ECOSYSTEMIC LINGUISTICS I
Hildo Honório do
Couto
University of Brasília, Brazil
Email: hildodocouto@gmail.com
In general referring do Haugen (1972), Ecolinguistics
is generally defined as the study of the interactions (inter-relations) between
language and its environment. Both the prefix 'eco-' and this definition of the
discipline point towards biological Ecology. In Ecology, 'environment' is part
of an ecosystem, i.e., it is the place where a species or a group of species
live together and its members interact among themselves. The 'ecosystem', on
its turn, consists of a population of organisms together with the
inter-relations (interactions) with the habitat, ecological niche,
biotope or territory, depending on the point of view, as well of the
interactions of individual organisms between and among themselves. Since the
expression 'environment' has been the object of misunderstanding as, for
instance, that Ecolinguistics would deal only with environmentalism, I believe that a
more adequate definition of our discipline could be that it is the study of the
interactions between language and its social, mental and natural context
(environment). Another possibility of saying the same thing could be:
Ecolinguistics is the study of the linguistic inter-relations that obtain at
the social, mental and natural level. These last two definitions avoid a
reification of language, as will be clear below, I think.
We know that 'ecosystem' is the central concept of
Ecology. To the point that the latter could just as well be called Ecosystemics
(parallel to "phonemics" and “proxemics”, for instance), without any
conceptual loss. On the other hand, Ecology could also be defined as "the
study of ecosystems", because everything in it emerges out of the
ecosystem. This is the case with characteristics and/or features as is the case with
(a) interaction, (b) diversity, (c) openness, (d) holism, (e) adaptation, (f)
ecological succession/evolution, and (g) long term view. Let us take a look at
each of them in order to understand the importance of the ecological
viewpoint in the study of linguistic phenomena.
It is important to stress the point that language is
part of an ecosystem, its 'exoecology', but it contains ecosystems inside
itself, its 'endoecology', to use Makkai's (1993) terminology. To linguistic
exoecology would belong the relationships between/among languages, between
language and its users as well as between language and territory (or natural
world). The endoecological relationships are basically what has been called the
'language system'. In this case we would have, among others, the 'syntactic
ecosystem', the 'morphological ecosystem', the 'phonological ecosystem' and,
maybe, a 'phonetic ecosystem', as is done in Neurocognitive Linguistcs,
formerly known as 'Stratificational Grammar' (see Lamb 1966, 2000; Couto 1982).
Sometimes we hear even expressions such as 'ecology of grammar', 'hologramar' (Steffenson
2008), 'ecology of text' and so on. Taking into consideration the fact that the
lexicon is structured (in semantic fields, for example), probably we could also
talk about an 'ecology of the lexicon'.
Let us begin with the concept of INTERACTION. It is
not the population of organisms nor their habitat that is relevant for the definition of
ecosystem. The organisms are the subject of Biology and of Genetics; their habitat or territory, could studied by Geography and similar sciences. The object of
study of the ecologist is the inter-relations that take place inside the
ecosystem, both (a) the organism-habit interactions and (b) the
organism-organism interactions. The former (a) are equivalent to
'signification' (reference, denotation) whereas the latter (b) homologizes to
communication (communicative interaction). Interaction is the basis of
everything in Ecology and, consequently, in the ecosystem. It is also the basis
for the ecolinguistic definition of language which is given elsewhere in this
paper. Practically everything that is said of language and languages is based
on it. In summary, in accordance with modern science, such as Relativity Theory
and Quantum Mechanics, the whole world is an immense web of inter-relations.
There are affinities even with some more recent trends in the sciences, as is
the case with Systems Theory, Prigogine's Dissipative Structures and, maybe,
fractals (see the iteration especially in phrase and text construction!).
After all, the concept of interaction is present in the definition of the
remaining characteristics and/or features of the ecosystem, as we will see in what follows.
The ecosystemic approach shows us that language is
basically interaction. The interactions that make language up are inside the
'linguistic ecosystem'. There are several bundles of interactions, which are
'ecosystems' in their own right, i.e., endoecological ecosystem. Since it is
ECOsystem, it is 'system'. To put it simply, it is a structure, albeit an open
one, a dissipative structure. It is a system in the sense of Chaos Theory and of
Quantum Mechanics. This is accepted even by the late Saussurean structuralist
Eugenio Coseriu (Coseriu 1979).
DIVERSITY is also very important for the vitality of
an ecosystem. The more variety of species there is in its interior the more
vital it is; the less species, the more fragile. For instance, an ecosystem
like the Amazonian biome is highly resistant. So much so that the disappearance
of one species is replaced with one of the thousands of other species that
exist in its domain. An ecosystem with only three or two species (predator and
prey, for instance) will fatally disappear as soon as one or the other of them
disappear. This is the case not only with nature, but also with culture,
including language. For example, if India had only one language like Hindi, it
would be culturally much poorer than it is with its over 16 official languages,
besides many minority ones.
Diversity is important not only to recognize multilingualism, like India's, but also multidialectalism as well as any kind of diversity in the domain of language. In this sense, we cannot say that the language of, say, the hillbillies is wrong. It the way the members of their communities communicate among themselves. If understanding obtais, any utterance whatsoever is not error. As the ecolinguist Adam Makkai once said, "grammatical is what occurs". The slangs or the youth, of ghettoes are also perfectly legitimate.
In regard to OPENNESS, sometimes also called
"porosity" or "permeability", it has a lot to do with the
idea of dissipative structures. Every ecosystem leaks. It gives and receives
energy and information to/from adjacent ecosystems. There is a constant flow of
energy among them due mainly to the fact that there are no clearly delimited
natural limits (no fence) between/among them, but a continuum. The ecosystem is
delimited by the observer, who establishes an imaginary line separating the
ecosystem s/he will investigate from the environing ones. In spite of that, it
is structured because it is an 'ecoSYSTEM'. The interactions that can be seen
inside it follow some principles, they are not entirely random. The same happens to languages. All languages of the world influence and are influenced by other languages. The idea of a "purê" and "uncontaminated" language is squarely a fiction.
HOLISM has to do with the fact that, once delimited by
the observer, the ecosystem is regarded as a whole, even when attention is
focused on one specific species or even on only one specimen. S/he studies the
inter-relations of this specimen (or this species) with the whole ecosystem
s/he delimited. In the case of
language, there are inter-relations between syntax and intonation as well as
morphology, phonology and even with the lexicon, even if generative grammar
denies the fact. In some sense, syntax is related even to the ecology of
communicative interaction.
The idea of ADAPTATION is very important for the
survival of the species and of each specimen of organism that make it up.
Darwin emphasized 'competition' and the 'survival of the fittest'. However,
more recently scientists have come to the conclusion that the species that have
more chances of survival are those that adapt themselves the most to new
circumstances. One good example is the cockroach. It exists since pre-historic
times, and is one of the few that would survive an atomic catastrophe. This is
due to the fact that it is highly adaptable. The opposite of this happened to
dinosaurs: because they were hardly adaptable they disappeared. In the dynamics
of language, adaptation can be seen in the communicative interaction, in which
the speaker tries to express him/herself as s/he thinks the hearer will
understand, while the hearer tries to interpret what s/he hears in the sense
s/he thinks was intended by the speaker. To learn a language is to adapt to the
way of communication of a new speech community. Transplanted languages adapt to
the new environment and so on.
EVOLUTION, called 'ecological succession' in ecology,
is another characteristic of vital importance for the survival of the
ecosystem. In fact, it has a lot to do with adaptation. To adapt is to evolve.
To evolve is to adapt. The emergence, aging and death of an organism or species
is evolution, which has no teleology. It happens randomly. The same happens to language. As Coseriu (1979) put it, language
exists because it changes, it works only because it changes. Even in the
acquisition of the parents' language (L1) by children there is change, since,
as Mufwene (2001) put it, the child always replicates the parents' language
imperfectly, that is to say, by introducing changes in it. A language that
remained unchanged as prescriptive grammarians would like it to be would die in a few
generations because it would not adapt, therefore it would no more fulfill the
communicative needs of the new context. That is to say, evolution seems to be
the reverse of the coin (heads) whose other side (tails) is adaptation.
LONG TERM VIEW is also important in ecological
thinking. As has already been said, nature is not in a hurry. Therefore, it
does not make sense to talk about 'protecting nature', 'defense of an
ecosystem' and so on. Nature will follow its course with or without us. What we
do to her (or in her) now, even what seems apparently harmless, may have
serious consequences in the future. For instance, nobody knows whether she will
react negatively (from our point of view) to the voracious extraction of oil
from its bowels. Today we cannot perceive any consequence of this extraction.
However, who could assure with certainty that there will be none in one
century, or even in fifty years? Many present-day devastators of the natural
landscape for kettle raising as well as for corn planting may say in the
future: "Oh, if I had known that in those times!". But, then it will
be to late. In this case, for our own survival it is wise to think far ahead.
Maybe this is the characteristics of ecological
thinking that is the less directly applicable in language studies. However, it
has a lot to do with language policy and language planning, to begin with. Let
us see the case of India and China. The administrators of the former would like
to have Hindi as the official language of the whole country but the speakers of
the other languages do not agree. For this reason, English has been adopted for
the time being. Since above all speakers of Dravidic languages continue to reject
Hindi in this role, English continues to be the official language parallel to
Hindi (and other languages, in some regions). In the latter there are several
languages like Cantonese, Hakka and others but Chinese authorities try to
impose the idea that they are simple 'dialects' of Mandarin, the only 'language
of China'. Due to the Chinese well-known persistence, this idea is put forward
even if there are no native speakers of Mandarin in several places of the
country. In the long run this centralizing policy may have some of the desired
(by the authorities) results.
As will be seen with Mark Garner below, Ecolinguistics
should not adopt concepts from Ecology only as metaphors. On the contrary, they
must be used as an epistemological basis, as the bricks with which a truly ecological ecolinguistics can be built. As we have seen above, the most
important, central, ecological concept of ecology is 'ecosystem'. Everything in
ecology is embedded in it. For this reason, we must begin our endeavor by
looking for the 'linguistic ecosystem', also called 'linguistic community' in common
parlance. This linguistic ecosystem consists of a people (P), living in some
place that is its territory (T), and interacting verbally among themselves as
is usual in this community. This 'traditional way of interacting communally' is
language (L).
Long term view is intimately associated to an idea
which environment managers and humans in general must always keep in mind,
namely, SUSTAINABILITY. It emerged in the context of the Stockholm Conference
(1972), and was reinforced in other conferences that took place after it. The
outcome was the Brundtland Report - Our Common Future (1987). The basic idea is
that the development to satisfy the needs of the present generations cannot lead to the impossibility of satisfying the needs of future generations.
We have seen that Ecolinguistics should not borrow concepts from Ecology
as mere metaphors. As is well known, the central and most important concept of
Ecology is 'ecosystem'. Everything ecological lies it its interior. For this
reason, it is advisable to start by looking for its
equivalente in language studies. In other words, we should start by looking for the 'linguistic
ecosystem' which, in the end, is what common sense calls 'community', sometimes
'language/linguistic community' and/or 'speech community'. It consists of a
population or a people (P), living in some place which is its territory (T),
and speaking its own language (L).
Linguistic ecosystem (or 'language ecosystem') can be
regarded from two points of view. First of all, we can depart from the 'acts of
communicative interaction' which take place inside the 'ecology of
communicative interaction'. Any group of people (P) living together in a
certain place or territory (T) and communicating among themselves through the
usual way of communicating, their language (L), is a 'speech community' (SP).
SP is generally small, what facilitates daily interaction, by the medium of words
or not. However, the linguistic ecosystem may also be considered from the
perspective of the system, in which case we have the 'language community' (LC). This is the domain of what
commonsense calls 'language'. In this case, the domain of the Portuguese LC
comprises Portugal, Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, São
Tomé and Príncipe and East Timor. That is to say, SP presupposes constant
verbal interactions, on a daily basis, whereas LC is an abstraction because it
is the domain of the system. It does not presuppose concrete interactions. They
are on the side of potentialities. There is a chain of implications or
embeddings that go from the 'acts of communicative interactions', which are
part of the 'ecology of communicative interaction', which, on its turn, takes
place inside a 'speech community'. SP is intimately related to 'language
community'. LC is a kind of summation of the set of all SP related to it.
An LC may consist of a single SP, as is the case with
small Amerindian communities made up of a few dozens of people or even less
than that. It may also consist of thousands of SPs, as is the case with
Portuguese LC. In its domain, the investigator may delimit any stretch of land
(T), inhabited by a small group of people (P) which interacts verbally as is
usual to interact locally.
Here is a table of equivalences between concepts of
Biological Ecology and Linguistic Ecology, or Ecological Linguistics
(Ecolinguistics, for short):
Biological Ecology_______ Linguistics
Ecology________________________
- ecosystem -
ling. ecosys.: speech community, lang. community
- population -
people (P)
- habitat (biotope, niche) - territory (T)
- inter-relations (interactions) - language (L)
a) organism-world interactions - signification, designation, denotation,
name-giving
b) organism-organism interactions - communication
(communicative interaction)
For this and other reasons, in Brasília we follow a
few ecolinguists, such as Peter Finke, his disciple Wilhelm Trampe, besides
Hans Stroher, the Odense School (Jørgen Døør, Jørgen C. Bang, Sune Steffenson
etc.) who see in the ecosystem a basis for Ecolinguistics. Elsewhere we have
the Catalan Albert Bastardas i Boada, Norman Denison, the
British Mark Garner and others. In other words, the variety of Ecolinguistics
we do came to be called Ecosystemic Linguistics.
As far as I know, Strohner (footnote) was the first to
use se term "ecosystemic linguistics" in print. Following what Peter Finke had previously suggested (and soon aftre
followed by Wilhelm Trampe), Strohner used the expression ökosystemische
Sprachwissenschaft (ecosystemic linguistics) already in the title of his essay. Initially, he
presents the 'computer metaphor', the "brain metaphor' and the 'ecosystem
metaphor'. According to him, ecosystem metaphor is more in line with the
present state of our knowledge. He says further that "the ecosystemic
approach allows a foundation for Ecolinguistics from the theoretical and the
methodological point of view. Only on this basis it is possible to give this
discipline a rational praxis". For this reason, he follows "an
ecosystemic theory and methodology" (p. 49). In the section
"Methodology" of his essay, he uses the expression 'ecosystemic
linguistics' ökosystemische Linguistik (ecosystemic linguistics) four times. As we can see, the
idea of an Ecosystemic Linguistics was already in embryo in the very site of
the birth of Ecolinguistics, namely, the axis Áustria-Germany.
It is true that other authors that talk about
'ecosystem' in language studies are referring to ecosystems as language systems, language groups or language families that share a specific territory, as is the case
with Denison (2001) and Bastardas i Boada (2000). The former talk about
"European language ecology", using "ecology" instead of
'ecosystem'. In this connection, it would be interesting to call to mind the
well-known concept of Sprachbund, as the Balcanic one, for instance. The latter
study the difficulties Catalan has for living together with Spanish. There is a
population and a political pressure of the latter on the former. Even the
"father" of Ecolinguistics, Einar Haugen (1972), departs implicitly
from the ecosystem when he says that the main areas of research of the future
discipline are questions such as bi-/multilingualism, language contact and
others, that is to say, languages sharing a certain territory with which they
would make up an ecosystem.
What is the object of Ecosystemic Linguistics? It is
the branch of Ecolinguistics that studies in language everything that can be
naturally explained from the concept of ecosystem and its characteristics or
features. In spite of the fact that this assertion is somehow tautological, it
contains several illuminating implications for Ecolinguistics. One of the most
important one is the fact that for Ecosystemic Linguistics language is mainly
'communicative interaction' by means of words. As we have seen, language is the
equivalent of ecological inter-relations (interactions), better, it is these
interactions. Even if we want to use the "ecological metaphor", what
is not the better procedure, we must depart "from the ecological point of
view" as Finke (2001: 87) said, not from a mere "logical point of
view" in the sense of Willard Quine. According to Adam Makkai (1993: 71),
"language is not a set of 'objects' but a network of relationships".
Lamb's (2000) Neurocognitive linguistics defends similar principles, albeit referring only to the endoecology (structure) of language.
There are two advantages in viewing language as a web of
inter-relationships or interactions. The first one is the fact that even
departing from language as 'communicative interaction', the system is implied.
In fact, in order for a message sent by a speaker to a hearer to be understood
by the latter it must, in principle, have been formulated in a language s/he knows. The second
one is that in this case language is not reified, it is not seen as a thing
located somewhere and which is an instrument (a thing) to do this or that (to
communicate). When we talk about environment of language we are referring to
the locus of the inter-relations (interactions) that language frame language take place. They take place in the natural, the mental and the social environment
of language. When I talked about the characteristics/features of the ecosystem
I have already advanced some applications of these inter-relations in language
studies.
The fact is that Ecosystemic Linguistics complements
some tendencies that we can see in Ecolinguistics. It is true that the majority
of ecolinguistic investigations are in the realm of environmental questions, of
the analysis of the pollutors' and devastators' discourse that try to appear to
the public as environment-friendly, among others. A perfunctory look at the
collective Ecolinguistics books reveal that circa 62% of them are in the domain
of what has been called Critical Ecolinguistics, Environmental Linguistics or
Ecocritical Discourse Analysis. Only 38% of them deal with linguistic phenomena
departing from concepts of Ecology, i.e., the ecosystem. In the excellent web
page www.ecoling.net, moderated by the competent ecolinguist Arran Stibbe,
approximately 94% of the contributions are discourse analysis, so that only 6%
use the ecological "metaphor". As a matter of fact, this could just
as well have been done by traditional Discourse Analysis, independently of
Ecolinguistics.
Two of the authors on whose ideas I am building the
theory of Ecosystemic Linguistics said that Ecolinguistics should not be
restricted to environmental discourse analysis and related subjects. Peter
Finke (1996: 35, footnote 9) said: "the opinion of some participants of
the Klagenfurt symposium, according to whom Ecolinguistics would be opposed to
Systemic Linguistics, is not accepted by me nor by Strohner". He goes on
to say that "an Ecolinguistics that is not built on the concept of
ecosystem has no clear idea of Ecology". Strohner (1996: 58) says that
"it would be an unnecessary drawback of Ecolinguistics if it deals with
its subject only from the point of view of the destruction of our environment".
I would like to emphasize the name of an author from
outside any group who defended something very similar to what I am proposing,
namely, Mark Garner. I have seen two of his publications on the subject. The
first one is Garner (2004); the other is the article "Language ecology as
linguistic theory", published in an Indonesian journal (Garner 2005). According
to him the full theoretical potential of Haugen's original proposal has not
adequately been put to work. One of the reasons for this would be the use of
ecological concepts only as metaphors. However, modern "ecological
philosophy no longer sees ecology merely as a feature of the natural
environment that can serve as a metaphor for other phenomena, but as a distinct
way of thinking, with far-reaching implications for many disciplines, including
the language sciences" (Garner 2005, p. 1). In his opinion, the most
relevant features of this philosophy for language studies are, among others,
holism, dynamicity, interactive, and situated.
The concept of 'ecosystem' has been used in several
areas of knowledge. Nowadays we hear about 'ecosystemic ecology' and, for the
present purposes, 'ecosystemic theory', 'ecosystemic thinking', besides
'systems theory', 'systemic thinking' and so on. In the realm of health
expressions such as 'ecosystemic theory of communication' is relatively common,
generally reporting to Gregory Bateson. In other words, Ecosystemic Linguistics
came in a widespread international movement that sees reality as an immense web
of inter-relationships (interactions), as is the case with biological
'ecosystem'.
In order to practice Ecosystemic Linguistics
adequately we must consider every linguistic phenomenon as part of a
'linguistic ecosystem', i.e., as part of an unending web of interactions. The
task of the ecolinguist is to delimit a certain sector of this web in order to
examine it even microscopically, if needed. The sector that becomes the focus
of interest in the moment of investigation is the result of an epistemological
delimitation (coup épistemologique in French), resulting from a
specific way of looking at the object of study. In the case of language
studies, we have seen that any phenomena is primarily in the integral ecosystem of language. This consists of a group of individuals, or a people
(P), together with the inter-relations that take place between any individual
and the place or territory (T) where they live as well as between any two
individuals. These inter-relations are their language. It is inside this
linguistic ecosystem that we can ask the fundamental questions about language,
namely, 'what is language?', 'is language a social, a mental or a natural
phenomenon?", 'what is the position of language in the human
species?" and so on. If we consider Ecolinguistics as the study of the
relationships between language and environment, we must make explicit what this environment is all about. To begin with, there is the integral environment of
language, whose locus is the integral ecosystem of language. In this case it
corresponds to P and T taken together, as universal categories. P is not a
specific people living in a specific territory, but an abstraction. For
example, when we talk about the relationships between language and world,
'world' corresponds to P and T. Or, when we say that for there to be a language
the pre-requisite is the existence of a 'people' living somewhere that speaks
it. This is not the same as to say that the Kamayurá people (P) lives inside
the Xingu River Reservation (T), and speaks the language (L) of the same name.
In figure 1 below, we can see a graphic representation of the integral ecosystem of language, where the index 0 is destined to show that it should not
be confused with the 'natural ecosystem of language' (see below). We have
already seen that the 'integral ecosystem of language' of language, or 'community' in
common sense, may be regarded from the perspective of 'speech
community' and of 'language community'. The discontinuous line indicates that
there is no direct relation between L and T. This relation is always through P, exactly as in Peirce's sign, where there is no direct relation between sign (S) and its referent, equivalent to Ecosystemic Linguistics' territory (T). It takes place through the interpretant, equivalent of people/person (P).
P0
/ \
L0------T0
Integral Ecosystem of Language
(Community)
Fig. 1
Another reason for calling this language ecosystem
integral is the fact that it the other three, which are more specific. The
first is the natural ecosystem of language, made up of a specific people (P1),
living in a specific territory (T1) and speaking its specific language (L1), as in the
case of the Kamayurá people mentioned above. It is a concrete group of
individuals, inhabiting the Xingu River Reservation and speaking Kamayurá
language. In the same way that the Icelanders (P1) inhabit Iceland (T1),
speaking Icelandic (L1). This linguistic ecosystem corresponds to what the
lay-person thinks of language. Whenever s/he hears the name of a language s/he
does not know, his/her first question is: 'Which people speaks this language?'.
Upon hearing the answer, s/he wants to know where this people live. Everything
in language that has to do with nature belongs here. For instance, its
relations with the physical world, endoecological aspects such as phonetics and
so one. Inside this ecosystem we find the natural environment of language,
namely, P1 e T1, as concrete beings. It is shown in figure 2, where the index 1
distinguishes it from the integral ecosystem of language. As in the previous
figure, the segmented line indicates that there is no direct relation between
language and the world, here represented as T1.
P1
/
\
L1----T1
Natural
Ecosystem of Language
Fig. 2
When we focus our attention on each (or any)
individual of the population (people) we see that language was formed, is
stored and processed in his brain/mind. The linguistic inter-relations or
interactions inside the brain of all individuals take place in the neural
connections. These neural connections are the functioning of the brain, namely, the mind. All this forms the mental ecosystem of language, shown in figure 3. In this
figure L2 represents language as a mental phenomenon, as a set of mental
interactions (interactional rules, systemic rules or 'grammar', vocabular etc. ). P2 stands for the
mind as the brain in activity. P2 corresponds to
the brain of each individual of the population. These brains are the locus of
'mental language'. In this case, the mental environment of language is P2 plus
T2. Again, the segmented line indicates that there is no direct relation
between language as a 'set of patterns of interaction' and the individual
brains. This relation is always mediated by the mind, the mental interactions.
P2
/
\
L2-----T2
Mental
Ecosystem of Language
Fig. 3
Finally, language can be regarded as a social phenomenon
(here represented by L3), as Haugen did as a sociolinguist that he was. We can
see that it is formed by a population as a group of individuals organized
socially (P3), whose totality makes up society (T3). L3, P3 and T3, together,
form the social ecosystem of language, represented in figure 4. In this case
the social environment of language is P3 and T3. As in the previous cases, the
segmented line indicates that there is no direct relation between language as a
social phenomenon and society. It is always mediated by the totality of
individuals (collectivity) that constitutes society
P3
/
\
L3----T3
Social
Ecosystem of Language
Fig. 4
The four figures above suggest that when we talk about
'environment of language' we are referring to at least four different things,
corresponding to four different ways of looking at language. They are answers
to four different questions. If the investigator asks a fundamental question
as, for instance, whether language is a generic human way of interacting, the
answer is yes. After having this fundamental answer, he may want to know
whether language is a natural, a mental or a social phenomenon. All three
answers will be in the affirmative. We can study language from any of these points of
view. In other words, ecolinguistically language is all this at the same time.
It is a biopsychosocial phenomenon. In other words, Ecosystemic Linguistics looks at language from a holistic point of view, although each investigator must delimit a narrow domain of this object as his object, but, differntly from the majority of conventional Linguistics, he does this consceious of this delimitation. Other areas of language can be studied by other investigators. Ecolinguistics is multitheoretical and multimethodological. It is an optic from where the results from these several areas can be evaluated, that is, the ecological view of the world.
With all that in mind, and taking into consideration
what has been published in collective books, I see that Ecolinguistics presents
at least the following subareas and/or lines of research (I mention only a few
of them, among many others).
1. Critical Ecolinguistics (see Fill; Mühlhäusler
2001: 175-290)
2. Ecocritical Discourse Analysis (Fill, Penz & Trampe
2002: 239-412; Fill & Mühlhäusler 2001: 241-290)
3. Environmental Linguistics (see Mühlhäusler 2003;
Harré, Brockmeier & Mühlhäusler 1998; Ramos 2009)
4. Dialectical
Ecolinguistics (Fill, Penzm & Trampe 2002: 415-461; Døør & Bang 2007)
5. Ecossistemic Linguistics (Finke 1996; Trampe 1990;
Strohner 1996; Bastardas i Boada 2000; Couto 2007, 2009, 2016: see the Brasília School of
Ecolinguistics)
6. Ecological Discourse Analysis (Couto 2015), Couto, Couto & Borges 2015).
7. Language Ecology / Ecology of Language (Haugen
1972; Fill, Penz, Trampe (2002: 121-236) Couto 2009; Calvet 1999 etc.):
according to Haugen's original proposal.
8. Linguistic Ethnoecology (originally proposed in
Couto 2007: 219-280; see also Maffi 2001)
9. The Ecology of Language Evolution (see Mufwene
2001; Couto 2007: 296-307; 2009: 61-82)
10. The Ecology of Language Acquisition (Kramsch 2002;
Leather & van Dam 2003)
11. Biodiversity and Linguodiversisity (Maffi 2001).
We could also include Applied Linguistics (Fill,
Trampe & Penz 2007) as well as related disciplines such as Ecosemiotics
(Nöth 1998, Couto 2007: 423-433) and Ecocriticism (Glotfelty & Fromm 1996;
Couto 2007: 434-442).
This list is certainly incomplete in view of the
diversity of research interests that can be seen in the above collective works
as well as in conferences. We have seen that Ecolinguistics sees its object as
non-linearly ordered, non-closed and not simply composed of independent parts.
In other words, it looks for a holistic view of language phenomena. In this
case, somebody in a skeptical and critical mood could ask if if intends to be a
'theory of everything' linguistics. As a matter o fact, Ecolinguistics is a new
point of view from which it is possible to study the phenomena in question. The
expression 'point of view' must be emphasized. It is a new way of seeing the
world. So that, in order to be good ecolinguists it is necessary to change our
way of looking at the world at large. In this vein, to practice science from a
Cartesian-Newtonian perspective, as in Generative Grammar, because this is like somebody who looks at the world
through a window. This person manages to see few things, although he can se many details in it, microscopically.
To practice science from the ecological point of view, as Peter Finke
suggested, is like to place oneself on top of the house, from where one can see
many things, holistically, although it is impossible to see and describe
details of any of them. In this case, we are in sync with the new world-view
introduced by Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics as early as the second
decade of 20th century. It would mean being in sync with more recent theories,
such as Systems Theory, Chaos Theory as well as the tiny details offered by the
mathematics of fractals. As Löwy (1978) said, unfortunately from an ideological
perspective, there are privileged points of view, as is the case with the top
of the house and of the mountain. Whoever places himself/herself there has an
all-inclusive view of his/her object of study. If he/she needs to see some
detail of one specific sector of this global landscape, he/she can zoom in
using one of the several subareas of linguistics (phonology, syntax etc.) and
even of other sciences if needed. In this case, it is possible to study fine
details of the object in question. After having the desired results, the
investigator can zoom out, and go back to the top of the house. There he/she
can evaluate these details in the framework of the holistic view. That is to
say, he/she can study a tree (or even parts of it), but not forgetting that it
is part of a forest.
This procedure has some serious methodological
implications. After my presentation at the Graz conference Empirical Ecolinguistics (Graz, 2010), Josh
Nash asked me which methodology we could use when doing field work. In other
words, what would an 'ecolinguistic methodology' look like? Without much
thinking, I answered that it would be given by the object of investigation.
After having answered him, I became afraid of having said a nonsense. Later on,
after reflecting more deeply on my answer, I concluded that there is no other
way out. If our discipline is holistic, and looks for help from specialized
knowledge and technicians, it must necessarily be trans-, inter- and
multidisciplinary. Each specialized model of analysis has its
specific methodology.
In this case, if we want to talk about 'ecolinguistic
methodology', it is multi-methodological. In other words, the ecolinguistic
investigator uses the methodology of the specific discipline that meets his
necessities of the moment. When he/she goes back to his/her holistic
perspective, he/she does not need this regional methodology any more. The
procedure of analysis is wholly ecological, ecosystemic. We could call this
procedure (ecomethodology) a kind of 'hypermethodology", or 'supermethodology'. It is like
the engineer who disigns cars. The specialist in particular disciplines is like
the mechanic. There are moments in which we need the latter in order to repair
a flat tire. However, as soon it is repaired, the engineer assumes his true
holistic stance, from where he has an idea of the whole functioning of the
vehicle.
I would like to emphasize that Ecolinguistics does not
transpose ecological concepts into language studies in a mechanical and naive
way, as is sometimes said. At least Ecosystemic Linguistics does not use these
concepts as metaphors, as most other ecolinguists do. As a matter of fact, we
do ecology directly. In other words, in our view there are at least two types
of Ecology, namely, Biological Ecology and Linguistic Ecology, or Ecological
Linguistcs, better known as Ecolinguistics. All our scientific, methodological
and heuristic tools are taken from the central concept of ecology, which is the
'ecosystem'. Therefore, the name Ecosystemic Linguistics came out naturally.
Finally, we from the Brasília School of Ecolinguistics
follow a special line of research in the realm of Ecolinguistics called
Ecosystemic Linguistics. This means that we do not restrict ourselves to
analyze critically environmental or anti-environmental discourses. We do it
too. However, we are of the opinion that that could just as well be done by
regular Discourse Analysis. So much so that many European ecolinguists cite Norman
Fairclough very frequently. In our opinion, what makes Ecolinguistics different
from other linguistic disciplines is the fact that the former can study any
linguistic phenomena by seeing them as an 'ecosystem' (linguistic ecosystem) or
being part of one. We think that Ecolinguistics should study language not only
in its exoecology (as defended by Haugen 1972) but also in its endoecology.
This is why our special branch of Ecolinguistics came to be called Ecosystemic
Linguistics.
References
Bang, Jørgen Christian & Jørgen Døør. 2007.
Language, ecology and society. Londres: Continuum.
Bastardas i
Boada, Albert. 2000. Ecologia de les llengües. Barcelona: Proa.
Calvet,
Louis-Jean. 1999. Pour une écologie des langues du monde. Paris: Plon.
Catton, William R. & Riley E. Dunlap. A New
Ecological Paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. American
behavioral scientist 24 (1), 1980, pp. 15-47.
Coseriu,
Eugenio. 1979. Sincronia, diacronia e história. Rio de Janeiro: Presença/EDUSP.
Couto, Hildo
Honório do. 1982. Lingüística e semiótica relacional. Brasília: Thesaurus.
_______. 2007.
Ecolinguística: estudo das relações entre língua e meio ambiente. Brasília:
Thesaurus.
_______. 2009.
Ecologia, linguística e ecolinguística. São Paulo: Contexto.
_______. 2015a. Linguística ecossistêmica. In: Ecolinguística - revista brasileira de ecologia e linguagem (ECO-REBEL) v. 1, n. 1, 2015. Available at:
http://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/erbel/index
_______. 2015b. Linguística ecossistêmica. In: Couto, Hildo; Couto, Elza; Araújo, Gilberto; Albuquerque, Davi (eds.). O paradigma ecológico para as ciências da linguagem - ensaios ecolinguísticos clássicos e contemporâneos. Goiânia: Edidora da Universidade Federal de Goiás, p. 209-262.
Couto, Hildo; Couto, Elza; Borges, Lorena. 2015. Análise do discurso ecológica. Campinas: Editora Pontes.
Denison, Norman.
2001. A linguistic ecology for Europe? In: Fill
& Mühlhäusler (orgs.): 75-83.
Döring, Martin; Hermine Penz & Wilhelm Trampe
(eds.). Language, signs and nature: Ecolinguistic dimendions of environmental
discourse. Tübingen: Stauffenvurg.
Fill, Alwin. 1996. Sprachökologie und Ökolinguistik.
Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
_______; Mühlhäusler, Peter (eds.). The
ecolinguistics reader. Londres: Continuum.
Fill, Alwin; Penz, Hermine & Trampe, Wilhelm.
2002. Colourful green ideas. Bern: Peter Lang.
Finke, Peter. 1996. Sprache als missing link zwischen
natürlichen und kulturellen Ökosystemen. Überlegungen zur Weiterentwicklung der
Sprachökologie. In: Fill (org.): 27-48.
_______. 2001. Identity and manifoldness. In: Fill
& Mühlhäusler (orgs.): 84-90.
Garner, Mark. 2004. Language: An ecological view.
Oxford: Peter Lang.
_______. 2005. Language ecology as linguistic theory. Kajian
Linguistik dan Sastra vol. 17, n. 33: 91-101 (Online:
pt.scribd.com/doc/27175229/).
Glotfelty, Cheryll & Harold Fromm (orgs.)
1996. The ecocriticism reader. Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia
Press.
Harré, Rom, Jens Brockmeier & Peter
Mühlhäusler. 1998. Greenspeak: A study of environmental discourse. Thousand
Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.
Haugen, Einar. 1972. The ecology of language.
Stanford: Stanford University Press: 325-339. Também em Fill & Mühlhäusler
(2001: 57-66).
Kramsch, Claire. 2002. Language acquisition and
language socialization. Londres: Continuum.
Lamb, Sydney M. 1966. Outline of stratificational
grammar. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
_______. 2000. Neuro-cognitive structure in the
interplay of language and thought. In: Pütz, Martin & Marjolijn H.
Vespoor (eds.). Explorations in linguistic relativity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, p.
173-196.
Leather, Jonathan & van Dam, Jet (eds.). 2003.
Ecology of language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lowy, Michael.
1978. Método dialético e teoria política. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 2a. ed.
Maffi, Luisa (ed.). 2001. On biocultural diversity: linking
language, knowledge and the environment. Washington: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
Makkai, Adam. 1993. Ecolinguistics: ¿Toward a new
**paradigm** for the science of language? Londres: Pinter Publishers.
Mufwene, Salikoko. 2001. The ecology of language
evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nöth, Winfried. 1998. Ecosemiotics. Sign systems
studies 26.332-343 (www.ut.ee/SOSE/noeth.htm)
Odum, Eugene P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology.
Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 3. ed.
Ramos, Rui. 2009.
O discurso do ambiente na imprensa e na escola: uma abordagem linguística.
Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian e Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia,
2009
Steffenson, Sune Vork. 2008. The ecology of grammar:
Dialectical, holistic and autopoietic principles in Ecolinguistics. In: Döring,
Penz & Trampe (orgs.): 89-105.
Strohner, Hans. 1996. Die neue Systemlinguistik: Zu
einer ökosystemischen Sprachwissenschaft. In: Fill (org.): 49-58.
Trampe, Wilhelm. 1990. Ökolinguische Linguistik.
Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
