The aim of this thesis is to investigate the discursive use of first person plural pronoun we through a discourse analysis of the variety of arguments by leaders of Pacific Island States in political debates, specifically within a climate change context. The research question is “How do political leaders of Pacific Island states make discursive use of the first person plural pronoun we in political debates in a climate change context?” By using a textual discourse analysis to study statements made by Pacific Island leaders at the UN Conference of the Parties, the investigation finds a wide variety of argumentation styles and pronominal choices. The main finding is how the word we is used in several ways, all of which carry political meaning, and the pronominal choice is found to depend on social context as well as the intention of the speaker. Political leaders utilize the pronoun we as a tool for political rhetoric, to argue both that the international community as a whole will face the negative consequences of climate change while also emphasizing the specific victim status of the islands. Several of the arguments found in the statements that were studied are centered on the vulnerable status of the SIDS (Small Island Developing States), emphasizing how they are severely affected by climate change. The essay demonstrates that the pronominal choices also have actual implications on the dynamics of the political arena. Primarily, the exclusive we isused to create a sense of division between groups, which encourages political mobilization. In addition, leaders are shown to make claims of a leadership role by using an exclusive we to create an image of the own nation as responsible, and opt for an inclusive we to create a feeling of shared responsibility globally.

Disertacija siekiama įvertinti pasirinkto socialinio tinklo viešojo diskurso potencialą demokratinių procesų palaikymui. Tirtos viešosios klimato kaitos diskusijos (komentarai) socialiniame tinkle Facebook. Empiriniams duomenims surinkti ir apdoroti naudojamas Diskurso kokybės indeksas: įvertinta, kaip analizuojamų komentarų kokybė atitinka idealųjį habermasiškąjį diskurso kokybės supratimą. Analizuojant ir interpretuojant surinktus duomenis, įvertintos Web 2.0 komunikacijos charakteristikos (kaip galimybės ir kliūtys svarstomosios demokratijos procesams palaikyti); taip pat aptarti klimato kaitos moksliniai ir politiniai aspektai (aktualizuojant rizikos komunikacijos ir deliberatyviosios demokratijos teorines prieigas). Tyrimo rezultatai atskleidė, jog analizuotų viešų komentarų kokybė yra nepakankama, kad galėtų daryti konkrečią įtaką politinių sprendimų priėmimo procesuose. Pagrindinės to priežastys: a) auditorijų poliarizacija; b) nesutarimais grįsta politinė diskusija; c) nepakankamas dalyvių mokslinis ir politinis išprusimas; d) nerimtas dalyvių nusiteikimas. / The major purpose of this dissertation was to measure quality of preselected public discussions (in form of comments) generated on popular online social network Facebook. We used Discourse Quality Index as the main instrument to collect and analyze our empirical data. In particular, we measured how the quality of our discussions corresponded to the preconditions of Habermasian ideal discourse perception. In our analysis, we highlighted the role of Web 2.0 based online communications environments to support, promote or, possibly, neglect traditions and principles of deliberative democracy. Our results revealed that quality of the discussions we analyzed is not good enough; consequently, they cannot be considered by policymakers and have positive impact on decisions made. The main reasons of that are: a) audience polarization; b) dissensual political discourse; c) low participants’ scientific and political literacy; d) not serious or light role that participants undertake in the discourse.

The major purpose of this dissertation was to measure quality of preselected public discussions (in form of comments) generated on popular online social network Facebook. We used Discourse Quality Index as the main instrument to collect and analyze our empirical data. In particular, we measured how the quality of our discussions corresponded to the preconditions of Habermasian ideal discourse perception. In our analysis, we highlighted the role of Web 2.0 based online communications environments to support, promote or, possibly, neglect traditions and principles of deliberative democracy. Our results revealed that quality of the discussions we analyzed is not good enough; consequently, they cannot be considered by policymakers and have positive impact on decisions made. The main reasons of that are: a) audience polarization; b) dissensual political discourse; c) low participants’ scientific and political literacy; d) not serious or light role that participants undertake in the discourse. / Disertacija siekiama įvertinti pasirinkto socialinio tinklo viešojo diskurso potencialą demokratinių procesų palaikymui. Tirtos viešosios klimato kaitos diskusijos (komentarai) socialiniame tinkle Facebook. Empiriniams duomenims surinkti ir apdoroti naudojamas Diskurso kokybės indeksas: įvertinta, kaip analizuojamų komentarų kokybė atitinka idealųjį habermasiškąjį diskurso kokybės supratimą. Analizuojant ir interpretuojant surinktus duomenis, įvertintos Web 2.0 komunikacijos charakteristikos (kaip galimybės ir kliūtys svarstomosios demokratijos procesams palaikyti); taip pat aptarti klimato kaitos moksliniai ir politiniai aspektai (aktualizuojant rizikos komunikacijos ir deliberatyviosios demokratijos teorines prieigas). Tyrimo rezultatai atskleidė, jog analizuotų viešų komentarų kokybė yra nepakankama, kad galėtų daryti konkrečią įtaką politinių sprendimų priėmimo procesuose. Pagrindinės to priežastys: a) auditorijų poliarizacija; b) nesutarimais grįsta politinė diskusija; c) nepakankamas dalyvių mokslinis ir politinis išprusimas; d) nerimtas dalyvių nusiteikimas.