Environmental Discourse Annual Review of Anthropology

Environmental Discourses Author(s): Peter Mühlhäusler and Adrian Peace Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 35 (2006), pp. 457-479 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25064933 Accessed: 11-09-2015 09:11 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25064933?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Environmental Peter M?hlh?usler1

Discourses

and Adrian Peace2

'Linguistics Discipline, University ofAdelaide, SA 5005 Australia; email: [email protected] 2 Discipline ofAnthropology, University ofAdelaide, SA 5005 Australia; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:457-79 First published online as a Review in Advance on July6, 2006 The Annual Review ofAnthropologyis online at anthro.annualreviews.org This article's doi:

of communication, ethnography biocultural diversity, greenspeak

ecolinguistics, metaphor,

Copyright (c) 2006 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

environmental

Abstract Discourses

10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123203

0084-6570/06/1021-0457$20.00

Key Words

sis have review ponents

concerned

with

cri the perceived global environmental over the past of This decades. dramatically couple com consists of an of the principal analysis ethnographic as well as a discussion of environmental discourses of the increased

approaches employed to analyze them.These include linguisticdis courses (ecolinguistics, ecocritical linguistics,discourse analysis) as well as approaches developed within other disciplines (anthropology, literarystudies,philosophy, and psychology). Over courses unclear

the years,

the structural

have

developed to what extent

of environmental dis properties into a distinct discourse It remains category. the numerous discourses and environmental

metadiscourses significandycontribute to improving the health of the natural

environment.

451

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

INTRODUCTION Discourses Environmental discourse:

ment,

about

and

DEFINITIONS environ

the contemporary economic

the

and

We

pro

political of that impact upon it, are by no means concern to environmental solely anthropolo

the

cesses

linguistic devices articulating

arguments about the relationship between humans and their environment.

prising

ar

articulating

the relationship

the natural

and

as com

discourse

devices

linguistic

about

guments mans

environmental

the

between

hu

but we

environment,

gists. Such is the reach and depth of disquiet

restrict the definition further.Language has

and anxiety

to this relationship. explore always been used But until recently most discourse took place in nature the belief that a largely self-regulating new discourse could be taken for granted. The

about

the environmental

in

future

bothNorthern and Southern hemispheres; it seems

that the concerns

unlikely

will

not

of local

and

at some

surface,

regional populations or other, most during

anthropologists'

is the

of environmen

point

periods in the field.At the same time, such linguistic

complexity that the need

tal discourses

to marry

recent ing. In able time as a

years, we

have

spent

consider tag team

linguist-anthropologist the natural discourses

unpacking

with which

sense of a island envi unique people make ronment off the east coast of Australia. Con

vinced of themerits of pooling the strengths of our

and

disciplines

taking

the ethnogra

turned our recently contentious and competing cused

on

discourses

crisis

environmental

to

attention

problem

of environmental

in recent

worldwide

awareness

mental

crisis,

is the

discourses,

increased

address

decades

sheer

quantity

has vastly to in response

which

environ of the global is produced and which from

the question

of how

discourse

and metadiscourse.

environmental

In our

terms,

particular

tures. Metadiscourse which

their significance.

M?hlh?usler

and

their

fu

of the refers to practices to establish issues categorize

term has

"The

a nature

in

tangibly

importantonly to human health and liveli hood" (Hochman 1997, p. 82). Rowe (1989, p. 123) and Fill (1993) criticize thevagueness of the term, and Howard words"

81-84).

his

exam

As

"visitors parks, where as we used to say in our old game

but in surroundings, and aerosol cans, habitat,"

"kill most

household

germs

on

'envi

surfaces."

(1983) calls nature "perhaps the

Williams most

pp.

it among

in natural

way,

ronmental'

includes

(1978,

the environmental

complex

in

word

is far removed

meaning notion of "entities

the from

its language"; the technical

and processes

uninterfered

with by human agency" (p. 219). In a study as it is applied

of "naturalness"

ecosystems, Taylor "failure

discourse refers to specificways of talking environments

notion: to mean

fashioned

discourses work. A blurring of disciplinary boundaries isparalleled by a blurringbetween

orizing,

global an anthropocentric come creasingly

fo

numerous disciplinary and linguistic back grounds. Anthropology, linguistics, philos ophy, sociology, and other disciplines now

about

of the terms environment ambiguity to nature is central this understanding in essence is Environment discourse.

which main

in a

species

The and

the

at the global

the human

and

context.

ples, he cites U.S. can see bears not,

level. Our

of nature

germent

"weasel

phy of speaking in new directions,we have more

differsin that itsprincipal focus is the endan global

anthro

pological perspectives with those prominent in other disciplines appears distinctlypress

4$8

define

to

versal

that naturalness

recognize

turally constructed

(1990)

to Australian

concludes that

rather

concept,

one, has produced...

is a cul than a uni

inconsistency

and

ambiguity in the terminologyused for these assessments"

(p. 411).

Jagtenberg (1994) says "we are confronting both

decline

ecological

discourses

about

this explosion

nature"

is evidence

Peace

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and

an

explosion

of

(p. 14). However, not for some direct

influence

of

environmental

rather

guage,

but

nuclear

power, which

on

factors

the result

lan

of risk

for the emergence

society (Beck 1992) and technologies such as

dare

touch. We

no

companies dis environmental

areas

of envi

there any salient properties

ronmental

discourse?

Which linguistic approaches are most suited to analyzing them? What

can

contribution

points

the

to environmental

make

previous sustain

that

Participants Hymes observes (1972), "[T]he common dyadic model of speaker-hearer specifies too many,

sender,

CLASSIFICATION reduce

the to

tal voices

a distinction

of

polyphony common

the

environmen

between

discourses

as green economic policies (Gerbig 2000), green consumerism (Elkington et al. 1988), and green advertising (M?hlh?usler 1996, Luke 1997). Herndl & Brown (1996) sep arate

classifications

pretheoretical

nocentric,

and

ecocentric, with

four

survivalism,

solving,

into

eth

anthropocentric

(1997) adds a political

discourse. Dryzek discourse

subcategories:

problem

sustainability,

and green

radicalism. Such

pretheoretical

taxonomies

are indica

tive of a nascent field of inquiry.We the salient

proach discourse

features

in terms of an ethnography

ethnography

of

ap

of environmental

ing (Hymes 1972) such that the

few,

between

addressee.

addresser,

These

to

understanding discourses.

distinc en

global

of

denominator

such micro

hearer,

vironmental

scientific, moral, economic, tinguish between and aesthetic macro distinc discourse. Clear exist

and

are relevant

tions

"political discourse" (Leuthold 1999, p. 5) seems too simplistic.Harr? et al. (1999) dis

tions

too

sometimes

sometimes the wrong participants" (p. 59) and advocates

To

insufficient

SPEECH COMPONENTS IN DISCOURSE ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS

sometimes

ability?

received

have

attention.

is to explore how the study of environmental can make to environ contributions discourse

Are

study;

an ethnographic approach highlights

fect them (Spaargen et al. 2000). Another task

understanding.

and

emic,

for by the provided of communication; and

ethnography

as an attempt by risk society members to make sense of the that af global changes

Our key questions are as follows:

than

comparative

a unit well

event,

course

mental

facilitates

themain level of analysis has been the

insurance

interpret

is eric rather

therefore

of speak

The

addresser.

lends itself to organizing large bodies of observation;

a number

and

("vicarious

advocacy" is a salient

of

of

analysts

have

et al.

1999,

shown that speaking on behalf of the Earth

p.

182)

tal discourses.

in Harr?

of environmen

feature

It entails

"to nonhuman

entities

assigning such as

intelligence ecosystems"

(Dryzek 1997, p. 17) or a personified god dess such as Gaia (Lovelock 1979). Earlier and white

black

addresser

groups,

two

between

categorization

environmentalists

velopers,

persists

in more

fer more

complex

classifications.

recent

and

de

discourses,

but others (Killingsworth& Palmer 1992) of Addressers have been classified in termsof theirkeymetaphors (Dryzek 1997) or dom inant behaviors:

ecofreaks,

tree-huggers,

fer

ais, greenies,NIMBY (not inmy backyard), andNIABY (not in anybody'sbackyard) (see

M?hlh?usler communication

are the source

Addressers

a message,

sizes

2003). Dryzek (1997) empha

the discourses

as survivalists, matista,

of principal

prometheans,

and green

rationals,

"agents"

democratic whereas

such prag

Jamison

www.annualreviews.org EnvironmentalDiscourses

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

459

(2001)

activists,

distinguishes

and

academics,

practitioners. the number

Increasing seem timely;

would

of addressers

environmental

are no

discourses

longerdominated by a small coterie ofWest

ern

But

professionals.

have

addressers

also

changed over time from concerned individu als (Carson 1962, Ehrlich 1969) to national and international organizations. Collective addressers

fall into two main

concerned

with

and

those

ment, -* thetic aspects

those

categories: and

management on moral focused

govern and

Governments have big business. of the most powerful producers

environmental

Transnational

messages.

bodies such as the European Union, World Bank, and UNESCO increasinglybroadcast environmental

messages. Alongside as Greenpeace, such

organizations

that in the 1970s

a discourse

such

appeared to "transcend the ideological dis and other

sources

like class,

of division,

race, gender, and national identity"(p. 1) but comes

to the conclusion

defines

value

patible

that national

communities.

discourse

The

identity of

notion

sits uneasily with incom systems in intercultural settings.

discourse

global

also

Jones (1994) details the incommensurability of Maori

and Pakeha

languages

in environ

mental debates. Marnham (1981) observes, "African opinion would be hostile to every assumption"

upon

which

an

expatriate

no

tion of "game parks" is based (p. 8). "Wilder ness"

460

is particularly

M?hlh?usler

which

the per

undervalues

and

of national

local

forces.

problematic,

as Burnett

The

Speaker.

&

environ

of

mainstreaming

mentalism has resulted in a disjunction be tween

the roles of addresser are

media

important

and speaker. The their role

and

speakers,

has attracted considerable attention (Dyer & Dyer 1990,Gerbig2000, Hansen 1996,Rissel & Douglas 1993).A surveyof themedia's role in sustaining

environmental

inM?hlh?usler

who Speakers can be found

represent large organiza on all sides of the environ

CEOs

debate.

and

corporations,

envi

professional

for large or representing

communicators,

speakers

spokespersons as Greenpeace,

and

such

ganizations

is given

discourse

(2003).

tions

ronmental

political parties. The idea thatthere is a genuine global dis course remains problematic. Jamison (2001)

putes

sistence

mental

powerful World

Wildlife Fund, and the Sierra Club, we find concerned groups of scientists, the Club of Rome (Meadows et al. 1972), and green

comments

and developed nations; similar conclusions can be found inM?hlh?usler (2003). Rhetor ical claims about globalization have resulted in a hyperbolic emphasis on integration and

of the environment.

This is often green tokenism,but the actions of ethical enterprises differmarkedly from traditional

servation" (p. 1) in Sierra Leone. Genske & Hess-L?ttich (2002) underscore intercultural eco-semiotic problems between developing

interdependence,

aes

Big business has succeeded in repackaging its ideologyby promoting green consumerism (Alexander 2002, Doyle 1991, Beder 1997, Gerbig 2000, Stauber & Rampton 1995).

become

Kamuyu wa Kang'ethe (1994) have illustrated for east African languages. Richards (1992) highlights the problems with "wildlife con

green

politicians increasingly speak with the voice of their party Hearer.

rather

with

of messages

being

hearers

that equates

passive

to amech

subscribes

(1972)

Hymes

anistic metaphor received

than as individuals.

recipients.

mental

meanings

emerge

active

discourses

between

In

and

reality, in active

sent and addressees environ or

inter

all players. We

do

not develop this criticism but note that a view

mechanistic numerous

by

of communication

producers

of

is shared

environmental

messages.

One design featureof human language is that it is broadcast

and

that an uttered

mes

sage can be heard by all and sundry. In the West,

environmental

the time stories

as

about

discourses

are heard

churn untiringly disasters. environmental

the media

Peace

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

all out

The concept of risk society implies a lack of certaintyon all sides (Caplan 2000). are

Hearers

do not

to messages

exposed they even when "ecoliter understand completely are ate" and numerous conflicting messages a classi This encountered. concept suggests

fication

are

those who

into

of hearers

eco

literateor earthliterate (Verhagen 2000) and those who

Corporate are ment

or

or filter out messages,

ignore

suffer from

the environ

about

even

of manipulating

capable

the

ecoliterate. Ehrlich & Ehrlich (1996) have to

attention

drawn

the practice

about

"uncertainty

environmental

a rhetorical

ences criteria able

occurs

crisis

to understand

struggle

for policy

evaluation,

for action....

options

interest

on

con

green

slows

of envi

the production

down

ronmentallyfriendlyvehicles and green tele programs.

where

[T]he

gap

between noticeable

outcomes is par goals and in the area of environ

ticularly mental policy-making, substitute for, rather

inwhich

are a

policies

than a means

of, achiev

ing desired outcomes (Schiewer 2002, Strang 2004).

"audi set

information, locate

and

Ends The

threats" (p. 28). The ability of hearers to filterout infor mation depends on whether theyare directly affectedby environmental issues. Farrell & Goodnight (1998) observe that during dis asters

research

and market

eering

vision

of brown

mental problems; Brosius (1999) explainshow man greenwashing by public relations firms ufactures

and politi of corporations shape the agenda of environmental and the appeal cal parties, in election has become messages important

the severity of environ

minimizes

lash, which

awareness.

Businesses and politicians have adopted more sophisticated strategies.Public opinion surveys(Luke 1993, pp. 165-66) increasingly

sumer behavior (Elkington et al. 1988, Lenz 2003,M?hlh?usler 2000). Limited consumer

ecofatigue. discourses

to their failure to acknowledge limited envi ronmental

crisis

vi does

Goals/Purpose. course elaborates tions

Much

the theme

are detrimental

dis

environmental that human

to the

ac

of hu

survival

not so much invite discourse as defy it" (p. manity. Each speech act warns that it is in 76). In thewake ofThree Mile Island, peo the interestof the individual to desist from ple simply fled. In other disaster situations such activities. Waddell (1998) argues thatthe such as Bhopal (Fortun 2001) orExxon Valdez is "the preservation of fu ultimate purpose (Browning& Shetler 1992), hearers' reactions ture choice" (p. xiii). Changes in individual were influencedby patchyunderstanding and or from an

to act

inability

rationally

behavior

in the face of con

government

policy

range

single topic (do not chop down more trees

flicting messages.

in the parkland)

to

generalist

ones

(save

the

planet/world). Addressee.

are members

Addressees

get audiences.

Given

the economic

fying target vironmental

audiences

of tar and

ideo

logical importanceof green discourse, identi rhetoric.

is a central

task of en

tend

Environmentalists

"Proper

conduct

of the relation

between

society and nature" (Rutherford 1994, p. 40) has grown in importance, and it is to be achieved

by government

lation of environmental

control awareness.

and manipu Neuwirth

lightened. But their lack of attention to the

(2002) details the rhetorical strategies used by theAustrian government and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in support

to target of how question particular ences has rendered them less effective

risk of launching

to assume

their message

the commonsense

alone will

of those waiting

to

appeal to be en

audi than

expected. Penman (1994) has drawn attention

of nuclear power and in downplaying the plutonium-laden

spacecraft.

Schultz (2001) analyzes the linguisticdevices

www.annualreviews.org EnvironmentalDiscourses

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

461

vagueness,

(euphemism,

em

hyperbole)

ployed by big government and large corpo to control

rations One

public

important

goal

the speaker on the high moral ground, for example, inpromoting vegetarianism (Marko 2000): Tb what extent vegetarianism is any for animals

better

than animal

re

husbandry

mains unclear, and itgoes hand inhand with habitat destruction,use of pesticides, and high storage costs.Harr? et al. (1999) have used to

narratology

the general

explore

principles

of taking themoral high ground:The narra of opposing

tives

groups

of nuclear

opponents

(e.g.,

energy)

and

supporters are structurally

identical; the only difference lies in the roles innocent

(hero, helper,

assigned

discourse

of

trality

in

constructing to postpone

seems

often

reality, action.

Talk about the plight of the River Murray in Australia,

is not matched

for instance,

as we action; comparable we are also running water,

are

by

out

running

of

out of time. Adam

(1997) comments on the difficultieshumans

time. Environ when experience calibrating can of human actions mental consequences occur

with

liseconds perceive at most

a time

between

lag varying and millennia. Humans that occur

consequences a few years,

after the event.

emphasize

the

tial

in environmental

change

mil

typically a few hours,

relative

lack

of

(1994)

consequen com

discourses

at least in part, because persuasive

of their abil

rationales

through

slogans,myths and narratives" (p. xviii).This contrast in degree of linguisticadaptationwas

anticipated on the way

by earlier writers who environmental

rhetoric

commented leaves

a re

alitygap "because ituses old language to de rive the termsof a new condition" (Segal 1991,

p.

462

3). Continued

ing facts

about

ing does

not

M?hlh?usler

exposure

about

comprises

the environment of in

of the language

ical resources, formation, root ens

the emergence

and

green

ones.

cultural

sues. As Hajer

becoming

language

height

of environmental

is

(1995) notes, "the discursive

of ecological

power

metaphors

Green

awareness

peoples'

of green word

modernization

manifests

itselfin the degree towhich its implicit future

scenarios

permeate

tors

reconceptualize nize new opportunities

and ac society through their interests and recog and new

trouble

spots"

(p. 261). Act Sequences In Hymes's (1972) model, act sequences are concerned

model

to more

conven

the form messages

take as well

tionally The

with

as their semantic formal

separates

content.

from

semantic

properties, a separation difficultto uphold in nevertheless try to sep analysis. We form and content, noting first that the

discourse arate

intensity

of environmental

is char

discourses

acterized by peaks (Rio,Kyoto) and troughs. that

argue

Ecolinguists Western

the

contours

are

of

at odds

languages increasingly of their speakers' the contours

environ

ments. According toHalliday (2001),modern

who paredwith thoseof antienvironmentalists "have been effective in accomplishing their objectives to articulate ity

discourse the greening

dustrial societies, theproliferationofnew lex

with

Bruner & Oelschlaeger

Outcomes.

interest"

bystander).

In spite of widely held views on the cen

discourse

new

The is to locate

of fading

atmosphere

(Killingsworth& Palmer 1992, p. 270).

opinion.

discourse

to "an

rather

Western

are

languages

the outcome

developments

of past

are memo

and their grammars

riesof past experience:Their layersreflectour

past

as hunter

gatherers

modes

bureaucratic

ory of the past

to modern

through

of existence. how we

influences

mem

This

perceive

the

world today,althoughwhat seemed functional is now

in the past

no

so. The

longer

notion

thatbigger is better (in English we typically find conjunctswhere bigger comes first,as in "all creatures

inmost

trenched crisis

great

such

and

small")

languages, is

"growthism"

but

en is deeply in the current

dysfunctional.

alarm

as warm topics such global lead to enhanced alertness but

Forms ern

of

speech.

languages

The

manifests

greening in the

Peace

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of mod changing

norms

for using

lexical

innova

items. Lexical

tions inEnglish combine deliberate creation of

with

terminology

evolv

spontaneously

ing terms.There has been a proliferation of specialist dictionaries for environmen tal words (surveyed inM?hlh?usler 2003), reveal

which

substantial

in

changes

everyday

as

to the

dimension

social

nature.

about

a

extinction,

new

most

Formally,

are

items

lexical

(a)

morphologically complex, (b) built predomi nantlyfromLatin andGreek roots, (c) of lim ited transparency,or (d)misleading. The fact that major Western

in excess

have

languages

of 100,000 words for environmentalmatters not mean

that many

discourse.

everyday

enter

of them

Where

into

commu

specialist

nities have redefined popular words such as "trash,"

or "rubbish,"

"garbage,"

seals, wolves,

Like

other

ronmental

unpleasant

envi

phenomena,

of euphemismswhich either replace existing terms?"to

harvest"

than

rather

koalas,

tigers,

or more

equal

biologically

rarely

important species or wasps)

equally

of languages prerequisite well-being

weevils,

dung beedes, feature, nor do

diversity: implies that the well-being

species

endangered

domestic subspecies (Penman 1994). Brosius (1999) discussed the criticism that Euro-American

often

discourses

the

ignore

plight of inhabitants of developing nations out

and pointed courses are

that

"environmental to

in response

changing

dis critiques

of elitism, to charges that they ignore social to accusations

issues,

justice

that

are

they

a

emer

(p. 282). The

gence of discourses of biocultural diversity (Maffi2001) illustratesthis change.

the use

has promoted

degradation

Biocultural

charismatic

pandas, and dingoes) prevail (Knight 2000),

form of neo-colonialism"

miscommu

nication isfrequently the result.

animal

about of

number

small

(whales,

species

of all discourses

In the discourses

(scavengers,

language.

does

added, bearing out S apir 's (1912) observation

"to hunt,"

or Key

Tone

"landfill" rather than "rubbish dump," "to The key of amessage on one hand is a product cull" rather than "to kill"?or take the form of choices made in the domains of language of

formalized

able

as

collocation, or

development"

"green

in

"sustain The

business."

trendsoutlined inEnglish are paralleled else where. Stork (1998) has documented the lexicon

environmental

of French,

whereas

and channel;

form, content, on

it impacts

the norms

on the other hand

of interpretation

and

interaction.Although the termskey and tone our

are used

interchangeably, the latter.

preference

is for

Trampe (2001) takes on theGerman lexicon Tone.

of agribusiness. content.

Message

&

Lanthier

Olivier

(1999) observed that "the environmentalist

discourse

originates

in the environmental

and

human disasters provoked by technology" (p. 67). These origins can be traced back to debates water

about shortages

deforestation, following

drought, the economic

and and

cultural conquest of the earth by European colonizers (Grove 1992). The impact of mining,

overgrazing,

and

overuse

of forests

has been discussed byWeigl (2004). The fol lowing areas have been identifiedbyTrampe

(2001, p. 233): pollution andwaste problems,

habitat nuclear

destruction, energy.

New

species topics

extinction, are

and

constantly

macro

Different

environment

are

most

though

discourses

vary with

about to tone,

respect

distincdy

serious.

the al

In Kahn's

(2001) summary,"Scientificdiscourses about

the their

have

environment 'cold,

dry-as-dust

been

criticized

objectivity,

their

for an

tiseptic gaze on death and indignity,their use

consistent

of

the passive

voice

to avoid

the appearance of responsibility'" (p. 242). Killingsworth & Palmer (1992) observe that to write in a neutral by scientists tone is undermined by "anthropo

the attempt detached

morphizing the effectof scientificlanguage" and theiruse of a "ideological kind of lan guage fornonteleological concepts" (p. 114). Halliday & Martin (1993) criticize scientific discourse

similarly:

It constructs

a

reality

that

www.annualreviews.org EnvironmentalDiscourses

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

463

is a

for the

of natural

is "fixed and determinate, inwhich objects and

predominate

seem

processes

to

merely

scientific

gives tone.

thoritative

its au

discourse

to

attention in

irony have

the

frequent

environmental

of

others

discourse,

it as

characterized

use

emo

and

irrational

(Schiewer 2002) and as hysterical (Killingsworth& Palmer 1992).Harr? et al. (1999) note thatoften "there is a coupling of

tional

terms

such

of sea level'

as

'global

and

warming'

in disaster

'rise

the

such as the sce

stories,

narios inwhich 'denselypopulated low-lying areas are flooded,' which in theirview justi as

such discourses

fies characterizing

'apoca

sues

in Australia,

merous

leaves

the realm

ters

the

All

nu

both

papers

participants, can be

speech

forms.

dresses

of communica

further greening A

anticipated.

range

of studies

the production of environmental these studies are not matched

concern

similar

with

of

small

bias

appears

created

and

recently. In a critical

crisis

by

In the

perception.

the

discourses

the

structure.

One exception is Phillips, who illustrates (2000) how sixcouples tryto cope discursively with the proliferationof ecological risks.He "People's

sense

of

responsibility

is limited by being constituted within dis which

course,

constructs

political

action

be

yond a limited amount of political consump tion which

as

to belonging access have they

(pp. 171-207). 464

M?hlh?usler

a

separate

only

edi

Grossman

that

via mass

realm media"

to

the

envi

by the recklessness,

and

corporations, con which

organizations, the crisis.

realm

of

and

television

imperative

As

pronounced. 79) have pointed

et

Delli

out, most

is an

changing

process

and

al.

(1994,

environmen

less frequent

ongoing is therefore

scale of newsworthiness.

video, is even

of newsworthiness

eco-catastrophe,

of new me

the proliferation

multimedia

stereo

special

tal degradation, unlike much of environmental

dia and theirglobalization. A brief surveyby (2003, Ch. 11) reveals that envi ronmentaldiscourse is fullyembedded in this

maintains,

well-entrenched.

myth

of governments

to exacerbate

tinue

M?hlh?usler global

antien

ones,

Earth,"

is caused

that of criminal

a

p.

emergence with

and en

rural

of Times

Endangered

perpetuates

decisions

Channels/Media

coincides

newspapers

perpetuated

review

more

The

a

carelessness, sloppy handling, and profligacy of individuals.It did not include thedeliberate nor

ad

mes

but

sages,

is of

coverage

types; sympathetic portrayal of green is sues by themedia became widespread only

ronmental

increasingglobal involvementbymore

tion

of major

arena

vironmental

which

involves

and numerous

channels

environmental

(1989) comments on the language therein,

INSTRUMENTALITIES

With

of

including

northern Australian World Heritage Site, the Daintree Forest. They explain (Doyle & Kellow 1995) that once the researcher

the Year, Our

discourse

received

tion (2 February 1989) on "The Planet of

lyptic'" (p. 68).

Environmental

the main

has

press

treatment

the media

Whereas Myerson & Rydin (1996) have drawn

alternative

some attention.Dyer & Young (1990) and Doyle & Kellow (1995) provide accounts of

define and classify them" (p. 20). However, this register

and

in

discourse

Environmental stream

Specially

and

slowly low on the

nominated

days provide themedia with an opportunity to compress

slow-moving

moving story.The days

into a fast

issues or inviting particular as such actions, "Buy Nothing Day"

focusing

particular or "Clean

events

green calendar is full of

Up

on

Australia

Day."

Public

percep

tions ofmajor "crises" inAmerican domestic lifedo littlemore than occasionally heighten public interest to alleviate boredom (Downs 1972, p. 89). The main problem with such media coverage

is

that

it

articulates

the

view

that sufficient information is known about

Peace

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ame for successful problems measures to be undertaken. Noth

environmental liorative

ing could be furtherfrom the truth, but the ideological impact is understandably substantial.

is that the subject matter and that most complex language

vironmental

media

immensely

relevant

accounts

restriction

linguistic

kind

factors. This

of discrete

for the radical

simplificationof environmental information by stereotyping, accumulating ill-digested on

information

the Internet,

and portraying

in new ways.

information

complex

& McKie

Jagtenberg

between

and

messages

audiences.

and private media.

texts

Eco-advocacy

emerge primarily from public television, commercial

whereas texts

of

that

networks

type. These

generate

few and

divergences

discrepancies reflect the limited appeal of environmentalreportingcomparedwith light entertainment an

not

and bear

out

effective medium

(Vivanco 2002). McKie

education

of

properties anthropocentric are reinforced languages by unconscious deliberate selection.

The

human

forms

of

and

speech

component

and variety used

accent,

refers

to

in speech

attention. are

discourses

predomi

nantly in English and other major West concerns As environmental languages. most the middle among prominent

classes, are

standard

the norm.

varieties

Such

of

the

circumstances

language are com

pounded by the fact that standard writ ten media.

forms

the

are used

Protest

shared

of Swiss,

vernacular

Environmental

discourses

such

as narrative,

genres and

add new

ones

employ

sermon

states,

"it may

myth, as Environment

such Rose

traditional and

(2004)

Im

be thatnarrative is themethod throughwhich the reason of connectivitywill find itsmost

powerful voice" (p. 6). Killingsworth et al. (1992) share this "hope for a generally acces the story of how human

action

reconciles conflictingdemands and the search for a good life" (p. 21). are

Narratives

because of their employed in sense, important creating reducing to accessible texts, and complex phenomena on their rhetorical force. Harr? maximizing et al. (1999) focus on the first aspect, nar role

as frameworks,

ratives

to terms with

"for

our

the nature

includes

folk

tales,

to

attempt

and conditions

of our existence" (p. 20). This

idea of nar

fairy stories,

nov

els, and insider autobiographies (Kelly 1984). Harr? et al. (1999) note the importance of

cerned

with

onist's

mind

in print and electronic movements to em attempt

the development in the passage

of the protag to

for

maturity,

example, Lovelock's (1979) earnest biologist who

Environmental

are

station

a novel the Bildungsroman, reflecting the three of German "formation, meanings Bildung: education and creation" It is con (p. 72):

events, all of which have received little

ern

a

Genre

rative

of Speech

the dialect,

as

speaking

German, and French citizens affectedby the

come

(2000) adds that

the

Forms

is

that television

of mass

of

nu the proposed against at was voiced in Whyl

protest

power

sible narrative,

They note considerable differencesbetween public

The

clear

pact Assessments.

(1997) and McKie (2000) have notion of the media scape ormedia developed to examine the ecology complex feedback relations

forms

development.

is ill suited to expressing the connectivitybe tween

ment.

Alamannic,

One principled linguisticlimitationof en is

nonstandard

ploy

kind of antilanguage against the establish

realizes

too

with

meddling

late the consequences

nature.

Similar

narratives

of his are

discussed by Bowerbank (1999). Cronon (1992) argues thatnarratives im pose a single vision of reality when the of

complexity

issues

facilitates

the produc

tion of several possibilities. Harr? et al. (1999) show how the same formal narrato logical a range

structures of

stories

are

used

about

in the

constructing environment.

www.annualreviews.org EnvironmentalDiscourses

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

465

Factors

that militate

the constant

consensus

normative

against

in environ

Agreed ual emergence

in issues, and participants. ideologies, can observe take time to develop. One the grad of norms within commu and wider regional

the presence

of environmentalist

perspectives

and

educated

local

no

1999),

tural narrative

of Interaction

validity of environmental on their accreditation pends

is over

'Man'

more

is nothing we

(1994) argue, "Anti that

an ecomachine

than

technologically

cul

nature,

ing

have

on environmental

Narain

and

experts

matters accused

eco-missionaries For

1991).

their

as by shared

and

in

difficulty

are at times

ing world

de

(1992) has illus

heard. Western

imperialists

and

manipulate,

outsiders

their voice

discourses as defined

commonsense

about

sumptions

to the established

play that

the expression

The

trated,

norms

genuine

"[A]s yet, it is far from

Norms

from

into one media

discourses

et al.

global

the world

1998) and comprised

metaphors. As Carbaugh

environmentalists

nature

of

a

when

12-17), around

of a unified voice" (p. 20).

the environment.

Bruner & Oelschlager

which

1999, pp. whisked

(Harr?

resulted:

remain because they take place inwidely differentlanguages on

message

was

"a fusion

mentalist discourses limitsemergence of sharednorms.At the global level,there is littlechance ofnorms developingfrom be low:Contact between participants is insufficient. National and norms for different 1995) regional (Hajer European countries that favor different

et al.

event"

antienviron

and

(Harr?

Rio (Conca & Dabelko

changes

norms

but

the Western

elite organizers of the 1992 Earth Summit

mental discourse include its novelty, its global nature, and

nities,

as

such

agenda,

NORMS

making

pronounc

in the develop of being neo (Agarwal & ex

part, Western

thata good society is one which totally fulfils perts frequendy ignore the proposition that itself through market scientificknowledge can be culturebound and preferences" (p. 383). Nature

is

writing that continues

genre

tal discourse.

This

ers, although,

as

the Western

canon, Rousseau,

tics

been

observes,

en

or the German

having ers are nevertheless

as

attacked

in as

Roman

nature writ

Early

dangerous

sentimentalistsby others (Weissman 1996). note

We

that their modern

equivalents

or television Attenborough's items of popular culture. as an Environmental history has emerged over recent genre years, important ranging as from such surveys large-scale Crosby's Suzuki's

series become

(1986) account of thebiological consequences

to more of European colonization, through focused accounts of the histories of commodi ties

such

as sugar,

coffee,

cod,

or the history

of landscapes (Worster 1990,Cronon 1996). Although

normative

expectations

can

be

imposed by those who define the global 466

M?hlh?usler

matters

environmental

is

characteristically defined by two opposing of communication.

models

The

model

and political

economic,

scientific,

in

used

is

discourse

the conduitmetaphor (Reddy 1979) ofmes on to sages generated by experts being passed the unenlightened. But the assumption of pas sive hearers is an inadequate view of commu and yields Environmentalists

nication

have

become semanticallybleached and trivialized when

on

Interaction

oth

is underrepresented such despite writers

influential.

provincial.

all

precedes (1991)

Raglan

thought

established

environmen

inspire

genre

vironmental

Thoreau,

another

to

but

model, who

equals

aim and

intake

such models,

also

consequences.

to generate that

recognize in human

to

subscribe

there are some within

instead

laboration

undesirable

genuine

from

col never

input

communication.

knowledge-flow

this

their ranks

In

the de

veloping to the developed world is called for (Peet& Watts 1996). Norms

of Inteqiretation

The title of Taylor & Buttel's (1992) paper "How Do We Know thatWe Have Global Environmental

Problems?"

Peace

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

suggests

that the

central

is one

problem

sense

of making

complex, conflicting information.One

of

key

is accreditation, that is "on again between is said or what obtaining in which it is and the circumstances

problem relations written

being produced and/or interpreted" (Harris 2001, p. 154). Alexander (2000) writes, "Part of theproblem of changing people's behavior

that "no one understood

all that was

on"

going

(p. 76). Greenspeaking: or replacing

SURVEY: ANALYTICAL APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL DISCOURSES

postponing environmental

concerns discourse the rela regardingenvironmentaland ecological issues Environmental the between world. is appreciating thatdifferingsocial, economic tionship language and and political forces employ language and dis M?hlh?usler (2003, p. 2) highlights four dif

course

terms

in persuasive

in different ways"

(p. 186). inter

ing, whereas

those who

of events

that this generation

has

(e.g.,

nuclear

waste, will

what

species), medium

to alert future generations

necessary norms

The course from

again

powerful

the view

dis

on those

emanating in society. Thus, that one can trust sci

entistsmore than politicians also holds for discourses and is one of the princi green reasons ex draws pal why "greenspeaking" on scientific The green tensively language. ing of business consumers pose pretation. now have

Almost

and

the emergence

additional

problems

all products

environmental

offered

claims

sense

of them

is con

and

that what one approaches recognize is in about the global environment

extricably linkedwith language inasmuch as We be knowledge is dependent on effability. one

because

language

the

discourse

converse about

vironment

can

use

lan

to

conclude

case.

the

discourse.

There

is

but no

The

first

en per

spective (Chomsky's independence hypothe sis) takestheposition thatlanguage is a neutral tool or that all human languages (potentially

or

same actually) have the capacity about the environment. But both structuralists

for sale

is not

the environment,

about

disconnect

attached

and

but

of inter

tail the insufficiency of officialand privatedis to make

can know

of green

them,which makes informeddecisionmaking increasinglydifficult.Interpretationishugely problematic when it comes to complex dis asters such asThree Mile Island,Chernobyl, or Bhopal. Farrell & Goodnight (1998) de courses

constructs

It both

structedby it (ecolinguistics). These

gin with

institutions

in theWest

world:

poststructuralism).

guage about all effable aspects of theworld;

environmental

governing draw heavily

the world

by

is interconnectedwith the

Language

created

to potential dangers?" (pp. 7-8).

natural environment

vacuum

environmental

is constructed

(structuralism,

genetically engineered the code, message and

be

that integrates the study of language with its cultural and

(Marr). The world is constructed by language

future remain

technologies and technological problems that will be around forvery long periods of time

language a Ecolinguistics: branch of linguistics

(Chomsky).

a smallminority. As Posner (1990) summa "Given

and

Language

the conse

understand

in the distant

is for cognition: It exists

in a social

than a few days at a time is large and grow

rizes,

to this relation

approaches

Language

pretive norms is the differenttime perspec tives of differentcommunities (Harr? et al. 1999). The proportion of the world's pop ulation who do not think ahead formore

quences

linguistic

ship: for the lack of common

reason

One

ferent

and

from

for talking Saussurian generativists

Chomskyan

language

external

influences.

This disconnection has been labeled "limiting thearbitrary"byJoseph (2000), who offersan incisivecritique ofmodern linguistics,as does the ecolinguistFinke (2002). The inability of modern

address

environmental

discourses

linguists to is

com

pounded by their largestunit of analysisbeing a

single

sentence.

Moreover,

the meaning

of

sentenceshas been establishedwith reference www.annualreviews.org

action

by just speaking about it in "green"

EnvironmentalDiscourses

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

46-]

to internal ents. The Ecology

sense view

not

relations,

external

(1993) drew on the experience of language

refer

are constructed

that languages

by the external physical or social world has

of

the study language: of interactions between

any given language and its cultural and political environment

not

been

in mainstream

popular

linguistics,

but it continues to be argued in connection with

language Saussurian

was

structuralism

in part a reac to

approach

language,

factors. The

environmental

issue

organization,

or

reanalysis,

in

language

this new

on

the deliberative

lution,

one

ecology any

another. as "the

given

defined

language between

Haugen and

language

its

environment

what

of the fittest. This

the survival

sizing

skewed

also

perspective

was

followed

thevalue of linguisticdiversity. effective

approaches

growth,

man-made

in

emerged

like pol

to natural

growth,

arithmetic etc.

growth,

exponential

e.g.,

refer

e.g.,

encoding:

zero-growth

(which fails to recognize what is be ing added), labor saving (which does

not

say whose

is being

labor

saved),

and fertilizers (which can render soil

unease

(1983) detected awidespread

aware

who

environmentalists

among

Alternative

sev

eralEuropean scholars (surveyedby Fill 2003 andM?hlh?usler 2003). Contemporary eco linguistshavemodifiedHaugen by emphasiz ing the cooperative principle in ecology and More

which

came

empha some by

can

growing,

M?hlh?usler

environment"

while

terms

unproductive).

(p. 336), but he restrictedthis to the cultural

and political

e.g.,

underdifferentation:

misleading

polit

study of interactions

by

and pest.

progress,

growth,

ical ecologies in which languages compete with

M?hlh?usler

is characterized

vagueness:

semantic

were

man-made

matters.

language

semantic

considered by the "ecology of language" ap proach pioneered byHaugen (1972), who fo cused

was

three problems:

faulty

change

attention

(1983) in a review of Landy (1979) proposed

transmission. actors

1991, Dunayer

that drew much

environmental

about

and the world. When lan language was its considered, guage explanation change to internal remained restricted factors such

External

ac

the development of a new lexicon for talking

tween

system

den

linguistic languages,

forms (Leach 1968,Tansley

that

marginal

ization of onomatopoeia (Nuckolls 1999) and widened the gap be iconicityof signs further

as

the

is, in many

companied by a denigration of nonhuman life

One

which sought to explore how linguistic dif ferences could be explained in terms of dif ferent

because

2001).

origins. a historical

tion against

and gender studies women of igration

of

their

discourse

be

limitations.

linguistic approaches

as

such

Johnson (1991) and Jung (1996) became avail able

in due

Halliday

course,

whereas

an

address

by

in 1990 (published 2001) brought

the nonecological

nature

and grammatical

categories

of many

languages

to the attentionof applied linguists.His pro posal combined a detailed critique of lexical of contemporary

other disciplines or in the still-marginalized English in an attempt to correlate different critical linguistics(Fairclough 1992), integra types of grammar with different stages in cul tural and technological tional linguistics(Harris 1981,Toolan 1996), Empha development. and ecolinguistics (Fill 2003, M?hlh?usler 2003). Critical linguistics and critical dis

course

are

linguistics

structuralist environment

notion are

based

on

that perceptions

discursively

the

post of

the

constructed.

Ecolinguistics can be traced back to the 1980swhen a group of linguistsaskedwhether in crisis was environment due looming as Fill to writers such part Early language. the

468

M?hlh?usler

sis was

given

to the role

of nominalization,

transitivity,and countability of nominal ex pressions indistortingthefitbetween thecon tours of language

and

the contours

of the en

vironment (Martin 1986, Goatly 2001, Fill 2003). The Whorfian notion that lexicon and grammar root

causes

of

individual of our

languages

environmental

Peace

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

are

the

crisis

is a

recurrent theme (surveyed byM?hlh?usler 1998). It has promoted the search for eco logicallymore adequate ways of speaking in non-Western

and has

cultures

ways

suggested

in which an ecologically correct biocentric language can be developed. The firstkind of suggestion, surveyedby Little (1999), ranges from

tribal

romanticizing

consid

languages

ered tohave privileged environmental insight to selectivelymining themfortraditionaleco logical knowledge. That area

language was planning

language

a new

was

environmental

for

suggested

by Halliday in 1990; others have taken up the challenge. Stibbe (2004) surveys studies on

verbal

environmental

and

hygiene

con

cludes thattinkeringwith language isunlikely to

"a consistent

produce

and

over

effective

all discourse

for expressing issues" ecological eco in view of (p. 4). However, widespread a robust discourse about fatigue, speciesism, and

growthism,

other

shortcom

linguistic

ings could drive thewider adoption of envi

ronmental

An

discourse.

examination

of how

different meanings of "sustainable ment" prevent intelligent discourse

develop about the

subject (Alexander 2000, Redclift 1987) cer seems worthwhile, tainly

likewise with

the ter

minology applied to charismatic species (Lee 1988, Peace Two analysis

2005). resources

for

ecocritical

and critical

studies

anal

ysis. Several publications deal with rhetoric (Killingsworth & Palmer 1992; Herndl & Brown 1996; Muir & Veenendall 1996; Myerson & Rydin 1996;Waddell 1998;Harr? et al. 1999).Waddell (1998) has argued that plausible,

people. He current

must

discourse

evoke

sentiment,

be

cognitively to most

and relate

implies the rhetorical study of

discourse

rarely

meets

these

criteria.

Segal (1991) argues that "all arguments rep resent mental

themselves protection.

identifiable gestures

as arguments The

opposition

in support

for environ of a clearly we encounter

absence means

for the environment,

even

is one

rhetoric

of appropriation

and manipu

Ecocritical

analysis: studies how the

lation by big business and government. "We perceive, in the increasinggreening ofEnglish

processes

a kind of lin languages, with real dan the very guistic Ersatzhandlung,

speciesism shape discourses and

and

other Western

ger of talk replacing or postponing action" (Harr? et al. 1999, p. ix). A common focus in rhetorical studies is that environmental

discourse

involves

dynamics of social such as racism, sexism, or

perceptions ecological

amulti

tude ofvoices, a "newhybriddiscourse" (Rojas 2001, p. 8) involving a "Babel of discourse

communities" (Killingsworth& Palmer 1992, p. 21).

STUDIES

METAPHOR the

Given

on

limitations

derstanding,

it comes

scholars

a

pay

great

un

environmental as

no

deal

surprise

that to

attention

of

metaphor. Myerson & Rydin (1996) and Harr? et al. (1999) devote a chapter to it. It is most

commonly

analyzed

from

the per

spective of Lakoff & Johnson (1980). Root are used

metaphors

either

as convenient

pa

rameters fordistinguishingdifferenttypesof environmentaldiscourses (Drysek 1997) or as for criticism.

targets

principal are rhetorical

environmental

appropriation of "ecospeak" (Killingsworth & Palmer 1992) and "greenspeak" (Harr? et al. 1999) by antienvironmentalists. The new

ple

Bullis

attacks mechanistic

for exam

(1992)

metaphors

as

"having

oudived theirusefulness" (p. 347) and criti such as eco-defense cizes metaphors and eco for constructing "as confrontation

warrior

a means

of

and

peace

achieving

harmony"

(p. 352). The centrality of medical metaphors in the construction

of environmental

awareness

has been emphasized by Stratford(1994) and Lanthier & Olivier (1999). A concern for health

is shared

across

a wide

range

of ideo

logicalpositions.Metaphors ofhealing or pre ventive medicine main

interest

are lies in

widely showing

employed,

but the

how metaphors

can fudgediscursive differences. Mills identifies three (1982)

core

from thosewho would despoil it" (p. 2).The societies metaphors by which Western result is a blurring of boundaries and the have lived for the past 1000 years: nature www.annualreviews.org EnvironmentalDiscourses

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

469

of matters

as a book written by God as

nature

a reflection

then a steam

clock,

the human

body first a

as a machine,

and nature

(Renaissance);

(Middle Ages);

of

and most

engine,

recently

a (bio)computer (the present). Ecofeminists have

attention

drawn

to the root metaphor

of rape (Schaffer 1988) in expressions such as up virgin

"opening

or

territory"

"penetrating

the land."

Two principal reasons for theproliferation of metaphor are the novelty of the subject

matter, which brings into being new heuris tic possibilities, and the conflicting agendas use environmental

of those who

As

discourse.

Harris (2001) observes, "There is a fundamen tal division about the role of language,which can surface

in all kinds of ways. inwhere

it emerges sense

you draw

At

the line between some

and nonsense_For

its sharpest, un

people,

the claim trees have is non doubtedly, rights sense, or at least utterly confused" (pp. 155

56). D?ring

certain groups live are by which en factors in influencing people's

important

vironmental actions.The use ofmetaphor in has

greenwashing

been

described

by

several

analysts and surveyedbyM?hlh?usler (2003, Ch. 10). Farrell & Goodnight (1998) have at the use

Three Mile

to

in relation

Island, and Liebert (2001) simi the emergence

larly compares equals-water

of metaphors

metaphor

nineteenth-century A recent trend

of the money

in the construction

of

water systems. public at the total commod

looks

as in the case of baby

theme,

stands

(the part

serves more

seals

for the whole),

and

this de

as charismatic

scrutiny,

creatures

typicallystand for "nature"while endangered are talked

species

as "miners'

about

canaries"

(p. xvi).That metonymy (being next tomakes something similar to) plays an important

role

in

nonnatural

naturalizing

products

has

istically,

such

been

and

practices

for environmental

shown

advertising (M?hlh?usler 1999). Character advertisements

or trademarks

products

in

locate

visually

nature.

unspoiled

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (ECOCRITICISM) CULTURAL STUDIES What

unites

the varied

AND to eco

contributions

criticismis theobjective of creating awareness roots of the environmental

of the cultural

(2002, 2004) illustrates that the

metaphors

looked

is a common

versus seal pups (Martin 1986,Lee 1988). Waddell (1998) comments on synecdoche

cri

sis and thehope thatsuch discourseswill result in action.

There

an

is also

among

emphasis

ecocritics on connectivity, as Estok (2001) at

"Ecocriticism

explains:

its best

un

seeks

of that dynamics derstanding and tyranny are mu persecution, subjugation, the ways that racism, sex tually reinforcing, and so on are, to ism, homophobia, speciesism about

use Ania

Loomba's

the ways

term,

(p. 9).

interlocking"

Ecological discourse has featured promi nently phasis

in green on

cultural

studies

with

its em

culture and the mechanisms popular common sense, as illustrated by a

that define

ification of nature.M?hlh?usler & Peace's special issue of theAustralianJournal ofCom (2001) analysis of the language of eco tourism munication (1994). Contributions rangefrom has highlighted themetaphorical tendency to analysis of media stories (Lucas 1994) and animals and to portray na films (McKie 1994) to governmental appro anthropomorphize ture as a battlefield batants

are

where

the nonhuman

in a permanent

struggle

com for sur

vival.Marko (2002) observes thatalthough the sexualityofwhales and theirrearingpractices are talked

about

in

zoological

terms, discourse

about theircommunicative and social abilities iscouched in anthropomorphicmetaphor (see also Peace 2005). That disassociation is em

ployed when animals are exploited or hunted 470

M?hlh?usler

priation objects

of environmental of analysis

atWarbaugh

discourse.

Other

are listed on a resource

site

State University (http://www. accessed

wsu.edu/~amerstu/ce/ce.html

10

October 2004). One

recurrent

theme

of

green

cultural

studies is the limited efficacy of environ mental active

discourse involvement

the

and in

call

the

Peace

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

for more

environment.

(1994) shows how the discursive The relationsbetween linguisticdiversityand of environmentalists and farmers biological diversityarenow being discussed by

Penman practices have

her

enabled

a better

to become

farmer,

an experience shared byTrampe (2001).

THE BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY APPROACH

major bodies such as UNESCO. May (2003) detailed the scepticism among those linguists and language plannerswho question the link and argued that speakers must be free to to abandon

choose

Concern for the loss of biodiversity can be traced back toCarson (1962), but ithas only recendy become a topicof ecolinguistics.The

not

are

the two phenomena

That

causally connectedwas argued independendy byHarmon (1996),M?hlh?usler (1995), and Thompson (1994). M?hlh?usler (1995) ar that life in a particular

gued

environ

human

ment is dependent on people's ability to talk about it.Maffi's (2001) edited volume con tains

several

studies

empirical

of interdependencies

suggestive guage

programmatic,

and environmental

knowledge

ment. Given that96% of languages are spoken by 4% of theworld's population, almost three quarters of which are endangered or highly

about

a wider

common ings

are

range

of parameters

are

to discourse tentative.

One

to limit

attempt

among

on

small populations

suggest

findings

extinct

of becoming The

converging

tic crises

than

do

and

and their causes

have

been

linguis

examined

byHarmon (2002). In the domain of language planning (e.g., Liddicoat & Bryant 2000), arguments in favor of biocultural diversityhave become main stream

in a short period.

The

assimilationist

and rationalist approach has recendy begun to

give way

to

ecological

language

planning,

which favorsmaximum linguistic diversity.

starts

here

at the

of our survey concerned of environmental

properties

dis

noted is a tendency life and what are

discourses most

discourses

concerns

to equate

with what

of environment man

and

than a human

the notion sustains

hu

Most

humans.

pleases

anthropocentric. are focused

on

issues

no more

covering

local

life span.

there are discursive

small

ones.

languages Our

correlates.

surveyed

first question

there

attempts

ize environmental

discourse,

to but

global this is

a small part of the totalityof possible

unnamed

named

environmental

environ

the

end.

courses. We

the

lifeformshave a considerablygreater chance

at

extent

by environmental

salient

islands such asNorfolk Island and Pitcairn Is

land. Preliminary

or

ask to what

and

literature

The the

range isM?hlh?usler 's (1996) studyof young languages

start

choice was motivated by the fact that thebulk

its find

but

analysis,

end

shaped

is

than

can

one

the environment,

environment

the

mental

mental degradation is probable. The biocultural diversity approach con siders

and

either at the linguistic end and explore how linguistic devices are employed in talking

of environ

further acceleration

endangered,

considering the relationship between

discourse

language

manage

advocates.

CONCLUSIONS

of the

lan

between

by these

problematized

equally dramaticdisappearance of culturaland linguisticdiversityis also amore recent focus When for attention.

in favor of

their language

global culture.The concept offree choice is

ones.

One furthersalientproperty iswidespread uncertainty

under

which

to a greater

leads

than inmany

rhetoric As cerned

environmental with

the

of risk society,

conditions use

other

of narratives discourse

are

discourses

everyday,

so

and

genres.

they

are

con be

coming institutionalizedand bureaucratized, the more

so

as discourse

part of environmental

becomes

analysis

management

programs

being promulgated by big business or big

government. www.annualreviews.org EnvironmentalDiscourses

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4JI

The course

most

feature

noticeable

is lexical

of green

In addition

choice.

dis

environmental

terms loaded many expressions, descriptive are for rhetorical purposes. currently available and buzz words, weasel words, Euphemisms, terms are their translation emotive prolific; are

to

beginning and American

equivalents European nent. One

ones

of the outcomes is the emergence

of linguistics

spread, although remain promi of the greening of a new ap

which, according toHalliday plied linguistics, not hold the key to solving envi (2001), may ronmental

im it is assuredly But problems. instructions for the for us to write

perative use of the key. The

of

emergence

environmental

dis

course in the 1980s coincided with the dis integration

of a single Practitioners

paradigm of new

of modern to

approaches linguistics. to ask new and em questions linguistics began new of The methods. emergence ploy analytic was as been has likely inevitable, ecolinguistics of lan of the interconnectedness exploration and biocultural guage endangerment diversity more Our bution

recently. final question

concerned discourses

environmental

can make

discourse study of environmental an exercise. interdisciplinary sarily

2. The

study of environmental other than merely agendas between

vastness

a maximum communication 4. The

discourse

of the topic

discourses

scien

them with

and replacing

century

is to recognize

tant rather

of

the importance

multiple perspectives,dynamic dialects (Door & Bang 1996), and the inevitabilityof change. This requires adoptingHalliday's instructions aware of the instrument of lan to be critically to dis uses. its Green and guage approaches awareness can promote course that the lan one uses

certain perceptions privileges differ and that expressing matters view that per The will others. privilege endy fection is not in any single entity, but requires

guage

and actions

a diversityof expressions (Harmon 2002), is think of ecological to language. approaches

insights

ing and ecological

describing

a number

is typically such

carried

discourses.

requires

a

descriptive

out

by scholars a consequence,

As

that can

framework

of environmental of properties was chosen for this reason. approach

number

and generative

It is neces

of approaches.

who

have

there

is a

and metadiscourse.

discourses study of environmental 1980s. Most studies challenge

structuralist

M?hlh?usler

teenth

tificones did littleto improveBritain'snatural environment (Thomas 1983).What is impor

requires

the late

4J2

forms in the English language of the eigh

to

1. The

blurring

with

POINTS

SUMMARY

3. The

concur

at in the public of language large revitalizing to discover the need underlines and language alike" (p. xv). "for both experts and generalists on not and be the may focusing key, Language to code the nature of the linguistic produce to prove suc an is unlikely dialect ecofriendly for life the vulgar names cessful. Renaming

one of the central

the contri

We

sustainability.

(1998), who comments on the role

Waddell

to new

is a relatively the mainstream

discourses.

recent

An

accommodate ethnography

phenomenon

view

of language

linguistics.

Peace

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of

dating from as found in

FUTURE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED to be

1. It remains on

impact

the natural

2.

come

clear

extent discursive and to what precisely One is that human particular problem

how

environment.

focus on only

selectively It is not

established

a small

subset

of environmental

extent

to what

the anthropocentrism acts of planning. language

by deliberate

practices discourses

phenomena.

of human

can be over

languages

3. The efficacyof environmentaldiscourse for resolving theglobal environmental crisis ill understood.

remains

LITERATURE CITED B.

Adam

out of time:

1997. Running

Global

A, Narain

Agarwal

ed. M

Environment,

1991. Global

S.

crisis and human

global T

Redelift,

in an

warming

Colonialism. Earth IslandJ. 6:39-40 RJ. 2000. The

Alexander

See Ketteman

and economics. Alexander

2002.

RJ.

framing is

Everyone

world:

unequal

about

'sustainable

and

Theory

London:

some remarks on of ecology: & Penz 2000, pp. 173-90

talking

In Social

engagement.

pp. 92-112.

Benton,

Routledge a case of environmental

the relation

between

mean they all

Can

development.'

language

the same thing?Computer discourse analysis of ecological texts.See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 239-54 Benton

LM.

1995.

or

the natural

Selling

selling

out? Explaining

environmental

merchandising.

Environ. Ethics 17(l):3-22 Beck U. 1992. Risk Society:TowardsaNew Modernity. London: Sage Beder S. 1997. Global Spin: The CorporateAssault onEnvironmentalism. Melbourne: Bowerbank

S.

1999. Nature

writing

as

In Discourses

self-technology.

Darier, pp. 163-78. Oxford: Blackwell Brosius

1999.

JP.

and

Analyses

interventions:

talism.Curr.Anthropol.40(3):277-309 LD,

Browning

modern

Shetler

1992. Communication

JC.

on the Exxon

commentary

Valdez

with

engagements

anthropological

in crisis, communication disaster.

Scribe ed. E

of the Environment,

environmen

a post

in recovery: Disasters

Int.J. MassEmerg.

10(2):477

98 Bruner

M,

Oelschlaeger

M.

1994.

Rhetoric,

and

environmentalism,

environmental

ethics.

Environ. Ethics 16:377-95 Bullis C. 1992. Retalking environmental discourses from feministperspectives: the radical potential of ecofeminism. See Oravec & Cantrill 1992, pp. 346-59 Burnett

GW,

wa

Kamuyu

and

1994. Wilderness

Kang'ethe.

the Bantu

16(2): 145-60 Caplan P, ed. 2000. Risk Revisited.London: Pluto Press D.

Carbaugh

1992.

'The mountain'

and

'the project':

dueling

depictions

mind.

Environ.

of a natural

Ethics

environ

ment. See Oravec & Cantrill 1992, pp. 360-76 Carson R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Hough tonMifflin Conca K, Dabelko GD, eds. 1998. Green Planet Blues: EnvironmentalPolitics from Stockholmto Kyoto. Cronon W. Cronon

W,

Boulder,

CO:

Westview

1992. A place for stories: nature, history, Ground: ed. 1996. Uncommon Rethinking

and narrative. theHuman

78:1347-76 J. Am. Hist. inNature. Place New York:

Norton

www.annualreviews.org

EnvironmentalDiscourses

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

473

Crosby AW. 1986. Ecological Imperialism:The BiologicalExpansion ofEurope 900-1900. Cam bridge,UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Delli C, Michael X,Williams BA. 1994. "Fictional" and "nonfictional" television celebrates Earth Day: or politics in comedy plus pretence. Cult. Stud. 8(l):74-98 Door J,Bang JC. 1996. Ecology and truth:dialogue and dialectics. See Fill 1996, pp. 17-25 D?ring M. 2002. "VereinthintermDeich"?die metaphorische konstruktionderWiedervere inigung in der deutschen presseberichterstatttungzur oderflut 1997. See Fill et al. 2002, pp.255-73 D?ring M. 2004. Rinderwahnsinn: dasUnbehagen in der kulturund diemetaphorischdiskur sive

ihres

Ordnung

risikomaterials.

http://www.metaphorik.de/aufsaetze/doering

bse.htm A.

Downs

1972. Up

and down with

ecology-the

'issue-attention'

cycle. Public

Interest 28:38?51

Doyle J. 1991.Hold theApplause.Washington, DC: Friends EarthMonogr. Doyle T, Kellow AJ. 1995. EnvironmentalPolitics and PolicyMaking inAustralia.Melbourne: Macmillan Dryzek JS. 1997. The Politics oftheEarth: EnvironmentalDiscourses.Oxford/New York: Oxford

The first

Univ.

book-length introduction

to

ecolinguistics contains both

a

historyof thefield and numerous

for suggestions future research.

Environ.

important documents

Estok

the addressing of ecology language and ecolinguistics.

places

attracted

the

attention

deserved.

on compiled the occasion of 30

a

of

important

Books Lit. Assoc.

Lang.

96:220

Longman

uum

years of

number

London:

Penguin Univ.

Appl. Linguist. 21stCentury 14:60-75 Fill A, M?hlh?usler P, eds. 2001. The Ecolinguistics Reader. London/New York: Contin

Was

ecolinguistic studies. Contains

a Better Environment. Melbourne: for A UMLA.J. Aust. card on ecocriticism.

Hamburgers?Shopping SC. 2001. A report

Farrell TB, Goodnight GT. 1998. Accidental rhetoric: the rootmetaphors ofThree Mile Island. SeeWaddell 1998, pp. 75-105 Fill A. 1993. Okolinguistik-Eine Einf?hrung. T?bingen: Narr Fill A, ed. 1996. Sprach?kologieund ?kolinguistik.T?bingen: Stauffenburg Fill A. 2003. Language and ecology: ecolinguisticperspectives for2000 and beyond.AILA Rev.:

published in inaccessible

Stud.

38. http://www.asle.umn.edu/archive/intro/estok ed. 1992. Critical Awareness. FaircloughN, Language

were

and had not

Dunayer J. 2001. Animal Equity: Language and Liberation.Derwood, MD: Ryce Dyer K, Dyer J. 1990.The printmedia and the environment. See Dyer & Young 1990, pp. 530-47 IV. Adelaide: Cent. Dyer K, Young J, eds. 1990.ChangingDirections:The ProceedingsofEcopolitics Ehrlich PR. 1969. The PopulationBomb. San Francisco: SierraClub Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH. 1996. Betrayal ofScienceandReason:How Anti-EnvironmentalRhetoric ThreatensOur Future.Washington, DC: Island Press Elkington J, Knight P, Hailes J. 1988. The Green Consumer Guide: From Hairspray to

Compiles

Many

Press

articles

illustrating ecolinguistic as well as analysis for suggestions

Fill A, Penz H, Trampe W, eds. 2002. Colourful Green Ideas. New York: Peter Lang Finke P. 2002. Die nachhaltigkeit der sprache-funfineinanderverschachtelte puppen der lin guistischen?konomie. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 29-58

Fortun K. 2001. AdvocacyAfterBophal. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Genske DD, Hess-L?ttich EWB. 2002. Gespr?che ?bers wasser ein ?kosemiotisches projekt zur umweltkommunikation imNord-S?d-Dialog. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 299-326 Gerbig

future research.

Goady

474

A.

2000.

Patterns

of

language

use

in discourse

on

the environment:

a

corpus-based

approach. See Ketteman & Penz 2000, pp. 191-216 A.

2001. Green

grammar

and grammatical

metaphor,

or

language

ormetaphors we die by. See Fill & M?hlh?usler 2001, pp. 203-25

M?hlh?usler

Peace

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and myth

of power,

R.

Grossman

1989.

Of

time

and

tide:

media

the environment.

and

Chain

React., Winter,

pp. 18-19 RH.

Grove

of western

1992. Origins

Sei. Am.

environmentalism.

267:22-27

1995. The Politics ofEnvironmentalDiscourse:EcologicalModernization and thePolicy

Hajer MA.

Process. Oxford:

Clarendon

Halliday MAK. 2001. New ways ofmeaning: the challenge to applied linguistics.See Fill & M?hlh?usler 2001, pp. 175-202 Halliday MAK, Martin J. 1993.Writing Science,LiteracyandDiscursivePower. London: Falmer Hansen

1996. The Mass

ed.

A,

and Environmental

Media

Issues. Leicester:

Leicester

Univ.

Press

1996. Losing species, losing languages: connections between biological and lin J. Linguist. 15:89-108 guistic diversity.Southwest How Diversity inNature and CultureMakes Us Harmon D. 2002. In Light ofOur Differences:

Harmon D.

Human.

DC/London:

Washington,

Smithson.

Inst. Press

Harr? R, Brockmeier J,M?hlh?usler P. 1999. Greenspeak: A Study ofEnvironmental Discourse. California/London/New Delhi: Sage Harris R. 1981. The LanguageMyth. London: Duckworth Harris R. 2001. A note on the linguisticsof environmentalism.See Fill & M?hlh?usler 2001, pp. 154-58 Haugen E. 1972.The ecology of language. In The Ecology ofLanguage: Essays byEinar Haugen, ed. AS Dill, pp. 325-39. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv. Press Amer Herndl CG, Brown SC, eds. 1996.Green Culture:EnvironmentalRhetoricinContemporary ica.Madison:

Univ. Wis.

WC

Sturtevant,

pp.

psychological,

DC:

15-53. Washington,

Anthropol.

Studies,

Cultural

Studies,

and Sociology. Thousand

Oaks,

into environmental

discourse. Addresses structure

metaphor.

Sage

JohnsonC. 1991. GreenDictionary.London: Macdonald 1994.

agement

Nga Kaitaki in Aotearoa/New

and

the managers: Zealand.

bicultural

Aust. J. Commun.

communication 21(3):

and

resource

man

105-16

Naturalism and ItsOppositesinPlatos Cratylus Joseph JE. 2000. Limiting theArbitrary:Linguistic andModern Theories ofLanguage. Amesterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins

JungM. 1996.?kologische Sprachkritik.See Fill 1996, pp. 149-73 Kahn M. 2001. The passive voice of science: language abuse in thewildlife profession. See Fill & M?hlh?usler 2001, pp. 241-44

Kelly P. 1984. FightingforHope. London: Chatto & Windus Ketteman B, Penz H, eds. 2000. ECOnstructingLanguage,Nature and Society:The Ecolinguistic ProjectRevisited.T?bingen: Stauffenburg Killingsworth JM, Palmer SP. 1992. Ecospeak:Rhetoricand EnvironmentalPolitics inAmerica. Carbondale:

South.

111.Univ.

Press

Knight J, ed. 2000.Natural Enemies:People-WildlifeConflictsinAnthropological Perspective.Lon don: Routledge Lakoff J,JohnsonM. 1980.MetaphorsWe Live By. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press www.annualreviews.org EnvironmentalDiscourses

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and

environmental

JamisonA. 2001. TheMaking ofGreenKnowledge:EnvironmentalPoliticsand Cultural Transfor mation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

Jones D.

the of

environmental

Soc. Wash.

CA:

and

linguisticinsights

JagtenbergT. 1994.The end of nature?Aust.J. Commun. 21(3): 14-2 5 New Maps for JagtenbergT, McKie D. 1997. Eco-Impacts and theGreening ofPostmodernity: Communication

together

philosophical,

narratives

Press

Hochman J. 1997.Green cultural studies: an introductorycritique of an emerging discipline. Mo^/V30(l):81-97 Howard P. 1978.WeaselWords. London: Hamilton Hymes D. 1972.The ethnographyof speaking. In AnthropologyandHuman Behavior, ed. T Gladwin,

Brings

475

ed. LandyM, Reviewers Lanthier

1979. Environmental and Citizens. L.

I, Olivier

Impact Statement

New

York:

construction

1999. The

ed. E Darier,

Environment,

Glossary:

A Reference

Source for EIS Writers,

IFI/Plenum

pp. 63-78.

of environmental PA:

Maiden,

'awareness.'

In Discourses

of the

Blackwell

Leach E. 1968. Anthropological aspects of language: animal categories and verbal abuse. In New Directions in theStudy ofLanguage, ed. EH Lenneberg, pp. 23-63. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Lee

1988.

JA.

Seals, wolves,

and words:

loaded

in environmental

language

controversy.

Alter

natives 15(4):21-29 Lenz T. 2003. 'How toget consumer trustin food?Approaches of governmental authoritiesand food producers.' the Sustainability Sei. Univ. M.

Leuthold

Discourse, Power and Institutions in Conf. "Does Discourse Matter? Hamburg Transition." Hamburg: Res. Cent. Biotechnol. Soc. Environ./Inst. Polit.

Hamburg 1999. Eco-knowledge

for the

future or

"interference

is the only way

to stay

realistic." In Paradigms and Contentions,IWM Junior VisitingFellows Conferences,ed.M Gomez, A Guthmiller, S Kalt, Vol. 7. http://www.iwm.at/publ-jvc/jc-07-08.pdf Liddicoat AF, Bryant P. 2000. Language planning and language ecology: a current issue in language planning. Curr. IssuesLang. Plan. 1(3):303-5 LiebertWA. 2001. The sociohistorical dynamics of language and cognition: the emergence of themetaphor model 'money iswater' in theNineteenth Century. See Fill & M?hlh?usler 2001, pp. 101-6 Little

PE.

1999. Environments

new millennium.

Annu.

and

A.

1994. Lucas

in anthropological

research:

revisited:

Heights

the framing

of a major

scientific

controversy

Sydney Morning Herald. Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):72-91 Luke

TW.

1993. Green

Things:

Language, Univ. Minneapolis:

Luke TW.

interrelationship between the loss of the world's linguistic heritage and the loss of biological

diversity.

and

Minn.

ecology

and

the Environment,

In In the ruse of recycling. ed. J Bennett, W Chaloupka,

by

the

theNature pp.

of

154-71.

Press

1997.Ecocritique:ContestingthePolitics of Nature, Economyand Culture.Minneapolis:

Univ. Minn. more Compiles than 30 papers the addressing

consumerism: Politics

a

facing

28:253-84

Look at Life onEarth. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

Lovelock J. 1979. Gaia:ANew Lucas

environmentalisms

Rev. Anthropol.

Press

Maffi L, ed. 2001a. On Biocultural Diversity.Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press Maffi L. 2001b. Introduction: on the interdependenceof biological and cultural diversity.See Maffi 2001a, pp. 1-50 Marko G. 2000. Go veggie! A criticaldiscourse analysisof a textforvegetarian beginners. See Ketteman & Penz 2000, pp. 217-39 Marko G. 2002.Whales and language?critically analysingwhale-friendly discourse. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 341-60

Marnham. 1981.DispatchesfromAfrica. London: Abacus Martin JR. 1986. Grammaticalizing ecology. The politics of baby seals and kangaroos. In Semiotics,Ideology,Language, ed.T Threadgold, EE Grosz, G Kress, MAK Halliday, pp. 235-67. Sydney: SydneyAssoc. Stud. Soc. Cult. May S. 2003. Rearticulating the case forminority language rights.Curr. IssuesLang. Plan. 4(2):95-125 McKie

D.

1994. Telling

stories:

unnatural

histories,

environmental

citizens:

natural

histories,

media

technologies

and biopolitics.

Aust. J.

Commun. 21(3):92-104 McKie

D.

2000.

Informing

public understandings.Eur. J. Commun. 15(2): 171-207 4j6

M?hlh?usler

Peace

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

public

relations

and

Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J,BehrensWW Earth Island Mills

WT.

1982. Metaphorical

Assoc.Am.

Geogr.

vision:

changes

III. 1972.The Limits toGrowth.London:

in western

attitudes

to the environment.

Ann.

72:237-53

M?hlh?usler P. 1983.Talking about environmental issues.Lang. Commun. 3(1):71?81 M?hlh?usler P. 1995.The interdependence of linguisticand biological diversity.See Myers 1995, pp. 154-61 M?hlh?usler P. 1996.Linguistic adaptation to changed environmentalconditions: some lessons

from the past. See Fill 1996, pp. 105-30 with special reference M?hlh?usler P. 1998. Some recentdevelopments in Whorfian linguistics to environmental language. In Sprache inRaum undZeit. InMemoria JohannesBechert,K

Wagner, W Wilden, W Boeder, C Schrieder, 2:35^-3. Bremen: Universit?etsverlag M?hlh?usler P. 1999.Metaphor andmetonymy in environmentaladvertising.AAA-Arb. Angl. Am. 24(2): 167-80 M?hlh?usler P. 2000. Language planning and language ecology. Curr. Issues Lang. Plan. l(3):306-67 M?hlh?usler P. 2003. Language ofEnvironment, Environment ofLanguage: A Course in Eco linguistics.London: Battlebridge P, Peace

M?hlh?usler Commun.

A.

2001.

Discourses

of ecotourism:

the case

of Fraser

Island.

Lang.

21:359-80

Muir S,Veenendall T, eds. 1996.Earthtalk:CommunityEmpowerment for EnvironmentalAction. Westport, CT: Praeger War in theEast with a Survey oftheThree Families M?ller M. 1855. The Languages oftheSeat of

ofLanguage, Semitic,Arian, and Turanian. London: Williams & Norgate inOceania andPolynesia.Darwin: Univ. North. Myers D, ed. 1995.The PoliticsofMulticulturalism Territory Press Myerson G, Rydin Y. 1996. The Language ofEnvironment: A New Rhetoric. London: UCL Press Neuwirth G. 2002. Eco-linguistics-going beyond the text.See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 361-71 Nuckolls JB. 1999.The case for sound symbolism.Annu. Rev. Anthropol.28:225-52 Oravec CL, Cantrill JG, eds. 1992. The Conference on theDiscourse ofEnvironmental

Utah: Univ. Utah Humanit. Cent. Advocacy. in an Australian Peace A. 2005. Loving leviathan: the discourse of whale watching eco-tourist on In in location. Animals Person: Cultural Human-Animal ed. J Intimacies, Perspectives

Knight, pp. 191-210. London: Routledge

Peet

R, Watts

M,

eds.

1996. Liberation

London: Routledge Penman

R.

1994. Environmental

Ecologies:

matters

and

Environments, communication

Development,

challenges.

Social Movements.

Book-length introduction

to

ecolinguistics containing about

chapters

environmental discourse

and

environmental metaphor.

An

interdisciplinary

study of environmental debates

concentrating the rhetorical

on

devices

employed in them. Contains

numerous of examples environmental texts.

Aust.

J. Commun.

An early document 21(3):26-39 more L. 2000. communication Mediated and the of discourse containing Phillips privatization public problems: than 30 on ecological risksand political action.Eur. J. Commun. 15(2): 171-207 on contributions Posner R. 1990. Warnungen an die Ferne Zukunft:Atomm?ll als Kommunikiationsproblem.

M?nchen: Raben Verlag Raglan R. 1991. Re-establishing connections.Alternatives 17(4):28-35 RedeliftM. 1987. SustainableDevelopment:Exploring theContradictions.London/ New York: Methuen

ReddyMJ. 1979.The conduitmetaphor: a case offrame conflictinour language about language. InMetaphor and Thought, ed.A Ortony, pp. 284?324. Cambridge,MA: Cambridge Univ. Press

www.annualreviews.org EnvironmentalDiscourses

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the language of environmental

of advocacy. Many the themes first addressed

here

have been

taken up

by subsequent analysts.

477

Richards

P.

1992. Conversation

about

conservation. Ms.

thesis. Dep.

Anthropol.,

Kings

College,

London Rissel

1993. Environmental

W.

C, Douglas

issues

as

prime

time

television.

Media

Inf. Aust.

68:86-92 NorthernExpansion ofSantaf?deBogota.MA Rojas CE. 2001. Discourses oftheenvironmentin the thesis. Univ. D.

Rose

2004.

31-32.

Cincinnati

Cincinnati,

The

ecological

humanities

in action:

an

invitation.

Aust. Humanit.

Rev.,

Issue

http://www.Hb.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/arcliive/Issue-April-2O04./rose.html

Rowe SJ. 1989.What on earth is environment?Trumpeter6(4): 123-26 RutherfordP. 1994.The administrationof life:ecological discourse as 'intellectualmachinery of government.'Aust. J. Commun. 21 (3):40-55 . Sapir E 1912. Language and Environment. Am. Anthropol. 14:226-42 SchafferK. 1988.Women and theBush. Faces ofDesire in theAustralian Cultural Tradition.Cam bridge,UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Schiewer GL. 2002. Sind gesellschaftlichediskurse ?ber technikfolgenrational?Kooperative Verst?ndigunginkommunikationstheoretischerPerspektive. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 395

412

Schultz B. 2001. Language and the natural environment. See Fill & M?hlh?usler 109-14 1991. The

JZ.

Segal

structure

of

advocacy:

a

study of environmental

rhetoric.

Can.J.

2001, pp. Commun.

16(3/4).http://www.wlu/ca/~wwwpress/jrls/cj/BackIssues? 16.3/segal.html Spaargaren G, Mol APJ, B?ttel FH, eds. 2000. Environmentand GlobalModernity. London: Sage S tauberJ,Rampton S. 1995.ToxicSludge isGoodfor You! Lies,Damned Lies and thePublicRelations ME:

Industry. Monroe,

Common

Courage

Press

Stibbe A. 2004.Moving awayfrom ecological 'political correctness'. Lang. Ecol. OnlineJ. pp. 1-6. http://www.ecoling.net/niagazine.html 1998. Geschichte zentraler Ecologie: Die

Stork Y.

Lexien

desfranz?sischen

Umweltvokabulars

seit

1968. Germany: T?bigen Water. Oxford: Berg StrangV. 2004. TheMeaning of StratfordE. 1994.Disciplining the feminine, thehome, and nature in threeAustralian public health histories.Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):56?71 1991. The

AG.

Tansley

use

of abuse

of vegetational

concepts

and

terms.

In Foundations

of

Ecology,ed. LA Real, JH Brown, pp. 318-41. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Taylor PJ,B?ttel FH. 1992.How dowe knowwe have global environmentalproblems? Science and globalization of environmentaldiscourse. Geoforum23(3):405?16 SG.

Taylor

Ecol.

1990. Naturalness:

Soc. Aust.

the concept

and

its application

to Australian

ecosystems.

Proc.

16:411-18

and the Natural World: ChangingAttitudes inEngland 1500-1800. Har mondsworth: Penguin Books Thompson JN. 1994. TheRevolutionary Process.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press ToolanM. 1996. Total Speech:An IntegrationalLinguisticApproach toLanguage. Durham: Duke

Thomas K. 1983.Man

Univ.

Press

2001. Language and ecological crisis: extractsfrom a dictionaryof industrialagri culture. See Fill & M?hlh?usler 2001, pp. 232-40 Verhagen FC. 2000. Ecolinguistics: a retrospect and a prospect. See Ketteman & Penz 2000, TrampeW.

pp.33-48 Vivanco

LA.

2002.

Seeing

104(4): 1195-1204 4j8

M?hlh?usler

green:

knowing

and

saving

the environment

on film. Am. Anthropol.

Peace

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Waddell

ed.

C,

1998.

Hermagoras

Weigl E. 2004.Wald Int. Rev. Humboldt. Weissmann

G.

Landmark

Essays

on Rhetoric

and

the Environment.

Mahwah,

NJ:

und Klima: Ein Mythos aus dem 19. Jahrhundert.(Humboldt imNetz) Stud.

9:1-20

1996. Ecosentimentalism:

the summer

dream

beneath

the tamarind

tree. Ann.

NYAcad. Sei. 27:483-89 Williams R. 1983.Keywords:A VocabularyofCulture and Society. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Worster D. 1990. Seeing beyond culture.J. Am. Hist. 36:1142-47

www.annualreviews.org EnvironmentalDiscourses

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.220 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:22 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

479