Language as a tool of animal oppression : The role of grammar in representing farm animals
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2016 |
| Type | Appeared in Conference without Proceedings |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Description | Language as a form of social practice plays a significant role in the sustainment and reinforcement of power relations, dominance and inequality between different groups of people (Fairclough 2001, 2003). Ecolinguistic approaches to the study of language (Stibbe 2001, 2012) stress that language practice also reflects and at the same time sustains the relationship of humans towards other animal species and contributes to the cruel and destructive behavior we display towards them. The linguistic choices we make when speaking about animals help construe their social identity as inferior entities or even objects, which is pivotal in manufacturing human consent to the oppression and cruel treatment of animals (Stibbe 2001, 2012). While these mechanisms might most easily be observed on lexical level, this paper examines how farm animals and their interactions with humans are more subtly represented on the level of grammar. Using twelve articles from a publicly available British periodical, it analyzes the significance of using passive voice, nominalizations and various ways agency is attributed or concealed in meeting two interrelated ends: representing animals as inferior entities substantially different from humans, and concealing human responsibility for intentionally causing animal suffering. References Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. Stibbe, A. (2001). Language, power and the social construction of animals. Society and Animals 9 (2), 145-161. Stibbe, A. (2012). Animals erased: Discourse, ecology, and reconnection with the natural world. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. |
| Related projects: |