ABSTRACT

In cultural as well as social science studies of discourses (e.g. of discourses on climate change), the concept of narrative is used in a very broad sense – as an umbrella term that lacks analytical accuracy. From the perspective of linguistics, it seems obvious to acknowledge five elementary generic patterns. In addition to narration, linguists differentiate between argumentation, description, explication and instruction. Each of these patterns fulfils a different basic pragmatic function. This article tries to make clear and justify why it is important, both theoretically and practically, to make a distinction between these five generic patterns. It is argued and shown that narrativization tends to go hand in hand with a relief of action, historicization, potential fictionalization, subjectivization and relativization. With respect to discourses on the climate crisis, these prototypical characteristics of narratives undermine both scientific attempts to justify claims of truth relating to the existence, causes and consequences of global warming as well as practical attempts to motivate people to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle.

摘要

在文化和社会科学研究的话语（例如关于气候变化的话语）中，叙事的概念被广泛地使用–作为缺乏分析准确性的总称。从语言学的角度来看，似乎很明显地承认了五个基本的通用模式。除了叙事外，语言学家还区分论证，描述，阐释和指导。这些模式中的每一个都执行不同的基本实用功能。本文试图阐明并证明为什么在理论上和实践上对这五种通用模式进行区分很重要。有争论并表明叙事化往往与行动，历史化，潜在的虚构化，主观化和相对化齐头并进。关于气候危机的论述，这些叙事的原型特征既破坏了为证明与全球变暖的存在，成因和后果有关的事实主张辩护的科学尝试，也破坏了激励人们采取更可持续生活方式的实际尝试。