Language Use

We need to think about language.

As we consider climate communication strategies, an often-forgotten aspect of the discussion has to do with language. We devote a great deal of time to thinking about what we say to get as many people involved in mitigating the climate crisis as possible, but we devote considerably less time to thinking about how we say what we want to say. That is, we don’t think enough about the actual language we use when discussing climate. And this is a big problem, because word choice can completely change the nature of a conversation without us even realizing. It’s important that we pay more attention to how we discuss the problem, because language shapes how we think about things. If something is described to us in x way instead of y way, we are likely to form certain opinions about it, and if the language surrounding something changes from group to group, then it will be very hard to establish inter-group communication, because different groups will employ different sets of vocabulary surrounding the same issue.

As we discuss climate communication throughout this website, it is important that we consider the unique and hidden role that language plays in all of this. By more closely examining what is commonly referred to as the connotation effect, we will be better-equipped to think not just about what we say, but also how we say it, setting us up for greater success as we try to tackle the ever-growing problem that is climate communication.

What is the connotation effect?

Quite simply, the connotation effect describes the impact of using one word with a certain connotation instead of a different word with another connotation. When we analyze speeches or political campaigns, we can easily notice its effects; it’s the difference between saying “estate tax” instead of “death tax”. Spelled out like this, it might seem quite obvious, and yet it’s something we are constantly affected by, often without even realizing it. In our study of climate policy, we are subject to the impact of connotation all the time. For example, the decision to say “climate crisis” instead of “climate change” might more obviously change the nature of the conversation, as the word “crisis” implies there is much more at stake than the word “change” (Mary Robinson, West Chester University, February 25th, 2020).

The decision to say “climate change” or “global warming” matters a lot, partly as a result of this effect. Research conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change communication suggests that “the term ‘global warming’ is associated with greater public understanding, emotional engagement, and support for personal and national action than the term ‘climate change’” (“What's In A Name? Global Warming vs Climate Change, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication). The data furthermore suggests that these associations don’t follow partisan lines, for the most part, which means that, if we want to reach as many people as possible through our work with climate communication, it might be more rhetorically effective to say “global warming” than climate change. Figure 1 (below) demonstrates this. Even though climate change and global warming tend to have different meanings for scientists, colloquially, the primary difference seems to lay in association. And this is really important: even if the public is somewhat misinformed regarding the difference between the meanings of the phrases “global warming” and “climate change”, if the goal is sustainable and progressive energy policy, and “global warming” is more associated with sympathy and support, perhaps “global warming” is the phrase climate activists ought to adopt. (And based on Figure 2, it appears that “global warming” might be the more accessible term.) As we consider the tacit role that language plays in shaping our understanding of and care about certain issues, we need to pay attention to the very words that we use. As we compare the cases of Freiburg, Germany, and Philadelphia, USA, and ultimately endeavor to propose meaningful solutions for the Bi-Co, we must constantly come back to this question of the role of language in climate communication. The impact of our words might be greater than we think.

Further questions to consider

• In what other ways does language alter our ability to speak about climate issues?

• What strategies might we employ to overcome the connotation effect? How might we use it to our advantage?

Graphics source: “What's In A Name? Global Warming vs Climate Change.” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, May 2014, climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/whats-in-a-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change/.