Journal of World Languages 2022; 8(2): 232–253

Hermine Penz* and Alwin Fill

Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow
https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2022-0008
Received February 10, 2022; accepted July 18, 2022; published online August 29, 2022

Abstract: Since the concept of ecology was first applied to language over 50 years
ago, the field of ecolinguistics has developed into a thriving branch of linguistics
that is more than ever closer to the pressing issues of our time. This article aims to
trace the historical development of ecolinguistics, discusses the main trends in
current research, and provides a brief projection of potential future developments.
The first part includes an overview of research connected to Einar Haugen’s article
“Ecology of Language”, published in 1972, which focuses on the interaction be-
tween languages in multilingual contexts. A large part of the article is then devoted
to the role of language in dealing with environmental problems (e.g. aggravating or
solving them), which is the biological understanding of ecology in the study of
language inspired by Halliday’s 1990 talk “New Ways of Meaning: The Challenge
to Applied Linguistics”. Ecolinguistics will certainly have an interesting future. It
will take up topics such as climate change, which surprisingly has largely been
excluded from ecolinguistic research until recently. Other topics that need to be
dealt with are the negative effects of tourism, the migration of human, plant, and
animal populations. Ecolinguists, in the future, will also expand their methodol-
ogy towards multimodal research and study how non-European languages present
the ‘environment’, or rather ‘con-vironment’.

Keywords: approaches; current developments; ecolinguistics; ecological discourse

analysis; future; history; multilingualism

1 Introduction
In the past 50 years, ecolinguistics has changed from a small branch of linguistics –
or, as some ecolinguists argue, a totally new perspective on the study of language
informed by ecology taken by a few researchers only – into a field which is moving
to the center of linguistic research. This applies both to its relevance to the most

*Corresponding author: Hermine Penz, Department of English Studies, University of Graz, Graz,
Austria, E-mail: hermine.penz@uni-graz.at
Alwin Fill, Department of English Studies, University of Graz, Graz, Austria,
E-mail: alwin.fill@uni-graz.at

Open Access. © 2022 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
 Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow 233

pressing issues of our time, i.e. the degradation of our natural environment which
has become a threat to our existence, and its position in linguistics: more and more
researchers have started to adopt an ecological approach to the study of language
and its use.
This article will first provide a brief background to the development of eco-
linguistics, including early traces of ecological perspectives on language in various
scholars’ work (Section 2). After that, it will outline the most important approaches
within ecolinguistics and will then discuss selected topics that have been
researched in the field in the last few years (Sections 3 and 4). It finally will provide
an outlook on potential future developments in ecolinguistics (Section 5).

2 History
2.1 The beginnings

The establishment of the new field of ecolinguistics has most widely been con-
nected to the Norwegian-American linguist Einar Haugen. Applying the ecology
metaphor to language about 50 years ago, he defined the ecology of language as
“the study of the interactions between any given language and its environment”
(Haugen 1972: 325). For Haugen, the environment of language is the society that
uses language and includes the social and psychological environment of lan-
guage, yet not the physical environment. Nevertheless, he compares the ecology of
language to the ecology between animals and plants in their environment.
Earlier traces of connections established between language and environment
can be found in various writings, and precursors of the field can be traced
throughout history. Thorough overviews of the historical background are provided
by Couto (2014), LeVasseur (2015), Mühlhäusler (2003: Ch. 3), and Zhou (2021). For
this article, however, a few brief points from linguists dealing with the notions of
ecology and language should be mentioned.
In a talk given to the American Anthropological Association in 1911, Edward
Sapir (2001 [1912]) discussed the influence of the physical environment (e.g.
geographical aspects such as the topography of a country, its climate) on language
and that of the social environment (religion, ethical standards, political organi-
zation, etc.). This environment is most directly reflected in the vocabulary of a
language. However, Sapir pointed out that the physical environment only plays a
role when it is has been made socially relevant. Trim (1959: 24) stated that “the
study of variation within a speech community and its functions may be called
linguistic ecology”. The American linguists Carl F. Voegelin, Florence M. Voegelin,
and Noel W. Schutz Jr. applied the ecology metaphor to the language varieties of
234 Penz and Fill

Arizona (e.g. Voegelin and Voegelin 1964; Voegelin et al. 1967). The first usage of
the term ecolinguistics is attributed to the French sociolinguist Jean Baptiste
Marcellesi (1975). Four years later, Salzinger (1979) pointed to the importance of
including the environment in which language was used and included psycho-,
neuro-, and sociolinguistics in his definition (see Couto 2014: 124). In 1985, French
linguist Claude Hagège used the term écolinguistique (‘ecolinguistics’) and sug-
gested that it should be concerned with the relations between the physical world
and the ecology of languages (Hagège 1985).
The second strand of the ecology of language originated in Halliday’s plenary
talk at the 9th Congress of the AILA (International Association of Applied Lin-
guistics) in Thessaloniki, Greece in 1990 (see Fill 1998). He emphasized the role of
language in dealing with (aggravating or solving) environmental problems by
pointing out the connection between language and ideologies such as growthism
(see Section 5.1), speciesism, and classism. In this talk, Halliday made it clear that
dealing with environmental issues should have a central place in applied lin-
guistics, thus initiating the field of Ecological Discourse Analysis (EDA) in the
widest sense, and taking a biological understanding of ecology in the study of
language.

2.2 Development of the field since the 1990s

Although most researchers prefer to work mainly within one of the two strands
established before, some represent both perspectives (e.g. Fill 1993; Fill and
Mühlhäusler 2001; Mühlhäusler 2003).
The earliest overview of ecolinguistics published by Fill (1993) reflects a very
broad view of the field as it studies the (inter)relations between languages in their
social and natural environment and the role of language in the relations between
groups. Emphasis is placed on the concept of ‘interrelations’ on all levels –
including language and conflict, language and gender. Furthermore, diversity and
focus on the ‘small’ rather than the ‘big’ are characteristic of this view of ecolin-
guistics. In a subsequent publication, Fill (1998) attempts a definition and over-
view of the field which is slightly narrower in scope.
Trampe (1990) approaches the field from a language-world-system and holds
that the paradigm of human ecology should be complemented by an ecolinguistic
paradigm. Ecolinguistics should contribute to overcoming the ongoing ecological
crisis.
A dialectical approach to ecolinguistics was developed by Bang and Døør
(2007), known as the Odense School of Ecolinguistics (now University of Southern
Denmark). The ecology of language developed in this tradition since the 1970s is
 Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow 235

characterized by a holistic view informed by Marxist theory and Eastern philoso-

phy (Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism). A theoretical framework was developed to
study the dialectic interrelations between language, ecology, and society. The
concept of interrelation in this theory is defined by dialectics.
Mühlhäusler (2003) combined the metaphorical application of ecology to
language with an ecocritical approach, providing an introduction to the linguistic
tools which can be used for the analysis of environmental discourse. Among these
tools are the lexicon, grammar, metaphor, and narratives. Recent developments in
ecolinguistics promote a more unified view of conceptualizing ecolinguistics, on
the one hand, yet also reflect more diversification, on the other.
Steffensen and Fill (2014) aim to unify the diverse field by identifying four
approaches to the ecology of language. These are categorized into: 1) a symbolic
ecology that studies the co-existence of languages in a given area; 2) a natural
ecology that investigates how language relates to the biological and ecosystemic
surroundings (topography, climate, fauna, flora, etc.); 3) a socio-cultural ecology
that “investigates how language relates to the social and cultural forces that shape
the conditions of speakers and speech communities”; and 4) a cognitive ecology
that “investigates how language is enabled by the dynamics between biological
organisms and their environment” (Steffensen and Fill 2014: 7). The development
of ecolinguistics in China rather moves in the direction of diversification:
Harmonious Discourse Analysis (HDA), for example, was specifically created to
provide a Chinese perspective on ecolinguistics, arguing that Western-oriented
approaches are not suited for the Chinese context (Huang and Zhao 2021: 2).
The following sections offer a brief outline of the two different strands
established at the beginning.

3 The ecology of language

Research in the Haugenian tradition has mainly focused on the ecology of multi-
lingualism or language contact in various areas in the world. The ecology of lan-
guage contact in its widest sense addresses the diversity of languages, how this
diversity has been formed, the development of minority and majority languages
and the relationship between them, contact languages (pidgins and creoles),
language continuity, change (language shift), extinction and revitalization, lan-
guage planning. Questions such as why speakers adopt or even develop new
languages and what contextual factors play a role in this process are part of the
research in this field. Interest in this branch of ecolinguistics was particularly
prominent in the 1980s, then waned in the subsequent decade before it received
another impetus in the early 2000s. Renewed interest in this branch of
236 Penz and Fill

ecolinguistics was demonstrated by the foundation of the journal Language

Ecology (published by John Benjamins) in 2017. However, the journal was dis-
continued as the last volume appeared in 2020.1

3.1 Multilingualism

Some early work in this field is represented by Mackey’s (2001 [1980]) study of
language shift and Haarmann’s (1986) book on language in ethnicity. Denison
(2001 [1982]) applied the ecology metaphor to the multilingual context of Europe.
Mühlhäusler (1996) studied the language ecology of the Pacific, mainly Australia
and the Pacific Rim. He demonstrated that the linguistic ecology of the region
upheld linguistic diversity in the past when it was maintained by the widespread
bilingualism and was a matter of choice rather than anything else. Linguistic
diversity in the region has been declining over the last 200 years, in a process
driven by the educational systems put in place under colonial rule.
Bastardas-Boada (2018) has written extensively on the aspects of language
ecology pertaining to minoritized and majority languages as well as aspects of
language planning over the last two decades, in particular. He (Bastardas-Boada
2002) proposes an ecological model based on complexity theory which takes into
account ethical and socio-political considerations in language planning.

3.2 Ecology and language evolution

An ecological view of language evolution is provided by Mufwene (2001). His work

throws new light on the development of creoles: he argues that the restructuring
processes at work in the development of creoles are fundamentally the same as
those in any other languages (or ordinary languages). Ansaldo (2009) builds on
Mufwene’s (2001) work and focuses on the Asian context.

3.3 Linguistic and biological diversity

Some ecolinguists who apply the ecological metaphor to languages have

compared linguistic diversity to the diversity of biological species. A close
connection between cultural and linguistic diversity and biological diversity has
already been established by Mühlhäusler (1996). It has been argued that the loss of

1 https://www.benjamins.com/catalog/le (accessed 15 May 2022).

 Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow 237

languages can be compared to the loss of natural species. When a language dis-
appears the world view which is reflected by this language gets lost and results in
the disappearance of this particular perspective on the world (Maffi 2001; Nettle
and Romaine 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). Just like biological species, lan-
guages are dying off at a much faster rate today than ever before in history.
In connection with the debate on language loss, the topic of linguistic human
rights has been brought forward. This issue has been a particular focus in the work
of Skutnabb-Kangas and Philipson (Skutnabb-Kangas 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas
and Philipson 2008). Linguistic human rights have been defined as the “rights that
make it possible for a group or people to maintain its language and culture”
(Skutnabb-Kangas 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 2008: 4). They consist
of expressive language rights (using language as a marker of identity) and
instrumental language rights (using language as a means of communication).

4 Ecological discourse analysis

Human interaction with the environment is both mediated and influenced by
language. EDA is the analysis of any type of discourse under the ecological
framework (Alexander and Stibbe 2014). Although it has frequently been applied
to studying environmental discourse, it is not restricted to the analysis of discourse
that relates to the environment. One of the underlying assumptions of EDA is that
highlighting the way that discourse may be inhumane or destructive will create
more awareness of the role of language in dealing with the environment. This also
includes the hope that discourses that are more harmonious with our natural
surroundings will result in more ecologically conscious ways of dealing with the
environment. According to Alexander and Stibbe (2014), EDA can be divided into
two main strands: (1) the analysis of ecological discourse and (2) the ecological
analysis of discourse. The first deals with “the ways humans use language to talk
about ecology” (Alexander and Stibbe 2014: 105). It represents the strand of eco-
linguistics which Fill and Mühlhäusler (2001: 6) in their definition of critical eco-
linguistics identified as the text-critical one. The second strand takes into account
that other discourses, too, have an impact on how humans treat the systems that
support life. It includes the system-critical part discussed by Fill and Mühlhäusler
(2001: 6) which was pioneered by Halliday’s (1990) “New Ways of Meaning: The
Challenge to Applied Linguistics” mentioned above. In addition to his critique on
growthism, he argued that the distinction between countable and uncountable
nouns, for example, promotes a view of the world that considers natural resources
denoted by uncountable nouns, such as water or oil, as unlimited. Halliday’s view
of language reflects a position of linguistic relativity, yet he does not propose that
238 Penz and Fill

our perception of the world around us is confined by our language system, but
rather that it strongly influences what the members of a speech community attend
to and thus has a habitualizing effect (see Alexander and Stibbe 2014: 105).

4.1 Approaches

The ecological analysis of discourses has been approached from various per-
spectives, some of which are briefly discussed here.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has been applied to the analysis of envi-
ronmental discourses since the late 1990s. CDA aims to unveil power relationships
and ideologies in society and takes as its starting point a social or political problem
(Fairclough 1995). Ecolinguists have extended this approach to deal with ecolog-
ical problems. For example, Alexander (2009, 2018) has analyzed discourses of
large international companies to unmask industrial practices which are destruc-
tive to the environment, such as marketing and greenwashing strategies.
Some recent work in EDA has adopted the approach of Positive Discourse
Analysis (PDA). Instead of just exposing negative dominant discourses, it aims to
look for alternative discourses: discourses of being rather than having, discourses
that promote respect for nature rather than growth, and which inspire and hearten
us (Stibbe 2018).
Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MDA) studies how meaning is created by the
interplay of various modes such as spoken and written language, images (still and
moving) yet also aspects such as color, layout of pages, etc. The different elements
provide a repertoire from which communicators can choose to convey and
construct meanings (Hansen 2018; Hansen and Machin 2015; Kress and van
Leeuwen 1996, 2001; see also Stibbe 2015: 34). As in other areas of life, multi-
modality has been playing an increasing role in connection to discourses relating
to the environment in recent years.
Corpus-assisted EDA applies corpus linguistic techniques to study ecological
issues. Alexander (2009, 2018) used corpus linguistics in combination with CDA to
unveil the detrimental practices of multinational corporations. Poole (2022) ap-
plies various corpus techniques to show how environmental degradation has been
normalized in popular environmental discourses, which affects ecological well-
being: For example, he analyses the evolving representation of wilderness, pro-
vides an eco-stylistic analysis of a literary text, etc. Researchers in this tradition
frequently combine quantitative and qualitative methods.
Ecosystemic Linguistics is an approach developed by the Brazilian ecolinguist
Hildo Honório do Couto (2018). According to this approach, the linguist should be
an ecologist who studies language phenomena rather than just applying the
 Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow 239

ecology metaphor to language. Language is viewed as a process of interaction that

consists of the following three types: person-person interaction (communication),
person-environment interaction (reference), and structural interaction (grammar).
Ecosystemic Discourse Analysis, emerged inside Ecosystemic Linguistics, takes
the stance that life comes first and suffering should be avoided in its analyses
(Couto 2018: 150–153; Couto et al. 2021).
More recently, Chinese ecolinguists (Huang 2017; Huang and Zhao 2021; Zhao
and Huang 2021) have developed Harmonious Discourse Analysis (HDA). This
approach is rooted in traditional Chinese philosophies of harmony, which takes
“human-orientedness” as the general assumption and follows three principles
(i.e. the principle of conscience, the principle of proximity, and the principle of
regulation) (Huang 2017). By examining language-related ecological problems in
discourse, HDA aims “to present the various relations of humans with other
ecological participants and to promote harmonious relations via language”
(Huang and Zhao 2021: 16). This approach can be applied to the analysis of Chinese
and non-Chinese texts in a variety of context (Zhao and Huang 2021). It is also
worthy of note that Wei He, another Chinese ecolinguist, further develops the
Hallidayan approach and defines EDA as an independent paradigm (He 2021).
Under the guidance of the ecosophy “diversity and harmony, interaction and co-
existence” (He and Wei 2018; He and Liu 2020), He et al. (2021) extends the
experiential, interpersonal, textual, and logical metafunctions within the frame-
work of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and provides a systematic frame-
work of eco-grammar for EDA (see the book summary by Cheng [2022] and the brief
introduction in Zhang [2022]).

4.2 Categories of analysis and methods

EDA focuses on the levels of the lexicon and grammar such as the distinction into
Agents, Participants, and Circumstances (Alexander 2009; Goatly 2001 [1996]),
yet also aspects such as rhetorics, metaphor, and framing, or narrative and stories
(Harré et al. 1999; Mühlhäusler 2003; Stibbe 2015). In addition, evaluations and
appraisal patterns, patterns of factivity, and identities have been investigated to
reveal the underlying stories (Stibbe 2015).
One of the most accessible aspects to be studied is the lexicon. Ecolinguists
have pointed out that there is a discrepancy between the words used and what they
aim to represent. Three aspects have been highlighted with terms related to the
environment (Mühlhäusler 2003: 68–72): 1) semantic vagueness as, for example, in
‘sustainable’ may cause some puzzlement as to what exactly the term means); 2)
semantic underdifferentiation, e.g. ‘growth’, does not distinguish between the
240 Penz and Fill

many different meanings of the word/process; and 3) misleading encoding mis-

represents what actually happens (e.g. ‘to clear land’ which actually means
‘removing native vegetation’). In addition, the underlying ideology of both sci-
entific and everyday words has been emphasized (Harré et al. 1999; Mühlhäusler
2003; Penman 2001 [1994]). In addition, it has been demonstrated that the un-
derlying concepts (e.g. uncertainty) are interpreted differently by scientists and the
general public (Penz 2022). Aspects of word meaning such as connotations that
favor exploitation (e.g. the term development), euphemism (e.g. timber harvesting),
and pejorative terms used to talk about the environment (e.g. waste, weed) are also
highlighted (Schultz 2001 [1992]).
A range of methods has been applied in EDA. These may be qualitative or
combine qualitative and quantitative methods of discourse analysis, e.g. by
applying corpus-based analysis. In recent years, the study of visual communication
or a combination of all modes of environmental communication has been added
to the methodological repertoire. This is why semiotic and multimodal approaches
have been gaining ground in the field (Hansen 2018; Stöckl and Molnar 2018).
EDA has been applied to a variety of environmental topics, some of which will
be discussed in the following subsections. Recently, an ecolinguistics bibliography
has been made available by Robert Poole which provides a representative overview
of publications relating to various topics even though some of the authors listed
may not see themselves as ecolinguists.2

4.3 Selected topics

4.3.1 The representation of nature

The question of how nature is represented in language has been of interest to EDA
for many years. In particular, metaphors have been a focus as they are tools that
guide our perception of the environment and our interaction with it (Harré et al.
1999; Mühlhäusler 2003). They are frequently used to frame topics in a certain way
and highlight a particular aspect of a phenomenon while backgrounding others.
Different representations of nature in history have been studied by Verhagen
(2008). He identifies metaphors that promote an anthropocentric worldview, and
metaphors that promote a biocentric view of nature. The former is expressed, for
example, in the metaphor of nature as scala naturae (‘ladders of nature’): this
views nature as a Chain of Beings in a Stairway of Nature, where each species is
given a proper place in a fixed hierarchy. Variations on this metaphor are ‘nature as

2 https://www.zotero.org/groups/4469955/Ecolinguistics_bibliography (accessed 10 July 2022).

 Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow 241

machine’, or ‘nature as factory’, all of which justify the exploitation of nature by

human beings. Metaphors that promote a biocentric worldview aim to construct
the earth as an active subject rather than a passive object that is acted on. These
include, among others, ‘nature as mother’ (used throughout history, re-emerging
more recently as the Gaia Theory), ‘nature as web’ (referring to the interdepen-
dence of all beings). Harré et al. (1999) have also studied metaphors for nature from
the Middle Ages until today. Döring and Zunino (2014) analyzed the metaphorical
representation of nature-culture (flora, fauna, and inhabitants) in the New World
(America) from the perspective of the Old World (Europe). Other studies have
investigated to what extent nature is represented as an actor in different types of
text. Goatly (2018) demonstrated that nature is depicted as far more active in the
nature poetry of William Wordsworth than in The State of the World 2012, a text
produced by the environmental research institution Worldwatch Institute.

4.3.2 Semantic engineering and greenwashing

The terms semantic engineering and greenwashing have been applied for attempts
(of corporations, industries) to present a company’s environmental practices or
products/services in a more ecologically responsible light while disseminating
false, vague, or misleading information to consumers (Alexander 2009; Stöckl and
Molnar 2018). ‘Eco-advertising’ is closely related, yet may just be used to promote a
green lifestyle rather than covering up activities that are detrimental to the envi-
ronment (Stöckl and Molnar 2018). Alexander (2009) has shown how environ-
mental issues are misrepresented by oil-producing companies, in particular. He
has demonstrated how transnational corporations have influenced the definition
of environmentalism and sustainability and have framed these in terms of market
economics. This is accomplished by the use of ‘purr’ words (positive-sounding
words), over- and underlexicalization and a number of rhetorical strategies which
are used to present these companies as ecologically concerned. In times of energy
and climate crises it is clearly also worthwhile to take a critical look at the
greenwashing strategies that are employed by various other energy providers, in
particular nuclear energy corporations who promote nuclear power as the solution
to climate change.

4.3.3 The representation of animals in discourse

The discursive representation of animals is a fairly new topic in ecolinguistics. This

growing field of research studies how animals and the interaction between
humans and (other) animals are represented in language. Animals are mainly
represented according to their various relationships with human beings. In this
242 Penz and Fill

context, the terms anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism have been applied

and criticized. The former is the tendency to classify the world around us
(including animals) according to its usefulness to human beings. This is reflected
in words such as meat breeds, milk cows, honey bees, working animal, hunting dog,
watch dog (Fill 2015; Trampe 1990, 2018). The latter refers to the practice of
applying human emotions, perceptions, activities, etc. to animals, e.g. a friendly
dog (Cook and Sealey 2018; Fill 2015; Heuberger 2018). While suggestions for
changing terminology towards more transparent representations of how animals
are treated (e.g. animal-incarceration for animal farming) have been refuted by
most linguists working in this field, the critical study of discourses about human-
animal relationships and attempts to promote discourses which reflect more life-
sustaining views have been on the rise in recent research (Stibbe 2012). Questions
such as the importance of sustaining and providing more space to wildlife again
have already been taken up by the media and will be of interest to ecolinguists, too.

4.3.4 The discourse of genetic engineering

The discourse of genetic engineering has been analyzed with regard to word
choices of various actors involved in the debate (e.g. genetic modification vs.
genetic engineering), has studied styles of argumentation and metaphors in the
debate, and shows how language is used to manipulate people’s views. Alexan-
der’s (2009) analysis of the Monsanto website which promotes genetically engi-
neered seeds for farmers reveals that the company applies the frame of beneficial
technology for farmers and for the world food supply. Cook (2004) is the most
comprehensive study to date in the field and demonstrates how the discourse
relating to genetically modified organisms in the US and the UK is constructed.
Cook identified metaphors of warfare and invasion, such as GM warriors, the
biotech war. In addition, he pointed to several frames in the discourse of genetic
engineering, among them the frame of a deep conflict between science/technol-
ogy/progress and the public. The use of modals and (other) linguistic expressions
of uncertainty relating to threats and promises constituted another category of
analysis.

4.3.5 Climate change discourse

Climate change has become a dominant topic in environmental discourses

worldwide, yet among ecolinguists, only a few researchers so far have dealt with
the issue. Ecolinguists have studied media representations, in particular, meta-
phors and framing (Kuha 2018; Penz 2018) as well as narratives/stories (Stibbe
2015). More recently, the perceptions of the local population affected by climate
 Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow 243

change have been added (Döring and Ratter 2018). A multimodal approach is taken
by Hansen (2018) who studied visual representations of the issue. The scholar who
has published most widely on climate change communication is Brigitte Nerlich.3
The topics she and her co-authors address include lexical aspects such as lexical
formations arising from the debate on reducing carbon in the UK (Nerlich and
Koteyko 2009), and analyses of media representations, in particular news
discourse (Nerlich et al. 2012). She even argues that climate change communica-
tion can be considered its own field and emphasizes that the relationship between
climate change communication and behavioral change also needs to be included
(Nerlich et al. 2010). The issue of different conceptions of uncertainty in climate
change and the difficulty of communicating these to the general public has been
discussed by Penz (2022). Differences in the interpretation of uncertainty may also
impede actions to prevent climate change on the level of individuals but also
society.
The topics discussed here provide only a glimpse of current EDA; ecolinguists
have also investigated issues such as food and health, (nuclear) energy, and waste,
to name but a few.

5 The future of ecolinguistics

The future of ecolinguistics will certainly be on various levels. From climate
change to linguistics, ecolinguistic aspects of war and peace, several new topics
will be dealt with. Mühlhäusler (2020: 4) has listed a few, among them “the
negative effects of tourism” and “ecological changes brought about by digital
technology”. One level on which the future of ecolinguistics will be is “Ecosystemic
Linguistics” (Couto 2018: 150), in which the biological and the linguistic ecosys-
tems are dealt with. However, there will be more than just those mentioned by
Mühlhäusler and Couto. Let us begin with a topic not dealt with by many re-
searchers in the first few decades of ecolinguistics: climate change.

5.1 Climate change

Despite the research on climate change or global warming mentioned above, this
topic is as yet not at the center of ecolinguistics. In this section, it will be shown

3 Nerlich probably does not see herself as an ecolinguist even though she has co-published with
Döring, among others, who view themselves as representatives of the field.
244 Penz and Fill

how the language of growthism is implicated in this process and that an awareness
of this implication may help find possibilities for mitigation.
One of the most significant causes of climate change is that all countries, all
companies, and even all individuals want to grow. In advertising (whether TV,
radio, newspapers, or social media) we always hear the word more. People want to
get more for their money, firms want to produce more, and customers want to have
more in their shopping bags. Everything should grow – an attitude which Halliday
(2001 [1990]: 192) called “growthism”. If we wish climate change to be reduced, we
should make people aware of this attitude of growthism, which is contained in our
languages and in our thinking. As early as 1990, Halliday wrote about the con-
sequences of growthism. In his talk at the AILA conference in 1990, Halliday states:

We are using up the capital resources – not just the fossil fuels and mineral ones, which we could
[…] do without, but the freshwater supplies and the agricultural soils, which we can’t live
without. And at the same time as we are consuming, we are also destroying. We are destroying
many of the other species who form part of the planet’s life cycle; and we are destroying the planet
itself, through global warming and general poisoning with carbon dioxide and methane; through
ozone depletion; through acid rain; and most of all by increasing our population at a rate of
almost a hundred million new people a year […]. (Halliday 2001 [1990]: 192)

Halliday suggests that we should define ‘growth’ as ‘failure to shrink’, thus making
shrink the positive term and label ‘growth’ as negative shrinkage (Halliday 2001 [1990]:
193). Halliday also quotes the famous book title Small is Beautiful by Schumacher
(1985 [1973]) (see also The Limits of Growth by Meadows et al. [1972]). Yet, all pro-
ducers – whatever the product – are proud when they increase their output. Halliday
(2001 [1990]: 193) already gives examples of this, such as “unmatched growth rates”
and “business climate improving”. He writes that our world-view is constructed by
these expressions, which we find for instance in headlines.
It will be the task of ecolinguists to make language users, and particularly
people in power, aware of this growthism which is contained in our consciousness
and thus also in our language use.

5.2 Weapons and warfare

A topic also connected with growthism is warfare, in particular with respect to the
production of weapons for warfare. For a time, certain countries produced as many
weapons as possible in order to warn other countries, because they thought that
having more weapons would deter other countries from aggression. Most wars had
their origin in a nation – or the leaders of that nation – wanting to have more
power, and particularly a larger territory where this power could be executed.
Allzeit Mehrer des Reiches (‘Always be multiplier of the empire’) was one of the
 Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow 245

slogans of the Roman-German empire. Every empire had to be enlarged, as a song

sung in Nazi-Germany illustrates: Heute gehört uns Deutschland, morgen die ganze
Welt (‘Today we own Germany, tomorrow the whole world’). Most wars in Antiq-
uity and in the Middle Ages had their origin in the wish to increase the empire (cf.
Halliday 2001 [1990]). Both the First and the Second World Wars had their origins
in the wish of leaders to enlarge the territory over which they ruled. “Military
expenditure and conflict” is a topic also mentioned by Mühlhäusler (2020: 4).
There are a few philosophers who have written against growthism. One of
them is Ernst Friedrich Schumacher, who in his book Small is Beautiful: A Study of
Economics as if People Mattered, writes that growth up to a certain point is
possible, but limitless general growth is dangerous. He quotes Mahatma Gandhi,
who said “the earth offers enough to satisfy the needs of humans, but not human
greed” (Schumacher 1985 [1973]: 19). According to Schumacher (1985 [1973]: 21), for
economists, economic growth is the most important thing, and even rich societies
never have enough. The rich are not more peaceful than the poor, since they wish
to become even richer. Constancy and steadiness would be the basic qualities for
attaining peace (Schumacher 1985 [1973]: 20).
Schumacher’s arguments about the real causes of war are so convincing that
the present authors totally agree with him. He (Schumacher 1985 [1973]: 34) writes
that most humans surround themselves with richness, power, and some pleasure
creating activity – instead of turning towards wisdom, education, and culture.
This agrees with what the present authors believe to be true: education and
culture are the aims that all people should have – instead of richness and growth.
More education would also be a ‘strategy’ which would slow the population growth
in those countries where this ‘growth’ causes serious problems connected with the
shortness of food and the wish to emigrate.

5.3 Eco-imagistics

In his article “Using Visual Images to Show Environmental Problems”, Anders

Hansen (2018: 179) writes that “visual communication research has for some time
been the neglected poorer relative of text focused communication research”. In
more recent years, however, this topic has been taken up by various scholars.
Hansen (2018) defines such research as follows:

Visual environmental communication research can be defined as research concerned with

theorizing and empirically examining how visual imagery in the broadest sense (photo-
graphs, film, scientific/graphical representations using charts and graphs, maps, models,
drawings […]) communicates and conveys/constructs messages about the environment.
(Hansen 2018: 180)
246 Penz and Fill

Hansen (2018: 181) distinguishes three image categories in the visual representa-
tion of the environment: 1) images of nature/the environment; 2) images of
industry technology; and 3) images focused on people (with or – more often –
without any visual focus on nature/the environment). As examples of these
categories, Hansen (2018: 182) gives a picture of an “Iceberg graveyard” (nature), of
a power station (industry technology), and of the heads of delegations at the 2015
United Nations climate change conference at Paris. Hansen (2018: 187) prints a
photograph of “Stilt houses, coping with climate change”. These houses stand on
pillars in a pond, which shows that even in ancient times people had to take
measures to react to the climate.
“Photographs and other visual representations influence agenda processes in
ways that are distinct from the contribution of textual content” (Hansen 2018: 191).
Perhaps the most important topic in this context is how text and picture interact,
supporting each other or, in some cases, contradicting each other. In Fill (2007:
137) five types of text-picture-connection are distinguished:

1) Text describes a picture not printed.

2) Text and picture give the same information in their respective form.
3) Text and picture supplement each other: either the text or the picture gives addi-
tional information.
4) Text and picture contradict each other.
5) Text and picture do not seem to have any connection – are irrelevant to each other
(Fill 2007: 137).

In types four and five, tension arises between the two forms of giving information,
which frequently give new insights – on the metalevel. As an example, we might
turn to René Magritte’s famous painting of a pipe, which bears the text Ceci n’est
pas une pipe (‘This is not a pipe’). This evokes the view that in art there are more
dimensions than one. Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) write in their book Reading
Images: The Grammar of Visual Design:

Just as grammars of language describe how words combine in clauses, sentences, and texts,
so our visual ‘grammars’ will describe the way in which depicted people, places and things
combine in visual ‘statements’ of greater or lesser complexity and extension. (Kress and van
Leeuwen 1996: 1)

Concerning ecological topics, types four and five (see above) will be rare, but one to
three are frequent. It could be investigated how often they occur in presenting
environmental topics. Fill (2007: 139–140) gives three examples of text picture
combinations in advertising. In one case (Fill 2007: 140, quoted from Mühlhäusler
1999: 174), a picture of mountains and glaciers is used to advertise mineral water –
with the words “Our Factory”.
 Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow 247

To sum up, we have here a topic which will bring a new dimension into
ecolinguistics. In addition, films, TV shows, and social media content will have to
be investigated, so that ecolinguistics will have additional sections which can be
called ‘eco-imagistics’, ‘eco-televistics’, and so on.

5.4 Ecolinguistics and non-European languages

So far, ecolinguistics has focused on European languages, particularly English.

However, in ecolinguistics we should also consider the languages of other conti-
nents, e.g. those of Africa. Nigeria has about 500 languages, the most important of
these being the following: Edo, Hausa, Idoma, Igbo, Central-Kanuri, and Yoruba.
These are the national or official languages. One future topic of ecolinguistics
could be to investigate how these languages present what is called the environ-
ment. From the war/peace point of view, it would also be interesting to investigate
these languages concerning growthism and contrasting words, for example to
study whether polarization such as the contrast between good and evil actually
exists in these languages. Another interesting aspect would be the origins of an-
imal names as these may be different from European ones. Some animal words in
Yoruba are obviously onomatopoeic, in so far as they try to render the sounds that
the animals produce, e.g. Pepeye – duck; kezekeze – donkey. European animal
names are frequently based on Latin (e.g. English ass, German Esel – Latin asinus)
or at least related to those in Latin because of their shared Indo-European origin.
Nevertheless, onomatopoeic origins also exist in European languages, such as in
cuckoo, yet they are rare.
It would be worthwhile studying to what extent animal names in non-
European languages are anthropocentric and contain the use humans make of the
relevant animal, as many German animal words do (Tragtiere ‘pack animal’,
Reittiere ‘animal used for riding’, Schlachttiere ‘Slaughter animal’, Jagdhunde
‘hunting dog’, etc.). The same is true of plants, which in German are frequently
named after the use humans make of them (Speisepilze ‘edible mushroom’, Gar-
tenblumen ‘garden flower’, Glücksklee ‘four-leaf clover’). In non-European lan-
guages, there are probably other types of word origins for plants.
In connection with the topic of growthism, it is frequently stated that in Chi-
nese sociolects and dialects, instead of contrasts (e.g. ‘war against peace’), ‘as well
as peace’ or ‘also named war’ are used. Work remains to be done to explore these
usages.
Indigenous languages of America also show ways of representing the envi-
ronment that deviate from those of ‘Western languages’. In some of these cultures,
248 Penz and Fill

animals play a different role from the one they have in what Whorf called Standard
Average European (SAE) languages (see Carroll 1956).
In non-European cultures, the position of humans with regard to animals is a
different one from that in Europe (Precht 2016: 198–212), e.g. in China or India. Fill
(2021) writes about the aborigines in Australia:

The aborigines in Australia say that they do not own the territory, but the territory owns them!
They do not believe in possessing ground, and therefore there are no wars between the
different groups. However, they have myths about previous times in which individuals (these
could be humans or animals!) traveled around, met other groups, and fought with them. But
from these fights, they believe, a number of things arose, e.g. rivers, beaches, rocks, trees.
(Fill 2021: 4)

Ecolinguists should investigate this culture more thoroughly – in particular con-

cerning the role animals play in the aboriginal attitude towards the environment.
Some Native American cultures thank the animals for providing food for
humans, and they apologize for having to kill them. The position of the Inuit
towards animals is discussed by Riches (1995). Kuhnlein and Humphries (2017)
also describe rites of indigenous peoples in the northern USA, in which they
celebrate animals which they have hunted and whose meat they eat.
Stibbe, too, writes about how animals are viewed by indigenous people, and
he discusses “the distinctive linguistic patterns that they use to, for example,
ascribe personhood to animals, plants, forests, and rivers, thereby encouraging
respectful and mutual relationships with them” (Stibbe 2012: 173). The condition of
animals is also discussed in Singer’s book with the telling title Animal Liberation: A
New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals (2009 [1975]), although he ‘restricts’ this
liberation to animals kept on farms.
Non-European cultures would certainly provide new topics for ecolinguistics,
particularly as concerns the treatment of animals and plants, but also how their
languages treat our use of the so-called environment. Are there languages that
have a word for what in English is called the ‘con-vironment’ and in German
Mitwelt – thus emphasizing that humans are part of Nature? Do these languages
also use euphemisms for our treatment of animals and do they also use what is
called ‘distancing’ in order to express similar processes between animals and
humans differently? In European languages, the same qualities and processes
have different names concerning humans and animals: humans ‘eat’, animals
‘graze’ or ‘feed’ (German: essen vs. fressen), women are ‘pregnant’, female animals
‘gravid’, humans ‘inhabit an area’, animals ‘occur’, or ‘are frequent’. It would be
worth investigating whether indigenous languages in America and Australia also
use this distancing process or whether they are what is called ‘physiocentric’ and
thus treat animals linguistically the same as humans.
 Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow 249

6 Conclusion
This paper has attempted to briefly outline the development of ecolinguistics in the
last 50 years, focusing on the main approaches and themes, and has discussed
selected topics in current research. Ecolinguistics has always valued diversity in
the approaches and methodologies used in the field; nevertheless, some distinct
strands have become apparent. The main distinction could be made between the
ecology of language and EDA. Each of these spans a variety of topics that have
been of interest to researchers with more or less continuity over the past few
decades.
This survey of ecolinguistic topics also sheds light on those areas that have
been dealt with either not at all or only in a very restricted way. It is hoped that this
part of the paper shows that, to date, ecolinguistics has by no means reached its
limits, but that several interesting topics still await investigation. In addition, it has
been shown that ecolinguistics may extend and reach a new dimension by
including the topic of “language, war, and peace”. In future times, there will be
professorships in ecolinguistics at many universities, and students will find new
topics which they will study with enthusiasm.

References
Alexander, Richard J. 2009. Framing discourse on the environment: A critical discourse approach.
New York: Routledge.
Alexander, Richard J. 2018. Investigating texts about environmental degradation using critical
discourse analysis and corpus linguistic techniques. In Alwin F. Fill & Hermine Penz (eds.),
The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics, 196–210. London: Routledge.
Alexander, Richard & Arran Stibbe. 2014. From the analysis of ecological discourse to the
ecological analysis of language. Language Sciences 41. 104–110.
Ansaldo, Umberto. 2009. Contact languages: Ecology and evolution in Asia. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bang, Jørgen C. & Jørgen Døør (eds.). 2007. Language, ecology and society: A dialectical approach.
London: Bloomsbury.
Bastardas-Boada, Albert. 2002. The ecological perspective: Benefits and risks for sociolinguistics
and language policy and planning. In Alwin Fill, Hermine Penz & Wilhelm Trampe (eds.),
Colourful green ideas: Papers from the conference 30 years of language and ecology (Graz,
2000) and the symposium Sprache und Ökologie (Passau, 2001), 77–88. Peter Lang: Bern.
Bastardas-Boada, Albert. 2018. The ecology of language contact: Minority and majority
languages. In Alwin F. Fill & Hermine Penz (eds.), The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics,
26–39. New York: Routledge.
Carroll, John B. (ed.). 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee
Whorf. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Cheng, Ming. 2022. Theoretical framework for ecological discourse analysis: A summary of New
Developments of Ecological Discourse Analysis. Journal of World Languages 8(1). 188–226.
250 Penz and Fill

Cook, Guy. 2004. Genetically modified language: The discourse of arguments for GM crops and
food. London: Routledge.
Cook, Guy & Alison Sealey. 2018. The discursive representation of animals. In Alwin F. Fill &
Hermine Penz (eds.), The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics, 311–324. New York:
Routledge.
Couto, Hildo Honorió do. 2014. Ecological approaches in linguistics: A historical overview.
Language Sciences 41. 122–128.
Couto, Hildo Honorió do. 2018. Ecosystemic linguistics. In Alwin F. Fill & Hermine Penz (eds.), The
Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics, 149–161. New York: Routledge.
Couto, Hildo Honorió do, Elza Kioko N. N. do Couto & Anderson Nowogrodzki da Silva. 2021.
Ecosystemic discourse analysis (EDA). Ecolinguística: Revista Brasileira de Ecologia e
Linguagem (ECO-REBEL) 7(1). 5–17.
Denison, Norman. 2001 [1982]. A linguistic ecology for Europe? In Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäusler
(eds.), The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment, 75–83. London:
Continuum.
Döring, Martin & Beate Ratter. 2018. The regional framing of climate change: Towards a place-
based perspective on regional climate change perception in north Frisia. Journal of Coastal
Conservation 22. 131–143.
Döring, Martin & Francesca Zunino. 2014. Naturecultures in old and new worlds. Steps towards an
ecolinguistic perspective on framing a ‘new’ continent. Language Sciences 41. 34–40.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London:
Longman.
Fill, Alwin. 1993. Ökolinguistik. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr.
Fill, Alwin. 1998. Ecolinguistics – state of the art 1998. AAA – Arbeiten aus Anglistik und
Amerikanistik 23(1). 3–16.
Fill, Alwin. 2007. Das Prinzip Spannung, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Fill, Alwin. 2015. Language creates relations between humans and animals. Animal stereotypes,
linguistic anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism. In Reingard Spannring,
Reinhard Heuberger, Gabriela Kompatscher, Andreas Oberprantacher, Karin Schachinger &
Alejandro Boucabeille (eds.), Tiere, Texte, Transformationen: Kritische Perspektiven der
Human-Animal Studies, 179–192. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Fill, Alwin. 2021. Ecolinguistics as a science for peace. Nigeria Journal of Ecolinguistics and
Environmental Discourse 1(1). 1–5.
Fill, Alwin & Peter Mühlhäusler (eds.). 2001. The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and
environment. London: Continuum.
Goatly, Andrew. 2001 [1996]. Green grammar and grammatical metaphor, or language and myth of
power or metaphors we die by. In Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäusler (eds.), The ecolinguistics
reader: Language, ecology and environment, 203–225. London: Continuum.
Goatly, Andrew. 2018. Lexicogrammar and ecolinguistics. In Alwin F. Fill & Hermine Penz (eds.),
The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics, 227–248. New York: Routledge.
Haarmann, Harald. 1986. Language in ethnicity: A view of basic ecological relations. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Hagège, Claude. 1985. L’hommes de paroles. Paris: Fayard.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1990. New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. Journal of
Applied Linguistics 6. 7–36.
 Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow 251

Halliday, Michael A. K. 2001 [1990]. New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In
Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäusler (eds.), The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and
environment, 175–202. London: Continuum.
Hansen, Anders. 2018. Using visual images to show environmental problems. In Alwin F. Fill &
Hermine Penz (eds.), The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics, 179–195. New York: Routledge.
Hansen, Anders & David Machin (eds.). 2015. Visual environmental communication. London:
Routledge.
Harré, Rom, Jens Brockmeier & Peter Mühlhäusler. 1999. Greenspeak: A study of environmental
discourse. London: Routledge.
He, Wei. 2021. “Shengtai huayu fenxi”: Hanlide moshi de zai fazhan [“Ecological discourse
analysis”: Further development of the Hallidayan model]. Waiyu Jiaoxue [Foreign Language
Education] 42(1). 20–27.
He, Wei & Jiahuan Liu. 2020. Duoyuan hexie, jiaohu gongsheng – shengtai zhexue guan de
jiangou yu fazhan [Diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence: Construction and
development of ecosophy]. Shandong Waiyu Jiaoxue [Shandong Foreign Language
Teaching] 41(1). 12–24.
He, Wei, Ran Gao & Jiahuan Liu. 2021. Shengtai huayu fenxi xinfazhan yanjiu [Ecological discourse
analysis: New perspectives and developments]. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.
He, Wei & Rong Wei. 2018. Duoyuan hexie, jiaohu gongsheng: Guoji shengtai huayu fenxi zhi
shengtai zhexueguan jiangou [Diversity and harmony, interaction and co-existence: An
ecosophy for international ecological discourse analysis]. Waiyu Xuekan [Foreign Language
Research] (6). 28–35.
Haugen, Einar. 1972. The ecology of language. In Anwar S. Dil (ed.), The ecology of language:
Essays by Einar Haugen, 325–339. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Heuberger, Reinhard. 2018. Overcoming anthropocentrism with anthropomorphic and
physiocentric uses of language? In Alwin F. Fill & Hermine Penz (eds.), The Routledge
handbook of ecolinguistics, 342–354. New York: Routledge.
Huang, Guowen. 2017. Lun shengtai huayu he xingwei fenxi de jiading he yuanze [One assumption
and three principles for ecological analysis of discourse and behavior]. Waiyu Jiaoxue yu
Yanjiu [Foreign Language Teaching and Research] 49(6). 880–889.
Huang, Guowen & Ruihua Zhao. 2021. Harmonious discourse analysis: Approaching peoples’
problems in a Chinese context. Language Sciences 85. 1–19.
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design.
London: Routledge.
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal discourse analysis: The modes and media
of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.
Kuha, Mai. 2018. The treatment of environmental topics in the language of politics. In Alwin F. Fill &
Hermine Penz (eds.), The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics, 249–260. New York:
Routledge.
Kuhnlein, Harriet V. & Murray M. Humphries. 2017. Traditional animal foods of indigenous
peoples of Northern North America. http://traditionalanimalfoods.org/ (accessed 29 May
2021).
LeVasseur, Todd. 2015. Defining “ecolinguistics?”: Challenging emic issues in an evolving
environmental discipline. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 5. 21–28.
Mackey, William F. 2001 [1980]. The ecology of language shift. In Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäuser
(eds.), The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment, 67–74. London:
Continuum.
252 Penz and Fill

Maffi, Luisa (ed.). 2001. On biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge and the
environment. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Marcellesi, Jean-Baptiste. 1975. Basque, Breton, Catalan, corse, flamand, germanique d’Alsace,
Occitan: L’enseignement des «langues régionales». Langue Française 25. 3–11.
Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers & William W. Behrens, III. 1972. The
limits of growth: A report for The Club of Romes’s project on the predicament of mankind. New
York: Universe Books.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1996. Linguistic ecology: Language change and linguistic imperialism in the
Pacific region. London: Routledge.
Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1999. Metaphor and metonymy in environmental advertising. AAA – Arbeiten
aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 24(2). 167–180.
Mühlhäusler, Peter. 2003. Language of environment, environment of language: A course in
ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge.
Mühlhäusler, Peter. 2020. Quo vadis ecolinguistics? Ecolinguistica: Revista Brasileira de Ecologia
e Linguagem (ECO-REBEL) 6(1). 5–23.
Nerlich, Brigitte & Nelya Koteyko. 2009. Carbon reduction activism in the UK: Lexical creativity and
lexical framing in the context of climate change. Environmental Communication 3(2).
206–223.
Nerlich, Brigitte, Nelya Koteyko & Brian Brown. 2010. Theory and language of climate change
communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1(1). 1–17.
Nerlich, Brigitte, Forsyth Richard & David Clarke. 2012. Climate in the news: How differences in
media discourse between the US and UK reflect national priorities. Environmental
Communication 6(1). 44–63.
Nettle, Daniel & Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s
languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Penman, Robyn. 2001 [1994]. Environmental matters and communication challenges. In Alwin Fill
& Peter Mühlhäusler (eds.), The ecolinguistic reader: Language, ecology and environment,
143–153. London: Continuum.
Penz, Hermine. 2018. ‘Global warming’ or ‘climate change’? In Alwin F. Fill & Hermine Penz (eds.),
The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics, 277–292. New York: Routledge.
Penz, Hermine. 2022. Communicating climate change: How (not) to touch a cord with people and
promote action. Text & Talk 42(4). 571–590.
Poole, Robert. 2022. Corpus-assisted ecolinguistics. London: Bloomsbury.
Precht, Richard D. 2016. Tiere denken: Vom Recht der Tiere und den Grenzen des Menschen.
Goldman: München.
Riches, David. 1995. Animal rights and northern native hunters: The discourse contexts to the
‘dispute’. Anthropos 90. 423–433.
Salzinger, Kurt. 1979. Ecolinguistics: A radical behavior theory approach to language behavior. In
Doris Aaronson & Robert E. Rieber (eds.), Psycholinguistics research, 109–130. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Sapir, Edward. 2001 [1912]. Language and environment. In Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäusler (eds.),
The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment, 13–23. London: Continuum.
Schultz, Beth. 2001 [1992]. Language and natural environment. In Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäusler
(eds.), The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment, 109–114. London:
Continuum.
 Ecolinguistics: History, today, and tomorrow 253

Schumacher, Ernst F. 1985 [1973]. Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered.
Rowohlt: Reinbek & Hamburg.
Singer, Peter. 2009 [1975]. Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York,
NY: Harper Collins.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 2000. Linguistic genocide in education – or worldwide diversity and
human rights. Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove & Robert Phillipson. 2008. A human rights perspective on language
ecology. In Angela Creese, Peter Martin & Nancy H. Hornberger (eds.), Ecology of language:
Encyclopedia of language and education, vol. 9, 3–13. New York: Springer.
Steffensen, Sune V. & Alwin Fill. 2014. Ecolinguistics: The state of the art and future horizons.
Language Sciences 41. 6–25.
Stibbe, Arran. 2012. Animals erased: Discourse, ecology, and reconnection with the natural world.
Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Stibbe, Arran. 2015. Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. London: Routledge.
Stibbe, Arran. 2018. Positive discourse analysis. In Alwin F. Fill & Hermine Penz (eds.), The
Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics, 165–178. New York: Routledge.
Stöckl, Hartmut & Sonja Molnar. 2018. Eco-advertising: The linguistics and semiotics of
green(washed) persuasion. In Alwin F. Fill & Hermine Penz (eds.), The Routledge handbook
of ecolinguistics, 261–276. New York: Routledge.
Trampe, Wilhelm. 1990. Ökologische Linguistik: Grundlagen einer ökologischen Sprach- und
Wissenschaftstheorie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Trampe, Wilhelm. 2018. Euphemisms for killing animals and for other forms of their use. In
Alwin F. Fill & Hermine Penz (eds.), The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics, 325–341. New
York: Routledge.
Trim, John L. M. 1959. Historical, descriptive and dynamic linguistics. Language and Speech 2(1).
9–25.
Verhagen, Frans C. 2008. Worldviews and metaphors in the human-nature relationship: An
ecolinguistic exploration through the ages. Language & Ecology 2(3). 1–19.
Voegelin, Carl F. & Florence M. Voegelin. 1964. Languages of the world: Native America fascicle
one. Anthropological Linguistics 6(6). 1–149.
Voegelin, Carl F., Florence M. Voegelin & Noel W. Schutz, Jr. 1967. The language situation in
Arizona as part of the southwest culture area. In Dell H. Hymes & William E. Bittle (eds.),
Studies of southwestern ethnolinguistics: Meaning and history in the languages of the
American southwest, 403–451. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.
Zhang, Ruijie. 2022. The year’s work in ecolinguistics 2021. Journal of World Languages 8(1).
141–163.
Zhao, Ruihua & Guowen Huang. 2021. Hexie huayu fenxi kuangjia jiqi yingyong [The framework of
harmonious discourse analysis and its application]. Waiyu Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu [Foreign
Language Teaching and Research] 53(1). 42–53.
Zhou, Wenjuan. 2021. Ecolinguistics: A half-century overview. Journal of World Languages 7(3).
461–482.