Survivor Narratives of the 2014 Kelantan “Yellow Flood”: A Corpus-Based Discourse Analysis

Survivor Narratives of the 2014 Kelantan “Yellow Flood”: A Corpus-Based Discourse Analysis

Wan Nur’ashiqin Wan Mohamad, Zarina Othman, Zulkifli Mohamad, Pusat Pengajian Citra

University (School of Liberal Studies), University Kebangsaan Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000576

Received: 11 September 2025; Accepted: 17 September 2025; Published: 18 October 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examines survivor narratives from the 2014 Kelantan “Yellow Flood” through corpus-based discourse analysis. Interview transcripts were compiled into a small corpus and analysed for recurring lexical patterns. Five words dominated the narratives: tak (no/did not/never), air (water), rumah (house), banjir (flood), and naik (rise). These words encapsulated both beliefs and experiences, revealing how survivors framed the disaster through negation, force, loss, categorization, and escalation. The findings show that tak highlighted disbelief and deprivation, air shifted from life-giving to destructive, rumah symbolized both shelter and uprooted identity, banjir contrasted ordinary and catastrophic floods, and naik marked the urgency of rising waters. Together, these words demonstrate how ordinary language captured extraordinary realities, intertwining cognitive frames, cultural meanings, and lived trauma. The study contributes to disaster communication by showing that effective warnings and recovery efforts must resonate with the linguistic and cultural repertoires of affected communities. While limited to immediate post-disaster accounts, the analysis highlights the value of survivor discourse for designing more empathetic and context-sensitive policies.

Keywords: corpus-based discourse analysis; survivor narratives; flood disaster; resilience and coping; Malaysia; disaster communication

INTRODUCTION

Malaysia’s East Coast is annually besieged by monsoon-driven floods, with Kelantan experiencing some of the most severe incidents historically recorded. The December 2014 flood event, locally known as “Bah Kuning,” stands as one of the most devastating in recent memory, causing significant loss of life, widespread displacement, and extensive damage to properties and infrastructure. Flooding consistently ranks as Malaysia’s most severe natural hazard, disproportionately impacting communities in Peninsular Malaysia’s east coast states such as Kelantan [1].

Historically, Malaysia has faced various types of flooding—including flash floods, tropical storms, and monsoon-induced floods—each varying in intensity and impact. Several studies recognize floods as a critical challenge in Asia, with more than two million people nationwide affected by such events, which remain Malaysia’s most frequent natural calamities [2]. These statistics highlight the urgent importance of effective flood management and community preparedness in vulnerable regions.

Although research on flood management is growing, much of the literature has focused on structural engineering solutions, top-down risk-management frameworks, and institutional mitigation strategies [3]. More recent studies have shifted toward community-based approaches that emphasize participation and the effectiveness of policy implementation [1]. Yet, these studies often overlook the personal, lived experiences of flood victims, particularly their perceptions, assumptions, and emotional responses.

Yet, little is known about how flood survivors themselves narrate their experiences, and how their language reveals the perceptions, assumptions, and emotions that shape community responses to disaster. To address this gap, it is essential to analyse and understand survivor narratives through systematic linguistic methods. Corpus-based discourse analysis offers an objective yet sensitive approach to examining how survivors voiced experiences of disaster-related loss, fear, and resilience. This method reduces researcher-imposed interpretations by uncovering naturally occurring lexical patterns, thereby providing deeper insights into the affective and cognitive dimensions of survivor experiences. Applying a corpus-assisted discourse analysis to Malay-language transcripts of Kelantan flood survivors, this study aims to (1) introduce a replicable, data-driven approach to disaster discourse analysis within the Malaysian research landscape and (2) amplify survivor voices, contributing to culturally informed and effective risk communication strategies.

Recognising the vital role communities play during disasters, scholars argue that effective management strategies must integrate victim perspectives and local knowledge [4], [5]. Community awareness and preparedness are critical in reducing negative impacts and strengthening long-term resilience. As survivor narratives vividly capture the lived realities of affected populations, examining these accounts through linguistic analysis offers valuable insights that can inform disaster preparedness policies and community engagement initiatives.

To guide the reader, the remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews relevant literature on disaster communication and the use of language in survivor narratives. Section 3 outlines the research questions. Section 4 describes the methodology, including data collection, corpus analysis, and interpretive procedures. Section 5 presents and discusses the results, focusing on five key words (tak, air, rumah, banjir, and naik). This section also outlines implications for policy and practice, acknowledges the study’s limitations, and synthesizes the overall findings. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper by highlighting key insights and directions for future research.

By foregrounding the voices of flood survivors, this study not only enriches disaster research in Malaysia but also offers culturally grounded insights that can strengthen both scholarly understanding and practical strategies for disaster communication and community resilience.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A corpus, originating from the Latin word for “body,” has long been recognised as a collection of texts used to study linguistic properties, whether in written or transcribed spoken form. Technically, it refers to a large collection of written or spoken texts that allow systematic study of language. In this study, a corpus tool was employed not for extensive linguistic analysis but to identify the most frequent words in survivor narratives. The tool enabled searches for words and their collocations, providing frequency counts and contextual patterns that support corpus-based research. Corpus linguistics, described as the study of language based on authentic, real-life examples, offers a practical means of analysing naturally occurring discourse. While [6] provided one of the earliest systematic definitions, [7] reinforced this perspective by demonstrating its methodological applications in linguistic research.

In this study, the “real-life” language use refers to the voices of flood victims, recorded to explore the words they used in describing the disaster as it unfolded. Corpora can provide insights into relative frequency across various aspects of language, which can then be applied in analytical techniques [7].

Flood-related research in Malaysia has been carried out across diverse fields, including medicine, psychology, meteorology, geography, education, technology, and the social sciences. Such studies primarily capture information for disaster management purposes, focusing on outcomes that benefit institutional and community-level responses. In contrast, the present research explores flood narratives from a linguistic-lexical perspective, specifically examining how victims described their lived experiences. Narratives in the local language were gathered through face-to-face interviews, and corpus techniques such as frequency analysis and concordance were applied to trace how survivors articulated the flood conditions.

This study integrates a corpus-based discourse analysis approach to examine how Malay-speaking flood victims construct and negotiate their experiences through language. Corpus linguistics provides systematic, data-driven techniques for identifying statistically significant linguistic patterns within large text collections [6]. Frequency profiling highlights recurring words such as tak (no/not), air (water), rumah (house), banjir (flood), and naik (rise). Concordance analysis provides contextual windows (±5 words) around each word, revealing thematic clusters. Collocation measures, applying Mutual Information (MI) scores of 3.0 or higher, identify words that co-occur more often than chance, signalling entrenched semantic associations. The utility of these techniques has been demonstrated in recent research; for example, corpus-informed CDA has been used to analyse gendered prime-ministerial crisis communications during the COVID-19 pandemic [8]. Building on such work, this study applies corpus-based analysis to flood survivor narratives, identifying the most frequent words and their collocations to amplify survivor voices and provide insights into community-level perceptions of disaster.

Against this background, the present study addresses the following research questions to examine how survivor narratives of the 2014 Kelantan flood are linguistically constructed and what insights they offer for disaster communication and resilience.

Research Questions

This study was guided by the following research questions:

• Which lexical items dominate survivor narratives of the 2014 Kelantan “Yellow Flood”?
• How do these lexical items reflect survivors’ beliefs and lived experiences during the disaster?
• What symbolic and cultural meanings are embedded in these lexical patterns, and what do they reveal about community perceptions of disaster?
• How can insights from survivor discourse inform disaster communication and recovery strategies?

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

The data for this study were obtained from face-to-face interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) with 28 survivors of the 2014 Kelantan “Yellow Flood.” Participants included adults, teenagers, and individuals with special needs. The sessions were video-recorded, and the spoken data were transcribed into written text. The resulting corpus consisted of 15,174 words, capturing a range of survivor perspectives and experiences.

Analytical Approach

The transcribed data were compiled into a corpus and analysed using Wmatrix, a software tool for corpus analysis that automatically tags words for part of speech and semantic domains. Wmatrix also provides frequency counts, collocations, and keyness calculations, enabling systematic comparison of lexical patterns across the dataset.

Focus of Analysis

From the frequency profiling, five words emerged as dominant across survivor narratives: tak (no/did not/never), air (water), rumah (house), banjir (flood), and naik (rise). These words were selected because they were both highly frequent and thematically central to the ways in which survivors framed the disaster.

Interpretation

The analysis proceeded in three stages:

• Identifying collocational patterns (e.g., tak ada makanan, air cepat naik).
• Examining the contexts of use in survivor narratives (beliefs, experiences, and emotions).
• Relating the findings to symbolic and cultural meanings, with implications for disaster communication and recovery.

In addition to the corpus-based analysis, manual examination of emergent themes was carried out to ensure that the interpretation captured nuances not visible through automated techniques alone.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

These findings address the four research questions by identifying the most frequent lexical items in survivor narratives, showing how they capture both beliefs and lived experiences, interpreting their symbolic and cultural meanings, and highlighting implications for disaster communication and recovery. The analysis focuses on five key words that dominated survivor accounts: tak (no/did not/never), air (water), rumah (house), banjir (flood), and naik (rise). In the original design, beliefs (expectations prior to or during the early stages of the flood) and experiences (lived realities during and after the event) were treated separately; however, closer examination revealed that they were often expressed through the same words. For instance, tak appeared both in disbelief (tak sangka / did not expect) and deprivation (tak ada makanan / no food), while air was used to describe both the calm flow of seasonal floods and the destructive force of the 2014 disaster.

Fig. 1 Frequency of Key Words in Survivor Narratives

The corpus analysis revealed five words that dominated survivor accounts: tak (no/did not/never), air (water), rumah (house), banjir (flood), and naik (rise). As shown in Figure 1, tak was the most frequently occurring term, followed by air and rumah. These three words highlight how survivors framed the disaster in terms of negation, physical force, and loss of shelter. Meanwhile, banjir and naik reflect the broader framing of the event and the escalating conditions during the flood.

Because these words were consistently used across respondent groups (adults, teenagers, and individuals with special needs), they were selected as the focus of the thematic analysis presented in the subsections that follow. The detailed demographic frequency counts are provided in Appendix A for reference.

In the original design, the analysis distinguished between survivors’ beliefs (expectations prior to or during the early stages of the flood) and their experiences (lived realities during and after the event). However, closer examination of the data revealed that beliefs and experiences were often expressed through the same lexical items. For instance, the word tak appeared both in expressions of disbelief (tak sangka / did not expect) and in accounts of deprivation (tak ada makanan / no food). Similarly, air was used to describe both the expected calm flow of seasonal floods and the terrifying force of the 2014 disaster.

To avoid unnecessary repetition and to capture the layered meanings of these words, the analysis here integrates beliefs and experiences within each thematic subsection. Each word is therefore discussed as a discourse cluster that includes:

• Belief-oriented uses (expectations, assumptions, or perceptions before and during the event).
• Experience-oriented uses (lived accounts of what actually occurred).
• Interpretive insights (symbolic, cultural, and policy-relevant implications).

This thematic approach highlights how a small set of recurring words encapsulated survivors’ cognitive frames, emotional states, and material realities. By structuring the discussion around these words, the analysis foregrounds the interplay between language and lived disaster experience, showing how ordinary words became linguistic anchors of extraordinary events.

Air (Water)

The word air (“water”) appeared repeatedly in survivor narratives, often in collocations describing its sudden rise (air naik), violent flow (air deras, air laju), and overwhelming volume (air melimpah, air tinggi). These descriptions highlight how survivors both observed water as a physical phenomenon and interpreted it as a force of fear and destruction.

At the literal level, water was portrayed as escalating without warning:

“…air makin tinggi belaka, air sungai mari sini, pusing belaka…air tinggi sampai grill…” (“…the water kept rising, the river flowed here, turning everywhere… the water reached the window grill…”)

“…itulah, air sekejap je naik…”(“…that’s it, the water rose so suddenly…”)

The force and velocity of the floodwaters were striking to respondents who compared it with calmer floods in the past:

“…arus tu kuat sangat, tak pernah mengalami benda ini…”(“…the current was so strong, I had never experienced anything like this…”)

“…tengok balik macam tsunami, mari kan air laju, air deras lalu mari…”(“…looking back, it was like a tsunami, the water came rushing, fast and strong…”)

Beyond the physical, air carried emotional weight, often linked to fear and trauma. Survivors described water not just as an element but as an agent of terror:

“…rasa takut sebab air deras hari tu…”(“…felt afraid because the water was fast that day…”)

“…trauma tengok air besar-besar, kalau boleh memang tokse (tak mahu) sudah…” (“…traumatized by seeing the massive waters, if possible I never want this again…”)

Together, these accounts show that air was both measured (in terms of levels, speed, and spread) and felt (as a symbol of fear, loss, and vulnerability). While survivors monitored air carefully to decide when to evacuate, they also remembered it as the source of trauma that shattered their sense of safety.

In sum, the word air encoded more than hydrological observation; it represented the collision of natural force and human fragility. Recognizing this layered meaning is crucial for disaster communication strategies: early warnings should not only inform people about rising water levels but also acknowledge the cultural and emotional resonance of air, which shapes how communities interpret danger and respond to evacuation calls.

Rumah (House)

The word rumah (“house”) emerged as a central theme, reflecting both expectations of safety and the lived realities of destruction and displacement.

At the level of beliefs and expectations, many survivors assumed their houses would remain safe, anchored in years of routine flooding that had never reached their homes. One teenager noted:

“…selalu rumah saya tak naik air…”(“…my house usually never floods…”)

Others shared similar assumptions, pointing to elevated locations or memories of past floods that had spared their houses. Such accounts reveal a cultural reliance on the house not only as a structure but as a marker of stability and continuity.

These expectations were brutally overturned by the experiences of 2014, when rumah became synonymous with destruction and loss. Respondents described:

“…rumah dua buah habis runtuh, tak ada. Tinggal sehelai sepinggang…”(“…two houses collapsed completely, gone. We were left with only the clothes we wore…”) “…rumah tak ada, semua hancur…”(“…the house is gone, completely destroyed…”)

For some, the image of houses drifting away captured the surreal violence of the flood:

“…kita duduk kat tembok, rumah hanyut. Rumah hanyut tu naik atas rumah kita, tinggal atas dapur…” (“…we were sitting on the embankment when a drifting house floated onto our house and stayed on top of the kitchen…”)

The emotional weight of rumah was especially evident among teenagers, who linked their sadness to memories embedded in their homes:

“…rasa sedih sebab rumah tak ada, banyan memori dalam rumah tu…” (“…felt sad because the house was gone, there were so many memories in it…”)

Others expressed despair at the sudden uprooting of everyday life:

“…anak saudara kata rumah kak ti dah tak ada dah, kita teriaklah…” (“…my niece said my house was gone, and I cried…”)

In interpretive terms, rumah symbolized more than physical shelter. It represented family identity, community belonging, and emotional security. Its collapse was not only material but also cultural — a rupture in continuity between past and present, home and displacement. The collocations of runtuh (collapsed), hanyut (drifted away), and tak ada (gone) illustrate how the 2014 flood dismantled both infrastructure and a sense of rootedness.

In sum, rumah encapsulated the disaster’s dual impact: the destruction of physical spaces and the dislocation of social and emotional anchors. Rebuilding after such floods must therefore address not only structural rehabilitation but also the restoration of home as a place of identity, belonging, and memory.

Tak (No / Did Not / Never)

The word tak (“no,” “did not,” “never”) emerged as the most frequent word across respondent groups, and its collocations illuminate how survivors framed the flood through lenses of disbelief, deprivation, and negation.

At the level of perception and preparedness, tak often signalled underestimation of risk. Many respondents initially framed the 2014 flood as a routine banjir biasa (normal flood), believing their homes would not be affected. As one housewife admitted:

“…tak ada terbayang pun serupo gini…”(“…did not imagine it would be like this…”)

Others expressed disbelief at the flood’s magnitude:

“…tak sangka sebab tak pernah, banjir bulan 12 ini, teruk betul…” (“…did not expect, never before — this December flood was truly severe…”)

A second theme centred on warnings and communication gaps. The absence of alerts was described in terms of tak ada (“none”):

“…amaran tak ada sama…” (…there was no warning at all…) “…tak ada orang bagitau pun…”  (…no one informed us…)

These statements highlighted institutional failures that left survivors reliant on observation or hearsay rather than official channels.

At the basic needs level, tak collocated with survival resources such as food, water, and shelter. Families reported going without meals or clean water for days:

“…tak cukup makanan, makan apa yang ada…” (“…not enough food, we ate whatever was available…”)

“…tak ada air, tadah air hujan je…” (“…there was no water; we just collected rainwater…”)

Finally, tak also underscored a sense of negated normalcy. Survivors did not only lack resources; they lacked the capacity to act as they usually would. The repetition of tak sangka, tak ada, and tak cukup became a linguistic pattern of absence — of warnings, of control, of essentials.

In sum, tak encoded both the mindsets preceding the disaster (“did not expect”) and the lived conditions during it (“did not have”). It symbolized the cognitive and material gaps that shaped survivor experiences, from misplaced confidence in banjir biasa to the stark realities of hunger and thirst. Recognizing these negation frames is critical for disaster communication: they reveal not only what survivors lost, but also what they never received in time.

Banjir (Flood)

The word banjir (“flood”) was frequently invoked as survivors contrasted the 2014 disaster with the banjir biasa (normal floods) they had experienced for decades.

At the level of beliefs and expectations, respondents initially framed the event within familiar seasonal patterns:

“…mula-mula kita ingatkan banjir biasa…” (“…at first we thought it was the usual flood…”)

 “…banjir memang setiap tahun berlaku…” (“…floods happen every year…”)

This framing reflected a deep-seated reliance on past experience as a reference point for evaluating risk. Survivors assumed the flood would follow predictable rhythms—water rising briefly, then subsiding.

However, their lived experiences in 2014 shattered these assumptions, as banjir was redefined through scale and intensity. Respondents consistently described it as banjir besar (“great flood”):

“…ni yang kuat sekali, sampai rumah pergi…” (“…this was the strongest ever, it swept away houses…”)

 “…dulu tak pernah jadi, pertama kali banjir besar sekali sepanjang duduk sini…siap dengan lumpur, balak…” (“…this had never happened before, the first time we had such a massive flood here—with mud and logs too…”)

For some, the catastrophe was measured historically, with comparisons to the 1967 flood:

“…tahun 1967…tahun ni je kuatnya…”(“…since 1967, only this year was it so strong…”)

The interpretive dimension of banjir thus emerged from its contrastive framing—between the ordinary and the extraordinary. While banjir biasa implied manageability and routine, banjir besar marked rupture, unpredictability, and the limits of community memory. This linguistic shift reveals how survivors negotiated the boundaries of “normal disaster” and “exceptional catastrophe,” a distinction with implications for preparedness.

In sum, banjir in survivor discourse functioned as both a temporal marker (anchored to past floods) and a scaling device (distinguishing the 2014 flood as unprecedented). Recognizing this dual framing is crucial: disaster communication cannot rely solely on the language of “usual floods,” but must emphasize when conditions exceed collective memory, underscoring the extraordinary scale of risk.

Naik (Rise)

The word naik (“rise”) captured the escalation of water levels during the flood and conveyed how survivors measured danger in real time.

At the level of beliefs and expectations, respondents initially assumed that water would rise slowly, as it had in previous years, giving them time to react. A teenager reflected:

“…selalu rumah saya tak naik air…” (“…my house usually never floods…”)

Such expectations reinforced the belief in banjir biasa (ordinary floods) where air naik was gradual and manageable.

In contrast, the experiences of 2014 emphasized sudden and uncontrollable escalation. Survivors repeatedly described water rising quickly and reaching unprecedented levels:

“…itulah, air sekejap je naik…” (“…that’s it, the water rose so suddenly…”)

“…dalam 21hb, air naik di Tualang…makin lama, makin tinggi…” (“…on the 21st, the water rose in Tualang… the longer it went, the higher it got…”)

The speed of rising water was terrifying, forcing urgent evacuation:

“…air naik atas rumah, terus lari…” (“…the water rose over the house, we ran immediately…”)

For some, naik was intertwined with fear and anxiety:

“…masa banjir tu, air naik jadi risaulah, air semakin naik, risau rumah, barang-barang…”(“…during the flood, as the water rose, I grew worried — the house, the belongings…”)

“…air tinggi sampai grill…” (“…the water rose as high as the window grill…”)

The interpretive dimension of naik lies in its role as a linguistic marker of escalation. While banjir named the event, naik described its intensification. It encoded embodied urgency—fear of drowning, loss of control, and the pressure to evacuate before it was too late.

In sum, naik encapsulated the lived temporality of disaster, highlighting both the physical reality of water levels and the psychological toll of watching them climb relentlessly. Recognizing naik as a discourse of escalation underscores the need for timely warnings and community preparedness strategies that address not only when floods occur but also how rapidly conditions can change.

Across the five words, a consistent pattern emerges: ordinary words were repurposed in extraordinary ways to make sense of the 2014 Kelantan flood. Tak framed the disaster through negation, reflecting disbelief and deprivation. Air captured both the hydrological force and the cultural inversion of water as life-giving yet destructive. Rumah symbolized not only physical shelter but also the loss of identity and belonging when homes collapsed or drifted away. Banjir distinguished between the “usual” floods and the exceptional catastrophe of 2014, exposing the limits of communal memory. Finally, Naik encoded the urgency of rising waters, embodying the escalating fear that compelled flight and survival strategies.

Together, these words illustrate how survivor narratives combined cognitive frames, lived realities, and cultural meanings in ways that reveal both the tangible and intangible dimensions of disaster. They underscore the importance of attending not only to what communities lose in floods but also to how they linguistically frame absence, escalation, and rupture. Such insights are crucial for designing communication and recovery strategies that resonate with survivors’ lived discourses and cultural worldviews.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings of this study suggest that disaster communication and recovery efforts must be attuned not only to material conditions but also to the linguistic and cultural frames through which survivors interpret floods. Several implications emerge:

Disaster Warnings: Messaging should acknowledge local frames such as banjir biasa versus banjir besar. Survivors’ reliance on past experience can delay evacuation when warnings fail to signal the extraordinary nature of an event. Clearer risk communication must therefore distinguish between “normal” floods and exceptional catastrophes.

Community Preparedness: Expressions of tak highlight gaps in both official alerts and basic survival resources. Preparedness campaigns should address these negation frames directly by demonstrating what will be provided, what may be lacking, and what actions communities must take themselves.

Recovery and Rehabilitation: References to rumah reveal that houses are not only physical shelters but cultural anchors of memory and belonging. Reconstruction policies should therefore integrate psychosocial support and community rebuilding alongside material assistance.

Long-term Resilience: The discourse of air and naik emphasizes speed, force, and escalation. This suggests the need for preparedness training that simulates rapid-onset scenarios, ensuring communities are ready to act decisively when conditions change suddenly.

By aligning disaster management strategies with the symbolic and experiential dimensions reflected in survivor language, policymakers and practitioners can design interventions that resonate more deeply with affected communities, enhancing both compliance and resilience.

Limitations of the Study

While this study offers valuable insights into survivor discourse, several limitations should be noted.

• Temporal Scope: The dataset captures narratives from the immediate aftermath of the 2014 Kelantan flood. It does not extend into medium- or long-term recovery, where survivor language might shift from loss and trauma to rebuilding and adaptation.
• Demographic Depth: Although the corpus includes adults, teenagers, and individuals with special needs, the analysis did not systematically examine differences across gender, age, or social vulnerability. A comparative demographic analysis could have revealed more nuanced patterns of discourse.
• Corpus Size: The dataset, while sufficient for a small-scale discourse study, remains limited in scope. A larger or multi-event corpus would enable more robust generalizations across different disaster contexts.
• Translation: Excerpts were presented in both Malay and English to ensure accessibility. While care was taken to preserve meanings, some cultural and emotional nuances may have shifted in translation.

These limitations do not diminish the significance of the findings but instead highlight opportunities for further research. Future studies could employ longitudinal designs, integrate demographic comparisons, and expand the corpus to deepen understanding of how language reflects and shapes disaster experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examined survivor narratives from the 2014 Kelantan “Yellow Flood” through corpus-based analysis of five key words: tak (no/did not/never), air (water), rumah (house), banjir (flood), and naik (rise). Together, these words captured the ways in which ordinary language was mobilized to describe an extraordinary disaster. The findings reveal that survivor discourse intertwined beliefs and experiences, producing narratives that combined cognitive frames, lived realities, and cultural meanings.

Three insights stand out. First, the recurrent use of tak shows how negation shaped survivor perspectives, marking both disbelief (tak sangka / did not expect) and deprivation (tak ada makanan/air / no food or water). Second, air and rumah emerged as culturally resonant symbols: water, usually life-giving, was reframed as destructive, while houses, normally safe anchors of identity, were recast as fragile and transient. Third, banjir and naik highlighted the temporal and escalatory dimensions of the flood, contrasting routine banjir biasa with catastrophic banjir besar, and tracking how quickly water levels rose beyond the limits of communal memory.

As shown in Appendices A and B, the recurring words and representative excerpts together illustrate how survivor narratives capture both the tangible realities and the symbolic dimensions of the 2014 Kelantan flood.

These insights carry important practical implications. They demonstrate that disaster communication must go beyond technical alerts to engage with survivors’ cultural frames and linguistic repertoires. Messages that only describe water levels, for example, may fail to resonate if communities interpret floods through assumptions of banjir biasa. Similarly, recovery initiatives should recognize that rebuilding rumah involves not only structural rehabilitation but also the restoration of home as a source of identity and belonging.

At the same time, this study acknowledges its limitations. The dataset captures immediate post-disaster experiences but does not extend into longer-term recovery narratives. Nor does it fully explore differences across gender, age, or social vulnerability, which could further enrich the analysis. Future research should therefore consider longitudinal follow-ups and comparative subgroup analysis to provide greater temporal depth and demographic nuance.

In conclusion, the voices of Kelantan flood survivors remind us that disaster is experienced and communicated not only through physical realities but also through the language people use to describe them. Attending to these narratives opens a pathway to more culturally grounded, empathetic, and effective approaches to disaster preparedness, communication, and recovery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education for funding through the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS/1/2015/SSI01/UKM/02/1). We thank our co-researchers, Khaidzir Hj Ismail, Noraini Md Yusof, Rashila Ramli, and Azizah Ya’acob of University Kebangsaan Malaysia, for their contributions to data collection and fieldwork. Special thanks are also due to Taufik Rashid for assisting with the translation of Malay excerpts into English, to Norfarhanah Razak for her dedicated research assistance, and to Yusry for serving as liaison with the flood-affected community.

REFERENCES

1. Abid, S. K., Sulaiman, N., Al-Wathinani, A. M., & Goniewicz, K. (2024). Community-based flood mitigation in Malaysia: Enhancing public participation and policy effectiveness for sustainable resilience. Journal of Global Health, 14, 04290. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.14.04290
2. Rosmadi, H. S., Ahmed, M. F., Mokhtar, M. B., & Lim, C. K. (2023). Reviewing Challenges of Flood Risk Management in Malaysia. Water, 15(13), 2390. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15132390
3. Saad, M. S. H., Ali, M. I., Razi, P. Z., & Ramli, N. I. (2024). Flood Risk Management in Development Projects: A Review of Malaysian Perspective within the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Construction, 4(2), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.15282/construction.v4i2.10592
4. Rahman, H. A. (2018). Community-based approach towards disaster management in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Environment, History and Heritage, 2(2), 55–66.
5. Hirono, M., & Nurdin, M. R. (2024). Local knowledge as the basis of disaster management and humanitarian assistance. Disasters, 48(S1), e12634. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12634
6. McEnery, T. and Wilson, A. (2001) Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd Edition, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
7. Rayson, P. E. (2002). Matrix: A statistical method and software tool for linguistic analysis through corpus comparison (Doctoral dissertation). Computing Department, Lancaster University, UK.
8. Power, K., & Crosthwaite, P. (2022). Constructing COVID-19: A corpus-informed analysis of prime ministerial crisis response communication by gender. Discourse & Society, 33(3), 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265221076612
9. van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Routledge.
10. Paulsen M. K. (2020). Appearance of Experience as Form and Process. Integrative Psychological & Behavioural Science, 54(4), 861–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09526-3
11. Suhaimi, M. F., & Abdul Ghani, M. T. (2025). Emotional resilience and experiences of flood victims in Jitra, Kedah: A phenomenological approach. Journal of Asian Geography, 4(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.36777/jag2025.4.1.6