Annurev Anthro 35 081705 123203 PDF

Environmental Discourses
Peter Muhlh ausler1 and Adrian Peace2

1
Linguistics Discipline, University of Adelaide, SA 5005 Australia; email: peter.muhlhausler@adelaide.edu.au Discipline of Anthropology, University of Adelaide, SA 5005 Australia; email: adrian.peace@adelaide.edu.au
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:457-479. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by University of Sussex on 07/30/12. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006. 35:45779 First published online as a Review in Advance on July 6, 2006 The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org This articles doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123203 Copyright c 2006 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 0084-6570/06/1021-0457$20.00
Key Words
ecolinguistics, ethnography of communication, environmental metaphor, biocultural diversity, greenspeak
Abstract
Discourses concerned with the perceived global environmental crisis have increased dramatically over the past couple of decades. This review consists of an ethnographic analysis of the principal components of environmental discourses as well as a discussion of the approaches employed to analyze them. These include linguistic discourses (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 discourses have developed into a distinct discourse category. It remains unclear to what extent the numerous environmental discourses and metadiscourses signicantly contribute to improving the health of the natural environment.
457
INTRODUCTION
Environmental discourse: the linguistic devices articulating arguments about the relationship between humans and their environment.
DEFINITIONS
We dene environmental discourse as comprising the linguistic devices articulating arguments about the relationship between humans and the natural environment, but we restrict the denition further. Language has always been used to explore this relationship. But until recently most discourse took place in the belief that a largely self-regulating nature could be taken for granted. The new discourse differs in that its principal focus is the endangerment of nature and the human species in a global context. The ambiguity of the terms environment and nature is central to understanding this global discourse. Environment in essence is an anthropocentric notion: The term has increasingly come to mean a nature tangibly important only to human health and livelihood (Hochman 1997, p. 82). Rowe (1989, p. 123) and Fill (1993) criticize the vagueness of the term, and Howard includes it among his weasel words (1978, pp. 8184). As examples, he cites U.S. game parks, where visitors can see bears not, as we used to say in our oldfashioned way, in natural surroundings, but in the environmental habitat, and aerosol cans, which kill most household germs on environmental surfaces. Williams (1983) calls nature perhaps the most complex word in the language; its meaning is far removed from the technical notion of entities and processes uninterfered with by human agency (p. 219). In a study of naturalness as it is applied to Australian ecosystems, Taylor (1990) concludes that failure to recognize that naturalness is a culturally constructed concept, rather than a universal one, has produced . . . inconsistency and ambiguity in the terminology used for these assessments (p. 411). Jagtenberg (1994) says we are confronting both ecological decline and an explosion of discourses about nature (p. 14). However, this explosion is evidence not for some direct
Discourses about the contemporary environment, and the economic and political processes that impact upon it, are by no means of concern solely to environmental anthropologists. Such is the reach and depth of disquiet and anxiety about the environmental future in both Northern and Southern hemispheres; it seems unlikely that the concerns of local and regional populations will not surface, at some point or other, during most anthropologists periods in the eld. At the same time, such is the linguistic complexity of environmental discourses that the need to marry anthropological perspectives with those prominent in other disciplines appears distinctly pressing. In recent years, we have spent considerable time as a linguist-anthropologist tag team unpacking the natural discourses with which people make sense of a unique island environment off the east coast of Australia. Convinced of the merits of pooling the strengths of our disciplines and taking the ethnography of speaking in new directions, we have more recently turned our attention to the competing and contentious discourses focused on environmental crisis at the global level. Our main problem is the sheer quantity of environmental discourses, which has vastly increased in recent decades in response to worldwide awareness of the global environmental crisis, and which is produced from numerous disciplinary and linguistic backgrounds. Anthropology, linguistics, philosophy, sociology, and other disciplines now address the question of how environmental discourses work. A blurring of disciplinary boundaries is paralleled by a blurring between discourse and metadiscourse. In our terms, discourse refers to specic ways of talking about particular environments and their futures. Metadiscourse refers to practices of theorizing, which categorize issues to establish their signicance.
458
Muhlh ausler
Peace
inuence of environmental factors on language, but rather for the emergence of risk society (Beck 1992) and technologies such as nuclear power, which no insurance companies dare touch. We interpret environmental discourse as an attempt by risk society members to make sense of the global changes that affect them (Spaargen et al. 2000). Another task is to explore how the study of environmental discourse can make contributions to environmental understanding. Our key questions are as follows:
the result is etic rather than emic, and therefore facilitates comparative study; the main level of analysis has been the event, a unit well provided for by the ethnography of communication; and an ethnographic approach highlights areas that have received insufcient attention.
Are there any salient properties of environmental discourse? Which linguistic approaches are most suited to analyzing them? What contribution can the previous points make to environmental sustainability?
SPEECH COMPONENTS IN DISCOURSE ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS Participants

Hymes observes (1972), [T]he common dyadic model of speaker-hearer species sometimes too many, sometimes too few, sometimes the wrong participants (p. 59) and advocates a distinction between addresser, sender, hearer, and addressee. These distinctions are relevant to understanding global environmental discourses. The addresser. Addressers are the source of a message, and a number of analysts have shown that speaking on behalf of the Earth (vicarious advocacy in Harr e et al. 1999, p. 182) is a salient feature of environmental discourses. It entails assigning intelligence to nonhuman entities such as ecosystems (Dryzek 1997, p. 17) or a personied goddess such as Gaia (Lovelock 1979). Earlier black and white categorization between two addresser groups, environmentalists and developers, persists in more recent discourses, but others (Killingsworth & Palmer 1992) offer more complex classications. Addressers have been classied in terms of their key metaphors (Dryzek 1997) or dominant behaviors: ecofreaks, tree-huggers, ferals, greenies, NIMBY (not in my backyard), and NIABY (not in anybodys backyard) (see Muhlh ausler 2003). Dryzek (1997) emphasizes the discourses of principal agents such as survivalists, prometheans, democratic pragmatists, and green rationals, whereas Jamison
www.annualreviews.org Environmental Discourses 459
CLASSIFICATION
To reduce the polyphony of environmental voices to the common denominator of political discourse (Leuthold 1999, p. 5) seems too simplistic. Harr e et al. (1999) distinguish between scientic, moral, economic, and aesthetic macro discourse. Clear distinctions exist between such micro discourses as green economic policies (Gerbig 2000), green consumerism (Elkington et al. 1988), and green advertising (Muhlh ausler 1996, Luke 1997). Herndl & Brown (1996) separate pretheoretical classications into ethnocentric, ecocentric, and anthropocentric discourse. Dryzek (1997) adds a political discourse with four subcategories: problem solving, survivalism, sustainability, and green radicalism. Such pretheoretical taxonomies are indicative of a nascent eld of inquiry. We approach the salient features of environmental discourse in terms of an ethnography of speaking (Hymes 1972) such that the ethnography of communication lends itself to organizing large bodies of observation;
(2001) distinguishes activists, academics, and practitioners. Increasing the number of addressers would seem timely; environmental discourses are no longer dominated by a small coterie of Western professionals. But addressers have also changed over time from concerned individuals (Carson 1962, Ehrlich 1969) to national and international organizations. Collective addressers fall into two main categories: those concerned with management and government, and those focused on moral and aesthetic aspects of the environment. Big business has succeeded in repackaging its ideology by promoting green consumerism (Alexander 2002, Doyle 1991, Beder 1997, Gerbig 2000, Stauber & Rampton 1995). This is often green tokenism, but the actions of ethical enterprises differ markedly from traditional big business. Governments have become the most powerful producers of environmental messages. Transnational bodies such as the European Union, World Bank, and UNESCO increasingly broadcast environmental messages. Alongside powerful organizations such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and the Sierra Club, we nd concerned groups of scientists, the Club of Rome (Meadows et al. 1972), and green political parties. The idea that there is a genuine global discourse remains problematic. Jamison (2001) comments that in the 1970s such a discourse appeared to transcend the ideological disputes and other sources of division, like class, race, gender, and national identity (p. 1) but comes to the conclusion that national identity denes discourse communities. The notion of global discourse also sits uneasily with incompatible value systems in intercultural settings. Jones (1994) details the incommensurability of Maori and Pakeha languages in environmental debates. Marnham (1981) observes, African opinion would be hostile to every assumption upon which an expatriate notion of game parks is based (p. 8). Wilderness is particularly problematic, as Burnett &
Kamuyu wa Kangethe (1994) have illustrated for east African languages. Richards (1992) highlights the problems with wildlife conservation (p. 1) in Sierra Leone. Genske & Hess-Luttich (2002) underscore intercultural eco-semiotic problems between developing and developed nations; similar conclusions can be found in Muhlh ausler (2003). Rhetorical claims about globalization have resulted in a hyperbolic emphasis on integration and interdependence, which undervalues the persistence of national and local forces. Speaker. The mainstreaming of environmentalism has resulted in a disjunction between the roles of addresser and speaker. The media are important speakers, and their role has attracted considerable attention (Dyer & Dyer 1990, Gerbig 2000, Hansen 1996, Rissel & Douglas 1993). A survey of the medias role in sustaining environmental discourse is given in Muhlh ausler (2003). Speakers who represent large organizations can be found on all sides of the environmental debate. CEOs and professional environmental communicators, speakers for large corporations, spokespersons representing organizations such as Greenpeace, and green politicians increasingly speak with the voice of their party rather than as individuals. Hearer. Hymes (1972) subscribes to a mechanistic metaphor of messages being sent and received that equates hearers and addressees with passive recipients. In reality, environmental meanings emerge in active or interactive discourses between all players. We do not develop this criticism but note that a mechanistic view of communication is shared by numerous producers of environmental messages. One design feature of human language is that it is broadcast and that an uttered message can be heard by all and sundry. In the West, environmental discourses are heard all the time as the media untiringly churn out stories about environmental disasters.
460
Muhlh ausler
Peace
The concept of risk society implies a lack of certainty on all sides (Caplan 2000). Hearers are exposed to messages they do not completely understand even when ecoliterate and numerous conicting messages are encountered. This concept suggests a classication of hearers into those who are ecoliterate or earthliterate (Verhagen 2000) and those who ignore or lter out messages, or suffer from ecofatigue. Corporate discourses about the environment are capable of manipulating even the ecoliterate. Ehrlich & Ehrlich (1996) have drawn attention to the practice of brownlash, which minimizes the severity of environmental problems; Brosius (1999) explains how greenwashing by public relations rms manufactures uncertainty about environmental threats (p. 28). The ability of hearers to lter out information depends on whether they are directly affected by environmental issues. Farrell & Goodnight (1998) observe that during disasters a rhetorical crisis occurs where audiences struggle to understand information, set criteria for policy evaluation, and locate viable options for action . . . . [T]he crisis does not so much invite discourse as defy it (p. 76). In the wake of Three Mile Island, people simply ed. In other disaster situations such as Bhopal (Fortun 2001) or Exxon Valdez (Browning & Shetler 1992), hearers reactions were inuenced by patchy understanding and an inability to act rationally in the face of conicting messages. Addressee. Addressees are members of target audiences. Given the economic and ideological importance of green discourse, identifying target audiences is a central task of environmental rhetoric. Environmentalists tend to assume their message alone will appeal to the commonsense of those waiting to be enlightened. But their lack of attention to the question of how to target particular audiences has rendered them less effective than expected. Penman (1994) has drawn attention
to their failure to acknowledge limited environmental awareness. Businesses and politicians have adopted more sophisticated strategies. Public opinion surveys (Luke 1993, pp. 16566) increasingly shape the agenda of corporations and political parties, and the appeal of environmental messages has become important in electioneering and market research on green consumer behavior (Elkington et al. 1988, Lenz 2003, Muhlh ausler 2000). Limited consumer interest slows down the production of environmentally friendly vehicles and green television programs.
Ends
The gap between goals and outcomes is particularly noticeable in the area of environmental policy-making, in which policies are a substitute for, rather than a means of, achieving desired outcomes (Schiewer 2002, Strang 2004). Goals/Purpose. Much environmental discourse elaborates the theme that human actions are detrimental to the survival of humanity. Each speech act warns that it is in the interest of the individual to desist from such activities. Waddell (1998) argues that the ultimate purpose is the preservation of future choice (p. xiii). Changes in individual behavior or government policy range from single topic (do not chop down more trees in the parkland) to generalist ones (save the planet/world). Proper conduct of the relation between society and nature (Rutherford 1994, p. 40) has grown in importance, and it is to be achieved by government control and manipulation of environmental awareness. Neuwirth (2002) details the rhetorical strategies used by the Austrian government and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in support of nuclear power and in downplaying the risk of launching plutonium-laden spacecraft. Schultz (2001) analyzes the linguistic devices
www.annualreviews.org Environmental Discourses
461
(euphemism, vagueness, hyperbole) employed by big government and large corporations to control public opinion. One important discourse goal is to locate the speaker on the high moral ground, for example, in promoting vegetarianism (Marko 2000): To what extent vegetarianism is any better for animals than animal husbandry remains unclear, and it goes hand in hand with habitat destruction, use of pesticides, and high storage costs. Harr e et al. (1999) have used narratology to explore the general principles of taking the moral high ground: The narratives of opposing groups (e.g., supporters and opponents of nuclear energy) are structurally identical; the only difference lies in the roles assigned (hero, helper, innocent bystander). In spite of widely held views on the centrality of discourse in constructing reality, discourse often seems to postpone action. Talk about the plight of the River Murray in Australia, for instance, is not matched by comparable action; as we are running out of water, we are also running out of time. Adam (1997) comments on the difculties humans experience when calibrating time. Environmental consequences of human actions can occur with a time lag varying between milliseconds and millennia. Humans typically perceive consequences that occur a few hours, at most a few years, after the event. Outcomes. Bruner & Oelschlaeger (1994) emphasize the relative lack of consequential change in environmental discourses compared with those of antienvironmentalists who have been effective in accomplishing their objectives at least in part, because of their ability to articulate persuasive rationales through slogans, myths and narratives (p. xviii). This contrast in degree of linguistic adaptation was anticipated by earlier writers who commented on the way environmental rhetoric leaves a reality gap because it uses old language to derive the terms of a new condition (Segal 1991, p. 3). Continued exposure to more alarming facts about topics such as global warming does not lead to enhanced alertness but
462 Muhlh ausler
rather to an atmosphere of fading interest (Killingsworth & Palmer 1992, p. 270). The new discourse about the environment comprises the greening of the language of industrial societies, the proliferation of new lexical resources, the emergence of green word formation, and green metaphors becoming root cultural ones. Green language heightens peoples awareness of environmental issues. As Hajer (1995) notes, the discursive power of ecological modernization manifests itself in the degree to which its implicit future scenarios permeate through society and actors reconceptualize their interests and recognize new opportunities and new trouble spots (p. 261).
Act Sequences
In Hymess (1972) model, act sequences are concerned with the form messages conventionally take as well as their semantic content. The model separates formal from semantic properties, a separation difcult to uphold in discourse analysis. We nevertheless try to separate form and content, noting rst that the intensity of environmental discourses is characterized by peaks (Rio, Kyoto) and troughs. Ecolinguists argue that the contours of Western languages are increasingly at odds with the contours of their speakers environments. According to Halliday (2001), modern Western languages are the outcome of past developments and their grammars are memories of past experience: Their layers reect our past as hunter gatherers through to modern bureaucratic modes of existence. This memory of the past inuences how we perceive the world today, although what seemed functional in the past is now no longer so. The notion that bigger is better (in English we typically nd conjuncts where bigger comes rst, as in all creatures great and small) is deeply entrenched in most languages, but in the current crisis such growthism is dysfunctional. Forms of speech. The greening of modern languages manifests in the changing
Peace
norms for using lexical items. Lexical innovations in English combine deliberate creation of terminology with spontaneously evolving terms. There has been a proliferation of specialist dictionaries for environmen tal words (surveyed in Muhlh ausler 2003), which reveal substantial changes in everyday language. Formally, most new lexical items are (a) morphologically complex, (b) built predominantly from Latin and Greek roots, (c) of limited transparency, or (d ) misleading. The fact that major Western languages have in excess of 100,000 words for environmental matters does not mean that many of them enter into everyday discourse. Where specialist communities have redened popular words such as trash, garbage, or rubbish, miscommunication is frequently the result. Like other unpleasant phenomena, environmental degradation has promoted the use of euphemisms which either replace existing termsto harvest rather than to hunt, landll rather than rubbish dump, to cull rather than to killor take the form of formalized collocation, as in sustainable development or green business. The trends outlined in English are paralleled elsewhere. Stork (1998) has documented the environmental lexicon of French, whereas Trampe (2001) takes on the German lexicon of agribusiness. Message content. Lanthier & Olivier (1999) observed that the environmentalist discourse originates in the environmental and human disasters provoked by technology (p. 67). These origins can be traced back to debates about deforestation, drought, and water shortages following the economic and cultural conquest of the earth by European colonizers (Grove 1992). The impact of mining, overgrazing, and overuse of forests has been discussed by Weigl (2004). The following areas have been identied by Trampe (2001, p. 233): pollution and waste problems, habitat destruction, species extinction, and nuclear energy. New topics are constantly
added, bearing out Sapirs (1912) observation as to the social dimension of all discourses about nature. In the discourses about animal extinction, a small number of charismatic species (whales, seals, wolves, tigers, koalas, pandas, and dingoes) prevail (Knight 2000), biologically equal or more important species (scavengers, dung beetles, weevils, or wasps) rarely feature, nor do equally endangered domestic subspecies (Penman 1994). Brosius (1999) discussed the criticism that Euro-American discourses often ignore the plight of inhabitants of developing nations and pointed out that environmental discourses are changing in response to critiques of elitism, to charges that they ignore social justice issues, to accusations that they are a form of neo-colonialism (p. 282). The emergence of discourses of biocultural diversity (Maf 2001) illustrates this change.
Biocultural diversity: implies that the well-being of languages is a prerequisite for the well-being of natural species
Tone or Key
The key of a message on one hand is a product of choices made in the domains of language form, content, and channel; on the other hand it impacts on the norms of interpretation and interaction. Although the terms key and tone are used interchangeably, our preference is for the latter. Tone. Different macro discourses about the environment vary with respect to tone, although most are distinctly serious. In Kahns (2001) summary, Scientic discourses about the environment have been criticized for their cold, dry-as-dust objectivity, their antiseptic gaze on death and indignity, their consistent use of the passive voice to avoid the appearance of responsibility (p. 242). Killingsworth & Palmer (1992) observe that the attempt by scientists to write in a neutral detached tone is undermined by anthropomorphizing the effect of scientic language and their use of a teleological kind of language for nonteleological concepts (p. 114). Halliday & Martin (1993) criticize scientic discourse similarly: It constructs a reality that
is xed and determinate, in which objects predominate and processes seem merely to dene and classify them (p. 20). However, this register gives scientic discourse its authoritative tone. Whereas Myerson & Rydin (1996) have drawn attention to the frequent use of irony in environmental discourse, others have characterized it as irrational and emotional (Schiewer 2002) and as hysterical (Killingsworth & Palmer 1992). Harr e et al. (1999) note that often there is a coupling of terms such as global warming and the rise of sea level in disaster stories, such as the scenarios in which densely populated low-lying areas are ooded, which in their view justies characterizing such discourses as apocalyptic (p. 68).
INSTRUMENTALITIES
Environmental discourse involves both numerous channels and numerous speech forms. With increasing global involvement by more participants, further greening of communication can be anticipated. A range of studies addresses the production of environmental messages, but these studies are not matched by a similar concern with perception.
Channels/Media
The emergence of environmental discourses coincides with the proliferation of new media and their globalization. A brief survey by Muhlh ausler (2003, Ch. 11) reveals that environmental discourse is fully embedded in this global multimedia structure. One exception is Phillips, who illustrates (2000) how six couples try to cope discursively with the proliferation of ecological risks. He maintains, Peoples sense of responsibility is limited by being constituted within discourse, which constructs political action beyond a limited amount of political consumption as belonging to a separate realm to which they have access only via mass media (pp. 171207).
464 Muhlh ausler
Environmental discourse in the mainstream and alternative press has received some attention. Dyer & Young (1990) and Doyle & Kellow (1995) provide accounts of the media treatment of environmental issues in Australia, including coverage of a northern Australian World Heritage Site, the Daintree Forest. They explain (Doyle & Kellow 1995) that once the researcher leaves the realm of major newspapers and enters the arena of small rural ones, antienvironmental bias appears well-entrenched. All papers created and perpetuated stereotypes; sympathetic portrayal of green issues by the media became widespread only recently. In a critical review of Times special edition (2 February 1989) on The Planet of the Year, Our Endangered Earth, Grossman (1989) comments on the language therein, which perpetuates the myth that the environmental crisis is caused by the recklessness, carelessness, sloppy handling, and proigacy of individuals. It did not include the deliberate decisions of governments and corporations, nor that of criminal organizations, which continue to exacerbate the crisis. In the realm of television and video, the imperative of newsworthiness is even more pronounced. As Delli et al. (1994, p. 79) have pointed out, most environmental degradation, unlike much less frequent eco-catastrophe, is an ongoing and slowly changing process and is therefore low on the scale of newsworthiness. Specially nominated days provide the media with an opportunity to compress slow-moving events into a fastmoving story. The green calendar is full of days focusing on particular issues or inviting particular actions, such as Buy Nothing Day or Clean Up Australia Day. Public perceptions of major crises in American domestic life do little more than occasionally heighten public interest to alleviate boredom (Downs 1972, p. 89). The main problem with such media coverage is that it articulates the view that sufcient information is known about
Peace
environmental problems for successful ameliorative measures to be undertaken. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the ideological impact is understandably substantial. One principled linguistic limitation of environmental media is that the subject matter is immensely complex and that most language is ill suited to expressing the connectivity between relevant factors. This kind of discrete linguistic restriction accounts for the radical simplication of environmental information by stereotyping, accumulating ill-digested information on the Internet, and portraying complex information in new ways. Jagtenberg & McKie (1997) and McKie (2000) have developed the notion of media scape or media ecology to examine the complex feedback relations between messages and audiences. They note considerable differences between public and private media. Eco-advocacy texts emerge primarily from public television, whereas commercial networks generate few texts of that type. These divergences and discrepancies reect the limited appeal of environmental reporting compared with light entertainment and bear out that television is not an effective medium of mass education (Vivanco 2002). McKie (2000) adds that the anthropocentric properties of human languages are reinforced by unconscious and deliberate selection.
ploy nonstandard forms of speaking as a kind of antilanguage against the establishment. The protest against the proposed nuclear power station at Whyl was voiced in Alamannic, the shared vernacular of Swiss, German, and French citizens affected by the development.
Genre
Environmental discourses employ traditional genres such as narrative, myth, and sermon and add new ones such as Environment Impact Assessments. Rose (2004) states, it may be that narrative is the method through which the reason of connectivity will nd its most powerful voice (p. 6). Killingsworth et al. (1992) share this hope for a generally accessible narrative, the story of how human action reconciles conicting demands and the search for a good life (p. 21). Narratives are employed because of their important role in creating sense, reducing complex phenomena to accessible texts, and maximizing on their rhetorical force. Harr e et al. (1999) focus on the rst aspect, narratives as frameworks, for our attempt to come to terms with the nature and conditions of our existence (p. 20). This idea of narrative includes folk tales, fairy stories, novels, and insider autobiographies (Kelly 1984). Harr e et al. (1999) note the importance of the Bildungsroman, a novel reecting the three German meanings of Bildung : formation, education and creation (p. 72): It is concerned with the development of the protagonists mind in the passage to maturity, for example, Lovelocks (1979) earnest biologist who realizes too late the consequences of his meddling with nature. Similar narratives are discussed by Bowerbank (1999). Cronon (1992) argues that narratives impose a single vision of reality when the complexity of issues facilitates the production of several possibilities. Harr e et al. (1999) show how the same formal narratological structures are used in constructing a range of stories about the environment.
Forms of Speech
The forms of speech component refers to the dialect, accent, and variety used in speech events, all of which have received little attention. Environmental discourses are predominantly in English and other major Western languages. As environmental concerns are most prominent among the middle classes, standard varieties of the language are the norm. Such circumstances are compounded by the fact that standard written forms are used in print and electronic media. Protest movements attempt to em-
NORMS
Factors that militate against normative consensus in environmental discourse include its novelty, its global nature, and the constant changes in issues, ideologies, and participants. Agreed norms take time to develop. One can observe the gradual emergence of norms within regional and wider communities, but the presence of environmentalist and antienvironmentalist discourses limits emergence of shared norms. At the global level, there is little chance of norms developing from below: Contact between participants is insufcient. National and regional norms (Hajer 1995) for different European countries remain because they take place in widely different languages that favor different perspectives on the environment.
agenda, such as the Western educated and elite organizers of the 1992 Earth Summit (Harr e et al. 1999, pp. 1217), when a global message was whisked around the world from Rio (Conca & Dabelko 1998) and comprised a fusion of local discourses into one media event (Harr e et al. 1999), no genuine norms resulted: [A]s yet, it is far from the expression of a unied voice (p. 20).
Norms of Interaction
The validity of environmental discourses depends on their accreditation as dened by assumptions about commonsense and shared metaphors. As Carbaugh (1992) has illustrated, outsiders have difculty in making their voice heard. Western experts pronouncing on environmental matters in the developing world are at times accused of being neoimperialists and eco-missionaries (Agarwal & Narain 1991). For their part, Western experts frequently ignore the proposition that scientic knowledge can be culture bound and provincial. Interaction on environmental matters is characteristically dened by two opposing models of communication. The model used in scientic, economic, and political discourse is the conduit metaphor (Reddy 1979) of messages generated by experts being passed on to the unenlightened. But the assumption of passive hearers is an inadequate view of communication and yields undesirable consequences. Environmentalists also subscribe to this model, but there are some within their ranks who instead aim to generate genuine collaboration and recognize that input never equals intake in human communication. In such models, knowledge-ow from the developing to the developed world is called for (Peet & Watts 1996).
Bruner & Oelschlager (1994) argue, Antienvironmentalists play to the established cultural narrative that Man is over nature, that nature is nothing more than an ecomachine which we technologically manipulate, and that a good society is one which totally fulls itself through market preferences (p. 383). Nature writing is another established genre that continues to inspire environmental discourse. This genre precedes all others, although, as Raglan (1991) observes, environmental thought is underrepresented in the Western canon, despite writers such as Thoreau, Rousseau, or the German Romantics having been inuential. Early nature writers are nevertheless attacked as dangerous sentimentalists by others (Weissman 1996). We note that their modern equivalents have become semantically bleached and trivialized when Suzukis or Attenboroughs television series become items of popular culture. Environmental history has emerged as an important genre over recent years, ranging from large-scale surveys such as Crosbys (1986) account of the biological consequences of European colonization, through to more focused accounts of the histories of commodities such as sugar, coffee, cod, or the history of landscapes (Worster 1990, Cronon 1996). Although normative expectations can be imposed by those who dene the global
466 Muhlh ausler
Norms of Interpretation
The title of Taylor & Buttels (1992) paper How Do We Know that We Have Global Environmental Problems? suggests that the
Peace
central problem is one of making sense of complex, conicting information. One key problem again is accreditation, that is on relations obtaining between what is said or written and the circumstances in which it is being produced and/or interpreted (Harris 2001, p. 154). Alexander (2000) writes, Part of the problem of changing peoples behavior regarding environmental and ecological issues is appreciating that differing social, economic and political forces employ language and discourse in persuasive terms in different ways (p. 186). One reason for the lack of common interpretive norms is the different time perspectives of different communities (Harr e et al. 1999). The proportion of the worlds population who do not think ahead for more than a few days at a time is large and growing, whereas those who understand the consequences of events in the distant future remain a small minority. As Posner (1990) summarizes, Given that this generation has created technologies and technological problems that will be around for very long periods of time (e.g., nuclear waste, genetically engineered species), what will be the code, message and medium necessary to alert future generations to potential dangers? (pp. 78). The norms governing environmental discourse again draw heavily on those emanating from powerful institutions in society. Thus, the view in the West that one can trust scientists more than politicians also holds for green discourses and is one of the principal reasons why greenspeaking draws extensively on scientic language. The greening of business and the emergence of green consumers pose additional problems of interpretation. Almost all products offered for sale now have environmental claims attached to them, which makes informed decision making increasingly difcult. Interpretation is hugely problematic when it comes to complex disasters such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Bhopal. Farrell & Goodnight (1998) detail the insufciency of ofcial and private discourses to make sense of them and conclude
that no one understood all that was going on (p. 76).
SURVEY: ANALYTICAL APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL DISCOURSES

Environmental discourse concerns the relationship between language and the world. Muhlh ausler (2003, p. 2) highlights four different linguistic approaches to this relationship: Language is for cognition: It exists in a social and environmental vacuum (Chomsky). Language is constructed by the world (Marr). The world is constructed by language (structuralism, poststructuralism). Language is interconnected with the world: It both constructs and is constructed by it (ecolinguistics). These approaches recognize that what one can know about the global environment is inextricably linked with language inasmuch as knowledge is dependent on effability. We begin with language because one can use language about all effable aspects of the world; but the converse is not the case. There is discourse about the environment, but no environment about discourse. The rst perspective (Chomskys independence hypothesis) takes the position that language is a neutral tool or that all human languages (potentially or actually) have the same capacity for talking about the environment. But both Saussurian structuralists and Chomskyan generativists disconnect language from external inuences. This disconnection has been labeled limiting the arbitrary by Joseph (2000), who offers an incisive critique of modern linguistics, as does the ecolinguist Finke (2002). The inability of modern linguists to address environmental discourses is compounded by their largest unit of analysis being a single sentence. Moreover, the meaning of sentences has been established with reference
Greenspeaking: replacing or postponing environmental action by just speaking about it in green language Ecolinguistics: a branch of linguistics that integrates the study of language with its cultural and natural environment
467
Ecology of language: the study of interactions between any given language and its cultural and political environment
to internal sense relations, not external referents. The view that languages are constructed by the external physical or social world has not been popular in mainstream linguistics, but it continues to be argued in connection with language origins. Saussurian structuralism was in part a reaction against a historical approach to language, which sought to explore how linguistic differences could be explained in terms of different environmental factors. The marginalization of onomatopoeia (Nuckolls 1999) and iconicity of signs further widened the gap between language and the world. When language change was considered, its explanation remained restricted to internal factors such as system organization, reanalysis, or faulty transmission. External actors in language change were considered by the ecology of language approach pioneered by Haugen (1972), who focused on the deliberative man-made political ecologies in which languages compete with one another. Haugen dened language ecology as the study of interactions between any given language and its environment (p. 336), but he restricted this to the cultural and political environment while also emphasizing the survival of the ttest. This somewhat skewed perspective was followed by several European scholars (surveyed by Fill 2003 and Muhlh ausler 2003). Contemporary ecolinguists have modied Haugen by emphasizing the cooperative principle in ecology and the value of linguistic diversity. More effective approaches emerged in other disciplines or in the still-marginalized critical linguistics (Fairclough 1992), integrational linguistics (Harris 1981, Toolan 1996), and ecolinguistics (Fill 2003, Muhlh ausler 2003). Critical linguistics and critical discourse linguistics are based on the poststructuralist notion that perceptions of the environment are discursively constructed. Ecolinguistics can be traced back to the 1980s when a group of linguists asked whether the looming environment crisis was due in part to language. Early writers such as Fill
Muhlh ausler
(1993) drew on the experience of language and gender studies because the linguistic denigration of women is, in many languages, accompanied by a denigration of nonhuman life forms (Leach 1968, Tansley 1991, Dunayer 2001). One issue that drew much attention was the development of a new lexicon for talking about environmental matters. Muhlh ausler (1983) in a review of Landy (1979) proposed that this new language is characterized by three problems: semantic vagueness: e.g., terms like pollution, progress, and pest. semantic underdifferentation: e.g., growing, which can refer to natural growth, man-made growth, arithmetic growth, exponential growth, etc. misleading encoding: e.g., zero-growth (which fails to recognize what is being added), labor saving (which does not say whose labor is being saved), and fertilizers (which can render soil unproductive). Muhlh ausler (1983) detected a widespread unease among environmentalists who became aware of their linguistic limitations. Alternative discourse approaches such as Johnson (1991) and Jung (1996) became available in due course, whereas an address by Halliday in 1990 (published 2001) brought the nonecological nature of many languages to the attention of applied linguists. His proposal combined a detailed critique of lexical and grammatical categories of contemporary English in an attempt to correlate different types of grammar with different stages in cultural and technological development. Emphasis was given to the role of nominalization, transitivity, and countability of nominal expressions in distorting the t between the contours of language and the contours of the environment (Martin 1986, Goatly 2001, Fill 2003). The Whoran notion that lexicon and grammar of individual languages are the root causes of our environmental crisis is a
468
Peace
recurrent theme (surveyed by Muhlh ausler 1998). It has promoted the search for ecologically more adequate ways of speaking in non-Western cultures and has suggested ways in which an ecologically correct biocentric language can be developed. The rst kind of suggestion, surveyed by Little (1999), ranges from romanticizing tribal languages considered to have privileged environmental insight to selectively mining them for traditional ecological knowledge. That environmental language was a new area for language planning was suggested by Halliday in 1990; others have taken up the challenge. Stibbe (2004) surveys studies on environmental verbal hygiene and concludes that tinkering with language is unlikely to produce a consistent and effective overall discourse for expressing ecological issues (p. 4). However, in view of widespread ecofatigue, a robust discourse about speciesism, growthism, and other linguistic shortcomings could drive the wider adoption of environmental discourse. An examination of how different meanings of sustainable development prevent intelligent discourse about the subject (Alexander 2000, Redclift 1987) certainly seems worthwhile, likewise with the terminology applied to charismatic species (Lee 1988, Peace 2005). Two principal resources for ecocritical analysis are rhetorical studies and critical analysis. Several publications deal with rhetoric (Killingsworth & Palmer 1992; Herndl & Brown 1996; Muir & Veenendall 1996; Myerson & Rydin 1996; Waddell 1998; Harr e et al. 1999). Waddell (1998) has argued that environmental discourse must be cognitively plausible, evoke sentiment, and relate to most people. He implies the rhetorical study of current discourse rarely meets these criteria. Segal (1991) argues that all arguments represent themselves as arguments for environmental protection. The absence of a clearly identiable opposition means we encounter gestures in support for the environment, even from those who would despoil it (p. 2). The result is a blurring of boundaries and the
appropriation of ecospeak (Killingsworth & Palmer 1992) and greenspeak (Harr e et al. 1999) by antienvironmentalists. The new rhetoric is one of appropriation and manipulation by big business and government. We perceive, in the increasing greening of English and other Western languages, a kind of linguistic Ersatzhandlung, with the very real danger of talk replacing or postponing action (Harr e et al. 1999, p. ix). A common focus in rhetorical studies is that environmental discourse involves a multitude of voices, a new hybrid discourse (Rojas 2001, p. 8) involving a Babel of discourse communities (Killingsworth & Palmer 1992, p. 21).
Ecocritical analysis: studies how the dynamics of social processes such as racism, sexism, or speciesism shape discourses and perceptions of ecological matters
METAPHOR STUDIES
Given the limitations on environmental understanding, it comes as no surprise that scholars pay a great deal of attention to metaphor. Myerson & Rydin (1996) and Harr e et al. (1999) devote a chapter to it. It is most commonly analyzed from the perspective of Lakoff & Johnson (1980). Root metaphors are used either as convenient parameters for distinguishing different types of environmental discourses (Drysek 1997) or as targets for criticism. Bullis (1992) for example attacks mechanistic metaphors as having outlived their usefulness (p. 347) and criticizes metaphors such as eco-defense and ecowarrior for constructing confrontation as a means of achieving peace and harmony (p. 352). The centrality of medical metaphors in the construction of environmental awareness has been emphasized by Stratford (1994) and Lanthier & Olivier (1999). A concern for health is shared across a wide range of ideological positions. Metaphors of healing or preventive medicine are widely employed, but the main interest lies in showing how metaphors can fudge discursive differences. Mills (1982) identies three core metaphors by which Western societies have lived for the past 1000 years: nature
as a book written by God (Middle Ages); nature as a reection of the human body (Renaissance); and nature as a machine, rst a clock, then a steam engine, and most recently a (bio)computer (the present). Ecofeminists have drawn attention to the root metaphor of rape (Schaffer 1988) in expressions such as opening up virgin territory or penetrating the land. Two principal reasons for the proliferation of metaphor are the novelty of the subject matter, which brings into being new heuristic possibilities, and the conicting agendas of those who use environmental discourse. As Harris (2001) observes, There is a fundamental division about the role of language, which can surface in all kinds of ways. At its sharpest, it emerges in where you draw the line between sense and nonsense . . . . For some people, undoubtedly, the claim trees have rights is nonsense, or at least utterly confused (pp. 155 56). Doring (2002, 2004) illustrates that the metaphors by which certain groups live are important factors in inuencing peoples environmental actions. The use of metaphor in greenwashing has been described by several analysts and surveyed by Muhlh ausler (2003, Ch. 10). Farrell & Goodnight (1998) have looked at the use of metaphors in relation to Three Mile Island, and Liebert (2001) similarly compares the emergence of the moneyequals-water metaphor in the construction of nineteenth-century public water systems. A recent trend looks at the total commod ication of nature. Muhlh ausler & Peaces (2001) analysis of the language of ecotourism has highlighted the metaphorical tendency to anthropomorphize animals and to portray nature as a battleeld where the nonhuman combatants are in a permanent struggle for survival. Marko (2002) observes that although the sexuality of whales and their rearing practices are talked about in zoological terms, discourse about their communicative and social abilities is couched in anthropomorphic metaphor (see also Peace 2005). That disassociation is employed when animals are exploited or hunted
470 Muhlh ausler
is a common theme, as in the case of baby seals versus seal pups (Martin 1986, Lee 1988). Waddell (1998) comments on synecdoche (the part stands for the whole), and this deserves more scrutiny, as charismatic creatures typically stand for nature while endangered species are talked about as miners canaries (p. xvi). That metonymy (being next to makes something similar to) plays an important role in naturalizing nonnatural practices and products has been shown for environmental advertising (Muhlh ausler 1999). Characteristically, such advertisements visually locate products or trademarks in unspoiled nature.
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (ECOCRITICISM) AND CULTURAL STUDIES

What unites the varied contributions to ecocriticism is the objective of creating awareness of the cultural roots of the environmental crisis and the hope that such discourses will result in action. There is also an emphasis among ecocritics on connectivity, as Estok (2001) explains: Ecocriticism at its best seeks understanding about the ways that dynamics of subjugation, persecution, and tyranny are mutually reinforcing, the ways that racism, sexism, homophobia, speciesism and so on are, to use Ania Loombas term, interlocking (p. 9). Ecological discourse has featured prominently in green cultural studies with its emphasis on popular culture and the mechanisms that dene common sense, as illustrated by a special issue of the Australian Journal of Communication (1994). Contributions range from analysis of media stories (Lucas 1994) and lms (McKie 1994) to governmental appropriation of environmental discourse. Other objects of analysis are listed on a resource site at Warbaugh State University (http://www. wsu.edu/amerstu/ce/ce.html accessed 10 October 2004). One recurrent theme of green cultural studies is the limited efcacy of environmental discourse and the call for more active involvement in the environment.
Peace
Penman (1994) shows how the discursive practices of environmentalists and farmers have enabled her to become a better farmer, an experience shared by Trampe (2001).
THE BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY APPROACH

Concern for the loss of biodiversity can be traced back to Carson (1962), but it has only recently become a topic of ecolinguistics. The equally dramatic disappearance of cultural and linguistic diversity is also a more recent focus for attention. That the two phenomena are causally connected was argued independently by Harmon (1996), Muhlh ausler (1995), and Thompson (1994). Muhlh ausler (1995) argued that life in a particular human environment is dependent on peoples ability to talk about it. Mafs (2001) edited volume contains several programmatic, empirical studies suggestive of interdependencies between language knowledge and environmental management. Given that 96% of languages are spoken by 4% of the worlds population, almost three quarters of which are endangered or highly endangered, further acceleration of environmental degradation is probable. The biocultural diversity approach considers a wider range of parameters than is common to discourse analysis, but its ndings are tentative. One attempt to limit the range is Muhlh auslers (1996) study of young languages among small populations on small islands such as Norfolk Island and Pitcairn Island. Preliminary ndings suggest unnamed life forms have a considerably greater chance of becoming extinct than do named ones. The converging environmental and linguistic crises and their causes have been examined by Harmon (2002). In the domain of language planning (e.g., Liddicoat & Bryant 2000), arguments in favor of biocultural diversity have become mainstream in a short period. The assimilationist and rationalist approach has recently begun to give way to ecological language planning, which favors maximum linguistic diversity.
The relations between linguistic diversity and biological diversity are now being discussed by major bodies such as UNESCO. May (2003) detailed the scepticism among those linguists and language planners who question the link and argued that speakers must be free to choose to abandon their language in favor of global culture. The concept of free choice is not problematized by these advocates.
CONCLUSIONS
When considering the relationship between discourse and the environment, one can start either at the linguistic end and explore how linguistic devices are employed in talking about the environment or at the environmental end and ask to what extent languages are shaped by environmental correlates. Our choice was motivated by the fact that the bulk of the literature surveyed here starts at the language end. The rst question of our survey concerned the salient properties of environmental discourses. We noted there is a tendency to equate the notion of environment with what sustains human life and what pleases humans. Most discourses are anthropocentric. most discourses are focused on local concerns and issues covering no more than a human life span. there are discursive attempts to globalize environmental discourse, but this is a small part of the totality of possible ones. One further salient property is widespread uncertainty under conditions of risk society, which leads to a greater use of narratives and rhetoric than in many other discourse genres. As environmental discourses are concerned with the everyday, so they are becoming institutionalized and bureaucratized, the more so as discourse analysis becomes part of environmental management programs being promulgated by big business or big government.
The most noticeable feature of green discourse is lexical choice. In addition to new descriptive expressions, many loaded terms are currently available for rhetorical purposes. Euphemisms, buzz words, weasel words, and emotive terms are prolic; their translation equivalents are beginning to spread, although European and American ones remain prominent. One of the outcomes of the greening of linguistics is the emergence of a new applied linguistics, which, according to Halliday (2001), may not hold the key to solving environmental problems. But it is assuredly imperative for us to write instructions for the use of the key. The emergence of environmental discourse in the 1980s coincided with the disintegration of a single paradigm of modern linguistics. Practitioners of new approaches to linguistics began to ask new questions and employ new analytic methods. The emergence of ecolinguistics was likely inevitable, as has been exploration of the interconnectedness of language endangerment and biocultural diversity more recently. Our nal question concerned the contribution environmental discourses can make to
environmental sustainability. We concur with Waddell (1998), who comments on the role of language in revitalizing the public at large and underlines the need to discover language for both experts and generalists alike (p. xv). Language may not be the key, and focusing on the nature of the linguistic code to produce an ecofriendly dialect is unlikely to prove successful. Renaming the vulgar names for life forms in the English language of the eighteenth century and replacing them with scientic ones did little to improve Britains natural environment (Thomas 1983). What is important rather is to recognize the importance of multiple perspectives, dynamic dialects (Dr & Bang 1996), and the inevitability of change. This requires adopting Hallidays instructions to be critically aware of the instrument of language and its uses. Green approaches to discourse can promote awareness that the language one uses privileges certain perceptions and actions and that expressing matters differently will privilege others. The view that perfection is not in any single entity, but requires a diversity of expressions (Harmon 2002), is one of the central insights of ecological thinking and ecological approaches to language.
SUMMARY POINTS 1. The study of environmental discourse requires a number of approaches. It is necessarily 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.
472
Muhlh ausler
Peace
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 overcome by deliberate acts of language planning. 3. The efcacy 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. 92112. London: Routledge Agarwal A, Narain S. 1991. Global warming in an unequal world: a case of environmental Colonialism. Earth Island J. 6:3940 Alexander RJ. 2000. The framing of ecology: some remarks on the relation between language and economics. See Ketteman & Penz 2000, pp. 17390 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. 23954 Benton LM. 1995. Selling the natural or selling out? Explaining environmental merchandising. Environ. Ethics 17(1):322 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. 16378. Oxford: Blackwell Brosius JP. 1999. Analyses and interventions: anthropological engagements with environmentalism. Curr. Anthropol. 40(3):277309 Browning LD, Shetler JC. 1992. Communication in crisis, communication in recovery: a postmodern 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 16:37795 Bullis C. 1992. Retalking environmental discourses from feminist perspectives: the radical potential of ecofeminism. See Oravec & Cantrill 1992, pp. 34659 Burnett GW, Kamuyu wa Kangethe. 1994. Wilderness and the Bantu mind. Environ. Ethics 16(2):14560 Caplan P, ed. 2000. Risk Revisited. London: Pluto Press Carbaugh D. 1992. The mountain and the project: dueling depictions of a natural environment. See Oravec & Cantrill 1992, pp. 36076 Carson R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifin 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. 78:134776 Cronon W, ed. 1996. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: Norton
The rst book-length introduction to ecolinguistics contains both a history of the eld and numerous suggestions for future research.
Compiles important documents addressing the ecology of language and ecolinguistics. Many were published in inaccessible places and had not attracted the attention deserved. Was compiled on the occasion of 30 years of ecolinguistic studies. Contains a number of important articles illustrating ecolinguistic analysis as well as suggestions for future research.
Crosby AW. 1986. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe 9001900. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Delli C, Michael X, Williams BA. 1994. Fictional and nonctional television celebrates Earth Day: or politics in comedy plus pretence. Cult. Stud. 8(1):7498 Dr J, Bang JC. 1996. Ecology and truth: dialogue and dialectics. See Fill 1996, pp. 1725 Doring M. 2002. Vereint hinterm Deichdie metaphorische konstruktion der wiedervereinigung in der deutschen presseberichterstatttung zur oderut 1997. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 25573 Doring M. 2004. Rinderwahnsinn: das Unbehagen in der kultur und die metaphorischdiskursive ordnung ihres risikomaterials. http://www.metaphorik.de/aufsaetze/doeringbse.htm Downs A. 1972. Up and down with ecology-the issue-attention cycle. Public Interest 28:3851 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 Dryzek JS. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press Dunayer J. 2001. Animal Equity: Language and Liberation. Derwood, MD: Ryce Dyer K, Dyer J. 1990. The print media and the environment. See Dyer & Young 1990, pp. 53047 Dyer K, Young J, eds. 1990. Changing Directions: The Proceedings of Ecopolitics IV. Adelaide: Cent. Environ. Stud. 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 Elkington J, Knight P, Hailes J. 1988. The Green Consumer Guide: From Hairspray to HamburgersShopping for a Better Environment. Melbourne: Penguin Books Estok SC. 2001. A report card on ecocriticism. AUMLA: J. Aust. Univ. Lang. Lit. Assoc. 96:220 38. http://www.asle.umn.edu/archive/intro/estok Fairclough N, ed. 1992. Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman Farrell TB, Goodnight GT. 1998. Accidental rhetoric: the root metaphors of Three Mile Island. See Waddell 1998, pp. 75105 Fill A. 1993. OkolinguistikEine Einfuhrung . Tubingen: Narr Fill A, ed. 1996. Sprach okologie und Okolinguistik. Tubingen: Stauffenburg Fill A. 2003. Language and ecology: ecolinguistic perspectives for 2000 and beyond. AILA Rev.: Appl. Linguist. 21st Century 14:6075 Fill A, Muhlh ausler P, eds. 2001. The Ecolinguistics Reader. London/New York: Continuum Fill A, Penz H, Trampe W, eds. 2002. Colourful Green Ideas. New York: Peter Lang ineinander verschachtelte puppen der linFinke P. 2002. Die nachhaltigkeit der sprache-funf guistischen Okonomie. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 2958 Fortun K. 2001. Advocacy After Bophal. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Genske DD, Hess-Luttich EWB. 2002. Gespr ache ubers wasser ein okosemiotisches projekt zur umweltkommunikation im Nord-Sud-Dialog. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 299326 Gerbig A. 2000. Patterns of language use in discourse on the environment: a corpus-based approach. See Ketteman & Penz 2000, pp. 191216 Goatly A. 2001. Green grammar and grammatical metaphor, or language and myth of power, or metaphors we die by. See Fill & Muhlh ausler 2001, pp. 20325
Muhlh ausler
474
Peace
Grossman R. 1989. Of time and tide: media and the environment. Chain React., Winter, pp. 1819 Grove RH. 1992. Origins of western environmentalism. Sci. Am. 267:2227 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 & Muhlh ausler 2001, pp. 175202 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 linguistic diversity. Southwest J. Linguist. 15:89108 Harmon D. 2002. In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity in Nature and Culture Makes Us Human. Washington, DC/London: Smithson. Inst. Press R, Brockmeier J, Muhlh Harre ausler P. 1999. Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental Discourse. California/London/New Delhi: Sage Harris R. 1981. The Language Myth. London: Duckworth Harris R. 2001. A note on the linguistics of environmentalism. See Fill & Muhlh ausler 2001, pp. 15458 Haugen E. 1972. The ecology of language. In The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen, ed. AS Dill, pp. 32539. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Herndl CG, Brown SC, eds. 1996. Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press Hochman J. 1997. Green cultural studies: an introductory critique of an emerging discipline. Mosaic 30(1):8197 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. 1553. Washington, DC: Anthropol. Soc. Wash. Jagtenberg T. 1994. The end of nature? Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):1425 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 Transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Johnson C. 1991. Green Dictionary. London: Macdonald Jones D. 1994. Nga Kaitaki and the managers: bicultural communication and resource management in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):10516 Joseph JE. 2000. Limiting the Arbitrary: Linguistic Naturalism and Its Opposites in Platos Cratylus and Modern Theories of Language. Amesterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Jung M. 1996. Okologische Sprachkritik. See Fill 1996, pp. 14973 Kahn M. 2001. The passive voice of science: language abuse in the wildlife profession. See Fill & Muhlh ausler 2001, pp. 24144 Kelly P. 1984. Fighting for Hope. London: Chatto & Windus Ketteman B, Penz H, eds. 2000. ECOnstructing Language, Nature and Society: The Ecolinguistic Project Revisited. Tubingen: 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 Conicts in Anthropological Perspective. London: Routledge Lakoff J, Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Brings together philosophical, psychological, and linguistic insights into environmental discourse. Addresses the structure of environmental narratives and environmental metaphor.
475
Compiles more than 30 papers addressing the interrelationship between the loss of the worlds linguistic heritage and the loss of biological diversity.
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. 6378. 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. 2363. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Lee JA. 1988. Seals, wolves, and words: loaded language in environmental controversy. Alternatives 15(4):2129 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-0708.pdf Liddicoat AF, Bryant P. 2000. Language planning and language ecology: a current issue in language planning. Curr. Issues Lang. Plan. 1(3):3035 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 & Muhlh ausler 2001, pp. 1016 Little PE. 1999. Environments and environmentalisms in anthropological research: facing a new millennium. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28:25384 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 scientic controversy by the Sydney Morning Herald. Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):7291 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. 15471. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Luke TW. 1997. Ecocritique: Contesting the Politics of Nature, Economy and Culture. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Maf L, ed. 2001a. On Biocultural Diversity. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press Maf L. 2001b. Introduction: on the interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. See Maf 2001a, pp. 150 Marko G. 2000. Go veggie! A critical discourse analysis of a text for vegetarian beginners. See Ketteman & Penz 2000, pp. 21739 Marko G. 2002. Whales and languagecritically analysing whale-friendly discourse. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 34160 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. 23567. Sydney: Sydney Assoc. Stud. Soc. Cult. May S. 2003. Rearticulating the case for minority language rights. Curr. Issues Lang. Plan. 4(2):95125 McKie D. 1994. Telling stories: unnatural histories, natural histories, and biopolitics. Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):92104 McKie D. 2000. Informing environmental citizens: media technologies public relations and public understandings. Eur. J. Commun. 15(2):171207
Muhlh ausler
476
Peace
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. 72:23753 Muhlh ausler P. 1983. Talking about environmental issues. Lang. Commun. 3(1):7181 Muhlh ausler P. 1995. The interdependence of linguistic and biological diversity. See Myers 1995, pp. 15461 Muhlh ausler P. 1996. Linguistic adaptation to changed environmental conditions: some lessons from the past. See Fill 1996, pp. 10530 Muhlh ausler P. 1998. Some recent developments in Whoran 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, 2:3543. Bremen: Universit aetsverlag Muhlh ausler P. 1999. Metaphor and metonymy in environmental advertising. AAA-Arb. Angl. Am. 24(2):16780 Muhlh ausler P. 2000. Language planning and language ecology. Curr. Issues Lang. Plan. 1(3):30667 Muhlh ausler P. 2003. Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in Ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge Muhlh ausler P, Peace A. 2001. Discourses of ecotourism: the case of Fraser Island. Lang. Commun. 21:35980 Muir S, Veenendall T, eds. 1996. Earthtalk: Community Empowerment for Environmental Action. Westport, CT: Praeger Muller M. 1855. The Languages of the Seat of War in the East with a Survey of the Three Families of Language, Semitic, Arian, and Turanian. London: Williams & Norgate 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: UCL Press Neuwirth G. 2002. Eco-linguisticsgoing beyond the text. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 36171 Nuckolls JB. 1999. The case for sound symbolism. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28:22552 Oravec CL, Cantrill JG, eds. 1992. The Conference on the Discourse of Environmental Advocacy. Utah: Univ. Utah Humanit. Cent. Peace A. 2005. Loving leviathan: the discourse of whale watching in an Australian eco-tourist location. In Animals in Person: Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Intimacies, ed. J Knight, pp. 191210. London: Routledge Peet R, Watts M, eds. 1996. Liberation Ecologies: Environments, Development, Social Movements. London: Routledge Penman R. 1994. Environmental matters and communication challenges. Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):2639 Phillips L. 2000. Mediated communication and the privatization of public problems: discourse on ecological risks and political action. Eur. J. Commun. 15(2):171207 Posner R. 1990. Warnungen an die Ferne Zukunft: Atommull als Kommunikiationsproblem. Munchen: Raben Verlag Raglan R. 1991. Re-establishing connections. Alternatives 17(4):2835 Redclift M. 1987. Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London/ New York: Methuen Reddy MJ. 1979. The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conict in our language about language. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. A Ortony, pp. 284324. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press
Book-length introduction to ecolinguistics containing chapters about environmental discourse and environmental metaphor.
An interdisciplinary study of environmental debates concentrating on the rhetorical devices employed in them. Contains numerous examples of environmental texts. An early document containing more than 30 contributions on the language of environmental advocacy. Many of the themes rst addressed here have been taken up by subsequent analysts.
477
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. 68:8692 Rojas CE. 2001. Discourses of the environment in the Northern Expansion of Santaf e de Bogot a. MA thesis. Univ. Cincinnati, Cincinnati Rose D. 2004. The ecological humanities in action: an invitation. Aust. Humanit. Rev., Issue 3132. http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-April-2004./rose.html Rowe SJ. 1989. What on earth is environment? Trumpeter 6(4):12326 Rutherford P. 1994. The administration of life: ecological discourse as intellectual machinery of government. Aust. J. Commun. 21(3):4055 Sapir E . 1912. Language and Environment. Am. Anthropol. 14:22642 Schaffer K. 1988. Women and the Bush. Faces of Desire in the Australian Cultural Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Schiewer GL. 2002. Sind gesellschaftliche diskurse uber technikfolgen rational? Kooperative verst andigung in kommunikationstheoretischer perspektive. See Fill et al. 2002, pp. 395 412 Schultz B. 2001. Language and the natural environment. See Fill & Muhlh ausler 2001, pp. 10914 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. 16. http://www.ecoling.net/magazine.html Stork Y. 1998. Ecologie: Die Geschichte zentraler Lexien des franz osischen Umweltvokabulars seit 1968. Germany: Tubigen 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):5671 Tansley AG. 1991. The use of abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. In Foundations of Ecology, ed. LA Real, JH Brown, pp. 31841. 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):40516 Taylor SG. 1990. Naturalness: the concept and its application to Australian ecosystems. Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 16:41118 Thomas K. 1983. Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 15001800. Harmondsworth: 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 & Muhlh ausler 2001, pp. 23240 Verhagen FC. 2000. Ecolinguistics: a retrospect and a prospect. See Ketteman & Penz 2000, pp. 3348 Vivanco LA. 2002. Seeing green: knowing and saving the environment on lm. Am. Anthropol. 104(4):11951204
478 Muhlh ausler
Peace
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. 9:120 Weissmann G. 1996. Ecosentimentalism: the summer dream beneath the tamarind tree. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 27:48389 Williams R. 1983. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Worster D. 1990. Seeing beyond culture. J. Am. Hist. 36:114247
479
Annual Review of Anthropology
Contents
Volume 35, 2006
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 p 59 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 Lonk p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 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 Sren 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 Environmental Discourses Peter Muhlh ausler 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 p 15 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 p 37 The Research Program of Historical Ecology William Bale p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 75 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 p 99 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
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 Palmi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 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 p 59 The Research Program of Historical Ecology William Bale p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 75 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 Environmental Discourses Peter Mhlhusler 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 p 37 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 Lonk p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 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 2735 p p p 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 2735 p p p p p p p p p p p p 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

Annurev Anthro 35 081705 123203 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Annurev Anthro 35 081705 123203 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Environmental Discourses

Peter Muhlh ausler1 and Adrian Peace2

SPEECH COMPONENTS IN DISCOURSE ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS Participants

www.annualreviews.org Environmental Discourses

that no one understood all that was going on (p. 76).

SURVEY: ANALYTICAL APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL DISCOURSES

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (ECOCRITICISM) AND CULTURAL STUDIES

THE BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY APPROACH

www.annualreviews.org Environmental Discourses

Annual Review of Anthropology

Volume 35, 2006

Вам также может понравиться