Phraseology and Culture in English

V
+ article + N “Save the...” 
save the environment 
save the trees 
save the koalas 
save the whales 
save the oceans 
save the world 
save the rainforest 
V
+ pronoun + N “Save our...” 
save our climate 
save our wilderness 
save our forest 
2.5.2. Agency 
The language of catch-phrases seems to encourage humans to take deter-
mined and specific action on behalf of the environment, but although verbs 
may be present (often in the imperative), the actors are usually unstated. 
Catch-phrases are almost always vague in terms of what humans are com-
mitting themselves to doing in order to address a perceived problem. As with 

---

Lexical developments in greenspeaking
297
the other categories of multiwords, catch-phrases offer a way of talking about 
the environment, rather than interacting with it. 
Furthermore, the imperative use of verbs in catch-phrases presents a 
two-edged sword in the sense that both environmental activists and com-
mercial advertisers make use of this linguistic tool. A phenomenon of envi-
ronmental language is its ready uptake by producers and retailers such as 
when a canvas shopping bag is advertised as “Save the Earth – $5 per bag”, 
or promoted through slogans such as “every bag counts”. Although this is 
not a study of the discourse of environmental advertising, it is noted that 
petroleum companies such as Shell Oil and fast-food corporations such as 
MacDonalds readily adopt environmental concepts and language to pro-
mote themselves and their activities. This is frequently implemented by 
marketers as a mere change in rhetoric rather than actual product improve-
ment or change in processes. 
A list of catch-phrases out of context will not necessarily belong obvi-
ously to either camp, but the direction of adoption is usually from activism 
to marketing, and not the other way around. An example of a catch-phrase 
which originated from activism is “beep for the boycott”, which clearly 
exhorts the recipient through the use of an imperative verb to take a particu-
lar action. 
2.5.3. Imperative 
Another group of catch-phrases incites humans to stop, prevent or disallow 
circumstances. An Australian example is based on “No Dams”, which was 
a campaign during the early 1980s to save the Franklin River in Tasmania. 
The “No –” catch-phrase has been taken up in many arenas since then, such 
as “No Mines” (referring to uranium mines). 
Stop appears in our data as a strong catch-phrase component, used to 
create catch-phrases on many a theme. 
STOP
stop the Amazon forest destruction 
stop ESSO 
stop climate change 
stop Star Wars 
stop engine cruelty 
stop whaling 

---

298
Melina Magdalena and Peter Mühlhäusler 
2.5.4. Formulae 
Catch-phrases tend to be formulaic, which can lead to blandness or seman-
tic bleaching. A set of catch-phrases which appears with regular variants 
can be convenient in the sense that the referent is highlighted when the new 
variant is first encountered, but the other side of the coin is that such sets of 
catch-phrases can function as another jargon. Sets of catch-phrases can 
become stereotyped and repetitive, because the variant is just part of an 
almost meaningless set of assumptions and connotations. In addressing the 
use of slogans in the context of national parks and biodiversity, Brandon et 
al (eds.) (1998) suggest that: 
Catchy phrases, slogans, assumptions, and stereotypes have shaped conser-
vation policy, to the detriment of both people and wildlife. Implementing 
these slogans and basing actions on stereotypes have not led to progress in 
conserving biodiversity either outside or inside of parks. Furthermore, such 
behaviours have constrained creative thinking on park protection and ways 
to solve the biodiversity crisis outside of parks. (Brandon, Redford, Sander-
son (eds.) 1990: introduction) 
The set of catch-phrases built around “Neighbourhood Watch” provides 
an example of the stereotypes and assumptions groups of catch-phrases can 
contain. In Australia, we have “Neighbourhood Watch”, “School Watch”, 
“Hospital Watch”, “Farm Watch” and “Business Watch”. We discovered in 
our data the catch-phrase “Trolley Watch”. This is not, as one might as-
sume, a program for keeping one’s shopping safe from theft, but rather an 
environmental program which encourages consumers to make particular 
product choices about what they put into their trolleys. 
Another example of this is built around the concept of ‘care’, a word 
which functions in English either as a verb or a noun. The meaning of ‘to 
care’ has developed new connotations in the last couple of decades, which 
entail quite specific physical actions and activities, rather than a vague 
emotional state. A person, group or company can care for other humans, 
industries, nursing homes, companies, parks, beaches and wildlife, to name 
a few. As these connotations have become familiar, care has been incorpo-
rated into the official titles of programs (Landcare, Coastcare), where its 
meaning, like ‘watch’ becomes bleached. 
An interesting distinction appears when this process is employed with 
the adjective safe and the verb saving. If it refers to something that can be 
bought and consumed, such as toilet paper (“eco-safe”), or a tin of tuna 
(“dolphin-safe”), it is described as “safe”. This is quite useful for marketers, 

---

Lexical developments in greenspeaking
299
because it also employs a process of metonymy, in which mundane prod-
ucts are enhanced through their association with “the environment”. How-
ever, products which themselves consume energy, for example a refrigera-
tor or wood-burning stove, are more likely to be described as being “energy 
saving” than “climate safe” or “greenhouse safe”. 
The concept of ‘efficiency’, which comes out of economic rationalism, 
has also been employed to describe products which have the potential to 
consume energy and fuel, e.g. in the catch-phrases “energy efficient” and 
“fuel efficient”. Described in this way, these products become more desir-
able to consumers. 
2.6. Acronyms and blends 
The formation of blends is where two or more lexical items merge into a 
new word to express a single concept. ‘Smog’ (‘smoke’ + ‘fog’) is a well-
known example of this process. Examples in our data include ecotage (eco-
logical + sabotage) and twigloo (twig + igloo = an abode constructed from 
twigs and branches in the shape of an igloo). 
We also note the blend guppie (green + yuppie), formed of an acronym 
plus an adjective. Yuppie (Young Upwardly-mobile Professional) was a word 
taken up readily and disseminated through popular media during the 1980s. 
The resulting blend effectively merges the environmental era with the con-
sumerist era, enabling the guppie, or the environmentally-conscious con-
sumer to be born.