Content uploaded by Awni Etaywe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Awni Etaywe on Aug 23, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Preprint (some minor updates of the tables appear in the published version).
Cite the published work as follows:
Etaywe, A., Thomson, E., & Wijeyewardene, I. (2024). Moving towards peace, compassion
and empathy through semiotic enquiry. Language, Context and Text, 6(1), 2-26.
https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00063.eta
Moving towards peace, compassion and empathy through semiotic enquiry
Awni Etaywe, Elizabeth A. Thomson and Ingrid Wijeyewardene
Charles Darwin University, Australia | University of Wollongong, Australia |
University of New England, Australia
In our interconnected world, exposure to hate, fear, violence and adversarial
communication is commonplace. Yet, this exposure underscores the urgent need for a
more just, peaceful, and inclusive society. While research stresses the importance of
nurturing peace, compassion and empathy for enhanced well-being and social justice,
these three terms are rarely discussed at length in linguistics and communication
studies. Little systematic work explores how language and semiotic resources
actualise these ideals across contexts. This special issue, grounded in systemic
functional linguistics, addresses this gap. It aims to contribute to a more just world,
promote non-violent efforts for social justice, and lay the foundation for future
research on the semiotics of peace, compassion and empathy. This paper outlines key
definitions and contributions.
Keywords: peace, compassion, empathy, semiotics, systemic functional linguistics,
multimodality, discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, digital communication, morality
1. Introduction
2
In the past two decades, humanities and social sciences research on the topics of peace,
compassion, and empathy has experienced a significantly renewed interest (e.g. Höijer 2003;
Webel and Galtung 2007; Gruen 2015). Yet, linguistic research on these topics, particularly
within the tradition of systemic functional linguistics (hereafter SFL), is relatively limited.
What this special issue (hereafter SI) is about is bringing the three topics together,
acknowledging the intersections between them (as demonstrated in the papers of this SI), in
contribution to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 (UN SDG 16) which
aims to promote justice, peace and inclusion. The aim of this SI is to contribute to our
(individuals’ and organisations’) understanding, promotion and awareness of the specific
functions of language and other semiotic resources to express and advance peace, compassion
and empathy in everyday life and in other theatres of social engagement. It is a timely step
towards illustrating how linguistic research itself constitutes a powerful resource for the
advancement of peace, compassion and empathy, and how it can inform designs for social
change. Based on this linguistic research, and in pursuit of fostering a more inclusive and
understanding world, the SI shares and showcases how the application of linguistic theory
emerges as a beacon of hope.
Through the realms of semiotic enquiry, the SI illuminates the profound ways in
which language can be harnessed to cultivate peace, compassion and empathy. It delves into
the semantic and grammatical intricacies across various genres. By examining texts from
diverse fields including political science, media, human rights and medicine, along with
everyday casual conversation, we aim to shed light on the linguistic choices driving these
concepts. Through this exploration, we seek to foster a deeper comprehension of our shared
humanity and how we can enhance the quality of our life, as well as the life of other beings in
the animal world.
Grounding their investigations in the traditions of SFL, the articles in the SI draw on a
model of language that is oriented towards using linguistics to address social issues (e.g.
inequalities, lack of freedom) (Halliday 2008). This functional theory of language gives us a
perspective of language as action as well as a reflection of the society within which it occurs,
and where meaning-making is grounded in social practice (Halliday 1978; Halliday with
Matthiessen 2014). That is, a text analysed within the SFL tradition is viewed as being a
semantic unit that is “functional” in the sense that it is “doing a job in some context”
(Halliday and Hasan 1985: 10). This sensitises us to the patterning and functioning of choices
made in text. This perspective of meaning making is powerful in contexts where users of
language as well as other semiotic resources are strategically and deliberately hindering or
3
otherwise advancing understanding and social justice in order to promote peaceful and
inclusive societies.
Another point of significance of the SI resides in its triune focus on “peace,
compassion and empathy”. Unlike previous work that attempts to address each topic at a
time, the focus of the SI on this triune acknowledges the interconnections and the relationship
between the three. Having a sense of common humanity, when witnessing or learning about
the suffering of other people, arouses empathy and compassion for the plight of the needy and
most vulnerable humans (Bandura 2016: 414). Empathy establishes the connection between
us, and is the gateway to compassion – moving from feeling with to feeling for (Dowling
2018). Research into human rights and conflict resolution also considers compassion and
building compassion to be a critical component to peacebuilding practices and helping social
groups establish common grounds (e.g. human rights among conflicting parties).
Compassion, in this sense, is “a social enterprise, promoting a sense of bonding with others”
(Rothbart and Allen 2019: 376) and serving as an enabler of achieving social justice and
peace. United Nations Human Rights Council’s mandate holders have emphasised that social
justice fosters peace and peace enables social justice (de Zayas 2015). It is this
interconnection between the three concepts and their influence on various walks of life which
the SI emphasises.
The SI, as such, contributes to the linguistic conceptualisation of peace, compassion
and empathy in different contexts and text types (summarised in Section 3) and how these
concepts are operationalised by social actors to advance particular goals. The SI paves the
way for leaders, peace-builders and organisations to revise their discourses, for social
movements to refine their resistance and change projects, and for educators to reflect on their
approaches towards their students – based on the proposed analytical models. The SI
establishes the linguistic modelling of compassion development and empathy development. It
also informs those working in the health sector, education, peacebuilding, politics, social
movements, social media activism and more (as demonstrated in the articles of the SI) how to
improve wellbeing and foster social justice. Through its choice of datasets and applications of
a broad range of SFL theoretical and analytical frameworks as well as other linguistic tools,
such as corpus linguistics, the SI contributes to the overarching deployment of linguistic
analysis as a powerful vehicle for expressing, negotiating and understanding diverse
perspectives and actions in the service of social justice.
The insights of the SI are expected to be of broad appeal by the mere fact that the
language of peace, compassion and empathy can be applied at micro and macro levels across
4
the many contexts we humans find ourselves in throughout life. In a micro sense, being able
to listen to and respond with empathy, act compassionately and contribute to a peaceful
experience with intimate partners, families, closest friends and acquaintances enriches the
most local of social networks. Similarly, from a macro perspective, as intimate networks
extend into larger networks through professional, organisational and institutional
involvement, on through to national and global networks, the reach and impact of the
language of peace, compassion and empathy extends exponentially. With more people having
the ability to humanise with empathy, thus motivating acts of compassion, the more likely
there will be a mutual desire for peace and harmony. Towards that end, there is an
expectation that this SI will be of particular interest to educators as they strive to bring
compassion and the language of peace into classrooms around the world. Through education,
people can learn how to mean peacefully and they can benefit from doing something positive
in the midst of global upheaval. The SI is a compassionate response to our collective desire to
make the world a better place.
2. Defining “peace”, “compassion” and “empathy” in the special issue
An overarching theme of this SI is the notion of peace and how it is enacted or realised in
discourse and other forms of semiosis. To begin, “peace” is a concept that is lexicalised in
many of the world’s languages (see for example, Peace23 2023). In English, the word
“peace” comes via Old French from Latin pax. The English word is defined in the Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary (1992) initially in relation to war and in negative terms as freedom
from (e.g. war, commotion, disturbance) or absence of (e.g. noise) before the opposite
meanings are provided (e.g. security, tranquillity, quiet). This tendency to define “peace” in
binary terms establishes “peace” as the marked choice in a peace-war dichotomy despite the
independent values and social processes that “peace” encompasses as distinct from “war”
(Clyne 1987; Ferguson 2008; Hodges 2013).
Looking at the etymology of “peace” in English and other languages allows us to see
traces of meaning that provide some insight into the current meanings encapsulated in
“peace”. For example, pax, while having the meaning of peace and harmony for Romans,
also referred to a treaty to end a war (Lewis and Short 1879) or “peace through subjugation”
(Clyne 1987:78). A related word in English, from the same Latin root, is “pact”, an
agreement. These words have been reconstructed as the Indo-European root *pak-, meaning
5
“fasten”, which has connotations of stability (Wescott 1990). Prior to “peace”, the word in
English was of Germanic origin, frith, which is related to the word for peace in German,
Friede. Cognates in English of Friede and frith are the words “friend” and “free” (Wescott
1990). So, “peace” can be said to encompass the notions of stability, friendship, agreement
and freedom. In Hebrew and Arabic, the word for “peace” is also used as a greeting. The
Hebrew word, shalom, and in Arabic, salaam, include the meanings of “completeness,
wellbeing, harmony” and “wholeness” (Clyne 1987). In Sanskrit, the word for “peace”, śāntī,
śānti, has a range of meanings all related to inner peace (Narasimhananda 2018). This root is
found in words for peace within languages of the Indian subcontinent, Sri Lanka and
mainland Southeast Asia, such as Thai, Khmer and Lao. Oxford (2013: 4) identifies six
dimensions of language related to peace: inner, interpersonal, intergroup, international,
intercultural and the ecological. The meanings cited above represent at least four of these
domains: inner, interpersonal, intergroup and international.
A preliminary corpus analysis of the lemma “peace*” was performed drawing from
the News on the Web (NOW) Corpus (https://www.english-corpora.org/now/) containing
15.7 billion + words and consisting of web-based newspapers and magazines from 2010 to
the present time (created 2/9/22) and the English web (enTenTen20) Corpus
(https://app.sketchengine.eu) consisting of texts gathered from the Internet containing 36.5
billion+ words (created 1/9/2022). In terms of word class, in both corpora, the three most
frequent occurrences of “peace*” was first as the noun “peace” followed, with a considerable
decline in frequency, by the adjective “peaceful” and then the adverb “peacefully”. Nouns
collocating with “peace*” include “process”, “security”, “talk”, “mind” and “stability”; verbs
include “rest”, “bring” and “make”, and adjectives include “lasting”, “regional”, “national”
and “global”. An analysis of the first one hundred clauses of each corpus found the following
patterns of uses of “peace*” in the nominal group (see Table 1). The examples also illustrate
some of the domains of peace cited above.
Table 1. Patterns of “peace*” in the nominal group
Patterns
Examples
as Thing
peace and security, peace and stability, lasting peace, peace of mind
as Epithet
peaceful demonstrations, peaceful revolution, peaceful place
as Classifier
peace process, peace talks
6
as Qualifier
justice of the peace, chances for peace
With regard to participant roles in the clause, the lemma “peace*” occurred most frequently
in attributive clauses as Attribute, in material clauses as Goal or Scope (or as elements in the
nominal group), as Token or Value and as an element in circumstantial elements of the clause
(see examples in Table 2 below).
Table 2. Examples of “peace*” in the clause
Participant role
Examples
Attribute
It was peaceful.
The demonstrations are peaceful.
which stands between the extremes of power and peace
Goal
peace has been restored in the region.
President Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to make peace
with Israel,
when the US ramped up peace talks with the Taliban
Scope
there is One who can bring peace
people may resort to the past to find peace
whether the military should focus on peacekeeping or
peacemaking
Token
Thus does liberal peace become the continuation of war
The Afghan peace process presents a historic opportunity for
peace in the region.
Value
true religious leaders stand for peace
The theme was shanti, which means peace.
The Afghan peace process presents a historic opportunity for
peace in the region.
7
Circumstance
Cause:purpose
Location:place
Manner: means
for peace and good will; for your own peace of mind
Visitors…can sketch or paint in the peace and quiet
that the two countries are resolved to settle their differences
by peaceful means
To summarise these results, “peace*” is frequently associated with states of being as well as
something that needs to be enacted, as in making peace. However, a more in-depth corpus
analysis of the lemma “peace*” might be more revelatory.
Given these differing strands of meanings – that is, peace considered in relation to
conflict and violence and the impact that war and violence has on humanity as opposed to
inner peace, tranquillity, friendship, agreement, wholeness, wellbeing, peace as freedom from
rather than freedom to, and peace in relation to humanity’s relationship with animals and the
natural world – various fields of enquiry have emerged to promote peace. Peace studies, also
referred to as peace and conflict studies, identifies peace in terms of negative and positive
peace – negative peace being the absence of physical violence, and positive peace as social
justice to resist and renovate all areas of structural violence (Galtung 1969; Webel and
Galtung 2007; Standish et al. 2021). This field of study has influenced other disciplines,
giving rise to various sub-disciplines such as peace linguistics (e.g. Gomes de Matos 2000,
2014), peace sociolinguistics (e.g. Friedrich 2007; Trester 2013), peace education (e.g. Harris
2004), peace psychology (e.g. Sapio and Zamperini 2007) and peace journalism (e.g. Fourie
2012). Many researchers have called for a greater focus on language and linguistics in the
quest for peace (e.g. Clyne 1987; Wenden 2007; Kruger 2012; Oxford 2013), underscoring
the importance of language in peace and nonviolence. This focus on language, discourse and
other forms of semiosis has great potential to inform approaches to conflict resolution (see
Ortu this issue) and peacebuilding activities, such as negotiation, mediation, non-violent
communication (see Thomson and Fryer, this issue), counselling, and reconciliation (see
Martin and Cruz, this issue), amongst others. Since the actions of peace and conflict are
invariably performed through linguistic and other semiotic acts, this focus on semiosis is
apposite.
Attending to the language of peace needs to also take account of discourse. This
opens the way for analytical frameworks such as (i) critical discourse analysis (CDA) which
8
seeks to uncover ideological processes that entrench discrimination and inequality in society
(e.g. Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999; Wodak and Meyer 2009; Martin 2012[2000]), and (ii)
positive discourse analysis (PDA), focusing on progressive discourses that challenge and
resist the dominant, oppressive discourses and empower the marginalised and dispossessed
(Hughes 2018) (see Wijeyewardene; Martin and Cruz; Etaywe, Dreyfus and Han this issue)
and discourses that seek to enlighten, empower and emancipate (Janks and Ivanič 1992;
Martin 2012 [2004]; Bartlett 2012, 2018) (see Thomson, Fryer, Ortu, this issue). SFL, as an
“appliable linguistics” (e.g. Halliday 1985, 2008; Martin 2012[2000]; Matthiessen 2012), has
informed many of the theorists cited above. Martin (2012:1) interprets the concept of an
appliable linguistics as “a commitment to intervene in social semiotic processes in the
interests of social justice”. The theoretical approach to language as metafunctional has made
an important contribution to the study of discourses of peace and conflict in CDA and PDA,
with three meanings (Martin 2012[2000]): ideational meanings that construe power (or lack
of it) through analysis of TRANSITIVITY and AGENCY (see Wijeyewardene; Martin and Cruz
this issue), interpersonal meanings that enact power through the resources of APPRAISAL (see
Martin and Cruz; Etaywe; Fryer; Dreyfus and Han; Thomson; Ortu this issue), and textual
meanings that naturalise power through patterns of information, THEME and NEW (see e.g.
Thomson, this issue).
The notion of Design (Kress 2000) is an important focus for PDA, taking the
emphasis off the critique of texts that discriminate and marginalise, which has been the
predominant focus for CDA, and concentrating more on new or renovated discourses in
which users become “the remakers, transformers, of sets of representational resources –
rather than users of stable systems” (Kress 2000: 160). Resistance to stable, dominant social
structures is thus one crucial area of interest for PDA. As Hughes (2018:196) argues,
“focusing on resistance calls our attention to the agency of individuals engaged in reshaping
structural constraints. In other words, analysing resistant discourse entails design” (see
Wijeyewardene, Etaywe, Dreyfus and Han, this issue). Equally important for PDA and the
concept of Design is the focus on successful forms of peaceful communication that can be
passed on and deployed in a variety of contexts to build more peaceful relationships (see e.g.
Thomson; Ortu this issue).
Martin views CDA and PDA in terms of a complementarity: a “yin/yang” perspective
(2012[2004]: 282), in which he acknowledges the need for both approaches in the analysis of
discourse. Indeed “bringing injustices to light is the first step towards their resolution”
(Bartlett 2012:226), but since there has already been so much work on deconstruction, Martin
9
calls for a greater focus on more constructive and progressive semiotic activity that promotes
social change. Many of the papers in this SI engage with these approaches to the analysis of
discourse, and Wijeyewardene and Martin and Cruz (this issue) demonstrate the value of the
complementary perspectives in discourse analysis.
Also of importance in a study of discourses of peace, compassion and empathy is the
need for more in-depth understanding of the social context within which discourses are
produced and whether or how discourses have been accepted by marginalised and oppressed
groups and are effective in creating social change (Bartlett 2018). A number of papers in this
SI engage with the social context either in the response to particular social structures or the
uptake by participants to express their agency to agitate for social change (e.g. Dreyfus and
Han; Etaywe; Martin and Cruz; Wijeyewardene this issue). This can occur on various levels
of interaction. For example, a study by Bartlett concludes that PDA needs to explore
collaborative discourses – when two sides get together and find commonalities – “third
spaces” that lead to “localised hybrid discourses” (Bartlett 2012: 217; see also Thomson this
issue). However, times of conflict often present intractable positions that make the production
of these third spaces impossible (Wijeyewardene; Etaywe this issue).
Peace as a goal is a worthy ambition, but how is this to be achieved? If peace is to be
considered the goal, then compassion and empathy must be a necessary part of the means to
realise this goal. Both terms appear in various literature on peace and on discourse analytic
methods to achieve peace. For example, according to Oxford (2013: 8, 10, 45), peace is
achievable through empathy. Galtung (2011, cited in Connors 2016) also defines peace as the
“ability to handle conflict with empathy, nonviolence and creativity”, and Hodges (2013: 4)
argues that rather than having a desire to resort to violence, humans are more likely to display
empathy and compassion. Compassion, then, is also a key element in the pursuit of peace.
Rather than just a state, peace needs to be considered as an action by agents expressed
through acts of compassion (Oxford 2013:15). The Vietnamese Buddhist monk and peace
activist, Thich Nhat Hanh (2008[2003]:8), states that “[c]ultivating peace means cultivating
understanding and cultivating compassion.” As Bartlett (2012: 229-230) argues, “fostering
empathy with an audience is the essential intermediary stage between comprehension and
uptake” – that is, understanding entails both comprehension and empathy.
Central to our exploration is, thus, the recognition of compassion as a fundamental
driving force for positive, non-violent change, and as action-focused and others-centred (see
Etaywe this issue). Compassion in the SI is conceptualised as a social discursive process that
can be visualised on a cline or continuum where empathy (defined later in this section) is
10
activated first, establishing the connection between us (Dowling 2018), and compassion
follows. In other words, compassion transcends our everyday emotional reactions, such as
feeling with another’s affective state, and perspective-taking or understanding – which is the
focus of “empathy” (see Thomson this issue). Compassion expresses institutionalised
feelings. That is, it goes beyond emotions triggered by witnessing, hearing or learning about
the suffering of others, entering the realm of shared community and/or universal norms,
values and ethics. This entails what should (not) be done or said to relieve those in distress
(for a more detailed discussion of the linguistic difference between affect or emotions, and
institutionalised feelings, see Martin and White 2005). Compassion’s essence is morally
motivated responses or practices that have a social purpose – to curb violence and alleviate
the suffering of other humans (as demonstrated by Etaywe this issue), as well as non-human
beings (as demonstrated by Fryer this issue). Hence, a sociolinguistic investigation of
compassion should examine how morality relates to not only language use but also acts of
compassion (as a social meaning), as well as the social purposes of these acts. For more about
(i) the relationship between morality or moral orders (e.g. freedom, justice, care, legal moral
orders), agency and language use, see, e.g. Van Langenhove (2017), and (ii) the discursive
construction of social purposes, see van Leeuwen (2008). The SI presents one’s compassion
as a human value demonstrated through effort exerted in helping those in pain or suffering
(Bandura 2016); as such, to describe someone as being compassionate implies a
performance-based act that is other-centred as an authentication of one’s compassionate
identity (Etaywe, this issue).
This conceptualisation of compassion as a morally informed practice aligns with the
existing research in psychology and philosophy where compassion is presented, firstly, as a
moral concern and care for others, including strangers from different continents and cultures
(Höijer 2004), highlighting the morality and human basis of compassion. Compassion is,
secondly, viewed as experiencing or learning about the pain or suffering of others and having
the desire to alleviate their suffering through one’s actions or the actions of others (Rothbart
and Allen 2019). This not only underscores the action and moral agency factor in compassion
but also draws our attention to the importance of language and communication in raising
awareness about others’ pain and, thus, in the arousal of compassion. The medium through
which others’ experiences are witnessed or conveyed, whether through the naked eye,
language or visual communication, influences how we perceive the world and victims, get
motivated, get together and compassionately act (for more, particularly, on the role of visuals
in compassion, see Höijer 2004). A sociolinguistic investigation of compassion, thus, needs
11
to examine what framing processes and visual presentation tactics are used to construct the
victims and human experiences and to influence our cognitive processes (namely, knowing
and learning), how people come together, what motivates them, what values are negotiated,
and what identity processes are in play (see Etaywe; Fryer this issue). The capacity of
compassion and the moral agency of individuals remain dormant until activated, contingent
on individuals being positioned or engaged with the plight of others (Bandura 2016: 92). The
modelling of compassion development as a moral affiliation process as discussed by Etaywe
(this issue) strives to demonstrate how discourse operates to activate compassion, positioning
audiences, fostering moral orders and encouraging ethical actions. . For more about the
relationship between positioning and morality, see, for example, Harré (2012). A third view
of compassion is: “the desire and effort to alleviate the perceived suffering of others”
(Bandura 2016: 92). This definition, as well as the previous ones, foregrounds motivations
and (personal or collective) agency as key components for the study of compassion.
This understanding of compassion as a social discursive process grounded in human values
paves the way for research into “compassion as a norm”, hence understanding and mitigating
suffering within a moral framework. That is, compassion holds priority, for example, in a
community’s ethos regarding supporting each other to ensure everyday peace; and it has
precedence in the human rights agenda of international law, including Geneva conventions,
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Rothbart and Allen 2019). That is,
compassion assists in creating a reality of “interdependent ethos in which participants derive
their self-regard and well-being from improving each other’s lives [...] and working towards
improving the conditions of life in society at large” (Bandura 2016: 94). In addition,
compassion grounded in common humanity and humanitarian ethics has a transformative
power to support the needy and “curb violence” (ibid.) such as that in the occupied
Palestinian territories. These international laws and conventions are grounded morally on the
claim of universal dignity and come with an imperative to investigate and mitigate systemic
vulnerability of certain categories of people, such as the wounded, prisoners of war, ethnic
minorities, civilian non-combatants, and racial and religious groups subject to the crime of
genocide. This also presents the norm of compassion as being an institutionalised and
“systemic” act, serving as a driving force that can manifest in a pattern of actions and
practices of relieving those in distress, conflict resolution, interpersonal mediation, school-
based conflict resolution programs (Rothbart and Allen 2019), non-violent resistance and
social media activism (see e.g. Etaywe; Fryer this issue). Given that such institutionalised
compassion is grounded in common human values, which encourage in-grouping rather than
12
out-grouping and exclusion (Bandura 2016), an investigation into the evaluative language
(e.g. Martin and White 2005) in multimodal texts, within a “progressive” discourse analysis
project (Hughes 2018), and “communion affiliation” as in-grouping strategy (Etaywe and
Zappavigna 2023) are proposed and demonstrated as relevant linguistic tools for the
examination of compassion in the SI. The SI seeks to unearth the semiotic mechanisms that
enable us to express, embody, develop and evoke compassion through discourse.
The conceptualisation of compassion as a value, attribute and being action-oriented is
also evidenced by a preliminary investigation of the word “compassion” that involved an
examination in OED and three corpora (for more details, see the Semiotics of Peace,
Compassion and Empathy SIG archive). The investigation in the Oxford English Dictionary
reveals that the word refers, inter alia, to a noun of action, fellow feeling, and the feeling
when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another and by the desire to relieve it.
The preliminary investigation of the use of the lemma “compassion*” also extended to
exploring the concordance lines within the 1.5-billion-word Coronavirus Corpus
(https://www.english-corpora.org/corona/) The corpus’s data is taken from approximately 1.9
million texts from Jan 2020–Dec 2022. The texts are typically web-based news genre
reporting on the pandemic and sourced from online magazines and newspapers across 20
different English-speaking countries. The focus of this initial analysis was on the
“compassion*” word class and its evaluative significance, given the interconnectedness of
lexis and grammar and to highlight the inherent values in the lexical item itself. The
examination shows that the lemma “compassion” is predominantly realised as a noun and
adjective. “Compassionate” serves as an evaluative lexical item that describes behaviour,
implying judgement, and attributes to things, indicating appreciation. The concept of
compassion can thus be initially described as a feature of appreciation or a characteristic of
being (e.g. “compassionate approach”), a judgement or a state of behaviour (e.g.
“compassionate leader”), and/or an ideation (e.g. a value, idea, abstraction – e.g.
“compassion of Jesus”, “city of compassion”). In-depth corpus linguistic examination of this
concept, including a collocation analysis and a key word in context (KWIC) analysis, is
provided in Etaywe’s work (this issue).
The preliminary investigation has also extended to the following Sketch Engine
corpora, which were examined for syntactic patterns: British Academic Spoken English
Corpus (BASE, 1,477,281 words) and British Academic Written English Corpus (BAWE,
6,968,089 words). A closer look at the Word Sketch on Sketch Engine reveals “compassion”
(in italics) in different patterns, summarised and exemplified in Table 3. These patterns, using
13
the default traditional descriptive grammatical categories of the Word Sketch, include
compassion as subject, compassion as object, compassion as modifier, and compassion as
predicate. Using the SFL descriptive terms, the word often appears to function at the group
level as a Thing (e.g. compassion and empathy), Classifier (e.g. compassion fatigue), Epithet
(e.g. compassionate role) and Qualifier (e.g. spirit of compassion). Since the Word Sketch
does not provide a fuller context, the analysis of the lemma for its Participant role in the
clause has included the first two hundred concordance lines of the Coronavirus Corpus. The
analysis reveals that the lemma “compassion*” occurred in a clause as a Participant
(Attribute, Value, Goal, Scope, and Token) and as the Thing in the Circumstance of Manner
as in the following examples:
(1) South Africans are courageous and compassionate… (Attribute)
(2) We should show compassion especially during this time of COVID-19.
(Value)
(3) I can model compassion and kindness to my kids. (Goal)
(4) The world needs to focus on peace, love, compassion and understanding.
(Scope)
(5) The second person I met who embodied a Christmas-like compassion was
Carolynne. (Token)
(6) Companies are treating their employees with empathy and compassion.
(Circumstance: manner: means)
Table 3. “Compassion” word sketch
Pattern
Examples
Modifier of Noun
compassion fatigue; manner based on compassion
Modified as Noun
genuine compassion; maternal compassion
Compassion as
Object
felt a sudden compassion; emphasise compassion; sees
compassion as the highest cardinal virtue
Preposition Object
(by …)
fashioned by a compassion
Compassion as
Subject
compassion destroys evolution…; compassion which counters
man’s corruption…; Compassion is real and true for the most
enlightened souls.
14
Compassion in
Prepositional Phrase
Sub-categories
For compassion
Disregard for human compassion
Of compassion (‘compassion’
as an element of the
postmodifier)
spirit of compassion; duty of
compassion
With compassion
Tempered with compassion;
performed with compassion
On compassion
attacks on compassion
From compassion
Knowledge from compassion
Predicate (of e.g. act)
motive was compassion
Given that compassion intersects with empathy, and as language is also implicated in
behaving empathically, it is helpful to look at both the lexicogrammatical arrangement and
the meaning of empathy as a backdrop before looking closely at how it is instantiated
linguistically as a form of social behaviour. In terms of lexicogrammatical arrangement, a
preliminary concordancing investigation of the lemma “empath*” indicates the class(es) of
word that “empath*” typically selects, and the company or co-textual environment in which it
occurs. To investigate this, the Coronavirus Corpus was selected due to the context of the
sickness and suffering during the pandemic as it was expected to contain a significant number
of examples of “empath*” in text.
The most frequent class of “empath*” was as the noun, “empathy”. Significantly
below this was the adjective, “empathetic”, followed by the verb “empathise”/ “empathize”
and the adjective “empathic”. When considering the participant roles in the transitivity
structure of the clause, “empath*” functions most frequently as Attribute, followed by Goal,
then Value (see Table 4).
Table 4. Participant roles of “empath*” in the clause
Participant role
Example from the corpus
Attribute
.. to be empathetic and mindful…
15
Goal
.. engage more deeply, build empathy and create bridges..
Value
Chancy brings a raw empathy, and gorgeous, intimate voice
When collocates of “empath*” were investigated, the most common collocates were closed
set lexical items of “and”, “of”, “the”, “to” and “for”, indicating that the location of
“empath*” is most usually within the noun group and the prepositional phrase. When present
in the nominal group, “empath*” functions as either the Thing, for example, “a raw empathy”
or a Classifier as in, “our empathy stores”. “Empathy” co-occurs with the 1st person plural
pronoun, “we” more frequently (613 times) than “I” (539 times) most likely due to the news
genres in the corpus. Journalists are reporting on our behaviours with humans present in the
texts, pronominally as “we”.
When considering open set lexical items, the most frequent collocates were abstract
nouns, the most frequent being “compassion” (1194 times), then “understanding” (523
times), “kindness”, “respect”, “skills”, “sympathy” and “love” respectively. The most
frequent process type was Relational, empath* collocating, for example with, “is”, “have”,
“are”, followed by Mental, such as, “sense”, “feel”. “Empath*” collocated with a limited set
of participants most frequently, “it”, followed by “we”, “people”, “I”, “you”.
This preliminary investigation provides an impression of how “empath*” is used
lexicogrammatically. This arrangement supports the discussion on compassion above which
describes the close connection between compassion and empathy in the psychological and
philosophical literature (See section on compassion in this article). The two notions co-occur
lexicogrammatically, evidencing that empathy and compassion are both implicated in the
alleviation of suffering.
Turning to the semantics of “empathy”, it is worth taking a moment to tease out the
differences between “empathy” and “sympathy” as these terms are often used
interchangeably, which can create some confusion. Looking at the two entries in the
Macquarie Dictionary, “empathy” is a process of perception, that is to say, it is about sensing
appreciatively the feelings or spirit of another, while “sympathy” is an agreement or
“community of like feeling”, in the sense that both parties recognise the feelings and
experience them in the same way (see Table 5).
16
Table 5. Difference between “empathy” and “sympathy”
Empathy
Sympathy
n. Mental entering into
the feeling or spirit of a
person or thing:
appreciative perception
or understanding.
n 1. A community of or agreement in feelings, as between
persons or on the part of one person with respect to another. 2.
The community of feeling naturally existing between person of
like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions. 3. The fact or
the power of entering into the feelings of another, esp. in sorrow
or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion or commiseration
Macquarie Dictionary (2nd edition)
To build on the dictionary definition, a psychological perspective on empathy is
“understanding and participating in another person’s feeling state – sharing their emotional
experience” (Piasecky 2003: 44). In clinical terms, it is the ability “to recognize and
understand the patient’s experience and the emotions associated with it … it is not about the
doctor’s feelings, but how s/he demonstrates this understanding to the patient (Bylund, cited
in Watson 2012: 9). In contrast, sympathy describes the doctor/listener’s feelings, but not an
understanding or sharing of the patient’s emotions (Piasecky 2003: 44). In this distinction,
“empathy” is about the feelings of the patient (the person in pain), while “sympathy” is about
the feelings of the doctor/listener. After hearing about how someone feels, the sympathiser
has an affective reaction of their own, they now feel something, for example, sorrow.
Whereas, after hearing about how someone feels, the empathiser perceives and appreciates
the affect of the person in pain (along the same continuum, the compassionate gives
medication or does whatever necessary to help alleviate the pain). Taking this psychological
perspective, sympathy is about the self, while empathy is about the other; it is other-oriented.
This distinction points to the role empathy plays in supporting and motivating acts of
compassion towards the suffering of others. Being other-oriented motivates purposeful,
performative acts of compassion. It is about responding to the needs of others and acting.
Bandura makes three points about empathy (2016: 38):
1. Empathy is not hard-wired. However, while we are endowed with the capacity for
vicarious arousal, our experience and learning largely determines our level and pattern
of empathic reaction (Bandura 2016: 92).
2. Empathy plays a role in survival – what happens to others is predictive of what might
happen to oneself and in this sense produces a somatic, proprioceptive response of
17
affective intentionality and resonance in the body, “The expression of Person A
becomes the impression for person B. The body of the second person incorporates the
first person, the perception of the other is mediated by her own body” (Schmidsberger
and Loffler-Stastka 2018: 71). This becomes a loop, a process of inter-affectivity, “a
circular process of impressions and expressions that follow each other emerge”
(Schmidsberger and Loffler-Stastka 2018: 71). This is called a process of mutual
incorporation, “that the emotion of the other is sensed and experienced with the own
body through bodily resonance” (Schmidsberger and Loffler-Stastka 2018: 71).
3. Empathy is a social construction. It supports prosocial behaviours and social
connection. The process is an interactional joint engagement and shared involvement.
Bandura (2016: 93) notes that our humanistic inclination toward “the other” serves the
well-being of both interactants and promotes “helpfulness, sharing, consoling and
supportiveness and curbs socially injurious conduct” (Bandura 2016: 94). It is a kind
of “being with” another (Schmidsberger and Loffler-Stastka 2018).
This “being with” practice is a prerequisite for compassionate action aimed at relieving
the suffering of others. When a person responds empathically to the pain or otherwise of
another, they are resonating somatically as well as, it is being argued, linguistically with the
experience and the emotional state of another person through the empathiser’s verbal
responses. It is understood that the biological response to another’s pain is due to the
presence of mirror neurons (Curtin 2022: 73) which produce the affective bodily resonance
(Schmidsberge and Loffler-Stastka 2018: 70) in the person who empathises. In expressing
empathy we can feel happiness or distress when resonating with others’ positive or negative
feelings (Dowling 2018: 750). It is in this bio-social, semiotic state that a person is able to
recognise the humanity of the other person and become inclined towards them.
The article by Thomson (this issue) argues that this resonance is achieved through particular
language choices. Particular language choices of the empathic listener can activate a
resonance in the person in pain. Receiving words which indicate that the experience and pain
of another person is understood assists in shifting a person back into emotional regulation.
Supporting a person in pain through specific linguistic choices indicates that empathy is a
kind of register… “a syndrome, or a cluster of associated variants” (Halliday 2002: 168)
realising a configuration of meanings “that are typically associated with a particular
situational configuration of field, tenor and mode” (Halliday and Hasan 1985: 38). In this
sense, empathy relates to field (the “what” is going on in the situation) through ideational
18
meaning related to emotions, feelings, needs, values, wants and desires. It relates to tenor
(the “who” is involved in the situation) through sharing and seeking understanding via
exchanges of statements and questions, and to mode (how the “what” and the “who” are
connected) through a particular arrangement of Theme (the point of departure of a message)
and newsworthy information. Words matter, and particular words matter for particular
purposes. To mean empathically means to select from the syndrome of associated variants
within the register.
In summary, empathy is a compassion-inducing, social semiotic process of “being
with” a person, hearing and understanding their feelings and experiences, and producing a
somatic resonance within each person. Empathy is a prerequisite for compassion; with
empathy comes compassion.
3. Overview of the articles in the special issue
In a demonstration of how a functional linguistic perspective offers a comprehensive
framework for dissecting the intricate interplay between language, society and cognition, the
contributors to the SI have delved into the semiotic tapestry woven by linguistic resources in
varied genres and registers and in diverse contexts. The research articles uncover the myriad
ways in which linguistic analysis can be harnessed to catalyse positive change.
Wijeyewardene and Martin and Cruz explore peace in relation to social justice. Both articles
illustrate how CDA and PDA can provide complementary perspectives of discourse in the
service of power and discourses in the pursuit of peace.
Wijeyewardene in “Constructing resistance in the quest for social justice: A study of a
fracturing in Thai hegemony” draws on the concept of social justice as positive peace and
illustrates how both CDA and PDA can be applied to the long-running political conflict in
Thailand. The paper examines two Thai texts and presents linguistic evidence of a
fundamental crack in Thai royalist hegemony. The paper explores how a term of oppression
was reconceptualised as a term of pride and subsequently adopted by participants in a social
movement struggling to change prevailing structures of political participation and
representation. The paper also illustrates how the tools of SFL can productively be applied to
Thai language texts to uncover processes of domination and of emancipation. While the
struggle for social and political equality in Thailand still has some way to go, a focus on the
19
use of language in context helps explain the impetus that underpins efforts to continue the
struggle and the directions that struggle is likely to take.
Martin and Cruz in “Acknowledging dispossession: A CDA/PDA perspective on
discourse dealing with unceded land”, make a strong case for the value for both CDA and
PDA of a detailed, discourse semantic analysis using the tools of SFL to explore their data.
Their initial focus is the English version of a bilingual text that acknowledges the
dispossession of Indigenous people that has occurred as a result of colonialism. The text
comprises elements of story and history genres, combining both recognition of past wrongs
and the effects of dispossession on indigenous peoples. The paper compares the first text with
a speech by Paul Keating, former prime minister of Australia and points to the need for
explicit recognition of the hurt brought about by dispossession and to make peace with the
dispossessed through new genres that realise semiotic acts of acknowledgement, apology and
reconciliation. The acknowledgement of country is one such emerging genre in this process
of reconciliation and peace-making. The recent result of the voice referendum in Australia is
evidence that there is more work to do to identify areas for collaborative as well as
renovatory and peace-building discourses.
Etaywe in “Compassion as appraisal, performative identity, and moral affiliation: A
corpus perspective and digital activist strategic communication analysis” tackles two key
questions. The first delves into the conceptualisation of compassion, with a specific emphasis
on its appraisal nature. This is evidenced in the study of the lemma “compassion” within the
Coronavirus Corpus. This analysis serves as the foundation for comprehending the use and
overall meaning of this lexical item in recent discursive contexts. It also establishes evidence
of its action-oriented and ethics-driven essence, which serves as a ground for responding to
the second question – which pertains to how compassion as moral performance is developed
and cultivated in digital activist campaigns. The article incorporates the latest advancements
in the theorisation of tenor and communion affiliation into the analysis of compassion in
digital activism. This subject for analysis is of public interest due to (i) the increasing
prevalence of public discourse where digital calls for action have become the norm, and (ii)
the contextual backdrop of the digital texts used – specifically, the ongoing Israeli occupation
of Palestinian territories, the treatment of Palestinians, and the Australian grassroots reaction
to these events. The article sheds light on the role of language in non-violent resistance –
specifically in raising awareness about the suffering of others (communication function) and
in communion. It presents the patterns of language use and strategies, revealing assumptions
about humanised and moralised allegiances, offering alternative positionings, and
20
constructing a moral framework and social affiliation, all in anticipation of potential
responsive actions. It also provides insights into strategies for effectively conducting activist
campaigns that position others through moral propositions and proposals, urging people
towards specific purposeful social actions, seen as acts of compassion and integral to an
ongoing process of attitudinal authentication (Etaywe, this issue). Furthermore, the study
demonstrates how language is wielded to align identities and position individuals within
shared moral and sociocultural frameworks. It illustrates how clusters of attitudinal bonds and
master sociocultural frames serve to amplify the call on targeted audiences to act in
accordance with the shared moral orders activated as shared fields. The article’s focus on
“moral affiliation” as a model for explaining compassion development as a social discursive
process holds special interest for other social media activist groups, aspiring to generate
alignments with their causes that translate into tangible responses and societal change,
through “encouraging acts of compassion” as proactive moral agency (e.g. petitioning,
demonstrations, sanctions) and “discouraging immoral behaviour” as a form of inhibitive
moral agency (e.g. boycotting).
Fryer in “Feeling, thinking, acting: An intersemiotic study of empathy and
compassion in vegan discourse” explores the multi- and intersemiotic expression of empathy
and compassion in a media campaign designed to promote veganism through evoking
empathy and compassion. The article uses analytic categories of systemic functional
semiotics for language, image and music to describe the different modalities of the media
campaign. The article demonstrates how instances of attitude in the campaign’s various texts
are negotiated and shared, creating potentials for empathetic and compassionate responses.
The study shows how parts of the campaign promote empathy and compassion, as exemplars
for readers to follow, and/or invite the readers to enact empathy and compassion. The study
also suggests that clusters of positive and negative attitude can form the basis for empathetic
and compassionate responses. The article helps us further our understanding of the semiotics
of empathy and compassion through illustrating the relation of meaning-making to potential
action. The article emphasises the connection between empathy and compassion. It also
highlights and provides evidence of differences such as “potentials for empathetic reaction
can be formed around positive or negative affect, but compassion seems to be a response to
negative feelings or experiences only” [page ref. to come]. The article also stresses the role of
cognitive processes, primarily “knowing” about the suffering or pain of animals to invite the
readers to act compassionately “by becoming vegan or volunteering at a sanctuary without
necessarily feeling the pain or suffering of other animals” [page ref. to come]. In relation to
21
the negotiated empathetic or compassionate responses, the article also explains how
“different semiotic systems contribute in different ways to creating or attempting to create
potentials for shared response” [page ref. to come].
The articles by Thomson, Dreyfus and Han, and Ortu pertain to empathy. Thomson
describes a partial set of lexicogrammatical features of a designed discourse of empathy,
Dreyfus and Han equate compassion with “empathy activism”, while Ortu offers a
multimodal analysis of a union website which takes an empathic approach to its identity and
membership.
Thomson in “Empathic listening as a social semiotic practice within the tradition of
Nonviolent Communication (NVC): An analysis of choices in thematic progression and
information structure”, identifies a particular discourse of compassion as an alternative
semiotic practice to regressive, hegemonic discourse. The article draws on the
complementary perspectives of PDA with the intention of providing a partial linguistic
description of empathic listening for sharing, learning and teaching. Being empathic and
knowing how to act as an empathic listener is not always modelled in people’s lives, yet this
kind of semiotic practice is a means for building and maintaining personal and interpersonal
connection. It serves to bring people together, recognising our common humanity and the
reality that our very survival depends on our capacity to function effectively and
cooperatively across and within various orders of social organisation. Being empathic is a
very positive, useful skill to have and can be taught if required. The article aims to provide a
partial set of linguistic features of empathy for underpinning any future learning/teaching
resources. The article begins with a discussion on the notion of empathy, drawing on
psychological and medical understandings, followed by a short history and description of
NVC, as designed by Marshall Rosenberg (2015). Thomson applies SFL analytical tools to a
small corpus of 11 dyads of empathy which were recorded during a variety of NVC events
over a two-year period. The study uses Appraisal theory, notably that of Attitude, to
interrogate the interpersonal meanings and maps how these meanings are coupled
ideationally and arranged textually across the systems of THEME and INFORMATION STATUS.
The analysis reveals a particular pattern of thematic progression which is described as “a
pattern of co-created, continuous thematic progression of resonated new information”.
Thomson argues that this particular linguistic patterning is what resonates between
empathisers and empathisees in NVC. It is what supports a person-in-pain to reach self-
regulation following some kind of somatic trigger. Simultaneously the empathiser
22
experiences “appreciative perception” which motivates them to action. In other words, with
empathy come acts of compassion.
Ortu’s paper, “The place of feelings and the rise of the empathetic union”, describes
the semiotic resources deployed during the creation of the Alphabet Workers Union (AWU)
in 2021, focusing on the development of its identity as one of “empathic workers who believe
in social justice”. The article analyses the homepage of the AWU’s website using a
multimodal approach based on the textual metafunction as visual mode (Kress and van
Leeuwen 2001, 2006) and Appraisal theory. The significance of this study lies in the AWU’s
novel innovation to union organising by introducing language based on positive feelings of
belonging, togetherness and protection. The union member is promised an empathic
community where a sense of togetherness is developed. This kind of multimodal meaning
making is not usually present in union communications; however, the motivation behind such
a significant change in language and thus identity at the AWU was to increase membership,
which was successful. The article demonstrates linguistically how this was done. Further, it
demonstrates that a multimodal discourse of connection and empathy can attract and increase
union membership.
The link between empathy and compassion that we have been exploring in this SI is
central to the purpose of the text analysed in Dreyfus and Han’s article “From empathy to
activism: an analysis of a letter to the Minister which resulted in successful outcomes for a
person with severe intellectual disability and their family”. Dreyfus and Han present this
letter as an example of the written genre of hortatory exposition (Martin and Peters
1985/2012), and demonstrate how the phases in the unfolding argument can be delineated
using resources from the Appraisal and Connexion frameworks. The success of the argument
(the logos, in Aristotelian terms) of this hortatory text depends on its interweaving with ethos
(how the letter-writer Dreyfus indicates authority and builds rapport with the intended
audience, the Minister and their officers) and with pathos. For Dreyfus and Han, the text
succeeds by “making ‘my’ problem, ‘your’ problem” [page ref. to come], and this shift from
“me” to “we” is linguistic shorthand for the mission of “empathy activism”.
4. Final remarks
This SI is a showcase of the power of semiotic choices that can serve as a potential agent of
transformation. Through the lens of various analytical frameworks, it contributes to our
23
understanding of the discourses and semiotics of peace, compassion and empathy, and how to
advance positive social change far from violence. It dissects the nuances of choices and
uncovers their profound social implications. It also serves to equip discourse analysts,
interested in making positive change in the world, with some tools necessary to navigate the
complexities of online and offline communication. Through such progressive linguistic
projects, linguists may inform the ways towards more peaceful, compassionate and empathic
discourses and towards fostering connections that transcend linguistic, political and cultural
divides.
In conclusion, “peace”, or the desire for “peace”, exists in multiple domains: peace
within oneself, between people, or between groups, nations, cultures and the ecosystem. It is
both a state of being and an action, and necessitates social justice, equality and the practices
of empathy and compassion. Empathy and compassion are in a continuum. “Empathy” is a
compassion-inducing, social semiotic process of “being with” a person, hearing and
understanding their feelings and experiences, and producing a somatic resonance within each
person. “Compassion” is to morally and humanely “feel for” others and act to alleviate their
suffering. It extends beyond triggered emotions, expressing institutionalised feelings and
ethics. Its essence is purposefully performative and other-oriented. It involves experiencing
or knowing about the pain or suffering of others, coupled with the desire or motivation to
alleviate their suffering and an enabling performance that includes one’s own action or the
actions of others. This SI is proof of the fact that we, individuals and groups, stand at the
frontier of positive change, armed with the tools to forge a more harmonious and
interconnected future - that is, the tools to understand how language and other semiotic
resources function in discourse for good or evil.
References
Bandura, Albert. 2016. Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves.
New York: Worth Publisher
Bartlett, Tom. 2012. Hybrid voices and collaborative change: Contextualising positive
discourse analysis. London & New York: Routledge.
Bartlett, Tom. 2018. Positive discourse analysis. In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson
(eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies, 133-147. London & New
York: Routledge.
24
Chouliaraki, Lilie & Norman Fairclough. 1999. Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking
critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Clyne, Michael. 1987. The role of linguistics in peace and conflict studies. Australian Review
of Applied Linguistics Series S 10(1). 76-97.
Connors, Joanie. 2016. Peace studies glossary. Global campaign for peace education.
https://www.peace-ed-campaign.org/peace-studies-glossary/ (22 August 2022)
Curtin, Deane. 2022. Compassion and being human. In Carol J. Adams & Lori Gruen (eds.),
Ecofeminism: Feminist intersections with other animals and the earth, 69-87. London:
Bloomsbury.
Dowling, Trisha. 2018. Compassion does not fatigue! The Canadian Veterinary Journal
59(7). 749–750. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6005077/
Etaywe, Awni & Michele Zappavigna. 2023. The role of social affiliation in incitement: A
social semiotic approach to far-right terrorists’ incitement to violence. Language in
Society 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404523000404.
Ferguson, R. Brian. 2008. Ten points on war. Social Analysis: The International Journal of
Anthropology 52(2). 32-49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23182396
Fourie, P.J. 2012. Peace journalism as ideology or peace journalism as a semiotic act of
world and life view? Communicare 31(Special Edition). 1-22.
Friedrich, Patricia. 2007. English for peace: Toward a framework of peace sociolinguistics.
World Englishes 26(1). 72-83.
Galtung, Johan. 1969. Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research 6(3).
167-191. https://www.jstor.org/stable/422690
Gomes de Matos, Francisco. 2000. Harmonizing and humanizing political discourse: The
contribution of peace linguistics. Peace and Conflict Studies: Journal of Peace
Psychology 6(4). 339-344.
Gomes de Matos, Francisco. 2014. Peace linguistics for language teachers. D.E.L.T.A. 30(2).
415-424. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-445089915180373104
Gruen, Lori. 2015. Entangled empathy: An alternative ethic for our relationships with
animals. New York: Lantern Books.
Hanh, Thich Nhat. 2008[2003]. Spiritual reflections on war and peace: A talk by Thich Nhat
Hanh – Peace Forum, March 19, 2003. Human Architecture: Journal of Sociology of
Self-Knowledge 6(3). 7-14.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language
and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
25
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Systemic background. In James D. Benson & William S. Greaves
(eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse, vol. 1, 1-15. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2002. Linguistic studies of text and discourse. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2008. Working with meaning: Towards an appliable linguistics. In
Jonathan Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of
language studies, 7–23. London: Bloomsbury.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1985. Language, context, and text. Burwood: Deakin
University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to
functional grammar (4th edition). London & New York: Routledge.
Harré, Rom. 2012. Positioning theory: Moral dimensions of social-cultural psychology. In
Jaan Valsiner (ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology, 191–206. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Harris, Ian M. 2004. Peace education theory. Journal of peace education 1(1). 6-20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1740020032000178276
Hodges, Adam. 2013. War, discourse, and peace. In Adam Hodges (ed.), Discourses of war
and peace, 3-19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Höijer, Brigitta. 2003. The discourse of global compassion and the media. Nordicom Review
24(2). 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0305.
Hughes, Jessica. 2018. Progressing positive discourse analysis and/in critical discourse
studies: Reconstructing resistance through progressive discourse analysis. Review of
Communication 18(3). 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2018.1479880
Janks, Hilary & Roz Ivanič. 1992. CLA and emancipatory discourse. In Norman Fairclough
(ed.), Critical language awareness, 305-331. Abingdon and New York: Taylor and
Francis.
Kress, Gunther. 2000. Design and social transformation: New theories of meaning. In Bill
Cope and Mary Kalantzis (eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of
social futures, 153-161. London & New York: Routledge.
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal discourse. London and New York:
Bloomsbury.
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design.
London & New York: Routledge.
26
Kruger, Frans. 2012. The role of TESOL in educating for peace. Journal of Peace Education
9(1). 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2011.623769
Langenhove, Luk van. 2017. Varieties of moral orders and the dual structure of society: A
perspective from positioning theory. Frontiers in Sociology, 2(2017). 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2017.00009
Lewis, Charlton T. & Short, Charles. 1879. A Latin dictionary founded on Andrews’ edition
of Freund’s Latin dictionary revised and rewritten. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Perseus
Digital Library.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3
Aentry%3Dpax1 (15 October, 2023).
Macquarie Dictionary (2nd edition). 1996. Sydney: Macquarie University
Martin, J. R. 2012[2000]. Close reading: Functional linguistics as a tool for critical discourse
analysis. In J.R. Martin, CDA/PDA, volume 6 in the collected works of J.R. Martin,
158-184. Edited by Wang Zhenhua. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
Martin, J. R. 2012[2004]. Positive discourse analysis: Solidarity and change. In J.R. Martin,
CDA/PDA, volume 6 in the collected works of J.R. Martin, 278-298. Edited by Wang
Zhenhua. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
Martin, J. R. 2012. CDA/PDA, volume 6 in the collected works of J.R. Martin. Edited by
Wang Zhenhua. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
Martin, J. R. & Peter White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, J. R. & Pam Peters. 1985. On the analysis of exposition. In Ruqaiya Hasan (ed.),
Discourse on discourse: Workshop reports from the Macquarie Workshop on
Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (Occasional Papers
7). 61-92. [reprinted in Text Analysis 2012. 6-45]
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 2012. Systemic functional linguistics and appliable linguistics: Social
accountability and critical approaches. D.E.L.T.A. Documentação de Estudos em
Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 28(Especial). 435-471.
Narasimhananda, Swami. 2018. What does SHANTI mean.
https://www.esamskriti.com/e/Culture/Indian-Culture/What-does-SHANTI-mean-
1.aspx (16 June, 2023)
Oxford, Rebecca L. 2013. The language of peace: Communicating to create harmony.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition). 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
27
Peace23. https://www.peace23.ca/ (7 October, 2023)
Piasecky, Melissa. 2003. Clinical communication handbook. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Rosenberg, Marshall. 2015. Nonviolent communication: A language of life (3rd edition).
Encinitas: Puddle Dancer Press.
Rothbart, Daniel & Susan Allen. 2019. Building peace through systemic compassion.
Conflict Resolution Quarterly 36. 373-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21249
Sapio, Antonella & Adriano Zamperini. 2007. Peace psychology: Theory and practice. In
Charles Webel & Johan Galtung (eds.), Handbook of peace and conflict studies, 265-
278. London: Routledge.
Schmidsberger, Florian & Henriette Loffler-Stastka. 2018. Empathy is proprioceptive: The
bodily fundament of empathy – a philosophical contribution to medical education.
BMC Medical Education 18(1). 69-76.
Semiotics of Peace, Compassion and Empathy SIG. n.d. Australian Systemic Functional
Linguistics Association https://asfla.net/pcesig/ (1 October 2023).
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd edition). 1992. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Standish, Katerina, Heather Devere, Adan E. Suazo, & Rachel Rafferty. 2021. Defining the
platform of positive peace. In Katerina Standish, Heather Devere, Adan E. Suazo, &
Rachel Rafferty (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of positive peace, 3-24. Singapore:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Trester, Anna Marie. 2013. Performing peace: The framing of silence in a Quaker vigil. In
Adam Hodges (ed.), Discourses of war and peace, 225-248. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and practice: New tools for critical analysis. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Watson, Olivia. 2012. The language of clinical empathy: Modelling affiliation in doctor-
patient communication. The University of Sydney, Australia: BA (Hons.) dissertation.
Webel, Charles & Johan Galtung (eds.). 2007. Handbook of peace and conflict studies.
London: Routledge.
Wenden, Anita L. 2007. Educating for a critically literate civil society: Incorporating the
linguistic perspective into peace education. Journal of Peace Education 4(2). 163-180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17400200701523561
Wescott, Roger W. 1990. Reflections on the etymology of some words for “peace”.
International Journal on World Peace 7(3). 94-97.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20751475
28
Wodak, Ruth & Michael Meyer. 2009. Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory
and methodology. In Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical
discourse analysis (2nd edition). Los Angeles: Sage.
Zayas, Alfred de. 20 February, 2015. Social justice fosters peace, peace enables social justice.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2015/02/social-justice-fosters-peace-peace-
enables-social-justice-world-day-social (6 October 2023).
Address for correspondence
Awni Etaywe
Faculty of Arts and Society
Charles Darwin University
Ellengowan Dr, Casuarina NT 0810, Australia
awni.etaywe@cdu.edu.au
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6518-6158
Co-author information
Elizabeth A. Thomson Ingrid Wijeyewardene
University of Wollongong University of New England
Ethomson15@gmail.com iwijeyew@une.edu.au
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1985-3852 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9797-1967
Publication history:
Date received: 4 December 2023
Date accepted: 12 March 2024