Phraseology and Culture in English

Bio- can also appear as a synonym for ‘life’, as in biology. However, in 
environmental language even here the majority of words thus formed have 
the connotation of being environmentally sound. This value-adding func-
tion of the prefix is not a complete replacement in meaning, but it is as if 
adding “life” to something enhances its value. Examples include bioloo (a 
toilet using bacterial lifeforms to break down sewage rather than artificial 
chemicals) and biogas (gas used to produce electricity which is manufac-
tured directly through biological processes, rather than mining). 

---

Lexical developments in greenspeaking
285
A further example is biocide (‘bio’ = life + ‘cide’ = kill), as proposed by 
Rachel Carson (1962), as a more truthful synonym for ‘insecticide’, be-
cause pesticides and insecticides are fatal for all lifeforms, not just pests 
and insects. This multiword has not caught on in popular environmental 
discourse, however, neither in the discourse of protest, nor in the market-
place, where forcing individuals to accept responsibility for product choices 
with the potential to destroy life might not be conducive to encouraging 
such purchases. 
2.1.3. re-
From environmental language comes also a shift in connotation of the pre-
fix re-, as found in the environmental catch-phrase “reduce, reuse and recy-
cle”, although these words are not very new. The semantic concept behind 
re- is that of thrift and preservation for the future. Thus, in addition to reuse
and recycle, we find in our data also regeneration, reintroduce, reclaim and 
revegetate. This prefix has been added to new in several compounds, pro-
ducing words that are closely linked with sustainability (“renewable en-
ergy”, “renewable resource”). 
We note that the pre-existing word resource has in some cases been re-
evaluated, in line with the idea that such things are limited, finite and 
countable. This curious phenomenon is an example of the unplanned emer-
gence, lexical development and side effects of environmental language. It 
may not be possible to predict what term might eventually replace re-
source, but texts centred on oil, fresh water and topsoil provide clear exam-
ples of its re-evaluation, in discourse where these “unrenewable resources” 
are described as running out. 
2.2. Compounds 
The main criteria for identifying compounds as distinct from lexical phrases
are phonological (single main stress) and semantic (single concept). Com-
pounds are lexical units, i.e. they are not fully compositional. These criteria 
may conflict with one another (phonological words do not always equate 
with semantic words) and be gradient (more or less compositional). 

---

286
Melina Magdalena and Peter Mühlhäusler 
2.2.1. Technical compounds 
The bulk of our examples are compounds of the N + N type, where one or 
both nouns are abstract and combine to form a compound which may itslef 
also be abstract (“fisheries protection”, “conservation program”, “protec-
tion zone”, “species richness”). Such compounds are derivationally very 
complex, and their meaning is not always transparent. These compounds 
are more frequently found in legal and scientific discourse than popular 
media. As has been discussed by Mühlhäusler (2003: 66), in dictionaries of 
Environmental Language, there is a "proliferation of scientific terms but a 
lack of terms that reflect popular understanding". Examples of N + N com-
pounds from our data include “glasshouse crops”, “lake ecosystem model-
ling” and “multiobjective environmental planning”. Without access to spe-
cialised information, it is difficult to understand these terms or even place 
them accurately within environmental language. 
Two examples of compounding patterns whose productivity stands out 
in our data involve the lexical units resource (resource development, resource
mobilization, resource use) and management (management actions, man-
agement strategy, wastewater management). We note that through this kind 
of multiword formation action and agents become difficult to retrieve. This 
would seem to be intentional, and is a characteristic of the jargons used in 
many domains. The function of this kind of multiword formation is to high-
light neutrality. In using such compounds, the person or group using such 
terms is not identified at all. Accountability and responsibility have thus 
disappeared, and the meaning of these compounds remains entirely abstract. 
In terms of environmental language, use of such compounds is generally 
restricted to specialist discourse, whether this be scientific, political or bu-
reaucratic. They are less often found in texts produced by environmental 
activists, as they do not readily fit a moral framework, where the possibility 
of taking action forms a vital part of activist discourse. By contrasting this 
process with the function of value-adding and emotional loading as de-
scribed under affixation, the use of compounds could be described as value-
reducing.
A list of samples from an environmental impact statement for a pro-
posed “Solid Waste Balefill” (BONE & TONKIN PLANNERS PTY LTD, 
February 1996) offers ample illustration of this: 

---

Lexical developments in greenspeaking
287