An interpersonal framework of international ecological discourse

1 Introduction

International ecological discourse is a new concept within ecolinguistics. The definitions of international ecological discourse and international ecological discourse analysis (IEDA, hereafter) are closely related to ecological discourse analysis as a main approach to ecolinguistics.

Ecological Discourse Analysis considers the impact of discourse within an ecological framework not only on human society, but on the larger ecosystems that life depends on. It, therefore, includes racism, sexism, and oppression within the human world, but goes beyond that to consider environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion, as well as more general issues about the relationship of humans with other species and the physical environment.^[1]

Following this definition, international ecological discourse can be interpreted as discourse representing the international social ecosystem that is shaped by nations and their international environment. IEDA probes into the impact of discourse on the international social ecosystem and explores the impact of discourse within an ecological framework on life-sustaining relationships among nations and their international environment (He and Wei 2017a; Wei 2019a).

An ecological framework is important to IEDA in that it can offer a “normative orientation” (Alexander and Stibbe 2014: 109). Generally, an ecological framework can be reified into two main parts, linguistic theories and non-linguistic ecosophy (He and Wei 2017b; Wei 2019b; Wei and He 2019). Linguistic theories are expected to offer a detailed analysis of the linguistic features by which worldviews are created, recreated, spread, and resisted, while a non-linguistic ecosophy offers the prospect of an ecological guideline for the role of those worldviews in the protection or destruction of the ecosystem supporting life.

Some studies have attempted to integrate an ecosophy into linguistic theories to build an ecological framework. For example, Stibbe (2015) tries to construct an ecological framework by combining his ecosophy “Living” and several linguistic theories such as systemic functional linguistics (hereafter SFL) and cognitive linguistics. Following He and Zhang (He and Zhang 2017; Zhang 2018; Zhang and He 2018, 2020), we can look at an incorporation of SFL and the ecosophy “Sense of Place” for a green framework.

However, the ecological frameworks mentioned above are designed to explore the relationship between humans and nature and are therefore inappropriate for the analysis of international ecological discourse, which takes into account the relationship between nations and their environment. Against this backdrop, an ecological framework is required for IEDA, which explores the impact of discourse on the life-sustaining relationships among nations, and their international environment.

SFL is an optimal choice as a linguistic theory for building an ecological framework of international ecological discourse. First, relations are embedded in ideology and the essential approach to ideology is through an examination of meaning manifested in discourse (Lukin 2019). In this regard, the linguistic theory selected needs to be meaning-focused. Hence SFL is an appropriate theory because it is “a very useful descriptive and interpretive framework for viewing language as a strategic, meaning-making resource” (Eggins 2004: 2). Also, its founder Halliday (2001 [1990]) tried to interpret linguistic practices from an ecological perspective. He suggested linguists look at the global ecological crisis from a linguistic point of view because the same sort of gradual, stealthy processes happening in the environment also take place in language, and he urged them to be an active force in shaping people’s consciousness and affecting the directions of social change. Moreover, SFL is an appliable kind of linguistics (Halliday 2007 [2002]) and this potential to be applied results in appliable discourse analysis (Matthiessen 2013). Appliable discourse analysis is a resource for “solving problems that arise in the community” through the analysis of discourse (Matthiessen 2013: 143). That is, SFL shares similar targets as IEDA in solving ecological problems and thus contributing to a sustainable international social ecosystem. It leans towards application and takes discourse analysis as a mode of action, a theory of language as a means of getting things done (Halliday 1994: 19).

Therefore the framework of SFL has been developed to provide the theoretical and descriptive resources for researchers to undertake projects of investigation and intervention in diversified contexts (Matthiessen 2013). The current study is concerned with the context of the international social ecosystem, centering on the relationship between nations and their international environment. This specific context requires a framework to uncover ecological meaning in discourse. For this purpose, the framework of SFL is expected to be extended in terms of delicacy along the ecological cline to construe the ecological features in international ecological discourse. The extension can be achieved by incorporating ecological parameters into the framework of SFL (He and Wei 2017b; Wei 2019b; Wei and He 2019). These parameters include the ecological features reflected from the context of international ecological discourse as well as an international ecosophy acting as an ecological guideline for discourse analysis.

The ecological functional framework focuses on the three dimensions of “ecological meaning” within SFL, i.e. ecological experiential meaning, ecological interpersonal meaning, and ecological textual meaning in international ecological discourse. It is these three dimensions of meaning, realized by lexicogrammatical features, that fully illuminate the “ecological” characteristics of international ecological discourse. Note that the present study concentrates on ecological interpersonal meaning. Though some studies have been conducted regarding the interpersonal dimension of international ecological discourse (He and Ma 2020; Wei and He 2019), they are mainly concerned with some sub-systems of the dimension, and very little literature systematically investigates the dimension. This investigation seeks to fill this gap by building a systematic framework to fully interpret the interpersonal meaning of international ecological discourse. It principally includes a Mood system, a Modality system, and an Appraisal system.

In the following, the article will first present the context of international ecological discourse, followed by international ecosophy. It will then elaborate on the interpersonal framework, and the elaboration and interpretation will be accompanied by case analysis.

2 The context of international ecological discourse

This section provides a profile of the international social ecosystem as the context of international ecological discourse. He and Wei (2017b) take the stance that international social ecology is part and parcel of social ecology, whose ecosystem structure lays a foundation for the establishment of an international social ecosystem. They exhibit their understanding of an international social ecosystem by starting from the theory of ecosystem (Tansley 1935), the theory of social ecosystem (Ye 2006; Ye and Li 2016), and a general framework of the social ecosystem (Ostrom 2009). In their opinion, nations as international ecological factors are the basic components in the international social ecosystem. The interaction between an international ecological factor and other international ecological factors and their ecological environment is the key to the construction of the international social ecosystem. As He and Wei argue,

All of the international ecological factors are so dependent on one another that a complicated international ecological environment is naturally and unavoidably created from this tight interdependency. The international ecological factors, while communicating with one another, also interact with the international ecological environment, thus achieving communication in politics and military sciences, exchange in cultures and education, cooperation in economics and sharing in natural resources, and finally constructing an international social ecosystem and promoting the balance of this ecosystem (He and Wei 2017b: 20).

To exemplify the relationship between the ecological factors in the international social ecosystem, He and Wei (2017b) propose two international ecological factors A and B to build an international social ecosystem model (see Figure 1) by integrating the two ecological factors and their environment, both physical and social.

Figure 1:

An international social ecosystem model formed by ecological factor A and ecological factor B (He and Wei 2017b: 20).

Figure 1 gives a clear picture of an international social ecosystem model, which is comprised of its two ecological factors A and B and their environment, both of which have their own system (see Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2:

A system of international ecological factors (He and Wei 2017b: 19).

Figure 3:

A system of international ecological environment (He and Wei 2017b: 20).

The ecological factors in Figure 2 are all nations in the globe in that the nations are essentially the constituents of the international world (Zhou 1998). Moreover, these international ecological factors can be grouped into living factors and non-living factors as the ecosystem is constituted by the organic and non-organic (Wang 1978). As far as living factors are concerned, He and Wei (2017b) put forward two criteria for their classification. More precisely, living factors can be classified into human-living and non-human-living because life consists of human and non-human (She 2009). Living factors can also be classified as individual and group factors. Similarly, non-living factors are endowed with their categorization based on “sense of place” (Scannell and Gifford 2010). The country, as the core part of international society, defines its national people according to regions. It makes sense that international society, like its core component countries, is characterized by “sense of place”. Therefore “sense of place” matters a lot for the categorization of non-living factors within the international social ecosystem. Non-living factors can be divided into physical factors and social factors; in a similar way, places can differ in accordance with the physical or social standard.

In describing the international ecological environment, He and Wei (2017b) firstly discuss the social ecological environment, which is defined as “the living environment of the social ecological factors on the whole” (Ye and Li 2016: 92). Further to this discussion, they stress that the ecological environment can be understood from diversified viewpoints according to diversified ecological factors. For instance, if the ecological factors are non-human living factors, then the ecological environment can be interpreted as the sum of the environmental factors affecting the existence, growth, reproduction, behavior, and even distribution of non-human life. If the ecological factors are human living factors, then the ecological environment can be explained as the sum of the environmental factors influencing the existence and development of human life. Thus, as for the international ecological environment with nations as its ecological factors, the ecological environment can be defined as “the sum of the environmental factors affecting the interdependency of nations” (He and Wei 2017b: 20). The sum of the environmental factors in this case contains both physical and social environments, which are displayed in Figure 3.

The above discussion indicates that the international social ecosystem is a “third order system” in an ordered typology of systems operating in different phenomenal fields (Halliday and Matthiessen 1999). Within an ordered typology of systems, there are four ordering systems among the phenomena themselves: first order systems – physical systems, second order systems – biological systems, third order systems – social systems, and fourth order systems – semiotic systems. Physical systems are just physical; biological systems are both biological and physical; social systems are social, biological, and physical (Halliday and Matthiessen 1999: 508). More precisely, a biological system is a physical system with the additional element of “life”; a social system is a biological system with the additional element of “value” (Halliday and Matthiessen 1999: 509). By extension, semiotic systems include semiotic, social, biological, and physical, and a semiotic system is a social system with the additional element of “meaning” (Halliday and Matthiessen 1999: 509).

Following from the account of an ordered typology of systems, we argue that the international social ecosystem, as a social system, incorporates physical systems and biological systems, as interpreted in Figures 1 –3. Then what is the relation between the international social ecosystem and the fourth order systems – semiotic systems? Since “semiotic systems are social systems where value has been further transformed into meaning” (Halliday and Matthiessen 1999: 509), the international social ecosystem, through semiotic systems, is given meaning. Indeed, it is through semiotic systems that our experience of the international social ecosystem can be transformed into meaning. Of special importance is that meaning in this sense can be conceived as a kind of social value but can only be construed symbolically. This observation is the key to IEDA in that it offers orientations for seeking an ecological functional framework.

3 An international ecosophy

This section aims to outline an international ecosophy for an interpersonal framework of IEDA. There are many ecosophies for the international social ecosystem, like “view of peace” (Mowat 1935), “view of communication” (Jönsson and Hall 2003), “view of diversification” (Masamichi 2004), “harmony priority” (Li 2010), and “cooperation and win-win” (Alves 2013). These ecosophies, however, are one-dimensional. Such ecosophies of “peace”, “diversification”, and “harmony” center on the static situation of the international social ecosystem, whereas ecosophies of “communication” and “cooperation and win-win” are chiefly preoccupied with its dynamism. The former spectrum focuses on the relatively static situation of nations, the latter on the dynamic interaction between nations. To be precise, nations as international ecological factors can be depicted as statically peaceful, diversified, harmonious, and healthy, and dynamically as communicative and cooperative. An international ecosophy is supposed to be like any ecosophy rooted in social and cultural conditions and characterized by the profitable usage of “system models” (Naess 1989 [1976]: 72). A systematic model makes it viable to construct a systematic international ecosophy that portrays both static and dynamic spectrums of international social ecology.

In the pursuit of a systematic ecosophy rooted in social and cultural conditions, He and Wei (2017a, 2017b) derive some ecosophical insights from selected traditional Chinese cultures and philosophy together with modern diplomatic ideas to create the international ecosophy “和而不同, 互爱互利” (he’er butong, hu’ai huli, ‘harmony and diversity, mutual-love and mutual-benefit’). This ecosophy exhibits a duality of static and dynamic dimensions. Specifically, it is a relatively static situation in which all nations are in harmony and yet diverse, but it is also a dynamic picture that all nations love each other and benefit each other. So the ecosophy presents a synthesis of the static and dynamic dimensions, which is critical in maintaining the dynamic balance of the international social ecosystem.

Any ecosophy, however, is in all likelihood confronted with change and evolution as the analyst is exposed to new notions, new evidence and new experiences (Stibbe 2015: 13–14). An international ecosophy can also be updated as further evidence accumulates. Arguing that the international ecosophy “harmony and diversity, mutual-love and mutual-benefit” is not ecological enough, He and Wei (2018) seek to develop another international ecosophy by digging deeper into Chinese cultures and philosophies and the corresponding diplomatic concepts. Finally, by drawing on insights from such traditional Chinese cultures and philosophies as Confucianism, Daoism, and Mohism, and modern Chinese diplomatic concepts deriving from traditional Chinese cultures and philosophies, they propose another ecosophy “多元和谐, 交互共生” (duoyuan hexie, jiaohu gongsheng, ‘diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence’) (He and Wei 2018) used in this study. This ecosophy is relatively systemic in its incorporation of the static dimension of “diversity and harmony” and the dynamic dimension of “interaction and co-existence”. More important is that this ecosophy features culturalization, ecologization and socialization because of its constructive derivation (He and Wei 2018). It is a general and appliable ecosophy in its integration of all the other views of previous versions of ecosophy (He and Liu 2020). Its compositional system is revealed as follows (see Figure 4).

Figure 4:

A system of an international ecosophy.

4 An interpersonal framework

Any language “is as big as it needs to be” (Halliday 2002 [1996]: 392). For the current discussion, language is a vast resource for meaning making. Language depends on “the meaning-creating semogenic capacity which is driven by, and drives the human brain” (Halliday 2013: 32). From an interpersonal viewpoint, language has resources to construe “interpersonal” meanings and “personal” meanings. Not only do these resources provide means by which the speakers express their purpose of interpersonal interaction, such as asking questions, providing information, or giving instruction, but also they enable the speakers to articulate their personal views, such as degrees of certainty, ability, or obligation. In this study we use the term “speakers” as a cover term for both speakers and writers. Significantly, it is the interpersonal component that expresses “the speaker’s participation in, or intrusion into, the speech event” (Halliday 1976: 27). This kind of participation is central to IEDA as it serves as a manifestation of the speakers’ social ecological identities, ecological relations with other interactants, and their ecological evaluations, all of which are closely related to the speakers’ ecological ideologies. It is this kind of ecological ideology that is likely to influence the relations between nation and nation, physical environment and social environment in the international social ecosystem.

What is required is a viable and explicit framework for the analysis of the interpersonal meaning of international ecological discourse. In considering this framework, we need to pay attention to the fact that the taxonomy of any instance of international ecological discourse is based on a trinocular perspective, which matches up “contextual, semantic and lexicogrammatical considerations to support the taxonomy” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 35). To be meaningful, a taxonomy of any instance of international ecological discourse must be grounded in the context of the international social ecosystem. That is to say, if the taxonomy is appropriate, “semantic and lexicogrammatical considerations will align themselves with the contextual ones” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 35). It is reasonable to argue that both semantic and lexicogrammatical considerations within IEDA should be taken into account for the analysis of international ecological discourse.

In practice, we intend to combine the insights of the interpersonal framework within SFL and the ecological parameters from the context of the international social ecosystem into an integrative model. These parameters are principally composed of three parts: a system of international ecological factors (see Figure 2), and a system of the international ecological environment (see Figure 3), and an ecological philosophy, the international ecosophy “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence” (see Figure 4).

4.1 Mood system

Mood “plays a special role in carrying out the interpersonal functions of the clause” (Thompson 2014: 53). Congruently, statements are realized through declarative Mood (Subject ^ Finite), questions through interrogative Mood that includes polar interrogative Mood (Finite ^ Subject) and non-polar interrogative Mood (Wh-element ^ Finite ^ Subject), and commands through imperative Mood. Offers are exceptional in that “an offer for giving goods and services doesn’t have a congruent or expected mood choice” (Butt et al. 2012: 127).

Typically, the Mood system is composed of two elements, Subject and Finite. In more detail, “the Subject is the entity on which the validity of the clause rests”, and “the Finite makes it possible to argue about the validity of the proposition” (Thompson 2014: 55). However, a Mood system of IEDA is unique in its context of the international social ecosystem, which is manifested in its “ecologized” Subject. Most of the Subjects analyzed in international ecological discourse can be regarded as ecological factors in the international social ecosystem. Thus a Mood system of IEDA is reframed as follows in Figure 5. Note that since the imperative clause has no explicit Subject, we assume that the imperative clause owns its implicit Subject in Figure 5.

Figure 5:

A Mood system of IEDA.

To illustrate the ecological Subject system, we take Example (1) below.

(1)

① But China has become a much more important engine to the world economy over the last 17 years, ② and medical researchers cannot be sure that the new virus will fade during warmer weather like the flu. (New York Times February 5, 2020)

Example (1) comprises two exchange moves ① and ②. The ecological subject in ① is realized by “China” as [Social Non-living Subject], and the ecological subject in ② by “medical researchers” as [Group Human Subject].

4.2 Modality system

Modality construes “the region of uncertainty that lies between ‘yes’ and ‘no’” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 176). The discursive deployment of Modality “may have a marked effect on the unfolding and impact of the discourse” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 181). As Halliday and Matthiessen (1999: 526) claim, “Modality is a rich resource for speakers to intrude their own views into the discourse: their assessments of what is likely or typical, their judgments of the rights and wrongs of the situation and of where other people stand in this regard”. Besides, since the degree to which statements are marked as true or certain is crucial to their effect, “markers of modality are always relevant for discourse analysis” (Hodge 2017: 532). In a similar way, Modality is important to the analysis of international ecological discourse in that it is interwoven with ecological commitment and ecological responsibility.

A Modality system is produced by systems of Modality type, modal commitment and modal responsibility (see Figure 6). Within IEDA, as we have stressed, the lexicogrammatical considerations need to take into account the context of the international social ecosystem. So a Modality system of IEDA is needed for integrating ecological characteristics to achieve its “ecologization”. To be precise, the two pivotal features of Modality, “modal commitment” and “modal responsibility” should be “ecologized”, thus shaping “ecological modal commitment” and “ecological modal responsibility”. Ecological modal commitment is the degree to which ecological initiators commit themselves to the ecological validity of their speech. Ecological modal responsibility is the degree to which ecological initiators overtly accept their ecological responsibilities for their attitudes. With a view to ecologizing “modal commitment” and “modal responsibility”, the system of Modality should be modified by adding an ecological dimension to it. Based on a functional system of Modality (Thompson 2014: 77), we reconstruct an “ecologized” system of Modality in Figure 6.

Figure 6:

A Modality system of IEDA.²

Modality is comprised of two categories: modalization and modulation. The Modality in relation to statements or questions (giving/demanding information) is referred to as modalization; Modality in relation to commands or offers (giving/demanding goods-&-services) is referred to as modulation. Since these two parameters in the current discussion are for the analysis of international ecological discourse, we can re-label them “ecological modal commitment” and “ecological modal responsibility”. From the vantage point of ecology, modal commitment and modal responsibility are fused with three ecological choices – destructive, neutral, and beneficial. The ecological choices, as stated above, are destructive if they oppose the international ecosophy “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence”, are neutral if they neither oppose nor uphold it, and are beneficial if they uphold it. We will employ Example (2) and its two contrasting pairs Example (3) and Example (4) to elaborate “ecological modal commitment”.

(2)

Google’s march to the business of war must be stopped. (The Guardian May 17, 2018)

(3)

*Google’s march to the business of war should be stopped.[2] [3]

(4)

*Google’s march to the business of war needs to be stopped.

Example (2) is the title of a news report published by The Guardian on May 17, 2018. This report is co-written by Lucy Suchaman (a professor of anthropology of science and technology in the department of sociology at Lancaster University), Lilly Irania (an assistant professor of communication, science studies, and critical gender studies at the University of California San Diego), and Peter Asaro (an associate professor in the school of media studies at the New School in New York City). It is a news report that concerns Google, an American transnational corporation, getting involved in a US military program. Note that Example (3) and Example (4) are artificially modified examples for the sake of comparison.

The modal Finite “must” in Example (2) represents an obligation demanding “stop its march to the business of war”. Modality in Example (3) tends to fall into the domain of commitment through the high Modality “should”, which is beneficial in ecological orientation in that it resists war and supports peace. Example (3) and Example (4) are similar to Example (2) in that their ecological obligation is in a beneficial orientation. In spite of the similar ecological orientation, the three examples are distinguishable from each other in their different strengths of ecological commitment and obligation. Specifically, Example (2) presents high beneficial Modality through “must”, Example (3) entails median beneficial Modality that is expressed by the modal Finite “should”, and Example (4) is in all likelihood designed to reflect low beneficial Modality through the modal Finite “needs to”.

As for the speech initiator, the high beneficial Modality element in Example (2) is strongest in its demand for Google’s action of “stopping”: the march to the business of war “must” be stopped. The Median beneficial Modality element in Example (3) offers room for indeterminacy in Google’s action of “stopping”: the march to the business of war “should” be stopped. And the low beneficial Modality element in Example (4) provides much room for indeterminacy in Google’s action of “stopping”: the march to the business of war “needs to” be stopped.

Besides “ecological modal commitment”, “ecological modal responsibility” should be explored. It is important to note that the meaning of the Subject is glossed in terms of modal responsibility (Martin 1992: 461). So now we turn to the ecological Subjects in terms of their ecological responsibility through Example (5) and its contrasting Example (6).

(5)

The Guardian states “Israeli forces kill dozens of Palestinians in protests as US embassy opens in Jerusalem”. (The Guardian May 23, 2018)

(6)

The New York Times tweets, “Dozens of Palestinians have died in protests as the U.S. prepares to open its Jerusalem Embassy”. (The New York Times May 14, 2018)

The quotation in Example (5) is the title of a news report published on May 23, 2018 by The Guardian. Example (6) is the title of a New York Times tweet released on May 14, 2018. In functional terms, Example (5) and Example (6) have a point in common: both are expressed by explicit subjective responsibility, through which The Guardian and New York Times tweet highlight their personal stances on how dozens of Palestinians died in protests. Modal responsibility choices can account for the two quotations in Example (5) and Example (6) being selected as the titles of The Guardian news report and The New York Times tweet.

However, Example (5) and Example (6) differ in their construction of ecological responsibilities because of their different ecological attitudes. Let’s be clear: dozens of Palestinians did not die by themselves; rather, they were killed by Israeli forces. Crucially, the journalists are called on to “understand grammar to write accurately about violence” (Lukin 2018). This requirement is of equal value for the analysis of international ecological discourse in that it deals with ecological responsibility.

Let us return to the two instances above. In Example (5), “Israeli forces kill dozens of Palestinians” shows not only the affected “dozens of Palestinians” but also the agent of the action of “killing” – “Israeli forces”. This kind of discourse deployment reveals a violent crime committed by Israeli forces. The Guardian tends to use this discursive strategy to remind us of the destructive influence of Israeli forces on the harmony of the international social ecosystem. So Example (5) displays a beneficially ecological responsibility on the part of The Guardian. In Example (6), on the contrary, the proposition “Dozens of Palestinians have died in protests” distorts the accuracy of the story. This tweet title constructs “dozens of Palestinians” as “agents” of the action of “dying”. It leads to masking the responsibility for killing Palestinians. Thus Example (6) portrays a destructively ecological responsibility on the part of The New York Times.

4.3 Appraisal system

It is possible to observe that an analysis of Mood and Modality is just one strand of the whole story for the interpersonal meaning of international ecological discourse. There is indeed a range of other interpersonal devices contributing to the “personal” side of the meanings. These devices tend to be scattered throughout the text without being necessarily attached to a particular grammatical structure. Most relevant to the current discussion is an Appraisal system of IEDA, which is tightly associated with ecological feelings, attitudes, and judgments mainly through lexical choices. As Thompson (2014: 80) stresses, Appraisal is a central part of the meaning of any text and any analysis of the interpersonal meanings of a text must take it into consideration. There are three main regions of meaning identified in the Appraisal system network: Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation, each of which is equipped with its respective subgroups (see Figure 7).

Figure 7:

Appraisal system network (Adapted from Martin and White 2005: 38).

Within IEDA, these resources enable us to analyze how the ecological initiators adopt stances towards both the ecological factors they present and those with whom they communicate. For the analysis of international ecological discourse, therefore, it is necessary to formulate an “ecological” Appraisal system that extends the three variants – Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation – along the ecological cline.

4.3.1 Attitude system

Attitude is connected to ways of feeling (Martin and White 2005: 42). This section will set out a framework for mapping ecological feelings as they are construed in English-language international ecological discourse. It is a framework of meanings as ecological Attitude. As Martin and White (2005: 35) pinpoint, “Attitude is itself divided into three regions of feeling, ‘affect’, ‘judgment’ and ‘appreciation’”. Affect focuses on resources for construing emotional reactions; Judgment deals with resources for evaluating behavior according to various normative principles; and Appreciation is concerned with resources for assessing the value of things (Martin and White 2005: 35–36). Ecologically, Attitude consists of three semantic dimensions: “ecological” Affect, “ecological” Judgment, and “ecological” Appreciation. The ecological Attitude extends its delicacy through a series of ecological parameters.

Ecological Affect offers resources for construing ecological emotional reactions, which can be sub-divided into three types: destructive Affect, neutral Affect, and beneficial Affect (see Figure 8). Different types of ecological emotions depend on different ecological options made by ecological factors. These ecological options can be regarded as different origins of emotional reactions, reactions which can be evaluated in terms of the international ecosophy “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence”. That is, if the ecological factors’ emotional reactions are against the international ecosophy, then these emotions fall within the destructive realm; if the ecological factors’ emotional reactions are unrelated to the international ecosophy, then these emotions fall within the neutral domain; if the ecological factors’ emotional reactions support the international ecosophy, then these emotions fall within the beneficial field. To illustrate this grouping, we will take the following three instances.

Figure 8:

An Affect system of IEDA.

(7)

Government insiders told me that David Cameron was reluctant to proceed, and would have preferred to shut down the whole process. (The Guardian June 7, 2018)

(8)

“I feel like I’ve wasted four years of my life,” said Jonathan, the Ihat employee. Paul, the investigator, felt the same. (The Guardian June 7, 2018)

(9)

As stories of torture and unlawful killings in British custody came out, they fed into the wider sense of outrage about the war. (The Guardian June 7, 2018)

The three instances, Example (7), Example (8), and Example (9), are drawn from the same text. It is a news report with the title “Why We May Never Know if British Troops Committed War Crimes in Iraq”. It is about the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) that was created in 2010 by the British Labour government to investigate claims of the abuse of civilians in Iraq. Yet Ihat was closed down in 2017. The three instances are about different emotional reactions before the setting up of Ihat (Example (9)), at the beginning of its work (Example (7)), and after it had been disbanded (Example (8)).

In Example (7), the phrase “was reluctant to” is used to construe the feeling of David Cameron, the former British Prime Minister, who was unwilling to get Ihat going when Ihat was launched in 2010. It implies that he was reluctant to support the investigation of the allegations of deaths and ill-treatment involving UK service personnel in Iraq. It further implies that he was unhappy to seek out the criminals who should be held accountable for the unlawful torture and killings of Iraqi civilians. Although Cameron allowed the operation of Ihat under pressure from the European Court of Human Rights in 2011, his emotional reaction to Ihat and to accountability for the disaster of the Iraq war remained unchanged. It is a kind of destructively ecological emotion, which is harmful to the harmony of the international social ecosystem. This destructive Affect corresponds with the destructive feeling of the MoD (the Ministry of Defense), which is realized in the sentence “the MoD are happy” after the closure of Ihat.

After the closure of Ihat, many Ihat employees felt depressed. Jonathan, for example, said, “I feel like I’ve wasted four years of my life”. Paul in Example (8) has a similar feeling. Their feelings are negative, unhappiness in particular. From the viewpoint of ecology, however, this category of emotion is ecologically beneficial in its disappointment at the closure of Ihat and its failure to fully investigate claims of the abuse of civilians in Iraq.

Example (9) construes the emotion of the public (“they”) feeling about the Iraq war especially when they learn about the “stories of torture and unlawful killings in British custody”. This sense of “outrage” reflects their anger at the war having caused millions of killings. The origin of this emotion conforms to the international ecosophy “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence”. It is a kind of Affect conducive to maintaining the balance of the whole international social ecosystem. Thus the feeling construed in Example (9) is classified as beneficial Affect from the perspective of ecology.

Ecological Judgment is concerned with attitudes towards the ecological factors and their behaviors including their characteristics. It is an ethical dimension in a traditional sense. In general terms “judgments can be divided into those dealing with ‘social esteem’ and those oriented to ‘social sanction’” (Martin and White 2005: 52). Social esteem tends to belong in oral culture, whereas social sanction is more codified in writing. Following this lead, ecological Judgment in the current discussion is mainly about social sanction.

In the domain of international ecological discourse, what we should judge is the way ecological factors behave. Using the international ecosophy “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence” as a criterion, ecological factors can be judged in an “ecological” taxonomy. In more detail, ecological factors eighter comply with the international ecosophy or not. Correspondingly, the behaviors contradicting the international ecosophy should be resisted; those neither contradicting nor applauding the international ecosophy should be improved; and those applauding the international ecosophy should be promoted. A Judgment system of IEDA is indicated in Figure 9. Three instances are taken to illustrate the ecological Judgment.

Figure 9:

A Judgment system of IEDA.

(10)

But almost a year later, the Service Prosecuting Authority (SPA), the military equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service, decided not to bring charges. (The Guardian June 7, 2018)

(11)

The families of Iraqi victims in both inquiries were represented by the same lawyer: Phil Shiner, founder of Public Interest Lawyers, a small Birmingham-based practice. (The Guardian June 7, 2018)

(12)

Ihat was a concerted attempt to pull all the allegations together, throw resources at them and process them as quickly as possible. (The Guardian June 7, 2018)

These three instances, Example (10), Example (11), and Example (12) are extracts from the same news report as Example (7), Example (8), and Example (9), details of which are referred to above. Example (10) construes the behavior of the Service Prosecuting Authority (SPA), the military equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is a behavior of “deciding not to bring charges against the soldiers’ crime in Iraq war”, in spite of “sufficient evidence to prosecute two of the soldiers”. What the SPA should do is to appropriately prosecute the soldiers who are proved to have committed crimes in the Iraq war. The decision not to carry out the prosecution clearly runs counter to the international ecosophy. This behavior is ecologically destructive. Hence it is a kind of behavior that needs to be resisted.

Example (11) illustrates the ecological factor Phil Shiner’s behavior “representing the families of Iraqi victims in both inquiries”. This behavior is not implicit in its orientation to the international ecosophy. Therefore it is labeled as a neutral behavior. This neutral behavior might be transformed into a beneficial one by saying, “The same lawyer, Phil Shiner, founder of Public Interest Lawyers, a small Birmingham-based practice, represents the families of Iraqi victims in both inquiries and is seeking to obtain justice for them”.

A sense of cooperation to obtain justice is manifested in “a concerted attempt” in Example (12). It is an attempt that aims to clarify the objective of creating Ihat, making use of it as “a legal body that would investigate allegations of crimes, and where appropriate, pursue prosecutions of individual soldiers”. It is “a concerted attempt”, implying that the action is not only called for by individuals, but also by the British government. More importantly, both “all” and “as quickly as possible” are central to reflecting “our” firm determination to deal with the increasing number of cases of ill-treatment in Iraq. This kind of attempt is of particular importance to the international ecosophy advocating “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence”. The exposure of the crime is potentially favorable to preventing more wars like the Iraq war. So it is a beneficial behavior in Example (12), one which is appropriate for us to promote.

Ecological Appreciation evaluates non-human ecological factors, including non-human living factors, some non-living social factors and physical factors. Martin and White (2005: 56) claim that illustrative realizations for Appreciation comprise reaction, composition and valuation. Most relevant to the current discussion is valuation. We are interested in the question of what values these non-human ecological factors have? Do they undermine the international social ecosystem? Do they have no effect on it? Or do they help benefit it? That is, as with ecological Affect and ecological Judgment, we can recognize Appreciation as offering destructive, neutral, and beneficial evaluations. Then what about the standard for this evaluation? We still use the international ecosophy “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence” as an ecological standard. An Appreciation system of IEDA is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10:

An Appreciation system of IEDA.

Let us use three distinct modifiers before war to illustrate this: “a cruel war”, “a civil war”, and “a peaceful war”. Based on the international ecosophy, war is associated with the destruction of homes and loss of life, thus destroying the diversity and harmony of the international social ecosystem, and negatively influencing the interaction and co-existence of ecological factors. This association leads us to think rightly about the nature of war and suggests that we use “cruel” instead of “peaceful” to modify “war”. Different from “a cruel war” and “a peaceful war”, “a civil war” is to limit the scope of war. It has nothing to do with the international ecosophy. Therefore we could label “a cruel war”, “a civil war”, and “a peaceful war” as beneficial Appreciation, neutral Appreciation, and destructive Appreciation.

4.3.2 Engagement system

Engagement is about the source of attitude and the acknowledgement of alternative voices (Martin 2009: 157). Martin and White (2005) write,

Broadly speaking engagement is concerned with the ways in which resources such as projection, modality, polarity, concession and various comment adverbials position the speaker/writer with respect to the value position being advanced and with respect to potential responses to that value position – by quoting or reporting, acknowledging a possibility, denying, countering, affirming and so on (Martin and White 2005: 36).

The Engagement system helps us identify discourse as monoglossic or heteroglossic. Monogloss orientates towards no dialogic alternatives, while heterogloss directs towards dialogic alternatives. Specifically, monogloss is subclassified into two subsystems, given and presupposed. If an utterance is taken for granted, then it is “given”; if it is not taken for granted, then it is a “presupposition”. Heterogloss consists of dialogic contraction and dialogic expansion. While contraction tends to restrict the scope of alternative positions and voices, expansion tends to offer much room for dialogically alternative positions and voices.

These classifications, however, are rooted in the functional dimension of language, which attaches great weight to lexicogrammatical resources. For a framework of IEDA, an “ecologized” Engagement system is needed to portray the ecological features of international ecological discourse. An ecological Engagement system network, we argue, is a combination of lexicogrammatical resources and the international ecosophy “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence”. In an integrative model, an Engagement system is extended along the ecological cline, producing three ecological categories: destructive, neutral, and beneficial. This means that lexicogrammatical resources and ecological resources will be manifested at the same time. The Engagement system of IEDA is seen in Figure 11.

Figure 11:

An Engagement system of IEDA.

Now we will use the following three instances to enumerate the ecological dimension.

(13)

A spokesman for the Israeli Defense Forces, Lt. Colonel Jonathan Conricus, cast doubt on the casualty numbers from the Hamas-controlled Health Ministry; he said a large number of those listed as injured had suffered only tear-gas inhalation. (The New York Times May 14, 2018)

(14)

The Health Ministry said that more than 2,700 people were injured overall. (The New York Times May 14, 2018)

(15)

“We demand and expect the International Criminal Court to open an investigation into Israel’s conduct and aggression towards the Palestinian people,” Erekat said. “We still keep the international law and the decisions of the international community and expect them to act accordingly.” (Haaretz July 4, 2018)

Example (13) and Example (14) are extracts from the same news report issued by The New York Times, on May 14, 2018. The report, entitled “Israel Kills Dozens at Gaza Border as U.S. Embassy Opens in Jerusalem”, tells a story that dozens of Palestinians have been killed by Israel forces. Example (15) is from another news report, “Top Palestinian negotiator: Israel acting like it’s above the law, U.S. acting like a real-estate firm”. It is drawn from the Israel news section of the online newspaper Haaretz.

We note firstly that evaluations are embedded in the examples, which recognize alternative positions and voices through heterogloss. It is heterogloss that is construed by dialogic expansion realized by “said”. This semantics of saying offers “no specification for where the authorial voice stands with respect to the proposition, thus leaving it open to the co-text to present the authorial text as either aligned/disaligned with respect to the position being advanced, or as neutral or disinterested” (Martin and White 2005: 113). So in the current discussion, according to the international ecosophy “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence”, we can evaluate the instances as destructive, neutral or beneficial.

Clearly, the three instances are differentiated by their ecological attitudes. Let us start with Example (13). The Palestinians are injured, but the spokesman uses “only tear-gas inhalation” to mention lightly the injury suffered by Palestinians caused by his country’s forces. This kind of heteroglossic dialogue totally works against the international ecosophy, so it is a destructive one. Example (14) presents an alternative voice of “The Health Ministry”, which announces the number of injured Palestinians and presents no attitude towards the injured. This heteroglossic dialogue neither works against nor resonates with the international ecosophy. As a consequence, it is a neutral heterogloss. Example (15) is the voice of Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian peace negotiator. Promising to “keep the international law and the decisions of the international community”, he also expects “the International Court to open an investigation into Israel’s conduct and aggression towards the Palestinian people”. This heterogloss is conceived as a beneficial one in the sense that he expresses his wish for a fair treatment of his country and also a fair judgment on Israel’s aggression. It is a heterogloss that supports the international ecosophy “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence”. In this respect, the heterogloss in Example (15) is classified as a beneficial one.

4.3.3 Graduation system

Graduation is concerned with gradability. Gradability is a property shared by both Attitude and Engagement, so the semantics of Graduation is central to Appraisal (Martin and White 2005: 136). It provides resources to scale Attitude and Engagement. Graduation works across two parameters of scalability: Force according to intensity or amount, and Focus according to prototypicality.

Within IEDA, Graduation is instrumental in scaling ecological Attitude and ecological Engagement. It makes sense that we need to reframe an “ecological” Graduation system network, which is modified from a version based on the language system. In practice, we propose to add an ecological parameter to the Graduation system of Martin and White (2005). This ecological parameter serves as an object that is scaled through Graduation. It is an ecological dimension that is simultaneously applied to Attitude and Engagement. A Graduation system of IEDA is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12:

A Graduation system of IEDA.

An excerpt is chosen for analysis, which cannot be exhaustive but centers on the ecological traits of Graduation. This excerpt, Example (16), is drawn from the same source as the three examples, Example (13), Example (14), and Example (15). The source can be reviewed above.

(16)

“The fact that live gunfire is once again the sole measure that the Israeli military is using in the field evinces appalling indifference towards human life on the part of senior Israeli government and military officials,” the group said. (The New York Times May 14, 2018)

In Example (16), there are three typical instances of sharpening. As a category of focus, “the sole measure the Israeli military is using in the field”, “appalling indifference towards human life” and “senior Israeli government and military officials”. Of the three, the first two instances are destructive-oriented in that live gunfire, which is used as the sole measure, is indifferent to human life. In the third one “senior” occurs as neutral-oriented in ecology in that it focuses on the rank of “Israeli government and military officials”. It is a kind of modification irrelevant to the international ecosophy in this context.

5 Conclusion

The objective of the present article is to construct an ecological interpersonal framework of IEDA within systemic functional linguistics. Systemic functional linguistic theory is selected as the linguistic foundation for a framework of IEDA because “metafunctions are the most powerful technology we have for factoring out the complementary meanings of a text and relating them systematically to their social context” (Martin 2000: 296). So just as a functional grammar is a resource for reconciling ideational, interpersonal, and textual meanings, an analytical framework of international ecological discourse underpinned by SFL needs to be extended in terms of delicacy along the ecological cline to construe ecological features in the context under investigation. Specifically, the extension can be achieved through an integration of the following ecological parameters into a functional framework: a system of international ecological factors, a system of international ecological environments, and the international ecosophy “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence”.

By examining interpersonal choices, including the choices from the systems of Mood, Modality, and Appraisal, we can see how the text is pitched, how the addressee is positioned, how the addresser is projected, and what attitudes are conveyed. Note that the interpersonal meaning compatible with a framework of IEDA belongs to the domain of sociological semantics, which “tends to be written for particular contexts” (Matthiessen 1988: 237). So the interpersonal meaning for IEDA is treated as a particular “ecological” semantics rather than a kind of generalized semantics. The “ecological” interpersonal framework above is intended as a tool for analyzing a particular “ecological” semantics, and for helping establish ecological identities, enact ecological relations, and articulate ecological evaluations. It is expected to contribute to investigating the speakers’ ecological ideologies and thus maintaining the balance of the international social ecosystem.