|
This paper considers whether studies separate from more general linguistic enquiry are necessary at all if we do our general (diachronic and synchronic) nobly. The emphasis is on the eco- of ecolinguistics rather than the necessary. The argument is that the philosophical core of ecolinguistic research is far from new and exists and advances on perennial (historical) linguistic bedrock. The methodological and theoretical thrust of ecolinguistics can be posed as a logical extension of any detailed consideration of elements of analysis necessitated under what can be considered traditional general linguistics and a parameter rich sociolinguistics. It is argued the details of ecolinguistics have been, at least philosophically, addressed in earlier linguistic work, and that the fundaments of ecolinguistics ought not (necessarily) be new to linguistics and may merely be a recently developed appellative for what are recurrent concerns in linguistic science. The query is that if ecolinguistics is old (linguistic) wine freshly housed in new (ecologically focused) bottles, what do the monikers ecolinguistics and linguistic ecology as fields of research actually offer? Despite my critical position, I believe ecolinguistic studies do have a worthy contribution to make both to linguistics and to environmental studies research. |
|