The Development of Ecological Identities in Children’s Books: A Linguistic Approach to Character Positioning as Eco-Rebels
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have serious concerns with respect to the primary text used, the analysis of the YA novel, the elaboration on the theoretical framework, and the terminology employed in the article.
The analysis is based on the German translation of a YA novel written by French author Marie Pavlenko. This is a bit problematic as translations alter the original text to a greater or lesser extent, which is already discernible in the book title: The French title "Et le desert disparaitra" (And the desert will vanish) has a different focus in comparison to the German title "Die Welt, von der ich träume" (The world I dream of). The French text has a lot of idiosyncrasies which are difficult to translate. So, the question arises as to why a German YA novel has not been chosen instead. Seen in this light, one might be sceptical about the linguistic analysis and the resulting interpretation of the narrative which is based on the German translation but may be different when focusing on the French book.
The theoretical framework is based on the concept of "identity dilemmatic spaces", developed by Michael Bamberg, and complemented by methods used in applied linguistics. The problem is that the approach by Bamberg is situated within interactive communication science and used with respect to the investigation of (oral) communication. For this reason, it is difficult to apply this approach to the analysis of written texts. In relation to the three dilemmatic spaces: sameness/difference; agency/passivity; continuity/change, the author has undertaken a qualitative inquiry by looking at the speech markers in the book that point to these three binary oppositions. However, there is a confusion with respect to the three dilemmatic spaces, coined levels on page 3, as there are obviously six categories to be considered (no 1-3 on page 2, no 4-6 on page 3 of the article). It is not clearly explained how these categories are distinguished and how they are related to "dilemmatic spaces". Apart from that, the notion itself is not explained (what is a dilemmatic space and why it is characterized as dilemmatic?). As for the categories no 1-3, the author changes the position of the narrator (as used by Bamberg) to that of the "author" (p. 3), by arguing that only the first category is relevant while the second and third ones can be omitted. The reasons for this decision are not given. Moreover, the transfer from the concept of "narrator" to "author" should be scrutinized as these are different ontological and narratological categories.
The linguistic analysis focuses on the verbs used for speech markers (tell, cry, laugh, etc.) in order to show the disposition of the main character Saama in relation to two groups (the eldest, the hunters). This analysis is complemented by elaborations on expressions that point to mental and emotional states. This inquiry builds the basis for the analysis of the three dilemmatic spaces by highlighting the changes the main protagonist undergoes in the course of the story. The author centers on lexical and semantic categories, while omitting the pragmatic perspective (all speech acts belong to pragmatics), that is, considering the language use in context. The communication between Saama and the other characters cannot be fully understood when the pragmatic level is disregarded.
The brief summary of the book and the explanation of the role of Saama omits the relevant information that the novel is a first person-narration by Saama. This is significant because it implies that all events told are seen through the lens of the girl and are not told by an omniscient or heterodiegetic author.
There is also a mismatch with respect to terminology. The author seems to make a difference between character and protagonist (line 203-206) but this distinction is not explained. In the same vein, the notion "ecological protagonist" is not explained at all.
It is striking that mainly German secondary literature is referenced, which conveys the impression that there aren't any relevant studies in English (only the studies by Bamberg and one chapter from the Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics is included). Since the author is interested in the ecological topic, his/her analysis might benefit from considering studies in the realm of Ecolinguistics (regarding the idiosyncratic expresssions in Pavlenko's novel) and Identity Studies (see, for instance, the "Cambridge Handbook of Identity" (2021), edited by Bamberger et al.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The article needs professional copyediting as there are some grammatical mistakes, awkward expressions, and sentences which are difficult to understand.
Author Response
Comment 1: The analysis is based on the German translation of a YA novel written by French author Marie Pavlenko. This is a bit problematic as translations alter the original text to a greater or lesser extent, which is already discernible in the book title: The French title "Et le desert disparaitra" (And the desert will vanish) has a different focus in comparison to the German title "Die Welt, von der ich träume" (The world I dream of). The French text has a lot of idiosyncrasies which are difficult to translate. So, the question arises as to why a German YA novel has not been chosen instead. Seen in this light, one might be sceptical about the linguistic analysis and the resulting interpretation of the narrative which is based on the German translation but may be different when focusing on the French book.
Response 1: Thank you for this feedback. The methodology which is shown in the article can be used on every ecological YA book and is not limited by translations. It serves the purpose of giving a linguistic approach to analyzing the storyline and the linguistic design of an ecological YA book. The aim is to analyze how eco-rebels are constructed in those books and by thus, how this may influence the young readers. For this intend it is irrelevant, if the analysis is based on a German translation or the original book (and there is no intention to compare interculturally different books or original and translation). Thus, the aim of the article is a methodological one, and for that the (original) language of the book is irrelevant. Furthermore, the book "Die Welt von der ich träume" is a prototypical representative of a larger corpus, which also includes German originals, and can be analyzed in the same way as the other books since it is the only version the readers on the German market will read. It was used because it has the stereotypical eco-rebel construction story arc and was especially suited for the analysis, because its story arc is easy to convey in a short article without going to deep into the material.
To emphasize this point I added the sentences in line 291-300. By this addition to the presentation of the analyzed book it should be become clearer why there is no difference in choosing a translation instead of a German original in this article.
Comment 2: The theoretical framework is based on the concept of "identity dilemmatic spaces", developed by Michael Bamberg, and complemented by methods used in applied linguistics. The problem is that the approach by Bamberg is situated within interactive communication science and used with respect to the investigation of (oral) communication. For this reason, it is difficult to apply this approach to the analysis of written texts. In relation to the three dilemmatic spaces: sameness/difference; agency/passivity; continuity/change, the author has undertaken a qualitative inquiry by looking at the speech markers in the book that point to these three binary oppositions. However, there is a confusion with respect to the three dilemmatic spaces, coined levels on page 3, as there are obviously six categories to be considered (no 1-3 on page 2, no 4-6 on page 3 of the article). It is not clearly explained how these categories are distinguished and how they are related to "dilemmatic spaces". Apart from that, the notion itself is not explained (what is a dilemmatic space and why it is characterized as dilemmatic?).
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out - there was in fact a design error in the manuscript, which probably led to the confusion: Instead of the continuing, the numbering on page 3 should have started with "1"and not continue the numbering from above. The identity dilemmatic spaces on page 4 are an extension of the three levels on page 3.
I have addressed this issue by changing the numbers (line 196, 203, 210)
Comment 3: As for the categories no 1-3, the author changes the position of the narrator (as used by Bamberg) to that of the "author" (p. 3), by arguing that only the first category is relevant while the second and third ones can be omitted. The reasons for this decision are not given. Moreover, the transfer from the concept of "narrator" to "author" should be scrutinized as these are different ontological and narratological categories.
Response 3: The shift from narrator (Bamberg) to author (this article) is crucial for the methodology. Since the meaning of the terminological change wasn’t clear enough, I added a few explanations in the text. Since the terminologies really stem from different ontological and narratological categories I added exactly that in the article (see line 160-180). By this extension I also made it clearer, why only the first category is relevant when one shifts the analysis subject from a conversation to a book. . Since the author writes the story, he or she also designs the narrator who tells it inside the book. In a conversation, there is no author – only a speaker, the narrator of his or her own story.
Comment 4: The linguistic analysis focuses on the verbs used for speech markers (tell, cry, laugh, etc.) in order to show the disposition of the main character Saama in relation to two groups (the eldest, the hunters). This analysis is complemented by elaborations on expressions that point to mental and emotional states. This inquiry builds the basis for the analysis of the three dilemmatic spaces by highlighting the changes the main protagonist undergoes in the course of the story. The author centers on lexical and semantic categories, while omitting the pragmatic perspective (all speech acts belong to pragmatics), that is, considering the language use in context. The communication between Saama and the other characters cannot be fully understood when the pragmatic level is disregarded.
Response 4: The article is about the plot of the story as a whole. It is not about the analysis of individual language acts within the storyworld but rather about the connotation of individual language acts on a linguistic meta-level- thus, the pragmatics lie in the interaction at the language level (lexical and semantic). One could speak of a metapragmatic approach (it is about how things are evaluated/assessed and not how exactly things are communicated): If there are changes in the identity dilemmatic spaces across the analyzed work, then this is understood as an indication that there are also shifts in perception and evaluation (and not that the interaction of the characters themselves is changing - particularly clear in the analyzed work, since the main character Samaa goes through changes without interacting again with other characters in the novel).
Comment 5: There is also a mismatch with respect to terminology. The author seems to make a difference between character and protagonist (line 203-206) but this distinction is not explained. In the same vein, the notion "ecological protagonist" is not explained at all.
Response 5: Since a clear terminology is really important, I have modified and properly defined several terms. A protagonist (hyponym) is the main character of a book (synonym), while characters (hyperonym) refer to other secondary or less important characters in the book that the protagonist interacts with. To address this, I added "main character of the story" in line 42 where the terminology protagonist is first used. The notion "ecological protagonist" was changed to “eco-rebel” in this instance to reduce comprehension problems – this change also aligned with the restructuring of the introduction. In relation to the second review the term "Eco-rebel" was also defined more clearly in the beginning.
Comment 6: It is striking that mainly German secondary literature is referenced, which conveys the impression that there aren't any relevant studies in English (only the studies by Bamberg and one chapter from the Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics is included). Since the author is interested in the ecological topic, his/her analysis might benefit from considering studies in the realm of Ecolinguistics (regarding the idiosyncratic expresssions in Pavlenko's novel) and Identity Studies (see, for instance, the "Cambridge Handbook of Identity" (2021), edited by Bamberger et al.
Response 6: I added more English secondary literature in the introduction. But since the analyzed book is narratively oriented and is intended for the German literary market, 2/3 of the material used is German literature, as it is not about a cultural comparison (German – English, or German - French), but rather the exploration and explanation of a methodology that is illustrated by a work for the German market. The argument “no cultural comparison” refers primarily to the content level (contents and structures of different eco-discourses)
The central methodological approach (Bamberg) was adopted from the English-speaking world (because methods can always be viewed internationally, even if they are then applied to German texts).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGreat application of the dilemmatic spaces (with analysis) to a CYL dystopian novel.
The aim of this paper is to show how eco-rebels can be role models for young readers and “encourage sustainable thinking and action in everyday life” (abstract). Its main contribution is the application of Bamberg’s (2020) dilemmatic spaces to character development related to ecological agency in order to illustrate how a character becomes a change agent or eco rebel. The author suggests that understanding how the character changes their ecological perspective on established belief systems and their relationships with other characters can have a similar effect on readers. Its main contribution is understanding how readers identify with characters and, through “co-experience,” gain “knowledge and understanding” of ecological issues and perhaps even see models for activism.
The greatest strength of the paper is in the analysis. This was where the idea behind the paper makes the most sense. There are some areas that will likely be strengthened after the organization of the argument and key ideas are more clearly established in the beginning of the paper. Thus, most of my feedback here is directly related to the Introduction, Materials and Methods, and review of relevant literature. I hope the author finds my comments and suggestions helpful. This is such a great idea and the analysis and concluding ideas were a pleasure to read.
Reorganization will be important. The Introduction starts with quotes related to the urgency of climate issues, but continues with some very broad generalizations and would benefit from a clear thesis. Consider the use of quotes as supporting your argument. For example, Accordingly, it is not surprising that the topic is increasingly finding its way into media offerings for young people. In…CYL… the ‘ecological references as a supplementary narrative[...] can hardly be missing”: I had to read the second part of the sentence to make sense of the introduction of new ideas out of context, such as supplementary narrative (see ll. 26-34). Then new ideas are also introduced without enough context.
The hypothesis in the abstract is: “The study hypothesizes that the development of an ecological identity, although individual within the story, is a pattern of actual ecological CYL.” What is meant by “actual ecological CYL”? I wonder if starting with concrete examples would help the reader understand. Eco-rebel is not defined until later and should be defined when it is introduced or immediately following the initial introduction.
In Materials and Methods, tell us a little more about how you define or use ‘identity,’ ‘ecological identity,’ and who (“reader? character?) is not clear.
I really love the use of Bamberg for the analysis. In 2.1 Identity dilemmatic spaces, I suggest starting with your own words and then using quotes as needed to support your argument. The three levels– why not use Bamberg’s words? You do this well in the chart, but in this part of the paper, I had a hard time following the three levels and then the dilemmatic spaces. The dilemmatic spaces (ll. 120-137) are more clear and contribute nicely to the analysis. I suggest refining the first part of 2.1 to better lead into the dilemmatic spaces. Good work with the description and examples in ll. 199-208.
Everything became more clear once the concrete example was introduced. I wonder if this could come earlier? There were some great lines that would help the reader of the article earlier, such as this one: “Therefore, the method is suitable for conducting a character analysis in fiction to work out how the characters are constructed in the novel and how eco-rebels are staged in a way that inspires the reader to think critically and become active themselves” (... 179-182). Ah ha! Yes. This is great and a similar presentation of ideas earlier would be helpful.
I enjoyed the linguistic analysis. I got a sense that the author did, as well. For example, at the bottom of page 8/14, ll. 378-382, it was thrilling to see how you applied the framework and linguistic analysis to show how the character, Samaa, wanted to preserve the old belief system (Why– that’s an important question!) but through experience has come to see it as flawed. Why stop there? Add a little more. I think this speaks to some of the most pressing questions around change and here we encounter it in CYL through your analysis.
Like the use of terms like “ecological rethinking” (. 411).
Great conclusion - Can the paragraphs be broken up a bit? In the Discussion, minor things like the redundancy in the first sentence (ll. 530-533).
And… on the last page: the definition of eco rebel. It’s great! I suggested earlier that you might want to start with some of these ideas to orient the reader: “Eco-rebels are fighters who oppose the prevailing narrative…” This idea is important here, but also the idea of eco rebels earlier might make the impact of this statement after the analysis and discussion even more impactful. So, the conclusions are consistent and supported, but the entire manuscript would benefit from a stronger start and a more clear introduction to the dilemmatic spaces idea. The analysis is compelling, but may also benefit from breaks in presentation. Good use of dilemmatic spaces in parenthesis to help the reader follow.
Author Response
Review 2
Comment 1:
Reorganization will be important. The Introduction starts with quotes related to the urgency of climate issues, but continues with some very broad generalizations and would benefit from a clear thesis. Consider the use of quotes as supporting your argument. For example, Accordingly, it is not surprising that the topic is increasingly finding its way into media offerings for young people. In…CYL… the ‘ecological references as a supplementary narrative[...] can hardly be missing”: I had to read the second part of the sentence to make sense of the introduction of new ideas out of context, such as supplementary narrative (see ll. 26-34). Then new ideas are also introduced without enough context.
The hypothesis in the abstract is: “The study hypothesizes that the development of an ecological identity, although individual within the story, is a pattern of actual ecological CYL.” What is meant by “actual ecological CYL”? I wonder if starting with concrete examples would help the reader understand. Eco-rebel is not defined until later and should be defined when it is introduced or immediately following the initial introduction.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing that out and also for the explicit ideas for change. The introduction has been heavily changed to address the comment: First, there was a definition of the term Eco-rebel added in the first paragraph (line 32-40). Second, the comment, that the article starts with quotes related to the urgency of climate issues and then continues with some very broad generalizations has been addressed by rephrasing the whole paragraph and changing its direction (line 22-107). It is now made clearer why the important topic of “climate change” is relevant in the analysis of CYL. Instead of a more general overview over the ecological CYL and some hints to the identification with ecological protagonists, the introduction is now clearer to why the analysis of eco-rebels in CYL is important and how this was addressed in the article by implementing a new analyzing method.
The hypothesis of the abstract is now marked clearer also in the introduction and the adjective “actual” has been eliminated from the abstract – The word was originally intended to highlight the difference between “CYL with ecological focus” (as a trend in the actual ecological CYL) and “CYL where the ecological topic also accurse but isn’t central to the story”. Since the introduction is now focused more on explaining the analysis topic (ecological CYL with eco-rebels as protagonists) the adjective could just be eliminated.
Comment 2:
In Materials and Methods, tell us a little more about how you define or use ‘identity,’ ‘ecological identity,’ and who (“reader? character?) is not clear. I really love the use of Bamberg for the analysis. In 2.1 Identity dilemmatic spaces, I suggest starting with your own words and then using quotes as needed to support your argument.
Response 2: The terms have been defined in 2.1 (line 126-133) and by thus the chapter 2.1 also starts with my own words (addressing the second critic).
Comment 3:
The three levels– why not use Bamberg’s words? You do this well in the chart, but in this part of the paper, I had a hard time following the three levels and then the dilemmatic spaces. The dilemmatic spaces (ll. 120-137) are more clear and contribute nicely to the analysis. I suggest refining the first part of 2.1 to better lead into the dilemmatic spaces. Good work with the description and examples in ll. 199-208.
Response 3: The three levels (first part of 2.1) have been reformulated to make them clearer - including citations by Bamberg (line 146-155). I also added explanations in the paragraph below to further explain the three levels and how they are structured (160-180) – mainly because of review 1.
Comment 4:
Everything became more clear once the concrete example was introduced. I wonder if this could come earlier? There were some great lines that would help the reader of the article earlier, such as this one: “Therefore, the method is suitable for conducting a character analysis in fiction to work out how the characters are constructed in the novel and how eco-rebels are staged in a way that inspires the reader to think critically and become active themselves” (... 179-182). Ah ha! Yes. This is great and a similar presentation of ideas earlier would be helpful.
Response 4: I added two sentences at the end of the introduction (line 98-107) to address this comment. By this, I address the issue sooner in the article and help the readers to comprehend the aim of the article better.
Comment 5:
I enjoyed the linguistic analysis. I got a sense that the author did, as well. For example, at the bottom of page 8/14, ll. 378-382, it was thrilling to see how you applied the framework and linguistic analysis to show how the character, Samaa, wanted to preserve the old belief system (Why– that’s an important question!) but through experience has come to see it as flawed. Why stop there? Add a little more. I think this speaks to some of the most pressing questions around change and here we encounter it in CYL through your analysis. Like the use of terms like “ecological rethinking” (. 411).
Response 5: The analysis was further improved by addressing this comment: Regarding the above example, further considerations on the topic were added as requested (line 472-478)
Comment 6:
Great conclusion - Can the paragraphs be broken up a bit?
Response 6: I added paragraphs to further structure the conclusion.
Comment 7:
In the Discussion, minor things like the redundancy in the first sentence (ll. 530-533).
Response 7: Thanks for catching that – The redundancy was fixed by deleting the last part of the sentence (see line 623).
Comment 8:
And… on the last page: the definition of eco rebel. It’s great! I suggested earlier that you might want to start with some of these ideas to orient the reader: “Eco-rebels are fighters who oppose the prevailing narrative…” This idea is important here, but also the idea of eco rebels earlier might make the impact of this statement after the analysis and discussion even more impactful. So, the conclusions are consistent and supported, but the entire manuscript would benefit from a stronger start and a clearer introduction to the dilemmatic spaces idea.
Response 8:
I agree with this comment and have accordingly modified the introduction of the article to implement a definition of Eco-rebels in CYL (line 32-40).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have read the revised manuscript. All critical remarks I raised in my report have been addressed in this version. I have no further comments.
Author Response
Comment 1 - adjusted the title
Comment 2 - erased "linguistics"
Comment 3&4 - changed the formulation
Comment 5 - punctuation improved
Comment 6 - inserted quote in the original language in the notes
Comment 7 - inserted infos about the project on page 3
Comment 8 - changed formulation as suggested
Comment 9 - inserted year
Comment 10 and rest (references) - changed everything as suggested
