Much of today’s ecolinguistic discourse is characterized by the extensive use of the conceptual metaphor LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES. The language of the Linguistic Human Rights Movement and that of such ecolinguists as MÜHLHÄUSLERand SKUTTNABB-KANGAS, to mention but a few, abound in such expressions as “language murder” or “linguistic genocide”, especially when they engage in the criticism of post-colonial English and the so-called “linguistic imperialism”.
To unravel the knot of the problems that arise from the use of the conceptual metaphor LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES, the notion of conceptual metaphor as defined by the originators of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory George LAKOFF and Mark JOHNSON is to be dwelt on first. Second, in order to better grasp the conceptual metaphor LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES in its functioning, some of the linguistic examples structured by virtue of this conceptual metaphor will be given. Finally, some of the implications of the conceptual metaphor LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES will be indicated. In short, I would like to show what the consequences of an unrestrained use of the conceptual metaphor LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES are, how they arise from the conceptual metaphor under consideration, and why these consequences are untenable from the point of view of those linguists who structure their scholarly discourse by virtue of another conceptual metaphor, namely LANGUAGE IS A TOOL. My aim is to make the reader more sensitive to the use of metaphors in general and to the use and implications of the conceptual metaphor LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES in particular.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
1 CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR. DEFINITION
2 CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES
3 IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES
3.1 DIRECT CAUSAL LINKS
3.2 UNTENABILITY OF DIRECT CAUSAL LINKS
CONCLUSION
Objectives and Research Focus
The work examines the ecolinguistic discourse surrounding the conceptual metaphor "LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES" and critically analyzes its implications, arguing that this metaphor often leads to misleading representations of language and its users. The author advocates for the alternative conceptual metaphor "LANGUAGE IS A TOOL" as a more neutral and functionalist approach.
- The theoretical foundations of conceptual metaphor theory as established by Lakoff and Johnson.
- An analysis of the "LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES" metaphor and the specific similarities it highlights (e.g., life cycles, habitat, agency).
- A critical evaluation of the "mismatch" argument and the perception of major languages as "killer languages."
- The dichotomy between ecological discourse and a functionalist view of language as a tool for communication.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Direct Causal Links
By virtue of the conceptual metaphor LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES, languages are diverse living organisms comparable to those in the fauna and flora. Languages in different states of health (healthy – weakening – dying – extinct) can be distinguished (Schmidt 1991a as cited in MÜHLHÄUSLER 1996, 279). Similar to biological species, languages have habitats of their own, to which they are best adapted. Since biological species weaken and disappear because of a large-scale habitat destruction, so do languages. Who destroys the habitats of some languages? By means of the metaphor, all languages are regarded as independent agents. First, a combination of the similarities LIVING BEING, HABITAT, AGENCY has contributed to the postulation of the so-called “mismatch” argument: Ecolinguists assume that 1. languages are an integral part of a larger ecosystem, that they are rooted in and adapted to a particular environment, and 2. there are languages which are unfitted and detrimental to particular natural environments and to the respective indigenous “linguistic ecosystems” (MÜHLHÄUSLER 1996, 276; NETTLE/ROMAINE 2000). Following this line of argument, major languages, or “alien species”, such as English, French, Spanish, Chinese, or Russian, are regarded as “killer languages” which would not adapt because of their innate inability to adapt to new environments. The habitats of the vulnerable languages and the latter themselves should therefore be protected from the “imperialists”.
Second, taken as a whole, “both [languages and biological species] are seen as endangered because biological species as well as languages have increasingly diminished due to human activities” (LUCKO 2003, 153). Compare also “New IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals” and “UNESCO’s Red Book on Endangered Languages”. Thus, Terralingua declares that “[…] every language, along with its variant forms, is inherently valuable and therefore worthy of being preserved and perpetuated, regardless of its political, demographic, or linguistic status” (as cited in SKUTTNABB-KANGAS 2000, 87).
Summary of Chapters
INTRODUCTION: The introduction outlines the prevalence of the "LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES" metaphor in ecolinguistic discourse and defines the paper's aim to challenge its usage through the lens of "LANGUAGE IS A TOOL."
1 CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR. DEFINITION: This chapter establishes the theoretical framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory based on Lakoff and Johnson, defining structural metaphors as mental constructs that create similarities.
2 CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES: This chapter details the specific entailments of the metaphor, highlighting how it constructs concepts of languages as living beings with agency, habitat, and vulnerability.
3 IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES: This chapter analyzes the practical consequences of the metaphor, including the "mismatch" argument and the portrayal of languages as either victims or predators.
3.1 DIRECT CAUSAL LINKS: This subsection explores how the metaphor leads to the direct transfer of biological concepts to linguistic phenomena, treating languages as independent agents and habitats.
3.2 UNTENABILITY OF DIRECT CAUSAL LINKS: This subsection critiques the biological model, arguing that languages are social, human-made tools rather than living entities, and advocates for attributing agency to language users.
CONCLUSION: The concluding chapter summarizes the argument that the biological metaphor is largely misleading and reaffirms the utility of the "LANGUAGE IS A TOOL" conceptual model.
Keywords
Conceptual Metaphor, Ecolinguistics, Languages Are Creatures, Language Is A Tool, Linguistic Imperialism, Killer Language, Linguistic Genocide, Agency, Habitat, Diversity, Structural Metaphor, Metaphor Theory, Linguistic Ecosystems, Communication, Neutrality
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the critical analysis of the conceptual metaphor "LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES" within modern ecolinguistic discourse and its subsequent impact on how we perceive linguistic diversity and the status of major languages like English.
What are the primary themes discussed in the work?
The key themes include Conceptual Metaphor Theory, the debate surrounding "linguistic imperialism" and "killer languages," the role of language users as agents, and the comparison between biological and functionalist views of language.
What is the central research question or goal?
The primary goal is to show the consequences of the "LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES" metaphor, demonstrate why its entailments are scientifically untenable, and propose the "LANGUAGE IS A TOOL" metaphor as a more constructive alternative.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a critical discourse analysis approach based on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory established by Lakoff and Johnson to deconstruct the linguistic framing used by contemporary ecolinguists.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the definition of conceptual metaphors, a detailed breakdown of the "LANGUAGES ARE CREATURES" metaphor's attributes (like habitat and agency), and a rebuttal of the direct causal links that treat languages as biological organisms.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
The work is characterized by terms such as Conceptual Metaphor, Ecolinguistics, Linguistic Imperialism, Killer Language, and Language Is A Tool.
How does the paper view the term "killer language"?
The paper strongly criticizes the term "killer language" as an instance of loaded, unscientific metalanguage that wrongly attributes agency to languages and promotes negative, potentially explosive attitudes toward major languages.
Why does the author prefer the "LANGUAGE IS A TOOL" metaphor?
The author prefers this metaphor because it emphasizes the functional role of language, focuses on human users as the actual agents of change, and treats all languages as neutral means of communication, thereby avoiding negative connotations.
What does the author suggest about linguistic diversity?
While acknowledging the value of diversity, the author argues that it should not be treated as a static, absolute good that justifies "hate language" or resistance against major international languages, but rather as a phenomenon that should be addressed neutrally.
- Quote paper
- Maryna Zühlke (Author), 2006, Implications of the Conceptual Metaphor "Languages are Creatures", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/154011
