Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC Davos 2010 R. Eggenberger / E. Werlen C. Badras / U. Dirks / U. Willi Resi...
Intention of the article <ul><li>Delineation of risk areas of risk communication and of risk reduction by the means of lin...
Risk communication - for instance pictures
Risk communication - for instance BBK-brochure
Understanding what?
The two central drafts <ul><li>Risk Communication : </li></ul><ul><li>Semasiological perspective: focus on sign </li></ul>...
Our approach to a systematic design of the role of language and communication in the array of risk communication <ul><li>1...
The basic differences in analysing risk communication Intra-/interlanguage   pragmatics f.i. words as Risikokommunikation,...
i.e.: Two approaches to communicate about risk <ul><li>semasiological: focus on words means explaining words </li></ul><ul...
Reality & Experiences
Context and construction of reality
Onomasiological perspective: from situation to language
Our main research questions:  Where are the linguistic risk areas? By which means can we create linguistic interoperabilit...
Why is  linguistic interoperability  particularly important today?   <ul><li>Mutual understanding as a premise for creatin...
Example for interinstitutionel cooperation
Example for interinstitutionel cooperation
Heighten the relevance of our approach <ul><li>To achieve Common Capability the following factors must be considered:  Eur...
Risk area no 1 & Proposal no 1 Fragmentation and diffusion instead of an integral perspective on linguistic-communicative ...
Risk area no 2 and proposal no 2: „Technicistique“ reductions and imagery instead of linguistic models <ul><li>„ Technicis...
Every utterance is ambigue and bipolar (locution / illocution) <ul><li>Different ideas concerning the semantic field „Sich...
Example: Define the meaning / Semantics What does a word „mean“? „ Valeur“ of a word / of a phrase depends of different su...
 
 
Risk area no 3 & proposal no 3: Communicative culture of hierarchie instead of participation <ul><li>Crisis management is ...
Regular circuit  illustrates the isolation or „the inherent human factor“
Risk area no 4 & proposal no 4: Implicit knowledge instead of an explicite linguistic knowledge about risk communication a...
Topografic and institutional complexity
Recommendations  Linguistic Interoperability <ul><li>Systematic consideration of the role of language and communication in...
Bibliographische Hinweise <ul><li>Renn, O./Rohrmann, B. (Hg.) (2000): Cross-cultural Risk Perception. A Survey of Empirica...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Resilience and Disaster Relief at Risk: Challenging the Linguistic and Cultural Diversity

888 views

Published on

Resilience and Disaster Relief at Risk: Challenging the Linguistic and Cultural Diversity

Published in: Economy & Finance, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Resilience and Disaster Relief at Risk: Challenging the Linguistic and Cultural Diversity

  1. 1. International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC Davos 2010 R. Eggenberger / E. Werlen C. Badras / U. Dirks / U. Willi Resilience and Disaster Relief at Risk: Challenging the Linguistic and Cultural Diversity. E.Werlen: Linguistic related risk areas of risk communication & Linguistic Interoperability
  2. 2. Intention of the article <ul><li>Delineation of risk areas of risk communication and of risk reduction by the means of linguistic interoperability </li></ul><ul><li>Provide insight into our evolving international research-project on linguistic interoperability </li></ul><ul><li>Kind request for collaboration </li></ul>
  3. 3. Risk communication - for instance pictures
  4. 4. Risk communication - for instance BBK-brochure
  5. 5. Understanding what?
  6. 6. The two central drafts <ul><li>Risk Communication : </li></ul><ul><li>Semasiological perspective: focus on sign </li></ul><ul><li>Communication between individuals, between organisations, between people and organisations </li></ul><ul><li>Onomasiological perspective: focus on phenomenon </li></ul><ul><li>when there is communication among individuals, among organisations, between people and organisations about risks, this is referred to as risk communication </li></ul><ul><li>Linguistic Interoperability : </li></ul><ul><li>Guarantees understanding by means of a systematic design of language and communication in risk communication </li></ul>
  7. 7. Our approach to a systematic design of the role of language and communication in the array of risk communication <ul><li>1 Risk area no 1 & Proposal no 1: Fragmentation and diffusion instead of an integral / „holistic“ perspective on linguistic-communicative reality </li></ul><ul><li>2 Risk area no 2 & proposal no 2: „Technicistique“ reductions and imagery instead of linguistic models </li></ul><ul><li>3 Risk area no 3 & proposal no 3: Communicative culture of hierarchic relations instead of participative relations </li></ul><ul><li>Risk area no 4 & proposal no 4: </li></ul><ul><li>Implicit knowledge instead of an explicite linguistic knowledge about risk communication as a linguistic phenomenon </li></ul>
  8. 8. The basic differences in analysing risk communication Intra-/interlanguage pragmatics f.i. words as Risikokommunikation, Risikoeinschätzung communication-system: interaction   language system part of the risk commu- nication part of the inter- lin-gual <ul><li>onomasiological </li></ul><ul><li>„ world“ </li></ul><ul><li>> describing world(s) </li></ul>risk commu- nication <ul><li>semasiological </li></ul><ul><li>sign / word </li></ul><ul><li>> describing words </li></ul>intra- lin-gual
  9. 9. i.e.: Two approaches to communicate about risk <ul><li>semasiological: focus on words means explaining words </li></ul><ul><li>onomasiological: focus on phenomena means describing situations, facts, things and suggest words </li></ul><ul><li>Which way is more successful in cooperative work (trans- or intranational)? </li></ul>
  10. 10. Reality & Experiences
  11. 11. Context and construction of reality
  12. 12. Onomasiological perspective: from situation to language
  13. 13. Our main research questions: Where are the linguistic risk areas? By which means can we create linguistic interoperability? <ul><li>Linguistic approach </li></ul><ul><li>How to do things with words? </li></ul><ul><li>Risk communication is „normal“ activity </li></ul><ul><li>What has to be done to guarantee the proper understanding of the „information“? NB: The frame is: risk communication is an action. </li></ul><ul><li>One has to know what actually happens ! </li></ul><ul><li>Is that the case with the institutions responsible in the field of risk communication? </li></ul>
  14. 14. Why is linguistic interoperability particularly important today? <ul><li>Mutual understanding as a premise for creating and redefining resilience: Resilience as the capability of individuals, societies, organisations Widerstandskraft aufzubringen </li></ul><ul><li>Transnational and interinstitutional cooperations are of major importance in the light of transformation and emergence of new threat levels </li></ul><ul><li>ESRIF Key message: Interoperability: A seamless approach to security is essential for Europe; Interoperability is essential to allow security forces work together </li></ul><ul><li>Individuals and „objects“ - disasters - cannot, yet language and communication ca be arranged </li></ul>
  15. 15. Example for interinstitutionel cooperation
  16. 16. Example for interinstitutionel cooperation
  17. 17. Heighten the relevance of our approach <ul><li>To achieve Common Capability the following factors must be considered: European wide interoperability , the developement of new standardization and certification concepts, improved means of communication, education and training programmes for security stakeholders and early consultation and co-operation throughout the planning, execution and review of Security Research policies </li></ul><ul><li>ESRIF (The European Security Research and Innovation Forum) </li></ul><ul><li>. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Risk area no 1 & Proposal no 1 Fragmentation and diffusion instead of an integral perspective on linguistic-communicative reality <ul><li>Confidence in terminology, f.i. the term „Begriff“ </li></ul><ul><li>Isolated definitions / definitions without wider contexts, f.i. glossaries (often just for one kind of „BOS“) </li></ul><ul><li>Mixing semasiological and onomasiological perspectives </li></ul><ul><li>General problem of an established „amalagam“ of expert knowledge and general knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Taking into account linguistic system </li></ul><ul><li>natural ambiguity </li></ul><ul><li>„ doublebind“ meaning: utterance vs message > coherence of risk communication is necessary </li></ul><ul><li>Trust: Assuring security implies nurturing trust among people, institutions and technologies (ESRIF Key message ) </li></ul>
  19. 19. Risk area no 2 and proposal no 2: „Technicistique“ reductions and imagery instead of linguistic models <ul><li>„ Technicistique“ perspective doesn‘t go with linguistic and communicative objectivity: </li></ul><ul><li>„ crisis management is a regulator circuit“ </li></ul><ul><li>Concentrating on platforms providing information and neglect the human factor </li></ul><ul><li>Societal Security: Human beings are at the core of security processes </li></ul><ul><li>(ESRIF Key Messages) </li></ul><ul><li>Interdependency between language, communication and society: utterances define situations </li></ul><ul><li>Meaning depends from contexts, frames & scripts of the individuals </li></ul>
  20. 20. Every utterance is ambigue and bipolar (locution / illocution) <ul><li>Different ideas concerning the semantic field „Sicherheit“ </li></ul><ul><li>Wird die Umgebung vor den Gefahren, die vom System ausgehen, geschützt, wird dies als „Sicherheit“ (englisch: „Safety“) bezeichnet. (vgl. DIN-Fachbericht 144; ISO/IEC Guide 51) </li></ul><ul><li>Wird das System vor Gefahren geschützt, so wird dies als „Sicherheit gegen Fremdeinwirkungen“ (englisch: „Security“) bezeichnet. (vgl. ISO: SMB/3971/DC) </li></ul>
  21. 21. Example: Define the meaning / Semantics What does a word „mean“? „ Valeur“ of a word / of a phrase depends of different surroundings Of whom? Risikokommunikation: Risiko i.S. of „danger“  and what does „danger“ mean?  Risikoreduktion Reduction of risk Topic Darstellen der Risikobereiche der Risikokommunikation und der Risikoreduktion durch linguistische Interoperabilität Risikobereiche der Risiko-kommunikation Risk areas of risk communication Indirect textal surrounding (i.e. kind of information, knowledge ...) Direct textal surrounding (i.e. other words ...)
  22. 24. Risk area no 3 & proposal no 3: Communicative culture of hierarchie instead of participation <ul><li>Crisis management is based on hierarchic structures and processes </li></ul><ul><li>Is this the adquate communication culture for riskcommunication? </li></ul><ul><li>Societal Resilience: Certain risks cannot be catered for, nor avoided; societies must prepare to face shocks and must have the ability (ESRIF Key message) </li></ul><ul><li>Inclusion of participative processes, since understanding can‘t be achieved without participation </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on individuals and human communication </li></ul><ul><li>Realistic perspective on conditions, processes and structures of communication </li></ul>
  23. 25. Regular circuit illustrates the isolation or „the inherent human factor“
  24. 26. Risk area no 4 & proposal no 4: Implicit knowledge instead of an explicite linguistic knowledge about risk communication as a linguistic phenomenon <ul><li>Goal and target group related formation of communication </li></ul><ul><li>Explicite knowledge of language and communication </li></ul><ul><li>„ Modelling“ language and communication is essential, not marginal </li></ul><ul><li>Konkretisierung linguistischer Interoperabilität: Ziel- und adressatengerechte Kommunikationsgestaltung (ZAKG) </li></ul>
  25. 27. Topografic and institutional complexity
  26. 28. Recommendations Linguistic Interoperability <ul><li>Systematic consideration of the role of language and communication in the range of civil security research </li></ul><ul><li>to ensure mutual understanding </li></ul><ul><li>to avoid miscommunication </li></ul><ul><li>to develop systematically „linguistic proven“ risk communication measures </li></ul><ul><li>Give participation a chance: Don‘t generalize the hierarchic (military) pattern of crisis communication </li></ul><ul><li>Transform the implicit knowledge about risk communication into an explicit knowledge about language and communication </li></ul><ul><li>Firm establishment of linguistic interoperability: Goal- and target-related formation of communication (ZAKG) </li></ul>
  27. 29. Bibliographische Hinweise <ul><li>Renn, O./Rohrmann, B. (Hg.) (2000): Cross-cultural Risk Perception. A Survey of Empirical Studies, Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. </li></ul><ul><li>Rothkegel, Annely (2010): Technikkommunikation. Konstanz: UVK </li></ul><ul><li>Ständige Konferenz der Innenminister und -senatoren der Länder (Hg.) (2009): Programm Innere Sicherheit. Fortschreibung 2008/2009. Potsdam: Geschäftstelle Programm Innere Sicherheit im MI Brandenburg. (s. auch: www.bundesrat.de) </li></ul><ul><li>Werlen, Erika (1998): Sprache, Kommunikationskultur und Mentalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer </li></ul><ul><li>Winzer, Petra/Schnieder. Ekkehard/Bach Friedrich-Wilhelm (Hg.) (2010): Sicherheitsforschung - Chancen und Perspektiven. Berlin: Springer / acatech - Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften </li></ul>

×