Mobility Justice: An Ecolinguistic Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper investigates a sensitive and underinvestigated area in our societies, mobility justice, which represents the union of several strands: i.e. the ecofriendly agenda, cycling advocacy and the management of space (i.e., how it is exploited, inhabited, and navigated). The analysis undertaken within the ecolinguistics framework and mobility discourse focuses on some high-impact speeches by Mia Motley, the Prime minister of Barbados, and Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the European Commission. This paper examines the rhetorical effect of discourse strategies such as metaphor, repetition, and argumentation with a view to promoting better communication on sensitive environmental issues. The Author builds a strong case for reframing the climate crisis and encouraging eco-friendly attitudes and behaviours.
Below are my suggestions to improve this paper:
1. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE: The author’s expertise in this field shows in the way some specific concepts or significant figures are mentioned and not presented in detail. In the abstract, the author needs to give information about Motley and Frans Timmermans: who they are and why they are somehow juxtaposed in this analysis. Other elements that need explaining are the following: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (p. 1 – these are only explained on p. 3); the Loss and Damage Fund (p. 2), the conspiracy theory (p. 3), the climate lockdown conspiracy (p. 7), gentrification (p. 6), sleeping metaphors (p. 6 and following pages), 15-minute city p. 11. Although some of the concepts (for example the conspiracy theory) may be intuitive, I feel that it is necessary to explain them with reference to proper sources in order to avoid oversimplification and a dangerous reliance on popular knowledge.
2. DISCUSSION and CONCLUDING REMARKS: This section does not fully reflect the analysis carried out and only highlights the most interesting takeaways in terms of desired attitudes and behaviours. I suggest integrating it with the findings of the linguistic analysis paying particular attention to metaphor, deixis and identity groups.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
While this paper is well-written and well documented, there are few inaccuracies and syntactic oddities (highlighted in the attached paper) that need to be edited.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I would like to thank you for your precious comments and insights.
I have followed your advice and suggestions and I hope the new version is in line with your expectations.
In particular
- I have moved the explanation between brackets concerning LTN zones from page 3 to page 1
- I have added a few words on page 1 to clarify what is the Loss and Damage Fund
- I have added internal references to the specific chapter section about the climate lockdown conspiracy, so I hope it is clearer for the reader.
- I have added a definition of gentrification and a new reference.
- I have added a definition of sleeping metaphor and a new reference.
- I have tried to better clarify what is the 15-minute city
- I have modified the text according to the revised version you attached, thank you again for your observations.
I have also added passages to better highlight linguistic observations.
The changes related to your observations are highlighted in yellow.
Once again, many thanks for your work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper discusses different discourse strategies (use of pronouns and metaphors) in several discourses on climate change and active mobility. The paper makes an outstanding contribution in an area of studies that is largely underrepresented: the linguistic analysis of active mobility discourse.
The analysis is methologically correct and it offers much needed, interesting and original insights into the subject matter.
As regards the theoretical foundations of the study, the author is advised to consider Te Brömmelstrout (2020)'s work, which also deals with some relevant metaphors about active mobility. Although, the author makes use of Stibbe's and Lakoff's work as his/her main theoretical framework, he/she should update the theoretical background of the study with more recent contributions, especially in the field of Critical Metaphor Analysis (Mussolff, 2017; Hart, 2010, 2011, etc.). This could also help improve the analysis of the metaphors in the texts under scrutiny.
Hart, Christopher (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Hart, Christopher (2011). Legitimizing assertions and the logico-rhetorical module: evidence and epistemic vigilance in media discourse on immigration. Discourse Studies, 13(6), 751-814. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144561142136
Musolff, Andreas (2017). How metaphors can shape political reality: The figurative scenarios at the heart of Brexit. Papers in Language and Communication Studies, 1, 2-16.
Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2020) Mobility Language Matters. De Correspondent, Amsterdam
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The paper is written in fluent, reader-friendly, correct English. There are some little typos that need correcting. For example, p. 16: Policy makers and active mobility advocates can benefit from being aware of the various levels of meaning embedded is >in issues of mobility justice, as explained by Halliday.
A through revision would be needed in this respect.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your observations and suggestions.
I have read the suggested references and I have included them in the paper. I was not able to find Mobility Language Matters, but I am very familiar with Marco te Brömmelstroet's work. I have inserted reference to a more recent paper he published.
The passages that I have changes according to your suggestions are highlighted in green.
Let me thank you once again for your precious work.
