terminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00076.bur\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Terminology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00076.bur","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然媒体对气候变化的报道已被证明意味着有选择性的知识转化(Carvalho 2007; Brand & Brunnengräber 2012; Kunelius & Roosvall 2021),但评估气候专家的术语在进入媒体话语时是否可能带有意识形态色彩的研究仍然很少。本文旨在比较气候专家和媒体在英语话语中赋予气候变化相关术语的含义,并确定这两个群体所产生的话语中潜在的同文差异是否具有意识形态含义。为此,我们使用了深度学习算法 Word2vec(Mikolov 等人,2013 年;González Granado,2021 年)来识别那些根据是否包含在有关气候变化的报纸语料库或由政府间组织的报告组成的语料库中,其出现的同源文本容易出现高度变异的术语。然后,我们利用语料库语言学的统计工具,比较了其中两个术语(适应和能源安全)的主要共现情况,并将其与批判性话语分析(Baker 等,2008 年)相结合,从意义和意识形态意义的角度解释了这些变化。结果表明,媒体对专家术语的使用确实存在一定程度的概念差异,尤其是在关注社会公正、融资和能源转型问题以及评估专家知识时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Climate knowledge or climate debate?
While media coverage of climate change has been shown to imply selective knowledge transformation (Carvalho 2007; Brand & Brunnengräber 2012; Kunelius & Roosvall 2021), studies assessing the potential for climate experts’ terminology to acquire ideological undertones as it enters mediatic discourses are still scarce. Through this article, we aim to compare the meaning climate experts and the media give to terms pertaining to climate change in English discourses and to determine whether potential cotextual variation in the discourses produced by these two communities have ideological implications. To this aim, we use the deep learning algorithm Word2vec (Mikolov et al. 2013; González Granado 2021) to identify terms whose cotext of occurrence is prone to high variability depending on whether it is included in a newspaper corpus on climate change or one composed of reports from intergovernmental organizations. We then rely on statistical tools from corpus linguistics to compare the main co-occurrences of two of the terms identified – adaptation and energy security –, which we combine with Critical Discourse Analysis (Baker et al. 2008) to interpret the variation in terms of meaning and ideological significance. Results suggest that the appropriation of expert terminology by the media does entail a certain degree of conceptual variation, which notably seems to allow for bringing issues of social justice, financing and energy transition into focus and assessing expert knowledge along those lines.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Terminology
Terminology Multiple-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Terminology is an independent journal with a cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary scope. It focusses on the discussion of (systematic) solutions not only of language problems encountered in translation, but also, for example, of (monolingual) problems of ambiguity, reference and developments in multidisciplinary communication. Particular attention will be given to new and developing subject areas such as knowledge representation and transfer, information technology tools, expert systems and terminological databases. Terminology encompasses terminology both in general (theory and practice) and in specialized fields (LSP), such as physics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信