Introduction
The influence of language and discourse on environmental attitudes and practices is a pervasive trend in environmental literary history that fascinates me. In Language and the Natural Environment, Beth Shultz (2001) explains how language can be used to affect societal attitudes towards the natural environment. Her writings support the ecofeminist school of thought, which investigates the connections between nature’s dominance and the oppression of women. Shultz demonstrates how language is a potent force that changes people’s beliefs and attitudes and eventually leads them toward the environment by critically investigating the language used in everyday life in Australian society.
Background
The main argument is that language can be used to express sensations and feelings, and that the vocabulary of the resource development sectors is full of euphemisms that present their actions as benign or advantageous to the environment. The work by Schultz (2001) aligns with a broader historical trend in environmental literature that emphasizes the connection between language and the environment. Specifically, her analysis builds on that of other academics who have investigated how language affects environmental discourse, such as George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in Metaphors We Live By (Stibbe, 2020). It exposes how language employed by commercial users of the environment minimizes the negative effects of human activity on the environment. The book also dispels misconceptions about language as an unimportant topic and emphasizes how it can influence people’s feelings and actions toward the environment.
Analysis
One of the key strengths of Schultz’s book is her ability to highlight the power of language by using specific examples. For instance, Schultz (2001) draws attention to the fact that words like “development” and “improvement” have associations with growth and progress, which can make harmful acts, such as clear-cutting or resource extraction, appear as admirable deeds (p. 111). She contends that terminology like “removal” or “degradation” could be better suited to describe these activities because they better capture the harm they cause to the ecosystem (p. 111). Thus, the various ways in which language can be utilized to support damaging behavior and maintain negative attitudes about the natural world are illuminated.
The investigation of euphemisms in the language of resource development by Shultz is also insightful. She demonstrates how terminology like “harvest” and “clearing” is frequently used to excuse the exploitation of natural resources while downplaying the harm caused by logging and land clearance (Schultz, 2001, p. 111). Words, according to Schultz (2001), are not fixed and immutable; rather, they are like “kaleidoscopes”, changing in form and color as they are turned and tilted (p. 109). As a result, the language used to discuss environmental issues is often subjective and can be manipulated to shape public opinion. Shultz urges readers to reevaluate their views on the environment and the effects of human activity on natural ecosystems by offering substitute, more realistic terminology that eliminates euphemisms.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Language and the Natural Environment is a significant work that emphasizes how language has the power to shape people’s perceptions of the environment. Shultz’s careful investigation of the language used in Australian society reveals how language might be used to minimize the environmental impact of human activities. Schultz argues against the idea that language doesn’t matter, showing how the words we use can shape our feelings and actions toward the environment. Overall, this work is significant to me because it highlights the need to question prevailing viewpoints to establish a fairer and respectful connection with the environment.
References
Schultz, B. (2001). Language and the Natural Environment. Bloomsbury Academic.
Stibbe, A. (2020). Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By. Routledge.