1 Introduction

The difficult process of implementing the idea of sustainable development, especially the 13th Sustainable Development Goal – Climate Action – includes organising the Conferences of the Parties (COP), which are, in principle, United Nations Climate Summits held annually since 1995 (cf. UNFCCC). COP 3, which took place in 1997, gave rise to the Kyoto Protocol (KP 1998), which set initial limits on greenhouse gas emissions, while the Paris Agreement (PA 2015), legally committing the Parties to collaboratively mitigate the risks and consequences of climate change by reducing the global increase in average temperature on the planet to 2 °C or more desirably to 1.5 °C, above average preindustrial levels, was the outcome of COP 21 in 2015.

COP 26 took place in 2021, concluding with the Glasgow Climate Pact (GCP; UNFCCC 2021). The document comprises 97 articles grouped into 8 chapters: I. Science and urgency, II. Adaptation, III. Adaptation finance, IV. Mitigation, V. Finance, technology transfer and capacity-building for mitigation and adaptation, VI. Loss and damage, VII. Implementation, VIII. Collaboration – and annexes. These delineate global programmes agreed upon by the Parties or national representatives aimed at counteracting unabated climate change. One of the GCP’s critical clauses calls for a gradual reduction in the usage and subsidisation of energy produced from coal and other fossil fuels: “nations are called upon to phase downFootnote 1 unabated coal power and inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels” (Ibidem: IV. 36). Other articles notably include concretisation of financial support for building resilience and cutting greenhouse gas emissions, confirmed by the will to implement the pledge given by developed countries to transfer 100 billion dollars annually to developing countries (Ibidem: V. 43–46). The symbolic 1.5 °C goal set by the Paris Agreement has been upheld, while declarations have been given for making it permanent (Ibidem: IV. 20–22). The parties also succeeded in phrasing the principles initiated by the Paris Agreement to regulate market mechanisms with regard to transparency in reporting climate action and support received.Footnote 2

Documents such as the GCP, which is the object of this investigation, count among the most current statements on how organisational representatives of the global society relate to planet Earth and to future generations of humans but also other beings. The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibility of enhancing the agency of documents such as the GCP by addressing the problems behind the system of values based on human mastery (Singh 2018), which has led to a climate-ecological polycrisisFootnote 3 (Jasikowska, Pałasz 2022), and by using fully inclusive language, referring to both human and nonhuman actors. The latter are underrepresented as entities endowed with agency and dignity rather than exploitable resources in both official documents (such as GCP) and public awareness. We argue that addressing this problem is crucial in the face of the quest for answers to the cumulated and entangled crises of the Anthropocene, represented, e.g., by Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; GSDR 2023: 90).Footnote 4

The paper addresses the research gap that represents an almost (Youatt 2014; Sousa & Pessoa 2019) complete lack of organisational reflection on agency and performativity of the language used in official strategic documents from the posthuman perspective that considers not only excluded and exploited organisational or human actors but also nonhuman ones, as well as of practical knowledge of how to apply radical inclusion (Wydra 2022) in language as a tool for change. Key contributions refer to further transdisciplinarisation of the issue of the climate-ecological crisis, focusing on the agency of the actions undertaken by the global community: on the one hand, enlarging the perspective of possible climate action with insights taken from flat ontologies such as actor-network theory (Callon 1984; Latour 2005; Law 2009) or critical posthumanism (Braidotti 2013; Ferrando 2013) and, on the other hand, increasing the applicability of the promising research undertaken on the ground of new or posthumanities. Notably, this approach is in line with recommendations on the need to transform how science is done and how knowledge is produced to achieve SDGs:

The actions that steer the world toward a sustainable path must be rooted in science that is multidisciplinary, equitable and inclusive, openly shared and widely trusted, and “socially robust” — in short, responsive to social context and social needs. (...) Production of that knowledge needs to be more open, too, recognising, for example, the value of indigenous and local knowledge to sustainable innovation (Nature Editorial 2023).

After this short introduction, we begin the presentation of the results of the inquiry with identification of the main issues inherent in the GCP text, as seen from the posthuman perspective. Next, we introduce a technique for posthumanisation of language to address those issues and subsequently present a prototypical application of this technique in three excerpts from the GCP. Finally, we present a summary discussion on the interrelations between language and climate and point to the main conclusions drawn from this investigation. The last section describes the methods.

2 Results

2.1 The Issues in the GCP Text

An analysis of the document revealed a number of issues in the text, the first being the inaccessibility of its language and content. Due to specialist terminology and an insufficient number of translations,Footnote 5 the public is largely incapable of taking in the information imparted by the pact. Numerous references to other clauses and documents (75 direct mentions of international acts and treaties) imply that full comprehension of GCP requires the acquaintance of countless commentaries, necessary to enable an extended interpretation of the document in question. The inadequacy of language is also vital – the words used fail to reflect the sheer scale of the problem. In an era of “climate catastrophe” (Hansen 2007) and “the sixth mass extinction” (Ceballos et al. 2017), the text should make use of exactly such phrases. Nonetheless, the term used is “climate change” (57 times).

Linguistic issues arise from the anthropocentric, capitalocentric and technocentric character of the text, as investigation has found. The people-nature dualism and separation of humans from nature count among the direct causes of climate catastrophe (White 1967; Tusznio, 2022), yet the document fails to acknowledge this in any way. Dualism resounds here not only in people-nature isolation, as in, e.g., art. 38 that mentions “protecting, conserving and restoring nature and ecosystems” (UNFCCC 2021; cf. Kopnina et al. 2018), which implies a division between nature/ecosystems that are being protected and the protecting human but also in recurrent developed-developing countries binarism (UNFCCC 2021: III. 15, 17, 18, V. 40 and more). Another tendency underlying the text is anthropocentrism, which is a hierarchical aspect of the dualism in which humans dominate nature. This may be exemplified by the use of concepts referencing the human perspective: “common concern of humankind” (7 times) and “obligations on human rights” (8). A lack of insight into the structure of oppression and exploitation – not only of humans but also of nature – are more issues that come into sight. It manifests itself in objectivisation as well as in a shift in focus from the cause to the effect, for instance, in the recurrent (8 times) phrase “eradicate poverty”/ “poverty eradication” (as if poverty was an effect of objective processes), rather than “eradicate exploitative practices”/ “exploitation eradication” (because exploitation is the cause of poverty, cf. Jasikowska et al. 2022: 192–196). Finally, colonialism: the text treats nonhuman actors as mere resources (to be exploited by humans), and mitigation (worth noting – mentioned 135 times) of any losses (cf. Ibidem: VI) is applicable only to humans. The analysis revealed that the document overlooks the question of the destructive nature of capitalism (Piketty 2014; Klein 2015; Moore 2015, 2016), viewing the established socioeconomic system as rightly grounded and sanctioned. As a result, the need for a change in values and social change remains unacknowledged, leaving technical alteration as the sole requirement. This is discernible in the accentuation of such terms as “finance” (32 times), “technology transfer” (5) and “capacity-building” (19).

Admittedly, the text has its strong points as well. It maintains the symbolic 1.5 °C goal (UNFCCC 2021: IV. 20–22), joins the discourse on climate justice (Ibidem: preamble), indigenous people (15 times) and their knowledge (Ibidem: VIII. 93) and contains numerous suggestions regarding the redistribution of costs and responsibilities ensuing from action to be taken in response to climate catastrophe.

2.2 Posthumanisation of the Language

Apart from providing a synthetic identification of issues inherent in GCP as seen from a posthuman perspective, the research enabled the development and prototypical application of a technique for posthumanisation of language to address those issues. Accepting the performative role (cf. Austin 1962) of discourse – understood here as the language used by policy documents – its form must be modified to effect expected change.

The following oppositions are significant for the proposed technique of textual transformation:

  • Inclusion–exclusion in relation to readers’ attention,

  • Recognising-downplaying the meaning, damage, or merit,

  • Giving-denying a voice of one’s own,

  • Objectivisation-subjectivisation.

Particular weight needs to be attached to the social acceptability of the result of posthumanisation – proposition will be unsuccessful if it fails to gain widespread acceptance among stakeholders. Should it, however, be insufficiently radical, it will not accomplish the stated objective, that is, effecting urgent and real change.

In the modification of the excerpts from GCP, three basic tools were used:

  • Substitution,

  • Complementation,

  • Reconstruction.

The simplest of them – substitution – directly replaces fragments deficient in adequate urgency (Kinley 2021), agency (Latour 2005), sufficient inclusivity (Wydra, 2022), or otherwise maintaining the status quo. Complementation is a technique that involves enriching the text with omitted actors, undiscussed topics, and missing contexts. The most complex of these techniques – reconstruction – consists of adding new fragments. This technique responds to content that has been proven fundamentally wrong within the posthuman perspective (e.g., as anthropocentric), making complete rephrasing necessary.

The simultaneous application of all three tools may be mutually contradictory or even counterproductive. In the technique for posthumanisation of language, identification of certain narratives or tendencies accompanied by suggested linguistic – and thus organisational or political because of the agency and performativity of language – solutions is as important as the effects of its implementation. This practically means a specific open and “working” character of the final version of the transformed text, reflecting a process of new proposals accumulating upon the original document rather than the production of a new, complete form of it.

2.3 Application of Posthumanisation

In transforming the text, the following tools were applied: green highlighting to underscore fragments considered positive in the posthuman context and orange highlighting to signify questionable fragments. Fragments inadequate from posthuman perspective (e.g., anthropocentric) were crossed-out and supplemented with phrases in bold print that were previously absent from the text. The application of these tools in diverse configurations could require further modifications to ensure the readability and linguistic correctness of the text.

2.3.1 Excerpt 1: GCP, Art. 50

In article 50, the main tool for changing the language to more-than-human was substitution:

  • “threat of climate change” by “climate catastrophe”, not to conceal the gravity of the situation (cf. Hansen 2007; 2009: 70–89; Carrington 2019),

  • “sustainable development” by “degrowth”, to bring to attention that further development coupled with growth is practically impossible in present-day capitalism; rather, development and growth need to be phased out and not evened out (Hickel, Kallis 2020) because the programme of evening out that has been running for fifty years is ending in failure (Nature Editorial 2023),

  • “poverty” by “exploitation”, to identify the cause and not the effect of established exploitative relations between countries (Chagnon et al. 2022; Jasikowska et al. 2022),

  • “low greenhouse gas emission” by “climate neutrality”, to bring attention to the actual end of action, not the means,

  • The term “developing countries” by “the exploited (including nonhumans)”, to emphasise that there are not only countries and humans in question but also biological and geological actors (Chagnon et al. 2022). Substitution was also made to underscore the prejudicial character of the term “developing”, which places some countries low in the hierarchy of development, while such a hierarchy ought to be abandoned altogether as accenting the effect and not the cause; green highlighting implies the need to acknowledge the necessity of extending aid to so-called developing – but in fact exploited – countries.

We also indicated the undue, capitalocentric focus on technical solutions, including financial ones (“make financial flows consistent”) and those linked with ongoing “development” (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Excerpt from GDP posthumanised: art. 50. Source: (UNFCCC 2021)

Full size image

2.3.2 Excerpt 2 GCP, Arts. 87, 91

In article 87, orange highlighting was used to mark the conceptions specified in the section “The issues in the GCP text” in this paper:

  • “international” implies a division in particular states made only to be followed by an attempt at gathering them together; it underscores the performance of action within political frameworks, disregarding, for instance, boundaries between regions with diverse climates and vegetation or habitats of various animal species, once again focusing only on the agency of both humans and human institutions,

  • The words “across all actors of society” were highlighted in green as an unexpected fully posthumanist phrase,

  • It was, however, preceded by “technological advancement”, which, being the only specific category mentioned, imposed a technodeterministic and technocentric character on the entire excerpt,

  • the term “progress”, which, in the context of the last 30 years of ineffective action (Kinley 2021), is insufficient, was replaced with “achievement”.

In article 91:

  • The term “urges” was considered insufficient for the reasons stated above and therefore highlighted,

  • Half of the excerpt was underlined to emphasise its positive character, while “gender” and “empowerment of women” were highlighted in green and crossed out to adapt the fragment to the needs of nonhuman actors as well, aiming for more inclusive proposals than anthropocentric “human rights”. With substitution and complementation at our disposal, we decided to opt for substitution (“dignity”), as further application of complementation would render the text unreadable. This stage of inquiry resulted in the identification of the need for preamble modification to offer an optimal solution to any problems of this kind (Fig. 2).

    Fig. 2
    figure 2

    Excerpt from GCP posthumanised: arts. 87 and 91. Source: (UNFCCC 2021)

    Full size image

2.3.3 Excerpt 3: GCP, Preamble

In the Preamble of GCP, we recognised the importance of fragments (in green), testifying to the following:

  • Systems thinking not only does not exclude actors other than humans, “ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, including in forests, the ocean and the cryosphere” but also poses the question of “why only them?”; an extended or reduced enumeration (e.g., “all, human and nonhuman actors”) would have more agency and be more inclusive,

  • References to excluded and exploited groups that suffered damage historically and contemporarily: “recognised by some cultures”, “climate justice”, “indigenous peoples, local communities and civil society, including youth and children”,

  • Recognition of biodiversity as a hyperobject (Morton 2013) endowed with agency and dignity: “biodiversity (…) as Mother Earth”,

  • Accentuation of the urgency of action to be taken: “urgent need”.

We also observed an inadequate degree of firmness in the phrases “noting”, “noting the importance” (cf. Hansen 2009: 70–89; Kinley 2021), the hierarchical and anthropocentric character of actions involving “protection” (cf. Kopnina et al. 2018) and the ambivalence of the phrase “importance for some of the concept of «climate justice»”.

We made the following substitutions:

  • “Climate change” by “climate catastrophe” for reasons cited above,

  • “Climate change” by “sixth mass extinction” to bring attention to the ongoing annihilation of myriads of species (cf. Ceballos et al. 2017), one of the aspects of entangled crises of the Anthropocene previously unnoticed in the anthropocentric GCP Preamble.

We also used complementation to suggest further enumeration of important and heretofore exploited actors on the list beginning with “indigenous peoples” and concluding with “children”, also proposing that the beings named here should be referred to in a more-than-human manner as “all actors, earthlings, beings” throughout the entire document to ensure what is pursued by the version of sustainable development defined in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals: “peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” (UN 2023; Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Excerpt from GCP posthumanised: Preamble. Source: (UNFCCC 2021)

Full size image

3 Discussion

The premises behind this research include deep acceptance of the facts that 1) according to the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity, language influences one’s way of thinking (Kay, Kempton 1984); 2) according to the theory of speech acts, language is performative, and as such, it affects reality—“to say something is to do something” (Austin 1962: 12); and 3) according to actor–network theory, objects (also words, sentences, narratives) have agency (Latour 2005: 63–86). Particularly significant and inspiring within the context of this research is the emphasis placed on the need to use inclusive language that would not exclude from communication any of the interested parties, e.g., gender-neutral language (cf. Stout, Dasgupta 2011), as a way of acknowledging the dignity of all human actors. In this paper, we have also addressed the dignity of nonhuman actors.

In addition, our research was undoubtedly inspired by the programmatic change in language used in discussions on the state of the environment that took place in mainstream media, e.g., in The Guardian, which proposed replacing “climate change” with “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown”, “global warming” with “global heating”, “biodiversity” with “wildlife”, and “fish stocks” with “fish populations” (Carrington 2019). A significant impact has also been made by progressive linguistic initiatives such as The Bureau of Linguistical Reality, which created a new vocabulary for the Anthropocene (BoLR 2023), or Ex-Centrum, an ongoing project by The Olga Tokarczuk (2018 Nobel Prize in Literature winner) Foundation, aiming at creating a library of new words filled with ex-centric (inclusive) content addressing the insufficiency of the existing language in the context of contemporary global challenges (OTF 2023). Surely to be mentioned here is the collaboration known as Covering Climate Now with its mission to help the media “cover the defining story of our time with the rigor and urgency it deserves”, comprising more than 500 news and media partners from 57 countries and reaching approximately 2 billion recipients (CCN 2023), dealing with issues such as “Translating the IPCC Report Into Plain English” (CCNOW 2023). Not to forget is the diagnosis of perils of scientific reticence in regard to climate emergency, highlighted among others by James Hansen 15 years ago – criticising also the language of scientific discourse, which is too weak, confusing, and inadequate for the urgency and scale of the changes that are required (2009: 70–89).

Notably, a study conducted in 2021 by the Oxford English Dictionary that delved (among other sources) into the Oxford Monitor Corpus of English (over 14.5 billion words used in web-based news material from late 2017) concluded that “climate emergency was 76 times more frequent in the first half of 2021 than it was in the first half of 2018, and climate crisis had increased nearly 20-fold over the same period” (Ions and Wild 2021); moreover, both “climate emergency” and “climate strike” were declared the words of the year 2019 (Zhou 2019; Elster Hanson 2019). Notions such as sustainable development, the Anthropocene (with its countless alternative names: Chwałczyk 2020) or degrowth, which are shaping climate action at various levels at present, are themselves new ideas and new words coming from recent decades and can be treated as examples of how climate affects language and vice versa. Interestingly, according to the study carried out by the OED, “changing climate has been a fixture of the English language for more than 150 years” (Vinter 2021).

This demonstrates that climate exerts an impact on language, but if we assume that the latter is performative, then language can also exert an impact on climate. In fact, language cannot fail to affect climate. This is because by continuing to use a language that excludes nonhuman actors, denies their agency and dignity, fixes established hierarchies and privileges such as anthropocentrism, capitalocentrism or technocentrism, and conceals pathologic exploitation relations, we maintain the status quo – or, in other words, business as usual – “the very model that has unleashed the multiple ecological crises we now face” (Wright et al. 2018: 460). Specifically, appropriate shaping of the language of documents with global reach, such as GCP, represents a method of mitigating risks, adapting to new conditions, and building global resilience.

We have scrutinised the entire text of GCP regarding the possibility of employing a more-than-human language. The excerpts presented and analysed in this paper provide a vivid illustration of the issues encountered in the text, the possibilities offered, and the results yielded by the application of the tools for posthumanising language that we devised. However, the selection had to be made due to the limited length of this paper.

The tools proposed (complementation, substitution, reconstruction) are very simple. It is surely possible to build on them and in opposition to them. It is vital that the results they produce can provide a departure point for a discussion on the agency of language in an era of climate catastrophe, an instrument for management in the Anthropocene or posthumanistic management (Pałasz 2021, 2022). Future research should analyse other documents with potential global agency, including the Paris Agreement or the outcomes of the forthcoming COPs.

The main risk for posthumanisation of the language used by official documents comes from the incompatibility of its results with the dominant culture, values, hierarchies, and power relations – not necessarily active and conscious, in some cases internalised and innocent – which can lead to a lack of understanding and acceptance of such actions. For instance, the term “eradication of exploitative practices” which we propose as an alternative to “eradication of the poverty” in the section “The issues in the GCP text” poses a significant challenge for policymakers in terms of both definition and consensus, rendering the eradication of "exploitative practices" more difficult within the current paradigm compared to “poverty”. Similarly, the phrase “common concern of humankind” may not exclusively imply anthropocentrism among policymakers but could also serve as a way to avoid confronting the challenging truths that organizational actors may find difficult to acknowledge or accept. Specifically, that the globalised financial system is structured to prioritise the enrichment of capital owners over other considerations, such as sustainability. Hence, the frequent mention of "finance" in the document could also be interpreted positively, as addressing the organisation of the globalised financial system may be the most pressing issue without which the climate emergency will not be appropriately resolved – although we critique it as a manifestation of focusing on technical means rather than addressing the underlying problem, namely, more-than-human inequality. In other words, the proposed interventions conflict with the dominant paradigm, the “deepest set of beliefs about how the world works” (Meadows 1999: 17), which can be exemplified by statements such as “Growth is good. Nature is a stock of resources to be converted to human purposes” (Ibidem: 17–18), which in the GCP are shaped as, e.g., “accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of technologies” (UNFCCC 2021: IV. 36) or:

The importance of protecting, conserving and restoring nature and ecosystems to achieve the Paris Agreement temperature goal, including through forests and other terrestrial and marine ecosystems acting as sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases” (Ibidem: IV. 38).

This in turn implies the need to shape a sensibility that is non-anthropocentric, non-capitalocentric and non-technocentric and a different imagination (Buell 1995; Gajewska 2021): the need for paradigm shift. Building on Thomas Kuhns’ seminal work (1962), Donella Meadows summarises that to achieve that, “you keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm, you keep speaking louder and with assurance from the new one” (Meadows 1999: 18), what we attempted to perform in the course of this inquiry.

The forthcoming paradigm we need does not have to be entirely new. As Nature Journal editors stated in the sentences recalled by us in the “Introduction” to this paper, the production of knowledge needs to recognise “the value of indigenous and local knowledge to sustainable innovation” (Nature Editorial 2023). Additionally, the GCP mentions “the important role of indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ culture and knowledge in effective action on climate change” (UNFCCC 2021: art. 93). And – definitely not new – “indigenous and local knowledge” or Traditional Ecological Knowledge (Pierotti, Wildcat 2000) is:

Multidisciplinary, inclusive, combines what is spiritual with what is material and is also characterised by practical wisdom based on simple axioms: “everything is connected to everything”, “everything is one”, “respect for all forms of life” (Domańska 2013: 26, transl. MP).

It has surprisingly abundant common fields with flat ontologies – theoretical base for this investigation – foundations of which lay in the Western scientific tradition. The human world needs to ignite a motivational fire under itself and wake itself up to the climate emergency. And even though the foundation of the story of the Earth and of humans and of the whole community of the biosphere, essential for the desired paradigm shift, already exists, any successful response will entail unprecedented social innovation, amalgamating ancient or marginalised and contemporary practices and organisational structures or forms in unprecedented ways, on a planetary scale. A practical recommendation in this regard that could help with intuitive, based on cultural values posthumanisation of the language of official documents, is to actively involve the representatives of indigenous communities that already recognise the agency and dignity of nonhuman actors in the processes of wording that kind of documents. In this way, the victims of climate and social injustice – those suffering the most but least responsible for the polycrisis – can and should become the agents of change.

The final conclusion is that the language used by GCP is inadequate in relation to its expected agency. Due to its phrasing being insufficiently radical in its urgency and inclusivity toward nonhuman actors, GCP offers a unilateral account of the problem rather than putting forward a solution. Instead of system change it is proposing more of the same – more of which has led to climate-ecological catastrophe. By doing so, it obviously reinforces and further legitimises the status quo – that is the extractivist and exploitational capitalist system (Piketty 2014; Klein 2015; Moore 2015, 2016) – and makes the catastrophe more imminent. The problem here is hierarchism: anthropocentrism, capitalocentrism and technocentrism, or, basically, inequality, which can be solved by striving toward heterogeneous, human and nonhuman inclusion and equality. In this paper, we have demonstrated that this problem can be addressed in practice. We have also shown a mode of practicing radical inclusion that is scalable and adaptable to diverse texts. One can argue whether language and the details of language (e.g., in pacts and treaties) are the places at which to start answering climate-ecological predicament. By modifying Marshall McLuhan, we answer that not only medium but also language is the message (cf. McLuhan 1964: 8–12), and the message that we send to future generations with the present language of official documents such as GCP is that we either do not understand what is happening or we do not care. Do we?

4 Methods

The subject matter of the research is GCP. The exploratory question behind the inquiry seeks to ascertain whether and why the phrasing of the pact is adequate to accomplish its expected agency. The research problem focuses on the role of language as a tool for change, which is all the more important in light of the cumulated and entangled crises of the Anthropocene.

The theoretical background for pursuing the purpose of the paper is provided by flat ontologies, in particular actor-network theory regarding the agency of nonhuman actors (ANT; Callon 1984; Latour 2005; Law 2009) and critical posthumanism regarding their dignity (Braidotti 2013; Ferrando 2013). It also builds on the insights of critical management studies (Alvesson, Willmott 1992) but refocuses from the emancipation of solely human organisational actors to also nonhuman ones. The approach taken and the methods of analysis are inspired by Karen Barad’s posthuman “diffractive reading” (Barad 2007: 74–94), which means “reading insights through one another” (Ibidem: 25). We have read – that is, thoroughly analysed – GCP through our previous insights based on researching the literature of the aforementioned flat ontologies. This influenced our understanding of the role of our posthuman readings and resulted in the project of practical application, namely, posthumanisation of the language used in excerpts from GCP. In the process, we were able to map posthuman tendencies and the main issues within the document under scrutiny. These in turn provided a departure point for devising a technique for posthumanisation of the language used by the text, i.e., transforming its original character. In the last stage, posthumanisation tools that emerged during the inquiry were applied to modifying GCP; the outcomes are discussed in this paper.