An Ecological-Discourse Analysis of Tao Te Ching from the Perspective of Systemic‑Functional Linguistics

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jhet.202615430

Author(s)

Caiyuan Sun*

Affiliation(s)

School of Humanities, Shandong Agriculture and Engineering University, Jinan, Shandong, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

Ecological linguistics explores the relationship between language and environment, which provides a new perspective for appreciating the ecological wisdom in traditional Chinese classical texts. This paper is to analyze Wang Bi’s edition of Tao Te Ching under the framework of Hallidayan ecologicallinguistic. By combining register analysis with ecological discourse analysis, it investigates the linguistic features and the underlying ecological philosophical ideas in the text from three dimensions: ideational metafunction, interpersonal metafunction, and textual metafunction. The study finds that first “Tao”, “Heaven”, “Earth” and “All Things Under Heaven and Earth” are the high-frequency ecological vocabulary and relative process possesses the highest proportion in the transitivity system; second, the text uses declarative mood to persuade people to keep a harmonious relationship with nature; third, it uses implicit coherence to inspire understanding of nature, and to refuse to accept human language’s conceptualization of natural reality; and, generally, it represents a non-human-centered, beneficial ecological text, in which linguistic form and ecological thought are interdependent and mutually strengthening. This study provides an aid for understanding the ecological ideas as well as for applied research in ecological linguistics.

Keywords

Hallidayan Systemic‑Functional Linguistics; Tao Te Ching; Wang Bi’s Edition; Transitivity; Ecological Discourse Analysis.

References

[1] Jiang Chengfeng Zhu Jingjing Xie Guiping. A Review of Research on Language, Culture, and Ecology. Journal of Northwest Minzu University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2012(3). [2] Zhao Bo; Li Jing. A Review of Ecological Linguistics Research. Chinese Language Construction, 2013(11):23-24. [3] Halliday, M. A. K. Linguistics in the university: The question of social accountability// Copeland, J. E New Directions in Linguistics and Semiotics. Houston, TX: Rice University Studies, 1984. 51−67. [4] Luo Yushu Guo Yadong. Review of “Ecological Linguistics and Environment in Education: Language, Culture, and Text Analysis” Foreign Languages, 2026, 49(2): 124–128. [5] Erwin F. H. (translated by Fan Junjun and Gong Qi). Current Status of Contemporary Ecological Linguistics. Foreign Social Sciences, 2004(6). [6] Li Guozheng. Ecological Chinese Linguistics. Jilin Education Press, 1991. [7] Erwin F. H., Fan Junjun, Gong Qi. Current Status of Contemporary Ecological Linguistics. Foreign Social Sciences, 2004. [8] Fan Junjun. A Review of Research on Ecological Linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2005, 37(2): 23–24. [9] Meng Anqi. Insights from the Harmony between Humanity and Nature in the Tao Te Ching for Contemporary Ecological Civilization Construction. Public Relations World, 2023(13): 55–57. [10] Guo Weijing. A Review and Ecological Outlook of English Translations of the Tao Te Ching Based on CiteSpace. Language and Culture Studies, 2025, 33(01): 182–185. [11] Qin Yingfei. Interpreting the Contemporary Value of the “Unity of Heaven and Humanity” Concept in the Tao Te Ching from the Perspective of a Marxist Ecological View. Hunan Science and Technology News, 2026(6). [12] Wang Bi. Commentary and Critical Edition of Tao Te Ching by Laozi. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2008. [13] Li Ying, Yin Feizhou. Constructing a Contemporary Dialogic Approach to the Huntington Translation of the Tao Te Ching Based on Deep Ecological Thinking. Shanghai Translation, 2025(6):44–49.