Mühlhäusler Peace 2006 Environmental Discourses

ANRV287-AN35-23 ARI 13 August 2006 8:5
Environmental Discourses
Peter Mühlhäusler1 and Adrian Peace2
1
Linguistics Discipline, University of Adelaide, SA 5005 Australia;
email: peter.muhlhausler@adelaide.edu.au
Access provided by Universidade Federal do Piaui on 03/16/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:457-479. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
2
Discipline of Anthropology, University of Adelaide, SA 5005 Australia;
email: adrian.peace@adelaide.edu.au
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006. 35:457–79 Key Words

First published online as a Review in ecolinguistics, ethnography of communication, environmental
Advance on July 6, 2006
metaphor, biocultural diversity, greenspeak
The Annual Review of Anthropology is
online at anthro.annualreviews.org Abstract
This article’s doi: Discourses concerned with the perceived global environmental cri-
10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123203
sis have increased dramatically over the past couple of decades. This
Copyright c 2006 by Annual Reviews. review consists of an ethnographic analysis of the principal com-
All rights reserved
ponents of environmental discourses as well as a discussion of the
0084-6570/06/1021-0457$20.00 approaches employed to analyze them. These include linguistic dis-
courses (ecolinguistics, ecocritical linguistics, discourse analysis) as
well as approaches developed within other disciplines (anthropology,
literary studies, philosophy, and psychology).
Over the years, the structural properties of environmental dis-
courses have developed into a distinct discourse category. It remains
unclear to what extent the numerous environmental discourses and
metadiscourses significantly contribute to improving the health of
the natural environment.
457
INTRODUCTION DEFINITIONS
Discourses about the contemporary environ- We define environmental discourse as com-
Environmental ment, and the economic and political pro- prising the linguistic devices articulating ar-
discourse: the cesses that impact upon it, are by no means of guments about the relationship between hu-
linguistic devices concern solely to environmental anthropolo- mans and the natural environment, but we
articulating
gists. Such is the reach and depth of disquiet restrict the definition further. Language has
arguments about the
relationship between and anxiety about the environmental future in always been used to explore this relationship.
humans and their both Northern and Southern hemispheres; it But until recently most discourse took place in
environment. seems unlikely that the concerns of local and the belief that a largely self-regulating nature
regional populations will not surface, at some could be taken for granted. The new discourse
point or other, during most anthropologists’ differs in that its principal focus is the endan-
periods in the field. At the same time, such germent of nature and the human species in a
is the linguistic complexity of environmen- global context.
tal discourses that the need to marry anthro- The ambiguity of the terms environment
pological perspectives with those prominent and nature is central to understanding this
in other disciplines appears distinctly press- global discourse. Environment in essence is
ing. In recent years, we have spent consider- an anthropocentric notion: “The term has in-
able time as a linguist-anthropologist tag team creasingly come to mean a nature tangibly
unpacking the natural discourses with which important only to human health and liveli-
people make sense of a unique island envi- hood” (Hochman 1997, p. 82). Rowe (1989, p.
ronment off the east coast of Australia. Con- 123) and Fill (1993) criticize the vagueness of
vinced of the merits of pooling the strengths the term, and Howard includes it among his
of our disciplines and taking the ethnogra- “weasel words” (1978, pp. 81–84). As exam-
phy of speaking in new directions, we have ples, he cites U.S. game parks, where “visitors
more recently turned our attention to the can see bears not, as we used to say in our old-
competing and contentious discourses fo- fashioned way, in natural surroundings, but in
cused on environmental crisis at the global the environmental habitat,” and aerosol cans,
level. which “kill most household germs on ‘envi-
Our main problem is the sheer quantity ronmental’ surfaces.”
of environmental discourses, which has vastly Williams (1983) calls nature “perhaps the
increased in recent decades in response to most complex word in the language”; its
worldwide awareness of the global environ- meaning is far removed from the technical
mental crisis, and which is produced from notion of “entities and processes uninterfered
numerous disciplinary and linguistic back- with by human agency” (p. 219). In a study
grounds. Anthropology, linguistics, philos- of “naturalness” as it is applied to Australian
ophy, sociology, and other disciplines now ecosystems, Taylor (1990) concludes that
address the question of how environmental “failure to recognize that naturalness is a cul-
discourses work. A blurring of disciplinary turally constructed concept, rather than a uni-
boundaries is paralleled by a blurring between versal one, has produced . . . inconsistency and
discourse and metadiscourse. In our terms, ambiguity in the terminology used for these
discourse refers to specific ways of talking assessments” (p. 411).
about particular environments and their fu- Jagtenberg (1994) says “we are confronting
tures. Metadiscourse refers to practices of the- both ecological decline and an explosion of
orizing, which categorize issues to establish discourses about nature” (p. 14). However,
their significance. this explosion is evidence not for some direct
458 Mühlhäusler · Peace

influence of environmental factors on lan- the result is etic rather than emic, and
guage, but rather for the emergence of risk therefore facilitates comparative study;
society (Beck 1992) and technologies such as the main level of analysis has been the
nuclear power, which no insurance companies event, a unit well provided for by the
dare touch. We interpret environmental dis- ethnography of communication; and
course as an attempt by risk society members an ethnographic approach highlights
to make sense of the global changes that af-
areas that have received insufficient
fect them (Spaargen et al. 2000). Another task
attention.
is to explore how the study of environmental
discourse can make contributions to environ-
mental understanding.
Our key questions are as follows: SPEECH COMPONENTS IN
DISCOURSE ABOUT
Are there any salient properties of envi-
ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS
ronmental discourse?
Which linguistic approaches are most Participants
suited to analyzing them?
Hymes observes (1972), “[T]he common
What contribution can the previous dyadic model of speaker-hearer specifies
points make to environmental sustain- sometimes too many, sometimes too few,
ability? sometimes the wrong participants” (p. 59)
and advocates a distinction between addresser,
sender, hearer, and addressee. These distinc-
CLASSIFICATION
tions are relevant to understanding global en-
To reduce the polyphony of environmen- vironmental discourses.
tal voices to the common denominator of
“political discourse” (Leuthold 1999, p. 5)
The addresser. Addressers are the source of
seems too simplistic. Harré et al. (1999) dis-
a message, and a number of analysts have
tinguish between scientific, moral, economic,
shown that speaking on behalf of the Earth
and aesthetic macro discourse. Clear distinc-
(“vicarious advocacy” in Harré et al. 1999,
tions exist between such micro discourses
p. 182) is a salient feature of environmen-
as green economic policies (Gerbig 2000),
tal discourses. It entails assigning intelligence
green consumerism (Elkington et al. 1988),
“to nonhuman entities such as ecosystems”
and green advertising (Mühlhäusler 1996,
(Dryzek 1997, p. 17) or a personified god-
Luke 1997). Herndl & Brown (1996) sep-
dess such as Gaia (Lovelock 1979). Earlier
arate pretheoretical classifications into eth-
black and white categorization between two
nocentric, ecocentric, and anthropocentric
addresser groups, environmentalists and de-
discourse. Dryzek (1997) adds a political
velopers, persists in more recent discourses,
discourse with four subcategories: problem
but others (Killingsworth & Palmer 1992) of-
solving, survivalism, sustainability, and green
fer more complex classifications.
radicalism.
Addressers have been classified in terms of
Such pretheoretical taxonomies are indica-
their key metaphors (Dryzek 1997) or dom-
tive of a nascent field of inquiry. We ap-
inant behaviors: ecofreaks, tree-huggers, fer-
proach the salient features of environmental
als, greenies, NIMBY (not in my backyard),
discourse in terms of an ethnography of speak-
and NIABY (not in anybody’s backyard) (see
ing (Hymes 1972) such that
Mühlhäusler 2003). Dryzek (1997) empha-
the ethnography of communication sizes the discourses of principal “agents” such
lends itself to organizing large bodies as survivalists, prometheans, democratic prag-
of observation; matists, and green rationals, whereas Jamison
www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 459

(2001) distinguishes activists, academics, and Kamuyu wa Kang’ethe (1994) have illustrated
practitioners. for east African languages. Richards (1992)
Increasing the number of addressers would highlights the problems with “wildlife con-
seem timely; environmental discourses are no servation” (p. 1) in Sierra Leone. Genske &
longer dominated by a small coterie of West- Hess-Lüttich (2002) underscore intercultural
ern professionals. But addressers have also eco-semiotic problems between developing
changed over time from concerned individu- and developed nations; similar conclusions
als (Carson 1962, Ehrlich 1969) to national can be found in Mühlhäusler (2003). Rhetor-
and international organizations. Collective ical claims about globalization have resulted
addressers fall into two main categories: those in a hyperbolic emphasis on integration and
concerned with management and govern- interdependence, which undervalues the per-
ment, and those focused on moral and aes- sistence of national and local forces.
thetic aspects of the environment.
Big business has succeeded in repackaging Speaker. The mainstreaming of environ-

its ideology by promoting green consumerism mentalism has resulted in a disjunction be-
(Alexander 2002, Doyle 1991, Beder 1997, tween the roles of addresser and speaker. The
Gerbig 2000, Stauber & Rampton 1995). media are important speakers, and their role
This is often green tokenism, but the actions has attracted considerable attention (Dyer &
of ethical enterprises differ markedly from Dyer 1990, Gerbig 2000, Hansen 1996, Rissel
traditional big business. Governments have & Douglas 1993). A survey of the media’s role
become the most powerful producers of in sustaining environmental discourse is given
environmental messages. Transnational in Mühlhäusler (2003).
bodies such as the European Union, World Speakers who represent large organiza-
Bank, and UNESCO increasingly broadcast tions can be found on all sides of the environ-
environmental messages. Alongside powerful mental debate. CEOs and professional envi-
organizations such as Greenpeace, World ronmental communicators, speakers for large
Wildlife Fund, and the Sierra Club, we find corporations, spokespersons representing or-
concerned groups of scientists, the Club ganizations such as Greenpeace, and green
of Rome (Meadows et al. 1972), and green politicians increasingly speak with the voice
political parties. of their party rather than as individuals.
The idea that there is a genuine global dis-
course remains problematic. Jamison (2001) Hearer. Hymes (1972) subscribes to a mech-
comments that in the 1970s such a discourse anistic metaphor of messages being sent and
appeared to “transcend the ideological dis- received that equates hearers and addressees
putes and other sources of division, like class, with passive recipients. In reality, environ-
race, gender, and national identity” (p. 1) but mental meanings emerge in active or inter-
comes to the conclusion that national identity active discourses between all players. We do
defines discourse communities. The notion of not develop this criticism but note that a
global discourse also sits uneasily with incom- mechanistic view of communication is shared
patible value systems in intercultural settings. by numerous producers of environmental
Jones (1994) details the incommensurability messages.
of Maori and Pakeha languages in environ- One design feature of human language is
mental debates. Marnham (1981) observes, that it is broadcast and that an uttered mes-
“African opinion would be hostile to every sage can be heard by all and sundry. In the
assumption” upon which an expatriate no- West, environmental discourses are heard all
tion of “game parks” is based (p. 8). “Wilder- the time as the media untiringly churn out
ness” is particularly problematic, as Burnett & stories about environmental disasters.

The concept of risk society implies a to their failure to acknowledge limited envi-
lack of certainty on all sides (Caplan 2000). ronmental awareness.
Hearers are exposed to messages they do not Businesses and politicians have adopted
completely understand even when “ecoliter- more sophisticated strategies. Public opinion
ate” and numerous conflicting messages are surveys (Luke 1993, pp. 165–66) increasingly
encountered. This concept suggests a classi- shape the agenda of corporations and politi-
fication of hearers into those who are eco- cal parties, and the appeal of environmental
literate or earthliterate (Verhagen 2000) and messages has become important in election-
those who ignore or filter out messages, or eering and market research on green con-
suffer from ecofatigue. sumer behavior (Elkington et al. 1988, Lenz
Corporate discourses about the environ- 2003, Mühlhäusler 2000). Limited consumer
ment are capable of manipulating even the interest slows down the production of envi-
ecoliterate. Ehrlich & Ehrlich (1996) have ronmentally friendly vehicles and green tele-
drawn attention to the practice of brown- vision programs.

lash, which minimizes the severity of environ-
mental problems; Brosius (1999) explains how
greenwashing by public relations firms man- Ends
ufactures “uncertainty about environmental The gap between goals and outcomes is par-
threats” (p. 28). ticularly noticeable in the area of environ-
The ability of hearers to filter out infor- mental policy-making, in which policies are a
mation depends on whether they are directly substitute for, rather than a means of, achiev-
affected by environmental issues. Farrell & ing desired outcomes (Schiewer 2002, Strang
Goodnight (1998) observe that during dis- 2004).
asters a rhetorical crisis occurs where “audi-
ences struggle to understand information, set Goals/Purpose. Much environmental dis-
criteria for policy evaluation, and locate vi- course elaborates the theme that human ac-
able options for action . . . . [T]he crisis does tions are detrimental to the survival of hu-
not so much invite discourse as defy it” (p. manity. Each speech act warns that it is in
76). In the wake of Three Mile Island, peo- the interest of the individual to desist from
ple simply fled. In other disaster situations such activities. Waddell (1998) argues that the
such as Bhopal (Fortun 2001) or Exxon Valdez ultimate purpose is “the preservation of fu-
(Browning & Shetler 1992), hearers’ reactions ture choice” (p. xiii). Changes in individual
were influenced by patchy understanding and behavior or government policy range from
an inability to act rationally in the face of con- single topic (do not chop down more trees
flicting messages. in the parkland) to generalist ones (save the
planet/world).
Addressee. Addressees are members of tar- “Proper conduct of the relation between
get audiences. Given the economic and ideo- society and nature” (Rutherford 1994, p. 40)
logical importance of green discourse, identi- has grown in importance, and it is to be
fying target audiences is a central task of en- achieved by government control and manipu-
vironmental rhetoric. Environmentalists tend lation of environmental awareness. Neuwirth
to assume their message alone will appeal to (2002) details the rhetorical strategies used
the commonsense of those waiting to be en- by the Austrian government and the British
lightened. But their lack of attention to the Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in support
question of how to target particular audi- of nuclear power and in downplaying the
ences has rendered them less effective than risk of launching plutonium-laden spacecraft.
expected. Penman (1994) has drawn attention Schultz (2001) analyzes the linguistic devices

(euphemism, vagueness, hyperbole) em- rather to “an atmosphere of fading interest”

ployed by big government and large corpo- (Killingsworth & Palmer 1992, p. 270).
rations to control public opinion. The new discourse about the environment
One important discourse goal is to locate comprises the greening of the language of in-
the speaker on the high moral ground, for dustrial societies, the proliferation of new lex-
example, in promoting vegetarianism (Marko ical resources, the emergence of green word
2000): To what extent vegetarianism is any formation, and green metaphors becoming
better for animals than animal husbandry re- root cultural ones. Green language height-
mains unclear, and it goes hand in hand with ens peoples’ awareness of environmental is-
habitat destruction, use of pesticides, and high sues. As Hajer (1995) notes, “the discursive
storage costs. Harré et al. (1999) have used power of ecological modernization manifests
narratology to explore the general principles itself in the degree to which its implicit future
of taking the moral high ground: The narra- scenarios permeate through society and ac-
tives of opposing groups (e.g., supporters and tors reconceptualize their interests and recog-
opponents of nuclear energy) are structurally nize new opportunities and new trouble spots”
identical; the only difference lies in the roles (p. 261).
assigned (hero, helper, innocent bystander).
In spite of widely held views on the cen-
trality of discourse in constructing reality, Act Sequences
discourse often seems to postpone action. In Hymes’s (1972) model, act sequences are
Talk about the plight of the River Murray concerned with the form messages conven-
in Australia, for instance, is not matched by tionally take as well as their semantic content.
comparable action; as we are running out of The model separates formal from semantic
water, we are also running out of time. Adam properties, a separation difficult to uphold in
(1997) comments on the difficulties humans discourse analysis. We nevertheless try to sep-
experience when calibrating time. Environ- arate form and content, noting first that the
mental consequences of human actions can intensity of environmental discourses is char-
occur with a time lag varying between mil- acterized by peaks (Rio, Kyoto) and troughs.
liseconds and millennia. Humans typically Ecolinguists argue that the contours of
perceive consequences that occur a few hours, Western languages are increasingly at odds
at most a few years, after the event. with the contours of their speakers’ environ-
ments. According to Halliday (2001), modern
Outcomes. Bruner & Oelschlaeger (1994) Western languages are the outcome of past
emphasize the relative lack of consequen- developments and their grammars are memo-
tial change in environmental discourses com- ries of past experience: Their layers reflect our
pared with those of antienvironmentalists who past as hunter gatherers through to modern
“have been effective in accomplishing their bureaucratic modes of existence. This mem-
objectives at least in part, because of their abil- ory of the past influences how we perceive the
ity to articulate persuasive rationales through world today, although what seemed functional
slogans, myths and narratives” (p. xviii). This in the past is now no longer so. The notion
contrast in degree of linguistic adaptation was that bigger is better (in English we typically
anticipated by earlier writers who commented find conjuncts where bigger comes first, as in
on the way environmental rhetoric leaves a re- “all creatures great and small”) is deeply en-
ality gap “because it uses old language to de- trenched in most languages, but in the current
rive the terms of a new condition” (Segal 1991, crisis such “growthism” is dysfunctional.
p. 3). Continued exposure to more alarm-
ing facts about topics such as global warm- Forms of speech. The greening of mod-
ing does not lead to enhanced alertness but ern languages manifests in the changing

norms for using lexical items. Lexical innova- added, bearing out Sapir’s (1912) observation
tions in English combine deliberate creation as to the social dimension of all discourses
of terminology with spontaneously evolv- about nature. In the discourses about animal
Biocultural
ing terms. There has been a proliferation extinction, a small number of charismatic diversity: implies
of specialist dictionaries for environmen- species (whales, seals, wolves, tigers, koalas, that the well-being
tal words (surveyed in Mühlhäusler 2003), pandas, and dingoes) prevail (Knight 2000), of languages is a
which reveal substantial changes in everyday biologically equal or more important species prerequisite for the
well-being of natural
language. (scavengers, dung beetles, weevils, or wasps)
species
Formally, most new lexical items are (a) rarely feature, nor do equally endangered
morphologically complex, (b) built predomi- domestic subspecies (Penman 1994).
nantly from Latin and Greek roots, (c) of lim- Brosius (1999) discussed the criticism that
ited transparency, or (d ) misleading. The fact Euro-American discourses often ignore the
that major Western languages have in excess plight of inhabitants of developing nations
of 100,000 words for environmental matters and pointed out that “environmental dis-
does not mean that many of them enter into courses are changing in response to critiques
everyday discourse. Where specialist commu- of elitism, to charges that they ignore social
nities have redefined popular words such as justice issues, to accusations that they are a
“trash,” “garbage,” or “rubbish,” miscommu- form of neo-colonialism” (p. 282). The emer-
nication is frequently the result. gence of discourses of biocultural diversity
Like other unpleasant phenomena, envi- (Maffi 2001) illustrates this change.
ronmental degradation has promoted the use
of euphemisms which either replace existing
terms—“to harvest” rather than “to hunt,” Tone or Key
“landfill” rather than “rubbish dump,” “to The key of a message 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 collocation, as in “sustain- form, content, and channel; on the other hand
able development” or “green business.” The it impacts on the norms of interpretation and
trends outlined in English are paralleled else- interaction. Although the terms key and tone
where. Stork (1998) has documented the are used interchangeably, our preference is for
environmental lexicon of French, whereas the latter.
Trampe (2001) takes on the German lexicon
of agribusiness. Tone. Different macro discourses about the
environment vary with respect to tone, al-
Message content. Lanthier & Olivier though most are distinctly serious. In Kahn’s
(1999) observed that “the environmentalist (2001) summary, “Scientific discourses about
discourse originates in the environmental and the environment have been criticized for
human disasters provoked by technology” their ‘cold, dry-as-dust objectivity, their an-
(p. 67). These origins can be traced back to tiseptic gaze on death and indignity, their
debates about deforestation, drought, and consistent use of the passive voice to avoid
water shortages following the economic and the appearance of responsibility’” (p. 242).
cultural conquest of the earth by European Killingsworth & Palmer (1992) observe that
colonizers (Grove 1992). The impact of the attempt by scientists to write in a neutral
mining, overgrazing, and overuse of forests detached tone is undermined by “anthropo-
has been discussed by Weigl (2004). The fol- morphizing the effect of scientific language”
lowing areas have been identified by Trampe and their use of a “teleological kind of lan-
(2001, p. 233): pollution and waste problems, guage for nonteleological concepts” (p. 114).
habitat destruction, species extinction, and Halliday & Martin (1993) criticize scientific
nuclear energy. New topics are constantly discourse similarly: It constructs a reality that

is “fixed and determinate, in which objects Environmental discourse in the main-

predominate and processes seem merely to stream and alternative press has received
define and classify them” (p. 20). However, some attention. Dyer & Young (1990) and
this register gives scientific discourse its au- Doyle & Kellow (1995) provide accounts of
thoritative tone. the media treatment of environmental is-
Whereas Myerson & Rydin (1996) have sues in Australia, including coverage of a
drawn attention to the frequent use of northern Australian World Heritage Site,
irony in environmental discourse, others the Daintree Forest. They explain (Doyle
have characterized it as irrational and emo- & Kellow 1995) that once the researcher
tional (Schiewer 2002) and as hysterical leaves the realm of major newspapers and en-
(Killingsworth & Palmer 1992). Harré et al. ters the arena of small rural ones, antien-
(1999) note that often “there is a coupling of vironmental bias appears well-entrenched.
terms such as ‘global warming’ and the ‘rise All papers created and perpetuated stereo-
of sea level’ in disaster stories, such as the sce- types; sympathetic portrayal of green is-
narios in which ‘densely populated low-lying sues by the media became widespread only
areas are flooded,’ which in their view justi- recently.
fies characterizing such discourses as ‘apoca- In a critical review of Time’s special edi-
lyptic’” (p. 68). tion (2 February 1989) on “The Planet of
the Year, Our Endangered Earth,” Grossman
(1989) comments on the language therein,
INSTRUMENTALITIES which perpetuates the myth that the envi-
Environmental discourse involves both nu- ronmental crisis is caused by the recklessness,
merous channels and numerous speech forms. carelessness, sloppy handling, and profligacy
With increasing global involvement by more of individuals. It did not include the deliberate
participants, further greening of communica- decisions of governments and corporations,
tion can be anticipated. A range of studies ad- nor that of criminal organizations, which con-
dresses the production of environmental mes- tinue to exacerbate the crisis.
sages, but these studies are not matched by a In the realm of television and video,
similar concern with perception. the imperative of newsworthiness is even
more pronounced. As Delli et al. (1994,
p. 79) have pointed out, most environmen-
Channels/Media tal degradation, unlike much less frequent
The emergence of environmental discourses eco-catastrophe, is an ongoing and slowly
coincides with the proliferation of new me- changing process and is therefore low on the
dia and their globalization. A brief survey by scale of newsworthiness. Specially nominated
Mühlhäusler (2003, Ch. 11) reveals that envi- days provide the media with an opportunity
ronmental discourse is fully embedded in this to compress slow-moving events into a fast-
global multimedia structure. moving story. The green calendar is full of
One exception is Phillips, who illustrates days focusing on particular issues or inviting
(2000) how six couples try to cope discursively particular actions, such as “Buy Nothing Day”
with the proliferation of ecological risks. He or “Clean Up Australia Day.” Public percep-
maintains, “People’s sense of responsibility tions of major “crises” in American domestic
is limited by being constituted within dis- life do little more than occasionally heighten
course, which constructs political action be- public interest to alleviate boredom (Downs
yond a limited amount of political consump- 1972, p. 89).
tion as belonging to a separate realm to The main problem with such media
which they have access only via mass media” coverage is that it articulates the view
(pp. 171–207). that sufficient information is known about

environmental problems for successful ame- ploy nonstandard forms of speaking as a

liorative measures to be undertaken. Noth- kind of antilanguage against the establish-
ing could be further from the truth, but ment. The protest against the proposed nu-
the ideological impact is understandably clear power station at Whyl was voiced in
substantial. Alamannic, the shared vernacular of Swiss,
One principled linguistic limitation of en- German, and French citizens affected by the
vironmental media is that the subject matter development.
is immensely complex and that most language
is ill suited to expressing the connectivity be-
tween relevant factors. This kind of discrete Genre
linguistic restriction accounts for the radical Environmental discourses employ traditional
simplification of environmental information genres such as narrative, myth, and sermon
by stereotyping, accumulating ill-digested and add new ones such as Environment Im-
information on the Internet, and portraying pact Assessments. Rose (2004) states, “it may
complex information in new ways. Jagtenberg be that narrative is the method through which
& McKie (1997) and McKie (2000) have the reason of connectivity will find its most
developed the notion of media scape or media powerful voice” (p. 6). Killingsworth et al.
ecology to examine the complex feedback (1992) share this “hope for a generally acces-
relations between messages and audiences. sible narrative, the story of how human action
They note considerable differences between reconciles conflicting demands and the search
public and private media. Eco-advocacy texts for a good life” (p. 21).
emerge primarily from public television, Narratives are employed because of their
whereas commercial networks generate few important role in creating sense, reducing
texts of that type. These divergences and complex phenomena to accessible texts, and
discrepancies reflect the limited appeal of maximizing on their rhetorical force. Harré
environmental reporting compared with light et al. (1999) focus on the first aspect, nar-
entertainment and bear out that television is ratives as frameworks, “for our attempt to
not an effective medium of mass education come to terms with the nature and conditions
(Vivanco 2002). McKie (2000) adds that of our existence” (p. 20). This idea of nar-
the anthropocentric properties of human rative includes folk tales, fairy stories, nov-
languages are reinforced by unconscious and els, and insider autobiographies (Kelly 1984).
deliberate selection. Harré et al. (1999) note the importance of
the Bildungsroman, a novel reflecting the three
German meanings of Bildung : “formation,
Forms of Speech education and creation” (p. 72): It is con-
The forms of speech component refers to cerned with the development of the protag-
the dialect, accent, and variety used in speech onist’s mind in the passage to maturity, for
events, all of which have received little example, Lovelock’s (1979) earnest biologist
attention. who realizes too late the consequences of his
Environmental discourses are predomi- meddling with nature. Similar narratives are
nantly in English and other major West- discussed by Bowerbank (1999).
ern languages. As environmental concerns Cronon (1992) argues that narratives im-
are most prominent among the middle pose a single vision of reality when the
classes, standard varieties of the language complexity of issues facilitates the produc-
are the norm. Such circumstances are com- tion of several possibilities. Harré et al.
pounded by the fact that standard writ- (1999) show how the same formal narrato-
ten forms are used in print and electronic logical structures are used in constructing
media. Protest movements attempt to em- a range of stories about the environment.

agenda, such as the Western educated and

NORMS elite organizers of the 1992 Earth Summit
(Harré et al. 1999, pp. 12–17), when a global
Factors that militate against normative consensus in environ- message was whisked around the world from
mental discourse include its novelty, its global nature, and Rio (Conca & Dabelko 1998) and comprised
the constant changes in issues, ideologies, and participants. “a fusion of local discourses into one media
Agreed norms take time to develop. One can observe the grad- event” (Harré et al. 1999), no genuine norms
ual emergence of norms within regional and wider commu- resulted: “[A]s yet, it is far from the expression
nities, but the presence of environmentalist and antienviron- of a unified voice” (p. 20).
mentalist discourses limits emergence of shared norms. At the
global level, there is little chance of norms developing from be-
low: Contact between participants is insufficient. National and Norms of Interaction
regional norms (Hajer 1995) for different European countries The validity of environmental discourses de-
remain because they take place in widely different languages pends on their accreditation as defined by as-
that favor different perspectives on the environment. sumptions about commonsense and shared
metaphors. As Carbaugh (1992) has illus-
trated, outsiders have difficulty in making
Bruner & Oelschlager (1994) argue, “Anti- their voice heard. Western experts pronounc-
environmentalists play to the established cul- ing on environmental matters in the develop-
tural narrative that ‘Man’ is over nature, that ing world are at times accused of being neo-
nature is nothing more than an ecomachine imperialists and eco-missionaries (Agarwal &
which we technologically manipulate, and Narain 1991). For their part, Western ex-
that a good society is one which totally fulfils perts frequently ignore the proposition that
itself through market preferences” (p. 383). scientific knowledge can be culture bound and
Nature writing is another established provincial.
genre that continues to inspire environmen- Interaction on environmental matters is
tal discourse. This genre precedes all oth- characteristically defined by two opposing
ers, although, as Raglan (1991) observes, en- models of communication. The model used in
vironmental thought is underrepresented in scientific, economic, and political discourse is
the Western canon, despite writers such as the conduit metaphor (Reddy 1979) of mes-
Thoreau, Rousseau, or the German Roman- sages generated by experts being passed on to
tics having been influential. Early nature writ- the unenlightened. But the assumption of pas-
ers are nevertheless attacked as dangerous sive hearers is an inadequate view of commu-
sentimentalists by others (Weissman 1996). nication and yields undesirable consequences.
We note that their modern equivalents have Environmentalists also subscribe to this
become semantically bleached and trivialized model, but there are some within their ranks
when Suzuki’s or Attenborough’s television who instead aim to generate genuine col-
series become items of popular culture. laboration and recognize that input never
Environmental history has emerged as an equals intake in human communication. In
important genre over recent years, ranging such models, knowledge-flow from the de-
from large-scale surveys such as Crosby’s veloping to the developed world is called for
(1986) account of the biological consequences (Peet & Watts 1996).
of European colonization, through to more
focused accounts of the histories of commodi-
ties such as sugar, coffee, cod, or the history Norms of Interpretation
of landscapes (Worster 1990, Cronon 1996). The title of Taylor & Buttel’s (1992) paper
Although normative expectations can be “How Do We Know that We Have Global
imposed by those who define the global Environmental Problems?” suggests that the

central problem is one of making sense of that “no one understood all that was going on”
complex, conflicting information. One key (p. 76).
problem again is accreditation, that is “on
Greenspeaking:
relations obtaining between what is said or replacing or
written and the circumstances in which it is
SURVEY: ANALYTICAL
postponing
being produced and/or interpreted” (Harris
APPROACHES TO environmental action
2001, p. 154). Alexander (2000) writes, “Part
ENVIRONMENTAL by just speaking
of the problem of changing people’s behavior
DISCOURSES about it in “green”
language
regarding environmental and ecological issues Environmental discourse concerns the rela-
tionship between language and the world. Ecolinguistics: a
is appreciating that differing social, economic
branch of linguistics
and political forces employ language and dis- Mühlhäusler (2003, p. 2) highlights four dif- that integrates the
course in persuasive terms in different ways” ferent linguistic approaches to this relation- study of language
(p. 186). ship: with its cultural and
One reason for the lack of common inter- Language is for cognition: It exists natural environment
pretive norms is the different time perspec- in a social and environmental vacuum
tives of different communities (Harré et al. (Chomsky).
1999). The proportion of the world’s pop- Language is constructed by the world
ulation who do not think ahead for more (Marr).
than a few days at a time is large and grow- The world is constructed by language
ing, whereas those who understand the conse- (structuralism, poststructuralism).
quences of events in the distant future remain Language is interconnected with the
a small minority. As Posner (1990) summa- world: It both constructs and is con-
rizes, “Given that this generation has created structed by it (ecolinguistics).
technologies and technological problems that These approaches recognize that what one
will be around for very long periods of time can know about the global environment is in-
(e.g., nuclear waste, genetically engineered extricably linked with language inasmuch as
species), what will be the code, message and knowledge is dependent on effability. We be-
medium necessary to alert future generations gin with language because one can use lan-
to potential dangers?” (pp. 7–8). guage about all effable aspects of the world;
The norms governing environmental dis- but the converse is not the case. There is
course again draw heavily on those emanating discourse about the environment, but no en-
from powerful institutions in society. Thus, vironment about discourse. The first per-
the view in the West that one can trust sci- spective (Chomsky’s independence hypothe-
entists more than politicians also holds for sis) takes the position that language is a neutral
green discourses and is one of the princi- tool or that all human languages (potentially
pal reasons why “greenspeaking” draws ex- or actually) have the same capacity for talking
tensively on scientific language. The green- about the environment. But both Saussurian
ing of business and the emergence of green structuralists and Chomskyan generativists
consumers pose additional problems of inter- disconnect language from external influences.
pretation. Almost all products offered for sale This disconnection has been labeled “limiting
now have environmental claims attached to the arbitrary” by Joseph (2000), who offers an
them, which makes informed decision making incisive critique of modern linguistics, as does
increasingly difficult. Interpretation is hugely the ecolinguist Finke (2002).
problematic when it comes to complex dis- The inability of modern linguists to
asters such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, address environmental discourses is com-
or Bhopal. Farrell & Goodnight (1998) de- pounded by their largest unit of analysis being
tail the insufficiency of official and private dis- a single sentence. Moreover, the meaning of
courses to make sense of them and conclude sentences has been established with reference

to internal sense relations, not external refer- (1993) drew on the experience of language
ents. The view that languages are constructed and gender studies because the linguistic den-
by the external physical or social world has igration of women is, in many languages, ac-
Ecology of
language: the study not been popular in mainstream linguistics, companied by a denigration of nonhuman life
of interactions but it continues to be argued in connection forms (Leach 1968, Tansley 1991, Dunayer
between any given with language origins. 2001).
language and its Saussurian structuralism was in part a reac- One issue that drew much attention was
cultural and political
tion against a historical approach to language, the development of a new lexicon for talking
environment
which sought to explore how linguistic dif- about environmental matters. Mühlhäusler
ferences could be explained in terms of dif- (1983) in a review of Landy (1979) proposed
ferent environmental factors. The marginal- that this new language is characterized by
ization of onomatopoeia (Nuckolls 1999) and three problems:
iconicity of signs further widened the gap be- semantic vagueness: e.g., terms like pol-
tween language and the world. When lan-

lution, progress, and pest.
guage change was considered, its explanation
semantic underdifferentation: e.g.,
remained restricted to internal factors such
growing, which can refer to natural
as system organization, reanalysis, or faulty
growth, man-made growth, arithmetic
transmission.
growth, exponential growth, etc.
External actors in language change were
considered by the “ecology of language” ap-
misleading encoding: e.g., zero-growth
proach pioneered by Haugen (1972), who fo- (which fails to recognize what is be-
cused on the deliberative man-made polit- ing added), labor saving (which does
ical ecologies in which languages compete not say whose labor is being saved),
with one another. Haugen defined language and fertilizers (which can render soil
ecology as “the study of interactions between unproductive).
any given language and its environment” Mühlhäusler (1983) detected a widespread
(p. 336), but he restricted this to the cultural unease among environmentalists who be-
and political environment while also empha- came aware of their linguistic limitations.
sizing the survival of the fittest. This some- Alternative discourse approaches such as
what skewed perspective was followed by sev- Johnson (1991) and Jung (1996) became avail-
eral European scholars (surveyed by Fill 2003 able in due course, whereas an address by
and Mühlhäusler 2003). Contemporary eco- Halliday in 1990 (published 2001) brought
linguists have modified Haugen by emphasiz- the nonecological nature of many languages
ing the cooperative principle in ecology and to the attention of applied linguists. His pro-
the value of linguistic diversity. posal combined a detailed critique of lexical
More effective approaches emerged in and grammatical categories 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-
tional linguistics (Harris 1981, Toolan 1996), tural and technological development. Empha-
and ecolinguistics (Fill 2003, Mühlhäusler sis was given to the role of nominalization,
2003). Critical linguistics and critical dis- transitivity, and countability of nominal ex-
course linguistics are based on the post- pressions in distorting the fit between the con-
structuralist notion that perceptions of the tours of language and the contours of the en-
environment are discursively constructed. vironment (Martin 1986, Goatly 2001, Fill
Ecolinguistics can be traced back to the 2003).
1980s when a group of linguists asked whether The Whorfian notion that lexicon and
the looming environment crisis was due in grammar of individual languages are the
part to language. Early writers such as Fill root causes of our environmental crisis is a

recurrent theme (surveyed by Mühlhäusler appropriation of “ecospeak” (Killingsworth

1998). It has promoted the search for eco- & Palmer 1992) and “greenspeak” (Harré
logically more adequate ways of speaking in et al. 1999) by antienvironmentalists. The new
Ecocritical analysis:
non-Western cultures and has suggested ways rhetoric is one of appropriation and manipu- studies how the
in which an ecologically correct biocentric lation by big business and government. “We dynamics of social
language can be developed. The first kind of perceive, in the increasing greening of English processes such as
suggestion, surveyed by Little (1999), ranges and other Western languages, a kind of lin- racism, sexism, or
speciesism shape
from romanticizing tribal languages consid- guistic Ersatzhandlung, with the very real dan-
discourses and
ered to have privileged environmental insight ger of talk replacing or postponing action” perceptions of
to selectively mining them for traditional eco- (Harré et al. 1999, p. ix). ecological matters
logical knowledge. A common focus in rhetorical studies is
That environmental language was a new that environmental discourse involves a multi-
area for language planning was suggested tude of voices, a “new hybrid discourse” (Rojas
by Halliday in 1990; others have taken up 2001, p. 8) involving a “Babel of discourse

the challenge. Stibbe (2004) surveys studies communities” (Killingsworth & Palmer 1992,
on environmental verbal hygiene and con- p. 21).
cludes that tinkering with language is unlikely
to produce “a consistent and effective over-
all discourse for expressing ecological issues” METAPHOR STUDIES
(p. 4). However, in view of widespread eco- Given the limitations on environmental un-
fatigue, a robust discourse about speciesism, derstanding, it comes as no surprise that
growthism, and other linguistic shortcom- scholars pay a great deal of attention to
ings could drive the wider adoption of envi- metaphor. Myerson & Rydin (1996) and
ronmental discourse. An examination of how Harré et al. (1999) devote a chapter to it.
different meanings of “sustainable develop- It is most commonly analyzed from the per-
ment” prevent intelligent discourse about the spective of Lakoff & Johnson (1980). Root
subject (Alexander 2000, Redclift 1987) cer- metaphors are used either as convenient pa-
tainly seems worthwhile, likewise with the ter- rameters for distinguishing different types of
minology applied to charismatic species (Lee environmental discourses (Drysek 1997) or as
1988, Peace 2005). targets for criticism. Bullis (1992) for exam-
Two principal resources for ecocritical ple attacks mechanistic metaphors as “having
analysis are rhetorical studies and critical anal- outlived their usefulness” (p. 347) and criti-
ysis. Several publications deal with rhetoric cizes metaphors such as eco-defense and eco-
(Killingsworth & Palmer 1992; Herndl & warrior for constructing confrontation “as
Brown 1996; Muir & Veenendall 1996; a means of achieving peace and harmony”
Myerson & Rydin 1996; Waddell 1998; Harré (p. 352).
et al. 1999). Waddell (1998) has argued that The centrality of medical metaphors in
environmental discourse must be cognitively the construction of environmental awareness
plausible, evoke sentiment, and relate to most has been emphasized by Stratford (1994) and
people. He implies the rhetorical study of Lanthier & Olivier (1999). A concern for
current discourse rarely meets these criteria. health is shared across a wide range of ideo-
Segal (1991) argues that “all arguments rep- logical positions. Metaphors of healing or pre-
resent themselves as arguments for environ- ventive medicine are widely employed, but the
mental protection. The absence of a clearly main interest lies in showing how metaphors
identifiable opposition means we encounter can fudge discursive differences.
gestures in support for the environment, even Mills (1982) identifies three core
from those who would despoil it” (p. 2). The metaphors by which Western societies
result is a blurring of boundaries and the have lived for the past 1000 years: nature

as a book written by God (Middle Ages); is a common theme, as in the case of baby seals
nature as a reflection of the human body versus seal pups (Martin 1986, Lee 1988).
(Renaissance); and nature as a machine, first a Waddell (1998) comments on synecdoche
clock, then a steam engine, and most recently (the part stands for the whole), and this de-
a (bio)computer (the present). Ecofeminists serves more scrutiny, as charismatic creatures
have drawn attention to the root metaphor typically stand for “nature” while endangered
of rape (Schaffer 1988) in expressions such as species are talked about as “miners’ canaries”
“opening up virgin territory” or “penetrating (p. xvi). That metonymy (being next to makes
the land.” something similar to) plays an important
Two principal reasons for the proliferation role in naturalizing nonnatural practices and
of metaphor are the novelty of the subject products has been shown for environmental
matter, which brings into being new heuris- advertising (Mühlhäusler 1999). Character-
tic possibilities, and the conflicting agendas istically, such advertisements visually locate
of those who use environmental discourse. As products or trademarks in unspoiled nature.

Harris (2001) observes, “There is a fundamen-
tal division about the role of language, which
can surface in all kinds of ways. At its sharpest, CRITICAL DISCOURSE
it emerges in where you draw the line between ANALYSIS (ECOCRITICISM) AND
sense and nonsense . . . . For some people, un- CULTURAL STUDIES
doubtedly, the claim trees have rights is non- What unites the varied contributions to eco-
sense, or at least utterly confused” (pp. 155– criticism is the objective of creating awareness
56). of the cultural roots of the environmental cri-
Döring (2002, 2004) illustrates that the sis and the hope that such discourses will result
metaphors by which certain groups live are in action. There is also an emphasis among
important factors in influencing people’s en- ecocritics on connectivity, as Estok (2001)
vironmental actions. The use of metaphor in explains: “Ecocriticism at its best seeks un-
greenwashing has been described by several derstanding about the ways that dynamics of
analysts and surveyed by Mühlhäusler (2003, subjugation, persecution, and tyranny are mu-
Ch. 10). Farrell & Goodnight (1998) have tually reinforcing, the ways that racism, sex-
looked at the use of metaphors in relation to ism, homophobia, speciesism and so on are, to
Three Mile Island, and Liebert (2001) simi- use Ania Loomba’s term, interlocking” (p. 9).
larly compares the emergence of the money- Ecological discourse has featured promi-
equals-water metaphor in the construction of nently in green cultural studies with its em-
nineteenth-century public water systems. phasis on popular culture and the mechanisms
A recent trend looks at the total commod- that define common sense, as illustrated by a
ification of nature. Mühlhäusler & Peace’s special issue of the Australian Journal of Com-
(2001) analysis of the language of ecotourism munication (1994). Contributions range from
has highlighted the metaphorical tendency to analysis of media stories (Lucas 1994) and
anthropomorphize animals and to portray na- films (McKie 1994) to governmental appro-
ture as a battlefield where the nonhuman com- priation of environmental discourse. Other
batants are in a permanent struggle for sur- objects of analysis are listed on a resource site
vival. Marko (2002) observes that although the at Warbaugh State University (http://www.
sexuality of whales and their rearing practices wsu.edu/∼amerstu/ce/ce.html accessed 10
are talked about in zoological terms, discourse October 2004).
about their communicative and social abilities One recurrent theme of green cultural
is couched in anthropomorphic metaphor (see studies is the limited efficacy of environ-
also Peace 2005). That disassociation is em- mental discourse and the call for more
ployed when animals are exploited or hunted active involvement in the environment.

Penman (1994) shows how the discursive The relations between linguistic diversity and
practices of environmentalists and farmers biological diversity are now being discussed by
have enabled her to become a better farmer, major bodies such as UNESCO. May (2003)
an experience shared by Trampe (2001). detailed the scepticism among those linguists
and language planners who question the link
and argued that speakers must be free to
THE BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY choose to abandon their language in favor of
APPROACH global culture. The concept of free choice is
Concern for the loss of biodiversity can be not problematized by these advocates.
traced back to Carson (1962), but it has only
recently become a topic of ecolinguistics. The
equally dramatic disappearance of cultural and CONCLUSIONS
linguistic diversity is also a more recent focus When considering the relationship between
for attention. That the two phenomena are discourse and the environment, one can start
causally connected was argued independently either at the linguistic end and explore how
by Harmon (1996), Mühlhäusler (1995), and linguistic devices are employed in talking
Thompson (1994). Mühlhäusler (1995) ar- about the environment or at the environ-
gued that life in a particular human environmental end and ask to what extent languages
ment is dependent on people’s ability to talk are shaped by environmental correlates. Our
about it. Maffi’s (2001) edited volume con- choice was motivated by the fact that the bulk
tains several programmatic, empirical studies of the literature surveyed here starts at the
suggestive of interdependencies between lan- language end.
guage knowledge and environmental manage- The first question of our survey concerned
ment. Given that 96% of languages are spoken the salient properties of environmental dis-
by 4% of the world’s population, almost three courses. We noted
quarters of which are endangered or highly
there is a tendency to equate the notion
endangered, further acceleration of environ-
of environment with what sustains hu-
mental degradation is probable.
man life and what pleases humans. Most
The biocultural diversity approach con-
discourses are anthropocentric.
siders a wider range of parameters than is
most discourses are focused on local
common to discourse analysis, but its find-
concerns and issues covering no more
ings are tentative. One attempt to limit the
than a human life span.
range is Mühlhäusler’s (1996) study of young
languages among small populations on small
there are discursive attempts to global-
islands such as Norfolk Island and Pitcairn Is- ize environmental discourse, but this is
land. Preliminary findings suggest unnamed a small part of the totality of possible
life forms have a considerably greater chance ones.
of becoming extinct than do named ones. One further salient property is widespread
The converging environmental and linguis- uncertainty under conditions of risk society,
tic crises and their causes have been examined which leads to a greater use of narratives and
by Harmon (2002). rhetoric than in many other discourse genres.
In the domain of language planning (e.g., As environmental discourses are con-
Liddicoat & Bryant 2000), arguments in favor cerned with the everyday, so they are be-
of biocultural diversity have become main- coming institutionalized and bureaucratized,
stream in a short period. The assimilationist the more so as discourse analysis becomes
and rationalist approach has recently begun part of environmental management programs
to give way to ecological language planning, being promulgated by big business or big
which favors maximum linguistic diversity. government.

The most noticeable feature of green dis- environmental sustainability. We concur with
course is lexical choice. In addition to new Waddell (1998), who comments on the role
descriptive expressions, many loaded terms of language in revitalizing the public at large
are currently available for rhetorical purposes. and underlines the need to discover language
Euphemisms, buzz words, weasel words, and “for both experts and generalists alike” (p. xv).
emotive terms are prolific; their translation Language may not be the key, and focusing on
equivalents are beginning to spread, although the nature of the linguistic code to produce
European and American ones remain promi- an ecofriendly dialect is unlikely to prove suc-
nent. One of the outcomes of the greening cessful. Renaming the vulgar names for life
of linguistics is the emergence of a new ap- forms in the English language of the eigh-
plied linguistics, which, according to Halliday teenth century and replacing them with scien-
(2001), may not hold the key to solving envi- tific ones did little to improve Britain’s natural
ronmental problems. But it is assuredly im- environment (Thomas 1983). What is impor-
perative for us to write instructions for the tant rather is to recognize the importance of
use of the key. multiple perspectives, dynamic dialects (Døør
The emergence of environmental dis- & Bang 1996), and the inevitability of change.
course in the 1980s coincided with the dis- This requires adopting Halliday’s instructions
integration of a single paradigm of modern to be critically aware of the instrument of lan-
linguistics. Practitioners of new approaches to guage and its uses. Green approaches to dis-
linguistics began to ask new questions and em- course can promote awareness that the lan-
ploy new analytic methods. The emergence of guage one uses privileges certain perceptions
ecolinguistics was likely inevitable, as has been and actions and that expressing matters differ-
exploration of the interconnectedness of lan- ently will privilege others. The view that per-
guage endangerment and biocultural diversity fection is not in any single entity, but requires
more recently. a diversity of expressions (Harmon 2002), is
Our final question concerned the contri- one of the central insights of ecological think-
bution environmental discourses can make to ing and ecological approaches to language.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. The study of environmental discourse requires a number of approaches. It is neces-
sarily an interdisciplinary exercise.
2. The study of environmental discourses is typically carried out by scholars who have
agendas other than merely describing such discourses. As a consequence, there is a
blurring between discourse and metadiscourse.
3. The vastness of the topic requires a descriptive framework that can accommodate
a maximum number of properties of environmental discourses. An ethnography of
communication approach was chosen for this reason.
4. The study of environmental discourses is a relatively recent phenomenon dating from
the late 1980s. Most studies challenge the mainstream view of language as found in
structuralist and generative linguistics.

FUTURE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

1. It remains to be established how precisely and to what extent discursive practices
impact on the natural environment. One particular problem is that human discourses
selectively focus on only a small subset of environmental phenomena.
2. It is not clear to what extent the anthropocentrism of human languages can be over-
come by deliberate acts of language planning.
3. The efficacy of environmental discourse for resolving the global environmental crisis
remains ill understood.
LITERATURE CITED
Adam B. 1997. Running out of time: global crisis and human engagement. In Social Theory and
Global Environment, ed. M Redclift, T Benton, pp. 92–112. London: Routledge
Agarwal A, Narain S. 1991. Global warming in an unequal world: a case of environmental
Colonialism. Earth Island J. 6:39–40
Alexander RJ. 2000. The framing of ecology: some remarks on the relation between language
and economics. See Ketteman & Penz 2000, pp. 173–90
Alexander RJ. 2002. Everyone is talking about ‘sustainable development.’ Can they all mean
the same thing? Computer discourse analysis of ecological texts. See Fill et al. 2002, pp.
239–54
Benton LM. 1995. Selling the natural or selling out? Explaining environmental merchandising.
Environ. Ethics 17(1):3–22
Beck U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage
Beder S. 1997. Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism. Melbourne: Scribe
Bowerbank S. 1999. Nature writing as self-technology. In Discourses of the Environment, ed. E
Darier, pp. 163–78. Oxford: Blackwell
Brosius JP. 1999. Analyses and interventions: anthropological engagements with environmen-
talism. Curr. Anthropol. 40(3):277–309
Browning LD, Shetler JC. 1992. Communication in crisis, communication in recovery: a post-
modern commentary on the Exxon Valdez disaster. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 10(2):477–
98
Bruner M, Oelschlaeger M. 1994. Rhetoric, environmentalism, and environmental ethics.
Environ. Ethics 16:377–95
Bullis C. 1992. Retalking environmental discourses from feminist perspectives: the radical
potential of ecofeminism. See Oravec & Cantrill 1992, pp. 346–59
Burnett GW, Kamuyu wa Kang’ethe. 1994. Wilderness and the Bantu mind. Environ. Ethics
16(2):145–60
Caplan P, ed. 2000. Risk Revisited. London: Pluto Press
Carbaugh D. 1992. ‘The mountain’ and ‘the project’: dueling depictions of a natural environ-
ment. See Oravec & Cantrill 1992, pp. 360–76
Carson R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Conca K, Dabelko GD, eds. 1998. Green Planet Blues: Environmental Politics from Stockholm to
Kyoto. Boulder, CO: Westview
Cronon W. 1992. A place for stories: nature, history, and narrative. J. Am. Hist. 78:1347–76
Cronon W, ed. 1996. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York:
Norton

Crosby AW. 1986. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe 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(1):74–98
Døør J, Bang JC. 1996. Ecology and truth: dialogue and dialectics. See Fill 1996, pp. 17–25
Döring M. 2002. “Vereint hinterm Deich”—die metaphorische konstruktion der wiedervere-
inigung in der deutschen presseberichterstatttung zur oderflut 1997. See Fill et al. 2002,
pp. 255–73
Döring M. 2004. Rinderwahnsinn: das Unbehagen in der kultur und die metaphorischdiskur-
sive ordnung ihres risikomaterials. http://www.metaphorik.de/aufsaetze/doering-
bse.htm
Downs A. 1972. Up and down with ecology-the ‘issue-attention’ cycle. Public Interest 28:38–51
Doyle J. 1991. Hold the Applause. Washington, DC: Friends Earth Monogr.
Doyle T, Kellow AJ. 1995. Environmental Politics and Policy Making in Australia. Melbourne:
Macmillan
The first Dryzek JS. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford/New York: Oxford
book-length Univ. Press
introduction to Dunayer J. 2001. Animal Equity: Language and Liberation. Derwood, MD: Ryce
ecolinguistics
Dyer K, Dyer J. 1990. The print media and the environment. See Dyer & Young 1990, pp.
contains both a
history of the field 530–47
and numerous Dyer K, Young J, eds. 1990. Changing Directions: The Proceedings of Ecopolitics IV. Adelaide: Cent.
suggestions for Environ. Stud.
future research. Ehrlich PR. 1969. The Population Bomb. San Francisco: Sierra Club
Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH. 1996. Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric
Threatens Our Future. Washington, DC: Island Press
Compiles Elkington J, Knight P, Hailes J. 1988. The Green Consumer Guide: From Hairspray to
important Hamburgers—Shopping for a Better Environment. Melbourne: Penguin Books
documents
Estok SC. 2001. A report card on ecocriticism. AUMLA: J. Aust. Univ. Lang. Lit. Assoc. 96:220–
addressing the
ecology of language 38. http://www.asle.umn.edu/archive/intro/estok
and ecolinguistics. Fairclough N, ed. 1992. Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman
Many were Farrell TB, Goodnight GT. 1998. Accidental rhetoric: the root metaphors of Three Mile
published in Island. See Waddell 1998, pp. 75–105
inaccessible places
Fill A. 1993. Ökolinguistik–Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr
and had not
attracted the Fill A, ed. 1996. Sprachökologie und Ökolinguistik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg
attention deserved. Fill A. 2003. Language and ecology: ecolinguistic perspectives for 2000 and beyond. AILA Rev.:
Appl. Linguist. 21st Century 14:60–75
Was compiled on Fill A, Mühlhäusler P, eds. 2001. The Ecolinguistics Reader. London/New York: Contin-
the occasion of 30 uum
years of Fill A, Penz H, Trampe W, eds. 2002. Colourful Green Ideas. New York: Peter Lang
ecolinguistic Finke P. 2002. Die nachhaltigkeit der sprache-fünf ineinander verschachtelte puppen der lin-
studies. Contains a
guistischen Ökonomie. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 29–58
number of
important articles Fortun K. 2001. Advocacy After Bophal. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
illustrating Genske DD, Hess-Lüttich EWB. 2002. Gespräche übers wasser ein ökosemiotisches projekt
ecolinguistic zur umweltkommunikation im Nord-Süd-Dialog. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 299–326
analysis as well as Gerbig A. 2000. Patterns of language use in discourse on the environment: a corpus-based
suggestions for
approach. See Ketteman & Penz 2000, pp. 191–216
future research.
Goatly A. 2001. Green grammar and grammatical metaphor, or language and myth of power,
or metaphors we die by. See Fill & Mühlhäusler 2001, pp. 203–25

Grossman R. 1989. Of time and tide: media and the environment. Chain React., Winter,
pp. 18–19
Grove RH. 1992. Origins of western environmentalism. Sci. Am. 267:22–27
Hajer MA. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy
Process. Oxford: Clarendon
Halliday MAK. 2001. New ways of meaning: the challenge to applied linguistics. See Fill &
Mühlhäusler 2001, pp. 175–202
Halliday MAK, Martin J. 1993. Writing Science, Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer
Hansen A, ed. 1996. The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. Leicester: Leicester Univ. Press
Harmon D. 1996. Losing species, losing languages: connections between biological and lin-
guistic diversity. Southwest J. Linguist. 15:89–108
Harmon D. 2002. In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity in Nature and Culture Makes Us
Human. Washington, DC/London: Smithson. Inst. Press
Harré R, Brockmeier J, Mühlhäusler P. 1999. Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental

Brings together
Discourse. California/London/New Delhi: Sage philosophical,
Harris R. 1981. The Language Myth. London: Duckworth psychological, and
Harris R. 2001. A note on the linguistics of environmentalism. See Fill & Mühlhäusler 2001, linguistic insights
pp. 154–58 into environmental
discourse.
Haugen E. 1972. The ecology of language. In The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen,
Addresses the
ed. AS Dill, pp. 325–39. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press structure of
Herndl CG, Brown SC, eds. 1996. Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary Amer- environmental
ica. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press narratives and
Hochman J. 1997. Green cultural studies: an introductory critique of an emerging discipline. environmental
metaphor.
Mosaic 30(1):81–97
Howard P. 1978. Weasel Words. London: Hamilton
Hymes D. 1972. The ethnography of speaking. In Anthropology and Human Behavior, ed. T
Gladwin, WC Sturtevant, pp. 15–53. Washington, DC: Anthropol. Soc. Wash.
Jagtenberg T. 1994. The end of nature? Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):14–25
Jagtenberg T, McKie D. 1997. Eco-Impacts and the Greening of Postmodernity: New Maps for
Communication Studies, Cultural Studies, and Sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Jamison A. 2001. The Making of Green Knowledge: Environmental Politics and Cultural Transfor-
mation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Johnson C. 1991. Green Dictionary. London: Macdonald
Jones D. 1994. Nga Kaitaki and the managers: bicultural communication and resource man-
agement in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):105–16
Joseph JE. 2000. Limiting the Arbitrary: Linguistic Naturalism and Its Opposites in Plato’s Cratylus
and Modern Theories of Language. Amesterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
Jung M. 1996. Ökologische Sprachkritik. See Fill 1996, pp. 149–73
Kahn M. 2001. The passive voice of science: language abuse in the wildlife profession. See Fill
& Mühlhäusler 2001, pp. 241–44
Kelly P. 1984. Fighting for Hope. London: Chatto & Windus
Ketteman B, Penz H, eds. 2000. ECOnstructing Language, Nature and Society: The Ecolinguistic
Project Revisited. Tübingen: Stauffenburg
Killingsworth JM, Palmer SP. 1992. Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America.
Carbondale: South. Ill. Univ. Press
Knight J, ed. 2000. Natural Enemies: People-Wildlife Conflicts in Anthropological Perspective. Lon-
don: Routledge
Lakoff J, Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Landy M, ed. 1979. Environmental Impact Statement Glossary: A Reference Source for EIS Writers,
Reviewers and Citizens. New York: IFI/Plenum
Lanthier I, Olivier L. 1999. The construction of environmental ‘awareness.’ In Discourses of the
Environment, ed. E Darier, pp. 63–78. Malden, PA: Blackwell
Leach E. 1968. Anthropological aspects of language: animal categories and verbal abuse. In
New Directions in the Study of Language, ed. EH Lenneberg, pp. 23–63. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
Lee JA. 1988. Seals, wolves, and words: loaded language in environmental controversy. Alter-
natives 15(4):21–29
Lenz T. 2003. ‘How to get consumer trust in food? Approaches of governmental authorities and
food producers.’ Hamburg Conf. “Does Discourse Matter? Discourse, Power and Institutions in
the Sustainability Transition.” Hamburg: Res. Cent. Biotechnol. Soc. Environ./Inst. Polit.
Sci. Univ. Hamburg
Leuthold M. 1999. Eco-knowledge for the future or “interference is the only way to stay
realistic.” In Paradigms and Contentions, IWM Junior Visiting Fellows 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. Issues Lang. Plan. 1(3):303–5
Liebert WA. 2001. The sociohistorical dynamics of language and cognition: the emergence of
the metaphor model ‘money is water’ in the Nineteenth Century. See Fill & Mühlhäusler
2001, pp. 101–6
Little PE. 1999. Environments and environmentalisms in anthropological research: facing a
new millennium. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28:253–84
Lovelock J. 1979. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Lucas A. 1994. Lucas Heights revisited: the framing of a major scientific controversy by the
Sydney Morning Herald. Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):72–91
Luke TW. 1993. Green consumerism: ecology and the ruse of recycling. In In the Nature of
Things: Language, Politics and the Environment, ed. J Bennett, W Chaloupka, pp. 154–71.
Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Luke TW. 1997. Ecocritique: Contesting the Politics of Nature, Economy and Culture. Minneapolis:
Univ. Minn. Press
Maffi L, ed. 2001a. On Biocultural Diversity. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Compiles more
than 30 papers Maffi L. 2001b. Introduction: on the interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. See
addressing the Maffi 2001a, pp. 1–50
interrelationship Marko G. 2000. Go veggie! A critical discourse analysis of a text for vegetarian beginners. See
between the loss of Ketteman & Penz 2000, pp. 217–39
the world’s
Marko G. 2002. Whales and language—critically analysing whale-friendly discourse. See Fill
linguistic heritage
and the loss of et al. 2002, pp. 341–60
biological diversity. Marnham. 1981. Dispatches from Africa. 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: Sydney Assoc. Stud. Soc. Cult.
May S. 2003. Rearticulating the case for minority language rights. Curr. Issues Lang. Plan.
4(2):95–125
McKie D. 1994. Telling stories: unnatural histories, natural histories, and biopolitics. Aust. J.
Commun. 21(3):92–104
McKie D. 2000. Informing environmental citizens: media technologies public relations and
public understandings. Eur. J. Commun. 15(2):171–207

Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III. 1972. The Limits to Growth. London:
Earth Island
Mills WT. 1982. Metaphorical vision: changes in western attitudes to the environment. Ann.
Assoc. Am. Geogr. 72:237–53
Mühlhäusler P. 1983. Talking about environmental issues. Lang. Commun. 3(1):71–81
Mühlhäusler P. 1995. The interdependence of linguistic and biological diversity. See Myers
1995, pp. 154–61
Mühlhäusler P. 1996. Linguistic adaptation to changed environmental conditions: some lessons
from the past. See Fill 1996, pp. 105–30
Mühlhäusler P. 1998. Some recent developments in Whorfian linguistics with special reference
to environmental language. In Sprache in Raum und Zeit. In Memoria Johannes Bechert, K
Wagner, W Wilden, W Boeder, C Schrieder, 2:35–43. Bremen: Universitäetsverlag
Mühlhäusler P. 1999. Metaphor and metonymy in environmental advertising. AAA-Arb. Angl.
Am. 24(2):167–80
Mühlhäusler P. 2000. Language planning and language ecology. Curr. Issues Lang. Plan.
1(3):306–67
Mühlhäusler P. 2003. Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in
Book-length
Ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge introduction to
Mühlhäusler P, Peace A. 2001. Discourses of ecotourism: the case of Fraser Island. Lang. ecolinguistics
Commun. 21:359–80 containing chapters
Muir S, Veenendall T, eds. 1996. Earthtalk: Community Empowerment for Environmental Action. about
Westport, CT: Praeger environmental
discourse and
Müller M. 1855. The Languages of the Seat of War in the East with a Survey of the Three Families
environmental
of Language, Semitic, Arian, and Turanian. London: Williams & Norgate metaphor.
Myers D, ed. 1995. The Politics of Multiculturalism in Oceania and Polynesia. Darwin: Univ. North.
Territory Press
Myerson G, Rydin Y. 1996. The Language of Environment: A New Rhetoric. London:
An interdisciplinary
UCL Press study of
Neuwirth G. 2002. Eco-linguistics–going beyond the text. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 361–71 environmental
Nuckolls JB. 1999. The case for sound symbolism. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28:225–52 debates
Oravec CL, Cantrill JG, eds. 1992. The Conference on the Discourse of Environmental concentrating on
Advocacy. Utah: Univ. Utah Humanit. Cent. the rhetorical
Peace A. 2005. Loving leviathan: the discourse of whale watching in an Australian eco-tourist devices employed
in them. Contains
location. In Animals in Person: Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Intimacies, ed. J numerous
Knight, pp. 191–210. London: Routledge examples of
Peet R, Watts M, eds. 1996. Liberation Ecologies: Environments, Development, Social Movements. environmental
London: Routledge texts.
Penman R. 1994. Environmental matters and communication challenges. Aust. J. Commun.
21(3):26–39 An early document
Phillips L. 2000. Mediated communication and the privatization of public problems: discourse containing more
on ecological risks and political action. Eur. J. Commun. 15(2):171–207 than 30
contributions on
Posner R. 1990. Warnungen an die Ferne Zukunft: Atommüll als Kommunikiationsproblem.
the language of
München: Raben Verlag environmental
Raglan R. 1991. Re-establishing connections. Alternatives 17(4):28–35 advocacy. Many of
Redclift M. 1987. Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London/ New York: the themes first
Methuen addressed here
Reddy MJ. 1979. The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language. have been taken up
by subsequent
In Metaphor and Thought, ed. A Ortony, pp. 284–324. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. analysts.
Press

Richards P. 1992. Conversation about conservation. Ms. thesis. Dep. Anthropol., Kings College,
London
Rissel C, Douglas W. 1993. Environmental issues as prime time television. Media Inf. Aust.
68:86–92
Rojas CE. 2001. Discourses of the environment in the Northern Expansion of Santafé de Bogotá. MA
thesis. Univ. Cincinnati, Cincinnati
Rose D. 2004. The ecological humanities in action: an invitation. Aust. Humanit. Rev., Issue
31–32. http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-April-2004./rose.html
Rowe SJ. 1989. What on earth is environment? Trumpeter 6(4):123–26
Rutherford P. 1994. The administration of life: ecological discourse as ‘intellectual machinery
of government.’ Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):40–55
Sapir E . 1912. Language and Environment. Am. Anthropol. 14:226–42
Schaffer K. 1988. Women and the Bush. Faces of Desire in the Australian Cultural Tradition. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Schiewer GL. 2002. Sind gesellschaftliche diskurse über technikfolgen rational? Kooperative
verständigung in kommunikationstheoretischer perspektive. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 395–
412
Schultz B. 2001. Language and the natural environment. See Fill & Mühlhäusler 2001, pp.
109–14
Segal JZ. 1991. The structure of advocacy: a study of environmental rhetoric. Can. J. Commun.
16(3/4). http://www.wlu/ca/∼wwwpress/jrls/cj/BackIssues?16.3/segal.html
Spaargaren G, Mol APJ, Buttel FH, eds. 2000. Environment and Global Modernity. London:
Sage
Stauber J, Rampton S. 1995. Toxic Sludge is Good for You! Lies, Damned Lies and the Public Relations
Industry. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press
Stibbe A. 2004. Moving away from ecological ‘political correctness’. Lang. Ecol. Online J. pp.
1–6. http://www.ecoling.net/magazine.html
Stork Y. 1998. Ecologie: Die Geschichte zentraler Lexien des französischen Umweltvokabulars seit
1968. Germany: Tübigen
Strang V. 2004. The Meaning of Water. Oxford: Berg
Stratford E. 1994. Disciplining the feminine, the home, and nature in three Australian public
health histories. Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):56–71
Tansley AG. 1991. The 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, Buttel FH. 1992. How do we know we have global environmental problems? Science
and globalization of environmental discourse. Geoforum 23(3):405–16
Taylor SG. 1990. Naturalness: the concept and its application to Australian ecosystems. Proc.
Ecol. Soc. Aust. 16:411–18
Thomas K. 1983. Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500–1800. Har-
mondsworth: Penguin Books
Thompson JN. 1994. The Coevolutionary Process. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Toolan M. 1996. Total Speech: An Integrational Linguistic Approach to Language. Durham: Duke
Univ. Press
Trampe W. 2001. Language and ecological crisis: extracts from a dictionary of industrial agri-
culture. See Fill & Mühlhäusler 2001, pp. 232–40
Verhagen FC. 2000. Ecolinguistics: a retrospect and a prospect. See Ketteman & Penz 2000,
pp. 33–48
Vivanco LA. 2002. Seeing green: knowing and saving the environment on film. Am. Anthropol.
104(4):1195–1204

Waddell C, ed. 1998. Landmark Essays on Rhetoric and the Environment. Mahwah, NJ:
Hermagoras
Weigl E. 2004. Wald und Klima: Ein Mythos aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. (Humboldt im Netz)
Int. Rev. Humboldt. Stud. 9:1–20
Weissmann G. 1996. Ecosentimentalism: the summer dream beneath the tamarind tree. Ann.
NY Acad. Sci. 27:483–89
Williams R. 1983. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Worster D. 1990. Seeing beyond culture. J. Am. Hist. 36:1142–47

Contents ARI 13 August 2006 13:30
Annual Review of
Anthropology
Volume 35, 2006
Contents
Prefatory Chapter
On the Resilience of Anthropological Archaeology

Kent V. Flannery p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Archaeology
Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse

Joseph A. Tainter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p59
Archaeology and Texts: Subservience or Enlightenment
John Moreland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 135
Alcohol: Anthropological/Archaeological Perspectives
Michael Dietler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 229
Early Mainland Southeast Asian Landscapes in the First
Millennium a.d.
Miriam T. Stark p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 407
The Maya Codices
Gabrielle Vail p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 497
Biological Anthropology
What Cultural Primatology Can Tell Anthropologists about the

Evolution of Culture
Susan E. Perry p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 171
Diet in Early Homo: A Review of the Evidence and a New Model of
Adaptive Versatility
Peter S. Ungar, Frederick E. Grine, and Mark F. Teaford p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 209
Obesity in Biocultural Perspective
Stanley J. Ulijaszek and Hayley Lofink p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 337
ix
Evolution of the Size and Functional Areas of the Human Brain

P. Thomas Schoenemann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 379
Linguistics and Communicative Practices
Mayan Historical Linguistics and Epigraphy: A New Synthesis

Søren Wichmann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 279
Peter Mühlhäusler and Adrian Peace p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 457
Old Wine, New Ethnographic Lexicography
Michael Silverstein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 481
International Anthropology and Regional Studies
The Ethnography of Finland

Jukka Siikala p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 153
Sociocultural Anthropology
The Anthropology of Money

Bill Maurer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p15
Food and Globalization
Lynne Phillips p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37
The Research Program of Historical Ecology
William Balée p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p75
Anthropology and International Law
Sally Engle Merry p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p99
Institutional Failure in Resource Management
James M. Acheson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 117
Indigenous People and Environmental Politics
Michael R. Dove p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191
Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas
Paige West, James Igoe, and Dan Brockington p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251
Sovereignty Revisited
Thomas Blom Hansen and Finn Stepputat p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 295
Local Knowledge and Memory in Biodiversity Conservation
Virginia D. Nazarea p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 317
x Contents
Food and Memory

Jon D. Holtzman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 361
Creolization and Its Discontents
Stephan Palmié p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 433
Persistent Hunger: Perspectives on Vulnerability, Famine, and Food
Security in Sub-Saharan Africa
Mamadou Baro and Tara F. Deubel p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 521
Theme 1: Environmental Conservation
Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse

Joseph A. Tainter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p59

The Research Program of Historical Ecology
William Balée p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p75
Institutional Failure in Resource Management
James M. Acheson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 117
Indigenous People and Environmental Politics
Michael R. Dove p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191
Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas
Paige West, James Igoe, and Dan Brockington p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251
Local Knowledge and Memory in Biodiversity Conservation
Virginia D. Nazarea p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 317
Peter Mühlhäusler and Adrian Peace p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 457
Theme 2: Food
Food and Globalization

Lynne Phillips p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37
Diet in Early Homo: A Review of the Evidence and a New Model of
Adaptive Versatility
Peter S. Ungar, Frederick E. Grine, and Mark F. Teaford p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 209
Alcohol: Anthropological/Archaeological Perspectives
Michael Dietler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 229
Obesity in Biocultural Perspective
Stanley J. Ulijaszek and Hayley Lofink p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 337
Food and Memory
Jon D. Holtzman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 361
Contents xi
Old Wine, New Ethnographic Lexicography

Michael Silverstein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 481
Persistent Hunger: Perspectives on Vulnerability, Famine, and Food
Security in Sub-Saharan Africa
Mamadou Baro and Tara F. Deubel p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 521
Indexes
Subject Index p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 539

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 27–35 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 553
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 27–35 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 556
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology chapters (if any, 1997 to
the present) may be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
xii Contents

Mühlhäusler Peace 2006 Environmental Discourses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mühlhäusler Peace 2006 Environmental Discourses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANRV287-AN35-23 ARI 13 August 2006 8:5

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006. 35:457–79 Key Words

458 Mühlhäusler · Peace

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 459

Big business has succeeded in repackaging Speaker. The mainstreaming of environ-

460 Mühlhäusler · Peace

drawn attention to the practice of brown- vision programs.

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 461

(euphemism, vagueness, hyperbole) em- rather to “an atmosphere of fading interest”

462 Mühlhäusler · Peace

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 463

is “ﬁxed and determinate, in which objects Environmental discourse in the main-

464 Mühlhäusler · Peace

environmental problems for successful ame- ploy nonstandard forms of speaking as a

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 465

agenda, such as the Western educated and

466 Mühlhäusler · Peace

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 467

tween language and the world. When lan-

468 Mühlhäusler · Peace

recurrent theme (surveyed by Mühlhäusler appropriation of “ecospeak” (Killingsworth

by Halliday in 1990; others have taken up 2001, p. 8) involving a “Babel of discourse

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 469

of those who use environmental discourse. As products or trademarks in unspoiled nature.

470 Mühlhäusler · Peace

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 471

472 Mühlhäusler · Peace

FUTURE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 473

474 Mühlhäusler · Peace

Harré R, Brockmeier J, Mühlhäusler P. 1999. Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 475

476 Mühlhäusler · Peace

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 477

bridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

478 Mühlhäusler · Peace

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Discourses 479

Volume 35, 2006

On the Resilience of Anthropological Archaeology

Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse

What Cultural Primatology Can Tell Anthropologists about the

Evolution of the Size and Functional Areas of the Human Brain

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Mayan Historical Linguistics and Epigraphy: A New Synthesis

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

The Ethnography of Finland

The Anthropology of Money

Food and Memory

Theme 1: Environmental Conservation

Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse

Joseph A. Tainter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p59

Food and Globalization

Old Wine, New Ethnographic Lexicography

Subject Index p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 539

You might also like