Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This two-part article suggests ways in which elements of antagonistic discourses of the environment might be combined in a hybrid, innovative discourse that appeals to a broad section of the public while advocating for more environmentally sustainable practices in industry. It proposes an enhanced Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA) that not only identifies points of fissure in the hegemonic discourse but also seeks points of convergence that can be articulated with in a hybrid, counter-hegemonic discourse that maximizes its potential for uptake while destabilizing the prevailing discourses at precisely the fissure points identified. Part I explores the theoretical grounding for an enhanced PDA, introduces the research method and then, based on Stibbe (2016), makes an eco-discourse analysis of discourses by Shell Oil Company (SOC), with a focus on their discourse semantic patterns, showcasing how hegemonic groups employ discourse strategies to serve their interests and what ecological effects such discourses may produce. In Part II (Chen et al. 2021), a comparative analysis is conducted on the SOC discourses and the Greenpeace discourses. As well as highlighting the points of antagonism between the two discourses, it attempts to seek out points of convergence between progressive positions in the discourses. Part II also explores the potential fissures in the hegemonic order and discusses the of alternative discourses thereupon. It is argued that an enhanced PDA which focuses on solutions rather than problems and collaboration rather than resistance forms a route for positive and interventionist orientations to discourse that promote social change.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adams, Carol J. and Lori Gruen
    2014Ecofeminism: Feminist Intersections with Other Animals and the Earth. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander, Richard
    2009Framing Discourse on the Environment: A Critical Discourse Approach. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Paul
    2006Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartlett, Tom
    2012Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change: Contextualising Positive Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203109373
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203109373 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2018 Positive Discourse Analysis. In: The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, John Flowerdew and John E. Richardson (eds), 133–47. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bednarek, Monika and Helen Caple
    2010 Playing with Environmental Stories in the News – Good or Bad Practice?Discourse & Communication4(1): 5–31. 10.1177/1750481309351206
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481309351206 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berry, Thomas
    1988The Dream of the Earth. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Butler, Judith
    1992 Contingent Foundations. In: Feminists Theorize the Political, Judith Butler and Joan Scott (eds), 3–21. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, Wenge
    2021 Drilling for Fissures and Exploiting Common Ground in the Discourse of Oil Production: An Enhanced Eco-Discourse Analysis, Part 2. Pragmatics & Society12, 2. (to appear) 10.1075/ps.20033.che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20033.che [Google Scholar]
  10. Chouliaraki, Lilie and Norman Fairclough
    1999Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cox, Robert
    2012Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Devauld, Christopher and Lelia Green
    2010 “Don’t Throw Anything Away!” Greenwashing in Public Relations. In: Proceedings of ANZCA: Media, Democracy and Change. (Australia. Australia and New Zealand Communication Association), 1–12. Canberra: Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fairclough, Norman
    1992Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fill, Alwin and Peter Mühlhäusler
    2001The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology, and Environment. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fisher, Andy and David Abram
    2013Radical Ecopsychology: Psychology in the Service of Life. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Glynos, Jason and David Howarth
    2007Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203934753
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203934753 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goatly, Andrew
    1996 Green Grammar and Grammatical Metaphor, or Language and the Myth of Power, or Metaphors We Die by. Journal of Pragmatics25 (4):537–60. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00057‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00057-7 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2002 The Representation of Nature on the BBC World Service. Text22 (1):1–27. 10.1515/text.2002.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Grundman, Reiner and Ramesh Krishnamurthy
    2010 The Discourse of Climate Change: A Corpus-based Approach. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines4(2):125–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grundman, Reiner and Mike Scott
    2014 Disputed Climate Science in the Media: Do Countries Matter?Public Understanding of Science23(2): 220–35. 10.1177/0963662512467732
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512467732 [Google Scholar]
  21. Haig, Edward
    2001 A Study of the Application of Critical Discourse Analysis to Ecolinguistics and the Teaching of Eco-theory. Studies in Language and Culture22(2): 205–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1990/2001 New Ways of Meaning: The Challenge to Applied Linguistics. In: The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology, and Environment, Alwin Fill and Peter Mühlhäusler (eds), 175–202. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Haugen, Einar Ingvald
    1972The Ecology of Language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hughes, Jessica
    2018 Progressing Positive Discourse Analysis and/ in Critical Discourse Studies: Reconstructing Resistance through Progressive Discourse Analysis. Review of Communication18 (3): 193–211. 10.1080/15358593.2018.1479880
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2018.1479880 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jepson, Paul
    2005 Governance and Accountability of Environmental NGOs Environmental Science & Policy 8 (5): 515–24. 10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kress, Gunther
    2000 Design and Transformation: New Theories of Meaning. In: Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, Bill Cope and Kalantzis (eds), 153–61. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Macgilchrist, Felicitas and Ellen Van Praet
    2013 Writing the History of the Victors? Discourse, Social change and (Radical) Democracy. Journal of Language and Politics12(4): 626–651. 10.1075/jlp.12.4.07mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.4.07mac [Google Scholar]
  28. Macgilchrist, Felicitas
    2016 Fissures in the Discourse-scape: Critique, Rationality and Validity in Post-foundational Approaches to CDS. Discourse & Society27(3) 262–277. 10.1177/0957926516630902
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516630902 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mühlhäusler, Peter
    2001 Talking about Environmental Issues. In: The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology, and Environment, Alwin Fill and Peter Mühlhäusler (eds), 31–42. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2003Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in Ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Martin, James R.
    2004/2012 Positive Discourse Analysis: Solidarity and Change. In: Collected Works of J.R. Martin, Zhenhua Wang (ed), 278–98. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1986/2012 Grammaticalizing Ecology: The Politics of Baby Seals and Kangaroos. Collected Works of James R. Martin, Zhenhua Wang (ed), 7–49. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2007 Comment. World Englishes26 (1): 84–6. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2007.00491.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00491.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Nash, Joshua and Peter Mühlhäusler
    2014 Linking Language and the Environment: The Case of Norf’k and Norfolk Island. Language Sciences41: 26–33. 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Poole, Robert
    2016 A Corpus-Aided Ecological Discourse Analysis of the Rosemont Copper Mine Debate of Arizona, USA. Discourse & Communication10.576–95. 10.1177/1750481316674775
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316674775 [Google Scholar]
  36. Robbins, Paul
    2012Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Schröter, Melani
    2015 80,000,000 Hooligans: Discourse of Resistance to Racism and Xenophobia in German Punk Lyrics 1991–1994. Critical Discourse Studies12 (4): 398–425. 10.1080/17405904.2014.1002508
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2014.1002508 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stevens, Paul
    2012 Towards an Ecosociology. Sociology46 (4): 579–95. 10.1177/0038038511422586
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511422586 [Google Scholar]
  39. Stibbe, Arran
    2014 An Ecolinguistic Approach to Critical Discourse Studies. Critical Discourse Studies11(1):117–28. 10.1080/17405904.2013.845789
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.845789 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2016Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live by. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2018 Critical Discourse Analysis and Ecology. In: The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, John Flowerdew and John E. Richardson (eds), 497–509. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1995 Discourse Semantics and Ideology. Discourse & Society6 (2): 243–89. 10.1177/0957926595006002006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006002006 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2001 Critical Discourse Analysis. In: The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Tannen , Deborah Schifrin and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), 352–71. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error