Constructing human–nature relations in Qur'anic and Biblical discourse: A comparative ecolinguistic analysis
Main Article Content
Abstract
The degradation of the environment has led scholars to investigate more the ways in which language covers human – nature relations. Ecolinguistics has achieved valuable methods for the identification of ecological narratives, but the methods are at present scattered and of little comparative studies between Islamic and Christian environmental texts are few. This study aims to fill those gaps by applying Integrated Ecological Religious Evaluative Model (IEREM), which is a synthesis of the following theories, in analysing Qur'anic and Biblical passages: Ecological Discourse Analysis (Stibbe, 2015, 2021), Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014), Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999), and Appraisal Theory (Martin & White, 2005). The study reveals how ecological connotations can be found in the texts by means of grammatical representation, conceptual metaphors, evaluative language and ecological narratives by way of a qualitative analysis of twelve texts purposefully selected (Qur'an 45:13, 16:14, 14:32, 78:6–7, 6:38, 3:190; Genesis 1:28–30, 2:15, Psalm 19:1, 24:1, 104, Romans 8:19–22). The results suggest significant commonality between the two scriptures on nature as a component of a divinely orchestrated system and man as morally responsible stewards and not owners of nature. Against this backdrop, however, it is possible to demonstrate that the discourse in the Qur'an is oriented more toward God's actions (agency) and the created order itself as āyāt (signs), while, in the Biblical texts, there is a greater emphasis on delegated stewardship and care of the creation. The study not only provides an analytical approach that can be applied to other, comparison-oriented, ecolinguistic research, but also highlights the potential of religious discourse for environmental ethics and environmental communication for sustainability.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
Share
References
Alexander, R., & Stibbe, A. (2014). From the analysis of ecological discourse to the ecological analysis of discourse. Language Sciences, 41, 104–110.
Bauckham, R. (2010). Bible and ecology: Rediscovering the community of creation. Baylor University Press.
Chen, Y. (2023). Recent trends in ecolinguistics: Integrating discourse, cognition, and environmental communication. Journal of World Languages, 9(2), 145–162.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
Fill, A., & Penz, H. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics. Routledge.
Goatly, A. (2000). Critical reading and writing: An introductory coursebook. Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1990). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 7–36.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford University Press.
Horrell, D. G., Hunt, C., Southgate, C., & Stavrakopoulou, F. (2010). Greening Paul: Rereading the Apostle in a time of ecological crisis. Baylor University Press.
Izzi Dien, M. (2000). Environmental dimensions of Islam. Lutterworth Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2020). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Nasr, S. H. (1996). Religion and the order of nature. Oxford University Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Poole, R. (2022). Ecolinguistics and environmental humanities: New directions in discourse research. Language & Ecology, 2022(1), 1–18.
Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. Routledge.
Stibbe, A. (2021). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Tucker, M. E., & Grim, J. (2017). Ecology and religion. Island Press.
White, L., Jr. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203–1207.
Yusuf Ali, A. (2006). The meaning of the Holy Qur'an (New ed.). Amana Publications.