How is the Psychological Climate Paradox presented in climate change communications? : A Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis of the Psychological Climate Paradox in the documentary trailers Anthropocene: the human epoch &amp; Kiss the Ground

(1)

How is the Psychological Climate Paradox

presented in climate change

communications?

COURSE: Master Thesis in Media and Communication 1 PROGRAME: Sustainable Communication

AUTHOR : Lydia Frassine Garpenholt SUPERVISOR: Leon Yousif Barkho EXAMINER: Charu Uppal

SEMESTER: Spring -21

A Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis of the Psychological Climate Paradox

in the documentary trailers Anthropocene: the human epoch & Kiss the Ground.

(2)

JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY

School of Education and Communication Sustainable Communication

Master Thesis 1 15 Credits Spring 2021

Abstract

Lydia Frassine Garpenholt Pages: 49

How is the Psychological Climate Paradox presented in climate change communicaitons?

A Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis of the Psychological Climate Paradox in the documentary trailers Anthropocene: the human epoch & Kiss the Ground.

Effectively communicating climate change issues to the public have been proven to be a complicated task. Increasing scientific research explaining how humans have caused changes on climate, have led to a decreasing concern, contributing to the Psychological Climate Paradox. The aim of this study is to analyze how the issue of climate change is communicated in the documentary trailers of Anthropocene: The human epoch (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018) and Kiss the Ground (Tickell & Tickell, 2020), and whether these contribute to the Psychological Climate Paradox or not. To do so, the presence of three out of five barriers to effective climate communications, which help uphold the Psychological Climate Paradox were taken into consideration. The method of the research consisted of a modified Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA), focusing on the semiotic aspects of denotation and connotation, visual codes, and the linguistic aspect of vocabular choice The study concludes that the three psychological barriers which contribute to climate communication were clearly present in the Anthropocene trailer. However, the Kiss the Ground trailer rather presented the audience with the solutions to the barriers, known as the new Psychological Strategies, which Stoknes (2015) argues contribute to more effective climate change communication.

Key Words: climate change, communication, Psychological Climate Paradox, trailer

Mailing Adress: Visting Adress: Telephone:

School of Education Gjuterigatan 5 036-101000

and communication 553 16 Jönköping Box 1026

551 11 Jönnköping

Master Thesis 15 Credits Media & Communication

(3)

1. Introduction

Understanding human reactions to climate change has in recent years become as equally important as understanding climate change itself. For a long time, the same strategies have been used to communicate the issue and its effect. However, presenting information and letting it convince people to change their actions has had limited success. This approach has instead led to people feeling distant to the problem and has not succeeded in increasing the concern and priority of the people. Hence, the aspect of communicating the issues of climate change to the public has proven to be a complicated task (Stoknes, 2015). The Psychological climate paradox has emerged due to decreasing concern and prioritization of the climate change issue, despite an increase in scientific knowledge that proves that human activities have contributed to climate change (Stoknes, 2014).Certain groups of communities do not consider climate change to be a problem, but rather argue that the information regarding it is false. Instead, they portray it as either something natural, or a hoax and view it as an exaggerated media story that works against free though and free will (Stoknes, 2015). Due to the complexity of the psychological aspect of the issue, Per Espen Stoknes (2015) argues that communicators need a more compassionate view of how the human mind responds to the current climate change message (Stoknes, 2015). By reviewing research and literature from evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, social psychology and depth psychology over the past two decades, Stoknes (2014) has identified five main barriers to effective climate communication; : “(1) climate change is perceived as distant,(2) it is often framed as doom, cost and sacrifice, (3) few opportunities for action weaken attitudes through dissonance, (4) fear and guilt strengthens denial, and (5) climate messages are filtered through cultural identity” (Stoknes, 2014). According to Stoknes (2014), these five psychological barriers help uphold the Psychological Climate Paradox.

This thesis uses the framework of the psychological barriers to climate communication (Stoknes, 2014; Stoknes, 2015) to analyze how the issues of climate change are communicated in the documentary trailers of Anthropocene: The human epoch (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018) and Kiss the Ground (Tickell & Tickell, 2020). The design of this study is as follows. First, the aim of the research is presented. Then, relevant previous research and theoretical framework is presented, as well as the chosen methodological approach. Finally, the result of the analysis is presented, along with a discussion of the findings.

(5)

2. Aim & Research Questions

2.1 Aim

The aim of this research is to analyze how the issue of climate change is communicated in the documentary trailers of Anthropocene: The human epoch (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018) and Kiss the Ground (Tickell & Tickell, 2020), and whether these contribute to the Psychological Climate Paradox or not. The two trailers were chosen due to their different techniques of representing the state of the environment. The study hence consists of an exploratory research, by using a qualitative approach with a Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA), to analyze the presence of three out of the five psychological barriers to climate communication that help uphold the Psychological Climate Paradox in the two trailers. 2.2 Research Questions

1. How are the three psychological barriers of distance, doom and denial, presented in the documentary trailers Anthropocene: The human epoch (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018) and “Kiss the Ground” (Tickell & Tickell, 2020)?

2. To what extent are the trailers able to confirm or contradict Stoknes theory about the Psychological Climate Paradox?

3. Previous Research & Theoretical Framework

In the following sections, previous research is presented followed by the theoretical framework which guided this study through its design and analysis.

3.1 Previous Research

Communication regarding climate change related issues has frequently been used to try and encourage environmentally friendly behavior. Climate change communication often addresses a big range of issues and is used to present climate science to the public (Ballantyne, 2016). Stoknes (2015) argues that even though there is a widespread concern regarding climate change related issues, people still ignore the facts (Stoknes, 2015). The efforts to communicating climate science to the public has resulted in the communication becoming a problem itself (Stoknes, 2014; Stoknes, 2015). The same information is repeated, and the same solution is presented and enhanced several times, without results. Stoknes (2015) argues that people are not convinced by hearing the scientific facts of the issues human made climate change causes

(6)

precisely because they have been repeated multiple times to them. Even though it has been tried to enhance the information even further, people still tend to look the other way (Stoknes, 2015). Presenting the information and trying to let it convince people to change their actions has hence had limited success (Stoknes, 2015) and when addressing the topic of climate change communication, it is often referred to as “an issue so complex in nature that it has no obvious solutions” (Ballantyne, 2016, p.329), containing several challenges and barriers (Ballantyne, 2016).

However, it is not effective to only blame the communication strategies of information campaigns or poor communications models to explain the issue of communication around climate change (Gifford, 2011). Gifford (2011) argues that focus needs to be put on the additional and deeper psychological barriers that hinder human reactions to unsettling facts (Gifford, 2011). These psychological barriers often affect human behavioral choices. Even though people think climate change and sustainability issues are important, the barriers affect the individual so that they do not engage in mitigation behavior in order to reduce their climate impact (Gifford, 2011). Stoknes (2015) emphasizes this, when he argues that understanding human reactions to climate change issues is equally important as understanding climate change itself. Ballantyne (2016) describes climate change as a complex, pervasive and uncertain phenomenon that people have a hard time to understand and relate to. The issue is characterized by feelings of distance, uncertainty, controversy, skepticism and limited engagement by individuals, due to it not being personal enough compared to more immediate problems (Ballantyne, 2016). Climate change mitigation is often done through public policies at regional and national level, which can contribute to the perception of feelings of distance and the issue not being personal enough (Bilandzic, Kalch & Soentgen, 2017). However, in order for political regulations to be implemented and actual change to happen, it is the individual that needs to change actions, which is why Bilandzic, Kalch and Soentgen (2017) argue that climate communication can serve as an effective tool in the ability to translate scientific knowledge of climate change and public policy implications for the general public to make them feel closer to the issue. Stoknes (2015) argues that we need to try to change these perceptions of climate change, by using other approaches that based on human psychology are more effective. In order to address the challenges of climate change communication, there needs to be a change in how these issues are presented. Instead of being informative and educating, the information should rather serve to encourage people to act on the issue (Ballantyne, 2016). One way to do

(7)

this is through the usage of film and videos, in order to encourage positive responses (Onyekuru, et. al., 2020). Movies can help broaden peoples worldviews, create awareness, change lifestyles and habits, provide information and education etc. (Onyekuru, et. al., 2020). By using meaningful visualizations of environmental issues, the gap between issues of complex science and people’s daily experiences, can be minimized and become easier to understand. This in turn can break the barrier of conceptualization of climate change and engender the quest for action to protect the environment (Onyekuru, et. al., 2020). One way to do this is through documentary films. These represent one way in which people’s behavior can be influenced, and create positive responses (Janpol & Dilts, 2016). In order to change the approach of how the issue of climate change is communicated, not only the mediums need to be identified, but the psychological barriers of current climate change communication as well.

By reviewing research and literature from evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, social psychology, and depth psychology, Per Espen Stoknes (2014) identified five main psychological barriers that prevent people from acting against climate change:

• Climate change is perceived as distant.

• Climate change is often framed as something that increases costs and sacrifice, which creates a feeling of doom.

• There are few opportunities for action weaken attitude through dissonance

• Portraying climate change in a way that contributes to feelings of fear and guilt strengthens denial.

• Climate messages are filter through cultural identity

According to Stoknes (2015), it is important to understand the psychological barriers to effective climate communication and how they function since this can give an explanation to why individuals are resistant to act on communicate messages regarding the urgency to act on climate change. He concludes that the five psychological barriers to effective climate communication help to uphold the Psychological Climate Paradox and provides and explanation to why people do not act on climate change communications (Stoknes 2014; Stoknes, 2015).

The literature analysis for this research concludes that there has been limited research conducted on Stoknes (2015) theory of the five psychological barriers to effective climate communication, and their presence in documentary trailers. Further, the material chosen for

(8)

SusCom20 this analysis has not previously been used in a research context such as the one of this paper. The research of this paper serves to explore how the issue of climate change is communicated in two documentary trailers, and whether these contribute to the Psychological Climate Paradox, through a Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA). This is done through the lens of Stoknes’ barriers to effective climate communication. Since the research also serves to measure and assess Stoknes (2014;2015) theory about the psychological barriers to effective climate communication, the next section gives a detailed account on the basics of the theory and how the five psychological barriers to effective climate communication can be changed into five psychological strategies for more successful climate communication (Stoknes, 2014;2015).

3.2 Theory

The sections below give an account of the study’s theoretical framework used for the research. It involves three subheadings. The first one defines the Psychological Climate Paradox. The second subheading gives a detailed explanation of the five psychological barriers to effective climate communication, and the last section involves a brief explanation of the five new psychological strategies for climate communication that Stoknes (2014; 2015) suggests. 3.2.1 The Psychological Climate Paradox

The Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) defines a paradox as being something that seems difficult to understand, due to its two opposite characteristics. When Stoknes (2015) speaks of paradoxes, he means that humans talk about the long term, but act as if it is the short-term results that matter. He argues that it is a common phenomenon for the human species and argues that they “pretend to be rational while behaving irrationally” (Stoknes, 2015, p.7). Even though there has been increasing scientific knowledge and research, proving that human activities cause changes on the climate, there has been a decreasing concern and prioritization of public concern regarding the issue. This is known as the Psychological Climate Paradox (Stoknes, 2014). There are several explanations to why the Psychological Climate Paradox has been proposed, including that climate change is perceived as distant in both time and space. The complexity of the problem has led to cultural filters affecting perception, cognitive dissonance, limited perceived individual responsibility, and denial of climate change as a way for people to avoid feelings of fear of how climate change may affect their future. The following sections (3.2.2, 3.2.3) give a summary of the main psychological barriers to climate communication, as well as

(9)

briefly represent how communication regarding climate change can be changed in order to overcome the Psychological Climate Paradox (Stoknes, 2014; Stoknes, 2015).

3.2.2 Five Psychological Barriers to Effective Climate Communication

By reviewing research and literature from traditions of evolutionary-, cognitive, social and depth psychology, Per Espen Stoknes (2014; 2015) was able to identify five barriers to effective climate communication. He concluded that Climate change is perceived as distant, is framed in a way that creates feelings of doom, has few ways for action to weaken attitude through dissonance, contributes to feelings of fear and guilt that strengthen the feeling of denial, and that the climate message is filtered through cultural identity (Stoknes, 2014). Even though only three of these five barriers are used in this study, it is important to have an overall understanding of all five in order to understand how the Psychological Climate Paradox works. Stoknes (2014; 2015) uses the terms “distance, doom, denial, dissonance and identity” when speaking of the five barriers to effective climate communication, calling them the Five D’s. He argues that the

Five D’s provide an explanation to why people do not act on climate change communications,

hence how they help uphold the Psychological Climate Paradox.

The first barrier regards the feeling of distance. Climate change is often presented to the public in an abstract way, that makes the issue feel distant in both time and space. The issue does not present people with direct consequences of climate change, and since it is represented as an issue on the global scale, people feel helpless and contribute to people feeling lack of control (Stoknes, 2014). The main effect of this barrier of psychological distancing is to reduce the sense of risk and the urgency of impending climate disruption.

”This distancing effect contributes to our understanding of why information campaigns are insufficient to convince people of the dangers of climate change. The abstract and rational expositions, utilizing graphs, data, measurements and global prognoses into future decades, do not manage to trigger the evolutionary risk perception system to create a sense of a real local threat with a sense of urgency that produces a sustained high issue importance”. – Stoknes, 2014, p.162

The second barrier is derived from unintended climate communication framings. The concept of framing “refers to the unseen, often subconscious frame around concepts and discussions that affect how an issue is perceived” (Stoknes, 2014) and different metaphors together with different wordings and concepts create different frames (Stoknes, 2015). The barrier concludes that when climate change is framed as a disaster that can only be managed through loss, cost

(10)

and sacrifice, it leads to people avoiding the issue as much as possible (Stoknes, 2014). Using these frames is counterproductive

This frame instructs us that unless we act now (which we will not), we are heading toward disaster. […] It may well be objectively correct, but such fear and doom framing and stories have less and less of an effect in people’s minds” – Stoknes, 2014, p.163.

The next barrier regards the aspect of denial. Denial is not based on ignorance, intelligence, or lack of information, but rather functions as a defense mechanism for the ego, in order to avoid inner threats that cause anxiety. According to psychoanalysis, people tend to avoid facing harsh and ugly realities. Denial also functions to uphold the person’s core sense of self when confronted with threats towards their positive self-image (Stoknes, 2015). Denial is a much stronger barrier than dissonance, since it simply refuses to acknowledge the issue of climate change (Stoknes, 2014).

The fourth barrier regards dissonance, and this barrier arises when people’s action clash with their knowledge. It is often the inner tensions and sometimes even self-contempt that arises when individuals are confronted with having to change their actions, that dissonance arises. Since it is not easy to change patterns of behavior, humans tend to try and get rid of the dissonance by coming up with unconscious coping strategies. This results in people with conflicting beliefs and behaviors, to adjust their beliefs so that they are consistent with their behavior. Attitudes are also adjusted to conform to the people around the individual, such as colleagues, friends and family, in order to avoid social dissonance (Stoknes, 2014; Stoknes, 2015). The barrier of dissonance contributes to explaining why, even if people are concerned, they tend to avoid acting on the issue. Rather than changing one’s behavior, it seems to be more convenient to reduce cognitive dissonance by self-justification and therefore reduce the perceived importance of climate change. This also enables people to deny the issue, which is what paves the way for the next barrier (Stoknes, 2014).

The last aspect concern’s identity, which is based on the argument that people adapt news and information through professional or cultural identity. People therefore tend to look for information that confirms their current worldview and shut out what challenges is (Stoknes, 2015).

(11)

3.2.3 Five new psychological strategies for climate communication

In order to create more effective climate communication, Stoknes (2015) argues that instead presenting the climate message in a way that enhances the five main barriers, climate communication should be reformulated to include more positive connotations in order to engage people. The issue should be presented as close, human, and personal. The presentation of the problem should not create negative emotions and the dissonance must be reduced through opportunities for consistent and visible actions. It is important to avoid creating fear and guilt which causes denial in people; and reduce their cultural and political polarization (Stoknes, 2015). Stoknes (2015) argues that the five psychological barriers can be converted into five success factors to improve environmental communication. By changing the feeling of distance to social and using the power of social networks in order to do so, the problem will be made more personal and urgent. By spreading positive social norms that suggest solutions to the problem, the issue is brought closer to the audience. Social psychology has concluded that if surroundings of people change, the chances of people’s behavior changing is bigger (Stoknes, 2015). By emphasizing what others have already done, a stronger sense of in-group and collective purpose can be developed (Stoknes, 2014). By reframing the climate message from the feeling of doom, to a more supportive one which concerns human well-being, the issue can be reformulated. By presenting the problem and introducing new technical opportunities, security and new jobs, public concern and involvement will increase (Stoknes, 2015). Dissonance can be tackled by making it easier for individuals to get involved in the issue. By doing this, one can simplify climate-friendly behavior, and make them more common and comfortable. If you also replace denial by signaling and visualizing the progress that has been made in regard to the issue, motivational feedback can be given on the progress. Finally, instead of identity where people tend to look for information that confirms their current worldview, more positive stories regarding the future and what has already improved need to be presented (Stoknes, 2015).

4. Methodological approach

This section regards the design and the implementation of the study. First, the identification process of the research gap is presented. Thereafter, the selection of material is justified, and the process of the analysis is explained. The final aspects of this section regard the methodological

(12)

considerations, and the importance of the obtained copy rights permission in order to have the legal rights to conduct this research.

4.1 Identifying the research gap

To identify the research gap around the topic of the Psychological Climate Paradox and the five psychological barriers to effective climate communication, a literature review was conducted. This was done by first looking at the articles that had quoted Stoknes (2014) article

Rethinking climate communications and the ‘Psychological Climate Paradox’. The researcher

also conducted searches through different databases, to find other articles relevant to the topic that were not quoting Stoknes’ (2014) article. When looking at the articles, the titles and their abstracts were decoded and grouped into either ‘relevant’ or ‘non-relevant’ articles. By reviewing the articles that were found on the topic, the review showed that there was a limited amount of research conducted around the Psychological Climate Paradox and the five psychological barriers to effective climate communication. There was also little research found on how the issues of climate change is communicated with the help of the Psychological Climate Paradox in documentary trailers. Further, the trailers chosen for the analysis had not previously been used in research similar to the one of this paper. The limited amount of research found on the topic, argues for the relevance of conducting the study of this research paper. After identifying the area of the research, the initial plan of the study was to conduct a MCDA, with complementary focus group interviews in order to explore the perception of the Psychological Climate Paradox of the two trailers. However, due to complications with the recruitment of the participants for the focus group interviews, the researcher decided to simply focus on the MCDA since it was already an extensive method.

The aim of the research was therefore to analyze how the issue of climate change is communicated in two documentary trailers, and whether these contribute to the Psychological Climate Paradox or not. To do so, the research consisted of a qualitative approach based on a research strategy where the emphasis lies on interpretation rather than quantification when collecting and analyzing data. The qualitative research strategy in this study was inductive, interpretive and constructionistic (Bryman, 2012), and was concerned with examining and understanding what appears and what it means (Hansen & Machin, 2019). The research is based on the collection of descriptive primary data (Bryman, 2012), which will be collected through a MCDA approach, in order to analyze how the issues of climate change is communicated with the help of the Psychological Climate Paradox in the two choosen

(13)

documentary trailers. This will be done by analyzing the presence of the five barriers to effective climate communication. Due to the research containing two methods when conducting the multimodal analysis, the triangulation of the study increases the reliability and validity of the findings through the usage of several methods that analyze the same phenomenon through different angles (Hansen & Machin, 2019).

4.2 Selection of Material

In order to fulfill the aim of the research, the researcher decided to analyze how the issue of climate change is communicated in the documentary trailers of Anthropocene: The human

epoch (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018) and Kiss the Ground (Tickell & Tickell,

2020). To answer the research questions, these two videos were chosen, since both focus on the state of the environment, but use different techniques to get their point across.

The videos were retrieved from the webpages listed below:

• Anthropocene: The human epoch - https://theanthropocene.org/film/ • Kiss the Ground - https://kisstheground.com/

The documentary “Anthropocene: The human epoch (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018) presents the issue of human planetary domination, and follows the research of an international body of scientists. These scientists argue that the Holocene epoch, known as the time that marked the end of the Ice Age (Britannica, n.d.), gave way to the Anthropocene Epoch in the mid twentieth century. This epoch is characterized as the time where human activities cause profound and lasting changes to the earth (Baichwal, Burtynsky, & de Pencier, 2018). In order to produce the film, the filmmakers traveled across the globe, using high end production camera techniques to document evidence and their experiences of how humans have changed and are now dominating the planet (Baichwal, Burtynsky, & de Pencier, 2018).

The documentary Kiss the Ground (Tickell & Tickell, 2020), compared to the Anthropocene, rather “sheds light on a ‘new, old approach’ to farming called regenerative agriculture that has the potential to balance our climate, replenish our vast water supplies, and feed the world” (Kiss the Ground, n.d.). The documentary reveals that by regenerating the world’s soils, humans are able to stabilize the Earth’s climate, restore lost ecosystems and create rich amount of food supplies (Kiss the Ground, n.d.). By using graphics and visuals, the film presents the audience with how soil serves as a key component of solving the climate issue (Kiss the Ground, n.d).

(14)

The purpose of analyzing the two trailers, instead of the documentaries themselves, is due to their function as the most effective promotional medium for the motion picture industry and their importance in order for the film to reach a wide audience (Finsterwalder, Kupplewieser, & de Villiers, 2012). I.e. the Anthropocene – Official U.S. trailer published 6th_{of May 2019} on the video community YouTube has so far received 461 374 views (YouTube, 2019), while

Kiss the Ground Film Trailer (2020) has reached 705 924 views after its publication 21st_of August 2020 (YouTube, 2020). The number of views of the trailers also plays an important role in the movie’s success, which is why film makers and marketers spend a large amount of money on trailers being successful in order to engage a wide number of audience (Finsterwalder, Kupplewieser, & de Villiers, 2012). A trailer, consisting of a short 1- to 3-minutes film what displays images from the specific film, has the goal to enhance the audience and promote the movie’s release. The usage of trailers to promote a film is considered to be an effective form of advertising, due to their visual and emotional nature (Finsterwalder, Kupplewieser, & de Villiers, 2012).

The selection to analyze the two trailers presented above was based on that they both present different issues of climate change to the audience through different styles, by using different visual and oral tools in order to portray the documentaries, hence the trailers, message. It was also of great importance for the researcher to use recent documentary traielrs not older than five years, in order to conduct an analysis on present entertainment media, rather than older media. The differences in the two trailers, make them relevant to examining how the issue of climate change is communicated in the two trailers, and whether these contribute to the Psychological Climate Paradox or not.

4.3 Method

To answer the research questions, the research employs a multimodal critical discourse analysis (MCDA). MCDA concerns the practice of analyzing discourse that make use of multiple semiotic resources such as language, visual images, space and architecture (Atalay, 2015; O’Halloran, 2004). In MCDA, the analysis and interpretation of language use is contextualized in conjunction with other semiotic resources, which are simultaneously used for the construction of meaning (Atalay, 2015). Instead of only looking at linguistic choices, MCDA also takes into consideration how language functions with the meaning of the visual image. Especially in media, images are important, and are used to express aspects that cannot be said in language. Texts will use linguistic and visual strategies that appear normal or neutral on the

(15)

surface, but which may “in fact be ideological and seek to shape the representation of events and persons for particular ends” (Atalay, 2015, p.42). MCDA hence tries to denaturalize representations on other modes of communication. In order to effectively conduct the study, the researcher decided to focus on visual semiotics and how they relate to the spoken sound in the videos. In order to do so, the researcher used the seven steps presented in David Machin and Andrea Mayr (2012) work How to Do Critical Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal

Introduction (Machin & Mayr, 2012). However, in order to effectively conduct the research in

line with the research aim, it was decided not to focus on all MCDA aspects presented in Machin and Mayrs (2012) work. Instead, the researcher focused on semiotic aspects of denotation and connotation, visual codes, and the linguistic aspect of vocabular choices in the trailer. This was done in order to analyze what is happening in the text, what the people presented in the material are saying and doing, and to analyze what the settings and objects of the trailers signify (Hansen & Machin, 2019).

Regarding semiotics, the theory argues that signs play an important role in the development of conducting a meaning-oriented approach to communication. Many scholars argue that semiotics can provide a framework and contribute to a deeper understanding of how communication operates (Ballantyne, 2016). The study of semiotics is the study of signs and the way they work and form meanings. According to Daniel Chandler (2007), a sign is composed of a ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’. The signifier regards the form that the sign takes, while the signified considers the concept to which the sign refers (Chandler, 2007). The sign is the whole that results from the association of the signifier with the signified (Chandler, 2007). By using a semiotic analysis and taking components such as the signifier and the signified of a sign into consideration, the aim of this paper is to analyze, understand and interpret the signs, their meanings and how they interact with each other (Chandler, 2007; Hansen & Machin, 2019). The main way in which this has been done is by looking at three key components of semiotics: denotation, connotation, and codes.

Denotation regards the literal, obvious, and common-sense meaning of a sign, and can help to direct and describe observation (Chandler, 2007) and regards what is actually represented in the video. Description is an important level of analysis in the case of moving images. By asking concrete, descriptive questions regarding the trailers, the research may highlight how people and events are represented (Hansen & Machin, 2019). However, signs are more open to interpretation in their connotations, rather than in their denotations. Connotation regards the

(16)

ideas and values that are communicated through what and how something is presented. Once it has been identified how something is presented, research can then regard what it means. Connotation “refers to the meanings that go beyond the basic literal meaning of a word or an image. […] images and other representations can also communicate or connote broader meanings, depending on what associations/connotations they trigger in the viewer/reader.” (Hansen & Machin, 2019, p.276). Connotations are therefore derived not from the actual sign itself, but from the way that society sees, uses and values the sign, thus making connotation context dependent (Chandler, 2007). Connotations are determined by different codes that the interpreter has. These codes provide a form of connotational framework to guide interpretation, since the meaning of a sign depends on the code within which it is situated. Codes are dynamic and change over time, which makes them historically and socio-culturally situated. Signs alone do not contain meaning but receive one when they are interpreted in relation to a code (Chandler, 2007). These codes organize signs into meaningful systems which correlate signifiers and signified through structural forms of syntagms and paradigms. Different kinds of codes tend to overlap, and a semiotic analysis of a text involves considering several codes and their relationship between them (Chandler, 2007). There are a range of typologies of codes that can be found in the literature of semiotics (Chandler, 2007), however for the purpose of this research I have decided to focus on perceptual visual codes.

In semiotics, interpretation cannot be separated from perception, thus perception involves representation (Chandler, 2007). Perceptual codes regard the process of coding the world into iconic signs that represent the world, without the individual knowing about it. When individuals see the world, they make sense of it through their “’mind’s eye’, rather than a coded picture” (Chandler, 2007, p.151). All form of representations are systems of signs: they signify rather than represent, and they do so with primary reference to codes rather than to reality. Most semioticians emphasize that photography involves visual codes, and that when, for instance, films are recorded, the representations that are produced are already being coded when filming the material (Chandler, 2007). Cinematic and televisual codes include several different aspects, however in this research the focus lies on analyzing the visual codes of lighting, color, and graphics (Chandler, 2007) in order to see how these visual codes, relate to the representation of the Psychological Climate Paradox, through the five barriers of effective climate communication.

(17)

In the case of analyzing a video through the visual semiotic criteria presented earlier, to effectively conduct the research in line with its the research aim, “we must also take into account the way that what is represented visually relates to what we hear” (Hansen & Machin, 2019, p.190). The importance here is to analyze what is communicated both visually and audibly in the form of spoken language. Together with the visual semiotic resources presented above, the linguistic form of vocabulary will serve to present what people are saying and how it is connected to the visual image of the material. (Hansen & Machin, 2019). Here the focus lies on how the visual semiotic resources together the audible resources in the form of language, contribute to the audience interpretation of what is happening in the video, and what people are saying and doing in the video (Hansen & Machin, 2019; Atalay, 2015).

Analysing a multimodal text, such as the two trailers regarded in this study, through these steps, provide a basis to analyse how meaning is built up in media texts and the way that people make, use and reuse different forms of semiotic choices (Atalay, 2015). By understanding these choices, it may be possible to reveal ideology in different media texts (Atalay, 2015). It is in regard to the meaning of what the different media texts are trying to present, where the research question regarding the framing of the Psychological Climate Paradox can be answered by using the framework of the five barriers to effective climate communication and its different framings derived from the previous research section.

4.4 Analyzing Trailers

The method of the study involved a modified MCDA, on the semiotic aspects of denotation and connotation, visual codes, and the linguistic aspect of vocabular choices in the trailer, to analyze what is happening in the text, what people are saying and doing, and to analyze what the settings and objects of the trailers signify. MCDA provides a systematic way of studying both language and semiotic text, since this approach argues for the use of analysis with a multi-layered approach (Atalay, 2015). In order to measure the presence of the psychological barriers to effective climate communication, distance, doom and denial, the researcher needed to consider:

• How climate changed is perceived as distant in the text.

• To what extent climate change is presented as something that creates feelings of doom? • To what extent does the representation of climate change in the texts, contribute to

(18)

In order to effectively conduct the research in line with its research aim and it’s research questions, it was decided to only analyze three out of the five psychological barriers of Stoknes theory (2014;2015). This also gave the researcher the opportunities to analyze these three barriers more closely. To successfully conduct the research, the researcher started with the visual analysis of the material. Secondly, a linguistic analysis was conducted where the researcher focused on the audible form of spoken words, as well as some sequences of graphical text. The third and last step of the research was to conduct a thematic analysis of the collected data of the two previously mentioned approaches. In order to conduct the visual and oral analysis effectively, and to understand the research findings more clearly, an audio-visual guide was created. The guide is represented in table 1.

ANALYZING MEASURES

Visual Audio/vocabulary

BARRIERS

Distance Object/Setting Vocabulary/tone

Doom Bright/dull/light/dark/ Tone/graphics

Denial Audio/words

Table 1 – Audi-Visual Guide

The basic visual semiotic analysis regards the presentation of the visual material in both trailers. In order to only focus on the visual representation of the material, the sound of the trailers were silenced during this step. To effectively analyze and draw conclusions form the material, the collection of data first included a descriptive part of what was seen in the trailers, including an overall explanation of what was happening (Chandler, 2007; Hansen & Machin, 2019). The descriptive part considered colors, settings, objects, and what the people in the video are doing. By conducting the descriptive part of the research, the hidden connotations and codes of what is presented in the trailers were found. When collecting the data, the analysis considered visual codes of lightning, color and graphics (Chandler, 2007) and the two carriers of connotation of object and setting (Hansen & Machin, 2019), in order to understand how these, contribute to the representation of climate change and whether these contribute to the Psychological Climate Paradox or not. After describing what is seen, the potential meaning of the object needs to be analyzed; why is it put there and what does it represent? In regard to the setting, it needs to be

(19)

considered what connotations there are in regard to the setting and the context of the video (Hansen & Machin, 2019).

After the visual analysis, the linguistic analysis focusing on the audible form of spoken words together with some graphical text, was conducted. This step of the analysis considered how the visual representation relates to the spoken language of the videos. Together with the visual semiotic analysis, the linguistic form of vocabulary will serve to present what the people are saying and how it is connected to the visual image of trailers (Atalaya, 2015; Hansen & Machin, 2019). This step involves the analysis involves the linguistic aspect of what vocabular voices are present in the text and how these affect the audience interpretation of the text (Hansen & Machin, 2019).

After the analysis had been conducted, the researcher then conducted a thematic analysis order to find the Psychological Climate Paradox in the form of the five psychological barriers to effective climate communication. The themes of distance, doom, and denial were chosen based on the study’s theoretical framework, in order to understand how these contribute to the representation of climate change and whether these contribute to the Psychological Climate Paradox or not. To do so, the research went through the collected data several times in order to deconstruct and make sense of it, to be able to find repeated patterns of meaning. To identify and separate the psychological barriers to effective climate communication from each other, the researcher used color coding of the analyzed material. An example of how this was done can be seen in table 2.

Distance Doom Dissonance

Table 2 (Stoknes, 2014; 2015)

4.5 Methodological Considerations

Regarding the methodological considerations of the study, when conducting qualitative research such as the one this study, certain aspects need to be considered. These involve the aspects of reliability, validity, trustworthiness, authenticity, and the aspect of obtaining the legal rights to use the trailers of the documentaries Anthropocene: The human epoch (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018) and Kiss the Ground (Tickell & Tickell, 2020), in order to conduct the study.

Reliability can be divided into two parts: external and internal reliability. External reliability takes into consideration whether the study can be replicated or not. Internal reliability on the

(20)

other hand regards the agreement between researchers on how the material should be interpreted (Bryman, 2012). Since the research was conducted by only one researcher, the results of the analysis were affected by the researcher’s personal interpretation of the material. However, to tackle this and the issue of external reliability, the research design was constructed in such a way that the study can easily be replicated by other researchers to contribute to the research regarding this research area. In regard to internal reliability, the agreement between how the material should be interpreted was discussed together with the supervisor of this paper when constructing the methodological section of this paper. The two aspects of reliability were taken into consideration by writing a clear methodology chapter, giving a detailed account on how the research was conducted, presenting the idea of what categories and themes should be analyzed and getting approval from the supervisor before conducting the research.

The aspect of validity can also be divided into either external or internal validity. Internal validity regards whether the results agree with theoretical knowledge or not (Bryman, 2012), which has been accounted for in the analysis by linking the results to the theoretical framework presented in Section 3 of this paper. External validity rather focuses to what extent the results can be generalized to other, similar situations (Bryman, 2012). Regarding the form of study conducted in this research, results of similar studies might differ depending on what the theoretical approach used and on what material is used. The relevance of conducting this study argues that, even though it has some limitations in regard to its external validity, the research is relevant to analyze similarities and differences between different materials that tackle the same issues (Bryman, 2012).

When conducting qualitative research, the concepts of trustworthiness and authenticity are also important. Trustworthiness can be divided into four sub-criteria; credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Since credibility is the equivalent of internal validity, transferability the equivalent of external validity, and dependability the equivalent of both internal and external reliability, the actions to tackles these have been explained previously. However, confirmability regards the aspect of the researcher being objective when conducting the research, meaning that no personal value should affect the conclusion of the study (Bryman, 2012). In regard to this study, the interpretation of the material and the thematization process might be affected by the researcher. Since the researcher servers, not only as the researcher of this paper, but also as an audience interpreting the material, the researcher becomes a part of the study. The researcher conducted the analysis, and filtered the results through their

(21)

perceptual codes, which concludes that the research was not able to be objective in this situation. However, the aim of the research is to analyze how the Psychological Climate Paradox is presented in the two documentary trailers, which gives room for interpretation of the material by the researcher. However, in order to tackle confirmability, the researcher stayed as objective as possible, by not having seen the material before the analysis was conducted. The researcher also added no personal values or theoretical viewpoints after the conclusion of the study.

The aspect of authenticity regards more general questions regarding consequences of qualitative research in general. It regards questions such as fair picture, ontological authenticity, educational authenticity, catalytic authenticity, and tactical authenticity. However, these terms referee to qualitative research that involve participants, which was not the case in this study and will therefore not be discussed any further (Bryman, 2012).

4.6 Copy Rights Permission

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), they support the “dissemination of information to aid in the development of science and scholarly research” (American Psychological Association, 2020). They also value and respect intellectual property , and according to APA it is important for “publishers of scholarly and other proprietary material to develop an efficient and consistent system, based on mutual trust, for granting permission for both electronic and print publications of proprietary works” (American Psychological Association, 2020). Therefore, APA has adopted guidelines for the use of copyrighted content. In these guidelines, APA states that copyright permission is required for using video content in one’s research (American Psychological Association, 2020). In order to obtaining the legal rights to use the two trailers of the documentaries, producers of four different documentaries were contacted with a brief explanation of the research purpose and what the trailers were going to be used for. Permissions to use the two trailers of the documentaries Anthropocene: The

human epoch (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018) and Kiss the Ground (Tickell &

Tickell, 2020), were obtained, on the 13th_{of April, 2021 (see appendix) and the 20}th_{of April,} 2021 (see appendix).

(22)

5. Analysis

In the following section, the results from the analysis of this study are presented. Both the documentary trailer of the Anthropocene: The human epoch (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018) and Kiss the Ground (Tickell & Tickell, 2020) were analyzed through an MCDA approach. The results of the analysis of the study are presented below and have been grouped into three different sections. Section 5.1 regards how the use of settings and objects help present the way in which humans have affected nature. Section 5.2 analyses how the different visual codes contribute to the tone of the trailer. The final section looks at how different people are presented in the trailer audibly, visually and through linguistic choices of vocabulary.

5.1 Settings and Objects

The Anthropocene: The human epoch (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018) documentary trailer, is a very descriptive video. Some scenes of the trailer involve aspects of nature such as videos of colorful corals (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2020, 01:09), scenes from inside a cave with red walls ((Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2020, 01:32), fish and turtles swimming in the ocean (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2020, 0:37), two elephants playing with each other (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2020, 0:40), and many different landscapes (i.e. picture 2). These signifiers mentioned above enhance the signified nature. However, most of these landscapes are usually presented with very dull colors and are in some way touched upon by humans (picture 4) . Trucks, building machines and other human made innovations are present in most of the scenes (picture 4) . Other scenes also present cities (picture 3), water plantations, waste dumping sites (picture 6), and industry facilities on both the outside (picture 1) and the inside (picture 5). When the scenes that signify nature have human tools present in them, it can be argued that the signified theme of nature is affected by human innovations. Different figures of speeches further enhance the aspect of how humans have impacted the planet. By enhancing that “it is such a fundamental change in the way that the earth is behaving” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 01:11). Nature in the form of the earth, is given a form of persona. The trailer also states that humans have “moved the planet outside of its natural limits” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 00:22), implying that the world humans live in today has changed from how it used to be.

(23)

Picture 1

(Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 0:15)

Picture 2

Picture 3

Picture 4

Picture 5

Picture 6

In regard to objects used in the trailer of the Anthropocene: The human epoch it is important to analyze what these objects symbolize and what hidden connotations they contain. The different industrial machines (i.e. picture 4), trucks, excavators and other industrial tools are a way to symbolize the way that humans affect nature. These signifiers hence signify how humans affect the environment through these tools. The representation of nature in the form of natural

(24)

elements such as water, animals and plants in the trailer, symbolize the aspect of nature that humans affect. Presenting industry facilities together with scenes of landfills, represent two ways in which humans already have affected the environment.

While the Anthropocene: The human epoch trailer presents several objects in order to present their message of the issue that humans have cause permanent planetary changes, the Kiss the

Ground trailer focuses on the main object of soil. The object is both presented visually and

audibly, and its importance is one of the most obvious in the trailer. The object is presented during several visual scenes (see pictures 7-10) and is used to signify nature.

Picture 7

(Tickell & Tickell, 2020, 0:16)

Picture 8

Picture 9

Picture 10

The representation of the issue in this trailer is much more specific. Different objects such as modern agricultural tools i.e. tractors (picture 11), fossil fuel extractors (Tickell & Tickell, 2020 , 0:41), and different machines spraying vegetation with what could be chemicals (Tickell & Tickell, 2020 , 0:35), are objects used that present the way in which humans affect nature (Tickell & Tickell, 2020 , 0:30). These objects hence work to connotate how humans affect the environment through different human made innovations.

(25)

Picture 11

Another way in which the effect of humans to nature is presented in both trailers are done through statements. In Kiss the Ground, different statements by different people further highlight how humans have affected nature. Statements such as “all of our soils that are under chemical conventional agriculture are almost completely devoid of microorganisms” (Tickell & Tickell, 2020, 0:26) and “modern agriculture was not designed for the betterment of the soil” (Tickell & Tickell, 2020, 0:34), further enhanced how humans’ current agricultural procedures affect nature. Voiceovers further present what is happening in the trailers, mainly during graphical sequences ( Tickell & Tickell, 2002, 0:48). I.e. , i.e. picture 12 is accompanied by a voiceover stating that “when we destroy soil it releases carbon dioxide” (Tickell & Tickell, 2020, 0:48). Similarly, picture 13 is accompanied by a voiceover that states that bringing “the CO2 down into a living plant and put it back into the soil where it belongs” is one way to solve the issue of current unsustainable agricultural approaches (Tickell & Tickell, 2020, 01:06).

Picture 12

Picture 13

(26)

Statements in the form of voiceovers are also made in the Anthropocene: Human Epoch trailer. One of the most important statements is made in the beginning of the trailer, through a graphical scene, which you can see in picture 14. The trailer commences with using a graphical signifier that presents the denotative meaning of the word the Anthropocene. The word ‘Anthropocene’ is highlighted in red, with the purpose to highlight the denotive meaning of the word. The trailer visually defines the Anthropocene epoch as “the proposed current geological epoch where humans are the primary cause of permanent planetary change” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 0:09) and audibly as “the time in the geological record where humans have moved the planet outside its natural limit” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 0:18). Defining the term both visually and audibly with these vocabular choices, highlighting how humans are to blame for permanent planetary changes, create feelings of guilt and shame and enhances the negative connotations. The results of commencing the trailer with a scene that contributes to negative connotations for the audience, both visually and audibly, sets an overall negative tone to the trailer.

Picture 14

The way in which the trailers, both visually and audibly, present how the setting of nature has been affected by human objects, is important when it comes to distributing the message of the trailer to the audience. However, the setting and objects of the trailer are not the only aspects that are important when it comes to the presentation of how nature has been affected by humans. The usage of visual codes of lighting, color and graphics are also of importance here. Therefore, the next section involves an analysis of these visual codes and how they affect the

(27)

tone of the trailers, hence creating positive or negative connotations of the message of the trailer.

5.2 Visual Codes

Regarding the visual codes, the aspects of lighting, color and graphics were analyzed, and it was concluded that the two trailers differ in how they use these visual codes. In the

Anthropocene: The human epoch trailer, the usage of darker lighting and darker colors enhance

negative connotations of the trailer. However, the trailer does not only consist of sequences with darker colors and lighting. When signifying nature, the trailer does this through the usage of more vivid and lighter colors. These lighter, more vivid colors create more positive connotations in regard to the part of nature that humans have not touched (see pictures 15 & 16).

Picture 15

(Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier 2020, 0:37)

Picture 16

Nevertheless, there are very few scenes that have more vivid colors. When these scenes appear, they are usually followed by scenes that contain darker and more dull colors, such as black, grey and brown (see pictures 17 & 18), which in turn contribute to negative connotations. By presenting the audience with these contrasting scenes, the connotations become contrasting as well. The positive connotations from the colorful scenes become less clear, since they are followed by several scenes that contain colors which contribute to negative connotations. The scenes holding negative connotations are also more dominant in the trailer, and are presented more often, than the scenes with positive connotations.

(28)

Picture 17

Picture 18

The trailer also uses certain denotations, in the form of color, that usually contain positive connotations, but in the context of the trailer instead become negative. An example of this is the trailers use of colors of orange and yellow. These colors are usually associated with positive connotations, however the context of a black background in which they are presented, causes the connotations to become negative. Being presented in settings with a black background (i.e. Picture 20) the colors become more vivid, however in a more intimidating way. These types of scenes also create a feeling of destruction in the audience, which further enhances negative connotations.

Picture 19

The Kiss the Ground trailer, just as the Anthropocene: The human epoch trailer, also uses colors in order to create contrasting connotations. The trailer has darker colors using colors of grey

(29)

and ash-brown when presenting the signified nature that has been affected by humans (i.e. pictures 20 & 21).

Picture 20

Picture 21

However, The Kiss the Ground trailer presents more scenes with vivid and brighter colors i.e. green and brown, creating more positive connotation (picture 22). Compared to the

Anthropocene: The human epoch trailer, which more frequently used darker colors with darker

lighting, the Kiss the Ground trailer uses more vivid colors especially when nature is separated from human actions. Using denotations in different lighting and colors in the trailers, create different types of connotations. The dominating representation of negative connotations, trough darker and less vivid colors, contribute to a negative tone of the trailer, while dominating representations of positive connotations, through more vivid and colorful colors, contribute to a more positive tone of the trailer.

Picture 22

(30)

Another visual code that affects the tone of the trailers are graphics. The Kiss the Ground trailer uses graphics to engage the audience and serve as informative. In the beginning of the documentary trailer, the audience is presented with graphical text that is spread out over several sequences, to form the sentence bellow:

“Most climate change documentaries leave you feeling powerless, paralyzed, depressed… but this documentary… will leave you feeling… hopeful” (Tickell & Tickell, 2020, 0:5).

The purpose of these graphical sequences is to create a positive tone to the trailer, by presenting a solution and engaging the audience. This is done by dividing the graphics in separate scenes and ending this specific sequence by using a word with positive connotations connected to it- ‘hopeful’. As previously mentioned, the central object of the trailer Kiss the Ground is soil, and also the graphics highlight this point. The soil is not only presented to the audience through sequences containing actual pictures of the object, but also through graphical images of CO2 particles either coming out of the soil (see picture 24) or CO2 particles going from the atmosphere into the soil (see picture 25), where the second in turn graphically explains the process of bio sequestration by doing so. The graphical scenes presented in this trailer, hence serve as a way to inform the audience of the problem of current unsustainable agricultural approaches and, and the solution to it.

These graphics are also accompanied by voiceovers that present and explanation of what is happening in the graphics, i.e. picture 23 is accompanied by a voiceover stating that “when we destroy soil it releases carbon dioxide” (Tickell & Tickell, 2020, 0:48). Similarly, picture 24 is accompanied by a voiceover that states that bringing “the CO2 down into a living plant and put it back into the soil where it belongs” (Tickell & Tickell, 2020, 01:05) is one way to solve the issue of current unsustainable agricultural approaches, hence to climate change (Tickell & Tickell, 2020, 01:06).

(31)

Picture 23

Picture 24

The Anthropocene: The human epoch (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018) trailer does not have as many graphical sequences as Kiss the Ground (Tickell & Tickell, 2020), however the trailer starts off with the most important scene with a graphical text, which sets the tone for the whole trailer (see picture 25). The trailer commences with using a graphical signifier that presents the denotative meaning of the word the Anthropocene. The word ‘Anthropocene’ is highlighted in red, with the purpose to highlight the denotive meaning of the word. The trailer visually defines the Anthropocene epoch as “the proposed current geological epoch where humans are the primary cause of permanent planetary change” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 0:07) and audibly as “the time in the geological record where humans have moved the planet outside its natural limit” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 0:18). Defining the term both visually and audibly with these vocabular choices, highlighting how humans are to blame for permanent planetary changes, create feelings of guilt and shame and enhances the negative connotations. The results of commencing the trailer with a scene that contributes to negative connotations for the audience, both visually and audibly, sets an overall negative tone to the trailer.

Picture 25

(32)

As can be concluded from this section, the tone of the trailer is impacted not only by what is happening in the settings and what objects are present, but also by the visual codes used in the trailers. However, most of the visual codes, especially in the form of graphics, are accompanied by people in the form of voice overs, which serves as a form of claims making when it comes to recognizing the issue present in the trailers. Hence, the next section will take a look at how people serve as claim makers, through audible and visual tools.

5.3 The representation of People

In the documentary trailer Anthropocene: The human epoch, the people in it mainly carry out different tasks; some are creating sculptures (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 0:45), others are carrying baskets (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 01:03). However, the trailer does not present the audience with people who speak of the issue of human planetary changes directly to them. The people presented visually in the trailer, usually have their back to the audience and are rarely presented as directly speaking or addressing the audience (see picture 12). In this way, the audience do not get a connection with the people that are presented visually. These people also do not serve as claims makers of the issue regarded in the trailer. Instead, the trailer contributes to claims making by using voiceovers which mainly serve to inform the audience of the issue. Problems, such as issues connected to climate and planetary changes, are not simply recognized as issues by objective existence, but when it is claimed as an issue in public areas such as in media content (Hansen, 2018). Involving people in the claims making process of environmental issues, especially well-known people, enhances the issue and brings attention to it (Ollausson & Uggla, 2019). The missing face of the claims makers causes issues in regard to effective claims making. When Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier (2018) decide not to visually present people as claims makers for the message of the issue, the issue becomes impersonal and the claims making becomes ineffective.

(33)

Picture 26

However, the usage of voiceovers and the choice of linguistic resources of vocabulary, create contrasting feelings and connotations in the trailer. The word “we” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 01:14). is sparely used in order to create feelings of togetherness and generic inclusion. Using the word “we” in contexts where it is argued that people need to communicate the importance of communicating the issue to everybody, i.e. “It is such a fundamental way in which the earth is behaving, that we need to communicate that as powerfully as possible” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 01:12). Yet, the usage of phrases with words as “humans” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 0:29) create impersonal feelings for the audience in regard to the topic. This in turn creates a feeling of distance. The choice of vocabulary accompanied with the word human also create negative connotations in the audience, i.e. “humans go from being participants in the whole earth, to being a dominant feature” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 0:29) and “dominating the oceans, landscape, agriculture, animals” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 0:35). These statements, together with the statement that humans “have not a way to get back, we live now in a different world” (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 01:05), also contribute to feelings of fear and guilt in the audience. It connotates that the damage has already been done, and that there is nothing that can be done about it.

The statements presented above gives the trailer a focus which does not lie on what can be done for the future, but rather what has been done and the importance to communicate this to the world (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de Pencier, 2018, 01:11). The voiceovers of the trailers state that humans have gone from being participants on the planet (Baichwal, Burtynsky & de