Cognitive analysis of gas pipeline discourse

Abstract This paper uses cognitive discourse analysis to investigate whether differing cognitive structures and mental representations are reflected in sides of pipeline debates. Quotations were extracted from a web corpus to assign statements to identifiable actors in two pipeline protests: the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAP) and Coastal GasLink Pipeline (CGP). Statements were then grouped according to the stance of the speakers. Aspects of cognitive orientation, depth, and constructiveness were compared between the groups. Results demonstrate methods and approaches that could be adapted to place-based conflicts between communities and industries. The analysis obtains insights which could advance linguistic scholarship related to natural resources and the environment as well as enhance conceptual clarity and mutual understanding in the context of specific projects or debates.