• Н. К. КРАВЧЕНКО Kyiv National Linguistic University, Ukraine



linguistic ecocentrism, ecocentric metadiscourse, institutional discourses, invariance of parameters


Introduction. The paper focuses on the principle of linguistic ecocentrism specified both as a discursive mechanism of the human consciousness ecologization, which determines the invariant parameters of various institutional discourses, and as a new vector of a functional
paradigm associated with overcoming anthropocentrism.

Purpose. The research aims at defining the anthropocentrism as a meta-discursive principle of various institutional discourses in view of the invariance and correlation of their cognitive, semiotic, pragmatic parameters embodied with the notion of ecocentric meta-discourse. To achieve the purpose, we have applied the methodology composing of the inquiry subject’s characterizations including its observations in scientific studies and subsequent definition, as well as hypotheses and predictions about the inquiry subject’s structure, manifestations and

The major results refer to the interpretation of the linguistic ecocentrism as the principle of harmonious coexistence of the human with the environment, reflected by various institutional discourses. This principle both influences the ecologization of linguistics of the XXI century and changes its research priorities, principles and instruments providing further integration of cognitive-discursive, cognitive semiotic, sociocognitive, cognitive-pragmatic studies in order to comprehend the strategic, behavioral, cognitive, verbal and non-verbal human practices as the noospheric factors in the development of civilization. The article introduces the concept and outlines the prospects for studying the ecocentric meta-discourse as a prototype cognitive-semiotic model of various institutional discourses with explicit or implicit ecocentric component.

Conclusion. The principle of linguistic eco-centrism is the structure-forming property of the “ecocentric metadiscourse”, which is constituted by the prototype cognitive, semiotic, pragmatic parameters while specifying and developing the knowledge and values about the harmonious coexistence of man with the surrounding world – nature, society, linguistic-cultural
and transcultural communities.


Бондар, О. І. (2013). Синергетичний підхід як підґрунтя лінгвістичної екології. Записки з українського мовознавства, 20, 4-15.

Воробьёва, О. П. (2013). Лингвистика сегодня: реинтерпретация эпистемы. Вісник Київського національного лінгвістичного університету. Серія Філологія, 16 (2), 41-47.

Гардашук, Т. В. (2006). Сучасний екологізм: теоретичні засади та практичні імплікації. (Дис. докт. філос. наук). Київ.

Жихарєва. О.О. (2017). Структура англомовного біблійного екодискурсу. Science and Education: a New Dimension. Philology (Vol. 38 (138), 72-76).

Жихарєва, О.О. (2018). Концептуальні екотеми в англомовному біблійному екодискурсі. Вісник Київського національного лінгвістичного університету. Серія Філологія, 21 (1), 112-120.

Кравченко, Н.К. (2017). Дискурс и дискурс-анализ: краткая энциклопедия. Киев: Интерсервис. Кравченко, Н.К. (2006). Интерактивное, жанровое и концептуальное моделирование

международно-правового дискурса. Киев: Реферат.

Потапенко, C. И. (2017). Cинхронная реконструкция концептов в англоязычном масс-медийном дискурсе: между концептуализацией и категоризацией. Концепты и контрасты (c. 331-338). Одесса.

Семенець, О.О. (2013). Лінгвоекологія та проблеми мовного вираження суспільних цінностей. Нова філологія: збірник наукових праць, 58, 174-177.

Brand, S. (2009). Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. N.Y: The Viking Press.

Buck, H. (2013). Climateengineering: spectacle, tragedy or solution? A content analysis of news media framing. Interpretive approaches to global climate governance: deconstructing the greenhouse. London: Routledge, pp. 166-181.

Burchett, K. (2016). Antropocentrism as environmental ethic. Dissertation, PhD, Lexington, Kentucky.

Dцring, M., Penz, H., Trampe et al. (2008). Language, Signs and Nature: Ecolinguistic Dimensions of Environmental Discourse. L: Stauffenburg Verlag.

McEvoy, D., Fьnfgeld, H., & Bosomworth, K. (2013). Resilience and climate change adaptation: the importance of framing. Planning Practice & Research (Vol. 28 (3), pp. 280-293).

Fill, A. F., & Penz, H. (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. N.Y.: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (2002). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge.

Poole, R. (2018). Ecolinguistics, GIS, and Corpus Linguistics for the Analysis of the Rosemont Copper Mine Debate. Environmental Communication (Vol. 12(4), pp. 525-540).

Potapenko, S. (2016). Cognitive rhetoric of effect: Energy flow as a means of persuasion in inaugurals. Topics in Linguistics (Vol. 17 (2), pp. 12-25).

Sieriakova, I. (2016). Nonverbal Semiotics of Discursive Practices. Science and Education a New Dimension. Philology (Vol. IV (17 / 78, 73-76).

Siewers, A.K. (2014). Re-imagining nature: environmental humanities and ecosemiotics. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.

Steciag, M. (2009). Key-words in Ecology and their Critique from Ecolinguistic Point of View. Problemy Ekorozwoju (Vol. 4(2), pp. 61-68).

Stibbe, A. (2014). An ecolinguistic approach to Critical Discourse Studies. Critical Discourse Studies (Vol. 11(1), pp. 117-128).

Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By. Abingdon, N.Y.: Routledge.

Torfing, J. (1999). New theories of discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. Oxford: Blackwell.