You are on page 1of 13

How does

the use
of
language
differ
between
sides of
the
argumen
t about
global
warming
?
By
Stewart
Scott
Table of Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................5
Aims.....................................................................................................................................................5
Hypothesis............................................................................................................................................6
Methodology.........................................................................................................................................6
Analysis................................................................................................................................................7
Concessions.....................................................................................................................................7
Nouns...............................................................................................................................................7
Stern............................................................................................................................................7
Stott..................................................................................................................................................7
Verbs................................................................................................................................................8
Stern............................................................................................................................................8
Stott.............................................................................................................................................8
Adjectives........................................................................................................................................8
Stern............................................................................................................................................8
Stott.............................................................................................................................................9
Metaphors & Smilies.......................................................................................................................9
Stern............................................................................................................................................9
Stott.............................................................................................................................................9
Shifting of word-class in a Shakespearean style............................................................................10
Stern..........................................................................................................................................10
Stott...........................................................................................................................................10
Word Order Alteration And Ellipsis...............................................................................................10
Stern..........................................................................................................................................10
Stott...........................................................................................................................................11
Sentence Function..........................................................................................................................11
Stern..........................................................................................................................................11
Stott...........................................................................................................................................11
Sentence Form...............................................................................................................................12
Stern..........................................................................................................................................12
Stott...........................................................................................................................................12
The Conclusion...................................................................................................................................13
How does the use of language differ between
sides of the argument about global warming

Introduction
In the past, man has always used machines, and tools to make life easier, and has in this way
elevated himself above the rest of the animal kingdom. For in excess of a century, man has been
using fuels known as hydrocarbons to power his latest tools.
Hydrocarbons are made by extracting crude oil from the ground and by heating it, extracting its
various components of differing densities. The uses of these 'fractions' of crude are used in
everything from rocket-fuel to tarmac, but it's widest uses however is petroleum, diesel and
kerosene, which are used to power both private and commercial vehicles. These fuels, when burned
(as they are to power moving parts) produce CO2.
It is now speculated, by some scientists, that the overall global temperature is going to rise as a
result of the CO2 produced by global warming which has formed an effective 'blanket' around the
world, lowering the rate at which heat is released.
There are two sides to this argument. One that argues that the above is a scientifically proven fact,
and that we need to immediately cut down how many hydrocarbons we burn, aka cutting our carbon
emissions. The other side however, argues that since the ice age, the earth has had climate changes
long before humans began burning hydrocarbons, and that without the latest scientific apparatus
that also burns hydrocarbons, we never would have been able to monitor the slight climate changes
that we have been experiencing. Each side of this argument has one 'champion'. The 'green' side has
Sir Nicholas Stern, and the other has Philip Stott.
I intend to investigate the difference between the type of language used to put across an argument
on either side of the issue.

Aims
It is all very well to say that I intend to investigate the differences, I do however need criteria upon
which to base any kind of analysis, let alone a conclusion. These are they;

● Use of emotive language


Metaphors, smilies.
Semantic fields.
Personification.
● Use of facts, figures or other scientific reasoning
● Use of sentence structuring at the world level
Shifting word classes, or even 'inventing' new words in a Shakespearean style.
Altering of word order to stress certain words
Ellipsis, to try and avoid a certain word being noticed
● Use of sentence structuring at the clause level
Foregrounding
Use of sentence function to convey information in a differing format
Use of sentence form to convey information with varying levels of finality, dependency
and rhythm

Hypothesis
I hypothesise that due to the the basis of the 'green' argument in modern scientific speculation, that
it will contain many scientific references, arbitrary units of measurement another other such
scientific language, key terms and thus, an appropriate semantic field throughout the report. It is
likely to contain a minimum of emotive language though, it is possible that it could contain much
figurative language to make scientific concepts more intelligible to the masses. The other side
however, will have less scientific argument, and more emotive language, in all divisions of my
aims, as it is trying to appeal to people who put more stock in common sense than speculation, and
thus communicates more in linguistic reason, than in formulae.
I also hypothesise that both reports will make use of all divisions of word level and clause level
sentence structure at one point or another to ensure that their points are read in the way that they
were written, both so that the reader and writers ideas are standardised, but also to prevent any
counter argument through a linguistic loop-hole. I am sure that both will contain a variety of
sentence forms, though the 'non-green' will contain far more interrogatives and exclamatories to
make it's points and rhetorics.

Methodology
As I mentioned in the introduction, each side of the debate has a champion. It just so happens that
both champions have published reports on the subject, one in the form of the (in)famous 'Stern
Report' and the other in the form of a 'BlogSpot'
I intend to read both of these reports thoroughly, and search for features mentioned in my aims.
After all these have been found, I then intend to analyse them in terms of purpose, which I will then
check for correlation with my assumed audience. One that is done, that composite will then be
check against my assumed objectives, and whether or not they have been met. I will then compare
the strategy and objectives between the two pieces to see if the differences in language are
coincidental, or if indeed, differing language is used due to a differing agenda, this will form my
conclusion, and thus implicitly, form my answer.
Analysis

Concessions
Before reading any of my analysis, it is important to note that the The Stern Report and The Stott
Comeback are both of different lengths, and as such, when comparing the occurrences of linguistic
features, I formed ratios, by using Feature/Total words. This analysis is in a format by which the
first sections are over-views of my findings. The quotations, and comparisons can all be found in
the final section.

Nouns

Stern
I found that indeed, as per my analysis, The Stern Report used lots of technical jargon or
statistics, often encapsulated by low/medium frequency lexis. The purpose of this is twofold.
Firstly, to lend credence to the argument by showing that the statements that Stern is making have
been researched and he proves this by citing them. Secondly, to maintain a purely logical line of
argument, so as to form a marked contrast between the Stern report, and all the other, rather
emotive, perspectives on global warming.
I also found a distinct lack of proper nouns, and an over-abundance of pronouns with the
vast majority being the first person plural used in both the active and passive voices, i.e. “us” &
“we”. The reason for this could well also, be twofold. Firstly, to engage in a positive politeness
strategy, and try to bring the audience onto his side by gathering them all under one banner, at the
same time as it becoming an effective hedge, preventing the allocation of blame to any specific
party when combined with the logical, but optimistic tone of the piece, much like the Polyanna
Principal.
The review also refers to itself as “the review” rather than the author saying “my findings
are that...” or suchlike. This may well be in order to make it sound like more than the works of one
man, much unlike the The Stott Comeback but also to help control the PR damage to the former
chief economist at the world bank and new labour if the report turns out to be every bit as
politically guided as Professor Stott suggests.

Stott
The Stott Comeback did make use of some technical Jargon, though not nearly as much as
the The Stern Report. The reason for this could well be that one of it's main points, so much so that
it earned it's own heading, is 'Untoward Faith In Models” mocks both the statistics, and their
sources, favouring practical experience over what Stott claims are unwarranted predictions. With
this in mind, it would be largely hypocritical for The Stott Comeback to use lots of technical jargon
under any guise other than to rend The Stern Report asunder.
The Stott Comeback, relative to The Stern Report, used an abundance of proper nouns. The
reason for this is fairly obvious. The Stott Comeback is trying to allocate points to specific parties
and uses proper nouns to apply its arguments to actual people, trying to contrast itself to the very
general Stern Report.
Verbs

Stern
The Stern Report uses a large amount of stative verbs so as to convey a sense of certainly. There are
also many modal auxiliaries used, but they are used far more to lend a sense of moral obligation
('should' for the most part) than they are to detail a level of uncertainty. The purpose of this is to try
and make the scientific assertions of Sir Stern's seem like the gospel truth, as it is on them that his
entire argument rests.
The Stern Report also uses a mixture of the active and passive voices. These tear the argument into
two separate intentions. First and foremost, the report is trying to be blameless, implicating no
specific party as holding the majority of the blame, so as to unify the audience. For a task like this,
the passive voice is the weapon of choice, as it subjectifies the object of concern. However, this is
not always the best method of trying to encourage people to action. So, Stern has also used the
active voice, especially in conjunction with inclusive pronouns.

Stott
The Stott Comeback, like the The Stern Report uses a large amount of stative verbs and a degree of
modals. The purposes behind these between the two texts are dramatically different. The Stott
Comeback uses modals in order to foster a sense of reason. This correlates with the general tone of
the whole piece is a manner of uncertainty in prediction and motive. The stative verbs are used only
to denote fact, as opposed to assigning adverbs, which Stott does usually with commas. The effect
this has is tying a country to a word tightly by the inference of being, meaning that as the use of
statives is relatively minimised the ones that are used command more power than they otherwise
would.
In terms of the active and passive voices, The Stott Comeback uses mainly the active voice as he is
quite clearly trying to convey just who be believes did what so as the readers might have faces to
attach all of the blame and mistrust that Stott is trying to allocate.

Adjectives

Stern
The Stern Report uses a large number of comparative adjectives. This is as Stern's entire argument
is based entirely around change, specifically climate change. Without comparative adjectives, Stern
would not have been able to differentiate between the then, the now and the where we should be,
quite so eloquently. This eloquence makes the piece easier to read, which draws in the reader as
his/her brain would be complaining less about the readability of the text. Examples include 'next
(10-20 years)' 'early (as 2005)'
The Stern Report uses not only modals to denote moral obligation and levels of certainty, but also
adjectives like 'essential', 'basic' and 'critical.' these words are often backgrounded to the end of the
sentence, so as they might carry the power of 'the last word'. This could reach his audience more
effectively than having them in the middle of the sentence, causing them to be more likely to take
measures to reduce emissions in their own homes, it sure worked for my mother. Examples include
'serious (global threat)' 'Vulnerable ((goes on to talk about developing countries))'
Stott
Of the two, The Stott Comeback is the one far more densely packed with adjectives. Most noun-
phrases in the piece carry one in either the pre, or post modification string. The effect is this is to
give the reader a far clearer picture as to the authors conveyed message as well as giving the reader
some background into current affairs that they might not be well versed in. They also help the entire
mocking tone or the argument by binding the adjectives to the nouns so strongly as mentioned in
the Stern section.
Stott also in a number of places makes use of what seem to be acting as adjectival phrases inside
parenthesis. The effect of this is an effective pause in the otherwise perfect fluency of the piece,
while it elaborates on the point just made, so as the less well-informed reader might not
misunderstand any of the points made by Stott. It also can take the place of a conclusion in the
readers mind, forming an effective summary of the point made for later reference, so as to help
spread the Stott's opinions via word-of-mount. If, however the reader has a massive difference in
opinion to that of Stott, then this conclusion could well be dismissed, and voided in the eyes of the
reader.

Metaphors & Smilies

Stern
Though I expected The Stern Report to be full of metaphors and smilies to help convey it's ideas, I
actually found that the language was all very literal, using almost no figurative devices. This could
well be because Stern wants his argument to seem very concrete and solid, without the need for
dressing it up in a world of make-believe analogies. Given that his audience of the executive
summary is a collection of business executives, how are likely to know far-flung claims and Willy
Lowman style justifications very well, this concrete style of argument serves the report very well.

Stott
The Stott Comeback, on the other hand, uses a metaphor or simile to hammer almost every single
point home. 'would resemble a...' 'on board the good ship global warming' 'his best efforts in this sea
of troubles would be torpedoed' 'like Glasgow on a Saturday night.' the list could cover this whole
analysis. The purposes of these are wide and varied. Some, exist merely to make the reader smile as
he/she reads through this commentary, endearing both the author and piece of the reader, making it
more likely that he/she will take the side of Stott in this debate over global warming.
Others have a more similar purpose similar to that which I suspected would be commonplace in The
Stern Report, to form an analogy for the reader. Stott's fill this function, but they do so with a twist.
Stott's figurative language not only inform, but they also ridicule Stern, or the British government at
almost every turn. This is a very subtle strategy of positive politeness. By just spending an hour in
your local public house, you can see that no matter where you are, everyone will always have a
verbal bash at the government. By ridiculing the government so, Stott is not only showing his
forthrightness, but also showing that he is like you & I, much unlike the tone of The Stern Report,
which insists on a strategy of self-elevation.
Shifting of word-class in a Shakespearean style

Stern
I expected to find a lot of this in The Stern Report so as to save Stern having to define an economic
key-term every time that one was used, or having to use a more words alternative. Again, it would
seem that in my hypothesis, I did not take account of my audience. The executive summary of The
Stern Report is aimed at business executives, who would already know the meaning of economic
key terms, and thus there is not need for either a wordy definition, or a new word. This strategy is
used as it endears the audience of Stern, as the report will seem more knowledgeable if it uses all
the correct technical jargon, in all the correct places. This means that the piece is far more powerful
in terms of being able to sway the reader from the fence, to the side of The Stern Report.

Stott
Stott has also made no use of this technique. This is hardly surprising, as he has done his best to use
a minimum of key terms so as to endear himself to his audience in the way that I have mentioned in
the previous section.

Word Order Alteration And Ellipsis

Stern
The Stern Report makes no use of ellipsis, contrary to my expectations. It would seem that Stern
decided that though ellipting words could avoid saying the unsayable, it would make his sentences
appear incomplete, which to many might seem worse, and that also there are other ways of avoiding
topics than ellipsis, not mentioning it being one. This maps rather well to Stern's objectives in a way
that I had not foreseen. Stern was commissioned by the Government to write it, so as to make it
seem that the science was 'settled'. Any iffy word-play or evasion of certain phrases would only
draw more attention to them, due to the inquisitive nature of his audience. This, combined with the
lack of ellipsis making the piece seem very straight-shooting, would lend credence to The Stern
Report, helping it persuade, thereby meeting its objectives.
On the other hand, The Stern Report makes frequent use of foregrounding and backgrounding. Most
uses of this are designed to put stress on certain words, and ultimately, altering the inferred
meaning, without having to alter the words, helping conceal the pieces persuasive nature. For
example, moving 'even' to the end of a sentence, 'totally' to the back, or any other completely
inclusive, or exclusive words, often acting as adverbs or manner, or evaluative adjectives to the
front, or back of a sentence can easily window-dress an issue. The above detailed features make the
issue described by the piece seem more serious, placing in the readers mind a sense of urgency and
moral obligation, thereby accomplishing Stern's aims.
Stott
The Stott Comeback on the other hand makes much use of ellipsis. Unlike my hypothesis of The
Stern Report, it uses it to maintain a rhythmic line of argument while it is being read. This might as
first seem like a trivial point, but for such an argument as The Stott Comeback, its ability to roll off
the tongue, and amuse, is its lives-blood. This rhythmic line of argument humanises Stott, which
helps his argument born of common sense by making its author seem to be a man of the people, not
a lab coat wearing researcher. This appearance lends credence to his statements.
The Stott Comeback also uses foregrounding and backgrounding for very similar reasons to The
Stott Comeback, bringing noun phrases, adjectival phrases and sometimes even verb phrases to the
front or back of a sentence, so as to put stress on certain aspects of circumstance in the same way
that The Stern Report does, and for similar reasons, to help Stott's argument along.

Sentence Function

Stern
As I had originally expected, The Stern Report makes use of a great deal of declaratives, and few
interrogatives or imperatives. To analyse this, we must not look at why declaratives were used, but
rather, why the other two types were avoided.
Trying to force, or push high level business executives wouldn't be a good idea, as they would far
rather be presented with the evidence, and make their own judgement, and any attempt to the
contrary could well sound not only sensationalist, but political, one of the main things Stern tries to
avoid. For these reasons, use of imperatives could lose Stern his audience, and his image, flouting
his objectives, and are for these reasons avoided.
Stern very much wishes to make it sound like the science of the matter is without fault, so any
question or uncertainty even were it just rhetorics, could well support the main point of The Stott
Comeback comeback, and this is something to be avoided at all costs, as it would destroy The Stern
Report's credibility. Severely limiting its persuasive potential.
Thus, the only real alternative left, is declaratives, which have the bonus of not only being certain,
and usually respectful, but also allowing sentence structures, and argument lines that the other two
functions might make impossible. Though, Stern, in doing this, does also sacrifice a few lines of
argument that could have proved to be very effective in accomplishing his objectives.

Stott
The Stott Comeback on the other hand, contains all of the three main sentence functions. As
opposed to the elimination style in which I analysed STR, I can analyse the reasons why each were
used.
Imperatives are mainly used for rhythmic purposes, attaining the same objective fulfilling aspects as
aforementioned, but they are also used to express compulsion to the reader. This, again humanises
Stott, as everyone has opinions, and voices them directly, and strongly from time to time, this has
the same effects as I have mentioned many times before, all helping him accomplish his objectives.
Interrogatives are used mainly for rhetorical questions, so as to give the argument more of a
flowing feel to the reader, just like a verbal comeback would sound, it also causes the question to be
asked in the reader's head before the answer is supplied, psychologically imprinting the answer in
their brain, thereby adhering to the objectives of The Stott Comeback.
Though the other two sentence types have their uses, declaratives form the main body of The Stott
Comeback, for the simple reason that over-using the above argumentative techniques would only
make them stale, negating the power that they had commanded, thereby leading to Stott's objectives
not being met.

Sentence Form

Stern
The Stern Report makes use of a variety of sentence forms, simple, compound and complex. The
majority of them however, are complex containing two or more dependant clauses. The entire basis
of The Stern Report's argument is that our own burning of fossil fuels has directly lead to Global
Warming, it is therefore suitable for Stern to use sentence forms by which one clause depends on
another, just as our past actions, and subsequent actions do, so as to better convey his points,
thereby moving closer to his objectives.
Simple sentences aren't used so much, and there are no sound-bites. This is understandable, as the
audience of The Stern Report are mostly business executives, and would be used to hearing big talk,
small delivery, and indeed, have most likely come to expect it from sensationalist writing, or claims.
Therefore using sound-bites in simple sentences would be unwise as it would severely limit the
persuasive potential of The Stern Report.
Compound sentences are used reasonably commonly, often in conjunction with complex ones, so as
to be able to convey multiple consequences of one action, which in Stern's hands, become a weapon
of linguistic lethality, when it comes to guilt-tripping the population about emission levels.

Stott
The Stott Comeback is almost the polar opposite to The Stern Report in terms of sentence forms, it
uses many sound-bites, in simple sentences, so as to ensure a rhythmic, almost verbal-sounding feel
to the piece. This, for reasons documented above time and time again, is very important, as without
it The Stott Comeback would lose a lot of its persuasive power.
Compound sentences are also used quite a lot in The Stott Comeback, mainly to help Stott convey
his ideas on a topic once he as defined it, and assigned its dependant variables. His use of
compound sentences is very powerful in places, as it sometimes makes the reader feel that there is
no end to untold truths and holes in The Stern Report.
Complex sentences are often used to express the motivation behind a certain part of The Stern
Report's argument, and it is this logical progression, born of common-sense based deductive
reasoning, that make The Stott Comeback so appealing and approachable. These qualities and its
straight-shooting tone are what give it much of its persuasive power.
The Conclusion
The purposes of the two pieces however, are very similar, they both attempt to thwart the
oppositions argument, to inform their audiences, and to persuade them, the means may be different,
but the ends remain the same.
In terms of audience, The Stern Report aims at business executives and economists mainly, while
The Stott Comeback aims at anyone with a level of common sense, linguistic competence, and a
sense of humour. This means that though it isn't quite as famous, The Stott Comeback has a larger
possible audience, meaning that over time, as it grows more popular, it will need a lower success
rate to equal the effectiveness of The Stern Report.
In conclusion, though the two pieces argue over the same topic, albeit at opposite ends of it, their
argument styles and consequently, their linguistic features differ wildly. The Stern Report takes a
very unemotive, scientific, unamusing tone to the whole affair of Global Warming. The Stott
Comeback on the other hand deals in a rather emotive, mocking and very amusing tone with regard
to its argument style

You might also like