The Development of Ecological Identities in Children’s Books: A Linguistic Approach to Character Positioning as Eco-Rebels

Abstract

Eco-rebels can provide readers a role model that encourages sustainable thinking and action in everyday life. The protagonists in ecological children’s and young adult literature (CYL) are mostly ignorant at the beginning. They learn as the story progresses and develop into environmentally conscious individuals who are taken seriously and actively committed to protecting their environment. This article would like to present a linguistic method for analyzing how readers are guided in ecological CYL, allowing them to follow and understand the protagonist’s change towards becoming an eco-rebel. This study hypothesizes that the development of an ecological identity, although an individual evolution in the story, is a pattern of ecological CYL. The possibilities for identification that a text offers its reader must be considered as crucial for the experiences gained within the fiction framework to influence real consciousness and development processes. In this context, Bamberg’s identity dilemmatic spaces are used for the analysis, allowing the construction of identity in storytelling to be made tangible. These identity dilemmatic spaces have been expanded to include linguistic categories. The construction of the figure of the eco-rebel can thus be analyzed according to different linguistically based or narrative-based aspects like speech markings or the development of an agenda.

1. Introduction

Hoydis et al. (2023, p. 2) emphasized “that literature can and ought to be a key element of climate education and action”. Ecological topics are, therefore, largely established in the literary world and demonstrate the social relevance, interest, and awareness of the ecological challenges we are currently facing (Standke and Wrobel 2021, p. 6). Accordingly, it is not surprising that the topic is increasingly finding its way into media offerings for young people. In children’s and young adult literature (CYL for short), an ecological perspective—even in books that are not classified as ecological literature—can hardly be missing nowadays (Wanning and Stemmann 2015, p. 6).

So, there is a need to focus on the great field of literature for young readers, which explicitly aims to educate them ecologically. The following article delves into ecological narratives within CYL, focusing on the main characters’ roles as eco-rebels. In this article, eco-rebels are defined as individuals who actively confront and challenge the dominant societal narratives that emphasize economic growth and/or consumerism at the expense of environmental preservation. With a strong ecological agenda, these activists strive to raise awareness about environmental issues and militate for sustainable practices. They set themselves apart from mainstream societal norms by adopting alternative lifestyles, promoting green initiatives, and pushing for societal and political changes that prioritize eco-friendliness. Their efforts aim to inspire others to reconsider their relationship with the environment and foster a sense of community among those committed to environmental activism.

This article introduces a new methodology for analyzing how these eco-rebels—who mostly are the protagonists (i.e., the main characters) of the story—are constructed and how their journeys might resonate with readers, offering them meaningful avenues for identification. It seeks to uncover the identification opportunities these characters offer the readership by exploring the eco-rebel’s origin, motivations, struggles, and interactions with the environment and other characters. By constructing inspiring eco-rebels with whom readers can relate, the ecological texts offer readers a means of identification that encourages them to reflect on their own values and roles in ecological activism. The potential for identification within ecological texts is significant because the engagement of young readers with ecological texts and topics cannot be overstated. As young readers identify with these characters, they may become more invested in the environmental challenges faced by the characters, ultimately fostering a deeper understanding and concern for the real-world issues at hand. Ecological CYL offers readers the opportunity to imitate the ecological action of the characters in the work by way of their role model function (Mikota 2017, p. 9).

Since it is a cognitive fallacy to think the presentation and conveyance of ecological knowledge alone will result in ecological action (Hoydis et al. 2023, p. 17), the emotional connection or identification with the eco-rebel in the book might be a key factor in ecological change: The protagonists in the books are mostly ignorant at the beginning and—just like the readers—learn as the story goes along and develop into environmentally conscious individuals who are taken seriously and who are actively committed to protecting their environment. Although literature “is rather a trigger and a means of inciting transformation by powerfully reframing ways of seeing and thinking”, (ibid., p. 20) and not the panacea solution to the ecological problems we face as a society, it can have a significant impact. This article’s method, therefore, emphasizes the importance of character development and identification in CYL in creating a connection between the readership and the urgent environmental issues portrayed in the narratives.

There are factors that can help with the identification process:

• The eco-rebels are usually protagonists who are the same age as the presumed readers, since the effect of ecological reading is stronger the closer the plot is to the recipients’ world (Hollerweger 2017, p. 99). If the story picks up readers in their own real lives, they can more easily set out on the path to gaining ecological knowledge together with the protagonists.
• Ecological CYL is characterized by a broad spectrum of characters, so that the protagonists can position themselves in relation to numerous characters who, therefore, have different attitudes towards the ecological topic, which also makes their convictions visible (Mikota 2017, p. 11). Such a multi-perspectival narrative can thicken “our understanding of climate change as a collective action problem, including a collectivity of unlike-minded people.” (Hoydis et al. 2023, p. 35).

By way of identification, the readers may follow the increase in ecological knowledge and, thus, the learning process of the main character. They see that the character develops and changes into an eco-rebel: The protagonists develop their own agenda, distance themselves from individuals or groups or feel that they belong to them, and are influenced by their surroundings or, conversely, lead to a change in their environment. Given the blend of fiction and factuality, and the potential for readers to identify with the protagonist, reading ecological CYL can be a practical and effective way of transferring the awareness and development processes acquired in the fictional reading process into reality. It empowers readers to put the consciousness that develops while reading into action, thereby making the knowledge gained applicable in real-life situations (Hollerweger 2017, p. 99). Through this exploration, the article aims to illuminate CYL’s significant role in shaping young people’s understanding of ecological identities and activism.

The different design options for the eco-rebel in a work of fiction can achieve the ecological narrative goal in different ways, influencing the recipients. This article introduces a new linguistic method for analyzing how the reader is guided in ecological CYL, representing a linguistic interpretation of a method already known in communication studies. This method can help us to gain a profound understanding of the protagonist’s journey towards becoming an eco-rebel, potentially inspiring new perspectives and approaches to the popularization of ecological knowledge. The approach is—as now will be shown through an exemplary CYL analysis—suitable for analyzing fictional characters in CYL that transform into eco-rebels, as it aids in understanding how they interact with their environment; how they cope with the controversies and conflicts within this environment; and how this interaction influences their values, insights, and—last but not least—their identities. It emphasizes the depiction of eco-rebels in a way that encourages and inspires readers to engage in critical thinking and take action. To sum up: This study hypothesizes that the development of a character’s ecological identity in the narrative—hence, an identity that is closely tied to an ecological agenda—is a central pattern of ecological CYL, even if it is an individual evolution in the story. This study is based in an ongoing research project which aims at developing an interdisciplinary informed model for linguistic analysis of ecological fiction for young readers.

2. Materials and Methods

The method of linguistic analysis proposed in this article aims to provide access to the linguistically based potential for promoting ecological thinking and action in narrative ecological CYL, for which the identification offerings in the text are analyzed.

The working hypothesis of this article is that Bamberg’s (2008, 2011, 2020) identity dilemmatic spaces—a notion that has its origin in the analysis of spoken interaction—can be used to analyze the construction of eco-rebels in ecological fiction for young readers if they are combined with linguistic analysis. The linguistic use of Bamberg’s model leads to a change in analysis to show more clearly when and where which type of identification is offered in the text (for example, based on the narrative’s linguistic form, like the characters’ speech and description). Discussions about the identification that a text offers its reader, which can be considered crucial for the experiences gained within the fictional framework to influence real-life consciousness and development processes, can be managed better if they are based on the results of a well-founded linguistic analysis. Thus, the linguistic analysis of the construction of eco-rebels in ecological CYL may make it possible to pinpoint the linguistically based potential for promoting critical thinking and activism among readers in the long term.

2.1. Identity Dilemmatic Spaces

Identity is a theoretical construct that answers the ‘who-am-I question’ and is continuously (re)constructed in everyday life (Bamberg 2020, p. 262). In narratives, the author constructs the identity of the portrayed characters in the storyline. However, those characters can still convey an answer to the identity question and influence the readers as they cognitively follow the identity dilemmas the characters go through. The formation of an ecological identity can be shown in a storyline by navigating through identity dilemmas (meant as conflicts between the two opposites of a scale), where a person has to choose between different paths (therefore, dilemmatic spaces in Bamberg’s terms; see below). “The identification opportunities that a text offers its reader are crucial for ensuring that the experiences gained in the context of fiction influence real consciousness and development processes.” (Hollerweger 2017, p. 98, translation by C.L.1). In order to work out these opportunities, the present article uses a methodology with which the construction of identity in narratives can be analyzed. This method is about how the protagonist (in this article, the eco-rebel) positions himself/herself and what internal changes occur in the process. Bamberg’s “identity dilemmatic spaces” are used to analyze this identity navigation. The concept of identity dilemmatic spaces comes from interaction analysis in communication studies. Bamberg (2020, p. 224 ff.) distinguishes between three identity dilemmatic spaces of central importance for constructing identities when telling stories, which can take place on the following three levels:

• The story-narrators “position characters vis-à-vis one another in the story they tell” (Bamberg 2020, p. 244), thus constructing the characters’ relation to one another in the story.
• The story-narrators “position themself vis-à-vis their interlocutors in the process of telling” (ibid.) in the communication situation: “At this level, linguistic, paralinguistic and bodily means (facial, gesture, proximity) are interrogated” (ibid., p. 251), and hence this level navigates the interactional territory.
• The story-narrators “position themselves vis-à-vis dominant master storylines/discourses and thereby convey a sense of who they are—to their interlocutors and to themselves.” (ibid., p. 244)

The three levels form a multi-step analysis, starting with the first level and concluding with the third. For the purpose of this article’s text-analytical approach, a methodological adjustment is necessary because the analytical object of the analysis shifts from the conversation to the fictional text. For CYL, the narrator (speaker) from the second and third level becomes the author of the book (not the narrator of the story!), while the term narrator is retained on the first level. This terminological change highlights the different ontological and narratological categories that come into being with the shift from conversation to textually anchored and fictional narratives. The terms author and narrator are not interchangeable because, in narrative theory, the author writes a story, and the narrator tells the story in the book; they are different entities that cannot be treated as equivalent. 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. Bamberg (2020, p. 249) pointed to the difference between conversation and fictional text by writing: “However, to position ourselves as narrators vis-à-vis our interlocutors is different from how we position the characters vis-à-vis one another inside the story-world”. Accordingly, only the first level of Bamberg’s model is relevant if fictional texts are being analyzed, as it is the only one based on the storyline told and not on the conversational context in which the author (book)/narrator (conversation) operates and interacts with his or her readers/listeners. Therefore, the first level can be most easily adapted to fictional texts that also focus on the story and its linguistic representation done by the author, who—through the narrator—“positioned [the story characters] for interactive purposes” (ibid.). This level is the only one that focuses on the characters in the story told without providing a sense of how the storyteller (in conversational situations, the speaker/narrator, and in books, the narrator) intends to come across.

The other two levels are conversational analyses that heavily focus on local and social components of face-to-face communication, like the facial expressions and gestures of the individual telling the story, and rely on the presence of a recipient who can register those or imply that the narrator is part of the storyline. Those components cannot be analyzed if we determine that the narrator becomes the author of the book, who is not represented in the storyline and thus cannot position himself/herself vis-à-vis his conversational partners, who would be the recipients of the book. However, the first level only plays on the level of linguistic content because it focuses on the story told and can, therefore, be made tangible through textual analysis. Bamberg uses conversation transcripts for this level, which—through adjustments to the method, such as omitting the examination of paralinguistic signals—can be compared to a fictional text in principle, as the focus is on the storyline. In this article, the first level is taken over for the analysis of fictional texts as a way to analyze how the narrator (who is designed by the author) constructs the characters in the book’s story by examining the three identity dilemmatic spaces:

• Sameness/difference: This is about whether one character is constructed as the same (=sameness) or different (=difference) from other characters in the story. For example, the siblings Hansel and Gretel in the famous fairy tale are constructed as same and then become “strongly positioned vis-à-vis witches […] and stepmothers […], and less strongly positioned vis-à-vis fathers […], so that themes (what the story is about) can emerge” (Bamberg 2020, p. 149). This way, their uniqueness or similarity can be compared to other characters (Bamberg 2011, p. 6).
• Agency/passivity: Characters in the story can be constructed as passive recipients of forces (classically biological/natural or social) (=passivity), but it is also possible to construct the world as a product of the ability of the characters in the story to act (=agency). This distinction is crucial in determining their level of responsibility. If the characters develop an agenda and become active themselves, then they have an influence on the world around them and can be held responsible for their success or failure (Bamberg 2020, p. 249).
• Continuity/change: By linking events from the past and the present in the narrative, it is possible to establish whether people or institutions have experienced a gradual or radical change (=change) or whether they have remained the same (=continuity) (ibid., p. 250).

Bamberg (2008, p. 1) emphasizes:

Of course, these three dilemmas are highly interwoven. It could be argued that the construal of sameness and difference across time forms a presupposition for constructing others and self as same and different, which in turn can be said to be a basic building block for constructing and changing the world in a pro- ductive way.

If a change in the positioning towards other characters and their beliefs and values is observed in the work, a change in the main character’s attitude can also be attested. Therefore, a change in sameness/difference also leads to an adjustment in continuity/change. Agency/passivity can either trigger these changes or arise from them. Thus, the individual categories interact and the transitions between them are fluid.

2.2. Linguistic Expansion and Adaptation of the Identity Dilemmatic Spaces

Navigating through the three identity dilemmatic spaces on the first level of positioning provides information about the essential aspects of the character’s identity, which works particularly well in narrative stories (Bamberg 2011, p. 14). In this genre, the characters must be contextualized in time and space, the events selected for narration are presented in a quasi-causal and non-teleological sequence and follow a heuristic and action-driven approach in which they unfold their meaning retrospectively, as they are designed and interpreted in the context of the overarching structure (ibid., p. 7). Accordingly, the identity dilemmatic spaces are suitable for the analysis of fictional texts, even if corresponding adaptations to Bamberg’s method have to be made to work on the purely written medium. In fictional works, the characters are explicitly constructed in a certain way due to their fictional nature, which is also reflected linguistically. This means that all formulations and positioning can be assumed to be a conscious decision made by the author for a specific purpose. If, for example, a linguistic change or character differentiation is recorded, this can be treated as a conscious adaptation to achieve a specific narrative goal. In this way, linguistic changes or abnormalities in fictional texts can also be used as implementations of the identity dilemmatic spaces. Thus, the analytical focus shifts from interactive communication studies (analysis of the conversation and the conversational situation) in Bamberg to literary and linguistic studies (analysis of the linguistic representation of protagonists and their identity) in this article. The change in the object of analysis also means a change in the methodology. However, it is essential to note that this change in methodology is not a limitation but rather a demonstration of the adaptability of the research approach. It allows us to analyze fictional texts for young readers on a linguistic level, introducing an innovative approach that enriches the original methodology.

This article now deals specifically with positioning analysis in relation to identity dilemmatics and tests a linguistic extension of the categories discussed, which are transferred from interaction analysis to literary studies. The qualitative–hermeneutic analysis method in Figure 1 combines Bamberg’s three identity dilemmatic spaces, sameness/difference, agency/passivity, and continuity/change, with linguistic markers to analyze the linguistic expression of these dilemmatic spaces. Therefore, the method is suitable for conducting a character analysis in fiction in order to work out how the characters are constructed in the novel and how eco-rebels are presented in a way that inspires the reader to think critically and become active themselves. The semantic and lexical characteristics were established using inductive research methods and emerged while applying and thus trying to sharpen Bamberg’s notion of identity dilemmatic spaces. The characteristics were established by applying Bamberg’s first level of positioning to CYL and in the associated search for linguistic markers linked to each of the three identity dramatic spaces, which may accompany the navigation through the spaces. For example, it was shown that positioning towards antagonists in ecological CYL is usually accompanied by a negatively connoted description of the characters, which could then be included as a category of linguistic analysis in the model in Figure 1. The application of the method is inevitably based on processes of linguistic interpretation, as the categories used are not always clearly distinguishable: this is evident in the identity dilemmatic spaces, where certain overlaps and dependencies between the categories are always present, as Bamberg himself postulated (Bamberg 2008, p. 1), as well as in the demarcation of semantic and lexical markers. As part of the ongoing research project, the categories are to be further sharpened and coordinated with one another.

There is a close interaction between the semantic and lexical levels. Therefore, the comprehensive analysis of the dilemmatic spaces deals with linguistic categories and examines how the story is linguistically divided into thematic units and thus unfolds from the protagonist’s perspective. Conclusions about the dilemmatic spaces can be drawn from the linguistic markers, which include lexical and semantic units. For example, a character who is introduced as a role model for the protagonist (semantic level) will probably also be described with positively connoted attributes (lexical level), which automatically qualifies them as close to the protagonist (sameness instead of difference). Accordingly, these characters and their belief systems are shown in a positive light and thus also become role models for the recipients of the text.

2.3. Analysis Object

The application of the analytical model is presented using the German-language Y.A. book Die Welt, von der ich träume (The World I Dream Of; original title of the French book: Et le desert disparaîtra/And the Desert Will Disappear) from 2021, which is a prototypical representative of a larger corpus of ecological CYL in the author’s research. The book by French author Marie Pavlenko is 176 pages long and recommended for readers aged 10 and up. Although the analyzed text is a translation, it can be used to apply the analytical model because it involves the stereotypical eco-rebel story arc of ecological CYL and highlights the previously presented methodology to show how CYL can convey an ecological message to readers. In other words, the book is analyzed as an example for some CYL patterns and not for its literary value in the sense of the author’s originality. Since the book targets the German literary market, the German translation of Dr. Cornelia Panzacchi is intended for a German readership; it can be therefore analyzed on its own merits without comparing it to the French version (which none of the German readers will know), as this article does not focus on cultural differences between different literary markets. The book shows the classic characteristics and prototypical action of an ecological dystopia for young readers and is intended to illustrate what can happen to the world due to unecological actions.2 It can therefore be used to conduct an exemplary analysis of ecological CYL, as it represents a prototype of the genre.

The book is set in a dystopian future in which the world consists almost entirely of deserts and thus illustrates climate change on a global level. Today’s world is only part of seemingly fantastical stories told by the eldest in a tribe. The 12-year-old protagonist, Samaa, lives in this world and tribe, and she wants to join the all-male hunters on desert expeditions for the purpose of finding and felling the last remaining trees. These felled trees are then sold in the city as Oltz (an invented fantasy term for timber) and thus secure the existence of the tribe. After Samaa’s wish is repeatedly rejected, she displays rebellious activism and secretly follows the hunters on their next expedition. However, she soon loses sight of the men and becomes lost in the desert. While fleeing from a predator, she falls into a sinkhole with a water source and a tree, which she names Naia in the course of the story. In the sinkhole, her previous knowledge and belief system are tested, and she realizes that cutting down trees leads to the desertification and death of the world. A tree changes from an object that ensures the survival of the tribe as a monetary source into an almost human-like mother that means survival and security and that needs to be protected. After an extended stay, Samaa is accidentally found by the returning hunters and rescued from the sinkhole. She tries to share her findings and to save Naia from being felled. However, it becomes clear here that the young eco-rebel has undergone a development that the newcomers cannot understand. The hunters cut down the tree, but Samaa is able to save tree seeds and, thus, she creates the green world in the epilogue.

3. Analysis

The linguistic analysis was carried out step by step using the analytical model presented. The novel was divided into three parts for analytical purposes: beginning, transition, and conclusion. These were not divided in terms of percentages according to the number of pages in the book but are based on content, i.e., as soon as Samaa questions her belief systems, the transition phase begins, and when she has a fully developed value system, the conclusion begins. The beginning, therefore, includes the parts from the beginning of the story (page 9) to page 76 (41%). The transition takes effect from there and continues to page 133 (35%). The conclusion starts from where the transition ends and goes to page 171, where the main story ends (24%). This classification thus excludes the prologue and the epilogue, as they take place later and have nothing to do with the positioning of the—now-deceased—main character, Samaa.

3.1. First Part: Beginning

The beginning of the story has a particularly pronounced positioning, as all the characters are introduced here and connected to the main character, Samaa. The characters and their belief systems are introduced and described in detail so that readers can understand the relationships, who represents which position, and what someone looks or behaves like. In the analyzed book, Samaa is positioned primarily in relation to the elder and the hunters. They are two opposing groups: While the hunters advocate felling trees to reach the precious Oltz, the elder advocates the opposite and thus propagates the protection of nature.

For the analysis, we first look at the speech markings of the characters in relation to which the main character, Samaa, positions herself. This is then intertwined with visual character descriptions, character and trait assignments, and the main character’s wishes and hopes about the other characters in the story. In the story’s first section, the dilemmatic space continuity/change cannot yet be discussed, as events from the past must be compared with more recent events for changes.

At the beginning of the story, statements made by the elder are summarized with “blah blah blah” (Pavlenko 2021, p. 18)3 and dismissed as “nonsense” (ibid., p. 12) or “rubbish” (ibid., p. 31) that “gets on everyone’s nerves” (ibid., p. 17). Attempts by the “old know-it-all” (ibid., p. 77) to impart knowledge are usually—in almost three-quarters of the cases—framed dismissively: “she’s making something up” (ibid., p. 12), “she’s babbling” (ibid., p. 20), “she’s claiming” (ibid., p. 12), or “she is just talking nonsense” (ibid.). The latter, together with variations of tell, occurs most frequently in quantitative terms. The lexeme tell, however, is framed in a special way because Samaa dismisses the content of the stories told as fantastic because she believes “in what the elder tells us, just as one believes in fairy tales” (ibid., p. 83). From Samaa’s point of view, the “world conjured up by the elder” (ibid.) cannot be transferred to reality and is therefore not perceived as knowledge. The elder is thus defined as an imaginative, albeit confused and uncomfortable person, rather than being seen as a teacher who wants to provide fact-based information about real circumstances. After another teaching session by the elder, Samaa postulates: “I’m not listening anymore. She can’t change my opinion anyway.” (ibid., p. 18) Here, it becomes clear that Samaa has a fixed system of beliefs that is not based on the one of the elder and that she is not (yet) ready to adjust it. However, Samaa’s exact agenda remains unclear at this point. The quote, “The men, on the other hand, despise the elder. No wonder […]” (ibid., p. 12) also illustrates an adoption of the hunters’ negative opinion with regard to the elder. The personal aversion and demarcation are also reflected in the character description: the elder is described as old five times, which is underlined five more times elsewhere by age markers such as toothlessness, bony fingers, and wrinkles, which set her apart from the young Samaa, who is not even considered a woman in her social group. In addition, the elder is described as “disgusting” (ibid., p. 19), “confused” (ibid., p. 25), and “an old witch” (ibid, p. 77) with “ice-blue eyes” (ibid., p. 43) and a “brittle voice” (ibid, p. 43), who should “rot in the Murfa [a tent]” (ibid, p. 78) or be eaten by predators. Overall, Samaa wants to have as little contact as possible with the elder.

At just 28% of all speech markings in this first part of the book, neutral speech markers such as say, add, or use/use word(s) are used significantly less often than negative speech markers. This percentage includes all words for the speech of the elder—be it those that accompany the elder’s speech in communication situations or those that are a referential, reflective or summary evaluation of the elder’s statements provided by Samaa. Words with positive connotations about imparting knowledge, such as explain, are not used at all. This negative evaluation of the elder’s statements shows that Samaa wants to distance herself from her and the knowledge she imparts, which is reflected on a lexical and semantic level.

The hunters “speak loudly” (ibid., p. 22), call, and shout, thus demonstrating their presence and strength. This is underlined by statements such as “I feel his power” (ibid., p. 24) or “I thought he was wise, powerful. Immortal” (ibid., p. 20). Samaa looks up to them. Therefore, the hunters’ statements are initially framed differently than those of the elder: 95% of the speech markers are neutral or positive. In 81% of cases, neutral verbs such as answer, say, speak, entertain, or tell are used. For the hunters, the word tell counts as a neutral speech marker—in contrast to the elder—because Samaa treats their stories as truth. When the hunters “tell about the hunt” (ibid., p. 28), they unquestionably share actual events. In 14% of cases, the speech markers are framed positively: The hunters “report[…] on their adventures” (ibid., p. 22) and “explain” (ibid., p. 35) the world. A hunter “is right”, and Samaa absorbs “his words, whatever he says” (ibid, p. 20) because a hunter is a “respected man” (ibid., p. 26) who is full of strength and represents security. Overall, Samaa treats the positively connotated hunters as a much more potent source of information than the elder. While Samaa is afraid that the elder “will talk to me for hours” (ibid., p. 42), she is sad if there is no extensive conversation with the hunters: “Afterwards, Solas […] will not tell me about the hunt. […] The euphoria that still prevails in the camp has not affected me.” (ibid., pp. 28–29) There is a clear distinction in assessing the value of conversations for Samaa and, thus, also a difference in group membership. Samaa feels that she belongs with the hunters, which is also reflected in her desire to participate actively in their work and to accompany them. The hunters are perceived as knowledgeable adventurers who imply the tribe’s survival and security. This is shown in quotes such as “If the hunters are successful, we will live” (ibid., p. 15) and “Now that the hunters are with us again, no predator will attack me” (ibid., p. 22). The elder, on the other hand, preaches exactly the opposite: According to her, the hunters are ignorant “fools” (ibid., p. 17) who close themselves off from the truth and, therefore, endanger nature by cutting down trees, thereby making everything worse and endangering humanity’s survival. Since Samaa distances herself from the elder as a person, her assessments, and the content of her attempted knowledge transfer, Samaa positions herself as different (difference). She adopts the hunters’ belief system and is convinced that felling trees means the tribe’s survival. Therefore, she wants to engage in the same activity that her role models do. In order to avoid being conflicted, she, therefore, assesses the elder in the same way as the individuals in the group of hunters do: as an old woman who spreads nonsense and who is to be despised. With her decision, “I will be a hunter” (ibid., pp. 46, 49), she shows that she feels she belongs with the hunters and not with the elder and thus shares their beliefs and goals (sameness), even though the hunters deny her participation based on her gender. Her defiance in accepting this demarcation and the social role assigned to her—initially without any ecological reference—points to her rebellious nature (initial approach to individual agency and thus to change). In the beginning, Samaa does not have a clear agenda of her own and instead takes on that of the hunters, which is explained by naming a purpose (ensuring survival).

These kinds of representation of different world views and values and their connection with characters appearing in the text is prototypical for ecological CYL (Mikota 2017, p. 8). The ecological discourse can thus be presented as comprehensively and accurately as possible, and the eco-rebels can distance themselves from or embrace dominant groups and their agenda.

3.2. Second Part: Transition

In the transition phase, the main character, Samaa, increasingly calls into question the two groups. She deals with their agendas and the underlying knowledge and makes her own observations based on these varying sets of knowledge. In doing so, she examines the content of the knowledge transfer of both groups and links it with her own findings, which leads to an initial change in her evaluation of the other characters. The transition-phase is already foreshadowed by the discovery of a tree in the sinkhole: “If I were a hunter, I would cut down this tree and bring it to her [the elder] to prove to her that she is wrong” (Pavlenko 2021, p. 66), where it becomes apparent that she is not a hunter, and then Samaa begins increasingly to deal with the nature around her.

In the transition phase, based on her own direct experiences with nature, Samaa begins to check the truth of the elder’s statements and discovers apparent inconsistencies but also much confirmation. As she deals with the nature around her, she unintentionally returns again and again to the elder’s stories: “I have to think about the elder again” (ibid., p. 67). She takes a closer look at the knowledge of the elder and tries to classify it and, if necessary, to add her own insights: “The elder talked about trees that heal and others that poison, but I think she meant the bark.” (ibid., p. 102) This is also reflected in the speech markings, which are presented in a more differentiated manner (change). Although there are still many negative labels such as lying, telling nonsense/rubbish, claiming, mocking, or swearing, 27% of these are afterward called into question or put into perspective. For example, the statement “She lied” (ibid., p. 107) is invalidated a short time later by “On the other hand…” (ibid.) after the apparent lie has been linked to new knowledge and thus has been proven to be the truth. Another example is “The elder was not just talking nonsense” (ibid., p. 127). This makes it clear that Samaa cannot yet accept the entirety of the knowledge transfer as truth, but based on her findings, she has to acknowledge that some of it is true. Instead of formulating this positively, however, the derogatory formulation makes clear that this does not yet mean a rapprochement with the elder. This is then reinforced in terms of content by the following statement, in which the death of the elder is presented as an event worth longing for: “I imagine that she has been in the belly of a predator since the day I left. Or in its feces. In any case, that is where she belongs” (ibid., p. 108). The statement also denigrates the older woman by linking her to animal excrement and thus demoting her again. When Samaa surmises the connection between trees and water sources and is thus reminded that the elder has already explained that the roots hold back water, Samaa shouts angrily: “Get out of my head, elder! Finally get away!” (ibid., p. 122). Overall, Samaa wants to preserve her old belief system (agency of the hunter) but has to accept that it is flawed in some respects. The resulting gaps are then filled with the attempts at persuasion and thus knowledge of the elder (agency of the elder). Early on, Samaa resorts to terms used by the elder to describe her surroundings: “They are insects, I assume. In any case, I believe that this was the word that the elder used, this old know-it-all” (ibid., p. 77) and thus partially approximates her. However, the subsequent insult immediately takes distance from this approach. Despite strong counterarguments, the reluctance to change long-held beliefs highlights a fundamental aspect of human nature. When Samaa, representing humanity as a whole, begins to acknowledge that some of the assumptions underlying her opinions are incorrect, it raises the possibility that she may have been mistaken in other areas as well. Clinging to beliefs that have already been identified as false can provide a sense of security, as it allows one to avoid the need to reevaluate the subject completely. However, Samaa would not be a good role model for the recipients if she continued to be in denial: The knowledge of the elder is repeatedly compared to that of the hunters to reach an actual truth. The two different bases of knowledge are presented by way of statements such as “The elder told […]” (ibid., p. 102) and the substantive comparison of “My father said that […]” (ibid.). This is then followed by “But what about […]” (ibid.), which shows that Samaa now gives equal weight to the statements of both groups when it comes to finding out the actual truth.

At another point, Samaa first postulates: “My father and all the hunters said that the felled trees enable us to survive. But that is not true” (ibid., p. 121), and thus indicates an initial differentiation from the hunters (first approach to difference). At the same time, the knowledge-transferring position of the hunters is questioned several times: “But they never talk about animals” (ibid., p. 128) or “Do the hunters know that?” (ibid., p. 127). Since the elder talked about large animals and Samaa finds proof of their existence in the form of a skull, these quotes show that Samaa is slowly coming to terms with the limits of the hunters’ knowledge, which is a first step towards calling them into question in general (change). Immediately afterward, she returns to the stories of the elder and accordingly blames humanity for the extinction of the animals: “How could people let them die? Why did they do that?” (ibid., p. 128). This shows a first attempt to confront the injustice caused by humans, which can be understood as a further step towards Samaa’s own agenda, now also in the sense of being an eco-rebel. The utility assessment of nature is no longer used in the same way as that of hunters: “My father always said that the bushes were worthless, but I discovered one whose branches would make perfect splints for my ankle” (ibid., p. 80). Adopting an anthropocentric view, nature is evaluated by the hunters—here represented by the father—only in terms of its immediate usefulness for humans (Feine 1995, p. 68). Since they do not see bushes as a monetary asset, the bushes are generally judged to be worthless. Although Samaa also adopts an anthropocentric perspective, she includes other aspects of utility, which can be analyzed as ecological rethinking. Although this does not yet show any accommodation of the ecological perspective of the elder, it does show a difference in how the hunters and the main character view nature (difference). Samaa’s perspective becomes more differentiated overall, which is also evident in other passages of the text (change). For example, as Samaa examines and fascinatedly plays with the water source, she wonders whether her father did the same during his tree hunts, or if he was merely “wasting no time in getting to know the water at the bottom of a sinkhole better” (Pavlenko 2021, p. 81) while filling canisters with it. So, she questions whether her role model shared her more nature-oriented view or whether this distances her from him. In addition, Samaa’s desire to become/be a hunter is reframed in this section of the text. Ultimately, the dream seems to have arisen from the desire to be connected to her father, who died while tree hunting: “That was the best, the only way to be close to him” (ibid., p. 119). For her, being a hunter stands for freedom, camaraderie, and adventure, not primarily for finding and felling trees.

There is an apparent change in this section of the work: Samaa slowly turns away from the hunters’ belief system and begins to call it into question. Initially defined by their purpose, the hunters are now seen more from a social–emotional perspective. Meanwhile, Samaa is growing closer to the elder without fully adopting her belief system. In terms of percentages, the knowledge of the elder is used much more frequently in this section of the text than that of the hunters. Initially, the elder’s teachings were directly opposed to Samaa’s beliefs. However, a change occurs as Samaa gains knowledge through her own experiences with trees. This symbolizes the first step towards change in Samaa, which is shown in an explicatively framed first distantiation from the agency of the hunters and a first rapprochement with the agency of the eldest. This transition is linguistically reflected in the speech markings and in terms of content, calling into question, and demarcation from and confrontation with the belief systems presented.

During this transition phase, Samaa finds herself detached from both groups. This text section can be seen as a phase of ecological self-discovery, a pivotal moment in Samaa’s journey.

3.3. Third Part: Conclusion

In the final phase, Samaa’s belief system changes by her confronting her environment and fact-checking previously imparted knowledge. She is friendly towards nature—she even gives names to the tree and an animal in the sinkhole4, and she talks to them—and wants to protect it. The arrival of the hunters, who have a diametrically opposed agenda, triggers a conflict of significant proportions, which is both lexically and semantically framed and leads to a profound change in Samaa’s positioning. Samaa, as an eco-rebel, opposes the nature-destroying hunters. These disagreements over different environmental ideas and the resulting rift between those responsible for environmental destruction and the environmentalists represent a defining plot element in CYL. This is often implemented using a good–evil scheme, with the young protagonist as an ecological bearer of hope who confronts the unecological antagonists (Mikota 2017, pp. 11, 22 f.).

Since Samaa first encounters the hunters towards the end of the story, Samaa’s positioning in relation to this group is first addressed in this section. When she first meets the hunters, Samaa is relieved and feels like she belongs with them, as shown in the following quote: “My people” (Pavlenko 2021, p. 157). However, after the hunters cut down her tree—despite verbal and physical resistance from Samaa—the relationship changes: “I should be happy to be with my people again. But their stupidity killed Naia” (ibid., p. 164). The positioning changes suddenly, and the hunters are seen as different—especially regarding their beliefs and agenda—which can be easily identified on a lexical level. Samaa no longer supports the hunters’ purpose in life; she evaluates their work negatively and tries to dissuade them from doing it based on her newly formed ecological agenda (agency). Thus, the purposeful act of felling a tree is emotionally framed by Samaa as “killing Naia” (ibid., p. 159), who has become a “mother” (ibid., p. 150) for Samaa. This cannot be understood by the uncomprehending hunters, who call it “felling a tree” (ibid, p. 159) and objectify the tree as a source for timber. This objectification of nature by the hunters is a key factor in the environmental disconnect between Samaa and them. According to Trampe (2017, p. 328), using euphemisms to conceal undesirable connotations—in this case, the fact that a tree dies when it is felled—makes connecting such content with more pleasant associations possible. Therefore, a clear distinction is manifest in the evaluation of nature by Samaa and the hunters, as reflected in the act’s linguistic realization. While Samaa uses killing, an affectively charged, anthropomorphic lexeme, the hunters use felling, an anthropocentric one, which excludes the emotional component. These lexical differences in the first and second designations mark the different positions linguistically. The circumstance appears in a different light, for which “the entire range of stylistic powers of lexical units in their embedding in the text structure” (Feine 1995, p. 75) is utilized to highlight people’s environmentally destructive behavior. The narrative’s structure plays a crucial role in this, as it guides the reader’s attention: while the hunters gain Oltz (= timber), Samaa only sees “Naia’s remains” (Pavlenko 2021, p. 165) in the “dismembered trunk” (ibid). This divergence in the perception of the world is semantically underpinned by Samaa accusing the leader of the hunters: “Kalo if you knew, you wouldn’t do that. If only you knew…” (ibid., p. 163). Samaa thus blames the hunters’ lack of knowledge for the horrific act they commit. This clearly shows that Samaa’s belief base has changed drastically: In the final phase, a confrontation occurs between the hunters and Samaa, similar to the one between Samaa and the elder at the beginning of the work. One party advocates protecting the trees for ecological and emotional reasons, while the other cannot comprehend this. While Samaa initially supported the unecological decisions, she ultimately becomes an eco-rebel and stands up for the opposite course of action. She tries to stop the hunters because she now has a robust belief system of her own (agency), but she cannot. Samaa condemns the hunters’ actions and their raison d’être because her agenda (protecting nature) runs counter to that of the hunters (cutting down trees as a source of money). For Samaa, the hunters are transformed into animal abusers and murderers who “kill trees” (ibid., p. 165), and she is angry with them and therefore initially stays “away from them” (ibid.), although she “does not want to hate” (ibid.) them. Over the course of the story, she has developed into an ecological individual who can be classified as an eco-rebel by virtue of rebelling against the hunters. Accordingly, she has undergone a change that the hunters (initially) cannot follow, creating a difference between the eco-rebel Samaa and the environmentally destructive hunters. This demarcation from the hunters is also evident in the speech markings. Overall, 64% of them are now negative and harmful, such as telling untruths, screaming, shouting, growling, and cursing. The words shouting and screaming, which initially symbolized strength, are now inverted and become expressions of violence against helpless nature and Samaa. “He holds my hands behind my back, with force, the pain increases, if he continues like this, he will break my shoulders” (ibid., p. 163). Samaa’s plant friend is then “murdered” (ibid.) with the same raw force—linguistically framed as a fight for the survival of the tree. The hunters’ violent nature is thus made perceptible on an acoustic level, intensifying the narrative’s impact. The explicit depictions of violence and their assessment further heighten the intensity of the sensory perception of violence.

The elder is also framed very differently in the conclusion. Her speech markings are those that one would expect from a teacher: the elder “is right” (ibid., p. 167), “asks” (ibid., p. 170), and “says” (ibid.). They are consistently neutral or positive, which expresses a change in the perception of the elder on a lexical level. This change in speech markings could indicate a shift in the power dynamics, with the elder assuming a more authoritative role than the hunters. Semantical differences as compared to the beginning are also apparent. The possible death of the elder becomes a terrible thought in the end, and Samaa is “so happy” (ibid., p. 170) that she has survived the time of her absence since she “would not achieve anything without her” (ibid., p. 168). Moreover, when she returns, she first goes to the tent of the elder to see her again and even ignores her mother on the way, although she has missed her the whole time. This contradicts Samaa’s wish for the elder’s death at the beginning of the story and highlights her closeness to the elder and the emotional bond that has grown out of a shared value system.

In the end, the positioning relationships are inverted: Samaa feels that she belongs with the elder (sameness) and distances herself from the hunters (difference). Through this change in the work, the actual theme of the story can unfold: the transformation of an individual who is not thinking ecologically into an ecologically acting person. The main character is no longer a passive recipient of external forces (passivity) but an active agent who shapes the narrative through her actions (change); Samaa develops into a true eco-rebel (agency). She is responsible for her own actions and bases them on a system of values she has developed, thus influencing the world. It is through her actions that the utopian world in the epilogue can first come into being.

4. Discussion

In this article, we were able to confirm the working hypothesis that identity dilemmatic spaces, supplemented by linguistic markers such as specific vocabulary choices, narrative structures or character descriptions, can be used to analyze the development and characteristics of eco-rebels in ecological CYL. As illustrated by way of examples, the classification of the dilemmatic spaces can be made more precise through these lexical and semantic markers. Using this extended analytical method, the positioning in relation to other characters and thus to their standpoints (difference/sameness), the formation of an ecological agenda (passivity → agency), and a change in these parameters (continuity → change) can be determined linguistically.

In this work, for example, the transformation of the main character from an unecological individual to an active eco-rebel can be shown by the formation an ecological agenda and the change in her positioning in relation to other characters in the narrative, which is reflected both lexically and semantically. Portraying a character or group as an antagonist or, more generally, as good or evil can also mean a specific positioning towards their values. If, for example, the positioning towards these people or groups (sameness/difference) changes, which can be determined, for example, by a change in the linguistic markers, this usually also indicates a change (continuity/change) in the agenda of the protagonist (agency/passivity). Accordingly, the dilemmatic spaces sameness/difference, agency/passivity, and continuity/change are connected and interact with each other—as do their linguistic specifications.

The introduction of an eco-rebel like Samaa, who, through an externally motivated learning process, undertakes a transformative journey to become an ecologically thinking and acting individual, can inspire readers to think about ecological issues (Mikota 2017, p. 13). Since such an ecological development of the young protagonist is a common feature in ecological CYL, it can be used as a prototypical object of analysis to evaluate the identificatory potential of CYL books and, thus, in a further step, possibly to assess the ecological potential of explicitly ecological CYL. This change, which can only fully unfold through the characters surrounding Samaa, the engagement with their knowledge and beliefs, and thus also through the positioning towards them, is a testament to the power of eco-rebellion. Eco-rebels are fighters who oppose the prevailing narrative with an ecological agenda and who are characterized by distancing themselves from the norm. Through Samaa, readers can understand the cognitive and motivational change involved in becoming an eco-rebel. Twelve-year-old Samaa can become a role model due to the age-related proximity and similar development level of the presumptive readership. The role model function can evoke an adoption of ecological values so that the readers want to campaign for nature conservation in their real everyday lives like Samaa does (Mikota 2017, p. 9). The eco-rebel’s experience, as depicted by way of the protagonist, can become a surrogate experience for the readers. The book facilitates the audience’s understanding and implementation of the ecological transition without requiring them to have a direct natural experience like Samaa’s.

A change in attachment and thus positioning can have a significant influence, especially in ecological CYL. Showing the change from an individual who thinks and acts unecologically to an individual who acts sustainably can serve as a kind of blueprint for the recipients (Hollerweger 2017, p. 98). Readers who have previously had little ecological education can thus also identify with Samaa and accompany her ecological learning-process while reading, feeling a strong sense of connection and engagement. The readers’ identification with the protagonist and, thus, the quasi-authentic co-experience are essential and integral to gaining ecological knowledge and understanding, which thus underscores the significance of the new analytical methodology.

The interdisciplinary methodology presented here serves to systematize and compare analyses in ecological CYL and can therefore be supplemented by further methods of character analysis and other linguistic methods, such as aestheticization in the works, to make the representation of ecological change and sustainable awareness in ecological fiction for young readers even more linguistically tangible. This article is a pilot study in this direction and can be extended and enriched in the long-term.5 The potential impact of this research on future studies is significant, as it opens up new avenues for exploring the linguistic representation of ecological themes in literature and can inspire further research in this area.