- Introduction
The language of protest is distinct and has been highly contested in institutional contexts. The materials used to achieve protest goals often address stakeholders in a protest, and use transgressive language to heavily emphasize stances and goals, and these materials are constructions of many linguistic, artistic, and expressive components. In this project, I focus on the semiotic landscape of climate and environmental protests at Emory University through a longitudinal framework and thematic analysis of sign addressees, theme, and construction.
Event-based semiotic landscapes have been of recent interest in the field of semiotic landscaping. Much of the literature on this topic focuses on the role of protest signage in “branding space” (Lou, 2016), the formation and emphasis of protester identity through signage, code choice, and intertextuality. For example, Al-Naimat (2019) analyzed the code choice of a select few protest signs during the 2018 series of protests in Jordan. Al-Naimat used both quantitative and qualitative means of data analysis to draw conclusions on the contexts and goals associated with the use of modern standard Arabic, Jordanian Arabic, and English in the code preference of certain protest signs, finding that the language used depended primarily on the sign and signmaker’s addressee. In addition, a study on protest signage by Said et al. (2016) specifically examined the intertextuality and intersubjectivity of protest signage in a monolingual environment, using a three-stage “Grounded Theory” thematic analysis in which three thematic categories of the signage were created, and the underlying discourses and rhetorical means of each were further studied.
In this project, I apply the approaches of both of these studies to a longitudinal context examining the addressee of the signage in primary thematic categories, as well as identifying themes in code choice preferences used for specific addressees. I ask the question: how and why have the themes and addressees of Emory University student climate protests changed from 2021 – 2025, as reflected in protest signage?
- Methodology
a. Data Sources
The data sources in this project were 60 images of protest signage from the Emory University chapter of the national “Climate Reality Project” student activism movement. The sign images came from an online corpus of photography from climate strikes, accessible to members of the organization. When not enough images were available in this archive, requests were sent to members of the organization to submit personal photos of the strike and their individual signs. The sign data came from climate strikes hosted in the fall of 2021, 2023, and 2025 (spring). These years were chosen as they were the most public and heavily planned campus climate strikes, and therefore allowed for the hiring of student photographers to capture detailed imagery of protest activities. In this study, I defined a “sign” as anything that was held up by a member of the protest and meant to convey meaning related to the strike itself. For example, this definition could include traditional cardboard signs held up by a wooden stake, painted banners, or simply a piece of paper.
Furthermore, two sets of protest chants were chosen from 2021 and 2025; chants from the 2023 strike were not available. These chant documents also came from the online archive of the Emory Climate Reality Project (ECRP). The documents are both approximately two pages in length and list the intended chants for the duration of the protest. Traditionally, the chants are structured as a “call-and-response” with a designated chant-leader speaking in a mega-phone. And example is as follows:
[Lead] Show me what democracy looks like!
[Everyone] This is what democracy looks like!
b. Data Coding and Analysis
In order to code the data, I performed a preliminary thematic analysis on the corpus of signs in order to create thematic categories for the overarching frames of “addressee” and “theme.” Once each category was established, I analyzed each sign independently assigning a number A1-A6 and T1-T6 that corresponded to each of the pre-delineated six subcategories of each large frame, ie. addressee or theme. The amount of tokens corresponding to each subcategory within the larger frame was quantified for each year; these data were subsequently compared to one another. I performed a similar process for the analysis of the chant documents, however, I analyzed each chant as an individual token and, because of the limited number of chants, I combined theme and addressee into a single frame of analysis. This resulted in 20 total chant tokens, 13 from 2021 and 7 from 2025.
After the preliminary thematic analysis of the sign data, Tables 1 and 2 present the resulting subcategories for the frames of sign addressee and sign theme.
Table 1
| Addressee | |
|---|---|
| Subcategory | Description |
| University Leadership | President, administration, board of trustees, specific departments (e.g., sustainability office). |
| Student Body | Appeals to fellow students to act, encourage, reflect, or join the climate justice movement. |
| Fellow protestors | Rallying calls or other directives aimed to affect the other protestors at the rally. |
| Government | References and demands made to local, state, or national government. |
| Corporate Entities | Direct critiques or demands toward fossil fuel companies, financial institutions, corporations, etc. |
| General Public | Broader societal audience beyond the context of the university. |
Table 2
| Theme | |
|---|---|
| Subcategory | Description |
| Environmental impacts of climate change | Focus on rising seas, fires, extinctions, and other environmental concerns. |
| Corporate Responsibility/Blame | Names or critiques corporations and corporate contributors to climate change |
| Activism and Resistance | Focuses on collective action, strikes, disruption and the role of activism in climate justice movement |
| Human Health Consequences | Describes effects of climate change on human health concerns and the role of public health science in climate crisis |
| Role of University Admin in Climate Degradation | Describes signs that directly mention a specific member or general body of the Emory University administration. |
| Intertextuality/Cultural References | Uses memes, pop culture, media, slogans, songs, or parody. |
| Role of science in the climate crisis | Applies to signs that contain the word “science,” used both outside and within the context of human/public health |
- Results
The analysis of protest signage across the three years reveal some notable fluctuations in sign theme and addressee. Regarding theme, as Table 3 indicates, the topic of environmental impacts of climate change was most prominent in 2021 and 2025, at 45% and 40% respectively. In 2023, the role of the university in climate degradation was most prominent, accounting for 40% of all signs, while appearing in only 20% and 15% of signs in 2021 and 2025, respectively. The popularity of all other themes was more variable for each year. The second most popular theme in 2021 was the role of activism and resistance, in 2023 it was the role of the university administration in the climate crisis and corporate responsibility tied, and in 2025 the theme of corporate responsibility and blame was also prominent in the dataset.
Table 3: Sign Themes (proportion of signs in each category):
| Theme | 2021 | 2023 | 2025 |
| Corporate responsibility and blame | 10% | 20% | 25% |
| Environmental impacts of climate change | 45% | 30% | 40% |
| Role of university in climate degradation | 20% | 40% | 15% |
| Human health consequences | 5% | 10% | 5% |
| Activism and resistance | 20% | 30% | 20% |
| Role of science in the climate crisis | 15% | 10% | 20% |
Figures 1 & 2 below are visualizations of the most common themes in protest signage over time: the role of the university administration in environmental degradation, as well as the environmental impacts of climate change. A notable spike in signs focused on the administration can be observed in 2023, when a drop in signs accounting for the environmental impacts of climate change was also present. The opposite trend can be observed for rates of signage focused on environmental effects of climate change. See Figures 3 – 6 for examples of these sign themes.
Figure 1 & Figure 2
Figures 3 & 4
Signs from 2023 categorized both addressing the university administration, as well as thematizing the role of the university.
Figure 6, 7 & 8
Signs coded as thematizing the environmental effects of climate change from 2021 and 2025. The addressees of these signs were coded as “General Public.”
As displayed in Figures 3 and 4, many signs featured content that could be coded as both a theme and an addressee. For instance, Figure 3 reading “Emory, do better” both targets university leadership (addressee) and expresses a critique of institutional irresponsibility (theme). In these cases, signs were coded for all relevant categories.
In terms of addressee, as Table 4 indicates, the distribution also shifted notably over time. In 2021, the general public was the most common addressee (40%), followed by university leadership (20%). However, in 2023, focus narrowed: signs addressing university leadership (see Figures 3 & 4) rose to 40%, while those directed at the general public fell sharply to 15%. In 2025, the pattern shifted again. Signs aimed at university leadership declined slightly to 30%, while those addressing the general public rose to 30% (see Figure 9). Meanwhile, references to government actors gradually increased across all years—from 10% in 2021, to 15% in 2023, and 20% in 2025. Finally, addressing fellow protestors and the student community were less frequently addressed overall.
Table 4: Sign Addressee (proportion of signs in each category):
| Sign Addressee | 2021 | 2023 | 2025 |
| University leadership | 20% | 40% | 30% |
| Student community | 5% | 10% | 5% |
| Fellow protestors | 10% | 10% | 5% |
| Government | 10% | 15% | 20% |
| General public | 40% | 15% | 30% |
| Corporate entities | 10% | 15% | 15% |
Figure 9
Sign addressed to fellow protestors (top); sign addressed to general public (bottom)
The themes and addressees of the chant documentation available in 2021 and 2025 revealed similar fluctuation in trends. The most common trend across both years was the environmental impact of climate change, specifically a general sentiment of protecting the environment. The second most prominent theme in 2021 was Cop City, which was replaced by more general sentiments of activism and resistance in 2025. The categories identified in the chant documentations were as follows:
2021:
- Environmental impacts of climate change
- [Lead] Our planet
- [Everyone] Our future
- [Lead] Our water
- [Everyone] Our future
- [Lead] Our air
- [Everyone] Our future
- Local issues (Cop City)
- [Lead] Invest in Kids
- [Everyone] Not Pigs
- [Lead] Stop Cop City
- [Everyone] Cop City will never be built
- Role of Corporations
- [Lead] No more corporate greed
- [Everyone] Renewables is what we need
2025:
- Environmental impacts and contributors of climate change
- [Lead] When our planet’s under attack, What do we do?
- [Everyone] Stand Up Fight Back!
- Activism and Resistance
- Ain’t no power like the power of the people cause the power of the people don’t stop! [Say what?!?]
- Corporate responsibility
- No more coal, no more oil, keep your carbon in the soil
- Discussion
This study aimed to examine how the addressee of climate protest signage at Emory University shaped the thematic content and rhetorical strategies of signs across three years of campus climate strikes. The results indicate that the messaging goals of Emory student climate protests do change and fluctuate, with certain topics being more common in some years over others. In terms of the research question, the results indicate which themes are most common longitudinally, and which tend to change. The following section serves to answer the second part of the research question: why do the themes and addresses of protest signage change?
An important finding is the fluctuation in protest messaging regarding the role of the Emory administration as a driver of climate change, both in terms of sign theme, as well as addressee. Signs directed toward university leadership increased significantly in 2023, aligning with that year’s spike in themes related specifically to the role of the university in climate degradation. Some specific themes included Emory’s role in Cop City (Ex. “Cop City is for Losers” or “Stop Cop City”), as well as the lack of carbon neutrality present in buildings such as the Emory Student Center (ESC) (Ex. “THE ESC IS NOT CARBON NEUTRAL”). This suggests that during the 2023 protests, students were particularly focused on holding Emory as a specific institution accountable, both symbolically and materially, for its role in environmental degradation in Atlanta (e.g. Cop City), as well as on campus, in contrast to 2025 and 2021, where a more general discussion of the environmental impacts of climate change were prioritized. This aligns with Lou’s (2016) notion of “branding space,” where the spatial and symbolic occupation of campus becomes a form of critique pointed directly to the institution itself. The signage serves as a means of posting a material message representing the attitudes of those who occupy the space.
It is interesting to note the longitudinal relationship between signage based on the specific institutional role of Emory, and broader calls describing the nature of the climate crisis. Based on these findings, there appears to be an inverse relationship between the two themes. In 2021 and 2025 there existed a high proportion of signs addressing the general public, alongside the aforementioned focus on the environmental impacts of climate change. These shifts may reflect broader trends in climate activism movements, in which messaging often moves on a spectrum between specific institutional and broader societal critique, depending on political climates or protest goals in a given year. The use of broad environmental messaging (see Figures 6, 7, & 8 for examples) which is often depersonalized toward a general audience suggests moments when the movement seeks solidarity or broader awareness rather than direct accountability. In 2021, this use of depersonalized and general messaging about climate could also be said to carry an extremely urgent tone in many instances of signage (see Figure 10 for examples). Such tones and messaging techniques are similar to those used during the emergence of the Fridays for Future movement, where urgency and desperation at the state of the climate was often emphasized, a potential reason for the prevalence of this style of signage in 2021.
Figure 10
The role of corporate blame as a consistent secondary theme across all years also mirrors global protest rhetoric, which frequently identifies fossil fuel companies as primary antagonists. However, what is particularly interesting in the Emory context is the immersion of theme between exerting blame for the climate crisis on corporations and the university at the same time. Figure 11 below can be seen as an example of this cross-institutional blame, in the sense that the sign’s messaging could in fact be targeted both at the university on a smaller scale, and the larger institutions at play in the economic context of the US.
Figure 11
Regarding the linguistic and semiotic strategies at play, signs across all years employed intertextuality and cultural references, especially in signs aimed at fellow students and the general public. These references, usually songs or memes (see Figure 12, a song reference), serve to build relatability and draw on shared cultural knowledge, echoing Said et al.’s (2020) findings about the use of intersubjective and intertextual appeals in protest signage. Such references are reflections of student identity as well, and serve to establish an in-group of those with the shared knowledge of reference. However, these signs were less prominent overall than those not containing such intertextuality, possibly due to the high stakes of institutional address: signs aimed at university administration and government actors tended to adopt a more accusatory register using more imperative verbs, while signs which were playful and sarcastic in tone had less of a place given the desire to be taken seriously among protestors.
Figure 12
The data from chant documentations further supports these discussions. In 2021 and 2025, chants addressed many themes broadly, such as environmental degradation and corporate blame, but by 2025, chants included more inward-facing themes based on protestor identity, such as those relating to activism and resistance. For example:
Lead: Who’s school?
Crowd: Our school!
Lead: Who’s streets?
Crowd: Our streets!
This trend suggests a shift from purely awareness-raising toward solidarity and attempts to mobilize amongst the student body. Furthermore, it is interesting that Cop City emerged as a specific and popular chant theme in 2021 and disappeared as a chant theme in 2025. The frequent mention of Cop City in chants in 2021 indicates a local awareness among protestors, and a desire to specify the discourse and demands of the strike to a specific university dynamic. Its absence in 2025 can be explained by the completion of the project, but interestingly, the issue was not replaced by a different local environmental issue/topic.
A possible limitation of this research is the lack of input from the sign creators themselves. The coding of the signs was done by a sole researcher, and because of this, the analysis is subjective – the sign makers themselves could have had different meanings in mind when creating the signs that were in turn not reflected in the analysis presented here. A future research direction would be to interview these sign makers at the next climate strike, and after the fact, asking protestors to reflect on the intended audience of the signage. This would allow the implied addressee for the individual to be identified, as well as the surface level semiotic content.
This study demonstrates that the construction and semiotics of protest signage is deeply tied to the temporal, institutional, and personal context and identities of the protestors and their institutions. Student activists do not merely express a static message – rather, their discourse strategies, themes, and targets of protest are dynamic and heavily based on the perceived hierarchies and awareness of their own positions as students. In cases where students feel their direct governing bodies are going against their wishes, they reflect this anger in the visual (signs) and audible (chants) landscape in protest. As such, protest signage serves as a semiotic mirror of campus politics, student and activism identity, and the broader rhetorical strategies used within the climate justice movement.
- References
Al-Naimat, Ghazi K. “Semiotic Analysis of the Visual Signs of Protest on Online Jordanian Platforms: Code Choice and Language Mobility.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 10, no. 1 (December 24, 2019): 61. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1001.09.
Ben Said, Selim, and Luanga A. Kasanga. “The Discourse of Protest: Frames of Identity, Intertextuality, and Interdiscursivity.” In Negotiating and Contesting Identities in Linguistic Landscapes, edited by Robert J. Blackwood, Elizabeth Lanza, and Hirut Woldemariam, 71–83. Advances in Sociolinguistics. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.
Lou, Jackie Jia, and Adam Jaworski. “Itineraries of Protest Signage: Semiotic Landscape and the Mythologizing of the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement.” Journal of Language and Politics 15, no. 5 (December 6, 2016): 609–42. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.15.5.06lou.
