Abstract

This research explores the Ecosophy of discourse produced around the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The study starts with building a corpus of texts, taken from the official website of the CPEC. The list of 18 key words was made, based on three United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) out of 17 goals. Theoretical framework of Stibbe’s (2015) ecocritical discourse perspective is used to develop the Ecosophy of the CPEC, while analytical framework is based on three UN sustainable development goals outlined in 2015. Corpus linguistics as a methodology is used to undergo quantitative and qualitative analysis. In quantitative analysis, collocates were analyzed by identifying Mutual Information (MI) score. The highest MI score (11.26013) is gained by the collocation named CPEC-Deforestation and the lowest is of CPEC-Water (0.87352) which show that the infrastructure project of the CPEC caused deforestation and less affected water.

Key Words

Corpus, CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor), ECDA (Ecological Critical Discourse Analysis), Ecosophy, SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals)

Introduction

The economic giant with massive infrastructure, a developmental project, and a game changer, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a source of economic boost for South Asian region in general and Pakistan in specific (Tehran Times, 2019). The project has been sounded by various quarters as equally critical for leaving a negative environmental impact and potential hazards for local communities (Khalid et al., 2018). Keeping in view the negative impact of high-level infrastructure development in Pakistan through CPEC, Pakistan harnesses its economic activities by running projects like CPEC to enhance not only infrastructure development, energy security, trade facilitation, job creation, and foreign investment. The considerations where development and safety of environment are kept parallel come under an umbrella term called sustainability. The benefits of sustainable development in these large-scale projects include debt sustainability, environmental sustainability, and equitable distribution of resources and jobs (Schneider, Kallis & Martinez-Alier, 2010). This article focuses on environmental sustainability here referred to as Ecosophy and how CPEC fulfills the parameters of it, by doing eco-critical discourse analysis. This research involves corpus analysis to identify the Ecosophy of the project.  Initially, the idea of Ecosophy was proposed by Naess (1989), who offers its unique perspective by exploring the relationship between human beings and their natural environment. Ecosophy is "a philosophy of ecological harmony or equilibrium" (Peters, 2003), which offers a framework for understanding the complex interplay between economic development and environmental sustainability. This research article also explores the Ecosophy of the CPEC by examining the impact of CPEC’s development on the environment, its potential for sustainable development, and its implications for the local communities. The article seeks to contribute to the ongoing debate around the CPEC and offers a more nuanced understanding of its impact on the region.

The concept of ecosophy was established by two eminent philosophers Naess (1989) and Guattari (2005) followed by Stibbe (2015) where dominant anthropocentric worldview was introduced which they believed that human beings are responsible for environmental degradation because they exploit Nature for their own benefits. At the same time, they also promoted a shift towards more ecocentric perspective that recognized the intrinsic value of Nature, which is pro-environmental. This research deliberates focus on Stibbe’s ecosophical view that situates human well-being on environmental equilibrium and sustainability even if human beings continuously are exploiting Nature. Stibbe (2015), in his work "Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology, and the Stories We Live By," introduces the idea of ecosophy, which combines "ecology" and "philosophy." It emphasizes the need to transform our worldviews, values, and relationships with the environment through language. He emphasizes that Ecosophy involves a deep connection and attunement to Nature and seeks to promote ecological consciousness and sustainable ways of living through linguistic and discursive practices.

Stibbe’s concept of Ecosophy, this research explores the impact of the CPEC on environment and environment related areas by identifying specific language patterns and linguistic devices that further help compile an Ecosophy of the CPEC. Ecological Critical Discourse Analysis (ECDA) is an approach that has been used to explore these linguistic devices and patterns to construct the Ecosophy of the CPEC discourse. This approach applies ecological and environmental perspectives to discourse analysis. Humanly, we understand the importance of language, for instance, the imagination of absence of language creates a dark spot in life (Saleem, Khan & Naeem, 2019). As language plays a pivotal role in the development of an idea and propagation of a concept such as an anthropocentric and ecocentric. This paper examines how language and linguistic devices such as nouns, verbs and adjectives contribute to constructing and disseminating ecological and environmental ideologies such as anthropocentric and ecocentric.  By identifying the linguistic devices such as verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs, anthropocentric and ecocentric ideologies are explored which further helped in developing the Ecosophy of the project of the CPEC. Hence, ECDA analyzes texts that includes all the documents available on the official/governmental website of the CPEC in Pakistan.

Research Questions

1. What kind of significant collocates does CPEC have with environmental areas present in the discourse produced around CPEC?
2. How are linguistic devices found in significant collocates used to construct the Ecosophy of the CPEC?

Literature Review

The existing scholarship on the CPEC, with special focus on its impact on environmental areas of Pakistan, explores the concept of Ecosophy as a framework for understanding the complex interplay between economic development and environmental sustainability. The CPEC has been criticized for its potential environmental impact, with concerns raised about the impact of the project on local ecosystems and biodiversity (Ali & Butt, 2021). One of the primary concerns is the project's impact on water resources in the region, which is already under stress due to climate change and population growth. Other environmental concerns include the project's impact on air pollution and climate change, as the increased traffic and industrial activity associated with the CPEC could lead to higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution (Khalid, Ahmad & Ullah, 2022). The construction of dams, reservoirs, and canals as part of the CPEC project can exacerbate this problem, as it could lead to increased water usage and diversion, affecting downstream areas and the livelihoods of local communities (Ahmad, Shi & Zaman, 2023).  Constructing roads, railways, and pipelines for the CPEC could lead to habitat fragmentation and loss, significantly impacting the region's biodiversity. The extraction of natural resources, such as coal and oil, to fuel the development of the CPEC could also have significant environmental consequences, including deforestation, habitat destruction, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions (Tabassum, 2020).

The previous literature is reviewed from the angle of how various factors such as infrastructure development, emission of gases, air and water pollution, traffic flow and construction are badly impacting environment and ecology of the region due to the CPEC. Another way examines the previous studies by analyzing CPEC from discoursal point of view. Afzaal et al., (2019) examined the discourse of three Pakistani English newspapers and found out their ideological construction through corpus-based analysis. They summarized the findings of their research by claiming that positive discourse has been produced about CPEC through positive lexical choices. Similarly, Asif et al., (2019) also explored the impact of the CPEC on local culture and languages along its route whereas in another research, Faraz and Asghar (2021) evaluated metaphoric expressions used for the CPEC like ‘a silver bullet’, ‘a Trojen Horse’ and ‘developmental basket’ and found many conceptual metaphors based on the lexical realizations. In this research, the researchers have investigated the impact of the CPEC on environment and ecology differently for instance by exploring those linguistic devices and language expressions that represent anti-environmental and pro-environmental ideologies by looking at the statistical significance of the word CPEC with keywords used to show the relationship with each other. This research may contribute to how linguistic patterns and devices help expose the effects of economic development of this mega project on the environmental well-being.

Methodology

This research uses corpus linguistics as a methodology (Stefanowitsch, 2020) allowing us to combine quantitative and qualitative analysis. A corpus analysis of the discourse produced around CPEC has explored eco-environmental areas relevant to the 13th, 14th and 15th SDGs inside the texts taken from the official website of the CPEC. For the quantitative analysis, the search terms based on the above given three SDGs are used as collocates with the word CPEC and then are ranked highest and lowest with regard to the statistical significance represented by their Mutual Information score mentioned as MI score value in this research, which actually shows how closely a certain search term has occurred in the corpus of texts taken from the official website of CPEC of Pakistan. 

There are ten kinds of texts available on the official website of the CPEC. They are referred to be as official sources of data collection in this article because these texts are taken from the official website of the CPEC. The data includes documents and their quantity: CPEC Appraisal (01), Policy Briefs (02), Long Term Plan (01), Environmental Impact Assessments (04), Fact Books CPEC (02), Magazines CPEC (03), Press Releases CPEC (180), Review CPEC (01), working Papers (02) and Reports CPEC (09).  

After downloading these 10 texts, 26 text files were made so that after cleaning and management, they can be run on the AntConc software using version 3.5.7. Collocation analysis is done to see the impact of the CPEC on eco-environmental areas based on 13th, 14th, and 15th SDGs. To see the co-occurrence of these areas, Mutual Information (MI) score values (Anthony, 2011) are noted to evaluate the Ecosophy of the economic project of the CPEC. According to Stubbs (1995), MI score is a statistical measure that shows two things in numbers; one is the strength of words with each other, and the other is the semantic prosody or positive/negative profile of words occurring together. Related to this research the interpretation is that highest the score means closely occurs that area with CPEC but the positive or negative effect due to infrastructure development of the CPEC is determined by consulting 5 words on the left and 5 words on the right of the search term. Meanwhile, the output files and screenshots of the corpus are also consulted to quote here as examples. The examples are given in the form of concordance lines/ screenshots inside the analysis part. The keywords manually selected relevant to the three above given SDGs included 18 search terms that in turn helped presenting them as significant collocates as given in the analysis below. It is to be noticed that the quantitative analysis is done based on the score value such as higher the score value is more is the statistical significance of the CPEC is with that area. Qualitative analysis is done by collecting linguistic devices such as nouns, adjectives and verbs occurring with the search terms and interpreting them in line with pro-environmental or anti-environmental semantic prosody.

Analysis and Discussion

Table 1

Significant Collocates	MI Score	Significant Collocates	MI Score
CPEC-Environment CPEC-Climate action	2.24520 6.75739	CPEC-Human CPEC-deforestation	2.98431 11.26013
CPEC-Biodiversity	4.11779	CPEC-Ecosystems	4.48774
CPEC-Pollution	2.86084	CPEC-Habitat	0.97174
CPEC-Nature	1.51256	CPEC-Wetlands	5.60322
CPEC-displacement	5.40322	CPEC-Aquatic Life	8.49556
CPEC-Wild life	6.51402	CPEC-Water	0.87352
CPEC-Sustainability	4.01826	CPEC-Climate Change	2.32194
CPEC-Environmental degradation	3.91517	CPEC-CPEC activities	4.19987

 According to the analysis, the co-relation of the CPEC with ‘environment’ shows a significance value (MI score) of 2.24520 as compared to its association with ‘human’ as 2.98431 which implies that CPEC has more significance for human resource development while the environment is being exploited as a resource rather than saving it. In the examples given below, it can be seen that the coal projects can have a high toll on the environment along the CPEC route. 

Figure 1



In screenshot 1, the use of linguistic devices such as ‘pose’, ‘high’ and ‘costs’ tends to develop anthropocentric ideologies which promote the destruction of the environment due to the coal projects for the benefit of human development. Similar evidence of CPEC on the environment has been found in the output files and given here in the example below.

Road and transportation under CPEC have a ‘significant’ ‘negative’ effect on the environment of the area, as the existing literature has exposed that road and transport ‘negatively’ affects the environment. Transportation produces carbon, makes noise and mitigates the natural environment, congestion and traffic in the region, which ‘causes’ ‘stress’, ‘frustration’ and ‘diseases of the lungs’, heart and many other body parts. (R1)

On the contrary, in screenshot 2 given above, it is suggested to reduce environmental degradation by greening the project. The use of linguistic devices such as ‘green’, ‘action plan’ and ‘reduce’ tend to produce ecocentric ideologies which promote the safety of the environment at the same time.

Figure 2



In the example given above, human resource development is emphasised. This implicates the growth of human capital and human development and by using linguistic devices such as ‘human capital’, ‘growth’, and ‘human resource development’ through CPEC promotes human activities against Nature, generating anthropocentric ideologies.

As we see the highest MI score is gained by ‘deforestation’ with the word CPEC constituting 11.26013.  

Figure 3



For the collocate CPEC-Deforestation, the following screenshot shows the use of linguistic devices such as ‘anthropogenic’, ‘activities’ and ‘threat’ generating anthropocentric ideologies. One example taken from the text of Fact Book (FB) is given below.

People living in the neighbourhood of forests start using the natural resources for their livelihoods leading to deforestation, which is one of the major causes of environmental degradation and climate change.  Deforestation also leads to soil erosion impacting watersheds and watershed management. Pakistan has lost a huge forest cover due to this. (FB)

The collocates CPEC-Aquatic life has gained an MI score value of 8.49556 which according to the analysis displays the worst effect of the CPEC on aquatic life and water ecosystems as mentioned in the following concordance lines. 

Figure 4

. 



The linguistic devices such as ‘adversely’, ‘impacts’, water ‘ecosystem’ generate anthropocentric ideologies inside the association of CPEC and ecosystem.  Another concordance screenshot showing collocates CPEC-Ecosystems also exposes Pakistan’s ecosystems as fragile. 

Figure 6




The MI score value between CPEC and Climate action is 6.75739 which generates ecocentric ideologies/Ecosophy by using the linguistic devices of ‘urgent’, ‘action’, ‘combat’ and ‘plan’ for climate change.

Similarly, the collocate CPEC-Wild life has gained an MI score of 6.51402 which includes animals and wild plants as shown in the figure below.  

Figure 8



The use of linguistic devices such as ‘shelter’, ‘build’ and ‘parks’ to save wildlife generates ecocentric ideologies while ‘decrease’ and ‘effects of roads and traffic’ on wildlife population generate anthropocentric ideologies or Ecosophy. 

Figure 9



The collocate CPEC-Wetlands has acquired an MI score of 5.60322 which shows the bad effect of CPEC on connecting wetlands by using linguistic devices of ‘activities’, ‘face’ and ‘destruction’. These words produce anthropocentric ideologies thus generating anthropocentric Ecosophy. 

Figure 10



Similarly, the collocate CPEC-Displacement has taken a 5.40322 score value which shows anthropocentric Ecosophy by using expressions like ‘exacerbate’, opposition, ‘widespread’, ‘locals’, and ‘lead’ to the displacement of people and communities due to the CPEC.

Similarly, the area of biodiversity has gained an MI score value of 4.11779 which implicates CPEC as a potential threat to the biodiversity along the CPEC route according to the example given below.

Figure 11



The linguistic devices used for biodiversity such as ‘concerns’, ‘risks’, ‘threat’, ‘loss’ and ‘endangered’ biodiversity develop anthropocentric ideologies hence producing the anthropocentric Ecosophy of the CPEC.

The collocate CPEC-Sustainability has gained a 4.01826 MI score which promotes sustainability in the CPEC as described in the screenshot given below. 

Figure 12



The linguistic devices used in this association such as ‘promote’, ‘education’, ‘assured’, ‘ensure’ and ‘environmental’ sustainability produce ecocentric ideologies and Ecosophy. An example taken from the text file of Environmental Impact Assessment 1 (EIA1) shows the adverse effects of CPEC on 

environmental sustainability.

It is expected that the CPEC will generate ‘substantial adverse effects’ for environmental sustainability in Pakistan, which is a ‘very serious matter’. (EIA 1)

Another collocate of CPEC-Environmental degradation gaining a 3.91517 MI score shows that this association depicts anthropocentric Ecosophy as well as ecocentric Ecosophy

Figure 13



The anthropocentric ideologies are represented by using linguistic devices such as ‘caused’, ‘unprecedented’, ‘developing countries’ and ‘motor vehicles’ while ecocentric Ecosophy is generated through the use of words like ‘reduce’, ‘address’ and ‘no probable’ environmental degradation. An example taken from the Report 1 (R1) is given below.

It is expected that the CPEC will also lead to industry relocation from China to Pakistan. While this is good news, as it would lead to more investment and greater employment opportunities, there is a need to look for any environmental concerns due to the ‘relocation of dirty industry’ and accordingly the government should think through any necessary safeguards regime. (R3)

The co-occurrence of pollution with CPEC has an MI score value of 2.86084 with CPEC which implicates the worsening effect of CPEC causing air and water pollution. The examples are given in the screenshot below.

Figure 14



The given screenshot presents an anthropocentric Ecosophy of the project by using linguistic devices of ‘serious’, cause’, ‘soil erosion’, ‘emissions’, ‘and worsening’ quality of air and water due to the infrastructure development. Another collocate CPEC-Climate change gaining 2.32194 MI score depicts ecocentric ideologies by using linguistic devices of ‘dialogues’ ‘policies’, ‘seminars’, ’raising’, ‘address’ and ‘compatible investments’. 

Figure 15



One anthropocentric ideology can also be seen in the first concordance line that uses ‘revival of economic growth’ and ‘hampered’ by climate change.

The collocate CPEC-habitat acquires a 0.97174 MI score value in the official discourses on CPEC which generates a combination of anthropocentric as well as ecocentric ideologies.

Figure 16



Anthropocentric ideologies are produced by linguistic devices such as cause’, ‘impact’, ‘loss’ and ‘fragmentation’ while ecocentric ideologies are generated by ‘habitat management’ and ‘recovery’ and ‘mitigation’ as shown in the figure above.

Figure 17



Another significant collocate CPEC-water has gained an MI score of 0.87352 and developed an anthropocentric Ecosophy which uses linguistic devices such as ‘negative impacts’, ‘contaminate’, and ‘unfavourable’ water quality for hygiene and health. 

Figure 18



The collocate CPEC activities possess a 4.19987 score value which develops anthropocentric Ecosophy by using words like ‘face’, and ‘destruction’ of the environment due to CPEC activities.

The overview of findings and conclusion section provides the ecosophical nature of the project of the CPEC.

Findings and Conclusion

This section presents the key findings of this research to conclude the study done on the ecosophical analysis of the discourses produced around CPEC. To address first research question, there are found to be eighteen significant collocates relevant to environmental areas in the discourse produced around the CPEC. The highest MI score (11.26013) is gained by the collocation of CPEC-Deforestation while the lowest is gained by CPEC-Water (0.87352). This show how CPEC had affected deforestation so much. On the contrary, CPEC has affected water affairs least. Similarly, aquatic life comes on the second number in terms of its association with CPEC gaining 8.49556 MI score followed by another collocation CPEC- Climate action having 6.75739 MI score on fourth number. So, the analysis table 1 shows the association of the CPEC with all other areas showing MI scores which implicates that the highest score shows close occurrence or proximity of the area of impact and lowest score shows low impact and weak proximity. If we see the concordance screenshot in the analysis section, we may see the co-occurrence of words with search terms, and it can be found out that how certain linguistic devices portray good or bad realities (Shokouhi & Moazed, 2016) of environment of Pakistan under CPEC.

Ecosophy as described by Stibbe (2014) is a philosophy of judging a discourse produced around anthropocentric or ecocentric ideologies. If the discourse is pro-environment, the ideologies are ecocentric while ideologies if about environmental destruction and degradation, produce anthropocentric ideologies. According to the working definition of eco-centric and anthropocentric ideologies used for this research, anthropocentric ideologies are more prevalent in this discourse than ecocentric ideologies because in all 18 areas, anthropocentric ideologies can be seen whereas in the areas of climate change, climate action, habitat fragmentation, pollution and sustainability, ecocentric ideologies can also be seen. To address the second research question, it can be noticed that linguistic devices also play a significant role in the representation of these ideologies (van Dijk, 2005) by showing semantic prosody encapsulating relevant positive or negative choices (Lukin & Rivas, 2021) of the search term.  For instance, words such as negative, effect, costs, threat, anthropogenic, worse, adversely, fragile, destruction, face, pose, high, human capital, human growth, degradation, impacts, exacerbate, opposition, widespread displacement of people, concerns, risks, loss, endangered, substantial, adverse, serious, unprecedented, dirty industry, soil erosion, emissions, worsening, hampered, fragmentation, unfavourable and contaminate produce anthropocentric ideologies. Similarly, words as linguistic devices such as urgent, action, combat, plan, build, parks, shelter, decrease, ensure, assured, promote, reduce, address, dialogues, policies, raising, compatible, green, recovery and mitigate have generated ecocentric ideologies when used with search terms after establishing their positive semantic prosody. To conclude the findings, there are six verbs, seventeen nouns, 11 adjectives and one adverb with negative connotation semantic prosody tend to develop anthropocentric Ecosophy of the CPEC. At the same time, ecocentric Ecosophy is developed by 4 adjectives, 7 nouns and 10 verbs with positive connotation semantic prosody. So, the Ecosophy of the CPEC is anthropocentric which according to Kopnina et al., (2018) is the belief that human beings have supremacy to exploit Nature for their own benefits and other beings are the source of their survival.

References

• Afzaal, M., Hu, K., Chishti, M. I., & Khan, Z. A. (2019). Examining Pakistani news media discourses about China–Pakistan Economic Corridor: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1). Google Scholar Fulltext
• Ahmad, S., Shi, G., & Zaman, M. (2023). Resettlement delays in the Dasu Hydropower Project: assessing impacts on the affected people and communities. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 39(4), 663–680. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Ali, A., & Butt, K. M. (2021). Sustainable Development of Chitral: A CPEC Perspective. South Asian Studies, 36(01), 193-206. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Windows, Macintosh OS X, and Linux). Recuperado de: Google Scholar Fulltext
• Asif, M., Zhiyong, D., Ullah, I., Nisar, M., Kalsoom, R., & Hussain, M. A. (2019). The study on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a language and culture changer in Pakistan. Journal of the Punjab University Historical Society, 32(1), 35-49. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Faraz, H., & Asgher, J. (2021). A Trojan Horse, a Game Changer, a Silver Bullet and What Not! A Study of Metaphors in the Discourses of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). International Review of Social Sciences, 386-399. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Guattari, F. (2005). The three ecologies. Bloomsbury Publishing. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Khalid, I., Ahmad, T., & Ullah, S. (2022). Environmental impact assessment of CPEC: a way forward for sustainable development. International Journal of Development Issues, 21(1), 159-171. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Khalid, S., Shahid, M., Natasha, Bibi, I., Sarwar, T., Shah, A. H., & Niazi, N. K. (2018). A review of environmental contamination and health risk assessment of wastewater use for crop irrigation with a focus on low and high-income countries. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(5), 895. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Taylor, B., & J Piccolo, J. (2018). Anthropocentrism: More than just a misunderstood problem. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(1), 109-127. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Lukin, A., & Rivas, L. I. (2021). Prosody and ideology. Language, Context and Text, 3(2), 302–334. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Næss, A. (1989). From ecology to ecosophy, from science to wisdom. World Futures, 27(2–4), 185–190. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Peters, D. (2003). Planning for a sustainable Europe? A case study of European Union transport infrastructure investment policy in the context of Eastern enlargement (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, School of Graduate Studies). Google Scholar Fulltext
• Saleem, M., Khan, J., & Naeem, M. (2019). The Origin of language: An Analysis of Theories from Qurá¾±nic Perspective. Tahdhib-al-Afkar, 6(2), 01-16. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Schneider, F., Kallis, G., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. Journal of cleaner production, 18(6), 511-518. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Shokouhi, H., & Moazed, R. (2016). Linguistic representation of ideological strategies in two Iranian newspapers written in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 127–155. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Stefanowitsch, A. (2020). Corpus linguistics: A guide to the methodology. Language Science Press. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Stibbe, A. (2014). An ecolinguistic approach to critical discourse studies. Critical discourse studies, 11(1), 117-128. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: language, ecology and the stories we live by. Google Scholar Fulltext
• Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles. Functions of Language, 2(1), 23–55.
• Tabassum, S. (2020). Deforestation in Pakistan CPEC an auxiliary exacerbation. Journal of Contemporary Studies, 9(II), 59-72. Google Scholar Fulltext