| dc.description.abstract | This thesis investigates the climate discourse in selected material from the British newspapers the Times and the Guardian, with a view to uncover changes through time (1990 to 2014), as well as differences between the two papers that could reflect their ideological inclinations. The thesis approaches this task first through performing a transitivity analysis, a framework from Systemic Functional Grammar as developed by M.A.K Halliday. Language construes our world, representing experience, and the analysis highlights the semantic roles of those who figure in the discourse. The results from the transitivity analysis contribute to a discourse analysis drawing on Fairclough and van Dijk's critical discourse analyses. The aim is to show tendencies in the structure of the language that could shape how the readers perceive climate change. A main tendency in my results points to a shift in in the placement of responsibility, through a depoliticisation and depersonification of participants, which, most notably, seems to have led to an increased frequency of nature as a principal participant. The tendencies I point out through this thesis could help position readers to understand and conceptualise climate change as 'something that just happened', and something that is impossible to counteract. In this way, language can be effectively harmful. | eng |