2

INTRODUCTION

The thesis is concerned with the analysis of the concepts of DOMINANCE and
INEQUALITY in speeches of American environmentalists as well as with
encountering the strategic initiatives aimed at reframing of the sustainability
discourse.
Discourse analysis as the object of applied linguistics originated in an
awareness of the ability of formal linguistics to account for how participants in
communication achieve meaning (Simpson 2011: 16). The need to develop
approaches to text analysis through the transdisciplinary dialogue with
perspectives on language and discourse within social theory and research in order
to develop the capacity to analyze texts as elements in social processes has led to
the emerging of the critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 2003: 12). An extremely
influential approach to discourse analysis which deals with larger concepts and
structures is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The pioneers of the Critical
Discourse Analysis are N. Fairclough, T. van Dijk, R. Wodak, O’Halloran.
Critical discourse analysis can draw upon a wide range of approaches to
analyzing text. The revolutionary idea brought by the critical discourse analysis is
that a researchers should acknowledge their prerequisite for carrying out a study
while older empirical views of research were extremely concerned with the
removal of researcher’s bias. The connection and employment of the methods of
corpus linguistics in critical discourse analysis is means by which a number of
restrictions can be placed on cognitive biases (Baker 2007: 14).
The advent of corpus analysis has enabled the Critical Discourse Analysis to
add a quantitative dimension to research. The employment of the tools of critical
discourse analysis interconnected with that of corpus methods can provide a
fruitful ground for carrying out a research concerned with discourse in the
paradigm of Critical Discourse Analysis. Corpus analysis has given thus a major
boost to Discourse Analysis in recent year providing it with quantitative data to
underpin the results of the research on discourse.
 4

With its power to place any particular instance of language in the context of
its use across the wide range of comparable texts or the language as a whole,
corpus comparisons have enabled discourse analysts to talk with confidence about
the typicality of any given text under consideration. Furthermore, it has enabled the
researchers to single out the cases which are not typical and thus should be the
object of further research and analysis. The combination of the two types of
analysis creates effective methodological apparatus for research of discourse.
The environmental discourse is one of the hegemonic discourses and a
popular object for applied linguistic research. With the introduction of the agenda
for the environmental policies by the United Nations congress in 1987 the
sustainable development became the main issue in the environmental affairs. It is a
discourse rather than a concept and should be defined as the sustainability
discourse (Dryzek, 2005).
The topicality of this research paper is determined by the growing interest of
Applied Linguistics in the discourse studies and the actuality of integrative
methodological approach in linguistic research.
The aim of the paper is to encounter the strategic initiatives employed by
certain interest groups aimed at transforming of the sustainability discourse.
The aim presupposes the completion of the following tasks:
 to specify the notion of the sustainability discourse;
 to compile a methodology appropriate for corpus-based analysis of
reframing strategies in the American sustainability discourse;
 to single out the reframing strategies aimed at transforming of the
sustainability discourse;
The object of the research is the concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY in
American sustainability discourse.
The subject of the research is semantic and grammatical means of tracing the
concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY in American sustainability discourse.
The research methods are as follows: the Systemic Functional Linguistic’s
methods combined with analytical approach of CDA underpinned by corpus
 5

methods such as key word analysis, encountering raw and relative frequencies of
key words, using large reference corpora for encountering overrepresented
semantic categories.
The material of the research is specialized self-made corpus of speeches by
the American environmentalists on the subject matter of sustainable development.
The novelty of the paper consists in integrating the methods of Systemic
Functional Linguistics, Corpus Discourse Analysis as well as corpus research
methods in an attempt to reveal the linguistic means strategically used to reframe
certain discourse by introducing certain concepts.
The theoretical importance of the paper is determined by the contribution to
the discourse studies, namely the compilation of integrative approach in research
methodology and analysis.
The practical value of the paper lies in the possibility of conducting further
studies of the manually compiled small corpus of public speeches of American
environmentalists as well as further investigation of the hypotheses put forth
concerning the concepts traced in the material under analysis.
The structure of the paper includes Introduction, two chapters and
Conclusions.
The Introduction outlines the topicality, the aim and the tasks, subject, object,
methods, material, theoretical and practical value of the master’s paper.
Chapter One discusses the notion of discourse and defines the discourse in
terms of Critical Discourse Analysis discusses the premises of emergence of
environmental discourse and outlines the research methodology.
In Chapter Two the selected data samples are analyzed and the results of the
research are discussed.
The General Conclusions sum up the results of the investigation.
Literature cited contains 48 reference and illustrative sources.
 6

CHAPTER ONE

DISCOURSE AS THE OBJECT OF CDA

This chapter presents the description of the discourse as the form of social
practice (1.1). It elaborates on the history of emergence of environmental discourse
focusing on the sustainable development and subsidiary concepts (1.2). It also
encompasses the description of corpus-based discourse analysis and research
methodology it employs (1.3).

1.1. Discourse as a form of social practice

Discourse is one of the most significant concepts of contemporary thinking in
the humanities and social sciences as it concerns the ways language mediates and
shapes our interactions with each other and with the social, political and cultural
formations of our society (Baker 2007: 1).
The term ‘discourse’ is problematic, as it is used in social and linguistic
research in a number of inter-related yet different ways (ibid: 4). In traditional
linguistics it is defined as either 'language above the sentence or above the clause',
or 'language in use'. The term ‘discourse’ is also sometimes applied to different
types of language use or topics, for example political discourse, colonial discourse,
media discourse and environmental discourse (Cook 2007: 15).
The term ‘discourse’ is, of course, used very differently by different
researchers. In the German and Central European context, a distinction is made
between ‘text’ and ‘discourse’, relating to the tradition in text linguistics as well as
to rhetoric (Wodak 1996: 32 ). In the English-speaking world, ‘discourse’ is often
used for both written and oral texts (Schiffrin 1992: 52). Other researchers
distinguish between different levels of abstractness. Lemke defines ‘text’ as the
concrete realization of abstract forms of knowledge (‘discourse’), thus adhering to
a more Foucauldian approach (Jäger2001: 12). The discourse-historical approach
elaborates and links to the sociocognitive theory of Teun van Dijk (Dijk 1984: 52)
 7

and views ‘discourse’ as a form of knowledge and memory, whereas text illustrates
concrete oral utterances or written documents (Wodak 2001: 13).
Illustrating the Foucault’s approach to the definition of discourse Paul Baker
provides more elaborative definitions, such as:
 A system of statements which constructs an object;
 A language in action;
 A set of metaphors, representations, images, stories, statements that in some
way together produce a particular version of events(Baker 2005: 76);
Because of Foucault's notion of practices, discourse therefore becomes a
countable noun: discourses. So around any given object or concept there are likely
to be multiple ways of constructing it, reflecting the fact that humans are diverse
creatures. In addition, discourses allow for people to be internally inconsistent;
they help to explain why people contradict themselves, change position or appear
to have ambiguous or conflicting views on the same subject. They can be viewed
in terms of people holding competing discourses (Fairclough 2001: 76). Therefore,
discourses are not valid descriptions of people's 'beliefs' or 'opinions' and they
cannot be taken as representing an inner, essential aspect of identity such as
personality or attitude. Instead they are connected to practices and structures that
are lived out in society from day to day. Discourses can therefore be difficult to pin
down or describe - they are constantly changing, interacting with each other,
breaking off and merging. As Sunderland points out, there is no 'dictionary of
discourses'. In addition, any act of naming or defining a discourse is going to be an
interpretative one. Where one sees a discourse, another may see a different
discourse, or no discourse. It is difficult, if not impossible, to step outside
discourse (ibid : 78).
Applied linguistic’s(AL) interest in discourse analysis(DA) originated in an
awareness in ability of formal linguistics to account for how participants in
communication achieve meaning. As such DA has been a major impetus in ending
a nearly narrow conception of AL as a subsidiary discipline which merely applies
in sights from linguistics to language-related problems (Widdowson1984:21–8),
 8

and moving it towards the broader independent enterprise it is today. Although

there are many diverse approaches to discourse in AL, there are also common
principles and themes. Discourse can be defined as a stretch of language in use, of
any length and in any mode, which achieves meaning and coherence for those
involved. Discourse analysis can be defined as the use and development of theories
and methods which elucidate how this meaning and coherence is achieved(Cook
2001: 12).
This quest makes DA inevitably concerned not only with language, but with
all elements and processes which contribute to communication. Consequently,
discourse analysts have espoused and also developed a wide range of approaches
to language beyond linguistics. These have included pragmatics, schema theory,
conversation analysis, ethnography, semiotics, multi modal analysis, literary
theory, rhetoric, genre analysis ,and social theory (Cook 2001: 16). This widening
purview has led to encounters with many different disciplines and definitions of
discourse.
Rather than simply adding yet another dimension to understanding, for many
AL discourse analysts this approach fundamentally changed the original
conception of DA in AL as merely an extension of linguistic analysis. Yet while
the Foucauldian tradition emphasizes the key importance of language use in
ideology, it has not in practice paid close attention to linguistic detail in the same
way. While DA in AL has absorbed the Foucauldian tradition, and subsequently
other social theoretical approaches, it has often used these social theories to
supplement rather than replace close linguistic and textual analysis. It has thus
merged two traditions, one from linguistics, the other from social and critical
theory, using the two in a complementary manner. At its best, the AL DA tradition
thus currently combines the strengths of linguistics and non-linguistic perspectives,
making it the most powerful and rigorous tool for the analysis of language in use.
Consequently, it has a great deal to offer to social theory and sociology on the one
hand ,and to linguistics on the other (Cook 2001: 21).
 9

The quite problematic field is the scope of the discourse analysis. AL DA

embraces all aspects of language in use, eclectically deploying in sights from a
variety of traditions to arrive at a rounded and rich interpretation of language in
use. It is in this sense open to criticism for being a ‘study of everything’, concerned
with such a wide variety of phenomena that it has no distinct identity of its own. It
is certainly true and frequently remarked that the terms ‘discourse’ and ‘discourse
analysis’ are very variously defined and often loosely used. Many approaches to
DA proceed down their own paths without mentioning or even showing awareness
of others. Nor is it clear in many cases whether particular DA studies belong to AL
or some other discipline. The broadening of scope has thus made it harder to define
and describe DA than when it first emerged in the 1970s. Recent years have,
however, seen some successful attempts to provide inclusive structured overviews
of the field (Widdowson 2001: 134).
An extremely influential approach to DA which begins with larger concepts
and structures is Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough 1989: 19). Drawing on
the Foucauldian notion of discourses as institutionalized ways of using language,
CDA is concerned with ideology, power relations and social injustices, and how
these are represented and reproduced through language. Its political allegiances are
explicit, and it claims that discourse analysis cannot avoid taking a political stance.
Within this overall framework various approaches have different emphases. They
may focus primarily upon discourse practices and ideologies, or seek to link
discourse and social structures, or to situate specific discourses (ibid: 78). While
CDA has attracted widespread support it has also been subjected to criticism for
bias and partiality (Widdowson 1995: 98), lack of rigour and circularity (Stubbs
1998: 54), and confusion and inconsistency in its cognitive and linguistic
theoretical bases (O’Halloran2003: 67) or methodology CDA sees discourse –
language use in speech and writing – as a form of ‘social practice’. Describing
discourse as social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a particular
discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s) and social structure(s) which
frame it: the discursive event is shaped by them, but it also shapes them. That is,
 10

discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned – it constitutes

situations, objects of knowledge, and the social identities of and relationships
between people and groups of people (ibid: 67). It is constitutive both in the sense
that it helps to sustain and reproduce the social status quo, and in the sense that it
contributes to transforming it (Dijk 2007: 54). Since discourse is so socially
consequential, it gives rise to important issues of power. Discursive practices may
have major ideological effects – that is, they can help produce and reproduce
unequal power relations between (for instance) social classes, women and men,
and ethnic/cultural majorities and minorities through the ways in which they
represent things and position people (ibid: 113). Critical discourse analysis (CDA)
investigates how language use may be affirming and indeed reproducing the
perspectives, values and ways of talking of the powerful, which may not be in the
interests of the less powerful. The relationship between language, power and
ideology is a crucial focal point. CDA consists of an interdisciplinary set of
approaches which attempt to describe, interpret and explain this relationship.
Among its principal architects are Paul Chilton, Norman Fairclough, Teun van
Dijk and Ruth Wodak. CDA is multidisciplinary encompassing the number of
different but related approaches.
Paul Baker describes the Critical Discourse Analysis as the combination of
the Foucaultian view of discourse and the critical social research which aims to
achieve a better understanding of how societies work(Baker 2005: 18). Fairclough
defines a number of starting questions for critical social research such as 'how do
existing societies provide people with the possibilities and resources for rich and
fulfilling lives, how on the other hand do they deny people these possibilities and
resources?' (Fairclogh 1999: 45) Consequently, in his view critical discourse
analysis (CDA) is a form of critical social research that can be applied to a range of
texts in order to address these and other questions.
Lemmens argues that cognitive linguistics can provide discourse studies with
innovative tools that give more depth to the analysis of texts in general, and of
political discourse in particular (Lemmens 1999: 15). In our research paper we will
 11

also employ the conceptual metaphor theory as well as the framing theory in
proving the employing of the concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY in
reframing of the environmental discourse.
Dwelling on Teun A. Van Dijk’s definition of the ideology, that is that
ideology is a framework of social cognition, it is possible to perceive it as a
construct created artificially with the aim of manipulating and influencing the
public opinion (Dijk 1998: 17). Applying tools of cognitive linguistics and looking
into the structure of the material under analysis with the aim of revealing certain
strategic initiatives used by the agents with the aim of influencing the cognition of
recipients in certain manner has given us a fruitful ground of infinite possibilities
to uncover the implementation of concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY as
major manipulation strategy uncovering the attempts of American
environmentalists at launching particular ideological practices. The major premise
of framing theory is that an issue can be viewed from a variety of perspectives and
be construed as having implications for multiple values or considerations. Framing
refers to the process by which people develop a particular conceptualization of an
issue or reorient their thinking about an issue.

1.2. Key Concepts in the environmental discourse

The methods used to analyze ecological or environmental discourse have
recently matured into the widespread use of critical discourse analysis (CDA)
(Alexander 2005: 18). CDA is a textually-oriented form of discourse analysis.
Faiclough provides an elaborative definition of ‘discourse’ in terms of CDA. He
suggests that the term ‘discourse’ (in what is widely called `discourse analysis')
signals the particular view of language in use as an element of social life which is
closely interconnected with other elements. Fairclough points out that in order for
CDA to be effective there has to be developed a transdisciplinary dialogue with
perspectives on language and discourse in order to develop the researcher’s
capacity to analyze texts as elements in social processes (Fairclough 2003: 12).
 12

As we focus on the cognitive aspects of power and suppression manifestation

and their conceptual aspects, mainly the concepts of dominance and inequality, the
assertion of dutch scholar Teun A. van Dijk that “ideologies are cognitive”, has
determined the direction of our research. Within a particular worldview, some
forms of action become natural, others unthinkable. Different social
understandings of the world lead to different social actions, and therefore the social
construction of knowledge and truth has social consequences (Widdowson1984:
21–8). Although ideologies obviously are social and political, and related to
groups and societal structures, they also have a crucial cognitive dimension.
Intuitive terms, they involve mental objects such as ideas, thought, beliefs,
judgments and values. That is, one element of their definition implies that they are
`belief systems'. It is especially in the study of social and political cognition that
such belief systems have been examined in more detail. An adequate theory of
ideology needs to bring to bear results from cognitive science, and should no
longer use such vague traditional concepts as false consciousness. On the other
hand, we also emphasize that a definition of ideologies as belief systems is too
unspecific: rather, ideologies should be taken as the abstract, `axiomatic' oasis of
the socially shared belief systems of groups. This also implies that the fact that we
define ideologies (also) in cognitive terms does not mean that they are individual
cognitions. On the contrary, although used or applied by individual social actors as
group members, they are shared social representations (Widdowson1984: 21–8).
According to Fillmore frame is any system of concepts related in such a way
that to understand any one concept it is necessary to understand the entire system
(Fillmore 1988: 67). In order for a framing effect to occur a given consideration
needs to be stored in the memory to be available for retrieval and use. In order for
the framing effect to occur there have to be presented the opposing considerations,
perceived applicability as means of affecting an individual’s opinion, triggering the
evaluations of applicability as well as creating competitive context.
The environmental turn in literary and cultural studies emerged as a self-
conscious movement approximately twelve years ago. Nowadays environmental
 13

discourse is mostly associated with ecocriticism which is the commonest term for
an increasingly heterogeneous movement (Mühlhäusler 2003: 19). The marked
increase and sophistication of environmentality as an issue within the literary and
cultural studies took place in 1980s when “the environment” was becoming salient
public concern. During the last third of the twentieth century “the environment”
became front page news. As the prospect of the sooner-or-later apocalypse by
unintended environmental disaster came to seem likelier than nuclear machismo
public concern about the state and fate of the environment took the increasing hold,
initially in the west but not worldwide(ibid : 56). The award of the 2004 Nobel
Prize to Kenyan environmental activist was the evident sign of the increased level
of public concern which the war against terror since September 11, 2001 has
upstaged (Dryzek 2005: 19). Underlying the advance has been the growing malaise
about modern society’s industrial inability to manage its unintended environmental
consequences which Ulrich Bech, the Rachel Carson of the contemporary social
theory calls the reflexive modernization meaning in particular the fear that even the
privileged classes of the world inhabit a global ‘risk society’ whose hazards can
not be anticipated, calculated or even predicted, much less escaped (ibid: 28).
Environmental issues have become an increasing provocation both for artists
and for academics giving rise to colleges and universities to cross-disciplinary
environmental studies programs often galvanized by student demand as well as by
faculty research agenda. Though natural and social scientists have so far been the
major participants and initiators of such programs, considerable number of
humanists have also been drawn in (Mühlhäusler 2003: 45).
Literature scholars who took the environmental turn in the 1980s found
themselves entering a mind-expanding though also vertiginous array of cross-
disciplinary dialogues with life scientists, climatologists, public policy specialists,
geographers, cultural anthropologists, landscape architects, environmental lawyers,
environmental engineers and applied mathematicians. Cross-disciplinary and extra-
academic alliances have had the positive and permanent advantages of stretching
the new movement’s horizons beyond the academy and of provoking a self-
 14

examination of premises that has intensified as the movement has evolved beyond
an initial concentration on nature-oriented literature and on traditional forms of
environmental education taking into account urban as well as rural loci and
environmental justice concerns as well as nature preservation (ibid: 78).
Ecolinguistics is a recent branch of linguistics which became a recognized
subdiscipline only in 1980. For many ecolinguists and environmental critics, to
change our language is seen as the precondition for a more sustainable
interrelationship between humans and the earth. In their view the ability to manage
language-created perspectives depends on our ability to have a clear understanding
of the very complex nature of the human language (ibid: 112).
As Mühlhäusler points out: “… the misfit between the contours of language
and the contours of nature perceived by many environmentalists today has been the
concern of language planners scientists and the popular mind in the different form
for a very considerable time” (ibid: 115). He emphasizes that the reasons why
deliberate language change is regarded as desirable can differ greatly. Mühlhäusler
also points out that underlying assumption of the creators of taxonomies and
terminologies has been that nature has order and language lacked it (ibid: 145).
There is another perceived task for language planers, that of reforming of
non-cognitive aspects of language, particularly those that are seen to perpetuate
environmentally damaging perspectives. A number of writers have addressed the
question of pathological kinds of language and the need for reform. A particular
target has been language that is deliberately employed to conceal the
environmentally damaging impact of human activities as well as the use of
emotionally positive language for commercials. The question of whether
ecologically correct language is desirable is treated with skepticism, there is an
agreement that language users have to be more aware of the ideological bias of
language and the environment (Halliday 2003: 45).
In his seminal paper on language and environmental matters Halliday
reminded his audience of an applied linguistics and that the environmental
problems are also problems for applied linguistics. He pointed out: “ the role of
 15

the applied linguist has been that of demonstrating that language far from being a
neutral tool, is crucially involved in shaping both perceptions of, and human
actions involving the environment. Critiquing language and seeking to make
languages more suited to the protection of the environment are activities that are
going to remain important” (ibid: 54).
An ecologically-shaped approach to language can enhance the existing brands
of applied linguistics has been argued by Barton for literacy and by Muhlhausler
for language planning (Mühlhäusler 2003: 78). In both instances, considering
language as a part of a wider socio-communicative context not only makes
available many additional parameters needed in solving practical tasks such as the
provision and maintenance of literacy, but also leads to the reframing of the
problem. Under an ecological view, for instance, language planning is no longer
seen as a streaming process but as an activity aimed at preserving maximum
diversity of the human communication systems (ibid: 78).
An integrational linguistics offers an explanation both for the neglect by
linguists of the environmental discourse and their problems when attempting to
tackle it. The basic criticism that integrational linguistics adduces against orthodox,
segregational linguistics is essentially that many ecologists have made of orthodox
science: that false dichotomies such as humans versus environment, dead versus
living, nature versus culture obscure and misrepresent the interconnectiveness of
all parts of an ecology. There is no central linguistic code which can be isolated or
correlated with its non-central non-linguistic environment (Dryzek 2005: 78).
Integrational linguistics rejects the ideology of autonomous linguistics.
Integrational linguists claim that speaking is a creative activity in its own right
which is integrated with other activities. Speaking about the environment is
integrated with changing attitudes and activities. Language use, comments on
language and attempts to change language are all part of the environmental
activities (ibid: 90).
Of the concepts that dominate the environmental discourse those of NATURE

and NATURALNESS deserve the special attention (Mühlhäusler 2003: 78).

 16

Mühlhäusler describes that there have been many changes in collocations

involving the term ‘nature’: “…the adjectives ‘crude’ and ‘untaimed’ of the 19 th
century have given way to more positive evaluations such as ‘beneavolent’,
‘healing’ and ‘invigorating’ nature” (ibid: 89). He suggests that the reevaluation of
nature has to do with changing view on another singular entity – Earth. The
concept of NATURE as used in the western debate about the environment is not a
universal notion, but a very culture-specific one (Widdowson 1984: 21–8).
Widdowson suggests that while nature has come to be associated with qualifiers
such as ‘precious’ and ‘vulnerable’, the ambiguity of this term together with its
implied separation of humans from nature, may make it a problematic notion.
Attempts to reframe and redefine nature has been made by various
groups(ecologists, ecofeminists, environmentalists) (ibid: 123).
The emphasis of those who have analyzed discourses about the environment
is to ask how the diversity of existing perspectives is brought into being by the
diversity of ways of speaking. The two approaches commonly used are the
ethnography of communication and the study of narratives (Mühlhäusler 2003:
78).
The plural ‘discourses’ has been chosen to emphasize the diversity of
linguistically mediated perspectives on the environment. At the macro level there
can be distinguished a scientific, economic and a moral discourse relating to the
environment. At the micro level they can be subdivided into the discourse of
exploitation, the discourse of sustainable development. Differences are also in
evidence when considering the domains of environmental talk. The domain of
global glaciations of the 1970s has given way to the discourse domain of global
warming, the discourse about shortages and depletion, to one about unequal
distribution (ibid: 98).
Concern for environmental problems has been largely a western middle class
phenomenon and there is a widespread suspicion in developing nations that free
discourse is employed as a means of perpetuation their underdevelopment (Dryzek
2005: 15).
 17

The core storyline of the sustainability discourse began with recognition that
the legitimate developmental aspirations of the world’s peoples cannot be met by
all countries following the growth path already taken by the industrialized
countries, for such action would overburden the world’s ecosystems (ibid: 87). Yet
economic growth is necessary to satisfy the legitimate needs of the world’s poor.
The alleviation of poverty will ameliorate what is one of the basic causes of
environmental degradation, for poor people are forced to abuse their local
environment just to survive. Economic growth should therefore be promoted, but
guided in the ways that are both environmentally benign and socially just. Justice
refers not only to distribution within the present generation, but also across future
generations. Sustainable development is not just a strategy for the future of
developing societies, but also for industrialized societies, which must reduce the
excessive stress their past economic growth has imposed upon the earth
(Mühlhäusler 2003: 78).
Sustainable development’s preview is global; its justification rests in present
stresses imposed on global ecosystems. But, unlike survavalism, it does not stay at
the global level. Sustainability is an issue at regional and local levels (Dryzek
2005: 19).
In the United State the sustainable development torch was carried in by
Clinton’s administration by the president’s council on sustainable development.
However, the dominant US approach to sustainable development is captured
succinct by Bryner pointing out the “alienation of America and its indifference
towards the policies” (Bryner 2000: 76).
Bryner further elaborates: “…. while the sustainability discourse is most
evident on the international level, it has made inroads with states” (ibid: 89). He
also suggests the example of Japan which established a sustainable development
program with an eye to maximizing Japanese opportunities in the emerging
sustainable eco-community(opportunities which are not hurt by the existing
energy-efficiency of the Japanese economy) (ibid: 93).
 18

The sustainability discourse has given way to lots of concepts. The maximum
sustainable-yield concepts say nothing about growth in resource use or about how
management of different resources might interact or how the non-renewable
resources have to be dealt with (Dryzek 2005: 87). Dryzek also suggests that: “…
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT is a much more ambiguous concept in that it refers to
the ensemble of life-support systems, and seeks perpetual growth in the sum of
human needs that might be satisfied not through simple resource engineering, but
rather through intelligent operations of natural systems and human systems in
combination” (ibid: 95).
There were also some attempts to take an analytical razor to the concept of
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Dryzek points out that “all of them were partially
successful as they soon left the ambiguities of the real-world discourse behind”
(ibid: 89). For Meadows and collegues sustainability means an “end to economic
growth”; for the world business council for sustainable development sustainability
requires perpetuality of economic growth (Meadows 2001: 29). He declares:
‘Economic growth in all parts of the world is essential to improve the livelihoods
of the poor, to sustain growing populations and eventually to stabilize population
levels’ (ibid: 30). Dryzek emphasizes that Sustainable development became the
main issue in environmental affairs (Dryzek 2005: 67). He argues that it is a
discourse rather than a concept which should be defined with any precision as the
sustainability discourse (ibid: 195). We employed the Dryzek’s term sustainability
discourse for our further research.

1.3. Corpus-based approaches to public speeches

One of the prominent linguists currently actively involved in corpus studies
Charteris Black suggests that given the importance of European political
integration during the 1990s it is not surprising that a number of papers examine
public speeches of political leaders in European political discourse (Black 2003:
23). He further elaborates: “In a study of Russian, German and French public
utterances of political leaders, Chilton and Ilyin (1993) analyze using corpus
 19

techniques how the metaphor of ‘the common European house’ undergoes a

number of transformations when it passes between linguistic and political cultures”
(ibid: 98).
The most interesting examples of corpora of public speeches grouped
thematically or on the basis of belonging to some political agent as their producer
and endorser are German political speeches corpus, Obama speeches corpus, The
small corpus of political speeches CoRD (ibid: 98).
In compiling a small corpus of public speeches, it is necessary to pay some
attention to the kind of language such a corpus can reliably represent. Although
spoken out loud, public speeches are (in most cases) far from spontaneous spoken
language. In fact, public speeches are arguably one of the most important examples
of texts written-to-be-spoken (ibid: 101). The researcher argues that as such they
represent not only the individual developing the speech, but also, and arguably
even more so, the opinions of a whole interest group or ideology. Today especially
public speeches are drafted and redrafted by teams of professional speech writers
who deliberate on everything from rhetorical structures to word choices. The
corpus linguistic implication is that the biographical features of the speaker, such
as gender, age, background, and nationality, might best be seen as peripheral, while
his or her ideological faction and the nature of the event comes across as ultimately
more important (ibid 78).
Public speeches have been one of the foci of the discipline of Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA). Our small corpus of collected data is marginally useful
for the study of CDA topics, though it must be noted that the corpus is at present
too small for well-argued analysis of ideological views as such. On the other hand,
the corpus may be used for the study of questions such as the extent to which
public speeches resemble other domains of language use and how they differ from
them, how they on the whole make use of affective features such as the use of
pronouns and modal verbs, and how repetitive and formulaic they are.
 20

Corpus-based research as conducted in our paper depends on both qualitative

and quantitative techniques. The quantitative data is selected and searched for
using the computer software employed for researching the large bodies of
electronically stored data collected and organized into ‘corpora’.

1.3.1 Research corpora and software

The material of our research is the manually transcribed speeches of

American environmentalists which were compiled in a small corpus. The size of
the corpus is 46 987 words according to the Microsoft Word Count. The corpus
includes full-length speeches delivered by American environmentalists and other
civic leaders. It is primarily useful for the study of speech structure, the use of
rhetorical devices, and the grammatical features of texts of the written-to-be-
spoken type. The nationalities of speakers are one of the major descriptors in the
corpus. Although the corpus is too small at present to allow any major conclusion
about the impact of nationality on the treatment of specific topics, some tentative
remarks can be made about stylistic and discursive features. The video-recordings
of the speeches can be freely accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=JafpzBom2O8.
The baseline corpus, that is the corpus to which the selected data is compared
with the view of encountering of certain overrepresented semantic as well as
linguistic categories is the American Corpus of contemporary English containing
the samples of discourses manifested in different written and spoken sources.
Our analysis combines a microscopic approach with a macroscopic (Biber
1988) approach; while examining “the characteristics of whole texts”, we also
focus on particular linguistic features (Rayson 2008: 520). Software support for
this method is provided by WMatrix (ibid: 567), an online tool for corpus analysis
and corpus comparison. It allows for corpus annotation using USAS 6 (UCREL
Semantic Analysis System) and CLAWS, as well as for frequency lists and
concordances. The initial semantic tagset for USAS was loosely based on the
 21

Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English (McArthur 1981: 87). It was then

revised and classified according to 21 “discourse fields” (ibid: 89) which branch
out into 232 category labels (Archer 2002: 2). Table 1 shows the 21 “discourse
fields” at the top of the USAS hierarchy. This type of analysis provides several
advantages over simple word analysi. Let us note for the moment that it allows for
multiword expressions such as “phrasal verbs (e.g., stubbed out), noun phrases (e.g.,
riding boots), proper names (e.g., United States of America), true idioms (e.g., living the

life of Riley)” (ibid: 1)to be counted together; it also groups together variants within

a lemma (change, changing, changed), whereas WMatrix doesn’t allow for isolated
lemma frequency counts (Rayson 2008: 89). However, the USAS semantic tagger
still has an error rate of 91%, which means that some of its results should be taken
with caution. Our data suggests that its use for the analysis of metaphors may still
require some adjustments (Koller 2008: 78), and in our opinion, similar
reservations are in order when it is being used as a primary source of quantitative
data. However, in this paper, the semantic tagger is used for confirming or
broadening elements of analysis which were primarily identified thanks to
qualitative and key-word analyses. As such, it is an undeniably reliable tool which
is very likely to be refined still in the future.
Table 1.1
Discourse fields at the top of the USAS hierarch

The definitions of what WMatrix’s semantic tags refer to have actually

evolved from “discourse fields” and “category labels” (Archer 2002: 16) to
 22

“semantic fields” and “semantic domains” (Rayson 2008: 89), to “semantic

concepts” (current version of WMatrix). This paper will use the latter, most recent
term for two reasons. First of all, the changing terminology underlines the
dynamics of a true reflection on semantic taggers and their proper usage; as such,
the term concept seems most accurate for describing the conception and use of
USAS and WMatrix. But most importantly, referring to key concepts instead of key
domains/fields is more in keeping with the definitions offered by cognitive

linguistics in this area. Langacker (1987) describes a concept as a unit of mental

representation; Croft & Clausner summarize the distinction between concept and
domain as follows: “A concept is a mental unit, a domain is the background
knowledge for representing concepts” (Croft 1999: 3). As will become clear in the
rest of the paper, neither WMatrix’s tags nor our analyses refer to basic domains of
cognition, i.e., “domains which are footed in fundamental human bodily
experiences, such as space, time, various sensations, emotions and perceptions, and
certain basic social-interpersonal phenomena”. However, one should keep in mind
that the distinction between a concept and a domain is not etched in stone and that
“he nature of the concept-domain relation is such that any concept can in turn
function as the domain for other concepts” (Rayson 2006: 63). One of WMatrix’s
strongholds is that it allows for what is called keyword analysis, and extends the
method to key grammatical categories and key semantic concepts thanks to the
available taggers (Rayson 2003). Each word/semantic tag/POS tag in the primary
corpus is compared with its equivalent in the baseline/secondary corpus; then the
software evaluates whether the difference between the frequencies in the two
corpora is statistically significant or not and finally reorders the word/tag list
according to the statistical score obtained. Hence the words/tags that display the
most significant differences in terms of frequency are placed at the top of the list
(Rayson 2003). The “positive” keywords/tags in the resulting list occur with
unusual frequency in the primary corpus in comparison with the
baseline/secondary corpus (a “+” sign is then displayed in the table, meaning that
the word/tag is in overuse); the “negative” keywords/tags are on the contrary
 23

unusually infrequent in the primary corpus as opposed to the baseline/secondary

corpus (this is when a “-“ sign occurs in the table, meaning that the word/tag is in
underuse). Comparisons between two sets of data and key word/concept analyses
provide information that a standard frequency list simply cannot yield (Rayson
2008). The words appearing at the very top of a standard frequency list are usually
of no great interest to the ensuing data analysis (Rayson 2008). Furthermore,
Rayson (2008) remarks that while a standard frequency list may lead to fallacious
conclusions regarding some differences in frequencies between two corpora which
are not actually statistically significant, a comparison between two frequency lists
using likelihood-ratio scores (LL) not only includes normalisation as part of the
expected value formula, but also testifies to the relevance of the output. Likelihood
ratio (G2) is calculated from the natural log of the ratio of observed and expected
frequency– in our case, it represent the deviation from the baseline/secondary
corpus for each word/tag in the primary corpus. The null hypothesis is that there is
no significant difference in word frequency between the primary corpus and the
baseline/secondary corpus. As likelihood ratio (G2) and chi-square (χ2) have a
similar distribution (Johnson 2008: 164), especially for large corpora (Rayson
2003), a chi-square table provides the critical p-values for WMatrix’s LL scores.
Table 1.2
Chi-square table of critical p-values at 1 degree of freedom

d.f. P=0.05 P=0.01 P=0.001 P=0.0001

1 3.84 6.63 10.83 15.13

All in all, WMatrix is a useful software for corpus analysis and statistical
comparisons which provides convincing results as far as discourse analysis is
concerned.

1.3.2. Research methodology

 24

The corpus research methodology employed in this paper includes: the Key
word analysis, the concordance lines analysis, the collocational analysis as well as
the semantic domain analysis. The results are interpreted in terms of CDA which
employs the following methodologies: the search for grammatical and lexical
expressions of the key linguistic forms in the text. The analysis of texts is
concerned with the linguistic forms of texts, and the distribution of different
linguistic forms across different types of texts. One might attribute causal effects to
particular linguistic forms (or more plausibly to a strong tendency to select one
form in preference to other alternative forms in a significant body of texts), but
again one has to be cautious and avoid any suggestion that such effects work
mechanically or in a simple, regular way (Fairclough 1999: 65). Fairclough also
employs as a one of the approaches to CDA the Systemic Functional Linguistics
which, a linguistic theory and associated linguistic methods which is profoundly
concerned with the relationship between language and other elements and aspects
of social life (Fairclough 2003: 12). They depend upon meaning and context.
Instead of representing processes which are taking place in the world as processes
(grammatically, in clauses or sentences with verbs), they are represented as entities
(grammatically, through nominalization, i.e. transforming a clause into a nominal
or noun-like entity) (ibid: 67).

Nominalisation, the representation of a process by a noun form rather than

by a verb. Using nominalisation, information about an Actor in a clause, and thus
responsibility for an action, can be removed.
Nominalization is a resource for generalizing, for abstracting from particular
events and series or sets of events, and in that sense it is an irreducible resource in
scientific and technical discourse (Halliday and Martin 1993) as well as
governmental discourse (Lemke 1995). As noted above, such generalization and
abstraction, for instance in the genres of governance, can erase or even suppress
difference. It can also obfuscate agency, and therefore responsibility, and social
divisions. Nominalization is a type of grammatical metaphor which represents
 25

processes as entities by transforming clauses (including verbs) into a type of noun.

Nominalization often entails excluding social agents in the representation of events
(in this case, those who produce). It is a resource for generalizing and abstracting
which is indispensible in, for instance, science, but can also obfuscate agency and
responsibility (Halliday 1994: 78).
The modality of a clause or sentence is the relationship it sets up between
author and representations — what authors commit themselves to in terms of truth
or necessity. Two main types of modality are distinguished, epistemic modality
(modality of probabilities), and deontic modality (modality of necessity and
obligation). In the case of Statements, explicitly modalized forms (marked by
modal verbs such as `may' or other markers) can be seen as intermediate between
categorical Assertion and Denial, and they register varying degrees of commitment
to truth or necessity (Fairclough 1995: 78).

Conclusions to Chapter One

 26

1. In this chapter we discussed the discourse as a form of social practice

focusing on different approaches to the discourse study. We singled out the
Critical Discourse Analysis as the key methodology of our research.
2. We also focused on the key concepts in the environmental discourse, namely
the concepts of NATURALNESS, NATURE, EARTH.
3. We described the corpus-based approaches to public speeches as well as the
research corpora and software and research methodology employed.
 27

CHAPTER TWO
REFRAIMING KEY CONCEPTS IN THE AMERICAN
ENVIRONMENTAL DISCOURSE

This chapter focuses on the linguistic representation of the key concepts in the
text. It singles out lexical expressions such as words and word combinations which
represent the key concepts in the speeches under analysis and suggest conceptual
metaphors as well as grammatical means pointing to the concepts of interest - such
as nominalization and modality, both deontic and epistemic. It also focuses on the
reframing strategies employed in the speeches of American environmentalists and
there effects on the structure of the conceptual sphere of SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT.

2.1. Linguistic expression of key concepts in the environmental discourse

Each concept being a unit of mental representation has its linguistic
manifestation. In this subchapter we will focus on the linguistic expression of key
concepts encountered in the specialized self-made corpus of speeches by the
American environmentalists on the subject matter of sustainable development.
Following Fairclough (1989: 111-112), metaphor, nominalization and modality
will be discussed with respect to the choices that the environmentalists have made
in their speeches and the discourse types these speeches are drawing upon.
2.1.1. Lexical expression
As Charteris Black points out metaphor has both linguistic and cognitive
aspects; it is concerned with the relationship between linguistic forms and
underlying mental representation (Black 2004: 3). He adds that the fact that
metaphor is persuasive it is frequently employed discursively in rhetorical and
argumentative language such as political speeches (ibid: 7).
As our research is corpus-based and the data was collected and transcribed
manually, we could encounter the words and phrases used in particular contexts
 28

which could be selected as the lexical representation of the conceptual metaphors

which incentivized us to conduct further research.
As the starting point of our search for the conceptual metaphors which Black
describes as “the abstract thoughts underlying metaphors” (ibid: 5) we focused on
the analysis of words and phrases which we thought were the manifestation of
what Black describes as “the linguistic choice” which is involved in the
development of conceptual framework (ibid: 8-9). That way we could pursue our
search for the Key Concepts in the American sustainability discourse.

The notion of constitution and legal rights as the basis for democratic freedom
and equality has also been made prominent by the employment of conceptual
metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson 2006: 127) NATION IS FAMILY and AMERICA IS A

MORAL LEADER. The conceptual metaphor NATION IS FAMILY is realized through

the employment of one of the powerful endorsing images, those of the Founding
fathers which have been proved to bear unalienable authority and triggering some
strong feelings of partisanship in the target audience’s perception. If we take the
hypothesis concerning the nation treated as a family we could assume that the
metaphorical usage of the term fathers in the collocation founding fathers is loaded
both as a tool of endorsement and a symbol of strong partisanship. The
concordance analysis of the collocation would be of great significance while
encountering the metaphor(see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1
Extract from the concordance table for fathers in SCSAE
 29

The closer analysis of the concordance lines has showed that the collocation
founding fathers is used mostly with the first person possessive pronoun our which
suggests the identification and partisanship as well as unification of the speaker
and the target audience which creates a certain cognitive platform unifying the
speaker and the audience. The use of this term looks like a discursive strategy on
the behalf of the speakers which appear to be speaking for and with the people of
America, thereby implicitly labeling their discourse as the hegemonic one
activating the frames which rest on partisanship (see Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Extract from the concordance table for our founding fathers in SCSAE

In our pursuit of the Key Concepts in the text under analysis we have
examined the overrepresented semantic categories in the small corpus as compared
to the baseline corpus. The software processed material reveals the overused
conceptual categories of getting and possession as well as the category of allowed.
According to Stubbs the relation not between individual words but between a
lemma and a word-form and a set of semantically related words related to the
concept of collocation allows to broaden the search from the single word to the
conceptual category which encompasses the issue (Stubbs 1998: 73). With this in
mind we decided to conduct the search for collocations of the lemma private*.
The collocates of lemma private* as seen from Table 2.1 are: private property,
private rights, private ownership, private thoughts, private land, private freedom.
Taking into account the Stubb’s definition of the collocational analysis we can
hypothesize about the co-occurrence in the text under analysis of the semantic
catefories of getting and possession represented by the lemma private with those
 30

suggesting the concept of DOMINANCE suggested by such collocates as ownership,

land as well as the concept of EQUALITY: freedom, rights.
Table 2.1
Corpus collocational analysis of the search word private

One of the strongholds of the Wmatrix software is that it allows the researcher
to closely examine the revealed data selected with the view of encountering certain
phenomena and approach the linguistic units for closer further research at all
levels. Looking through the revealed concordance lines the one containing the
collocations founding fathers and private property stands out as an interesting
example for encountering the Key Concepts.
Let us closely examine the concordance line 14 which contains both the
collocation founding fathers as well as the collocation private property:
This is the philosophy of the United Nations - is that private property leads to
tyranny. What we know and the founding fathers knew and what we know that the
private property was the essence of liberty.

There is a direct interrelation between two concepts: EQUALITY(suggested by the

employment in the text under analysis of the semantic categories of freedom) and
DOMINANCE(which is represented by the semantic category of possession,
foregrounding the property as rights, rights being means of power) which are
 31

linked through the means of endorsement(using the symbolic strong characters of

the founding fathers).
The above–illustrated example has incentivized us to examine closely the
word tyranny which suggests the concept of INEQUALITY what it is associated
with. The results are the following (see Figure 2.3):

Figure 2.3. Concordance of tyranny in SCSAE

The next step would be to analyze the linguistic environment in which the word
occurs with the aim of finding the traces of neighboring concepts. After a thorough
analysis of the concordance lines containing the search term we have found some
traces of the semantic category of control, namely the frequent usage of the word
government has been observed (see Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4. A concordance analysis of tyranny in SCSAE

The following word combinations spotted in the process of the corpus

compilation have been spotted : government intrusion, government occupied,
interference of government, government intervention.
We have hypothesized that the conceptual metaphor GOVERNMENT IS AN

INTRUDER is being implemented in the text. Having the enemy presupposes

 32

fighting: attacking as well as protecting actions. Let us examine the text sample
with the view of the abovementioned action-related words. The closer look at the
concordance lines of the word government has revealed the traces of the
conceptual metaphor GOVERNMENT IS AN INTRUDER (see Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.5. A concordance analysis of government

Further analysis has revealed the data contributing to the personification of

government as a tyrant. Personification is employed here as means of metaphorical
representation of the government as a dictator and government policies as unfair
and having the hidden agenda aimed at harming the well-being of the citizens. The
depicting of the government as the enemy presupposes call for action.
In Figure 2.6., − the concordance lines containing the action-initiating
collocates which aim to evoke certain emotional reaction as well contribute to the
overall expression and conceptual metaphor of LIFE IS A BATTLEFIELD.
 33

Figure 2.6: Concordances of fight, battle

The word battle is used in combination with liberty, freedom, justice,

American dream. Such word combinations create the conflicting environment
which is a fruitful ground for emerging of the concept of INEQUALITY which
presupposes certain infringements on rights and liberties and limitation in freedom.
Another concordances suggesting the war-metaphors are presented in the
Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7. A concordance analysis of war in SCSAE

The notion of deception and secrecy also contributes to the overall

representation of government as enemy and government as having hidden agenda
revealing the traces of one of the hegemonic discourses of conspiracy theory.
Being already ideologically loaded and having several connotations the word
agenda as stated in the longman dictionary of contemporary English presupposes
the official agreement to carry out certain actions. The word official presupposes
 34

some kind of involvement of power institutions, thus there is a strong implication

concerning the government indicating the concept of DOMINANCE. Let us examine
the key-word agenda and its collocates (Figure 2.8).:

Figure 2.8 Concordance of agenda in SCSAE

One of the concordances reveals the word-combination implementing agenda.
The Longman dictionary of contemporary English gives the following definition of
the verb to implement - to put a plan or an agreement into effect.

Figure 2.9 Concordance of implement in SCSAE

The verb to implement presupposes certain prior agreement. That’s where we can
trace the connotations of secrecy and that of the conspiracy theory discourse. The
above-mentioned notions of secrecy and knowledge-deprivation can suggest the
conceptual metaphor of KNOWLEDGE IS POWER which is another reference to the
concept of DOMINANCE. In the cases described above it is apparent that the people
 35

are deprived of knowledge and thus deprived of power. The dual relationship
between the concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY could be observed
introducing the concept of INEQUALITY through eliminating of the concept of
DOMINANCE.

As we have discovered earlier in the data analyzed there is a salient

collocation property rights. The word rights suggests the concept of EQUALITY as
well as DOMINANCE. We made an attempt to find and analyze the interrelations
between the two conceptual categories, that is liberty and threat. We used the
key-word protect and traced its concordances aiming to spot some interrelations
(see Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.10 A concordance analysis of protect

The word protect belongs to the semantic category of threat. It occurs with
the words belong, liberty, right, property which as we have earlier established
indicate the concepts of DOMINANCE and EQUALITY.
The existing belief in lawfulness and inalienability of constitutional rights is
being deprived of its prior dominant feature – that is irrevocable strong protective
 36

means of social justice. It is no longer solid and unflinching it is being violated

and has become an object of infringement (see Figure 2.11).

Figure 2.11 A concordance of infringe

The lemma infring* collocates with rights, property rights and government(s the
agent). The co-occurrence of the semantic fields the abovementioned words belong
to and its effect are discussed further on in this chapter.

2.1.2. Grammatical Expression

The CDA pioneer N. Fairclough points out that the analysis of texts in terms
of CDA is concerned with the linguistic forms of texts, and the distribution of
different linguistic forms across different types of texts. He argues that one might
attribute causal effects to particular linguistic forms (or more plausibly to a strong
tendency to select one form in preference to other alternative forms in a significant
body of texts.) (Fairclough 1999: 45).
Earlier in this chapter the lexical indicators of the conceptual metaphor
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER were traced. Further analysis has revealed the reverse
representation of the metaphor in the text indicating the concept of INEQUALITY

suggested by lexical items indicating the deprivation of knowledge, that is the

deprivation of power.
Among the grammatical representations of the concept of INEQUALITY

encountered following the search pattern suggested earlier are the combinations
 37

of contracted forms of auxiliary do with particle not conveying negation and the
knowledge ad cognition-related verbs as in Figure 2.12.

Figure 2.12 A concordance analysis of know and realize

It is clearly observed that the concept of INEQUALITY and being subjected to

manipulation is employed here. Let us consider the following results of the study
which illustrate the grammatical construction of Passive Voice aimed at
representing of the people as the subjects of manipulation and indoctrination by
putting them as objects in the grammatical structure of the sentences as in Figure
2.13 :

Figure 2.13 A concordance analysis of we and children

Such use of the passive voice suggests that people and even more precious
characters – their children have become the objects of some deliberate policies and
propaganda:
 38

Figure 2.14 A concordance analysis of propaganda

It also presupposes the absence of an agent making it somewhat vague. The
use of Present Continuous tense suggests the urgency and continuity of an issue
marking it as a process which is immanent having great ideological impact on the
society. Modality will be seen in terms of what authors commit themselves to,
with respect to what is true and what is necessary. The assumption of N.
Fairclough is that what people commit themselves to in texts is an important part
of how they identify themselves, the texturing of identities. Our primary aim is to
focus on the Key Concepts represented by means of modality.
As it has already been mentioned, the Wmatrix software has revealed that
along with overrepresented semantic category of green issues there is an
overrepresented semantic category of allowed, government which presuppose the
overused word content bearing the meaning of power relations and thus suggesting
the concept of DOMINANCE(see Appendix 1).
Fairclough points out that there are multiple types of modality. We focused on
the archetypal markers of modality, that is on modal verbs. First let us focus on
the epistemic modality which is defined by Fairclough as knowledge exchange.
Fairclough distinguishes 4 major speech functions: two associated with knowledge
exchanges (statement/question) and two associated with activity exchanges
(demand/offer). Epistemic modality presupposes the presence of statements and
questions.
 39

Figure 2.15 Concordance of will

First, we conducted the search for statements, namely predictions. We have

used the modal verb will as a key word in our search for the data. The data analysis
has revealed 181 occurrences of will. Thus it can be stated that the authors aim to
shape their identities as visionaries who are able to foresee certain events and make
predictions. Let us further compare the frequency value of will in comparison with
other modal verbs encountered. Wmatrix allows to conduct the search for parts of
speech. It also includes contractions and distinguishes modal catenative and modal
auxiliary verbs which makes the search more accurate. There are 597 cases of
usage of modal verbs(see Figure 2.16).

Figure 2.16 Concordance of the data search for modal auxiliary verbs in the text

Modal auxiliary will constitutes about 30.3 % of the whole data containing modal
auxiliaries.
 40

Figure 2.17 A concordance analysis of will be

It can be concluded that will is of relatively high frequency value which proves
our earlier statement that the producers aim to create certain identity, namely they
pose themselves as visionaries, thus adding authority and forcefulness to their
statements. Further analysis of the collocations containing will has shown that it is
frequently used with words falling under the semantic category of constraint.
Another observation that we made is that will in the abovementioned cases
collocates with structures containing passive voice:
 41

Figure 2.18 A concordance of will + passive voice + CONSTRAINT

Having examined the strong collocates of the auxiliary will we have found out that
the strongest one of them is the lemma become.

Table 2.2
A collocational analysis of will

From Table 2.2 it is clear that will strongly collocates with become in the text
sample under analysis. The word become falls into the overrepresented semantic
category of change(see Appendix 1).
 42

Figure 2.19 Concordance of become

The analysis has revealed that the modal verb will strongly collocates with
become which in turn represents the semantic category of change. As seen in
Figure 6 the semantic category of change is marked A2.1(+indicates the
overrepresentation in comparison with the baseline corpus). The lemma become
occupies the second position in the list of items arranged by frequency value after
the lemma development.

Table 2.3

The items belonging to the semantic domain change sorted by frequency

Let us further analyze the overrepresented semantic domain of change and its
means by which the concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY are suggested. As
we have already proved the conceptual category of change is intertwined with that
of future. Change presupposes positive connotation. Growth is frequently
associated with change. The data analysis of the text sample on the contrary shows
the words indicating change as negative process. There are several of them which
top the list as shown in Figure 6. Some of them relate directly to the concepts
indicating DOMINANCE, precisely, the following ones: manipulation,
 43

transformation. The lexical item transformation implies the agent of the action
having to do with outside influences which is in itself the manifestation of
DOMINANCE. Let us further focus on cases of epistemic modality in the text sample
under analysis. There have been encountered 161 cases of using of the auxiliary
can which implies the ability, thus power and as a result DOMINANCE. Let us take a
closer look at the concordance lines:

Figure 2.20 A concordance analysis of can

There is an explicit case which illustrates the manifestation of the concept of

DOMINANCE in the text sample under analysis.

Figure 2.21 Concordance lines of can + passive voice

As shown in figure 9 the modal verb which implies the meaning of

dominance takes part in shaping the concept of INEQUALITY realized through
grammatical representation by passive voice. The term constitution in the
American discourse is often associated with that of unalienable rights and equality.
It presupposes certain power and authority and thus DOMINANCE. In this very case
it indicates INEQUALITY. The term can bears strong epistemic significance.
 44

Figure 2.22 A concordance analysis of the auxiliary can

Another type of speech act associated with knowledge exchange used to

examine for cases of modality are questions. Fairclough points out that through
modalized questions the author elicits the other’s commitment to truth. The data
analysis has revealed the following results:

Figure 2.23 Concordance lines containing questions with can

Taking into account the nature of the data under analysis, that is public
speeches we may conclude that the questions in this cases do not presuppose a
response and thus may be defined as rhetorical. They are used to elicit not the
response of the recipients but their emotion – commitment to truth as in the cases
shown above.
 45

F
igure 2.24 Concordance lines of the term can

Further analysis of the concordance lines containing can has revealed the
frequent usage of the personal pronoun I enhancing the speaker’s personal
involvement and thus shaping their personal identity as capable of certain action.
In line 25(see Figure 10) it is clear that the producer shapes their identity as
capable of producing certain informationaly-loaded speech act. Line 22 indicates
the producer’s shaping themselves as the source powerful enough to influence the
audience’s opinion.

Can also collocates with personal pronoun you as well as the notional verb
see. In Figure 11 it is clear that the conceptual metaphor seeing is understanding is
employed

Figure 2.25 Concordance lines of the auxiliary can

Another interesting observation is the frequent usage of the auxiliary can in

its primary meaning – that is ability with the personal pronoun we. It has been
noted before that employing of the personal pronoun we contributes to the
identification of the speaker with the audience. In Figure 2.22 we can observe that
the pronoun we in combination with the modal verb can produces the strong effect
in shaping the identities. Here the modal verb can bearing the meaning of ability
 46

not only contributes to the shaping of the identity of the speaker but also
contributes to the shaping of identities of the target audience as the pronoun we
both generalizes the agents of the implied action as well as comprises both the
producer and the recipients. It is also important to point out that the verbs
following the construction we+can are action-related, some of them bearing the
traces of the concept of DOMINANCE. The action-related verbs are: do, follow,
keep, make, use, call, commit, hold, get. The one relating to the concept of
dominance: allow(see Figure 2.22).

2.2 Reframing strategies in speeches of American environmentalists

In the previous subchapters we illustrated the concepts of DOMINANCE and

EQUALITY being suggested by the salient collocation property rights. In this
subchapter we will illustrate the alteration of the conceptual frame “rights” by
demonstrating the following reframing strategies encountered in the text:
 deliberate focus on one of the considerations;
 increased accessibility of the considerations through the repetition;
In order for reframing to occur a given consideration needs to be stored in the
memory to be available for retrieval and use. In addition to being available the
consideration must be accessible meaning its activation potential must exceed a
certain threshold so that the consideration is retrieved from long-term memory.
One way in which accessibility increases is through regular or recent exposure to
the communicative frame emphasizing the consideration. Considerations become
accessible through a passive or unconscious process. In this chapter we attempt to
illustrate the means by which a deliberate framing effect is produced through
creating competitive context consisting of strong frames which employ the
concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY.
Bybee emphasizes the importance of the mind’s response to repetition from a
grammatical and lexical point of view. She argues that language “does not have
structure a priori, but rather the apparent structure emerges from the repetition of
 47

many local events (in this case speech events)”. Similarly, repetition is a powerful
tool in political discourse, especially when reframing is at stake. George Lakoff
argues that it actually has the power to change brain patterns. According to
neuroscientists, “when a sentence is repeated several times, the neural circuits that
compute its meaning are activated repeatedly in the brain. Synapses connecting the
neurons in the circuits get stronger and circuits may become permanent”. Thus, it
can be concluded that throughout the whole text sample under analysis the
technique of evoking and repetition of a strong frame suggesting the associative
relations between the notions of property and rights is applied in order to:

a. Evoke an emotional response to the problem

b. Enhance the perceived applicability of the frame to affect an individual’s
opinion
c. Foreground the notion of possession as relating to the concept of
DOMINANCE

As the Wmatrix allows the researcher to analyze the data with view of the
overrepresented semantic categories as compared to the baseline corpus, they have
become the starting point of our analysis of the material aiming to encounter the
reframing strategies and genuine conceptual new formations designed to influence
the salient prosodies of the sustainability discourse.

All these collocations trigger individual motivations rooted in the strong

frames which rest on symbols. In the abovementioned examples it is clear that
land, ownership, private freedom are of symbolic nature and are used to evoke
certain associations and therefore some strong opinions. One of the collocations
has particularly drawn our attention, that is private property. Both terms are from
completely different although equally overrepresented semantic categories. The
fact that they have constituted a collocation has proved that there is an interrelation
between two semantic categories, that is the semantic category of GETTING AND

POSSESSION and that ALLOWED suggesting the concepts of DOMINANCE and

 48

INEQUALITY. Let us closely analyze the concordance lines containing lexical items
from the abovementioned two semantic categories.

Figure 2.26 A concordance analysis of the collocation property rights

The concordance analysis has revealed astounding statistical data. Using the
1st level to the right span considering the grammatical nature of the searched
item(that is a noun) we have found that two lexical items constituting the
collocation evoke some strong frames and rest on some of the conventional
metaphors strongly embedded in the target audience’s consciousness. We can
actually illustrate the deliberate repetition of the patterns constituting the frame.
The major premise of framing theory is that an issue can be viewed from a variety
of perspectives and be construed as having implications for multiple values or
considerations. The frame discovered applies to strong frames and rests on
ideology. Let us examine the constitutive elements of the frame. A more precise
definition of framing starts with a conventional expectancy value model of an
individual’s attitude. An individual forms their attitude on the basis of
considerations. The repetition of patterns “property rights” evokes a number of
considerations (see Figure 2.27):
 49

Consideration 2:
property is means
of
survival=freedom
Consideration 3:
Consideration 1: freedom is a
property is constitutional right
possession
.......
Frame:
private
property is a
guarantee of
constitutional
liberties

Figure 2.27 The frame “rights”

We may conclude that the frame “rights” is being altered in order to add
saliency to one of its considerations – property. The reframing could be viewed as
a strategy employed for enhancing of the notion of property as a constitutional
rights with the aim of creating the competitive environment putting the notions
relating to the semantic category of green issues as the competing component.
 50

Conclusions to Chapter Two

1. In this chapter we analyzed the key concepts in the American environmental

discourse. In the first subchapter we focused on the linguistic expression of key
concepts, namely their lexical and grammatical expression.
2. Based of a key word analysis of relative frequencies of lexical units in the
specialized corpus as compared to the reference corpus, as well as their
concordance analysis and collocational analysis we suggest that key concepts
employed in the speeches of American environmentalists fall into several
conceptual metaphor. In particular, we extracted the following conceptual
metaphors: NATION IS FAMILY (represented by the endorsing image conveyed by
the salient collocation founding fathers), LIFE IS A BATTLEFIELD, and GOVERNMENT
IS AN INTRUDER.

4. Among the grammatical means the quest for nominalization was conducted
revealing the frequent use of the word-form sustainability used for two purposes
 To obscure agency;
 To eliminate the word development bearing strong positive connotation from
the salient collocation sustainable development;
5. The cases of deontic and epistemic modality were encountered and analyzed.
The text was analyzed with the view of modal verb will. There were revealed 116
cases of use. On the basis of concordance lines analysis we hypothesized that the
environmentalists aim to create certain identity, namely they pose themselves as
visionaries, thus adding authority and forcefulness to their statements. Further
analysis of the collocations containing will has shown that it is frequently used
with words falling under the semantic category of ‘constraint’ suggesting the
concept of INEQUALITY.
6. Further focusing on the cases with modal verb can we have encountered the
strong collocation we can, which presupposes the concept of DOMINANCE. The
abovementioned linguistic expressions have given us grounds to argue that the
 51

concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY are consistently activated in the speeches

under analysis.
7. Our further step was to analyze the frames suggested by the linguistic
expressions, the most salient of them being the frame “rights”. We have
encountered the following reframing strategies: the repetition of patterns
constituting the frame as means of enhancing its applicability and a deliberate
focus on one of the considerations constituting the frame.
 52

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

The research that has been conducted in this master’s thesis deals with the
concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY in the speeches of American
environmentalists which have been chosen as a manifestation of the sustainability
discourse.
The sustainability discourse as an outbreak of the environmental discourse
provides a fruitful ground for the Critical Discourse Analysis which is concerned
with the distribution of power within the society of new capitalism (Fairclough
2001:13).
By tracing the concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY in the speeches of
American environmentalists we hypothesized about the strategic initiatives lying
within the discourse generated by certain interest groups (Lemmens 2007: 16).
In order to conduct a valid research a specialized corpus of the speeches of
American environmentalists has been compiled for corpus and CDA research
purposes. The collected data was analyzed using the computer software designed
for corpus research – Wmatrix (http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/WMatrix/).
Additionally, the American corpus of contemporary English was used as a
reference corpus with the view of specificity of data analyzed aiming to single out
tendencies which are characteristic primarily of American linguistic environment.
We worked under the assumption that the American corpus of contemporary
English mirrors the hegemonic discourses within the nation (Van Dijk 2001: 15).
Using the software we analyzed the data in terms of overrepresented semantic
categories as compared to the reference corpus. The following overrepresented
semantic categories were discovered: ALLOWED, BELONGING TO A GROUP,

CHANGE, GETTING AND POSSESSION, GOVERNMENT, GREEN ISSUES, CONSTRAINT,

NO CONSTRAINT, NUMBERS, PEOPLE.

The overrepresented semantic category of GREEN ISSUES has proven our initial
hypothesis of the manifestation of the environmental discourse in the data under
analysis. The revealed overrepresented categories ALLOWED, GOVERNMENT,
 53

CONSTRAINT, GETTING AND POSSESSION were the starting point for our search of
linguistic means representing the concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY which
was our prior incentive given the nature and origin of the text under analysis.
Among the linguistic means used to construe the text suggesting the concepts
of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY were the ones applying to different research
methodologies used in linguistic discourse research. The data was analyzed by
means of Systemic Functional Linguistics searching for nominalization and
modality as means of linguistic representation of notions relating to both
environmental and sustainability discourses.
Further data analysis was carried out by means of computer software
AntConc which allowed us to trace the concordance lines of lemmas applying to
the semantic categories overrepresented and suggesting the concepts of
DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY as well as to sort them according to their most
frequent collocates. The results of the search incentivized us to hypothesize about
phenomena in text belonging to the field of cognitive linguistics. We put forth the
suggestion underpinned by key-word and concordance analysis research that the
following conceptual metaphors were present in the corpus: AMERICA IS A

MORAL LEADER, NATION IS A FAMILY and LIFE IS A BATTLEFIELD (Lakoff 1999:

178). The hypothesis made in the paper is that the abovementioned metaphors
trigger strong frames which rest on ideology and partisanship (Chong and
Druckman 2005:19) and are being put in the competitive environment with the
notions belonging and originating in the environmental and as in its outbreak – the
sustainability discourse the prominent manifestation of which was suggested by the
key-word analysis conducted as the starting point of the research.
All in all it could be suggested that the strategic initiatives of certain interest
groups realized by the written-to-be-spoken text are employed for two purposes:

 to suggest the concepts of DOMINANCE and INEQUALITY in the American

sustainability discourse as means of influencing the public opinion;
 to reframe the American sustainability discourse;
 54

SOFTWARE

1. AntConc 3.2.4 Concordance Program [Electronic resource]. – Mode of

access: http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html#antconc

2.WMatrix [Electronic Resource]. – Mode of access:

http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/WMatrix/
 55

LITERATURE CITED

1. Abram, David. The spell of the sensuous. Perception and language in a

more-than-human world. – New York: Pantheon Books, 1996 – 196p.
2. Aijmer, Karin. Altenberg, Bengt. English Corpus Linguistics: Study in
honour of Jan Startvik. – London: Longman London and New York, 1991 –
338p.
3. Aijmer, Karin. Altenberg, Bengt. Johansson, Mats. Languages in contrast:
Papers from a symposium on Text-based cross-linguistic Studies Lund 4-5
March 1994. – Lund: Lund University Press, 1996 – 235p.
4. Archer, D., A. Wilson & P. Rayson 2002. “Introduction to the USAS
category system”. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/usas/usas%20guide.pdf.
5. Baker, Paul. Using corpora in discourse analysis. – London: Continuum,
2005 – 198p.
6. Barker, Chris. Galasinski, Dariusz. Cultural studies and discourse analysis: a
dialogue on language and identity. – London: Sage Publications, 2001 –
192p.
7. Beech M. & K. Hickson 2007. Labour’s thinkers : the intellectual roots of
Labour from Tawney to Gordon Brown,International library of political
studies 13. London: Tauris Academic Studies.
8. Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
9. Bybee, J. 2006. “From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition”.
Language, Volume 82: 711-733.
10.Buell, Lawrence. The future of environmental criticism: environmental crisis
and literary imagination. – Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005 – 195p.
11.Charteris-Black, Jonathan. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis.
– New York: Palgrave macmillan, 2004 – 263p.
 56

12.Chongand Dennis, Druckman N. James. « Framing theory». – Annual review

on political science Volume#10 2007: 103-126.
13.Coulson, S. & T. Oakley. 2006. “Purple persuasion: deliberative rhetoric and
conceptual blending”. In Luchjenbroers (ed.) Cognitive linguistics
investigations: across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries.
Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
14.Coulson, S. & T. Oakley. 2000. “Blending Basics”. Cognitive Linguistics
11: 175-196.
15.Croft, W. & T. Clausner. 1999. “Domains and image schemas”, in Cognitive
linguistics 10-1: 1-31.
16. Cuyckens, Hubert. Dirven, Rene. Cognitive approaches to lexical
semantics. – Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003 – 495p.
17.Dryzek, John S. The politics of the earth. – Oxford: Oxford university press,
2005 – 239p.
18.Dijk, Teun A. van. Discourse and power. – New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2008 – 308p.
19.Dijk, Teun A. van. Ideology and discourse: a multidisciplinary introduction.
– Barselona: Ariel, 2003 – 118p.
20.Dijk, Teun A. van. Context models in discourse processing. – Amsterdam.
21.Dijk, Teun A. van. “Discourse and manipulation”. Discourse and society.
Volume 17(2): 359 – 383.
22.Dijk, Teun A. van. “Discourse semantics and ideology”. Discourse and
society. Volume 6(2): 2007-289.
23.Fairclough, Norman. Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social
research. – London: Routledge, 2003 – 191p.
24.Fairclough, Norman. Textual analysis for social research. – London:
Routledge: 2003.
25.Gee, James Paul. An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method.
– New York: Routledge, 2011 – 218p.
 57

26.Gonzales-Marquez, Monica. Mittelberg, Irene. Coulson, Seana. Spivey, J.

Michael. Methods in cognitive linguistics. – Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Jonh
Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007 – 453p.
27.Habermas, Jürgen. On the pragmatics of communication. –
Cambridge/Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1998 – 454p.
28.Jorgensen, Marianne. Phillips, Louise J. Discourse analysis as theory and
method. – London: Sage Publications, 2002 – 229p.
29.Lakoff, George. Don’t think of an elephant! – New York: Chelsea Green,
2007 – 201p.
30.Lakoff, George. Johnson, Mark. «Conceptual metaphor in everyday
language».- The journal of philosophy. Volume # 77, 1989.
31.Lemmens, Maarten. Emilie L’Hote. «Reframing treason: metaphors of
change and progress in new labour discourse». – Cognitive texts. Volume#3,
2009.
32.Lindquist, Hans. Corpus linguistics and the description of English. -
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009 – 219p.
33.McEnery, Tony. Wilson, Andrew. Corpus Linguistics. An
Introduction(second edition). – Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
2001 – 235p.
34.Milton, Kay. Loving nature. Towards an ecology of emotion. - London and
New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2002 – 182p.
35.Mühlhäusler, Peter. Language of environment. Environment of language. –
London: Battlebridge publications , 2003 – 228p.
36.Okulska, Urszula. Cap, Piotr. Perspectives in politics and discourse. –
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company, 2010 –
413p.
37.Pishwa, Hanna. Language and the social cognition. Expression of the social
mind. – Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter Berlin New York, 2009 –
477p.
 58

38.Smith S., Carlota. Modes of discourse: the local structure of texts. –

Cambridge: Cambridge university press: 1997: 320p. Langacker, R. W. 1987.
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
39.Rayson, P. 2009. Wmatrix: a web-based corpus processing environment:
http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/
40.Rayson, P. 2008. “From key words to key semantic domains”. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13: 519-549.
41.Rayson, P. 2003. Matrix: A Statistical Method and Software Tool for
Linguistic Analysis Through Corpus Comparison. University of Lancaster:
Unpublished PhD Thesis.
42.Tallmadge, John. Herrington, Henry. Reading under the sign of nature: New
essays in ecocriticism. Salt Lake city: The university of Utah Press, 2000 –
349p.
43.Weiss, Gilbert. Wodak, Ruth. Critical discourse analysis: theory and
interdisciplinarity. – New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003 – 321p.
44.Wennerstrom, Ann. The music of everyday speech: prosody and discourse
analysis. – Oxford: Oxford university press, 2001 – 317p.
45.Widdowson, H. G. Text, context, pretext. – Malden: Blackwell Publishing,
2004 – 185p.
46.Wodak, Ruth. Meyer, Michael. Methods of critical discourse analysis. –
London: Sage, 2009 – 199p.
47.Zienkowsky, Jan. Östman, Jan-Ola. Verschueren, Jef. Discursive
pragmatics. – Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995 – 307p.
48.Чернявская В.Е. Дискурс власти и власть дискурса: проблемы речевого
воздействия. – Москва: Наука, 2006 – 128с.
 59

APPENDICES
 60

Appendix A

The major conceptual domains

Allowed
Alive

Belonging_to_a_group
Change
Business:_Generally Cheap Cheap

Closed;_Hiding/Hidden Discourse_Bin
Education_in_general Entire;_maximum Ethical
Evaluation:_Authentic Evaluation:_True Evaluation:_Good Existing
Evaluation:_Good

General_ethics General_actions_/_making

Geographical_terms
Getting_and_possession
Government Green_issues
Helping If In_power Law_and_order Lawful Learning
Life_and_living_things
Mental_object:_Conceptual_object
Mental_object:_Means,_method Money:_Affluence
No_constraint No_obligation_or_necessity Non-
governmental Numbers People Places
Politics Pronouns Psychological_Actions,_States_And_Processes
Quantities:_many/much Residence Size:_Big Spacious Spending_and_money_loss
Strong_obligation_or_necessity
Success_and_failure Time:_Beginning

Time:_Present;_simultaneous
Time:_Future Time:_Beginning Understanding Using Wanted
61
62