Language, Emotion, and Ethical Frames in Science-Policy Communication

Science–policy communication in geosciences is not only technical but deeply shaped by language and emotion. Research on bilingual cognition shows that using a second language (L2) can reduce emotional resonance and shift moral reasoning toward utilitarian frames, while first-language (L1) communication evokes stronger emotional and deontological responses. These dynamics matter for geoscience advice, which often crosses linguistic and cultural boundaries, especially in climate services and disaster-risk reduction.

This conceptual discussion integrates two perspectives: (1) the SANER Compass (INGSA), a reflective framework for navigating values and roles at the science–policy interface; and (2) language–emotion–ethics research, which highlights how linguistic context influences risk perception, urgency framing, and ethical trade-offs. We argue that multilingual communication is not a neutral conduit but an active variable shaping policy uptake and legitimacy. We propose a conceptual protocol for geoscience communication:

• Language-aware framing to anticipate moral–emotional shifts across L1/L2;
• Dual-register messaging combining emotionally legible narratives with utilitarian summaries;
• Governance of translation and interpretation using Compass prompts to align values and responsibilities;
• Evaluation metrics for trust, clarity, and ethical coherence.

By foregrounding language and emotion as conceptual dimensions, this discussion invites geoscientists to rethink communication strategies beyond technical accuracy toward approaches that are culturally sensitive, ethically transparent, and resilient in multilingual policy arenas. This lens is particularly relevant for climate adaptation and early-warning systems in transnational contexts, where decisions hinge on both evidence and the moral frames through which it is conveyed.