Phraseology and Culture in English

Scientific Name* 
Common Australian 
Name
Aboriginal
Name
Linguistic Group 
or Area** 
Tree-rat 
Jintimunga 
Tiwi 
Hydromys chry-
sogaster 
Water-rat Rakali 
Murray 
River 
Leporillus condi-
tor 
Stick-nest Rat 
Mudluwaldu 
Arabana / Wang-
kangurru
Rattus villosissi-
mus
Long-haired Rat 
Pardiki 
Warlpiri 
Conilurus peni-
cillatus 
Brush-tailed Rabbit-rat Barkuma 
East Arhem 
Zyzomys argurus Common Rock-rat 
Jadarru 
Wunambal 
Mastacomys 
fuscus 
Broad-toothed Rat 
Tooarrana 
Tasmania 
Uromys caudi-
maculatus 
White-tailed Rat 
Thupi 
Kuuku Ya’u 
Rattus colletti 
Dusky Rat 
Kotin 
Roper River 

---

Lexical developments in greenspeaking
281
Rattus Tunneyi 
Pale Field Rat 
Pirlay 
Murrinh-patha 
Mesembriomys
macrurus
Golden-backed Tree-
rat
Koorrawal Wunambal 
Pogonomys sp. 
Prehensile-tailed Rat 
Djidjiparra 
Jidjibawa / Jaabu-
gay 
* Scientific names would continue to be used in scientific discourse. 
** The proposal does not recognise the plethora of names that exist for the same 
species, but privileges names from these particular language groups. 
1.5. Language-calming 
Jacobson writes of “the thingification of the world” (Jacobson 1988: 29). 
This process can be illustrated with the clear tendency in environmental 
language to disassociate action from multiword units. We observed through 
our data that most multiwords in environmental language are abstract nouns. 
They do not express processes in which humans or groups of humans are 
actively engaged, even where they were derived from verbs, (manage Æ
management). As reflected in our data by the dominance of terms which 
have emerged from scientific discourse, this may be a side-effect from the 
scientific practice of seeking objectivity by removing human subjectivity 
from any processes described. Such reduction of action to abstract nouns 
makes it difficult to: 
(i) 
associate the action / process itself with a temporal context; 
(ii) 
describe and measure the action / process and its gradience, and 
(iii) 
ascertain who is performing an action / process and who has re-
sponsibility for the action / process. 
The effects of these lexical developments are two-fold. Firstly, things to do 
with the environment tend to simply “happen”. Neither a person, govern-
ment or corporation is responsible for anticipating, observing or dealing 
with the consequences. Secondly, the environment is pacified through this 
process. It is not talked about as being active and dynamic, but is rendered 
a passive and static unitary “thing”. Our language suggests simultaneously 
that humans can take action upon or on behalf of the environment, and that 
humans are distanced, and do not interact with the environment. 
The idea that humans can control the environment through the applica-
tion of appropriate management skills and technology is pervasive (“atti-

---

282
Melina Magdalena and Peter Mühlhäusler 
tude management”, “effluent management”, “fishery management”, “land re-
source management”, “responsible management” and even “wilderness man-
agement” and “climate management”). Note the following quotation: 
Everyone these days is or aims to be a manager, and this may be why we 
talk of managing the whole planet. Could we, by some act of common will, 
change our natures and become proper managers, gentle gardeners, stew-
ards, taking care of all of the natural life of our planet? (Lovelock 1992) 
With this quote, Lovelock directly challenges what Jacobson has termed the 
thingification of actions and processes, suggesting that humans are agents, 
whose actions directly affect the planet. Implicit within this challenge for 
humans to become “planet managers” is the assumption that humans have 
the ability, know-how and willpower to take on the task of global manage-
ment, perhaps thereby supplanting the role of a deity. 
1.6. Value-adding 
We observed a tendency within environmental language to load value onto 
components of multiword units, which reflects the ideological choices 
made by speakers. The choice of one term over another can also be indexi-
cal of who is speaking. Whether one chooses the term ecological system or 
ecosystem can thus indicate the group with which one identifies (e.g. “pure 
science” versus “environmental science”).
2
Similarly, one’s ideological position becomes transparent in discussions 
of diet. Whether one refers to one’s diet as being “vegetarian”, “omnivo-
rous”, “ovo-lacto vegetarian”, “vegan” or “carnivorous” connotes a great 
deal more than a diet choice. 
With the topic of food and its origins, greenspeaking clearly enters the 
discourse of morality (Marko 2000). In a world with pockets of famine and 
drought, the use of water and land to produce foodstuffs can become a 
morally contested issue if one group believes there is a more productive 
way to use available resources to feed more humans at less cost to the envi-
ronment. Product-labelling in reference to meat adds a further dimension to 
this ideological discourse. Meat itself may be referred to as “animal prod-
uct”, “corpse”, “protein food” and so on. Within this spectrum lie further 
ideological choices to do with meat production such as “free-range”, “hor-
mone-free”, “halal”, “GM-free”, “eco-kosher”, “cruelty-free”, “farm-killed”, 
and so on. 

---

Lexical developments in greenspeaking
283