This article reports a corpus-aided ecological discourse analysis (EDA) of texts from an international mining company and an environmental advocacy group regarding a proposal to build a massive open-pit copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains of Arizona, USA. The analysis details the grammatical and semantic clusters within the controversial environmental debate and how these clusters reflect the values and beliefs of each group as well as their conceptualization of the mountains and the environment. The integration of the ecolinguistic framework with corpus linguistic methods of keyword analysis as well as part of speech (POS) and semantic tag analysis facilitated the identification of clusters of linguistic features perpetuating a dominant and ultimately destructive cultural discourse that places humans in a role of dominion and authority over the environment in the company texts. In contrast, clusters within the oppositional discourse forwarded by the environmental group promote the aesthetic value of the land and a need for responsible environmental stewardship.
AlexanderR (2002) Everyone is talking about ‘sustainable development’. Can they all mean the same thing? Computer discourse analysis of ecological texts. In: FillAPenzHTrampeW (eds) Colourful Green Ideas: Papers from the Conference 30 Years of Language and Ecology. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 239–254.
2.
AlexanderR (2009) Framing Discourse on the Environment: A Critical Discourse Approach. New York; London: Routledge.
3.
AlexanderRStibbeA (2014) From the analysis of ecological discourse to the ecological analysis of discourse. Language Sciences41: 104–110.
4.
AnthonyL (2014) AntConc (version 3.4.3m) [Computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available at: http://www.laurenceanthony.net/
5.
AugoustinosMCrabbSSheperdR (2010) Genetically modified food in the news: Media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science19(1): 98–114.
6.
BangJCTrampeW (2014) Aspects of an ecological theory of language. Language Sciences41: 83–92.
7.
BevitoriC (2011) ‘Jumping on the green bandwagon’: The discursive construction of GREEN across ‘old’ and ‘new’ media genres at the intersection between corpora and discourse. In: Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 2011 - Discourse and Corpus Linguistics. University of Birmingham, 20–22 July.
8.
ChawlaS (2001) Linguistic and philosophical roots of our environmental crisis. In: FillAMühlhäuslerP (eds) The Ecolinguistics Reader. London: Continuum, pp. 115–124.
9.
DaviesM (2008) The corpus of contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–present. Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
10.
GarsideR (1987) The CLAWS word-tagging system. In: GarsideRLeechGSampsonG (eds) The Computational Analysis of English: A Corpus-based Approach. London: Longman, pp. 30–41.
11.
GarsideRSmithN (1997) A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4. In: GarsideRLeechGMcEneryT (eds) Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London: Longman, pp. 102–121.
12.
GoatlyA (1996) Green grammar and grammatical metaphor, or language and the myth of power, or metaphors we die by. Journal of Pragmatics25: 537–560.
13.
GoatlyA (2002) The representation of nature on the BBC World Service. Text22(1): 1–27.
14.
GrangerSRaysonP (1998) Automatic profiling of learner texts. In: GrangerS (ed.) Learner English on Computer. London; New York: Longman, pp. 119–131.
15.
GrundmanRKrishnamurthyR (2010) The discourse of climate change: A corpus-based approach. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines4(2): 125–146.
16.
GrundmanRScottM (2014) Disputed climate science in the media: Do countries matter?Public Understanding of Science23(2): 220–235.
17.
HaigE (2001) A study of the application of critical discourse analysis to ecolinguistics and the teaching of eco-theory. Studies in Language and Culture (Nagoya University, Faculty of Language and Culture) 22(2): 205–226.
18.
HallidayMAK ([1990] 2001) New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In: FillAMühlhäuslerP (eds) The Ecolinguistics Reader. London: Continuum, pp. 175–202.
19.
HallidayMAKMartinJR (1993) Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
20.
HaugenE ([1971] 1972) The ecology of language. The Linguistic Reporter25: 19–26 (reprinted in Dil AS (1972) (ed.) The Ecology of Language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 325–339.
21.
LijffijtJNevalainenTSäilyT. (2014) Significance testing of word frequencies in corpora. Digitial Scholarship in the Humanities31(2): 374–397.
22.
MartinJ (1986) Grammaticalizing ecology: The politics of baby seals and kangaroos. In: ThreadgoldTGroszEKressG. (eds) Semiotics, Ideology, Language. Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture, pp. 235–267.
23.
NashJMühlhäuslerP (2014) Linking language and the environment: The case of Norf’k and Norfolk Island. Language Sciences41: 23–33.
24.
PlecEPettengerM (2012) Greenwashing consumption: The didactic framing of ExxonMobil’s energy solutions. Environmental Communication6(4): 459–476.
25.
RaysonP (2008) From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics13(4): 519–549.
26.
RaysonP (2009) Wmatrix: A Web-based Corpus Processing Environment. Computing Department, Lancaster University. Available at: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/
27.
RaysonPGarsideR (2000) Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora, vol. 9, October 2000, Hong Kong, pp. 1–6.
28.
ReinhardtJ (2013) An applied genre analysis of office hours consultations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18(3): 301–326.
ScottMTribbleC (2006) Textual Patterns: Keywords and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31.
SteffensenSVFillA (2014) Ecolinguistics: The state of the art and future horizons. Language Sciences41: 6–25.
32.
StibbeA (2014) An ecolinguistic approach to critical discourse studies. Critical Discourse Studies11(1): 117–128.
33.
TribbleC (2000) Genres, keywords, teaching: Towards a pedagogic account of the language of project proposals. In: BurnhardLMcEneryT (eds) Rethinking Language Pedagogy from a Corpus Perspective: Papers from the Third International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 75–90.
34.
VoegelinCFVoegelinFMShutzNWJr (1967) The language situation in Arizona as part of the Southwest culture area. In: HymesDBittleW (eds) Studies in Southwestern Ethnolinguistics: Meaning and History in the Languages of the American Southwest. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 403–451.
35.
WildKChurchAMcCarthyD. (2013) Quantifying lexical usage: Vocabulary pertaining to ecosystems and the environment. Corpora8(1): 53–79.
36.
WilsonARaysonP (1993) Automatic content analysis of spoken discourse. In: SouterCAtwellE (eds) Corpus-based Computational Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 215–226.
