Critical Discourse Studies

ISSN: 1740-5904 (Print) 1740-5912 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcds20

Representing protection action in an ecotourism

setting: a critical discourse analysis of visitors'
books at a Greek reserve

Anastasia G. Stamou & Stephanos Paraskevopoulos

To cite this article: Anastasia G. Stamou & Stephanos Paraskevopoulos (2008) Representing
protection action in an ecotourism setting: a critical discourse analysis of visitors' books at a Greek
reserve, Critical Discourse Studies, 5:1, 35-54, DOI: 10.1080/17405900701768620

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405900701768620

Published online: 15 Feb 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 156

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcds20

Download by: [Universidad Nacional Colombia] Date: 02 June 2017, At: 10:29
Critical Discourse Studies
Vol. 5, No. 1, February 2008, 3554

Representing protection action in an ecotourism setting: a critical discourse

analysis of visitors books at a Greek reserve
Anastasia G. Stamou
and Stephanos Paraskevopoulos

Department of Special Education, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece

The implementation of a protection scheme is central to ecotourism. Drawing upon the theoreti-
cal framework of critical discourse analysis, the present study accounts for the way protection
action is represented in visitors books at a Greek reserve (Dadia forest). Specically, proceeding
to content analysis and considering a wide range of linguistic features (vocabulary, syntax, erga-
tivity, aspect, and temporal and illocutionary indices), we study whether visitors, through the
way they construct protection acts in their texts, display knowledge about and concern for
environmental issues within an ecotourism context. The analysis suggests that visitors seem
not to be particularly concerned or informed about the protection action undertaken for Dadia
forest. With the green aspect of ecotourism rather neglected, this research empirically veries
that ecotourism conceals a consumerist essence under a green wrapping, functioning ideologi-
cally. Moreover, the present study offers qualitative insights into ecotourism research, disclosing
how the ideological function of ecotourism is evident in the way visitors represent protection
acts, since the version of protection action they construct diffuses their responsibilities for the
environment.
Keywords: visitors books; ecotourism; critical discourse analysis; protection; lexicalization;
causality scale; agency; aspect; time encoding; speech acts

Introduction
A wealth and variety of denitions have been given (Fennell, 2001), but ecotourism is generally
proposed as a reconciliation of tourism with environmentalism (e.g., Ceballos-Lascurain as cited
in Boo, 1990; Ecotourism Society, 1991; Orams, 1995). Specically, ecotourism is usually
applied to undisturbed or fragile natural environments where conservationist practices have
been implemented; these areas have been declared protected areas (e.g., nature reserve,
national parks).
Ecotourism is an example of sustainable development (e.g., small-scale tourism activities,
reduced visitor impacts), and functions to compensate the local economy in a protected area for
the prohibition of conventional (non-sustainable) economic activities. Thus, both development
and conservation objectives are involved (Lindberg, Enriquez, & Sproule, 1996). Ecotourists
themselves, on the other hand, balance tourism and environmentalism, and combine enjoyment
with education; their environmental awareness is raised while holidaying in nature (Fennell,
2001).
However, it has been claimed that, in practice, the tourism aspect of ecotourism overrides its
environmentalist emphasis and that ecotourism is, after all, a consumerist activity with a green
wrapping (e.g., Burton, 1998; Wight, 1993). Thus, in the name of ecotourism, capitalist societies

Corresponding author. Email: astamou@pre.uth.gr
ISSN 1740-5904 print/ISSN 1740-5912 online
# 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17405900701768620
http://www.informaworld.com
36 A. Stamou and S. Paraskevopoulos

continue to exploit nature, since Mother Nature has become a willing ally of development and
tourism (Muhlhausler & Peace, 2001, p. 378). By concealing its consumerist essence, ecotour-
ism functions ideologically for ecotourists themselves. They erroneously believe that they par-
ticipate in non-exploitative and deeper travel experiences that they are the new moral tourists
(Butcher, 2003). This false consciousness (in Marxist ideological terms) dissipates their
responsibilities for the environment, not only in their capacity as tourists, but also probably in
their capacity as citizens for instance, they may not re-orient their general lifestyle choices
for the benet of the environment. As Muhlhausler and Peace (2001, p. 378) put it: Consumers
guilt over their excessive habits has been greatly attenuated by the increased availability of green
products. Ecotourism is one of these products.
This neglect of the green dimension of ecotourism has been studied, mainly in terms of the
adverse impact of ecotourism activities on the environment of protected areas (e.g., Higham,
1998; Obua, 1997; Sun & Walsh, 1998). Conversely, very few studies have dealt with the
issue from the point of view of ecotourists themselves regarding whether visitors to protected
areas possess and/or acquire environmental awareness besides enjoying themselves. These
studies have produced conicting results: some have reported enhanced environmental aware-
ness (e.g., Diamantis, 1998; Hvenegaard & Dearden, 1998; Wallace & Pierce, 1996), whereas
others have reported limited environmental awareness (e.g., Guyer & Pollard, 1997; Papageor-
giou, 2001; Ryan, Hughes, & Chirgwin, 1999) on the part of visitors.
Furthermore, such research has mostly employed established tools from the social sciences,
such as questionnaires and interviews, and has used specic indices to assess ecotourists
environmental awareness: their participation in environmentalist organizations (e.g.,
Hvenegaard & Dearden, 1998), their willingness to learn about nature (e.g., Diamantis,
1998), and the level of their environmental knowledge (e.g., Ryan et al., 1999). In contrast,
other research approaches, such as ecocritical discourse analysis (Fill & Muhlhausler, 2001),
which is the research domain of critical discourse analysis dealing with environmental discourse,
have neglected this issue. However, different research methods are certainly needed in the social
sciences, especially when there is no literature consensus on a specic matter.
To this end, in earlier work we have examined the way visitors to a Greek protected area (the
Dadia forest reserve) negotiated the two dimensions of ecotourism in the texts they produced in
the visitors books at the reserve (Stamou & Paraskevopoulos, 2003, 2004). Specically, we
investigated whether visitors constructed both tourism and environmentalist images of the
reserve. The critical discourse analyses we performed offered invaluable insights; contrary to
the literature, they did not reveal an imbalanced distribution of the two kinds of images on
the part of visitors. However, although distributed in an equal manner, the two categories of
images were seldom intratextually combined. Hence, the uncoupling of tourism from environ-
mentalism for the shaping of eco-tourism was not expressed as dominance of the one over the
other, as usually reported by the literature, but as isolation from each other.
Due to the lack of similar works in the literature, and thus the lack of insights into ecotour-
ism research, in this article we study again the representation of ecotourism experience in the
visitors books at the Dadia forest reserve, but this time we approach it from another point of
view. Specically, the way in which visitors represent protection acts at the reserve is ana-
lyzed. Conservation is a central objective of ecotourism, and is integral to much of its develop-
ment and implementation (i.e., declaration of protected areas, wildlife protection, and
sustainable development). In the textual corpus examined, these protection acts refer to acts
of wildlife conservation.
The way visitors construct such information about the reserve in their texts could be used as
an alternative and complementary index to assess their environmental awareness, their knowl-
edge (i.e., clear or vague representation of protection acts, identication or not of their real
 Critical Discourse Studies 37

social agents, representation of protection acts as evolving processes rather than as a nished
business), and their concern (i.e., participation or not in protection acts, overlexicalization or
underlexicalization of protection acts) for the environment within an ecotourism context.

The context of the study

The study area
The Dadia forest reserve is located in the north-east of Greece, close to the Bulgarian and
Turkish borders. At the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa, Dadia is on an important bird
migration route. It is renowned as one of the two remaining European feeding and breeding
grounds for rare raptors, such as the black and the grifn vultures (the other one is in Spain).
The need to protect the area became apparent in the 1970s. At that time, it became clear that
additional intense logging and hunting would have a negative impact on the raptors habitats.
Thus, in 1979, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) funded a study for the assessment of the area. Based on that
study, Dadia forest was declared a protected area in 1980. The reserve consists of two absolute
protection core areas with a total surface are of 7,250 hectares, and a buffer zone with a
total surface area of 28,000 hectares. In the core areas of the reserve, all economic activities
are forbidden, while in the buffer zone, logging and farming activities are performed in a
sustainable way.
The management of the reserve involves the scientic monitoring of the biotopes and bio-
communities, such as counting the vulture population, and the implementation of measures for
the conservation of wildlife. For instance, when the black vultures population dramatically
decreased (to 25 individuals), a feeding table was established in the core area of the reserve to
allow for supplements to the vultures food. Thanks to this measure, the vultures population
has risen to 90 100 individuals. The management of the reserve also involves the development
of ecotourism in the area, and the supervision of all other economic activities taking place in the
buffer zone. The reserve is managed by numerous social agents in cooperation: the Greek govern-
ment (the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture), the local authorities (the
prefecture, the municipalities, and Forest Inspection), and the non-governmental environmental
organization WWF Greece. WWF Greece coordinates the whole project, and therefore it would
be identied by visitors as the most apparent social agent in protection acts in Dadia.
An ecotourism center was established in 1994 to organize ecotourism activities at the
reserve. The center offers conventional tourism services (i.e., arranging food and accommo-
dation), and there is also an information center, where visitors are informed about the
ecology, geography, and management of the reserve through displays and a video. Further,
the center has an observation site, so visitors have the opportunity to watch the feeding
table through binoculars or a telescope and see how raptors eat. Together, the information
and bird watching offer a complete environmental learning experience: the former enhances
visitors knowledge of the natural area and thus the need to protect it (Wilson & Tisdell
2001), while the latter provides an intense and emotive experience (Cooper, 1993). It is
during these ecotourism practices that visitors books can be signed.

Theoretical and analytical framework

The theoretical background that frames our analysis of these visitors books is critical discourse
analysis (CDA; e.g., Fairclough, 1992; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Titscher, Meyer, Wodak, &
Vetter, 2000; Van Dijk, 1993). CDA analyzes (linguistic) communication, and sees it as dis-
course that is, as a form of social practice. Consequently, it regards language and the
38 A. Stamou and S. Paraskevopoulos

other semiotic systems as being in dialectic relationship with the social world. This means that
discourse affects (i.e., transforms) as much as it is affected by (i.e., reproduces) society, and thus
discourse has an active role in the shaping of reality. CDA collects and analyzes thoroughly
samples of authentic communication; taking into account the context in which texts are
embedded, it tries to gain insights into the representations of the social world built therein.
Thus, it combines linguistic/semiotic and social analysis.
CDA has been inuenced by Western Marxist thought (e.g., Gramsci; Althusser). This
explains its consideration of dialectics between discourse and society, and also its interest in
the ideological role of discourse. Within a Western Marxist context, ideology generally
refers to the set of beliefs and representations of social reality that aim to perpetuate capitalist
social relations by legitimizing the established representations of the world. This distorted
view of social reality produces the so-called false consciousnesses. Hence, CDA is not only
interested in examining the representations of the world built through discourse, but also in
exploring how these representations reproduce or do not reproduce the capitalist status quo,
and this is what makes it critical.
The notion of ideology is of great utility in our study. As already sketched in the Introduc-
tion, ecotourism is regarded as a commodity, which has a green wrapping to conceal its consu-
merist essence. The prex eco is used ideologically, to serve capitalism to legitimate the
economic exploitation of protected areas and to remove peoples responsibilities for the environ-
ment through false consciousness.
In the linguistic analysis of visitors books reported in this article, our aim is to reveal the
way protection acts are represented, which might provide some indication of whether visitors are
environmentally aware in an ecotourism context (social analysis), and hence to explore whether
the prex eco in the word ecotourism has a real role to play or whether it covers the pure
consumerist nature of such activities (ideological analysis). Moreover, we will examine
whether the ideological function of ecotourism is evident in the way visitors represent protection
acts that is, whether the version of protection action they construct dissipates their responsi-
bilities for the environment.
In the CDA literature, many studies unravel the ways in which ideology is shaped through
discourse. One major representational resource for perpetuating established constructions of
social reality is to justify them. For instance, Fang (1994) disclosed how the Chinese press jus-
tied the violence used by police in protests taking place in countries allied to China by dening
them as riots. Similarly, Stamou (2001) revealed the way a Greek newspaper justied the
violent acts performed by non-protesters, whereas those initiated by protesters were depicted
as insane or in a vacuum. Another means by which ideology is built is through presuppositions
and tacit knowledge, which naturalize the established versions of the world by representing them
as taken for granted or, to use another Western Marxist term, as common sense. Fairclough
(1992) provides among other examples the example of the denite article the, which is
often used ideologically by constructing an entity as indisputably given (e.g., the Queen).
In studying how visitors construct protection acts, our aim is not only to see whether visitors
show an interest in and some knowledge about the environment. We also examine whether
through their representations of protection action visitors try to justify their role in them and/
or provide tacit assumptions about who is responsible for the environment.
In order to address our research questions, as sketched in the Introduction, we undertake an
analysis of both the content and the linguistic features of the reported protection acts (Table 1).
Specically, content analysis was employed in order to determine who the visitors identied as
the social agents of protection acts (as an indicator of environmental knowledge), and to deter-
mine whether visitors were depicted as participants in them or not (as an indicator of environ-
mental concern). In addition, in order to examine whether protection acts were represented in
 Critical Discourse Studies 39

Table 1. Content and linguistic features studied for the representation of protection action.
environmental knowledge

content and linguistic true/false clear/vague static/dynamic environmental

features representation representation representation concern

Content analysis:
causality (quantitatively)
Vocabulary:
lexicalization
Ergativity and syntax:
causality (qualitatively)
Temporal indices:
chronology (when)
Aspect:
chronology (how)
Illocutionary indices:
speech acts

clear or vague terms (as an indicator of environmental knowledge), we examined the vocabulary
(clear or vague lexicalization), ergativity, and syntax (effective or middle processes, agency
foregrounding or deletion) used for the acts, as well as the temporal indices (e.g., tenses,
temporal adjuncts) used for the time encoding of acts (consistent or inconsistent, and multi-
dimensional or uni-dimensional time encoding). To check whether the acts were represented
dynamically or statically (as an indicator of environmental knowledge), besides the syntax
(verbalized or non-verbalized processes) and the temporal indices (time encoding in the past,
present, or future; multi-dimensional or uni-dimensional time encoding) used for the acts, we
also considered their aspect (perfective or imperfective) and the illocutionary indices employed
for the determination of their illocutionary force (directive or expressive/assertive speech acts).
Finally, visitors environmental concern was also examined by looking at the lexical choices
made for the acts (overlexicalization or underlexicalization).

The textual corpus

The textual corpus for analysis was collected from visitors books signed by people at the Dadia
forest reserve. According to dictionary denitions (e.g., The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1999),
the communicative function of visitors books consists in the expression of the impressions of
people visiting hotels, museums, universities, etc. that is, of users of places providing services
and infrastructures. Despite this being a rich source of qualitative data, constituting unsolicited
and spontaneous personal stories (Robinson, 2001), no study, to our knowledge, has so far exam-
ined visitors books from any perspective.
Contrary to the denitions provided, in our previous study the visitors books analyzed were
not particularly revealing of the thoughts of the text producers (Stamou & Paraskevopoulos,
2003). Specically, the texts contained considerably vague subjects, such as the general
project at the reserve (e.g., excellent work), and expressed almost exclusively positive attitudes
(i.e., giving congratulations). Hence, given the fact that most of the texts contained the visitors
names and origin, visitors books had the status of grafti visitors wished to leave their trace
through these texts. However, they were also found to have a summary function, because of their
short textual length (average 13 words, standard deviation 5) and intratextual homogeneity,
which is characteristic of the genre of titles (Kress, 1989). Consequently, despite their limited
40 A. Stamou and S. Paraskevopoulos

feedback value, texts commenting on concrete subjects (such as protection acts) may be
regarded as giving the gist of visitors impressions.
The textual corpus was composed at two sites at the reserve: the information center and the
bird watching site. Thus, two samples were collected for the analysis. However, because no differ-
ences were found between them, we decided to present the results from both samples altogether.
The texts selected for analysis were those that contained information about protection acts under-
taken for the Dadia forest. Such texts were quite easily tracked down, since a thorough content
analysis had already been carried out (Stamou & Paraskevopoulos, 2003). Specically, the
textual corpus collected consists of 98 texts from the information center and 96 texts from the
observation site, written during the spring and summer of 1996 and 1997. Moreover, 75 texts
written during the spring and summer of 2005 were analyzed and compared with the main
textual corpus, in order to explore possible differences in the visitors representation of protection
action between the two time periods.

Analysis
Content analysis of protection acts: a quantitative account of agency
As a rst step, we wanted to nd out the represented instigator(s) of protection acts in order to
discover whether visitors identied the real social agents and whether they assigned themselves
a role in the acts. The former could indicate the visitors knowledge and the latter their concern
for the environment. Agency allocation, or in more technical terms ergativity (Halliday, 1994),
is an analytic area that has developed extensively within CDA, because it is at the heart of the
expression of ideology (Trew, 1979a, p. 123). However, at this stage, our approach was content
analytic: we identied the agents of acts in common terms, that is, as everyday and fuzzy
notions . . . roughly speaking involvement in doing something or causing something to
happen (Galasinsky & Marley, 1998, p. 574). In contrast, linguistics denes agency more nar-
rowly but also more sensitively (p. 574). Although as Galasinsky and Marley point out, social
agency is constructed through linguistic agency, and thus content analysis is interrelated to linguis-
tic analysis, the analytic method selected each time depends on research aims. Content analysis
measures the extent to which the texts respect, or depart from, the expected ideologically motivated
categories, whereas linguistic analysis investigates how exactly they [the categories] are consti-
tuted and upheld by the linguistic practices which the texts realize (p. 573). At this stage, we opted
for content analysis, because our aim was to nd out who was represented as the agent of protection
acts (quantitative account of causality). In contrast, below we study the ergativity and syntax of acts
in order to consider how agency was expressed (qualitative account of causality).
For the purposes of the analysis, three content categories were distinguished: institutional
agency (the government, the local authorities, WWF); individual agency (visitors); and collec-
tive agency (visitors and institutions, all people). As shown in Table 2, in most of the texts, pro-
tection acts were assigned institutional agency (e.g., Many beautiful animals and the whole
ecosystem will be saved thanks to people like you).1 Collective agency was sparingly attributed
(e.g., Forest is a source of life for humans. Thus, we should protect it), whereas in no text were
visitors alone represented as the instigators of protection acts. Interestingly, in some texts no
agency allocation made (e.g., We wish that this forest would continue to exist).
Thus, content analysis of agency allocation suggests that visitors tended to identify the real
social agents behind environmental protection measures (institutional agency). Nevertheless, in
terms of the naming practices used (Table 3), it can be observed that most of them used vague
terms (all those, you, organizers). It would be interesting to know the addressee that visitors
have in mind, particularly in the case of you. Despite the fact that it would be difcult for them
to identify all the social agents involved in environmental protection at the reserve, at least they
 Critical Discourse Studies 41

Table 2. Agency allocation of protection acts.

agency % appearance (n)

Institutional 67 (130)
Individual 0 (0)
Collective 27 (53)
Unspecied 6 (11)
Total 100 (194)


Actual numbers are given in brackets.

could have mentioned the WWF, which is prominent at both the information center and the
observation site.
Visitors were not represented as being much involved in protection, and in no cases solely
responsible for protection. Hence, they did not depict themselves as being personally responsible
for the natural resource that being the job of others. It is interesting that, in some cases, insti-
tutional agents acted as mediators of protection acts, which then concern everyone (e.g., The
effort you make is very important in order for all of us to save the rare animal species that
are in danger).

Lexicalization of protection acts

In this section, we consider how protection acts were lexicalized. Vocabulary is the level of
language that constructs par excellence the world. There are always multiple or alternative lex-
icalizations (Fairclough, 1992) of experience, which shape different versions of social reality.
For instance, visitors that characterized Dadia forest as spectacle built a completely different
image of the place from those who labelled it ora (Stamou & Paraskevopoulos, 2004). Lexis
offers various and contrasting depictions of reality; it may also indicate the amount of knowl-
edge one possesses of a specic eld (in the distinction between technical and colloquial voca-
bulary; Fowler, 1996). Moreover, lack (underlexicalization) or abundance (overlexicalization)
of words for a specic area may mark the speakers/writers indifference or preoccupation
with it, respectively (Fowler, 1996). Hence, the study of how protection acts were worded
may be revealing in terms of visitors knowledge of about and interest in environmental issues.
From now on, the textual corpus will be divided into two samples, according to agency as
determined in the previous section (institutional vs. collective agency). This will enable us to
observe any differences in the representation of protection acts in terms of their perpetrator
that is, whether the visitors representation of protection acts depends on whether or not
they construct themselves as participants in them. Unspecied agency was excluded from
the analysis.

Table 3. Percentage appearance of naming of institutional agency.

naming % appearance (n)

All those who/people who 22 (32)

Organizers 4 (6)
You 62 (91)
WWF 4 (6)
Government 4 (6)
Local authorities/people 4 (6)
Total 100 (147)


Actual numbers are given in brackets.
42 A. Stamou and S. Paraskevopoulos

As a rst step, the lexical items used for the wording of protection acts were isolated. The
Event part of a verbal group (e.g., We should [Auxiliary] protect [Event] and not hurt [Event]
the Earth) or, in case of nominalized processes, the Thing part of a nominal group (e.g., Won-
derful [Epithet] effort [Thing] for a unique area) were identied (Halliday, 1994). Moreover, in
case of hypotactic verbal group complexes (e.g., Vultures are one of the rarest animals and Im
glad you succeeded [Event 1] in saving [Event 2] them from the danger of extinction), the sec-
ondary Event was considered (Halliday, 1994).
Next, there was an attempt to classify the words in broad semantic categories. From several
trials, we arrived at six categories of lexicalization: protection; work; endeavour; environmental
benets from protection; environmental hazards from non-protection; and mental attributes.
Protection is the most clear or technical lexicalizing category (see the constituents of each
category in Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). Next comes work, which lexicalizes protection as a
goal-oriented project, and endeavor, which words protection as an elusive project. The cat-
egories environmental benets and environmental hazards are less clear than the three above,
lexicalizing protection from the point of view of the environment itself and not of its protectors.
The difference between the two categories is that the former lexicalizes protection by afrma-
tion, while the latter by negation. Mental attributes is the most vague and least technical cat-
egory, lexicalizing protection as an outcome of the behavior and character of its perpetrators.
Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 summarize the occurrence of the semantic categories, along with
their constituent parts, in the two samples. From the wide range of lexical items used in both
samples, it can be inferred that, in general, protection acts were intensively lexicalized.
However, protection acts assigned collective agency were more lexicalized (27 different
words out of 70 lexical items; 39%) than those assigned institutional agency (55 different
words out of 222 lexical items; 25%). This indicates that although visitors were generally pre-
occupied with this issue, they were particularly concerned about protection performed collec-
tively, probably because it was regarded as not being a common practice, judging from the
results of the content analysis.

Table 4. Appearance of lexicalizing items for protection.

lexicalizing items institutional agency collective agency

Attention 1
Care 2
Cater 1
Conserve 8
Cure 1
Feed 1
Guard 1 1
Keep 4 1
Keep untouched 1
Look after 9 3
Preserve 28 5
Protect 28 19
Respect 2
Result 3
Safeguard 4 2
Salvage 9 1
Save 8 3
Shield 1
Watch over 6
Total 109 44

Words represent the whole paradigm (verbs, nouns, and adjectives).

 Critical Discourse Studies 43

Table 5. Appearance of lexicalizing items for work.

lexicalizing items institutional agency collective agency

Achieve 2
Assist 1
Consider 1
Contribute 1
Create 2
Deal with 1
Elaborate 1
Help 4 6
Offer 2
Participate 1
Promote 1
Provide 2
Task 9 1
Work 6
Total 31 10

Words represent the whole paradigm (verbs, nouns, and adjectives).

Protection acts were chiey worded by means of the category of protection in both samples.
This means that, generally, visitors represented protection acts assigned both institutional and
collective agency in clear, technical terms. In both samples, work followed, which was the
next clearest category, while the more vague categories of environmental benets and environ-
mental hazards were sparingly present. Thus, the two samples had a common lexicalizing prole
for protection acts. The only differences were regarding the categories of endeavor, which had a
relatively prominent appearance in the institutional agency sample, and mental attributes,
which had a relatively prominent appearance in the collective agency sample.
The two samples also had a generally common prole in terms of the way semantic cat-
egories were lexicalized. In both samples, protection was mostly worded by means of
protect (e.g., Protect nature in order to protect us), endeavor was mainly lexicalized by
means of try (e.g., I was impressed with the Black Vulture. This is the reason why we
should try more), and mental attributes was principally worded through love (e.g., Continue
with the same determination and love for the beauties of your region). However, the work cat-
egory was mostly represented by task (e.g., Continue your wonderful task. I feel that my chil-
dren might have the chance to live on a better world) in the institutional agency sample, and by
help (e.g., In this area, proud birds and people struggle for their survival. Lets help them) in
the collective agency sample. Moreover, in the institutional agency sample, environmental
benets was mainly worded by means of balance (e.g., Very nice effort of people here to con-
tribute to the environmental balance and protection of birds and animals), whereas environ-
mental hazards was chiey represented by extinction (e.g., The effort you make to prevent

Table 6. Appearance of lexicalizing items for endeavor.

lexicalizing items institutional agency collective agency

Approach 1
Move 3
Struggle 7
Try 24 1
Total 35 1

Words represent the whole paradigm (verbs, nouns, and adjectives).

44 A. Stamou and S. Paraskevopoulos

Table 7. Appearance of lexicalizing items for environmental benets

from protection.
lexicalizing items institutional agency collective agency

Appear 1
Balance 4
Continue 1
Develop 2 1
Exist 1
Function 1
Increase 1
Live 2
Perpetuate 1
Reproduce 1
Survive 2
Total 16 2

Words represent the whole paradigm (verbs, nouns, and adjectives).

these species from extinction is very important. If you continue like this, I think that these rare
birds wont become extinct). In contrast, in the collective agency sample, no particular word
dominated for these categories. Furthermore, in the institutional agency sample, protection
was also considerably worded by means of preserve (e.g., Greek nature is unique. Congratula-
tions on all those who contribute to the preservation of its beauty), and mental attributes by
means of sensibility (e.g., Wonderful area with great ecological value and excellent
example of sensibility and care for our planet. Congratulations).
Judging by the lexicalizing practices used (the abundance and technicality of lexical items
used), it appears that visitors showed concern for and some knowledge about protection issues
in Dadia forest reserve in both the institutional and the collective agency samples.

Ergativity and syntax of protection acts: a qualitative account of agency

Above, content analysis determined the perpetrator of protection acts; in this section, how
agency was expressed in visitors books is examined. This qualitative account of causality
(i.e., agency foregrounding or backgrounding, selection of effective or middle processes, of ver-
balized or non-verbalized processes) may give insights into whether protection acts were rep-
resented in a clear or vague way, and whether they were depicted statically or dynamically.
Both ways of representation are suggestive of the visitors environmental knowledge. Clear con-
struction of information shows possession of a eld, wherein environmental protection is an
evolving process rather than a static target to be achieved.

Table 8. Appearance of lexicalizing items for environmental hazards from non-protection.

lexicalizing items institutional agency collective agency

Disappear 2
Endanger 1 1
Extinction 5 1
Last 2
Perish 3
Threaten 2
Total 12 5

Words represent the whole paradigm (verbs, nouns, and adjectives).

 Critical Discourse Studies 45

Table 9. Appearance of lexicalizing items for mental attributes.

lexicalizing items institutional agency collective agency

Awareness 1
Conduct 1
Desire 1
Determination 1
Environmental conscience 2
Industrious 1
Love 4 4
Meditation 1
Patience 2
Persistence 2
Sensibility 4 1
Zeal 2
Total 19 8

Words represent the whole paradigm (verbs, nouns, and adjectives).

In systemic-functional linguistics of (Halliday, 1994), agency allocation is considered by

means of the descriptive tool of ergativity. Ergativity allows systematic interpretation of
the causal structure of a clause, analyzing it into processes ( acts) and the participants
( perpetrators) linked to them. Specically, Halliday distinguishes between processes that
are brought about internally (i.e., that are self-caused) and those that are brought about externally
(i.e., that are caused by some other entity). The former are called middle and the latter are
named effective. The major participants are Medium and Agent.2 Middle processes
involve only Medium participants, whereas effective processes involve both Medium and
Agent participants. Hodge and Kress (1993) also distinguish between Medium participants of
middle processes that hold an active role (e.g., Mary is working) and those that have a
passive role (e.g., Mary is sleeping).
Ergative (middle or effective processes) and syntactic (active or passive syntax, verbalized
or non-verbalized processes) analysis has been the object of many CDA studies (e.g., Stamou,
2001; Trew, 1979a, 1979b; Van Dijk, 1991) examining the news representation of controversial
acts (e.g., violence) performed by Us (e.g., police, white people) and Them (e.g., protesters,
black people). This research has demonstrated that effective verbs in active voice (e.g., Peter
injured John), which emphasize agency (Fowler, 1991; Hodge & Kress, 1993), are selected
for constructing the negative actions of Them. Conversely, middle processes (e.g., John
injured), effective verbs in passive voice (e.g., John was injured [by Peter]), and nominaliza-
tions (e.g., John had a serious injury [from Peter]), which mitigate the performer of an act
(ibid.), are used to represent the negative actions of Us.
In line with the research aims of the present study, agency emphasis or mitigation and
the use of middle or effective processes may be used as indicators of clear or vague represen-
tation of protection acts. Specically, an explicit signaling of the protector (agency fore-
grounding) and a construction of protection acts as being targeted at elements of the
natural resource (effective processes) offer a detailed representation of protection. Conver-
sely, agency concealment and a depiction of protection acts as being self-engendered
(middle processes) give an ambiguous representation of protection. Furthermore, the choice
of verbalized or non-verbalized processes may show whether protection acts are represented
dynamically or statically. According to Van Leeuwen (1995), verbs activate actions, repre-
senting them as dynamic processes, while nouns de-activate actions, constructing them as
though they were things (objectivation).
46 A. Stamou and S. Paraskevopoulos

As indicated by Stamou (2001), the selections for agency allocation usually taken into
account are inadequate. Subtler distinctions should be made. Specically, not all middle
processes mitigate the perpetrator of an action, because there are also, as shown above, active
processes. Moreover, an Agentless effective verb in passive voice does not necessarily delete
agency, but it may also imply the perpetrator of the action (e.g., John was injured when
Peter threw a stone). In a similar vein, the use of nouns instead of verbs does not always
equate to agency deletion; it may involve agency mentioning by means of pre- or post-modiers
linked to the nominal group (Van Leeuwen, 1995), or agency implication, as in the event of
Agentless effective verbs in passive voice. Consequently, it seems preferable to consider the
effects of linguistic congurations on agency allocation (e.g., agency foregrounding or back-
grounding) instead of the linguistic selections only (e.g., middle or effective processes, active
or passive syntax).
This is particular important when analyzing texts in Greek, which has great exibility in
terms of the position of nominal groups in the clause, because it is not position but case that
signals the syntactic functions of nouns (e.g., nominative case indicates the function of
subject, accusative case indicates the function of direct object, and genitive case indicates the
function of indirect object; Holton, Mackridge, & Philippaki-Warburton, 1997). Hence, in
Greek, agency backgrounding (e.g., Ton Gianni ton xtipise i astinomia John [Medium]
hit him the police [Agent]) and deletion (e.g., Xtipisan to Gianni They [somebody,
Agent] hit John [Medium]), for instance, may be also expressed by an effective verb put in
active voice.
Stamou (2001) took into consideration the effects that linguistic selections have on agency
attribution each time rather than the linguistic congurations proper, and constructed a causality
scale consisting of ve different levels of agency allocation: foregrounding; backgrounding;
implication; deletion; and no causality. The same scale was employed in the present study.
As can be seen in Table 10, further gradations were made within each of the ve levels to
denote the use of an effective or middle process, or a verbalized or nominalized one. Moreover,
mental (of sensing) and relational (of being) processes (Halliday, 1994), which lexicalized

Table 10. Agency allocation expression of protection acts.

causality scale institutional agency % (n) collective agency % (n)

1. Foregrounding 33 66
a. Effective verb in active voice (48) (37)
b. Active middle verb (25) (9)
2. Backgrounding 11 4
a. Effective noun with Agent reference (9) (1)
b. Active middle noun with Medium reference (15) (2)
3. Implication 19 3
a. Agentless effective verb in passive voice (2)
b. Agentless effective noun (26) (1)
c. Mediumless active middle noun (15) (1)
4. Deletion 20 10
a. Agentless effective verb in passive voice (4) (1)
b. Agentless effective noun (24) (6)
c. Mediumless active middle noun (17)
5. No causation 17 17
a. Passive middle/mental/relational verb (13) (6)
b. Passive middle/mental/relational noun (24) (6)
Total 100 (222) 100 (70)

Actual numbers are given in brackets.

 Critical Discourse Studies 47

protection acts as mental attributes (e.g., Congratulations on those who possess environmental
conscience), were regarded as expressing no causality within the context of the present study.
The results in Table 10 suggest a distinct causality prole of the protection acts in the two
samples. Specically, in the collective agency sample, agency was mainly foregrounded (e.g.,
Dadia is a widely known forest and thus all people and the government should watch over
it). Conversely, in the institutional agency sample, no consistent pattern emerged: agency
was sometimes stressed (e.g., We thank WWF for looking after the future of our planet), some-
times implicated (e.g., You deserve congratulations on the great effort for the conservation and
preservation of every animal species of the forest), and sometimes deleted (e.g., The Lawyers
Society of Larissa visited Dadia forest and would like to congratulate on the incredible work
done). Moreover, while in the collective agency sample effective processes (e.g., Our
country is a vast Dadia. Lets safeguard it) outnumbered middle processes (e.g., The
forest needs our work, not our money), in the institutional agency sample the two kinds of pro-
cesses were equally distributed. Thus visitors represented in clearer terms protection acts per-
formed collectively than those brought about institutionally.
On the other hand, protection acts assigned institutional agency were frequently represented
by means of nouns that is, they were depicted as a nished business (e.g., Congratulations. I
hope that all forests receive such care). In contrast, those assigned collective agency were
mostly constructed by means of verbs they were represented as a dynamic process (e.g., I
hope that all people guard the great beauty of nature that God has offered us).

Time encoding of protection acts

The way in which protection acts are chronologically anchored is another important indicator of
their clear or vague, dynamic or static representation. Specically, protection acts are depicted in
clear terms when they are constructed as being longitudinal that is, as having a history, a
present, and a future. Consistency in time encoding also offers a clear representation of protec-
tion acts. When protection acts are placed in the past and represented in a single time dimension,
they are depicted statically. In contrast, when protection acts are placed in the future and are rep-
resented in multiple time dimensions, they are constructed in dynamic terms.
The chronology of protection acts is chiey realized by means of the grammatical category
of tense. Thus, simple present (there is no present continuous in Greek) is used for placing
actions in the present; simple past, past continuous, present perfect, and past perfect locate
events in the past; simple future, future continuous, and future perfect are used for future
time reference. However, there are temporal (e.g., today) and other adjuncts (e.g., more),
or verbs (e.g., continue), which may be also used as temporal indices. Their role is particularly
important in the chronological determination of nominalized processes, which are not marked
for tense (e.g., The effort for the approach of other fauna species should be continued), or
for placing an action in time in combination with tense marking (e.g., 22 years after my rst
visit to Dadia, I would like to give my congratulations to all those who work for its protection).
Taking into account such temporal indices, each text containing protection acts was
assigned a time reference (Table 11). However, because of the frequent appearance of nouns,
especially in the institutional agency sample, there was no time indication in some texts (e.g.,
Dadia serves as an example of preservation of the natural richness of our national heritage).
From the results in Table 11, it can be inferred that, in both samples, protection acts were
mainly constructed as uni-dimensional or even completely timeless events, which gives them
some vagueness and also stagnation. However, those acts assigned collective agency were rep-
resented in clearer and more dynamic terms than those attributed institutional agency. Speci-
cally, in the collective agency sample there was a generally consistent time encoding, with
48 A. Stamou and S. Paraskevopoulos

Table 11. Time encoding of protection acts.

time encoding institutional agency % (n) collective agency % (n)

Past 9 (11) 4 (2)

Present 19 (26) 6 (3)
Future 10 (13) 64 (34)
Past present 3 (4)
Past future 1 (1)
Present future 28 (36) 11 (6)
Past present future 3 (4)
No time indication 27 (35) 15 (8)
Total 100 (130) 100 (53)

Actual numbers are given in brackets.

protection acts being mostly placed in the future (e.g., This is another ornament of our beautiful
Thrace. We should try to preserve it). Conversely, in the institutional agency sample, some pro-
tection acts were located in the present (e.g., Congratulations. You are protecting a great variety
of animals, birds and reptiles) and some in the present and future (e.g., Very good effort. It
marks persistence and love for nature. Continue like this), while there were also some acts
with no time indication (e.g., Your nice effort for the conservation of the natural environment
impressed me a lot). Moreover, because in the collective agency sample most of the protection
acts were located in the future, they were represented in more dynamic terms than those in the
institutional agency sample. Finally, it is worth noting that, in general, protection acts were rep-
resented as having no historicity, since very few acts were placed in the past (e.g., Congratula-
tions on the task you made to conserve such wonderful fauna and ora). Furthermore,
institutional agents were constructed as the current protectors of the forest, while collective
agency was mainly represented as a future activity.

Aspect of protection acts

Aspect is a grammatical category also signaling chronology. However, it does not determine the
when but the how of actions in temporal terms. Specically, aspect indicates whether an action is
represented as a single and/or complete event (e.g., I will write) or as a continuous and/or
habitually repeated event (e.g., I will be writing). The former case is called perfective and
the latter one imperfective (Holton et al., 1997). Aspect is another important indicator of
the static or dynamic representation of protection acts. Specically, a perfective aspect rep-
resents protection acts as being nite as having some end whereas an imperfective
aspect represents them as being innite, as having duration.
Aspect is related to tense. Present (simple and continuous), past continuous, and future con-
tinuous tenses indicate an imperfective aspect. Conversely, simple past, present perfect, past
perfect, simple future, and future perfect indicate a perfective aspect. Although English and
Greek have a similar aspect system, Greek, contrary to English, does mark aspect in the impera-
tive (e.g., there is the distinction made between prostatepste protect now and
prostatevete protect always) and subjunctive moods (e.g., there is the distinction made
between na prostatepsete you should protect now and na prostatevete you should
protect always) (Holton et al., 1997). This is important, since these two moods construct direc-
tive speech acts (see next section). However, because of the frequent appearance of nouns,
especially in the institutional agency sample, aspect remained ambiguous for some processes.
The results of this part of the analysis, given in Table 12, indicate that in both samples pro-
tection acts were generally represented in static terms, since an imperfective aspect was not often
 Critical Discourse Studies 49

Table 12. Aspect of protection acts.

aspect institutional agency % (n) collective agency % (n)

Perfective 27 (59) 54 (38)

Imperfective 31 (70) 26 (18)
Ambiguous 42 (93) 20 (14)
Total 100 (222) 100 (70)

Actual numbers are given in brackets.

selected (e.g., Between the completely unprotected forest and the forest-museum, the Prefec-
ture of Evros is moving to a different direction). However, in those acts attributed institutional
agency, stagnation was mainly to due to the fact that aspect could not be determined in nomi-
nalized processes (e.g., I hope you keep up with your work in order for other people to get
to know the beauty of nature and the admirable world of raptors). In contrast, in the collective
agency sample, perfective aspect was mostly selected (e.g., Na sosoume to perivallon
mas We should all save [now] our environment). Thus, collective agents were represented
as protecting Dadia forest once and for all.

Speech acts performed by protection acts

Each text in the corpus was also analyzed in terms of the speech acts it performed (Austin,
1962; Searle, 1969). According to the theory of speech acts, when using language people
perform certain acts: they may express their belief about (assertive act: e.g., statement, noti-
cation, information) or attitude towards something (expressive act: e.g., congratulation,
complaint, protest), they may ask the addressee to do something (directive act: e.g., request,
urge, recommendation), commit themselves to do something in the future (commissive act:
e.g., promise, threat, offer), or make a change in the world (declarative act: e.g., nomination,
blessing, renunciation) (Searle 1979).
In line with the research aims of the present study, speech acts can also indicate whether
protection acts are represented statically or dynamically. Specically, when protection acts
perform an assertive (e.g., On a short trip to Orestiada, we passed by Dadia forest. We discov-
ered a very good effort for the forest and the raptors) or expressive (e.g., Congratulations on all
those who help us approach the best part of wild Greece) speech act, they offer a static construc-
tion of protection, since they represent it as a given situation about which visitors state their
opinion and show their feelings, respectively. Conversely, directive speech acts (e.g.,
Another beauty is perishing. Lets help for its survival) depict protection dynamically, as a
state of affairs that needs some intervention from the visitors books addressees.3
The kind of speech act performed by each protection act that is, its illocutionary force
was determined by looking at several linguistic features that might function as illocutionary
force indicating devices (Searle & Vanderveken, 1985). Mood (e.g., directive speech acts are
typically performed with the use of imperative and subjunctive mood), performative verbs
(e.g., claim, order), and expressions (e.g., congratulations) are the major (linguistic) illocu-
tionary indices in Greek (Pavlidou, 1982).4
Table 13 shows that most of the protection acts assigned institutional agency were rep-
resented statically, and performed expressive speech acts. Conversely, those assigned collective
agency were constructed in dynamic terms, since they mainly performed directive speech acts.
Assertive speech acts were sparingly performed in both samples. Expressive speech acts mostly
involved congratulating (e.g., Congratulations on safeguarding the environment) and
50 A. Stamou and S. Paraskevopoulos

Table 13. Speech acts performed by protection acts.

speech acts institutional agency % (n) collective agency % (n)

Assertive 2 (4) 4 (2)

Expressive 81 (128) 17 (9)
Directive 17 (27) 79 (42)
Total 100 (159) 100 (53)

Actual numbers are given in brackets.

approving (e.g., We applaud every effort for the protection of natural beauty), rather than
hoping and thanking (e.g., We thank you, and we hope that the effort you make for the increase
of all these species will continue). This is compatible with our nding that visitors books are, to
a large extent, books of congratulations (see above). Directives mainly involved urging (e.g.,
Continue to make the greatest effort you can for the protection of nature) rather than requesting
(e.g., It is our duty to protect nature). Requests were mostly performed by protection acts
assigned collective agency, since they entail authority on the part of speaker. In contrast, for
reasons of negative politeness, urging was more frequent in the institutional agency sample,
since visitors possessed less power and were obliged to respect the negative face of insti-
tutional agents (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Finally, assertives exclusively involved stating
(e.g., Lets love the environment and help those who conserve it).

Comparison of visitors representations of protection action in 1996 1997 and 2005

The texts written during the spring and summer of 2005 were analyzed in a similar way to the
main corpus (texts produced in 1996 1997). The 2005 results (actual numbers) were statistically
compared to those from 1996 1997 using one-way (time) or two-way (agency  time)
MANOVA. Post-hoc pair-wise comparisons were performed using simple main effect analysis.
The level of statistical signicance was set at p .05. SPSS version 13.0 was used for this
analysis.
No statistically signicant differences were found between the two time periods for most of
the content and linguistic features analyzed. However, in the content analysis of agency allo-
cation, the use of collective agency was signicantly higher in the texts from 2005 (36%)
than in those from 1996 1997 (27%; p .034). Moreover, the WWF was named signicantly
more frequently in the construction of institutional agency in the texts produced in 2005 (7%)
than in those written in 1996 1997 (4%; p .011).

Discussion
The present study investigated the way environmental protection acts were represented in visi-
tors books at the Dadia forest reserve. Analyzing content and a wide range of linguistic features
(vocabulary, syntax, ergativity, aspect, temporal indices, and illocutionary indices), we studied
whether visitors, through the way they constructed protection acts in their texts, displayed
knowledge about and concern for environmental issues within an ecotourism context.
Textual analysis indicates that visitors did not seem to possess much knowledge about the
protection action undertaken in the Dadia forest. Generally, they lexicalized protection acts in
technical terms, and identied the institutional character of the social agents involved in the pro-
tection scheme (institutional agency), but they did not specify the agents further in the naming
practices they employed (there was extensive use of the pronoun you). Moreover, they
 Critical Discourse Studies 51

represented the protection acts brought about by institutional agents rather vaguely. Causality
was not clearly assigned (there was no consistent pattern in terms of agency allocation
expression, and a high percentage appearance of middle processes). Protection acts were con-
structed as uni-dimensional and timeless events (time encoding was mostly in a single time
dimension or unspecied). Further, the protection action instigated by institutional agency
was represented statically, as a closed affair. It was depicted as a state (with extensive use of
nouns), as a current or timeless event (with time encoding mostly in the present and unspecied),
as not having duration (with restricted use of imperfective aspect), and as a given situation (with
dominance of expressive speech acts).
This study of the representation of protection action suggests that visitors were not particu-
larly concerned about environmental issues in an ecotourism setting. They lexicalized protection
action quite extensively (overlexicalization), but they did not often construct themselves as par-
ticipants in these protection acts. However, it is noteworthy that when visitors did depict them-
selves as participating in protection action, this was represented in clearer and more dynamic
terms than in cases in which they attributed responsibility for protection exclusively to insti-
tutional agents. In the collective agency sample, causal relations were stressed (agency fore-
grounding, and dominance of effective processes), while the time reference of protection acts
was consistent (placed in the future). On the other hand, protection action was constructed as
a process (with extensive use of verbs), as having some future (time encoding mostly in the
future), and as a state of affairs that requires some intervention from addressees (with a high per-
centage of directive speech acts). Thus, quite naturally, the level of visitors knowledge of pro-
tection seemed to depend on whether they represented themselves as being personally involved
in conservation issues.
Static and vague representations of protection action by visitors to Dadia forest, usually evi-
denced in cases in which they were not personally involved in protection acts (institutional
agency), suggest a lack of environmental knowledge on the part of visitors, and therefore indi-
cate that ecotourism functions ideologically (as disguised consumerism). Such representations
seem also to diffuse visitors responsibilities for the environment, due to false consciousness
stemming from the ideology of ecotourism. Specically, the static construction of protection
action assumes that conservation affairs in the Dadia reserve are nished, rather than evolving.
If nothing further could/should be done, this justies visitor inactivity in conservationist pro-
jects. On the other hand, by representing protection acts in vague terms (e.g., not specifying
who exactly protects Dadia forest, or what is meant by you when addressing institutional
agents), visitors seem to make tacit and common-sense assumptions about the social agents
involved in the conservation of the forest, which also removes their responsibilities for the
environment.5 Justication and presupposition are examples of the ideological function of dis-
course, by means of which established views of the world are reproduced. The ideological use of
discourse is relevant it was mainly evidenced when visitors assigned institutional agency
rather than collective agency, so that their responsibilities for the environment were dissipated.
A comparison of the main textual corpus (1996 1997) with more recent data (2005) indi-
cates that no substantial changes have occurred in the representation of protection action in an
ecotourism setting. However, visitors seemed to be slightly more environmentally aware in
2005. Specically, in the texts written in 2005, they represented themselves more frequently
as participating in protection acts (collective agency). Additionally, despite the fact that in
2005 they were not still capturing all the institutional agents involved in environmental protec-
tion at Dadia, they did more frequently identify the WWF as being involved than they did in the
past. Greek society is much delayed in terms of environmental consciousness. For instance,
environmental education courses have been only recently introduced into Greek universities.
Thus, Greek citizens, and consequently also ecotourists, could be still developing concern for
52 A. Stamou and S. Paraskevopoulos

the environment. On the other hand, having been engaged in a large research project in the Dadia
forest reserve since 1999 (Stamou, 2004), we have been able to observe that NGO actions in
general, and WWF projects in Dadia forest in particular, have received increased publicity
from the Greek media in recent years. Given the fact that the media principally shape our
views about the environment (e.g., Hansen, 1993; Sandman, Sacksman, Greenberg, & Gochfeld,
1987), this could perhaps explain why visitors are currently naming the WWF more frequently
as an institutional agent of protection action than they did some years ago.
Having examined the way visitors to the Dadia reserve represented protection action, and
used it as an alternative and complementary index for assessing their environmental awareness,
the results of the present study agree with those that have revealed limited environmental con-
sciousness on the part of ecotourists (e.g., Guyer & Pollard, 1997; Papageorgiou, 2001; Ryan
et al., 1999). Therefore, this research empirically veries that the prex eco in the word eco-
tourism has undergone semantic bleaching (Muhlhausler & Peace, 2001, p. 378), concealing
consumerism and hence functioning ideologically. Moreover, adhering to the theoretical frame-
work of CDA, the present study offers qualitative insights into ecotourism research, disclosing
how the ideological function of ecotourism was evident in the way visitors represented protec-
tion acts, since the version of protection action they constructed diffuses their responsibilities for
the environment.

Concluding remarks
One could probably argue that some of the linguistic features of protection acts found in the
present study might be due to the generic nature of visitors books. In fact, the summary function
of this genre probably explains why protection acts in general were mainly represented in a
single time dimension and why institutional agents were not specied. Their resemblance to
the genre of titles could also favor nominalization, whereas their status as books of congratula-
tions might justify the performance of expressive speech acts. However, such generic barriers
proved to be more relevant for the institutional agency sample. Thus, the use of such linguistic
features seems to also social and ideological premises. Besides, if we accept the existence of
dialectics between discourse and society, the version of the world built in visitors books
affects the way visitors themselves see the world. Consequently, irrespective of whether we
studied how visitors and/or visitors books represented protection acts, we certainly examined
how these acts were constructed in visitors books, shaping a specic view of social reality by
and for visitors.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier
drafts of this paper.

Notes
1. Examples (extracts from the texts) were translated into English by the two authors. Italics were added
to facilitate locating the relevant points each time.
2. All ergative terms concerning participants have an initial capital letter to be distinguished from the
content (common) use of social agents.
3. Declarative and commissive speech acts are not commented in terms of their representational effect
because they did not appear in the data.
4. Context of situation and paralanguage (e.g., intonation, body movements) are combined with and/or
are contrasted to linguistic indices for the determination of illocutionary force.
5. For this last remark we are indebted to one of the reviewers.
 Critical Discourse Studies 53

Notes on contributors
Anastasia G. Stamou holds an MA in Language in Society from the University of East Anglia (UK) and a
PhD on the representations of ecotourism activity in visitors books and the media from the Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki (Greece). She is currently teaching courses on social linguistics at the
Department of Primary Education at the University of Thessaly and the Department of Early Childhood
Education at the University of Western Macedonia (Greece). Her research interests are in the representation
of environmental issues within the theoretical framework of critical discourse analysis. She has published
her work in the journals Discourse and Society, Sociologia Ruralis, and Science Education.

Stephanos Paraskevopoulos, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education at the
University of Thessaly (Greece), where he teaches courses on social ecology and environmental education.
His research interests concern the teaching of biology and environmental issues in primary education. He
has published his work in journals such as Discourse and Society, Sociologia Ruralis, Science Education,
International Journal of Science Education, Society and Natural Resources, Environmental Education, and
Journal of Environmental Education.

References
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls (Vol. 1.). Washington, DC: World Wild Fund.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burton, F. (1998). Can ecotourism objectives be achieved? Annals of Tourism Research, 25, 755 758.
Butcher, J. (2003). The moralization of tourism: Sun, sand and saving the world. New York: Routledge.
Cooper, D.E. (1993). Human sentiment and the future of wildlife. Environmental Values, 2, 335 346.
Diamantis, D. (1998). Consumer behavior and ecotourism products. Annals of Tourism Research, 25,
515 528.
Ecotourism Society. (1991). The Ecotourism Society: An action agenda. In J.A. Kusler (Ed.), Ecotourism
and resource conservation (pp. 75 79). Madison, WI: Omnipress.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as
social interaction (pp. 258 284). London: Sage.
Fang, J.Y. (1994). Riots and demonstrations in the Chinese press: A case study of language and ideology.
Discourse and Society, 5, 463 481.
Fennell, D.A. (2001). A content analysis of ecotourism denitions. Current Issues in Tourism, 4, 401 421.
Fill, A., & Muhlhausler, P. (Eds.). (2001). The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and the environ-
ment. London: Continuum.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.
Fowler, R. (1996). Linguistic criticism (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Galasinsky, D., & Marley, C. (1998). Agency in foreign news: A linguistic complement of a content
analytical study. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 565 587.
Guyer, C., & Pollard, J. (1997). Cruise visitor impressions of the environment of the Shannon-Erne
Waterways System. Journal of Environmental Management, 51, 199 215.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Hansen, A. (Ed.). (1993). The mass media and environmental issues. London: Leicester University Press.
Higham, J.E.S. (1998). Tourists and albatrosses: The dynamics of tourism at the Northern Royal Albatross
Colony, Taiaroa Head, New Zealand. Tourism Management, 19, 521 531.
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., & Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1997). Greek: A comprehensive grammar of the
modern language. London: Routledge.
Hvenegaard, G.T., & Dearden, P. (1998). Ecotourism vs. tourism in a Thai national park. Annals of Tourism
Research, 25, 700 720.
Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice (2nd ed.). Hong Kong: Oxford University
Press.
Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J., & Sproule, K. (1996). Ecotourism questioned: Case studies from Belize. Annals
of Tourism Research, 23, 543 562.
Muhlhausler, P., & Peace, A. (2001). Discourses of ecotourism: The case of Fraser Island, Queensland.
Language and Communication, 21, 359 380.
54 A. Stamou and S. Paraskevopoulos

Obua, J. (1997). The potential, development and ecological impact of ecotourism in Kibale National Park,
Uganda. Journal of Environmental Management, 50, 27 38.
Orams, M.B. (1995). Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. Tourism Management, 16, 3 8.
Papageorgiou, K. (2001). A combined park management framework based on regulatory and behavioral
strategies: Use of visitors knowledge to assess effectiveness. Environmental Management, 28, 61 73.
Pavlidou, T. (1982). Illocutionary indices in Greek. In Studies on Greek language: Proceedings of the 2nd
meeting of the Department of Linguistics of the Arts School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
(pp. 245 269) (in Greek). Thessaloniki: Ekdoseis Kyriakidi.
Robinson, K.M. (2001). Unsolicited narratives from the Internet: A rich source of qualitative data. Quali-
tative Health Research, 11, 706 714.
Ryan, C., Hughes, K., & Chirgwin, S. (1999). The gaze, spectacle and ecotourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 27, 148 163.
Sandman, P., Sacksman, D.B., Greenberg, M.R., & Gochfeld, M. (1987). Environmental risk and the press.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1979). Expressions and meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Stamou, A.G. (2001). The representation of non-protesters in a student and teacher protest: A critical dis-
course analysis of news reporting in a Greek newspaper. Discourse and Society, 12, 653 680.
Stamou, A.G. (2004). Representations of ecotourism activity by visitors of protected areas and their public
construction in the media. Unpublished PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Stamou, A.G., & Paraskevopoulos, S. (2003). Ecotourism experiences in visitors books of a Greek reserve:
A critical discourse analysis perspective. Sociologia Ruralis, 43, 34 55.
Stamou, A.G., & Paraskevopoulos, S. (2004). Images of nature by tourism and environmentalist discourses
in visitors books: A critical discourse analysis of ecotourism. Discourse and Society, 15, 105 129.
Sun, D., & Walsh, D. (1998). Review of studies on environmental impacts of recreation and tourism in Aus-
tralia. Journal of Environmental Management, 53, 323 338.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th ed.). (1999). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London:
Sage.
Trew, T. (1979a). What the papers say: Linguistic variation and ideological difference. In R. Fowler,
R. Hodge, G. Kress, & T. Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 117156). London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Trew, T. (1979b). Theory and ideology at work. In R. Fowler, R. Hodge, G. Kress, & T. Trew (Eds.),
Language and control (pp. 94 116). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4, 249283.
Van Leeuwen, T. (1995). Representing social action. Discourse and Society, 6, 81 106.
Wallace, G., & Pierce, S. (1996). An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of Tourism
Research, 23, 843 873.
Wight, P. (1993). Ecotourism: Ethics or ecosell? Journal of Travel Research, 31, 3 9.
Wilson, C., & Tisdell, C. (2001). Sea turtles as a non-consumptive tourism resource especially in Australia.
Tourism Management, 22, 279 288.