PAPER

ECOLINGUISTIC PARAMETERS
(Submitted as a fulfillment of Ecolinguistic assignment)

GROUP 9

Arranged By:

Maimunah 1911040390

Nava Anggri Safitri 1911040147

Vionica Sandra Caresta 1911040228

Lecturer:

Dr. Nur Syamsiah, M.Pd

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

TARBIYAH AND TEACHER TRAINING FACULTY

UIN RADEN INTAN LAMPUNG

2022
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

To describe the relationship between language and the environment, it is necessary to

have an interdisciplinary study that juxtaposes ecological studies with linguistics. Ecology is a
science that deals with the reciprocal relationship between living things and their natural
surroundings, including explaining the relationship between humans and their natural
surroundings which of course depends on the human language itself. To see how strong the
relationship between language and ecology is, of course there will be parameters in ecolinguistic
studies.

According to Haugen, there are three parameters that can be used in ecolinguistic namely
interrelationships (language and environment interrelation), environment (physical and social
environment), and diversity (language and environmental diversity). The three ecolinguistic
parameters, in particular the existence and presence of languages which must be present with
humans, humans who are also highly interdependent, interact, and interact with everything in
their environment, make ecolinguistics a life-science, the science of life, and of course a
socioecological healthy life, maintained in harmony and sustainability.1

1
Aron Meko Mbete, Panutan Singkat Penulisan Proposal Penelitian Ekolinguistik (Denpasar: Vidia,
2013), p. 27-28.
 CHAPTER II

THEORY AND DISCUSSION

This interdisciplinary study which was originally initiated by Einar Haugen combines the
concept of ecology with linguistics, initially studying metaphor. This study applies a basic
concept in the form of ecological parameters that are integrated with cognitive linguistic studies,
as described by Fill and Muhlhausler, namely interrelationships, environment, and diversity that
used as applicable in environmental discourse analysis, pragmatic anthropolinguistics, cognitive
semantics, and others.2

A. Diversity Parameters
Fill and Muhlhausler argue that the diversity of the vocabulary of a language radiates the
physical environment and the social or cultural environment in which the language is located
and used.3 The intended physical environment is the geographical natural environment which
involves topography such as climate, biota, rainfall, while the cultural environment is related
to the relationship between thoughts and aspects of people's lives such as religion, ethics,
politics, art, and so on. The completeness of the vocabulary of the language also depends on
the perspectives, attitudes, and behavior as well as the profession of the people who speak the
language.
In addition, the diversity of flora and fauna species in a parallel natural environment can
enrich the vocabulary of the language. Diversity can also be addressed or has implications for
the relationship between the source and target domains in a metaphor. To a target domain,
several target domains can be applied, and vice versa, a target domain can come from several
source domains.
B. Interrelationships Parameters
The existence of species and their conditions of life cannot be viewed as two separate
parts, but as a whole, and neither can mother tongue and ethnicity be characterized
individually. This parallel relationship does not mean that language and biological species
are the same in all respects. One absolute thing that can distinguish the two is that language is
not a living organism. Language is transformed and passed down from one generation to the
next by the speakers of the language and its use. In contrast to biological species that are
passed down through marriage.
The existence of a language is highly dependent on the number of speakers. Naming and
classifying the names of plants and animals and types of rocks depends on the conventions of
the speakers. The term convention here cannot be interpreted as is usually the term
convention used in linguistics, namely a term that refers to an arbitrary relationship between

2
Alwin Fill and Peter Muhlhausler, The Ecolinguistics Reader Language, Ecology and Environment
(London: Continuum, 2001), p. 1.
3
Ibid., p. 2.
 linguistic forms or symbols and the meanings they contain. The term of this convention is
addressed to the level of agreement on the use of language in the language community.
The interrelationships parameter between linguistics and ecology is a reciprocal
relationship between creatures in the natural environment and their ecology which can be
reflected in ecological metaphors with nuances of environmental issues, encoded into
language in a wide range. The concept of metaphor as described by Kovecses, contains
source schemes concerning physical domains that are coded verbally to abstract domains
such as the metaphor of the green house, green speak, and others.4
Ecological metaphors, according to Fill and Muhlhausler, depend a lot on the
sociocultural and cognitive elements of the community speaking the language. 5 The time,
situation, and domain of language use also affect the metaphorical form of the language. The
connection between these elements is clearly illustrated as in the early nineteenth century, the
need for water as a basic ingredient of life, is exclusively equated with money which gives
rise to metaphors such as ‘central money supply’, ‘central water supply’, and the ‘water is
money’ metaphor, these three things were very popular at that time. In practice, the English
metaphor, ‘water is money’, or the Indonesian metaphor, ‘air itu uang’, also clearly
illustrates how water sources (minerals) are exploited and have high economic value,
including damaging and eroding the environment.
C. Environmental Parameters
Humans interrelate, interact, and even interdependence with various entities that exist in a
certain environment (ecoregion), give names in their local language, understand the traits and
characters that are coded verbally, it's all solely for the purposes and interests of humans
(anthropocentrism) and also because humans are ecological creatures who really need
everything that exists for the sake of living biologically (biocentrism), both animals, plants,
rocks, as well as air and physical breadth of vision (cosmocentrism).
Various ways humans affect the environment, as previously discussed. People's attitudes
towards the natural environment are based on the cultural patterns of the community. For
example, a society's view of animal meat such as beef, pork, chicken, duck, goat as human
food is related to human needs.
The existence of these animals related to their breeding is very much considered by the
people in the natural environment. In turn, the nature of the animal becomes part of the
public's attention, in other words, local knowledge and human knowledge about the natural
environment have influenced the way of life, culture, language and cosmology of the people
who depend on it. According to Muhlhausler, the classification of animals and plants is
actually a reflection of the environment with its biodiversity where the community lives. 6
The natural environment is used as a parameter to build names or give these names over a
very long period of time, which is passed down continuously from the previous generation to
4
Zoltan Kovecses, Language, Mind, and Culture (New York: OUP, 2006), p. 171.
5
Alwin Fill and Peter Muhlhausler, Op. cit., p. 104.
6
Peter Muhlhausler, Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in Ecolinguistics
(Wickford: Battlebridge, 2003), p. 37.
the next generation. From the results of his research, Muhlhausler suggests that the time
required for labeling names can take approximately three hundred years to connect a
language with the biological environment of its speakers.7

7
Ibid., p. 59.
 CHAPTER III

CLOSING

A. Conclusion
The three ecological parameters applied in the ecolinguistic study are: (1) environment,
(2) diversity, (3) interrelation, interaction, interdependence, although in this description they
are divided into sort, essentially cannot be separated from one another.
B. Suggestion
We are fully aware that this paper is far from perfect due to the limited experience and
knowledge we have. Therefore, we expect all forms of suggestions and input and even
constructive criticism from various parties. We also hope that this paper can provide benefits
for the development of the world of education.
 REFERENCES

Fill, Alwin and Peter Muhlhausler. 2001. The Ecolinguistics Reader Language, Ecology and
Environment. London: Continuum.

Kovecses, Zoltan, 2006. Language, Mind, and Culture. New York: OUP.

Mbete, Aron Meko. 2013. Panutan Singkat Penulisan Proposal Penelitian Ekolinguistik.
Denpasar: Vidia.

Muhlhausler, Peter. 2003. Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in

Ecolinguistics. Wickford: Battlebridge.