Risk Framing and Interdiscursivity of Climate Change Domestic Political Discourses: Comparative Analysis of Lithuanian and UK Cases

In this research we look at a set of discursive practices and texts – the domestic CC policy texts. The main questions addressed: 1) comparative analysis of how the risks are framed; 2) comparative analysis of the extent and character of interdiscursivity of the discourses; 3) analysis of how risk topic becomes a vehicle for enhanced interdiscursivity in the CC political discourses. We claim that risk utterances serve as carriers of diverse social meanings, become links to external discourses and thus contribute to interdiscursivity of the CC domestic political discourses. Rationale: risk statements are often supported with external reports, publications, focused policy documents, global and regional agreements. The critical discourse analysis approach allows questioning the “face” of interdiscursivity. The common risk frames impose some character to the interdiscursivity, which has to be examined. Analysis is conducted using NVivo.

The presentation employs issue framing theory (e.g. Scheufele, 1999; Spence & Pidgeon, 2010), Fairclough’s model of critical discourse analysis (Fairclaugh 1992, 2013) and especially its notion of interdiscursivity (e.g. also applied by Carvalho, Pereira, 2008).

Lithuania and UK are taken for cross-cultural comparison. Previous analyses of CC public media discourses in Lithuania show its high reliance on external sources. CC policies are treated instrumentally in Lithuania. UK is regarded as a leader in international and domestic CC policy (EPCC report, 2016). Both Lithuania and UK follow the general EU CC policy. Yet because of differences in public attitudes and other socio-political contexts, the effectiveness of CC policies is different. Contrasting the two member states and looking for underlying discursive practices that serve as grounds for climate action, brings new insights.

The research project ‘Public Perceptions of Climate Change: Lithuanian case in a European Comparative Perspective’ is funded by a grant from the Research Council of Lithuania.