Linguistic Ecology

1. Когниция и познание. Современные когнитивные исследования языка, особенно исследования, проводящиеся в русле когнитивизма первого поколения [см. Кравченко 2009], исходят из рационалистического понимания когниции как свойства живых систем, наделенных разумом. В отечественной когнитивной парадигме это особенно заметно, поскольку зачастую английское cognition переводится как «познание», а познание в русском языке понимается как «приобретение знания, постижение закономерностей объективного мира, способность познавать» [Ожегов 2010]. Таким образом, процесс взаимодействия разумной живой системы с миром рисуется следующим образом: существует независимая от живой системы реальность, устроенная по неким объективным законам, и раскрытие этих законов, их «усвоение» и составляет процесс познания. При этом не совсем ясно, в чем телеологическая подоплека понимаемого таким образом познания, т. е. в чем конечный, биологический смысл познания как «приобретения знания». Традиционный философский подход к познанию как стремлению к истине лишь запутывает проблему, потому что если познание -это «усвоение чувственного содержания переживаемого, или испытываемого, положения вещей» [Губский, Кораблева, Лутченко 1994: 349], истина как некий абсолют недостижима в принципе, потому что чувственное содержание переживаемого для каждого отдельного субъекта уникально и неповторимо, так как живая система -это структурно детерминированная система, «в которой и с которой все, что происходит, есть следствие ее структурной динамики, и в которой ничто, что является внешним по отношению к ней, не может специфицировать происходящие в ней процессы, но может только провоцировать изменения в ее структуре, детерминированные ее структурой» [Maturana 2000: 461].

Human linguistic phenomenon is at one and the same time an individual, social, and political fact. As such, its study should bear in mind these complex interrelations, which are produced inside the framework of the sociocultural and historical ecosystem of each human community. Understanding this phenomenon is often no easy task, due to the range of elements involved and their interrelations. The absence of valid, clearly developed paradigms adds to the problem and means that the theoretical conclusions that emerge may be unclear on certain points. It is true that in the last fifty years sociolinguistic studies have advanced considerably, and today we have access to an impressive set of data and a wide variety of theoretical reflections. But as a discipline sociolinguistics does not yet have unified, powerful theoretical models able to account rigorously and clearly for the phenomena it studies. Sociolinguistic studies are today a diverse set of contributions in which certain and theoretical schools and lines of research emerged; but as is to be expected in a relatively new field, there is not enough communication between the various schools and they cannot yet be said to be integrated in terms of their conceptual and theoretical postulates. Against this background, our work aims to contribute to the overall, integrated understanding of the processes of language contact. Via an interdisciplinary, eclectic approach, it also aims to aid the theoretical grounding and integration of a unified, common sociolinguistic paradigm. Our strategy will not be merely to combine the contributions from ongoing research lines, but to address the question from a more global viewpoint which, together with the more innovative contemporary scientific disciplines, permits a harmonious integration of the various sociolinguistic perspectives in a broad, deep and unitary approach to the reality. The materials used to construct this unified approach are taken from many sources: Theoretical physics, ecology, the philosophy of science and mind, anthropology, phenomenological and process sociology, cognitive sciences, political science, pragmatics, history, systems theory, approaches to complexity and obviously sociolinguistics, are all involved in a dialogue in this desire for integration. Unlike the traditional perspective that separates linguistic varieties from their bio-psycho-socio-politico-cultural contexts and makes of them specialized objects existing in a vacuum, the eco-sociolinguistic perspective is based on the fact that linguistic structures do not live in isolation from their social functions – the existence of matter is indissoluble from its activity, says Einstein. Equally, linguistic structures must be situated ecologically in relation with the sub- and supra-systems that determine their existence if we are to understand their vicissitudes – the unit of survival is the organism-in-its-environment, says Bateson. So our proposal aims to provide the basis of an integrative focus from the perspective of complexity – distinguer sans disjoindre (Morin) – which draws on the contributions of traditional approaches to the study of language systems, but goes beyond them to establish a vision that is more interrelated with the other coexisting sociocultural factors, thus permitting a better understanding of the linguistic phenomenon as a whole.

This dissertation discusses French language policy from an ‘ecology of language’ perspective. By adopting a broad definition of language policy and applying Spolsky’s (2004, 2005) forces of language policy, consisting of (1) sociolinguistic situation, (2) national identity, (3) globalisation and the spread of English, and (4) interest in linguistic pluralism, to the case of France, it is argued that instead of approaching this case of language policy as a highly successful example of French standardisation, it is more attentive to the linguistic diversity of France to regard it as a case of language loss, or even a case of systematic ‘linguicide’.

This paper presents a comprehensive account of the discourse particles in colloquial Singapore English (SE), considering their etymology in the light of both structure and sociohistory. While the object of many studies, mostly focusing on their meaning and use, and generally recognised as coming from Southern Chinese languages, the establishment of the origins and evolution of SE particles has not before been attempted. The thrust of this paper is thus twofold: (i) it outlines the linguistic ecology of Singapore over the decades and proposes a framework involving three ages in which different languages are recognised as dominant, influencing the feature pool in the evolution of SE, and (ii) it identifies the most likely sources of SE particles, through (a) a systematic comparison of the forms and functions of SE particles with particles from the substrates, including, in particular, their original tone, and (b) recourse to sociohistorical facts to support the linguistic postulation. I suggest that in an early era Bazaar Malay/Baba Malay and Hokkien contributed the particles lah, ah and what, and Cantonese in a later age provided lor, hor, leh, meh and ma, inclusive of tone. This argument highlights issues interesting for contact dynamics and new varieties of English.

As a sort of intellectual provocation and as a lateral thinking strategy for creativity, this paper seeks to determine what the study of the dynamics of biodiversity can offer linguists. In recent years, the analogical equation "language = biological species" has become more widespread as a metaphorical source for conceptual renovation, and, at the same time, as a justification for the defense of language diversity. Language diversity would be protected in a way similar to the mobilization that has taken place to protect endangered species. Nevertheless, one must be careful when uncritically transferring conceptualizations and theoretical frameworks from one field to another, since obviously, these two phenomena are quite different in the real world. The environment plays a fundamental role in the direction of evolution, since the "the survival of the fittest is, in actuality, the survival of those who fit into the context (Allen and Hoekstra)". A proposal is made here to explore the ideas of "exclusive functions" and "non-hierarchical functional distribution" for codes in situations where there is high contact and a danger of disuse.A proposal is made here to explore the ideas of "exclusive functions" and "non-hierarchical functional distribution" for codes in situations where there is high contact and a danger of disuse.(FULL ENGLISH VERSION: "Biological and linguistic diversity: Transdisciplinary explorations for a socioecology of languages", in: Bastardas-Boada, A., From language shift to language revitalization and sustainability. A complexity approach to linguistic ecology. Barcelona: Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona, 2019, pp. 243-268.
CATALÀ: A mode de provocació intel·lectual i com a estratègia de “pensament lateral” (lateral thinking) per a la creativitat, el treball es proposa veure què pot suggerir als lingüistes l’estudi de la dinàmica de la diversitat biològica. En aquests darrers anys l’equació analògica “llengua = espècie biològica” s’ha anat estenent com a font metàforica de renovació conceptual i alhora de justificació per a la defensa de la linguodiversitat, a la manera com es duu a terme la mobilització per a la protecció de les espècies. No obstant això, cal anar amb compte amb la transferència acrítica de conceptualitzacions i de marcs teòrics d’un camp a l’altre, per tal com òbviament es tracta de fenòmens ben distints en la realitat. ¿De quin tipus de nínxol (sòcio)ecològic mínim hauria de disposar una llengua si volguéssim assegurar la seva reproducció habitual? El medi jugarà un paper fonamental en la direcció de l’evolució, ja que “la supervivència dels millors dotats és, de fet, la supervivència dels que encaixen en el context” (Allen & Hoekstra), la qual cosa ens farà veure després la gran importància dels contextos politicoeconòmics en el cas de les llengües. Igualment, els moviments migratoris seran, també, una de les grans variables determinants de l’extinció de la bio- i de la linguodiversitat. L’espècie i l’hàbitat formen la unitat existencial bàsica, i això serà el punt de vista central per entendre el problema de la conservació i recuperació de les espècies o llengües.  L’”ecologia restauradora” ens pot ajudar també aquí. Poder arribar a solucions sostenibles per a la diversitat lingüística implica el coneixement aprofundit de les dinàmiques de determinació dels usos lingüístics en situacions de contacte. Es proposa aquí explorar les idees de “funcions exclusives” i de “distribució funcional no-jeràrquica” per als codis en situació d’alt contacte i de perill de desús.  Cal continuar impulsant una perspectiva socio-ecològica autònoma dedicada a la comprensió dels fenòmens lingüístics, que parteixi del paradigma de complexitat, tot situant els éssers humans en el centre de la seva teorització.

En el desarrollo de la ecología lingüística probablemente se pueden distinguir –aunque no separar- tres grandes áreas o aproximaciones, según si se inspiran más directamente de la ‘manera de pensar’ de la ecología teorética o bien si se acercan más a las metáforas provenientes de la bio-ecología. Dentro de este segundo subgrupo quizás cabría también distinguir los trabajos más motivados por la estricta comprensión científica de los fenómenos de los más preocupados también por el mantenimiento de la linguodiversidad y más cercanos, pues, al activismo y a la intervención política en la transformación de las evoluciones sociolingüísticas. Al final, no obstante, las tres líneas producen aportaciones no muy distintas que se iluminan mutuamente, y son varios los autores que transitan de una a otra. Además, desde el punto de vista teórico, la perspectiva de la ecología lingüística general informa y orienta cada vez más frecuentemente los estudios sociolingüísticos del contacto, que adoptan perspectivas holísticas y de conjunto, con lo cual se produce en la práctica una deseable interinfluencia de las dos orientaciones. La consciencia cada vez mayor de la necesidad de enfoques interdisciplinares y compléxicos para avanzar en la comprensión de las interdependencias causales y de las dinámicas evolutivas de los contactos lingüísticos promueve la integración de los campos, la interpenetración de los niveles macro y micro, y la útil fusión de las miradas científicas generales.

We define as linguístic normalization  - the descriptive term conceived by Lluís V. Aracil (1965) -  those processes which certain linguistic communities, politically dominated over a long period of history, adopt in order to create the necessary conditions for ensuring in full their normality and stability as a human gro up with a distinct language of their own. This process generally entails the supplanting of the alien language, viz. that of the dominant national group, by a linguistic code of their own, derived from the autochtonous community itself, as the vehicle for serving all the internal functions which the other language had until then monopolized by reason of the political dependence of the subject community. These communicative functions, carried out in the linguistic code of the alien national group wielding political and military power, generally correspond to those which, being of a public nature, can more easily be kept under the control of the established political institutions. Thus, the use of the alien tongue and the exclusion of the autochtonous language is often the habitual norm in these cases as regards the conduct of affairs in governmental spheres (political authorities, administrative offices, etc.), organized education, the mas s media, business correspondence, and public announcements and notices in general, etc. Thereafter, its use can extend, depen ding on circumstances, to areas of a more private nature, such as written personal intercommunication, literary works and even to informal oral exchanges with other persons - at first of alien origin and subsequently within the subordinate national group itself.

El terme 'sostenibilitat' prové de la tradició de pensament que critica una visió del desenvolupament econòmic que oblida gairebé del tot l'entorn natural en què té lloc aquest procés, i que l'aboca, doncs, a un final erm de recursos i clarament perjudicial per al medi ambient dels humans. A un final, doncs, clarament insostenible. A aquesta visió, determinats nuclis acadèmics i activistes hi han oposat la perspectiva del 'desenvolupament sostenible' o 'durable'. És a dir, han teoritzat, construït, i començat a practicar un desenvolupament econòmic i urbanístic, per exemple, respectuós, integrat i acoblat amb les dinàmiques de la natura, de manera que aquest millorament d'alguns aspectes materials de la vida dels humans no malmeti altres aspectes medioambientals, encara més necessaris i fonamentals per a la qualitat -i fins i tot per a la simple possibilitat-de la vida humana. És, de fet, una síntesi de possibles contraris. No es 1 Text de la conferència plenària per al Fòrum Universal de les Cultures, Barcelona 2004. Diàleg sobre 'Diversitat lingüística, sostenibilitat i pau ', maig 2004. renuncia al millorament material i econòmic però tampoc a un medi ambient plenament saludable i apte per a la continuïtat de l'espècie.

Contact between culturally distinct human groups in the contemporary ‘glocal’  -global and local- world is much greater than at any point in history. The challenge we face is the identification of the most convenient ways to organise the coexistence of different human language groups in order that we might promote their solidarity as members of the same culturally developed biological species in the globalization era.

Processes of economic and political integration currently in motion are seeing increasing numbers of people seeking to become polyglots. Thus, English is establishing itself as the usual world supra-language, although it coexists with other lingua francas that are widely used in certain parts of the globe.

All this communicative reorganization of the human species may very well pose new problems and aggravate existing tensions as regards language and identity. It would seem that these processes comprise at least four major conceptual dimensions which must be taken into account above all else, as they are both widespread and, left unaddressed, may lead to significant social instability. These dimensions concern linguistic recognition, communicability, sustainability and integration.

While accepting the utility of having an inter-national language, the keystone of the system is clearly that it must ensure the linguistic sustainability of each group. The basic principle is likely to be functional subsidiarity, i.e., whatever can be done by the local language should not be done by another one which is more global. As in the quote from Paracelsus  --“the dose alone makes the poison”-- contact between languages is not ‘poisonous’ per se, but when the correct dose is exceeded it can prove harmful to the language whose position is weaker. A multilingual and communicated humanity is possible.

Contact between culturally distinct human groups in the contemporary ‘glocal’  -global and local- world is much greater than at any point in history. The challenge we face is the identification of the most convenient ways to organise the coexistence of different human language groups in order that we might promote their solidarity as members of the same culturally developed biological species.

Processes of economic and political integration currently in motion are seeing increasing numbers of people seeking to become polyglots. Thus, English is establishing itself as the usual world supra-language, although it coexists with other lingua francas that are widely used in certain parts of the globe.

All this communicative reorganization of the human species may very well pose new problems and aggravate existing tensions as regards language and identity. It would seem that these processes comprise at least four major conceptual dimensions which must be taken into account above all else, as they are both widespread and, left unaddressed, may lead to significant social instability. These dimensions concern linguistic recognition, communicability, sustainability and integration.

While accepting the utility of having an inter-national language, the keystone of the system is clearly that it must ensure the linguistic sustainability of each group. The basic principle is likely to be functional subsidiarity, i.e., whatever can be done by the local language should not be done by another one which is more global. As in the quote from Paracelsus  --“the dose alone makes the poison”-- contact between languages is not ‘poisonous’ per se, but when the correct dose is exceeded it can prove harmful to the language whose position is weaker. A multilingual and communicated humanity is possible.

-See the English version: http://www.academia.edu/2380117/Language_and_identity_policies_in_the_glocal_age_New_processes_effects_and_principles_of_organization

Since the end of World War II, linguistics has been primarily informed by one single dominating theoretical model of language, which is cognitivist at its core. As a trickle-down effect, the same happened for fields such as Second Language Acquisition and L2 Education. Within these fields, however, many problems and practical implementation issues have gradually emerged: while in SLA research, for example, Larsen-Freeman (2007) pointed out the limitations imposed by what she calls a “narrow perspective […] adopted thus far in the field”, in second language education the Communicative Language Teaching paradigm — that has imposed itself in the last decades — is still recognized as “only partially implemented” (Jacobs and Farrel 2003). These issues all root back and can be attributed to the ontological perspective that has been so far adopted over the concepts of language, learning, and cognition, and they ultimately reverberate on teaching practices and learners’ results.
In order to overcome this impasse, second language education needs a full reboot, which passes through a reconceptualization of what learning a language actually means, educating learners to an holistic approach that goes well beyond grammar and communicative tasks: power, agency, identity, and metacognition are the new focus upon which to concentrate.
Sociocognitive linguistics offers an excellent alternative theoretical basis to Chomskyan linguistics in terms of theory of language. A consequential alternative theory of learning is therefore proposed here, finally providing these two theoretical pillars (theory of language and of learning) necessary to language pedagogy to set itself free from the doldrums in which it has become stranded.
Hacker ethics and open source software development dynamics, finally, offer a viable model to follow in order to operate this reboot, indicating the right direction to take and offering a concrete roadmap to the language learners and educators of the twenty-first century.

Vivimos en esta circunstancia histórica un aumento exponencial del contacto lingüístico. Los estados tradicionales se han integrado en unidades  político-económicas más amplias, tienen a la vez que reorganizarse internamente para dar cuenta de la propia diversidad de sus grupos humanos constituyentes, se exponen a las nuevas tecnologías de la comunicación, y reciben migraciones importantes de procedencia muy distinta, y todo en el marco de una conciencia superior de la unidad de la especie y, simultáneamente, de su diversidad cultural y de las crisis de la bio- y de la linguodiversidad. Desde el plano lingüístico, lo que tenemos específicamente encima de la mesa es el problema de la organización lingüística de la humanidad, es decir de una especie biológicamente única pero culturalmente diversa a causa fundamentalmente de su dispersión y fragmentación históricas y, a la vez, de su enorme potencial de creatividad. ¿Cómo re-unirnos de nuevo en un espacio comunicativo común, asegurando la intercomunicación, y a la vez, manteniendo lo que ya hemos construido en la diversidad de situaciones en que nos hemos tenido que desarrollar? La gran cuestión deviene, pues, ¿cómo hacer posible la comunicación entre todos los humanos y a la vez el mantenimiento de la diversidad lingüística, que también amamos y que nos define grupalmente?

En el plano teórico, quizás la gran virtud que tiene la analogía ecológica para la sociolingüística es el de darnos instrumentos conceptuales para plasmar de una manera más operativa aquello que llamamos habitualmente el "contexto". La aproximación sistémica de la ecología biológica nos facilita la posibilidad de pensar las formas y códigos lingüísticos en tanto que elementos ineluctablemente integrados en su "hábitat" sociocultural. Las formas y códigos lingüísticos viven ecosistémicamente interrelacionados con otros objetos como las ideas que los individuos tienen sobre la realidad, los significados sociales que otorgan a formas y códigos, la categorización socioeconómica de los individuos, las representaciones grupales, las situaciones políticas, etc. Como diría Morin, las formas lingüísticas están en la sociedad y en la cultura que, a la vez, están en las formas lingüísticas.

We explore the consequences of the globalization process, which forms a new sociolinguistic situation. Specifically, this article explains the tendency of society to be bilingual or polyglot socially and the linguistic impact caused by the displacement of a majority language group to another area where there is another stablished code. Of these two consequences and all derived from globalization, public institutions are the responsible ones to deal with linguistic needs and problems. This article also presents the utility of the complex and ecological perspective to solve problems arising from language contact. Finally, we propose the principle of subsidiarity and calls for linguistic sustainability, which international organizations must support within an ethical framework.

Would there be some way of transferring the procedures and the conciliating conceptualisation of ‘sustainability’ to the language field, and combine the competence and use both of languages of greater communicative scope and group tongues? An ecological and egalitarian perspective on linguistic diversity would have aim to stop and reverse expansionist and dominating ideologies. To put an end to the value hierarchy implied by the belief in linguistic superiority/inferiority is equally urgent and just. Passing into another historical phase of humankind where the predominant vision would be one of recognising the equal dignity of all languages and linguistic groups is, clearly, an aim that cannot be put off. To paraphrase Ramon Folch, we could say that lingüístic sustainability should be a process of gradual transformation from the current model of the linguistic organisation of the human species, a transformation whose objective would be to avoid that collective bilingualism or polyglottism of human beings must require theabandonment by different cultural groups of their own languages. Basically, the ideology opposed to this would come from the negative human tendency for dichotomous thinking: black or white, one language or the other. Today, however, from the paradigma of complexity we know that there are other possibilities. We can imagine new concepts and design new principles of organisation.

Human linguistic phenomenon is at one and the same time an individual, social, and political fact. As such, its study should bear in mind these complex interrelations, which are produced inside the framework of the sociocultural and historical ecosystem of each human community.

Understanding this phenomenon is often no easy task, due to the range of elements involved and their interrelations. The absence of valid, clearly developed paradigms adds to the problem and means that the theoretical conclusions that emerge may be unclear on certain points. It is true that in the last fifty years sociolinguistic studies have advanced considerably, and today we have access to an impressive set of data and a wide variety of theoretical reflections. But as a discipline sociolinguistics does not yet have unified, powerful theoretical models able to account rigorously and clearly for the phenomena it studies.  Sociolinguistic studies are today a diverse set of contributions in which certain and theoretical schools and lines of research emerged; but as is to be expected in a relatively new field, there is not enough communication between the various schools and they cannot yet be said to be integrated in terms of their conceptual and theoretical postulates.

Against this background, our work aims to contribute to the overall, integrated understanding of the processes of language contact. Via an interdisciplinary, eclectic approach, it also aims to aid the theoretical grounding and integration of a unified, common sociolinguistic paradigm. Our strategy will not be merely to combine the contributions from ongoing research lines, but to address the question from a more global viewpoint which, together with the more innovative contemporary scientific disciplines, permits a harmonious integration of the various sociolinguistic perspectives in a broad, deep and unitary approach to the reality. The materials used to construct this unified approach are taken from many sources: Theoretical physics, ecology, the philosophy of science and mind, anthropology, phenomenological and process sociology, cognitive sciences, political science, pragmatics, history, systems theory, approaches to complexity and obviously sociolinguistics, are all involved in a dialogue in this desire for integration.

Unlike the traditional perspective that separates linguistic varieties from their bio-psycho-socio-politico-cultural contexts and makes of them specialized objects existing in a vacuum, the eco-sociolinguistic perspective is based on the fact that linguistic structures do not live in isolation from their social functions – the existence of matter is indissoluble from its activity, says Einstein. Equally, linguistic structures must be situated ecologically in relation with the sub- and supra-systems that determine their existence if we are to understand their vicissitudes – the unit of survival is the organism-in-its-environment, says Bateson. So our proposal aims to provide the basis of an integrative focus from the perspective of complexity – distinguer sans disjoindre (Morin) – which draws on the contributions of traditional approaches to the study of language systems, but goes beyond them to establish a vision that is more interrelated with the other coexisting sociocultural factors, thus permitting a better understanding of the linguistic  phenomenon as a whole.

The “language-communication-society” triangle defies traditional scientific approaches. Rather, it is a phenomenon that calls for an integration of complex, transdisciplinary perspectives, if we are to make any progress in understanding how it works. The highly diverse agents in play are not merely cognitive and/or cultural, but also emotional and behavioural in their specificity. Indeed, the effort may require building a theoretical and methodological body of knowledge that can effectively convey the characteristic properties of phenomena in human terms.

New complexity approaches allow us to rethink our limited and mechanistic images of human societies and create more appropriate emo-cognitive dynamic and holistic models. We have to enter into dialogue with the complexity views coming out of other more ‘material’ sciences, but we also need to take steps in the linguistic and psycho-sociological fields towards creating perspectives and concepts better fitted to human characteristics.

Our understanding of complexity is different – but not opposed – to the one that is more commonly found in texts written by people working in physics or computer science, for example. The goal of this book is to extend the knowledge of these other more ‘human’ or socially oriented perspectives on complexity, taking account of the language and communication singularities of human agents in society.

This chapter presents the preliminary results of an exercise in reading certain contributions to the study of biological diversity from a 'linguistic' viewpoint. Though a firm believer in transdisciplinariety and the mutual nurturing of knowledge I am nonetheless aware that an uncritical transfer of ideas and concepts from one field to another is unacceptable. We must explore the immense potential of the concept of interdisciplinariety but without falling into a blind mimetism which, instead of helping us to describe and understand more accurately the phenomena that interest us, could lead to the construction of theoretical scenarios which have their own internal logic but are not entirely suited to the ontology of the facts we are examining.
If  biological objects are controlled fundamentally by genetic chance and the  biosphere, linguistic objects are also controlled by the sociocultural experiences of their speakers; this fact differentiates clearly between the reproductive aspects of the two. In their struggle to survive through history organisms are affected by their natural environments, while linguistic systems are additionally affected by the socioeconomic and politicocultural conditions of individuals, who are able to decide personally on the language to be transmitted to their successors. Similarly, given the greater flexibility of cultural reproduction, language change will be faster than genetic change. Since linguistic varieties are the products of human social mechanisms, they may be constricted to the decisions  –conscious or unconscious– of humans, in the framework of their personal autonomy, whereas non-human biological species will be in general much more subject to instinctive programming. The reproduction of biological diversity is a matter in which the protagonists –the species – have little say, controlled as they are by contextual conditions. But in the reproduction and preservation of linguistic diversity the main actors are human beings themselves, humans endowed with awareness and emotions who, confronted with change in their sociocultural context, have to take decisions which will ultimately affect the continuity or demise of the linguistic diversity that has built up over human history. The existence of important differences between natural and cultural objects does not necessarily mean that we cannot find interfaces of connection between the two theoretical fields or useful conceptual suggestions or adaptations for a fuller understanding of the nature of the level of language and communication.

In recent years, the topic of water has become more and more central to landscape and environmental studies. Water is indeed essential to human survival and its management is of critical importance for every human group. This chapter will examine the relationship between the indigenous MSAL-speaking people of Dhofar and water from both an anthropological and a linguistic point of view. The linguistic coding of water sources and traditional strategies for water fetching will be discussed in order to show the profound entanglement between culture and environment. Furthermore, the poetic use of water-related images among different people of Arabia will be examined in order to further investigate related cultural and social aspects.

Hildo H. do Couto et al. (org.), O paradigma ecológico para as ciências da linguagem: ensaios ecolinguísticos clássicos e contemporáneos. Goiânia, Brasil: Editora da Universidade Federal de Goiás, 2016, pp. 325-350. 1. Introdução: a perspectiva ecológica Uma das perspectivas que de forma mais intuitiva oferecem a possibilidade de tratar contextualmente e multidimensionalmente um determinado fenômeno é a ecologia. Aplicada prioritariamente a fatos biológicos, este tipo de pensamento foi se estendendo a outros campos e a outras problemáticas, pela contribuição sistêmica e dinâmica para entender as inter-relações que se dão em um conjunto determinado. Assim, hoje falamos de 'ecologias' da mente, da educação, da cultura etc. É igualmente atrativo aplicar esta perspectiva aos fenômenos linguísticos, e, mais concretamente, aos caracterizados pelo contato entre idiomas e/ou sociedades distintas. A perspectiva ecológica nos permite tratar de distintos fatores em jogo, suas interações, suas emergências, e suas evoluções no tempo. Já em 1971 o linguista norte-americano de origem norueguesa Einar Haugen propôs o termo 'ecology of language', chamando a atenção fundamentalmente para a incorporação do 'meio' ou 'contexto' [environment] nos estudos linguísticos (vid. Haugen, 1972). Igualmente William F. Mackey, de Quebec, em 1979, impulsionou também esta aproximação, já a aplicando mais explicitamente ao estudo do contato linguístico.

Would there be some way of transferring the procedures and the conciliating conceptualisation of ‘sustainability’ to the language field, and combine the competence and use both of languages of greater communicative scope and group tongues? An ecological and egalitarian perspective on linguistic diversity would have aim to stop and reverse expansionist and dominating ideologies. To put an end to the value hierarchy implied by the belief in linguistic superiority/inferiority is equally urgent and just. Passing into another historical phase of humankind where the predominant vision would be one of recognising the equal dignity of all languages and linguistic groups is, clearly, an aim that cannot be put off. To paraphrase Ramon Folch, we could say that lingüístic sustainability should be a process of gradual transformation from the current model of the linguistic organisation of the human species, a transformation whose objective would be to avoid that collective bilingualism or polyglottism of human beings must require theabandonment by different cultural groups of their own languages. Basically, the ideology opposed to this would come from the negative human tendency for dichotomous thinking: black or white, one language or the other. Today, however, from the paradigma of complexity we know that there are other possibilities. We can imagine new concepts and design new principles of organisation.

In this article, we question the role of second additional language (that is, an optional, non-official language) teaching, with special reference to French at school level in South Africa. Over and above the fact that some additional languages reflect minority cultures and communities (Greek, Serbian, Hebrew, etc.), we consider their real and potential place in the promotion of multilingualism. As revealed as part of a regional research project, sponsored by the Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie, entitled Curriculum, contextualisation et formation des enseignants (CCPFE-AUF-BOI-S0195COV0401), motivations for studying French in South Africa stem from the dual representation of its exoticism, constituting a form of "linguistic tourism", as well as its potential usefulness in various professional contexts. We question whether the basis for this language market, which plays out in an exolingual, formalised context can make a real claim to promoting multilingualism within the South African linguistic ecology. In this regard, we will examine ways in which a shift in perspective from an "additive" to an integrative and plurilingual conception of language acquisition is required to resituate the teaching/learning of French as an authentic form of social and linguistic construction in South Africa. Using a socio-constructive (Molinié 2011) and coactional model (Melo-Pfeifer 2015, Mroz 2012) to teaching French, we explore ways in which language acquisition can be a collaborative, integrative process, taking into account multiple cultural and language resources.

Of all the human sciences, linguistics has had perhaps the most success in pivoting itself towards the physical sciences, particularly in the past fifty years with the dominance of Universal Grammar, which is most closely associated with the work of Noam Chomsky. One of the most important implications of Universal Grammar has been that language production in its most natural and optimal state is organized analytically, and thus shares the same organizational logic of other knowledge systems in Western science, such as the binomial taxonomization of nature and analytic geometry. This essay argues that recent challenges to Universal Grammar represent more than just a theoretical dispute within a single discipline; they threaten to undermine the hegemony of analytical knowledge systems in general. While analytical logic has served Western science well, analogical knowledge systems may be able to address problems that analytical logic cannot, such as ecological crises, the limitations of artificial intelligence, and the problems of complex systems. Instead of studying languages as a means of modeling human thought in general, languages should also be studied and preserved as heteronomous knowledge systems which themselves exist as embodied objects within particular ecologies. Rethinking language as existing on a univocal plane with other ecological objects will provide us with new insight on the ethics and epistemology of analogical knowledge production.

This article draws attention to three general problems in existing theories and models of contact-induced language change: the problem of autonomous types of change, that of autonomous contact languages, and that of the metaphors used in contact linguistic terminology. Parting from a discussion of these problems and two case studies of contact varieties that heavily challenge existing models of contact-induced change (Chamorro and Zamboangueño-Chabacano), I provide a new and comprehensive model based on the conception of contact-induced change as a continuous space, in which interrelated and interconnected parameters dominate over autonomous types.

The paradigmatic revolutions in 20th-century demand that we reflect on our own paradigms in the light of the great changes in the other disciplines. The elements must not be represented as being outside those of the others, separate and independent, since the interdependencies and integrations are the foundation of reality. We need a dynamic ‘ecologization’ and 'complexification' of thinking, in order to consider the contexts of phenomena in an integrated manner with the phenomena themselves. We are unlikely to be able to understand human behaviour if we do not bring the mind-brain into the foreground of our analyses, as it is where reality is perceived, processed cognitively and emotively, and where – consciously or otherwise – the courses of action that an individual takes are decided. A science that sees language not as an ‘object’ but from a (socio)complexity perspective has a much greater chance of succeeding in the task of making linguistic and communicative phenomena intelligible.

"Diversitats. Llengües, espècies i ecologies" és un llibre divers que aplega aquests sis treballs: «Diversitat biològica i diversitat lingüística: algunes pistes transdisciplinàries per a una socioecologia de les llengües», pel sociolingüista A. Bastardas; «Formes de la diversitat en la cultura: l’argument de la diferenciació», per l’antropòleg Claudi Esteve i Fabregat; «Lingüística genètica», per l’antropòloga lingüística M. Carme Junyent i Figueras; «De la destrucció de la diversitat lingüística i d’algunes raons per a evitar-la», pel lingüista Joan A. Argenter; «Valoracions ètiques i polítiques de la diversitat des de l’ecologia», per l’ecòleg Jaume Terradas, i «Valoracions ètiques i polítiques de la diversitat des de la filosofia», pel filòsof Josep M. Terricabras.

The extraordinary tendency of human beings to think in terms of dichotomies could be the root of the problem. In the past, and even nowadays, this tendency to think in terms of dichotomies seems to have dominated the view of language contact, thus making it impossible for all groups concerned to live in more harmonious contentment. The vast majority of states seem to find it impossible or very difficult to structure themselves politically in a way that would permit both the continuity of the linguistic life of their constituent groups and the intercommunication necessary for common living between these groups. The great majority seem to choose one over the other: they either impose a single official language for all groups, without recognizing the diversity (and often explicitly against this), or the existing linguistic groups are recognised but the matter of intercommunication is not resolved satisfactorily. It is hard to believe that either option can have a future in the current era of mankind: against the background of positive growth of the democratic and egalitarian conscience of human groups and the dignity of each and every one of these,historical groups that have been thus far subordinated will not sit back and allow the introduction of solutions condemning them to a reduced linguistic existence when this could be full and normal. Moreover, a political and linguistic organisation that does not consider the forms of intercommunication between its components in the best possible way is not sustainable.Thus, there is no alternative but to explore imaginatively other forms of political and linguistic organisation that could make the two objectives above compatible: preserving the linguistic diversity and dignity of all historical linguistic groups, while ensuring fluent intercommunication and a feeling of solidarity among our species.

ENGLISH: As an interdisciplinary field that is still young, sociolinguistics has had to find its theoretical representation schemes. In this exploration of models of reality and images of phenomena, we have been working for some years with the systemic conceptualization of biological phenomena that we know popularly as 'Ecology’. As much as this may be useful, we must not forget, however, the metaphorical nature of this modeling and the danger of oblivion of individuals in the model, and the fact that these cultural "species" are, in the long run, a product and function of human cognitive-communicative activity.

CATALAN: Camp interdisciplinari encara jove, la sociolingüística ha hagut d'anar trobant els seus esquemes de representació teòrica on ha pogut i on ha sabut. En aquesta exploració de models de la realitat i d'imatges dels fenòmens ens ha acompanyat des de fa uns anys la conceptualització sistèmica sobre els fenòmens biològics que coneixem popularment com a 'Ecologia'. Tant com això pot ser-nos útil no ens hem d'oblidar, però, del caràcter metafòric de la modelització i del perill de l'oblit dels individus en el model i del fet que aquestes 'espècies' culturals són, al capdavall, producte i funció de l'activitat cognitivo-comunicativa humana.

One of the errors that can be frequently spotted in the study of the politics and planning of language matters is the fragmentary perspective in which they are created. Reality is, on the contrary, interrelated and overlapping. This is why the ecological perspective stresses the importance of the study of the contexts of the phenomena, that is to say, of their external relations. The direction to be followed is towards an understanding of reality as a set of open systems with a continuous interchange with the ecosystem of which they are part, being aware of the fact that the apparent stability is always the result of a dynamic balance. The advance towards an interdisciplinary mode is therefore necessary and peremptory. Headings such as status / normative / institution vis-à-vis others such as solidarity / normal / individual seem to imply a basic distinction of the definition of sociocultural reality. To discover and understand the dynamics of the interaction between these two great categorical orders is, in fact, one of the most important subjects waiting to be addressed by language planning and political strategies, and, in general, by sociolinguistics, as well. The fundamental macroquestion of the field could thus be stated in the following terms: what group or organization, and with what aim, wants to obtain what, where, how, when, and obtains what and why? This way, even if how they obtain the desired goal -that is, the actual intervention- is included as one of the main elements, the research does not exclusively devote itself to this topic, but rather frames it and interrelates it with all the other elements that globally participate in this phenomenon, trying to establish a clear theoretical understanding of the corresponding events and processes.

En el examen comparativo de los diferentes casos de contacto lingüístico en qué el factor político es el más desencadenante, encontramos históricamente situaciones en qué el grupo en contacto ha evolucionado hacia el abandono de la variedad lingüística propia en la comunicación con sus hijos, y otros casos que se caracterizan por la permanencía bastante o muy estabilizada de la variedad o variedades propias en esta función comunicativa. Estos últimos casos parecen desafiar, por tanto, la hipótesis general que afirmaría que los grupos humanos masivamente bilingüizados y con una plena o total ocupación de funciones públicas por parte de una variedad estandarizada estructuralmente distante o basada claramente en un sistema lingüístico diferente evolucionan intergeneracionalmente hacia la extinción de sus códigos nativos. El interrogante surge, pues, cuando comparamos las situaciones llamadas de « sustitución lingüística » con las catalogadas como de « diglosia » (según el sentido de Ferguson).

Si fuese cierta ineluctablemente la hipótesis de que las sociedades con bilingüismo masivo y distribución de funciones sociales -frecuentemente entre institucionalizadas e individualizadas- de variedades estructuramente bastante o muy distintas evolucionan generalmente hacia la selección de un solo código para todas las funciones, incluso las de comunicación intergeneracional, el futuro de la linguodiversidad del planeta podría parecer ya sentenciado, dado el actual proceso de extensión a nivel planetario de las áreas tradicionales de comunicación facilitado por las nuevas tecnologias de la comunicación y el hecho de la globalización de las relaciones económicas.

En las situaciones habitualmente designadas como « diglosias », sin poder llegar a afirmar la inmutabilidad y perennidad de éstas, sí se puede observar, en general, que muchos de estos casos llevan persistiendo -o, en todo caso, sin que registren evoluciones negativas para las variedades vernaculares- periodos similares a los que han necesitado otras situaciones para cambiar radicalmente. Quizás el ejemplo más claro de esta tipología sea, como ya indicó el mismo Ferguson, el caso suízo-alemán, aunque según el mismo autor encontraríamos unos doscientos casos más que encajarían en la noción clásica de diglosia que él mismo estableció.

De hecho, como señaló también el propio Ferguson, la característica fundamental de su tipología de diglossia es el hecho de la distribución radical de las funciones, en que nunca la variedad estándar es usada por ningún grupo social para la comunicación informal cotidiana. Con la intervención de esta categorización claramente separada de las variedades y de sus funciones, las modalidades orales no son cuestionadas ni por los grupos de más alto estatus social y conservan todo su prestigio con respecto al estándar oficial, el cual no es adoptado nunca en las comunicaciones individualizadas.
Si esto es así, ¿cómo podremos asegurar adecuadamente la comunicación lingüística entre el conjunto dela humanidad y a la vez continuar disponiendo de índice aceptable de diversidad lingüística?

As a sort of intellectual provocation and as a lateral thinking strategy for creativity, this paper seeks to determine what the study of the dynamics of biodiversity can offer linguists. In recent years, the analogical equation "language = biological species" has become more widespread as a metaphorical source for conceptual renovation, and, at the same time, as a justification for the defense of language diversity. Nevertheless, one must be careful when uncritically transferring conceptualizations and theoretical frameworks from one field to another, since obviously, these two phenomena are quite different in the real world.

The dialogue with bioecologists starts by asking about the formation of diversity, i.e., about speciation. Regarding the continuity of species or languages, one can also observe the decisive role of intragroup relations. The staying power of linguistic varieties will increase in direct proportion to the intensity of the relationship among the components of the subset. On the other hand, if exotic elements are introduced, especially if these elements are aggressive in nature, the alteration of the ecological niche may turn out to be fatal for the continuity of the previously existing forms.

As regards change, this phenomenon is seen as an inherent element in the tendency of life to create new developments, which may or not be accompanied by an adaptation to changing environmental conditions. It is pointed out that, similar to what happens in biology, much of linguistic innovation stems from a systemically reorganized mixture of solutions from different codes. Extinction, whether it be of languages or of species, is caused in most cases "by a combination of demographic processes and environmental changes". Thus, the environment plays a fundamental role in the direction of evolution, since the "the survival of the fittest is, in actuality, the survival of those who fit into the context".

Species and habitat form the basic unit of existence, and this is the major point of departure for understanding the problem of the preservation and recovery of species or languages. Given the increase in the degree of linguistic contact, the continuity of language diversity depends on determining, as exactly as possible, as Prigogine, the physicist, would say, what precise conditions of imbalance may prove to be stable.

The general conclusion is that linguistics is still terminologically and conceptually ill prepared to deal with the dynamic character of human languages. The world and our objects must be conceived of as elements in a state of flux, as changing systems in an unstable equilibrium. With respect to language policy, it would be necessary to make an effort to manage to establish some general principles regarding the linguistic organization of the human species that would make it possible for local linguistic diversity and communication on a planetary scale, which must necessarily take place, to be compatible with each other. Such a perspective would be based on a paradigm of complexity, and would, at the same time, place human beings at the center of its theoretical underpinnings.

A perspectiva ecológica para os estudos linguísticos vem se monstrando eficaz, principalmente nos estudos sobre a diversidade e o contato de línguas, já que nos leva a uma ampliação teórica e conceitual no âmbito desta ciência e também ao aumento da consciência social quanto à preservação, aceitação e normalização da diversidade linguística dos humanos. Neste artigo, após ser apresentada a perspectiva ecológica para a linguística, serão discutidos os aspectos multidimensionais para a análise do contato de línguas, estando relacionados com a temática do sociocognitivismo, da dinamicidade e processualidade, oferecendo, desta maneira, uma visão integradora para os estudos linguísticos que é a da 'diversidade linguística'.

Though a firm believer in transdisciplinariety and the mutual nurturing of knowledge I am nonetheless aware that an uncritical transfer of ideas and concepts from one field to another is unacceptable. We must explore the immense potential of the concept of interdisciplinariety but without falling into a blind mimetism which, instead of helping us to describe and understand more accurately the phenomena that interest us, could lead to the construction of theoretical scenarios which have their own internal logic but are not entirely suited to the ontology of the facts we are examining.
If  biological objects are controlled fundamentally by genetic chance and the  biosphere, linguistic objects are also controlled by the sociocultural experiences of their speakers; this fact differentiates clearly between the reproductive aspects of the two. In their struggle to survive through history organisms are affected by their natural environments, while linguistic systems are additionally affected by the socioeconomic and politicocultural conditions of individuals, who are able to decide personally on the language to be transmitted to their successors. Similarly, given the greater flexibility of cultural reproduction, language change will be faster than genetic change. Since linguistic varieties are the products of human social mechanisms, they may be constricted to the decisions  –conscious or unconscious– of humans, in the framework of their personal autonomy, whereas non-human biological species will be in general much more subject to instinctive programming. The reproduction of biological diversity is a matter in which the protagonists –the species – have little say, controlled as they are by contextual conditions. But in the reproduction and preservation of linguistic diversity the main actors are human beings themselves, humans endowed with awareness and emotions who, confronted with change in their sociocultural context, have to take decisions which will ultimately affect the continuity or demise of the linguistic diversity that has built up over human history. The existence of important differences between natural and cultural objects does not necessarily mean that we cannot find interfaces of connection between the two theoretical fields or useful conceptual suggestions or adaptations for a fuller understanding of the nature of the level of language and communication.
This paper presents the preliminary results of an exercise in reading certain contributions to the study of biological diversity from a 'linguistic' viewpoint.

One of the errors that can be frequently spotted in the study of the policy and planning of language matters is the fragmentary perspective in which they are created. Reality is, on the contrary, interrelated and overlapping. This is why the ecological perspective stresses the importance of the study of the contexts of the phenomena, that is to say, of their external relations. The direction to be followed is towards an understanding of reality as a set of open systems with a continuous interchange with the ecosystem of which they are part, being aware of the fact that the apparent stability is always the result of a dynamic balance. The advance towards an interdisciplinary mode is therefore necessary and peremptory. Headings such as status / normative / institution vis-à-vis others such as solidarity / normal / individual seem to imply a basic distinction of the definition of sociocultural reality. To discover and understand the dynamics of the interaction between these two great categorical orders is, in fact, one of the most important subjects waiting to be addressed by language planning and political strategies, and, in general, by sociolinguistics, as well. The fundamental macroquestion of the field could thus be stated in the following terms: what group or organization, and with what aim, wants to obtain what, where, how, when, and obtains what and why? This way, even if how they obtain the desired goal -that is, the actual intervention- is included as one of the main elements, the research does not exclusively devote itself to this topic, but rather frames it and interrelates it with all the other elements that globally participate in this phenomenon, trying to establish a clear theoretical understanding of the corresponding events and processes.