„Nüchterne Forscher träumen …”: Nichtwissen im Klimadiskurs unter deskriptiver und kritischer diskursanalytischer Betrachtung

Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies

“…He concludes that, alongside some highly variable syntactic phenomena, it is patterns of word formation that are also responsible for marking uncertainty and fuzziness. Erben's findings are supported and considerably extended by the studies done by Janich et al (2010), Janich and Simmerling (2013) and Simmerling and Janich (2016/forthcoming). According to these studies, the following elements are at least relevant with regard to speaking/writing about ignorance:…”

“…Ignorance claims are uttered here, then, in order to legitimize one's own research and to render oneself indispensable as an expert; this is done by referring to other people's knowledge gaps or knowledge gaps in general -especially those that are significant in social and political terms (Stocking & Holstein 1993: 194f.). These functions of ignorance claims are abundantly confirmed in the linguistic case study conducted by Janich and Simmerling (2013) on German climate research and public perceptions of it. This study illustrates the fact that ignorance claims are frequently used in close combination with knowledge claims.…”

“…There have been no such studies to date whatsoever on markers of ignorance. German language scholars Warnke (2012) and Janich and Simmerling (2013) are the first to adopt discourse analysis perspectives. Warnke's foundation laying theoretical analysis is concerned with communicative factors and linguistic functions in the communication of knowledge and ignorance and the regulating factors that emerge from this in relation to discourse.…”

“…) -it is just that these ignorance claims usually serve quite different interests than those of the scientists themselves, depending of different journalists' roles . The linguistic case studies by Janich and Simmerling (2013) and Simmerling and Janich (2016/forthcoming), for example, show that ignorance claims in discourses marked by conflict are often used to polarize or dramatize an issue (and thus to generate publicity) or else to warn people with regard to upcoming (research) policy decisions, as is done in investigative journalism. Heidmann and Milde (2013: 8) confirm this finding and conclude on this basis that there is a lack of dialogue between science and the mass media.…”