Theoretical Framework for Ecological Discourse Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Ecological Analysis of Persian Literary Texts

Fayyazi, Maryam Sadat

doi:10.30465/lir.2025.51778.2013

Theoretical Framework for Ecological Discourse Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Ecological Analysis of Persian Literary Texts

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Maryam Sadat Fayyazi

Associate Professor of Linguistics, Department of East Asia, Asian Cultural Documentation Center, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran. Iran

10.30465/lir.2025.51778.2013

Abstract

Introduction
In recent decades, the escalation of global ecological crises—ranging from climate change and biodiversity loss to environmental pollution and resource depletion—has urged the humanities and social sciences to reconsider the human–nature relationship through innovative and interdisciplinary approaches. These crises are not merely scientific or technical problems; they are also cultural, social, and linguistic phenomena that demand a deeper reflection on the ways human beings conceptualize, represent, and interact with the natural environment. Among the various approaches that have emerged, Ecological Discourse Analysis (EDA) has gained particular prominence. Rooted in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and enriched by the philosophical concept of ecosophy, EDA offers a novel framework for examining how language actively constructs ecological realities. It emphasizes that language is not merely a reflective medium that mirrors reality but rather an active agent that shapes ecological consciousness and practices. Discourses, therefore, can contribute either to ecological sustainability or to environmental degradation and anthropogenic exploitation.
Within the Persian research context, the introduction of EDA carries special significance. On the one hand, it addresses the theoretical vacuum that exists in ecolinguistics and ecological discourse studies in Persian literary scholarship. On the other hand, it seeks to disentangle the frequent conflation between EDA and ecocriticism, which has led to methodological inconsistencies in many Persian-language studies. While ecocriticism is primarily concerned with ideological and thematic critique of environmental representation, EDA provides a linguistically grounded framework that focuses on the structural and functional mechanisms of discourse. The purpose of this study is thus to provide a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the application of EDA to Persian literary and linguistic texts, paving the way for more rigorous and interdisciplinary explorations of the relationship between language and ecology.

Materials & Methods
The present study adopts a theoretical and documentary methodology, relying on the systematic reading and interpretation of He Wei’s framework for ecological discourse analysis. This model builds upon Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics, which is founded on the idea that language simultaneously performs multiple metafunctions. In EDA, the four metafunctions—experiential, interpersonal, textual, and logical—are expanded and reinterpreted through an ecological lens. Each metafunction is associated with particular linguistic systems: the experiential metafunction with transitivity, the interpersonal with modality and appraisal, the textual with thematic structure, cohesion, and coherence, and the logical with taxis system, representation manner and logico-semantic system. These systems are examined not only as abstract grammatical categories but also as ecological indicators that reveal the orientation of a discourse toward sustainability or destruction.
The materials for this theoretical exploration consist of two types of sources: first, international scholarship in ecological discourse analysis, systemic functional linguistics and ecolinguistics; and, and second, Persian-language studies that have attempted to engage with ecological issues in literature. A critical review of the latter reveals that many of these works have mistakenly employed the label “discourse analysis” while in fact relying on ecocritical methods. By clarifying epistemological and methodological boundaries between the two approaches, the study establishes an operational model of EDA that can be effectively adapted for analyzing Persian literary discourse. The method is thus not empirical in the traditional sense of data collection, but it is analytical, comparative, and conceptual, designed to build a bridge between global theoretical developments and local scholarly practices.

Discussion & Result
The findings of this study highlight the distinctive contributions of EDA. One of the most important outcomes is the classification of discourses into eco-beneficial, eco-destructive, and eco-ambivalent types, depending on their alignment with ecosophical principles of diversity, harmony, interaction, and coexistence. Eco-beneficial discourses are those that reinforce sustainable values and harmonious human–nature relations, while eco-destructive discourses promote exploitation, anthropocentrism, and ecological harm. Eco-ambivalent discourses occupy an intermediate position, where the ecological orientation remains unclear or contradictory.
An examination of Persian literary and linguistic scholarship reveals that a significant portion of existing studies, although thematically concerned with environmental issues, remain ecocritical in nature rather than ecolinguistic. For instance, many analyses focus on binary oppositions such as human versus nature or culture versus environment, but do not engage with the linguistic mechanisms—such as transitivity choices, evaluative language, or thematic structures—that actually produce and sustain ecological meanings. As a result, these studies risk overlooking the active role of language in shaping ecological realities. By contrast, EDA draws attention to precisely these mechanisms, showing how linguistic structures can reproduce dominant unsustainable discourses or, alternatively, provide resources for resistance and ecological awareness.
Applying this framework to Persian literary texts opens up new avenues of research. The EDA of transitivity system examines whether the process type, participant roles, and circumstantial roles are all correspondent with the cosophy of “Diversity and Harmony, Interaction and Co-existence” as well as the four ecosophy maxims (maxim of quantity, quality, diversity, and interaction). The appraisal system enables an analysis of evaluative language, revealing whether texts promote positive attitudes toward ecological balance or reinforce negative and exploitative perspectives. Thematic structure and cohesion can be studied to understand how ecological issues are foregrounded or backgrounded in narrative organization.

Conclusion
The present study both introduces the introduction of Ecological Discourse Analysis and demonstrates its application in Persian literary and linguistic studies concerned with environmental issues. Theoretically, it fills a gap in the current research landscape by providing a linguistically systematic approach to ecological studies. Methodologically, it distinguishes itself from ecocriticism by offering precise analytical tools that examine the linguistic mechanisms underpinning ecological meaning.
Ultimately, EDA offers more than a framework for textual analysis: it provides a mechanism for fostering ecological consciousness and promoting sustainable practices within society. By rethinking how Persian literary and cultural discourses construct the human–nature relationship, scholars and readers can contribute to a deeper awareness of not only ecological challenges and opportunities but also cultural identity and social responsibility. In this sense, ED as an interdisciplinary intertwining language, literature and ecosystem is not only an academic innovation but also a pathway toward tackling ecological crises.

Keywords

Ecological Discourse Analysis

experiential metafunction

interpersonal metafunction

textual metafunction

logical metafunction

Subjects

Literary interdisciplinary research

Abshirini, Asad; Salehi Mazandarani, Mohammad Reza; Jokar, Manouchehr; Hayatdavoodi, Fatemeh (2022), ‘Critique and Analysis of Moniru Ravanipour’s Ecological Story”Ahle Ghargh” with a Look at the Discourse of Power’, Literary Text research, 26 (94), 7-33. [in Persian].

Bang, Jørgen Christian, & Døør, Jørgen (2007), Language, Ecology and Society: A Dialectical Approach, London: Bloomsbury.

Cheng, Ming (2022), ‘Theoretical Framework for Ecological Discourse Analysis: A Summary of New Developments of Ecological Discourse Analysis’, Journal of World Languages, 8 (1), 188-226.

Couto, Hildo Honorió do (2014), ‘Ecological Approaches in Linguistics: A Historical Overview’, Language Science, 41. 122-128.

Fill, Alwin (1993), Ökolingustik. Ein Einführung, Tübingen: Narr.

Fill, Alwin & Mühlhäsler, Peter (2001), The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment, London: Continuum.

Fill, Alwin & Penz, Hermine (2018), ‘Ecolinguistics in the 21th Century: New Orientations and Future Directions’, The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics, Alwin F Fill & Hermine Pens (eds.), 437-443, New York: Routledge.

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1990), ‘New Ways of Meaning: The Challenge to Applied Linguistics’, Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6. 7-36.

Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. (2014), Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4^th Edition, London: Routledge.

Haugen, Einar Ingvald (1972), ‘The Ecology of Language’ The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen, In Anwar S. Dil (ed.), 325-339, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

He, Wei (2021), ‘Ecological Discourse Analysis: Further Development of the Hallidayin Model’, Foreign Language Education, 42 (1). 20-27.

He, Wei, Gao, Ran & Liu Jiahuan (2021), Shengati Huayu Fenxi Xinfazhan Yanjiu [New Developments of Ecological Discourse Analysis], Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.

He, Wei & Liu, Jiahuan (2020), ‘Diversity and Harmony, Interaction and co-existence: Construction and Development of Ecosophy’, Shandong Foreign Language Teaching, 41 (1). 12-24. [in Chinese]

He, Wei & Ma, Zijie (2020), ‘Appraisal System from an Ecolinguistic Perspective’, Journal of Foreign Language, 43 (1). 48-58. [in Chinese]

He, Wei & Ma, Zijie (2020a), Theme System from an Ecolinguistic Perspective, Foreign Languages in China, 17 (4). 23-32. [in Chinese]

He, Wei & Ma, Zijie (2020b), ‘Cohesion and Coherence System from an Ecolinguistic Perspective’, Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 42 (2). 26-45. [in Chinese]

He, Wei & Wang, Minchen (2019), ‘A Contrastive Study of English and Chinese Clause Structure’, Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 27 (3). 116-137. [in Chinese]

He, Wie & Wei, Rong (2018a), ‘Diversity and Harmony, Interaction and c0-existence-Theoretical Framework for Ecological Discourse Analysis’, Foreign Language Research, 41 (6). 28-35. [in Chinese]

He, Wie & Wei, Rong (2018b), ‘The Paradigm of Discourse Analyses and the Theoretical Foundation of Ecological Discourse Analysis’, Contemporary Rhetoric, 37 (5). 63-73. [in Chines]

Hedayatizadeh, Hajar; Karami Chemeh, Yousef (2023), ‘The Discourse of Ecologicalism in the Works of Ali Ashraf Darvishan’, Literary Discourse Analysis, 1 (1), 109-129. [in Persian]

Huang, Guowen & Zhao, Ruihua (2021), ‘Harmonious Discourse Analysis: Approaching Peoples’ Problems in a Chinese Context’, Language Science, 85. 1-19.

LeVasseur, Todd (2015), ‘Defining ‘ecolinguistics?’: Challenging Emic Issue in an Evolving Environmental Discipline’, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5. 21-28.

Martin, James R. & White, Peter R. R. (2005), The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mühlhäsler, Peter (2003), Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in Ecolinguistics, London: Battlebridge.

Oskooi, Narges (2020), ‘Analysing the Environmental Discourse of Dr. Datis’ Novel Relying on Ecological Criticism’ LIRE, 17 (67), 9-28. [in Persian]

Penz, Hermin and Fill, Alwin (2022), ‘Ecolinguistics: History, Today, and Tomorrow’, Journal of World Languages, 8 (1), 232-253.

Sapir, Edward (2001) [1912], ‘Language and Environment’, The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment, In Alwin Fill and Peter Mühlhäsler (eds.), 13-23, London: Continuum.

Steffen, Sune V. & Fill, Alwin (2014), ‘Ecolinguistics: The State of the Art and Future Horizons’, Language Science, 41. 6-25.

Stibbe, Arran (2015), Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By, London: Routledge.

Trampe, Wilhelm (2018), ‘Euphemisms for Killing Animals and Other Forms of Their Use’, The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics, In Alwin F Fill & Hermine Pens (eds.), 325-341, New York: Routledge.

Trim, Jogn L. M. (1959), ‘Historical, Descriptive and Dynamic Linguistics’, Language and Speech, 2 (1). 9-25.

Voegelin, Carl F. & Voegelin, Florence M. (1964), ‘Languages of the World: Native American Fascicle One’, Anthropological Lingusitics, 6 (6). 1-149.

Voegelin, Carl F., Voegelin, Florence M. & Schutz Jr, Noel W. (1967), ‘The Language Situation in Arizona as Part of the Southwest Culture Area’, Studies of the Southwestern Ethnolinguistics: Meaning and History in the Languages of the American Southwest, In Dell H. Hymes & William E. Bittle (eds.), 403-451, The Hauge & Paris: Mouton.

Wu, Yina (2018), ‘Ecological Discourse Analysis’, Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 181, 646-649.

Zhang, Ruijie & He, Wei (2020), ‘Human-Nature Relationships in Experiential Meaning: Transitivity System of Chinese from an Ecolinguistc Perspective’, Journal of World Languages, 6 (3). 217-235.

Zhou, Wenjuan (2021), ‘Ecolinguistics: A Half-Century Overview’, Journal of World Languages, 7 (3). 461-482.