<?page no="0"?> Environmental Literacy and the Teaching of English Uwe Küchler <?page no="1"?> Environmental Literacy and the Teaching of English <?page no="3"?> Uwe Küchler Environmental Literacy and the Teaching of English <?page no="4"?> DOI: https: / / doi.org/ 10.24053/ 9783823395379 © 2025 · Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Alle Informationen in diesem Buch wurden mit großer Sorgfalt erstellt. Fehler können dennoch nicht völlig ausgeschlossen werden. Weder Verlag noch Autor: innen oder Herausgeber: innen übernehmen deshalb eine Gewährleistung für die Korrektheit des Inhaltes und haften nicht für fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen. Diese Publikation enthält gegebenenfalls Links zu externen Inhalten Dritter, auf die weder Verlag noch Autor: innen oder Herausgeber: innen Einfluss haben. Für die Inhalte der verlinkten Seiten sind stets die jeweiligen Anbieter oder Betreibenden der Seiten verantwortlich. Internet: www.narr.de eMail: info@narr.de Druck: Elanders Waiblingen GmbH ISSN 2627-0323 ISBN 978-3-8233-8537-0 (Print) ISBN 978-3-8233-9537-9 (ePDF) ISBN 978-3-8233-0536-1 (ePub) Autorenfoto: © Friedhelm Albrecht, Universität Tübingen Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http: / / dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. <?page no="5"?> Prof. Dr. Uwe Küchler holds the Chair for Teaching English as a Foreign Language at the Eberhard Karls University of Tü‐ bingen and is a member of the Tübingen School of Education (TüSE). <?page no="6"?> Meinen Eltern gewidmet: Gisela und Jürgen und Lutz und Gisela. <?page no="7"?> 11 1 15 2 23 2.1 23 2.1.1 26 2.1.2 27 2.1.3 29 2.1.4 34 2.2 37 2.2.1 37 2.2.2 39 2.2.3 39 2.2.4 41 3 47 3.1 48 3.1.1 48 3.1.2 51 3.2 54 3.2.1 55 3.2.2 56 3.2.3 58 3.2.4 59 4 63 4.1 70 4.1.1 72 4.1.2 77 4.2 80 4.2.1 82 Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Humanities Perspective on the Ecological Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uneasy Anniversaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The German Environmental Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ecological Facts and Cultural Imaginary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beyond Facts and Figures: Rethinking (Environmental) Knowledge . Foundational Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Texture of English: Language Variety & Cultural Tapestry . . . . . ‘Fremdsprachendidaktik’ and Foreign Language Education . . . . . . . . History Developments and Current Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goals and Purposes of English (as Foreign Language Education) . . . . Language Means and Communicative Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Goals with Transculturality and Intercultural Learning . . . . Literary Goals and Texts (in the Broadest Sense) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media Communication Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Related Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Environmental Humanities: Understanding Cultures, Patterns, and Ecologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-Concept and Purpose of the (General) Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . An Interdisciplinary Spin on the Humanities and the Environment . . Ecolinguistics - Language, Thought, and the Environment . . . . . . . . . Defining Ecolinguistics: Historical Emergence and Major Research Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <?page no="8"?> 4.2.2 84 4.2.3 86 4.2.4 88 4.2.5 93 4.3 94 4.3.1 96 4.3.2 97 4.3.3 100 4.3.4 102 4.3.5 106 4.3.6 114 4.4 115 4.4.1 117 4.4.2 118 4.4.3 119 4.4.4 120 4.4.5 123 4.5 124 4.5.1 125 4.5.2 127 4.5.3 131 4.5.4 133 4.5.5 134 4.6 135 4.6.1 136 4.6.2 139 4.6.3 143 5 145 5.1 146 5.1.1 147 5.1.2 148 5.1.3 150 5.2 152 5.2.1 153 5.2.2 155 5.2.3 158 Language Diversity and the Ecology of Language(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language, Thought, and Perception: A Bridge to Extralinguisc Realities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Power of Metaphors, Meanings, and Mindsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Ecolinguistics to Language Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us . . Defining Ecocriticism: Nature, Culture, and the Environmental Lens Ecocriticism’s Scope and Analytical Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developments, Directions, and Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Representation, Perception, and the Genre of Nature Writing . . . . . . Diversifying Ecocriticism: Theoretical Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Developments and Pedagogical Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ecomedia Studies - Communicating Content, Formats, and Impacts . Defining Ecomedia Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texts (in the Broadest Sense): Messages, Contents and Ecomedia . . . Channels: Formats and Functions in Ecomedia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consequences: The Impact of Ecomedia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Path Toward Ecomedia and (Foreign) Language Education . . . . . . . Environmental Psychology - Mindsets, Behaviors, and Hopeful Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Of Perception, Cognition, and Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bridging the Knowledge-Behavior Divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Despair’s Grueling Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hope’s (Educational) Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Implications for Language Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental and Sustainability Education - Learning Critical Awareness for Social Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tracing Historical Roots, Branches, and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education for Sustainable Development and the SDGs . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion: Language Teaching for Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literacy and its Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literacy in Foreign Language Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Functional) Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aside: Reading as Skill and Metaphor- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literacy in Context: Multiple Levels and Meanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literary Literacy: Storytelling and World-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Literacy and Global Citizenship Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Intercultural Dimension and Transculturality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Contents <?page no="9"?> 5.2.4 159 5.2.5 162 5.3 163 5.3.1 164 5.3.2 170 5.3.3 174 5.4 177 6 183 187 215 Multimodal Literacy, Multiliteracies, and the Digital Transformation Literacy in Broader Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literacy Models in the Context of Nature, Environment, and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Functional, Cultural, and Critical Environmental Literacy . . . . . . . . . . Education for Sustainable Development in the EFL Classroom . . . . . . Climate Change Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Literacy and the Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contents 9 <?page no="11"?> Acknowledgments The long and winding road to completing this book has been filled with unexpected opportunities and growth. Though it took longer than foreseen, the detours enriched the final product. My path to becoming a junior professor and full professor allowed me to reimagine and revitalize the teacher education program for English at the subsequent institutions. Though these pursuits diverted my attention from the manuscript, they enriched my perspective and informed my writing. My fascination with the topic of this book began early on, and it initially led to curious questions, such as: “Why do you always need to work on something so unconventional? ” This encounter at a conference coffee stand stayed with me, and it sparked a series of questions that I could not shake: What made “the environment” so unconventional in the context of foreign language education back then? And who says that researchers should follow traditional, beaten paths, rather than forging their own? One person who never doubted my pursuit was Prof. Dr. Gisela Hermann- Brennecke (Osnabrück), the first reader of my exposé. I am deeply grateful for her insightful feedback and unwavering encouragement, which helped me stay the course. She opened doors for me to re-engage with academia, and I appreciate her trust and confidence in my work. At the same time, I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to Julia Semmer (London), who was a steadfast source of support and friendship during challenging times. Her writing inspires me, and her infectious enthusiasm and linguistic finesse - complete with witty puns and signature moves - brought muchneeded levity and joy to our work atmosphere. With the manuscript complete, I express my heartfelt thanks to all who helped shape this project. I’m grateful to my colleagues at various universities and collaborators in workshops, conferences, and research. Though I cannot mention everyone, I sincerely appreciate those who offered valuable feedback, encouragement, and guidance. This list represents a small but significant sample of those who helped bring this project to fruition. I sincerely thank the Universities of Bonn and Tübingen for their vibrant Eng‐ lish departments, which provided a stimulating academic environment. The research semesters I received at these institutions were invaluable, allowing me to focus on reading and writing without distractions. Reflecting on this project’s journey, I’m reminded of the supportive community of scholars and colleagues: Early conversations with Prof. Dr. Christine Gerhardt (Bamberg) and Prof. Dr. Sylvia Mayer (Bayreuth) inspired and encouraged me. Prof. Dr. Laurenz Volkmann ( Jena) validated my ideas and sparked momentum. Prof. Dr. Roman Bartosch’s (Cologne) sustained inspiration and gift for community-building have created a unique and supportive network that has motivated and inspired me throughout. Similarly, Dr. Ricardo Römhild’s (Regensburg/ Münster) great interest and inspiring invitations have been a welcome catalyst for moving our topic forward, and his cool research activities have helped to inject energy and enthusiasm into <?page no="12"?> our collaborative efforts. I am also grateful for the fruitful collaborations with Prof. Charlotte Melín (Minneapolis MN) and Prof. Dr. Natalie Eppelsheimer (Middlebury VT). The ASLE and EASLCE communities have provided valuable insights and a rich tapestry of support, with colleagues like Prof. Dr. Jan Hollm (Ludwigsburg), Prof. Dr. Alexa Weik von Mossner (Freiburg), and Prof. Dr. Reinhard Hennig (Adger). Additionally, the “Wildermuth bunch” has been a source of guidance, with Prof. Betsy Wheeler’s (Eugene OR) sage advice at moments of overwhelm and Dr. Nicholas McGuinn’s (York) and Dr. Amanda Naylor’s (York) resourcefulness at keeping more ideas and project shooting up. In addition to the broader academic community, I’m grateful to the intimate work groups that have helped shape this project. The London Writers’ Salon, founded by Parul Bavishi and Matt Trinetti, has been a source of inspiration and steadiness. The Academic Writing group by Jeannel King, PhD, and the Academic Retreats with Catherine Pope, PhD, have provided a supportive environment for focused writing, reflection, and growth. I’m especially thankful to my close friends and colleagues in the Bonn Writers’ Group, particularly Prof. Dr. Irina Dumitrescu (Bonn) and Dr. Imke Lichterfeld (Bonn), who have shared many early mornings with me, offering priceless camaraderie and support. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to my research assistants, including Stephanie Liang, Maike Isabell Schmidt, Lorina Klein, and Jennie Biesenbach, who have worked tirelessly to help me find and retrieve literature, format, and edit texts. I appreciate the unwavering support and patience of Kathrin Heyng at Narr Verlag, whose flexibility and understanding have been invaluable in helping me push this manuscript across the finish line. Additionally, I’ve had the privilege of testing ideas and receiving feedback from engaged and interested students in my seminars and lectures at the universities of Halle-Wittenberg, Bonn, and Tübingen, whose enthusiasm, critical questions, and shared experiences have been essential in helping me refine my thoughts and move the project forward. In conclusion, I want to express my heartfelt thanks to those closest to me - my friends and families, especially the Küchlers and Krögers - who have supported and encouraged me throughout this journey. I am especially grateful to Andreas Spiller, my life partner, who is my rock, offering a foundation of love, comfort, and strength that has enabled me to pursue my passions and finish this project. Tübingen, im Frühjahr 2025 Uwe Küchler 12 Acknowledgments <?page no="13"?> How can foreign language education be the spark that ignites environmental awareness and sustainability? This book offers a humanities approach to this topic, highlighting the potential of language, literature, culture, and media com‐ munication to enrich environmental discussions. It examines foreign language education and explores related fields, such as environmental humanities, environ‐ mental education, and education for sustainable development. It also investigates ecolinguistics, ecocriticism, and cultural ecology. The book presents a framework for environmental literacy in foreign language teaching, providing a unique perspective on the role of foreign language education in promoting sustainability, environmental awareness, and critical thinking, ultimately nurturing more hope‐ ful paths for a sustainable future. Wie kann die Fremdsprachendidaktik der Funke sein, der Umweltbewusstheit und Nachhaltigkeit entfacht? Das Buch bietet geisteswissenschaftliche Zugänge zur Thematik, die mit dem besonderen Potenzial von Sprache, Literatur, Kultur und Medienkommunikation arbeiten, um die Umweltdebatte zu erweitern. Es unter‐ sucht die Fremdsprachendidaktik mit ihren Partnerdisziplinen, wie Environmental Humanities, Umweltpsychologie, Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung, insbeson‐ dere aber Ökolinguistik, Ecocriticism und Kulturökologie. Das Buch präsentiert einen Rahmen für Environmental Literacy im Fremdsprachenunterricht, indem es den Kern dessen betont, was die Fremdsprachendidaktik ausmacht. So bietet das Buch eine einzigartige Perspektive auf die Rolle der Fremdsprachendidaktik bei der Förderung von Nachhaltigkeit, Umweltbewusstheit und kritischem Denken, um hoffnungsvollere Wege für eine nachhaltige Zukunft zu ebnen. Acknowledgments 13 <?page no="15"?> 1 Introduction “In order to survive, humans must provide for their material, emotional and intellectual needs. These are satisfied by culture, a complex system that includes tools, language, arts and beliefs. Cultures vary because they must be compatible with their supporting environments. Thus dif‐ ferent climates, terrains and sources of food evoke different cultural responses.” Royal BC Museum, Victoria BC, Canada (2009) The study book - Environmental Literacy and the Teaching of English - aims to provide a thorough conceptualization of environmental issues in foreign language education, using the teaching of English as a foreign language as a specific example. As issues of nature, environment, and sustainability gain traction in foreign language education, they find entry into school classrooms with a heavy focus on climate change, global species extinction, or catastrophic events. And yet, a comprehensive and theoretically grounded conceptualization of these issues is essential to inform teaching practices and promote student learning. Current approaches often fall short, either by foregrounding single environmental topics or treating the environment as just one of many topics, without considering the unique characteristics and connections to language, literature, culture, and media communication. By neglecting these inter‐ connections, the approaches fail to engage with the principles, knowledge base, and methodology of foreign language education, resulting in unoriginal and uninspired teaching practices. Learners are constantly exposed to the environmental challenges of our time. Most articles and media outlets - no matter whether in the popular or academic contingent - highlight the catastrophic consequences of climate change. However, this approach often relies on fear-mongering and doom-laden narratives, which can be overwhelming and counterproductive. While it is crucial to equip students with accurate scientific information and knowledge about the environment so as to enable them to counter climate change skepticism and conspiracy myths, this must not come at the cost of inducing despair, paralysis, or cynicism (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 4.5). Instead of perpetuating a culture of fear, researchers and teachers should strive to empower learners with a better understanding of environmental issues and the skills to address them in a proactive and hopeful way. Educators should reject the fear-mongering and despair that often accompanies populist media approaches and tabloid press. Too often, teachers unwittingly prioritize sensationalism over critical thinking, when they use authentic materials, readily available headlines, and text snippets in class. Thereby, they are brought to promote <?page no="16"?> populist approaches to the topic rather than critical thinking by focusing their teaching efforts on dystopia, for example, or depressing media outlets. Educators must learn to avoid such a trap and, instead, encourage their learners to help them build a more comprehensive grasp of environmental issues rather than immersing them in a pessimistic, fear-driven world. By sharing positive narratives and success stories, educators can cultivate agency in learners, showcasing the impact of individual and community action and highlighting the role of language, culture, and storytelling in driving environmental progress. After all, as Terry Tempest Williams (2008) notes, even in a “broken world,” there is still potential for transformation and finding beauty. A more hopeful, proactive approach to environmental and sustainability education could allow learners to develop resilience and a sense of agency rather than becoming mired in despair, nostalgia for a lost past, or fear for a lost future. By focusing on the knowledge, information, and skills that are essential for learning about languages, cultures, literatures, and media, educators can help learners develop a more positive, forward-looking perspective on the environment and their place within it. This book is based on a rather striking observation: The political motions, techno‐ logical innovations, and scientific discoveries of the past few decades were not able to prevent or, in any real measure, minimize environmental crises and climate change. It therefore follows that more attention is needed to the work of the humanities. An interdisciplinary collaboration can potentially unfold greater awareness for the teaching of nature, environment, and sustainability also in communicative subjects, such as the foreign language classroom and the language arts. This book’s academic foundation emphasizes the importance of a solid theoretical basis for teaching ideas, topics, and concepts (Harant et al. 2020). The lack of theoretical underpinnings in foreign language teaching’s engagement with environmental issues since the 1970s has led to a one-sided approach, focusing on current events and catastrophes, despair, and destruction. This volume’s return to the theoretical basics ensures that future teachers, administrators, and researchers can prepare a broader selection of topics and use diverse teaching techniques. Such an approach will give students a good, mo‐ tivating, and future-oriented foundation of linguistic, literary, cultural, and media communicative entanglements with nature, environment, and sustainability. Given the urgency of environmental concerns, most notably climate change, biodi‐ versity loss, and resource depletion, and the concomitantly growing public awareness with its ideologically contentious perception, one would expect specialized educational fields such as the teaching of English to prioritize the subject of nature, environment, and sustainability with verve and emphasis. German schoolbook publishers have consistently responded to this need since the 1970s, incorporating textbook elements and teaching materials that address environmental issues. Despite growing interest in environmental issues and sustainability, foreign language education has been relatively slow to integrate these topics into its research scope. Therefore, the field has been lagging behind in this area and is still lacking a comprehensive conceptual basis for teaching about nature, environment, and sustainability in the foreign language 16 1 Introduction <?page no="17"?> classroom. While many disciplines have undergone significant epistemological devel‐ opments, generating new theories and pedagogies to address environmental concerns, foreign language education has only recently begun to explore this area (Surkamp 2022: 5; Küchler 2025: 68). Conferences and symposia on these topics result in edited volumes and journal contributions (Surkamp 2022; Bartosch 2021a; Burwitz-Melzer et al. 2021; Bartosch & Grimm 2014). Consequently, the growing interest in environmental education is also accompanied by a substantial increase in publications and collections dedicated to the subject. Despite the widespread inclusion of the environment in English teaching materials since the 1970s, the pioneering academic publication for German-speaking countries was undoubtedly the volume Ecodidactic Perspectives on English Language, Literatures, and Cultures (Mayer & Wilson 2006). This groundbreaking collection opened new avenues for discussing environmental issues in Germany by integrating ecocritical perspectives also with intercultural insights and foreign language teaching. While the book’s focus is primarily on higher educational contexts, it laid the founda‐ tion for future explorations of environmental education in language learning. Many other books with a clear environmental thrust are not geared toward the context of school teaching and foreign language learning. For example, collections like Teaching Ecocriticism and Green Cultural Studies (Garrard 2012) and Teaching North American Environmental Literature (Christensen et al. 2008) focus primarily on English, literature, and higher education. Other noteworthy collections with a more general perspective prioritize ecological and scientific perspectives over humanities concerns; they include Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World (Orr 1992), Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World (Stone & Barlow 2005), and Ecoliterate: How Educators Are Cultivating Emotional, Social, and Ecological Intelligence (Goleman et al. 2012). While these resources are often centered on tertiary education and adult learners, they can still offer valuable approaches and stimulate teaching in foreign language education. Teaching English as if the Planet Matters (Matthewman 2011) carves out the role of teaching English in light of the environmental crisis, emphasizing the importance of ecocriticism as a relevant discipline. The book uses pertinent background and teaching examples, but almost exclusively refers to the British educational system and native language teaching scenarios, making some examples difficult to transfer to foreign or additional language education. Similarly, Teaching Climate Change to Adolescents: Reading, Writing, and Making a Difference (Beach et al. 2017) motivates English teachers to take action and recognize the significant role of language pedagogy in the environmental context. However, the book focuses primarily on teaching functional language skills. While it is inspiring, it is restricted to the North American market and may not fully meet the needs of foreign language educators in Europe or Germany. As an early adopter, the “ecodidactic approach” specifically tailored for foreign language education was further discussed in Fachdidaktik English: Kultur und Sprache (Volkmann 2010: 24, 203-204). Building on this early work, the following studies 1 Introduction 17 <?page no="18"?> have made significant contributions to the field. The collection Teaching Environments: Ecocritical Encounters (Bartosch & Grimm 2014) brings together diverse voices and highlights valuable discussion threads. Similarly, Cultivating Sustainability in Language and Literature Pedagogy: Steps to an Educational Ecology (Bartosch 2021a) offers a wealth of ideas and practical suggestions for the teaching of English. Bartosch’s monograph Literature, Pedagogy, and Climate Change: Text Models for a Transcultural Ecology (2019) focuses on school contexts, particularly in the EFL classroom, and offers practical guidance on working with literature and tasks. The monograph Climate Change Liter‐ acy (Hoydis et al. 2023) stands out for its bold approach, which is grounded in cuttingedge academic debates and offers an innovative literacy model. In addition to these monographs, a considerable number of articles have explored individual aspects of ecology and the environment, exploring these issues in the context of specific sections or goals of foreign language education, be it poetry, dystopian literature, environmental film, or global issues. The recent article collection Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung im Englischunterricht (Surkamp 2022) is particularly encouraging, as it effectively integrates the teaching of English with the sustainability discourse and the needs for schools and high schools. The book places a strong emphasis on teaching practice and offers ideas for teaching scenarios. In recent years, foreign language education has taken strides in addressing environ‐ mental concerns, giving rise to new research questions and numerous publications. Those approaches can be seen to respond to valuable and pertinent questions such as: How can (foreign) language learning play a role in sustainability education? What would that role be? What role can environment and sustainability play in the foreign language classroom? How can their societal relevance, urgency, and the Global Sustainability Goals be effectively integrated into language teaching and learning? Yet also, what methods and teaching techniques can be used to connect seemingly scientific issues, such as environmental sustainability, to language pedagogy? The answers to these questions and the development of the field are influenced by various external factors, including economic and political requirements, (inter)national education strategies and agreements, as well as state-approved curricula. However, there is also the question of how learning about environmental issues and sustainability can enrich language teaching. How can it be avoided that nature, environment, and sustainability become just another topic added to the wide range of subjects in the language classroom? Even with inconspicuous topics or those that may not initially appear to be relevant either for language learners or for the environmental movement, a fresh perspective can reveal new insights. The perspective of this study book, therefore, tries to uncover the intricate connections between language, culture, and the environment. Moreover, the silences and omissions of the past can be just as revealing as the words themselves (see also Olsen 1965). The intersection of teaching English and environmental issues also highlights the significance of content in foreign language education, with topics like nature, environment, and sustainability serving as a prime example. Approaches or topics are not interchangeable. Rather, 18 1 Introduction <?page no="19"?> contemporary issues that spark controversy, ongoing debate, and media attention - and which drive research, conferences, and events - require a substantial amount of background information and knowledge. For these reasons, this book on Environmental Literacy and the Teaching of English is concerned with establishing close ties between the field of English and the related environmental disciplines. Thereby, it tries a different angle and mainly follows foundational, internally driven impulses (Hallet & Königs 2010: 10-17). It forges a research area that has gotten way too little attention of late; it creates an arena for social, cultural, and linguistics insights pertinent to an environmentally sensitive language classroom and, thus, develops a critical take on a model for environmental literacy in the teaching of foreign languages. In contrast to approaches relying on external factors, I draw on internal impulses from our own discipline, English and American studies, and incorporate insights, foundations, and understandings of the related disciplines (see Chapter 4). This book advocates for an interdisciplinary approach to foreign language education, as virtually all disciplines that inform this field have developed significant environmental subfields. By integrating insights from environmental education and education for sustainable development, from ecopsychology, environmental humanities, and notably ecolinguistics, ecocriticism, and ecomedia, the teaching of English can cultivate a deeper understanding of the intricate relationships between language, culture, and the environment. This perspective also prompts important questions, such as: What role can English play in the broader environmental discourse? How do foreign language learning and the teaching of language, literature, and culture intersect? What influence do language, culture, and media communication exert on environmental debates? Moreover, how can a linguistic and cultural perspective offer a distinctive lens on the world, enabling us to better understand and address environmental challenges? By exploring these questions, such an interdisciplinary approach can yield innovative and thought-provoking ideas for the development, teaching, and learning of languages, literatures, and cultures. An analysis of the interconnections between language learning and nature, envi‐ ronment, and sustainability is important. English, as a communicative field, enables learners to explore and discuss a wide range of topics, including environmental and sustainable ones. This requires a balanced approach that integrates the principles of foreign language education and environmental humanities, recognizing the unique significance of environmental concerns and the need for critical discourse about human relationships with the environment. By exploring the intersections between language, culture, and environment, this book aims to highlight the subject’s potential to shape a more sustainable and environ‐ mentally conscious future. Teachers can empower learners to engage communicatively with subjects like nature, the environment, and sustainability by providing them with linguistic skills, language awareness, and cultural knowledge. Enhancing the learners’ ability to navigate different cultural perspectives and participate in transcultural 1 Introduction 19 <?page no="20"?> dialogue may be part and parcel of such an endeavor. The emergence of ecologically oriented sub-disciplines and the growing recognition of environmental issues across various fields present a significant opportunity for language pedagogy to develop a more nuanced and informed approach to environmental teaching. This book aims to contribute to this effort by exploring the intersections between language education, environmental literacy, and curricular goals (see Chapter 3). A key objective is to develop a theoretically founded model of environmental literacy that can inform teaching practices and promote a deeper understanding of ecological issues in the English language classroom. By drawing on insights from related disciplines and considering the unique characteristics of the German field of foreign language educa‐ tion (Fachdidaktik Englisch/ Fremdsprachendidaktik), this book seeks to provide a new approach to environmental teaching in English (see Chapter-5). The Promise of this Book (and Chapter Overview) This studybook, Environmental Literacy and the Teaching of English, explores the intersection of the concepts of nature, environment, and sustainability with the teaching of English and its related disciplines. It is based on key terms and principles, objectives, and insights of the related fields of study. These inquiries are guided by two main concerns: • What can the learning of (foreign) languages, literature, or cultures contribute to a more environmentally attuned society? • How can the teaching and learning of English contribute to the environmental discourse and, in doing so, shed light on fundamental questions regarding the role of knowledge, perceptual conventions, or language and thought? It is crucial to examine the rationale that connects (foreign) languages, literatures, and cultures with their ecological and environmental contexts. This involves exploring the potential of integrating language learning with environmental studies. Chapter-2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene lays the foundation for this approach, outlining key definitions and terminology from the environmental debate as it appears in public media, political initiatives, and academic research. Chapter-3 The Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) provides an over‐ view of the context of foreign language education, laying the groundwork for a detailed discussion of the basic insights and premises of related disciplines in subsequent chapters. This chapter examines the conception of foreign language pedagogy and the teaching of English, taking the German educational system as its specific example. The chapter outlines the goals, principles, and tasks of teaching English from both the perspective of academic disciplines as well as the school subject. Given the scope of this book, it is not possible to explore all related disciplines in equal depth. Instead, Chapter 4 The Related Disciplines provides a concise overview of the four main pillars of teaching English: language, literature, culture, and 20 1 Introduction <?page no="21"?> media communication. These areas are complemented by insights from education, psychology, and the humanities, which supply a framework for language education. The subsequent chapters delve into specific areas, including environmental humanities (Chapter 4.1), ecolinguistics (Chapter 4.2), ecocriticism and cultural ecology (Chap‐ ter-4.3), ecomedia studies (Chapter 4.4), environmental psychology (Chapter 4.5), and environmental education and sustainability (Chapter 4.6). All those related disciplines of foreign language education have developed research fields that examine the rela‐ tionship of humans with their non-human environment. The corresponding chapters highlight the unique contributions each discipline can make to both environmental understanding and language learning and uncover the insights and perspectives it offers for foreign language learning. What new perspectives and content can these research fields provide for language learners? How can learners engage with these aspects of language and communication, and how can they be integrated into classroom teaching or further research? By focusing on the findings and ideas of the diverse partner disciplines, these chapters will establish a foundation for understanding the environment in the context of effective foreign language education. The research insights presented will be guided by a commitment to environmental awareness and hope for positive change, as well as a dedication to the principles of good foreign language education. Chapter 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom, is a central chapter that explores concepts related to ecological awareness and environ‐ mental literacy in (foreign) language education. First, the conceptualization of literacy is traced and related to foreign language education with its key questions, perspectives, and findings. Then, three models are described that lend themselves to the foreign language classroom. At last, a collated, synthesized model for environmental and sustainable literacy in the language classroom is developed and specifically geared toward the teaching of English and other foreign languages. This model foregrounds the strengths of teaching languages, literatures, cultures, and media communication to foster environmental literacy, rather than merely using language functions to communicate concerns borrowed from scientific and social disciplines. Thereby, the chapter reconfirms the significance of a strong focus on these areas in foreign language teaching, using environmental issues as a key example. 1 Introduction 21 <?page no="22"?> 22 1 Introduction <?page no="23"?> 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene “The Anthropocene requires us to rethink these priorities, along with the terminology we use in order to articulate them. […] What is nature when it is fundamentally transformed by human impact? What is culture when it can no longer be understood as a human-made and locally circumscribed environment but has to be seen instead as something that interferes with the forces of nature at a planetary scale? What is humankind, if it is understood as a dominant species whose behavior profoundly affects the Earth system? ” (Bergthaller & Horn 2020: 5) To initiate the exploration of environmental issues in English language teaching, it is essential to establish a foundation by defining and contextualizing the scope of these considerations. As a first step, I consider it necessary to examine the current environmental situation and juxtapose the prevailing conditions of the environmental discourse with those of foreign language education (see Chapter 2.1). Therefore, I will introduce key terminology and concepts that underpin both fields. Specifically, this will involve defining and contextualizing the concepts of nature, ecology, environment, and sustainability within their academic and general usage frameworks (see Chapter-2.2). 2.1 A Humanities Perspective on the Ecological Situation The current state of the planet and the environmental situation on all continents and in many regions is usually described with a sense of urgency and impending doom. This sense of urgency leads to a growing interest in the concept of resilience, which is occasionally used to process catastrophic situations. Resilience refers to the ability of individuals or systems to respond flexibly to changing circumstances and adapt to new conditions (Höhler 2016: 261). The term, borrowed from the Latin word resilire (to rebound, to spring back), was used in psychology to describe coping mechanisms after post-traumatic stress. Since the 1970s, resilience has also been used in ecological contexts to describe adaptations to ecological disturbances: How can ecological disasters be met with a mindset of transformation, creative growth, and innovation? However, the concept of resilience can also be problematic, as it may leave the impression of absolving humanity of its responsibility for environmental damage and, instead, positively framing harm as an opportunity for creative intervention. <?page no="24"?> Additionally, it may exacerbate existing inequalities rather than mitigate them, as the benefits of resilience may not be evenly distributed, and some individuals or groups may be left more vulnerable than others (265). The past two centuries have seen unprecedented economic growth and technological progress, driven by innovations that have transformed industries, mobility, urbaniza‐ tion, and digitalization. However, this progress has not altered humanity’s destructive trajectory. It seems unlikely that new economic models will help to mitigate the damage or chart a more sustainable course (Ehrlich 1969; Meadows et al. 1972, 2004; IPCC 2021, 2022). Despite alarming scientific findings, societal transformation has been slow. While new technologies and political awareness have emerged, the pace of change is insufficient to address environmental challenges. Notable advancements in renewable energy and sustainable technologies are often offset by the rebound effect, where gains in one area are counterbalanced by increased degradation in another (Herring 2008). For example, energy efficiency gains are undermined by increased energy consumption from mobile technologies, streaming services, or chatbots. The steadily advancing Earth Overshoot Day, which marks the point when humanity’s consumption exceeds the planet’s regenerative capacity, illustrates this trend. Since 1971, this day has shifted from late December to July 24th in 2025, indicating an alarming increase in resource usage (“Earth Overshoot Day”). Country Overshoot Days show even starker disparities: For 2025, the United States reached its threshold on March 13 th and Germany on May 3 rd , both faring significantly earlier than the global average (Global Footprint Network 2025). To effectively address the environmental crisis, alternative approaches must be explored, particularly in the humanities, as relying solely on economic and political pressure is insufficient. In recent years, environmental issues, particularly climate change, have become increasingly prominent in media, politics, science, and the humanities. Similar to other phenomena that require profound transformations, environmental concerns have historically been met with strategies of denial, minimization, or ridicule, which aim to downplay or dismiss their significance and the need for far-reaching changes. The Stern Review (Stern 2007, 2015) assesses the economic implications of climate change, concluding that it poses significant hazards and risks to societies and economies worldwide. The report unequivocally states that climate change is a pressing reality, describing it as “the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen” (Stern 2007: 1). The review examines the impact of global environmental changes on economic development, including social costs related to food security, water availability, ecosystem disruption, extreme weather events, and rapid climate changes. The Stern Review emphasizes the urgent need for swift and decisive action from all sectors of society to mitigate climate change. It highlights that immediate political and economic responses will be less costly than delayed actions, which will lead to more severe climate change damages (Stern 2007). Despite this, a wait-and-see approach has persisted, maximizing costs for global economies. Nicholas Stern’s updated comments reinforce the urgency of the issue, warning that climate change is unfolding faster 24 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="25"?> than expected (Stern 2012: 2015). He advocates for innovative, creative, and climatesensitive progress to avoid future ecological and social upheavals. The Stern Review highlights the disproportionate impact of climate change on the poorest countries and people, emphasizing the need for social and environmental justice (Stern 2007: 7). The uneven distribution of climate impacts and the delayed perception of their effects make behavioral changes and policy implementation challenging. Therefore, governments must promote education and awareness efforts to drive social change and mitigate the effects of climate change. More influence and attention are conferred on the regular environmental assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a UN-backed scientific committee that provides comprehensive reports on global climate change. Founded in 1988 by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the IPCC assesses scientific data and findings on climate change, its impacts, and mitigation strategies. Its purpose is to provide a scientifically sound foundation for political decision-makers, drawing on the expertise of thousands of volunteer scientists from a broad range of disciplines, including natural sciences, social studies, and technologies. The IPCC’s Assessment Reports are a key resource for policymakers, offering a comprehensive overview of the latest research and knowledge on climate change (IPCC 2022). The IPCC publishes comprehensive assessment reports at irregular intervals, with six reports released to date in 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, 2013/ 14, and 2022. The most recent report, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (IPCC 2022), provides a thorough overview of climate change trends, impacts, and required adaptations, supported by scientific data and case studies. The report’s findings were particularly striking, with scientists concluding that current climate changes are unprecedented in millennia and unlikely to be reversed for an equally long period (IPCC 2022: 9). The IPCC’s climate reports and press releases generate significant media attention, but the resulting political momentum is often short-lived, with public interest and debate waning quickly. Despite this, the IPCC’s work has been subject to intense scrutiny and criticism from political opponents, including the fossil fuel industry and other vested interests. The Global Climate Coalition, a think tank funded by major oil and automotive companies, has been a notable example of efforts to discredit and undermine climate research and the IPCC’s findings. The escalating severity of extreme weather events, from record-breaking heat to devastating floods and fires, underscores the stark reality of climate change. The IPCC’s warning that current catastrophes represent a best-case scenario, with worse to come, has sparked global controversy and attention. However, this attention is short-lived, and the resulting debates often get lost in political rhetoric. Nevertheless, the imminent threats and catastrophes have led to a re-examination of the human relationship with the environment, with emotions, attitudes, and situations being reflected in popular culture. The existential vulnerability posed by environmental 2.1 A Humanities Perspective on the Ecological Situation 25 <?page no="26"?> changes has secured a permanent media presence and fuels an alarmist atmosphere with reproachful accusations and blame. 2.1.1 Uneasy Anniversaries Most environmental challenges, political initiatives, or behavioral advice are not new. Only the increasing frequency and extent of ecological anomalies are notable and ever surprising. Despite decades of awareness and although some progress has been made, international politics has been slow to act. Recalling a few anniversaries of significant historical moments puts into perspective the complexity and the pace of progress on environmental issues, which some might argue has still been insufficient: • It has been more than 60 years since Rachel Carson’s seminal book Silent Spring (1962) sparked the US-American environmental protection movement and galvanized international efforts. The book exposes the environmental impact of pesticides and pollution. It makes this knowledge accessible to a broad audience (Carson 1962; see also Grober 2010: 30ff.). • More than 50 years ago, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environ‐ ment in Stockholm (1972) laid the groundwork for global environmental politics. The resulting United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has since developed initiatives contributing to the evolution of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and the Global Sustainability Goals (UNEP 1972; see Chapter 4.6). The subsequent conferences in Rio de Janeiro (1992) and Rio+20 (2012), as well as the influential Paris Agreement from 2015, built upon previous efforts to address environmental challenges. Today, UN summits focus on stocktaking, reorienting environmental policy, and combating climate change while also seeking to secure media attention and widen engagement on specific goals. Despite criticism, these efforts have been ongoing for over 30 years, with the UN convening regular global conferences to negotiate measures to reduce emissions (for details see: https: / / ww w.un.org/ en/ climatechange/ reports). • Also, more than 50 years ago, the influential book The Limits of Growth (1972) by the Club of Rome was published and sparked widespread debate and attention. This seminal report was the first to highlight the global economic system’s reliance on exploiting natural resources (Meadows et al. 2004). The Club of Rome, founded in 1968, is a think tank that brings together researchers from various fields to promote a sustainable and livable future for generations to come. Its work has been featured at major conferences, including Rio+20, where it contributed to a renewed call for more action. On the occasion of its 2012 anniversary, co-author Jørgen Randers published an updated and reinforced prognosis titled 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years (2012). The unease surrounding these anniversaries lies in the disconcerting realization that despite significant developments and progress over the past half-century, many of 26 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="27"?> the same environmental issues persist, suggesting that the pace of change has still been inadequate to address the scale and complexity of the problems. While the environmental movement itself is not new, and the uneasy anniversaries are here to prove it, some of the academic disciplines, conceptualizations, or terminology widely used in the humanities are relatively recent innovations. This tension reflects the complex and evolving nature of environmental knowledge. As a result, new language and frameworks, new research, and knowledge areas for foreign language education that would also point at new related disciplines (see Chapter 4) are required to describe and address them. As Buell (2016: 2) aptly notes, the emergence of new concepts, such as the new spins on the concept of nature, environment, and sustainability, or entirely new subdisciplines, such as “ecomedia,” “ecofeminism,” or “environmental justice” highlight the ongoing effort to develop new ways of thinking and talking about the environment, even as the underlying concerns and values of the movement remain relatively consistent. 2.1.2 The German Environmental Paradox Germany, the largest and most influential European economy, presents itself as an ecological leader, yet its environmental record is more complex. Despite being considered a pioneer in environmental policy (Meyer 2017: 2; Henzelmann & Stoever 2011: 105), Germany has significant ecological shortcomings. Its reputation is built on innovative green technologies and engineering feats (Henzlemann & Stoever 2011: 105), as well as its role in shaping international environmental agreements and policies. As the “EU’s centre of gravity” (Dennison et al. 2021: 49-50), Germany prioritizes environmentalism on its political agenda (OECD 2004: 29; Dennison et al. 2021), but its actual impact remains to be seen. Environmentalism is a major public concern in Germany, with environmental policy ranking high on the agenda. The country has made significant improvements in its environmental performance over the past few decades (Meyer 2017, EEA 2015, OECD 2004). Germany’s environmental movement has also been notably successful in building coalitions across interest groups (Meyer 2017: 2) and engaging a large number of citizens in environmentalist groups, such as Greenpeace Germany and the BUND (Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland/ Federation for Environment and Nature Conservation Germany)(Meyer 2017: 20). This suggests a high level of environmental awareness beyond specialist groups, which is also reflected in the success of the Green Party at federal and regional levels. The Green Party has played a remarkable role in Germany, evolving from an anti-establishment movement against nuclear power in 1980 to a coalition partner in multiple governments in 1998, 2004, and 2022. Its pragmatic shift toward economics and its core agenda on environmentalism and social justice have resonated with the public (McBride 2022). While it has driven ecological policy and environmental awareness, its embrace of 2.1 A Humanities Perspective on the Ecological Situation 27 <?page no="28"?> 1 For more information on the German Wissenschaftsjahr, see the webpage BMBF, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. n.d. “Wissenschaftsjahr.” Accessed May 30, 2023. (https: / / www.wissensch aftsjahr.de/ 2023/ ). Note the thematic focus over the years: 2025: Energy of the Future, 2024: Freedom, 2023: Our Universe, 2022: Participate! (Ask Questions and Think Ahead); 2020/ 21: Bioeconomy; 2019: Artificial Intelligence; 2018: The Work of Tomorrow; 2016/ 17: Oceans; 2015: City of the Future; 2014: The Digital Society; 2013: The Demographic Opportunity; 2012: Earth: Our Future; 2011: Health Research; 2010: The Future of Energy; 2009: Astronomy; 2008: Mathematics; 2007: Humanities: The ABC of Mankind; 2006: Information Sciences; 2004/ 05: Technology; 2003: Chemistry, 2002: Geography, 2002: Life Sciences, 2000: Physics. technological progress (McBride 2022, Robinet-Borgomano 2021, Jungjohann 2019) marks a significant evolution from its earlier stance. Despite its strong environmental reputation, Germany still has room for improve‐ ment in areas like ecological strategies, resource management, and water protection policy (OECD 2004: 29f.). In some cases, German governments have actively hindered EU environmental regulations, risking lawsuits for non-compliance with European agreements. Moreover, Germany lags behind in certain environmental areas, such as greenhouse emissions and agricultural land use, failing to rank among the European top performers (Brodny & Tutak 2021: 8-10, Dennison et al. 2021: 3). Germany’s consumer habits have significantly contributed to global pollution, habitat destruction, and land transformation (Bringezu et al. 2021: 780). While attempting to transition to a more sustainable economy - for example, by switching from fossil and mineralbased resources to biomass - Germany (and other nation states) inadvertently triggers unforeseen adverse effects. A study relativizes Germany’s image as an ecological role model when listing shortcomings, such as exceeding the global average in resource consumption and contributing to land transformation and water scarcity in other regions (Bringezu et al. 2021: 780). Despite its importance in European climate efforts, Germany’s record is not always exemplary, as seen in its increased use of lignite, carbon-intensive coal, following the phasing out of nuclear energy (Dennison et al. 2021: 9). The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) prioritizes socialecological research, thus emphasizing innovation and knowledge transfer under the slogan “Knowledge for a future that works” (BMBF 2021: 02, 04; BMBF 2011). This approach enables the development of new knowledge and innovative methods, but most importantly, it aims at integrating isolated knowledge areas and fosters a deeper understanding of complex systems (BMBF 2011: 4). Since 2000, the BMBF has designated an annual priority research focus (Wissenschaftsjahr) to promote science communication and public awareness. Amidst over two decades of public attention on the natural sciences and engineering, only the year 2007 was specifically dedicated to the humanities. 1 Such research efforts and science communication are geared toward providing guidance and making visions of the future tangible for broader society and other interdisciplinary researchers. To achieve this, different disciplines, fields of action, or regions should be considered (BMBF 2011: 4-5). And still, what about broader cultural phenomena as indicators for such societal development? However, the 28 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="29"?> seeming disregard for the humanities, which could also contribute to environmental concerns and sustainability goals, is in contradiction to the efforts of the ministry, and the Wissenschaftsjahr illustrates just one more example of a one-sided emphasis on the sciences. Such bias further isolates other important research areas for environmental exploration and social change. Recognizing humanity’s ecological impact on every life cycle on the planet extends beyond the material dimension and compels the humanities to action. After all, it is the humanities’ academic mission to observe, describe, interpret, or design alternative human endeavors. Interestingly, a policy study concludes that European states need to work on reframing their “narratives” rather than just their ecology or policy (Dennison et al. 2021: 25). This involves creating a people-centered narrative that highlights opportunities for ecological transition and empowers individuals. Since the focus on narrative falls within the humanities domain, this suggestion poses a crucial question: how can the humanities, here especially foreign language education, better incorporate environmental issues to foster a deeper understanding of these complex problems? 2.1.3 Ecological Facts and Cultural Imaginary Ecological and environmental knowledge, including behavioral patterns, beliefs, and attitudes, are passed down through generations, shaping a community’s sociocultural structure. However, with the rise of individualization, digital transformation, and societal complexity, traditional knowledge transfer processes seem to have become strained, leading to a decline in the understanding and transmission of environmental knowledge (Macfarlane & Morris 2017; Macfarlane 2015; Louv 2008; Burniske & Monke 2001). As a result, industrialization, urbanization, and digitalization have obscured the value and significance of environmental knowledge, making it harder for people to understand the intricate relationships between human behavior and the environment. Human ingenuity, coupled with technological innovations but also the creative use of linguistic and cultural patterns or narratives, has enabled humans to thrive in diverse environments, often with limited ties to their ecological habitat, and to develop complex societies even in adverse ecological conditions. However, the human urge for mobility, growth, and expansion has profoundly altered the climate and biosphere. This phenomenon is called exerting “anthropogenic pressures” (Rockström et al. 2009: 1) or “human perturbations” (Keppner et al. 2020: 17) and it eventually threatens to become a trap for humanity. These pressures lead to escalating degradation, overpopulation, overexploitation, and resource depletion. The role of urbanization in environmental health issues, such as the spread of infectious diseases like COVID-19, highlights the need for adjustments in human behavior, including how people live, use technology, consume goods, and interact with each other (McMichael 2000: 1123). All organisms, including humans, play a crucial role in maintaining ecosystem functions and thus ecological resilience (Folke et al. 2021: 9). However, human economic activities, characterized by “homogenization, simplification, intensification” (Folke 2.1 A Humanities Perspective on the Ecological Situation 29 <?page no="30"?> et al. 2021: 10), unremittingly push the environment toward critical thresholds, “tipping points,” and the point of no return. This undermines the global ecological capacities, threatening to irreparably disrupt Earth’s delicate ecological balances and carrying capacity (Folke et al. 2021, Keppner et al. 2020: 17). Scientific research has led to the development of a new conceptual framework to balance “continued development of human societies” and “the maintenance of the Earth systems” (Steffen et al. 2015: 736). The concept of planetary boundaries (Rockström et al. 2009: 1) defines critical eco‐ logical thresholds beyond which human activities can have devastating consequences. Crossing these boundaries not only harms the environment but also puts human societies and lifestyles at risk (Keppner et al. 2020; Steffen et al. 2015; Rockström et al. 2009). To avoid tipping points, planetary boundaries serve as “safe-operating spaces” (Folke et al. 2021: 11) and require consideration of all dimensions of human activity, including economic, social, and cultural aspects, to stay within these limits. O’Neill et al. (2018) apply the concept of planetary boundaries to the economic situation in 150 countries, exploring how sustainable development can occur within these limits. They ask: how can human needs and desires for a good life be met while also protecting and stabilizing planetary boundaries? The authors conclude that while physical needs can be met without crossing the threshold of destabilization, redefining what constitutes a “good life” and downscaling qualitative pursuits may be necessary to respect and protect planetary boundaries (O’Neill et al. 2018: 90). Accelerating climate change is accompanied by widespread phenomena, such as regional climate shifts, which coincide with vast migratory movements and population growth, further exacerbating the situation (Folke et al. 2021; Steffen et al. 2015; Kolbert 2006). The combination of increased global mobility, urbanization, and expansive land use facilitates the rapid spread of diseases, including pandemics and other negative social and environmental impacts (WHO 2020, Stiglitz et al. 2009, Stern 2007). The Sixth Extinction, or the catastrophic loss of biological diversity, is a pressing issue in the 21st century (Folke et al. 2021; Kolbert 2015). The decline of species, such as the European honeybee, poses a significant threat to human nutrition. Many plant and animal species are being lost before they are even discovered or described (Ernst 2010). Once adverse developments like climate change or species loss cross a critical threshold, they can become irreversible. As Elizabeth Kolbert notes, “Crossing over it will be easy, crossing back likely impossible” (2006: 3) and thus aptly highlights the danger of tipping points. Industrialization, urbanization, and global mobility not only degrade ecological habitats but also displace indigenous and rural communities. In doing so, their cultural practices are threatened, and social and environmental injustices are exacerbated. This, in turn, widens the gap between privileged and marginalized communities, perpetuating social and economic inequalities (Folke et al. 2021, UNDP 2020). To create a sustainable world, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have been developed to balance human ambitions and needs with planetary boundaries by 2030 (see Chapter 4.6). However, meeting these goals requires considering not only 30 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="31"?> economic parameters but also human aspects, such as individual freedom and lifestyle choices (UNDP 2020). It needs to be asked: how can human needs be met without further violating planetary boundaries (Collste et al. 2021: 1-2)? Since the new millennium, sociopolitical and humanistic debates have increasingly used the concept of the Anthropocene. The term was coined by chemist and Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen (2002) to describe the current geological epoch and highlight humanity’s profound impact on Earth’s geomorphology since the Industrial Revolution. This period of rapid change coincides with “The Great Acceleration,” a time when humankind began to extract and exploit natural resources and emit pollutants at an ever-increasing rate (Zalasiewicz et al. 2016: 15). Crutzen’s terminology has sparked debates on the comprehensive anthropogenic environmental transformations triggered by humankind. The concept is still being evaluated for its geological effects and hierarchical classification yet has made significant impacts in the sciences as well as the arts and humanities. As the scope of human influence has become clearer, the Anthropocene concept has gained traction, revealing that human impacts, although brief on a geological scale, are far from trivial. With its emphasis on planetary boundaries, the Anthropocene provides an integrated overview of the limits of a functional Earth system (16). By synthesizing diverse perspectives, this term effectively conveys various types of global change (14-15), and its evocative power situates humankind within the same narrative as other species, thereby blurring the divide between nature and society (Görg 2016: 32). What sets the Anthropocene apart from the previous age of the Holocene are rapid environmental changes that were set in motion by mankind and are unprecedented in their scale. A notable example of large-scale chemical changes is the emission of carbon from the lithosphere into the atmosphere, which far surpasses the scale of natural eruptions in earlier ages (Zalasiewicz et al. 2016: 16). The biosphere is undergoing the most significant transformations, with cumulative impacts now reaching unprecedented proportions. These far-reaching changes have evolved from initial disruptions on land and are now beginning to also affect the oceans: Species extinctions are occurring at an alarming rate, with many species critically endangered and human-driven species translocations happening on a monumental scale. In the worst case, the biospheric changes may be foreshadowing a potential mass extinction event that could rival the most devastating losses in Earth’s history. Those biological changes have irreversible consequences as they forever alter the trajectory of evolution and rewrite the future of Earth’s history (16). Furthermore, the Anthropocene is characterized by the global presence of man-made materials such as aluminum, plastics, and nuclear fallout (Waters et al. 2016). In short, the Anthropocene must be seen as a complex, multifaceted, and evolving phenomenon, with interconnected factors like climate warming driving cascading biological changes (Zalasiewicz et al. 2016: 16). Humankind has inadvertently become a “geological player” (Chakrabarty 2010: 285) and left an indelible imprint on the planet, which will remain evident in geological sediments and Earth’s cycles for millennia to come. As “geological agents,” humans 2.1 A Humanities Perspective on the Ecological Situation 31 <?page no="32"?> have had a profound and enduring influence, quantified by researchers. The influence can be seen as the latest phase in the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history of environmental changes (Zalasiewicz et al. 2016: 14; Görg 2016: 31). Traditional models view human biological evolution and civilization as responses to climate changes and, thereby, over‐ look humans’ active role in shaping their environment (Mauelshagen & Pfister 2010: 252). The Anthropocene concept challenges this approach by bridging the divide between human and natural history (Chakrabarty 2010: 274ff.). This recognizes humans as biological and geological factors that actively shape their environments and thus overrides the deceptive separation between human and natural history in both the natural sciences and the humanities. It ultimately calls for a reconfiguration of the boundaries of human knowledge and invites a more interdisciplinary and holistic understanding of the complex relationships between human societies, cultures, and the natural world. The Anthropocene concept necessitates a response from the humanities; for exam‐ ple, it prompts questions about its broader implications for society and culture. It requires reflecting on cultural concepts, such as nature, diversity, and social conflicts, and integrating cultural and critical voices into interdisciplinary approaches to nature, environment, and sustainability (Görg 2016: 33). As Mauelshagen and Pfister argue, socio-cultural aspects and cultural specifics must be the starting point and objective of historical research, as societies influence their environment through culture-specific practices (Mauelshagen & Pfister 2010: 259). As the Anthropocene concept takes root in the sciences, arts, and humanities, it is yet to be argued whether and how this approach can be expanded to disciplines such as foreign language education. As a contribution to the discussion of future scenarios for global environments and societal developments during the 21st century, Folke et al. (2021) emphasize that human life, cultures, societies, and civilizations are deeply embedded in the biosphere and must be considered within this context, no matter how revolutionary their industrial and technological advances. They argue that human societies can only be understood as “part of the biosphere, not separate from it” (Folke et al. 2021: 1). Following the examination of relevant scientific facts, political efforts, and the environmental situation at large, it is revealed that narratives play a vital role in presenting perceptions and interpretations of the world to make sense of events, patterns, and values (Folke et al. 2021: 18-19). The economic growth narrative, which prioritizes unbridled expansion and extraction, is a prime example of how dominant narratives can shape values and actions in a speakers’ community, often at the expense of planetary health and economic stability. Despite growing awareness of sustainability issues, as evident in the World Bank Report (2020), environmental concerns remain surprisingly low on the agenda, with the primary focus still on growth and wealth distribution. This neglect of planetary boundaries and the transformations imposed by the Anthropocene highlights the importance of narrative in shaping the understanding of the world and humanity’s place within it. To foster resilience, narratives must incorporate an element of hope rather than relying on despair and fearmongering. Possibly, exploring different 32 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="33"?> narratives and leveraging (trans)cultural imaginary will be essential to advance a more sustainable and hopeful vision of the future. In light of these considerations, this perspective highlights the importance of biocultural coevolution, hope, and narratives (see Chapters 4.3 and 4.5). One reason why relying solely on facts and figures is problematic is that many environmental phenomena exceed human perceptual capacities, as Timothy Morton (2013: 2) points out. Because they take place on large and vastly different scales in time and space, numerous anthropogenic changes in the environment are not directly perceptible to the human senses. This makes them easily overlooked: for example, the gradual but exponential increase of global warming, the slow spatial shift of habitat and climate zones, the temporal displacement of seasonal phenomena, the silent degradation of natural habitats, or species extinction. The limitations of human senses make it difficult to grasp what’s happening. As a result, people must rely on technological tools to even perceive or measure these changes. At this point, the humanities become even more crucial to the environmental discourse and education because people must rely on narratives, images, or other forms of representation that are most convincing, compelling, or conclusive. Since some changes or dangers are no longer directly perceptible, people must trust the political system or scientific institutions when making far-reaching decisions in their lives. The environmental challenge ultimately boils down to trust, with decisions based on the cultural imaginary, narratives, words, or images used to understand vast phenomena that operate on virtually imperceptible scales of time or space. Therefore, the scalar aspects gain importance and highlight the relevance and critical role the humanities play (Hoydis et al. 2024: 24-26; Bartosch 2021b: 79-80; Clark 2019: 38ff.; Küchler 2017: 156). Not individual stories, but the collective, cultural function of narratives plays a crucial role here, as they are shaped and agreed upon by “cultural intermediaries” and thus granted social power (Folke et al. 2021: 19). Hope narratives, in particular, can shape community behaviors and become culturally influential if they imply agency and provide a path forward (Folke et al. 2021: 19). These narratives offer “imagined futures” and, thus, they help to form images of alternative lifestyles and guide people toward a more sustainable future (Folke et al. 2021: 19). Human behavior is readily considered part of the adaptive work that societies must perform. Behavioral patterns must be understood as both “enculturated” and “enearthed”, which reflects the confluence of socio-cultural development and ecological evolution (Folke et al. 2021: 20). According to Folke et al., a sustainable future requires cultural transformations that guide technological change in support of a resilient biosphere, reconnecting development to the biosphere foundation (20). While facts are important for understanding and possibly mitigating the relationship between humankind and the non-human environment, they alone are insufficient. However, as the limitations of technological and market-based solutions become increasingly apparent, it may be time to broaden the horizon to questions of how this 2.1 A Humanities Perspective on the Ecological Situation 33 <?page no="34"?> relationship, the planet, its phenomena, and also its crises are imagined, pictured, and narrated. The cultural repertoire of images and imaginations has a significant impact on perception and response to these issues. To comprehend the gravity and magnitude of environmental challenges, mass media and the entertainment industry often employ dramatic and attention-captivating techniques to present environmental issues. This approach frequently emphasizes catastrophic events, imminent threats, or the dire possibilities of cataclysmic scenarios. And yet, the visual inventory of possible, recognizable, contextualized illustrations in those instances is rather restricted (Henk & Uchatius 2015; see also Küchler 2016: 153f.). With the primary focus on brute destruction and chaos, popular perception, and the entertainment industry present a one-sided view of the apocalypse that overlooks the religious component of the term with its moment of diagnosis, revelation, and understanding of the misalignment of the world, nature or humankind’s place in the greater scheme of things (Stümer & Loest 2022: 5; CAPAS 2021). Even though the apocalypse may serve as a sophisticated intellectual mode of thinking and questioning (cultural) conceptualizations (Stümer & Loest 2022: 8), the effect of numbing and paralyzing the public or even pushing them toward despair makes it a problematic trope for educational purposes (see also Chapter-4.5). In contrast, the dramatization of catastrophic events and the frequent occurrence of apocalyptic scenarios raise questions regarding the significance of narratives, images, and words in these events. How do images or stories influence the perception of the environment? How diverse and robust is the (cultural) imagination of humanity’s re‐ lationship with the non-human environment? How do language, literature, culture, and media communication shape the way teachers and learners perceive the world? The cultural imaginary should play a pivotal role in environmental education, as it can either instill hope or perpetuate despair (see Küchler 2025). It would be worthwhile to explore a broader spectrum of diverse and hopeful images and narratives. As such, an exploration falls within the purview of the humanities; it may be time to reaffirm the role of the discipline of foreign language education within the humanities when addressing environmental issues (see also Chapter-4, Related Disciplines). 2.1.4 Beyond Facts and Figures: Rethinking (Environmental) Knowledge While the gap between knowledge and behavior (Kretz 2015: 14) does not necessarily imply a deficiency in awareness, it is crucial to recognize that behavior encompasses a complex and multifaceted spectrum with various factors such as infrastructure, cultural traditions, or personal habits (see Ernst et al. 2024 and Chapter 4.5). To better understand this intricate relationship, the regular Environmental Awareness Survey, conducted biannually since 1996, has consistently tracked changes in envi‐ ronmental consciousness and perceptions in Germany (Rubik et al. 2019: 7). Although a comprehensive analysis of all surveys is not feasible within the scope of this book, a 34 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="35"?> selective examination of the surveys conducted in 2006 and 2018 can provide valuable insights (Kuckartz & Rheingans-Heintze 2006; Kuckartz 2010; Rubik et al. 2019). By focusing on these specific surveys, I aim to reshape the mindset and orientation, the conceptual orientation underlying approaches to education and environmental literacy. The 2006 Environmental Awareness Survey already validates that Germans practice some environmental activities more frequently than the European average, such as waste separation, energy efficiency, or water-saving, but they do not excel in any of these areas and do not lead in European environmental efforts. Respondents have solid knowledge about environmental problems, especially those frequently covered in the media, yet their knowledge and behavior are somewhat contradictory (Kuckartz 2010). Consequently, Kuckartz finds the provocative maxim: “Not here, not now, not me” for environmental awareness in Germany (translation mine, see also Kuckartz 2010: 150). The motto “not here” refers to respondents’ awareness and knowledge of the geographically (and ecologically) favorable location of their country in Central Europe. This leads them to believe that environmental catastrophes are likely to occur else‐ where before they hit home (Kuckartz 2010: 151). Most often, the coverage of disasters on the daily news networks underscores such a belief. Combined with the knowledge of Europe’s geography and temperate climate zone, this reinforces the pleasing and yet deceptive sense of security. Despite expectations of steady improvement in living conditions, respondents are becoming increasingly anxious about the future, leading Kuckartz to introduce the motto “not now” (2010: 153). While concerned about the well-being of future generations, individuals feel secure in the present. This seems to be resulting in a “carpe diem” effect: they prioritize short-term pleasures, such as long-distance travel, over long-term environmental concerns. The perceived ineffectiveness of individual actions and the slow pace of political change led to a sense of powerlessness, which prompted Kuckartz to introduce the motto “not me” (2010: 155). Such a mindset shifts the responsibility for environmental action to the state authorities or institutions, while individuals expect government regulation to drive change rather than taking personal responsibility for their own behavior. Germany’s growing concern for environmental and climate protection is clearly reflected in the 2018 Environmental Awareness Survey. The majority of respondents recognized its importance in addressing future challenges and ensuring prosperity (Rubik et al. 2019: 9). This growing sense of urgency is evident not only at the national level but also at regional and local levels. Respondents recognize the need for far-reaching transitions in industry and agriculture, yet they express significant dissatisfaction with the efforts of political, economic, and other stakeholders (26-27). Instead, they demand for government, economy, and civil society to prioritize envi‐ ronmental and climate protection. Notably, environmental organizations are exempt from this criticism, as their efforts are widely recognized by respondents. Interestingly, while informants acknowledge the primary responsibility of larger entities, such as 2.1 A Humanities Perspective on the Ecological Situation 35 <?page no="36"?> governments and corporations, they also demonstrate a growing awareness of their individual contributions and the impact of their personal behavior on environmental and climate protection. This suggests that interviewees demonstrate a heightened awareness of the importance of personal agency and seem more inclined to act within their own spheres of influence (22). It is notable that environmental awareness and attitudes are strongly influenced by social milieus, which can be categorized into several distinct groups, including traditional and precarious milieus, the bourgeois mainstream, a critical-creative milieu, young idealists, young distanced, and young pragmatists (73ff.). These social layers often share common attitudes toward life and lifestyles but also perceive reality in distinct ways, resulting in varying levels of environmental awareness. While there are overlapping characteristics between some milieus, each group has its own unique characteristics, highlighting the complex and multifaceted nature of environmental awareness. For the first time in 2018, the Environmental Awareness Survey employed compre‐ hensive measurement tools designed to capture the three dimensions of environmental awareness: emotional involvement (encompassing attitudinal and affective reactions to events), cognitive assessment (involving rational evaluation of problems), and active behavior (including self-reported routines) (Rubik et al. 2019: 11, 67-68). This enables standardized, longitudinal measurements and facilitates comparisons across groups and over time. Overall, also the 2018 Environmental Awareness Survey reveals a persistent gap between knowledge and action, with many respondents acknowledging the significance of environmental and climate protection yet expressing dissatisfaction with the insufficient efforts to address these pressing issues (26-27, 62). As this series of representative surveys is commissioned by prominent government agencies, including the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), it provides a robust foundation for environmental policy, grounded in scientific research (83). And yet, the surveys also offer insights for education. It can be concluded that (eco‐ logical) knowledge alone may not drive behavioral change and, therefore, cannot be an end in itself for environmental education. The survey’s focus on immediate policy areas is consistent with its design, and it does not extend to potential contributions of languages or environmental narratives to environmental awareness. While scientific knowledge is essential for understanding ecological mechanisms, it appears to be insufficient to drive significant behavioral change. As Bill McKibben notes with regard to climate change, it “hasn’t registered in our gut” and, therefore, has not prompted the necessary cultural and behavioral shifts (2005: 1). The gap between knowledge and behavior challenges the assumption that increased awareness automatically leads to better behavior and mitigation (Kretz 2015: 14; see also Chapter 4.5). To address this, each discipline must find its own contributions to the environmental discourse. Each educational field needs to find its strengths to complement scientific, technological, or political efforts. Environmental education, therefore, should empower individuals with agency and foster a deeper and more diverse understanding of 36 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="37"?> environmental issues. This requires a broader shift in a society’s value system and goes beyond factual, ecological knowledge. The environmental humanities could play a crucial role not only in communicating and making sense of ecological contexts and interconnections (Doll & Wright 2019: 15), but they could also potentially raise people’s environmental awareness. The arts and humanities contribute by emphasizing that societal transformation and cultural change are prerequisites for sustainable lifestyles, requiring a reevaluation of humanity’s relationship with the planet. A linguistic and imaginative approach to narratives, alternative futures, and ways of life could contribute to greater environ‐ mental awareness and new daily routines. By integrating humanities perspectives, more comprehensive explanations of environmental issues can be developed, which ultimately promote a broader societal approach to them (see Chapter-4). In the context of English and foreign language education, a thorough content analysis and theoretical rationale are necessary for teaching environmental issues to avoid counterproductive effects. This raises important questions about the type of knowledge presented, including its ecological context, cultural relevance, and learning objectives (see Chapter 3). Humanities-based research is needed to integrate environmental awareness into foreign language education, and the fields of language, literature, culture, and media offer unique perspectives on environmental issues. 2.2 Foundational Terms and Definitions Before exploring the intersections of foreign language education (particularly the teaching of English) with environmental literacy, it is essential to establish a shared understanding of the key concepts that underpin this discussion. Foundational terms such as nature, ecology, environment, and sustainability are often used interchange‐ ably, but they do have distinct meanings, histories, and connotations. While these definitions may not be explicitly taught in the school classroom, teachers should be aware of the subtle differences between these terms so they can effectively teach environmental issues and perspectives and accurately reflect their complexities. By clarifying these concepts, I intend to create a richer underpinning for the other chapters and reason for the important role of the humanities in the ecological debate of the 21st century. 2.2.1 Nature As extractive economies exhaust natural resources and cause degradation and pollution as a result of events, public attention shifts to nature and conservation efforts. Growing awareness of the need for protection leads to the establishment of conservation areas and marine refuges, with ongoing political debates on conservation efforts. Despite the usage of the term “nature,” the conceptualization of it continues to be a subject of ongoing debate and clarification. The word originates from the Latin word natūra, 2.2 Foundational Terms and Definitions 37 <?page no="38"?> denoting ‘birth, state of something, creation’ (OED ‘nature’; Krebs 1999: 5; Grober 2010; Weber 2007: 31ff.). Historically, nature has been seen as both the basis of life and a threat, embodying human experience’s ambivalence. Initially, nature was referred to as everything unaffected by humans. However, this distinction is becoming increasingly indistinct, as numerous natural phenomena are now influenced by human activities (Horn & Bergthaller 2015: 4; Welzer et al. 2010: 17). The search for an adequate definition, image, or metaphor for nature is a scientific and philosophical quest for a normative ethical behavioral orientation for indi‐ viduals, societies, and societal development. The 19th-century industrialization and mobilization significantly enhanced extractive technologies, leading to the depletion of natural resources and subsequent pollution. In reaction, the Romantic period shifted the understanding and attitude toward nature and made it serve as a normative corrective for mankind and, thus, as an antithesis of cultural and social developments. Because many aspects of nature interact and relate to socio-cultural aspects of society, the concept must be considered in relation to its historical and contemporary contexts, attitudes and assumptions, philosophies, and knowledge base, which include attitudinal factors, emotions, aesthetics or religion (Natur 1991: 372ff.; see also Krebs 1999; Soper 1995; Evernden 1992; Eder 1988). From a philosophical perspective, Kate Soper (1995) discusses the intricacies of the concept of nature by describing three rather distinct levels of meaning. In certain specific discourses, only one level of meaning may be referred to, whereas in other instances, all three or a combination of meanings may play a substantial role (see also Buell 2005: 143-144). The “metaphysical” conceptualization of nature primarily reflects philosophical questions. It enables humanity to perceive itself as distinct from its surroundings. Though historically, the semantics of humanity and nature also change, a clear logic defines the relationship between humanity and nature: the binary between nature and culture (Soper 1995: 155). In contrast, Soper posits a “realist” concept that encompasses everything operational in the physical world, including structural entities, gradual, procedural changes, and causal relationships in the biosphere. This is the context within which the purported laws of nature operate (155-156). At a third distinct level of meaning, Soper identifies a general “surface” concept that permeates both everyday life and much of literary and theoretical discourse. This concept encompasses observable phenomena that represent nature, distinct from urbanity or industrial societies. As Sober elucidates, this concept encompasses both immediate sensory experiences and aesthetic reverence. The concept of nature, which is often referred to as either destroyed or in need of protection, conservation, and so on, is the subject of this discussion (156). The concept of nature has become problematic due to the increasing influence of anthropogenic activities and technological interventions. The notion that separates nature from cultures is rejected, as is the understanding of nature as the source of civilization or a society outside nature (Morton 2007). The binary between nature and culture has dissolved, resulting in the concept of nature no longer serving as 38 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="39"?> a clear distinction between pristine, untouched, or man-made, artificial influences on nature (Horn & Bergthaller 2015: 4; Castree 2016). 2.2.2 Ecology To mitigate the ambiguity associated with the conceptualization of nature or wilder‐ ness, not only scientific but also humanistic disciplines employ the related concept of ecology. The concept was initially introduced into the natural sciences by the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1866: 235-236). Ecology encompasses the scientific discipline that explores the interactions and relationships among organisms within ecosystems and with the external, inorganic environment. The world is conceptualized as a complex network of interconnected and mutually dependent systems (OED ‘eco‐ logy’). This discipline also examines the influence and interdependence of humanity on the natural environment. In contemporary terms, ecology encompasses the totality and interactions of biotic systems, including their interrelationships, dependencies, and hierarchical structures (Buell 2005: 139-140). Over the past few decades, ecology has emerged as a pivotal discipline, exerting its authority not only within the natural sciences but also extending to the social sciences and the humanities. By prefixing the syllable “eco” to other disciplines and fields of knowledge, it has become a symbol for some of the new methodologies and knowledge paradigms dedicated to conceptualizing interconnections within and beyond any chosen epistemological framework. The urgency of many issues related to ecology makes it a leading discipline among the-natural sciences. Like many relevant terms, ecology attracts various views and uses. The natural sciences empirically measure and describe the interplay of organisms within their ecological context. So, in the sciences, the definition of ecology emphasizes the interdependence and mutual influence of organisms on each other, the concept of ecology also underscores the remarkable individuality and diversity of subjective characteristics that ensure the survival and resilience of an ecosystem. In contrast, cultural studies extend this focus to consider ecology as an inventory of potential relationships between humans and their non-human environments, whether alienated, restored, or re-established (Zapf 2002: 22). Preserving and safeguarding diversity, being cognizant of the historically developed uniqueness of habitats or patterns, is a shared concern of (natural) ecology, as well as the field of cultural ecology, for example (24f.; see also Chapter 4.3). These differing perspectives lead to a paradoxical assessment of ecology, as cultural studies follow their definition of nature as a cultural construct, while the natural sciences consider culture to be determined by nature (22). 2.2.3 Environment Like the concept of ‘nature,’ also the term ‘environment’ may be laden with complex and contradictory symbolic notions (Soper 1995: 2; see also Alston 2016: 93). The original 2.2 Foundational Terms and Definitions 39 <?page no="40"?> term is a semantic derivation borrowed from the French “environs.” It was initially used to describe the physical context of an entity, encompassing and surrounding it. Since the mid-19th century, its meaning has expanded to encompass the circumstances and conditions that surround living organisms or forms of existence. The term is commonly used with the definite article “the” to refer to the physical and natural surroundings, often implying the impact of human activity (93). The term has become integral to scientific and academic discourse, but its definition has expanded, depending on the context and perspective. Thus, it challenges established uses and embraces diverse viewpoints such as those of environmental justice or postcolonial ecocriticism (OED ‘environment’; Alston 2016: 94, 96). A scientific understanding of the environment includes living organisms and their intricate interconnections with other organisms, elements, and objects. It also encompasses the influence of the environment on organisms and the reciprocal impact of organisms on their environment (Haeckel 1866: 286; Grober 2010: 150). From a humanities perspective, the environment shapes individuals’ locations or contexts (places) to determine their social and cultural networks, as well as their ecological and biological-geographical relationships (spaces) (see also Zapf 2002: 24; Goodbody 1998: 17). In its current form, the term “environment” has been closely tied to political debates and citizens’ movements since the 1960s and it is often used as a synonym for (natural) environment or nature in everyday language, implying its fragile and problematic state (Buell 2005: 63, 134; Meyer Abich 1990: 59-61; Ehrlich 1969). In general, the philosophical (and inadvertently political) orientations toward the environment range widely from anthropocentric to biocentric (or ecocentric) perspectives. The overwhelmingly dominant anthropocentric perspective comes from the Greek word for human, “anthropos.” It prioritizes the environment’s benefits for human well-being and relies on technological advancements to protect or preserve the environment without questioning social structures or principles. The fundamental distinction between humans and animals, plants, and non-living nature is upheld, with humans being ethically obligated solely to their own kind (Ehrlich 1969; see also Meyer Abich 1990: 59-61). Anthropocentric ethics foreground individual and social interest, and they focus on human health, recreation, and quality of life while viewing nature as an instrumental asset (see Buell 2005: 63, 134). In contrast, the biocentric perspective, derived from the Greek word “bios” for life, emphasizes the intrinsic value of all components of the natural environment. In this context, human beings are no longer regarded as the sole standard of evaluation but rather guided by ethical principles that uphold the interconnectedness and well-being of all living organisms. Humanity is compelled to adopt an ethical stance and establish harmonious relationships with the entire living ecosystem. Consequently, human societies are understood as an integral component of the historical trajectory and order of the biosphere. A harmonious coexistence between humans, animals, and plants is imperative and requires the biosphere’s comprehensive perspective (Meyer Abich 1990: 78). 40 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="41"?> 2 The German title of the tale is Das Gericht Jupiters. As there appears to be no English translation of the story, I suggest the roughly translated title ‘The Court of Jupiter’. The concept of the environment is associated with various images, some of which originate in ecological research, others in the political arena. As a short and workable definition, Alston (2016: 93) formulates that “the term ‘environment’ connotes contes‐ ted terrains located at the intersection of economic, political, social, cultural, and sexual ecologies.” Such a broadened understanding points out the many intersections of the environment with other crucial and contested issues, such as postcolonial and indigenous studies. It has been pointed out how colonial ideologies have shaped the relationship between culture, environment, and development, thereby perpetuating racial and social injustices. Hence, the concept of the environment gets to be inextri‐ cably interlinked with the environmental justice movement and the parallels between the exploitation of the environment as well as gender inequality and marginalized communities (93, 96). 2.2.4 Sustainability The concept of sustainability has a longer history than is commonly assumed. It dates back to the late Middle Ages and Paulus Niavis’ allegorical story Iudicium Iovis (Grober 2010: 56-60; Niavis & Krenkel 1953). 2 Some sustainability concerns were already evident in Central Europe during the Middle Ages, where resource depletion and environmental degradation had reached a critical point (Grober 2010: 60). In his allegorical tale Iudicium Iovis (1495), Paulus Niavis conveys his philosophy of nature. This allegory, a literary device, uses the story, characters, and setting to represent its abstract idea and educate individuals about their connection with the non-human environment. The narrative features a hermit who encounters the council of Gods in a flowering landscape, where Jupiter accuses a miner (‘homo montanus’) of raping and dishonoring “Mother Earth” (‘mater terra’) by exploiting her mineral resources. The miner vehemently denies any responsibility and refers to the biblical command to use and cultivate the earth. He presents excuses that would still be recognizable today from certain contemporary political contexts (For more details, see Grober 2010: 56-62; Niavis & Krenkel 1953). The colonial exploitation of new world regions and extraction of resources ulti‐ mately allowed European powers to overcome their environmental crisis and accu‐ mulate wealth and power (Grober 2010: 60; see also Meyer Abich 1990: 82). This historical context highlights the subtle complexities of sustainability, which extend far beyond its modern connotations. Despite its long history, sustainability remains a contested concept, yet it consistently involves preserving the natural environment or keeping it in good condition in one way or another (Dobson 2000: 68). Forestry regulations of the early modern period were developed in response to ecological problems resulting from resource depletion at the time. A key figure in this context 2.2 Foundational Terms and Definitions 41 <?page no="42"?> was Hans Carl von Carlowitz, a pioneer in forest conservation, who, in his 1713 book Sylvicultura oeconomica, recommended careful management and harvesting without depleting resources. Notably, he coined the term “sustainable yield,” which retains a similar meaning today. This concept was innovative in Europe at the time and laid the groundwork for modern thinking about sustainability, providing its initial contours (OED ‘sustainability’; Grober 2010: 116; Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 31). If sustainable forest management prohibits clear-cutting and ensures that only those trees are harvested that can grow back and reproduce, then generalizing this princi‐ ple to other fields means that no ecosystem should be exploited extractively. Instead, ecosystems should be used in a way that preserves their ecological characteristics and allows natural regeneration. The principle of sustainability promotes durability, longevity, balance, and resilience within ecosystems. In human societies, it opposes excessive economic and population growth, suburbanization, commercialization, re‐ source consumption, and exploitation (OED ‘sustainability’; Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 31-32). Furthermore, the idea of irreversibility is important here, as it recognizes that some losses or damages to natural ecologies cannot be reversed (Dobson 2000: 73). The term sustainability has been in the English language since the mid-19th century, but it gained its environmental meaning in the 1970s and 80s. The seminal report The Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972) and the Brundtland Report Our Common Future (WCED 1987) popularized the term and introduced the word into everyday language use (OED ‘sustainability’). The definition by the Brundtland Report, “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Argyeman 2016: 186), struck a chord and has proven influential. The 1992 UN Summit in Rio de Janeiro led to a global commitment to sustainability, with 178 nations adopting Agenda 21 and outlining guidelines for environmental policy and sustainable development (Ernst et al. 2024: 11; Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 31; UN 1992; see also Chapter-4.6). Given the many definitions and the risk of overloading the concept, an opera‐ tionalization of the concept has proven difficult. The Brundtland Report outlined the foundation for sustainable development by interrelating and interlocking environmental, social, and economic concerns by frequently referring to “growth, social goals, and environmental impacts” (WCED 1987: 23). Formulated goals based on the three aspects gained widespread attention in Germany through a government report (Caspers-Merk et al., 1998: 108): • The ecological dimension focuses on conserving natural resources and avoiding ecological degradation. Human activities must ensure that they do not exceed ecosystem and planetary limits; hence, they aim at climate stability, species protection, habitat conservation, and cultural landscapes (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 35-36). • The economic dimension of sustainable development requires managing eco‐ nomic activities that are financially achievable without compromising future generations’ well-being while ensuring long-term economic viability. Sustainable 42 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="43"?> development goals aim to provide a permanent basis for (anthropocentric) pros‐ perity, so expedient management options focus on innovating market economy instruments and government regulation (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 35). • The socio-cultural dimension aims to mitigate social tensions, prevent conflicts, and promote peaceful resolutions. It requires a renewal of societies and cultures and a focus on intergenerational justice. Therefore, the efforts in nature and environment conservation need to be balanced with present-day needs. The social dimension involves individual, collective, and societal responsibilities so as to ensure community participation, social balance, and intergenerational harmony. Key ethical considerations include individual responsibility, lifestyle adjustments to environmental realities, and safeguarding human health (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 37-38). Yet, the cultural imprinting of sustainability must be considered further. Not all nations, peoples, or cultural groups will agree on interpretations or implementations. How can diversity and variety be acknowledged? How can universalistic values be achieved to balance the differences between the Global North and Global South? (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 37). This three-pillar model has significantly influenced sustainable development discourse. It emphasizes the mutual acceptance and consideration among ecological, economic, and socio-cultural actors yet also insinuates that economic, ecological, and social sustainability are equally ranked. This point is often called into question and juxtaposed with the idea that ecological sustainability should have priority, as intact or wellfunctioning ecosystems and biodiversity are a prerequisite for economic, social, and cultural stability (Ernst et al. 2024: 11; Pichler 2016: 211; Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 34). Three distinct strategies are discussed that offer potential avenues for implementing sustainability and sustainable development practices (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2006: 40): The efficiency strategy prioritizes technological progress and resource optimization, while consistency strategies focus on adapting resources to environmental condi‐ tions, for example by promoting recycling, reusability, and longevity. Sufficiency strategies emphasize moderation and limiting resource consumption, focusing on consumption patterns, lifestyles, and societal material basis (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 35-36). Because of the ongoing emphasis on efficiency and consistency, efforts to ensure sufficiency appear to be overshadowed. One reason for the challenges to oper‐ ationalizing sustainability lies in the unclear prioritization of the three goals, especially regarding strong or weak interpretations of sustainability. The scientific discussion distinguishes between weak and strong sustainability: Weak sustainability allows for trade-offs between ecological, economic, and socio-cultural resources. For instance, depleting natural resources may be acceptable if sufficient human or manufactured capital is created. Strong sustainability limits the replacement of natural capital with human or manufactured capital to a limited extent. Concepts like the environmental space model, ecological footprint, and guardrail model reflect this approach. Critics 2.2 Foundational Terms and Definitions 43 <?page no="44"?> argue that the three-pillar model promotes weak sustainable development (Ernst et al. 2024: 11-13; Dobson 2000: 69-70). This leads to a situation where international politics often prioritizes competition and technocratic solutions over issues of justice and fair distribution (Pichler 2016: 211). Promoting global or universal solutions ultimately perpetuates the capitalist economic system, but it potentially furthers the commodification of resources and, for example, the expansion of emissions trading. It also strengthens economic and market-based elements, thereby reducing sustainable development to a model that integrates nature into capital accumulation (212-213; Dobson 2000). The dominant discourse of sustainable development in Europe is one of ecological modernization that prioritizes ecological efficiency within the capitalist framework. It has been criticized for neglecting social justice and the value of nature beyond its resource potential (Argyeman 2016: 186). Despite potential controversies over environmental limits, the reality of ecosystem limits is clear (188; Rockström et al. 2009; see also Chapter 2.1.3). Hence, addressing ecological crises and promoting sustainability and sustainable development requires a profound transformation, potentially a systems change, which involves a fundamental shift in the economy, society, and politics (Pichler 2016: 210; Stern 2007, 2015). This transformation is necessary because sustainability and sustainable development are rooted in complex relationships between ecological sustainability, social justice, and development, with different theories and approaches prioritizing different values and principles (Dobson, 2000: 84; Argyeman, 2016: 189). Sustainability demands that humans learn from past events and develop resilient societies, economies, and responses to ever-changing livelihoods. Achieving this requires transformative visions and a shift in societal values. At its core, sustainability challenges the ethical and humanist foundation of many societies by raising the ques‐ tion of qui bono? Anthropocentric approaches prioritize human interests. In contrast, ecocentric approaches stress ecosystem well-being and recognize that ecosystems have intrinsic value, utterly independent of their utility or benefit to humans (Dobson 2000: 72, 75). The emphasis on individual responsibility for sustainable behavior and consumption can be problematic, as it neglects the role of infrastructure and systemic changes (Pichler 2016: 213). Of late, it has become increasingly apparent that sustainability cannot be thought through without also considering environmental justice. Because of its begin‐ nings in colonial exploitative circumstances, the conceptualization of sustainability must not recreate and reinforce the injustices of the past. And yet, the Global North boosts the notion of climate change, to name just one example, as a universal humanity problem. Doing so, may shift the responsibility for the environmental degradation but also the suffering to the Global South (Pichler 2016: 209) and further externalizes the costs of its resource consumption. Consequently, the concept of environmental justice must be integrated into sustainability considerations, as it underscores the significance of both inter-generational justice and equitable resource utilization (210). Argyeman (2016: 187) argues that a just sustainability approach is inextricably intertwined 44 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="45"?> with social and environmental justice issues. This requires a focus on four essential conditions: • Ensuring a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, involves addressing issues of poverty, inequality, and social injustice. This requires new ways of measuring and narrating progress, shifting away from solely economic indicators to more holistic measures of well-being that include social and environ‐ mental factors (187). • Intergenerational equity means to meet the needs and to recognize the rights of both present and future generations. It involves considering the long-term conse‐ quences of human actions and ensuring that current systems do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (187-188). • Justice and equity need to be ensured, and this requires a commitment to social components that involve recognizing the rights and dignity of all individuals and groups and addressing the root causes of social and economic inequality (188). • Living within an ecosystem’s limits entails recognizing, respecting, and ac‐ knowledging the ecological constraints that govern human activity. It demands ensuring that human actions do not compromise ecosystem health and resilience. It also involves recognizing the intrinsic value of non-human systems and ensuring that human actions do not harm or deplete the environment or natural resources (188). In the attempt to define sustainability, it remains desired to create a stronger focus and better concepts for both intergenerational and global justice. A more equitable and globally conscious approach to human activities is needed. Sustainable development requires a new balance between humans and the non-human environment, and it in‐ volves many different social systems, cultures, and interpersonal relationships. Grober even speaks of a “new civilizational design” (2010: 263), which in turn requires the rapid mobilization of humanity’s creative forces. With its insistence on environmental education, the UN has significantly contributed to the organization of conferences on environmental education, the passing of the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development 2015, and a global emphasis on the interconnectedness of environmental concerns with economic and developmental policies. The globally promoted seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and environmental education now involve critical, ethical, and creative perspectives on planetary well-being, fostering engagement, activism, and positive changes to safeguard the planet’s health (see Chapter-4.6 for more details). On the one hand, the creative, interdisciplinary nature of sustainability makes it a suitable concept for foreign language education and environmental issues, as it integrates diverse knowledge fields to inform teaching and learning practices (see also Surkamp 2022: 10). On the other hand, the concept of sustainability has been criticized for relying too much on the idea of stasis, implying a pastoral and stable relationship between humans and the non-human environment (Mentz 2008: 586; see also Lemenager & Foote 2008), which oversimplifies the complexities of environmental 2.2 Foundational Terms and Definitions 45 <?page no="46"?> issues. Scholars from the environmental humanities seek to redefine sustainability in a way that values change and leaves room for maneuver rather than permanence (Mentz 2008: 591). This perspective brings the sustainability discourse back to the environmental humanities and ecocriticism as they reimagine sustainable scenarios and attempt to develop new understandings of environmental interrelations. A revised concept of sustainability must acknowledge and adapt to the dynamic nature of the environment. 46 2 (Foreign) Language, Culture, and the Anthropocene <?page no="47"?> 3 The Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) “All those things for which we have no words are lost. The mind - the culture - has two little tools, grammar and lexicon […]. With these we bluster about the continents and do all the world’s work. With these we try to save our very lives.” (Dillard 1982: 11-12) To keep pace with the dynamic educational landscape, just like other disciplines as well, the teaching of a foreign language must regularly reflect on, examine, and reassess its disciplinary foundations and boundaries (Vollmer 2015: 128). By doing so, it can develop a more inclusive understanding of its core as a discipline, which encompasses a broad range of fields for English, including English and American Studies as well as several related disciplines. The discipline must also be aware of its situational and cultural context so as to recognize that its disciplinary foundations are shaped by specific epistemological constellations, such as the German Fachdidaktik tradition, which has its parallel disciplines in French didactique de langues; Norwegian didaktikk, and Swedish didaktik, but does not easily translate into anglophone academia (Hopmann & Riquarts 1995). However, this requires a willingness to consider the situatedness of one’s (national) knowledge base, and it calls for an openness to diverse international knowledge formations. Research in foreign language education primarily focuses on teacher education and explores foreign language learning processes and teaching scenarios while also developing curricula, materials, and resources for schools and other language learning institutions. This requires a broad and interdisciplinary approach, which covers various fields and perspectives. This study book aims to equip (future) teachers with a robust base of foundational thoughts, subject-specific orientations, and reflections on environmental issues in language pedagogy. By examining the current state of knowledge, the chapters to follow will highlight areas for consideration, such as the history of the discipline, recent transformations, and the goals and purposes of learning a foreign language (see Chapter 3.1). This reflection is necessary to demonstrate how well the foreign language classroom can adopt environmental issues. The English language plays a unique role as a lingua franca and first foreign language in many school curricula, which makes it a vanguard for engaging with other languages, literatures, cultures, and media communications. As a result, the academic discipline of English as a foreign language has significant repercussions and ripple effects on other school languages and the way learners encounter them. Building on the example of English, this chapter will then explore the environmental work already done in this field (see Chapter 3.2). Finally, it will conclude with a consideration of the content question and its implication for language teaching and learning (see Chapter-3.3). <?page no="48"?> 3.1 The Texture of English: Language Variety & Cultural Tapestry This chapter introduces foreign language education, specifically English language pedagogy (TEFL or TESOL), before covering its core content areas: language, literature, culture, and media. I will define and explain these subfields to emphasize their importance in teaching environmental issues in the foreign language classroom, which is increasingly recognized as a critical aspect of language education. By incorporating these elements into this study book, I aim to provide a concise yet effective introduction to the various fields of knowledge and their interdisciplinary connections. This can help students and teachers quickly grasp the specialized fields of study and their relevance to teaching English, which is essential for preparing learners to navigate the complexities of the 21st century. 3.1.1 ‘Fremdsprachendidaktik’ and Foreign Language Education The importance of terminology in language education is highlighted by the complexity of national knowledge domains, each with its unique terms and customs. This com‐ plexity is particularly evident for English-speaking academics at German universities, who often struggle to define their fields due to the lack of equivalent terms in the international arena. To better understand the relationship between environmental issues and language teaching, it is crucial to distinguish the fundamental differences between acquiring a first language and a second language. When young children learn their first language, their perception of the world is heavily influenced by their family and community. The first language, or mother tongue, serves as a tool for communication and shaping habits and thinking. Even in multilingual environments, children often rely on their native language for familiar patterns and behaviors (Saville-Troike 2016: 4, Thornbury 2006: 81; see also Boroditsky 2012: 630). Additional languages refer to languages learned beyond one’s native tongue. Terms like second and foreign languages describe the social context in which languages are learned or taught. A second language is learned and used in the context where it is spoken. For example, a German native speaker who has emigrated to the United Kingdom may take classes in English as a second language, because they use it in the classroom, as well as to navigate their professional life and daily social interactions. In contrast, a foreign language is typically learned in formal educational or professional settings, such as a school, university, or firm, that are outside of the language’s speakers’ community. This is the case for a German native speaker who begins to take English lessons at an institute in their hometown in preparation for a year abroad in the United Kingdom but has little opportunity to use the language outside the classroom, let alone in professional or social interactions. Hence, foreign language learning and teaching, often subsumed under foreign lan‐ guage education, involves the acquisition and instruction of a non-native language in an environment where it is not predominantly spoken. This definition highlights 48 3 The Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) <?page no="49"?> the contextual aspect of language learning, distinguishing it from second language acquisition, which typically occurs in a setting where the target language is widely used (Moeller & Catalano 2015: 327; Doff 2018: 10). This distinction underscores the challenges and unique approaches required in foreign language pedagogy, as learners need more exposure to authentic language use outside the educational context, especially if the teaching focuses on themes of the environment and sustainability. Throughout the learning process, the foreign language and the reality of the learner do not correspond with each other, as Lothar Bredella (1999: 88) has noted. As a result, this characteristic makes foreign language learning a rather special situation as it requires learners to study the foreign language and culture against the background of their own culture and linguistic potential; this permanently compels learners to practice the changing of perspectives. Foreign language education views language as a system of symbolic, sociocultural, and communicative signs and symbols. The “foreignness” of language lies in its acquisition and use outside the speakers’ community, where it is not used for every‐ day communication (Saville-Troike 2006; Edmondson & House 2006; Edmondson 2005/ 1998). While the core principles of foreign language education are applied internationally, specific research focuses and methodologies vary across countries, requiring sensitivity to academic terminology (see also Küchler 2021). In anglophone contexts, Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) is closely related to, but distinct from, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). TEFL typically refers to teaching English in countries where it is not the primary language of communication but instead a foreign language. In anglophone academia, the term TESOL is often preferred as it seems slightly broader and encompasses the teaching of English as a foreign as well as a second language (Richards & Schmidt 2002: 544f., 546). The growth of applied linguistics in the United States and the United Kingdom has been significant in English and American studies. In the German context, and to some extent in Scandinavia, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, a new academic discipline emerged in the second half of the 20th century: (German) Fachdidaktik or Fremdsprachendidaktik. This field examines the ques‐ tions and methodologies related to teaching and educating on a specific subject, such as foreign languages. Since the 1960s, Fremdsprachendidaktik has considered its overlap with other disciplines, including Pedagogy, Environmental Psychology, Linguistics, Literary and Cultural Studies (Doff 2018: 11-13). While there are similarities with TEFL or TESOL in an international arena, the German field has its unique composition of goals and purposes (Byram 2004: 223ff.). German Fremdsprachendidaktik focuses on studying teaching, learning, and researching all aspects of foreign language and culture learning. To do thorough multidisciplinary work, specialized insights from various related disciplines and knowledge areas are utilized ( Jank & Meyer 1991: 10ff.). Foreign language education’s relationship with related disciplines is an interdisciplinary impulse and a great asset as it requires adaptation and specification of findings for foreign language teaching and learning (Digeser 1983: 4; Edmondson & House 2006: 3.1 The Texture of English: Language Variety & Cultural Tapestry 49 <?page no="50"?> 25). To address teaching scenarios, issues and insights should be connected to the various complex factors that influence the foreign language classroom. Therefore, Fremdsprachendidaktik, or foreign language education, should be recognized as an independent discipline in its own right. It is dedicated to examining the processes of language teaching and learning and draws on insights from interdisciplinary exchanges with various related disciplines (Digeser 1983: 4; for more details see Chapter-4). Fig. 1: English and its related disciplines (modified and adapted from Jank & Meyer 1991: 33), illustration by Anna Voigtländer. When teaching about the environment, it is crucial to recognize that language teachers require different approaches based on whether they teach a second or foreign language. Second-language teachers can leverage authentic scenarios outside the classroom, where students can interact with the surrounding community. In contrast, foreign-language teachers do not have this option readily available and need to actively create opportunities for their students to use the language and have learning experiences in real-life situations. Therefore, foreign language educators must rely on alternative interactive tasks and creative ways to simulate real-life experiences, as they and their students typically live outside the language community. Therefore, the terminology and definition may explain why publications for firstor second-language learners inspire foreign language teachers and researchers, but they often overlook the unique challenges of linguistic and cultural unfamiliarity in foreign language classrooms. Foreign language teachers must find creative ways to give students a 50 3 The Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) <?page no="51"?> sense of the anglophone world, so they can explore landscapes and the non-human environment through symbolic and imaginative means, rather than direct experience or setting foot on them. This requires thinking outside the box, beyond mere facts and figures, to provide students with a deeper understanding of the language and culture. 3.1.2 History Developments and Current Transformations The history of teaching English as a foreign language in Germany dates back to medieval monasteries, where Latin and Ancient Greek were taught. English gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries, surpassing French as the dominant modern foreign language in Europe due to Britain’s rising global influence. The British Crown’s transfer to the House of Hanover in 1714 further boosted English language influence (Doff & Klippel 2007; Doff 2018; Howatt & Smith 2014; Finkenstaedt 1983). The decline of French language teaching after the Napoleonic Wars and the rise of the United States as a global power led to significant changes in the role of English in German schools. English became a subject for the German Abitur, and foreign language education was seen as a strategic tool to support the German Reich’s economic and political development (Hüllen 2005: 114). German universities established professorships for English studies (Anglistik) during the 19th century (Doff & Klippel 2007: 15ff.; see also Gehring 2004; Lehberger 2003; Finkenstaedt 1983). The 1955 Düsseldorf Accord declared English as the primary foreign language in Western Germany (Christ & Cillia 2003; Finkenstaedt 1983), and after reunification in 1990, English became the first and obligatory foreign language throughout Germany. Today, English is a crucial school subject in Germany, alongside Mathematics and German (Doff & Klippel 2007: 23). When systematic teaching of modern foreign languages emerged in Germany in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it initially focused on language system, grammar, and vocabulary, similar to Latin and Greek instruction. However, due to significant changes in foreign language education parameters, including increased cultural contact, multimodal communication, and digital accessibility, the requirements for teaching English have evolved. Currently, learners are taught language pragmatics, acquiring vocabulary, grammar, and receptive phonetic skills in various regional English varieties, as well as communicative, social interactional, and complex interand transcultural competencies (Freitag-Hild 2018: 160-170; Meyer et al. 2022: 157-162; Haß 2006: 21ff.). In addition, the primary objective of teaching English at school has shifted from mimicking native speakers to cultivating the concept of an intercultural speaker, as defined by Byram (1997: 57f.) and Kramsch (1998). This expands the goals of foreign language education to integrate a broader cultural perspective, guided by the principle of intercultural communicative competence since the 1980s. Today, the conditions for modern-day English teaching demand clarification on the concept of culture used and its reference points, as several issues must be faced. The English-speaking world’s cultural production has diversified across several distinct world regions: not just the 3.1 The Texture of English: Language Variety & Cultural Tapestry 51 <?page no="52"?> United States and Canada or the British Isles, including Ireland, but also Australia and New Zealand, the Caribbean, and the African continent. The culture of relevant speakers’ communities correlates with the manifold varieties of English spoken in these regions. The teaching of English must recognize this diversity and find ways of incorporating this complexity by using content and materials that reflect the dynamic developments in these regions (Volkmann 2010: 2), including the introduction of new countries of reference, as spearheaded by initiatives such as the inclusion of Nigerian English in North Rhine-Westphalia’s curricula (Matz & Rogge 2020). By doing so, English lessons can better align with the linguistic and cultural realities of the 21st century and prepare students for communication in a globally interconnected world. Teacher education is shaped by historical changes that go beyond teaching methodologies and are influenced by political context, academic discoveries, and societal needs. Evaluating these transformations as improvements or declines requires hindsight. In the German public education system, where regulatory power lies with the 16 Länder (Christ & Cilia 2003: 71), changes in classroom practice may appear particularly slow due to the time it takes for political decisions to trickle down and impact curricular changes, teacher education, and textbook production (Klippel & Ruisz 2020: 3). Since the 19th century, state educational authorities have shaped school subjects, which are no longer just reflections of scientific disciplines but now serve as introduc‐ tions to areas of life and activities and respond to societal and professional needs (Böhm 2000: 165f.). Education Ministries play a significant role in defining subject teaching goals, content, and competencies, which also include English and foreign language education. Their influences on classroom practice are evident in educational standardization, schoolbook approval, adaptation and renewal of curricular guidelines, and teacher training certification (Christ 2003: 72f.). The focus has evolved from teaching methodologies to academic disciplines and now emphasizes competence goals and learning psychology. Lately, the standardization of the educational landscape, not only in Germany but across Europe and the world, has moved center stage. The development of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in the early 1990s was driven by the goal of enhancing global exchange, cooperation, and competition. The European Council aimed to create a practical and comparable survey of language proficiency levels for real-world use, with a focus on mutual recognition of educational qualifications and certificates. The CEFR’s scales have been empirically validated and structured into six reference levels of language competence, described in detail through derived descriptors (Europarat 2001; see also Rossa & Porsch 2019: 246). In contrast to traditional deficit-oriented approaches, the CEFR focuses on students’ existing “can-do competencies,” emphasizing their positive skills and abilities. The CEFR was formally adopted by the European Council in 2001 and strongly influenced the revision of curricula, guidelines, and teaching materials across European nation-states. Although its adoption was enthusiastic, the CEFR has also faced skepticism and critique (Barkowski 2003; Funk & Kuhn 2003). Nevertheless, it has 52 3 The Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) <?page no="53"?> 3 The PISA study, initiated by the OECD in 2000, assesses the skills of 15-year-old European students every three years. VERA is a German set of standardized assessments administered in grades 3 and 8 to measure students’ performance in core subjects, including German and English. The DESI study is a German national study assessing students’ language skills in German and English. PIRLS is an international assessment that compares and contrasts the reading performance of fourth-grade students across different countries, capturing aspects such as reading comprehension and reading strategies. stimulated foreign language teaching and educational policy discourse and promoted awareness of European diversity and plurilingualism (Trim 2004: 122). The CEFR has elevated the quality of foreign language teaching to a central concern, despite standardization tendencies remaining a potential drawback. In Germany, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) introduced national educational standards driven by the need for comparable educational certificates and describable learning outcomes (Hu et al. 2008: 19). These standards outline expected student outcomes and skills, formulated using concrete descriptors to facilitate incorporation into teaching and assessment (Klieme et al. 2004: 9). The introduction of educational standards aimed to shift the focus from knowledge reproduction to acquiring basic competencies and skills. The disappointing results of the 2001 PISA study accelerated the introduction of education monitoring and standardization. Since then, acronyms like PISA, VERA, TIMMS, PIRLS, and DESI have become ubiquitous in German and European schools, as well as in research. 3 These abbreviations represent large-scale, international empirical performance testing initiatives that reflect the dominant educational policy trend of the 21st century: standardizing educational systems within Germany, the EU, and other Western countries. These international monitoring tests serve as crucial instruments for quality assurance and school system development in Germany and globally (Köller et al. 2010). In Germany, educational standards focus on learners’ output and require regular assessment of defined abilities and skills. These standards emphasize learning outcomes and recognize educators’ role in shaping the learning process (Salden- Foerster 2010; Gnutzmann 2005). In response to national educational standards and a new output-oriented para‐ digm, all German Bundesländer have rapidly revised their curricula for each school type and year. This has enabled individualized support through a more straightforward diagnosis of learning achievements. Comparative work has also made progress in English teaching visible, allowing for targeted improvements. The curriculum devel‐ opment process fosters collaboration among teaching staff and promotes a culture of teaching and development. As Hallet and Müller-Hartmann (2006: 8) note, strong agreement on teaching content is crucial for effective collaboration and improvement. The curriculum transformation has sparked a comprehensive discussion of subject paradigms and objectives, which lead to increased accountability among schools, train‐ ing institutions, and administration, and ultimately, to long-term quality improvements (Hu et al. 2008: 165). For the first time, a uniform understanding of communicative competence has been established across the federal territory, with a focus on the ability 3.1 The Texture of English: Language Variety & Cultural Tapestry 53 <?page no="54"?> to act in and with a foreign language. The KMK defines communicative competence as encompassing both expressive skills and the availability of linguistic means, guiding students to master communicative situations in English. Furthermore, the traditional four skills have been expanded to include receptive skills like listening comprehension and mediation (Reimann 2019, 2020; Leupold & Porsch 2011: 88; Hallet & Müller- Hartmann 2006: 4). The far-reaching restructuring and standardization measures have sparked fundamental debates in education and pedagogy, which bring these issues to the forefront of societal and political attention. Concluding these considerations, Hu contends that standardization must allow sufficient leeway for difficult-to-measure but essential aspects of foreign language learning, such as intercultural, aesthetic, and ethical-reflective learning. Alternatively, substantial research efforts must be undertaken to dimension, operationalize, and evaluate these difficult-to-measure competencies with the involvement of foreign language teaching experts (Hu et al. 2008: 11). 3.2 Goals and Purposes of English (as Foreign Language Education) The intense emphasis on competence models, international monitoring, and empirical research may have overshadowed some of the genuine goals and purposes of language education. The expansion of foreign language teaching since the 1970s has led to a diversification of research and a significant increase in conceptual knowledge. The application of conceptual knowledge in the classroom and the processing of academic insights for teachers and reflective practitioners has not always been the primary objective of the field. It may even have inadvertently created a division between theoretical concepts and teaching practice (Hüllen 2005: 146; Freese 2005). Yet, during the expansion of the discipline in the 1970s (in the Federal Republic), the scope, goals, and purposes of Fremdsprachendidaktik and foreign language education in Germany were clearly defined. It is an inherent aspect of Fremdsprachendidaktik’s self-conception to be deeply rooted in its discipline, English and American studies. As knowledge expands rapidly, research plays a critical role in developing academic criteria for teacher training (Deutscher Bildungsrat 1970: 225ff.). The field has evolved to include multilingualism, lifelong learning, and other aspects, with language learning now including cultural contact and the changing of perspectives (Leupold 2002: 39). More recent developments have incorporated inclusive education, artificial intel‐ ligence, and digital learning tools. Yet, what about issues such as nature, environment, or sustainability? Taking the general purpose and specific goals of TEFL as a focal point helps to specify the research field, its contents, methodology, and inquiry. It also provides a framework for determining what can and should be achieved in research, ultimately informing teacher education and classroom teaching practice. Regular reexamination of the discipline’s goals and purposes is also essential to ensure that environmental 54 3 The Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) <?page no="55"?> contents are integrated into the curriculum in a meaningful and effective way and that the content and topics taught in the classroom remain relevant and aligned with the discipline’s objectives (Vollmer 2015: 128). Therefore, this subchapter examines the potential of environmental issues to enrich (foreign) language education and promote a more ecologically conscious approach to the humanities. While the language classroom cannot be expected to single-handedly provide solutions for environmental problems such as climate change or biodiversity loss, it can be a stimulus for reexamining the discipline’s goals, principles, and methodology. By integrating environmental issues into language education, it is possible to reinvigorate the field and uncover new opportunities for achieving language learning goals. 3.2.1 Language Means and Communicative Goals First and foremost, foreign language education equips learners with the requisite language skills and communication abilities that enable them to express themselves effectively and exchange ideas with individuals who converse in different languages. Learners should be enabled to understand and respond to others’ ideas and opinions, thereby preventing communication breakdowns. Providing learners with effective communication tools in a foreign language has been the most viable, foundational, and historically significant objective in foreign language education. This involves vocabulary, grammar, orthography, phonetics, and intonation, which are typically practiced through the four basic skills: listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing (Meyer et al. 2022: 96, 104). The communicative approach, emerging in the 1970s, broadened the field’s objectives beyond linguistic means and basic skills. It now includes strategies that help speakers achieve communicative goals in authentic, unfamiliar, or challenging contexts (Meyer et al. 2022: 90; Krumm 2003: 118; Hymes 1972; Piepho 1974). More recently, mediation has been added as a fifth basic skill. Furthermore, modern media communication requires greater differentiation, such as listening comprehension, reading comprehension, or coherent monologic speaking (see KM-BW 2016: 12; Meyer et al. 2022: 117; Reimann 2019). As an implication for the EFL classroom, social and sociocultural dimensions of language are now taught alongside linguistic and communicative competencies, including sociolinguistic contexts, discourse forms, and language and power. Language education also seeks to foster learners’ critical awareness of the role of language and their ability to navigate cultural symbols and meanings (Kramsch 2021: 4-5). This emphasizes the importance of language awareness, which fosters an understanding of language’s role in communication and cultural perception. Learners should develop functional communication skills, understand language as a symbolic and communicative system, and explore how language shapes human experiences and perceptions of the world, highlighting the connection between thought and linguistic expression (Gnutzmann 2017; Boroditsky 2012; James & Garret 1992). 3.2 Goals and Purposes of English (as Foreign Language Education) 55 <?page no="56"?> With intercultural communicative competence guiding foreign language teaching, languages are integrated with their speakers’ cultures, symbolizing shared worldviews and cultural identity. Language, while not a direct reflection of reality, is a product of a speaker’s community, crafted for specific communication goals. Verbal expressions are tied to the contexts in which they originated or the situations they serve, making language a framework that shapes perceptions, sociocultural categories, and interac‐ tion patterns. This highlights the challenges of English as a lingua franca, particularly in debates about which language variety and culture to reference (Matz & Rogge 2020). The dominance of British and US-American varieties in the classroom also raises questions about the cultural knowledge “encoded” into the language, including its take on nature, environment, or sustainable living. Environmental contents do not conflict with language pedagogy regarding func‐ tional and communicative needs. On the contrary, environmental issues can serve as an example of the inseparable connection between thoughts and language, as well as language’s impact on what speakers perceive. Students can learn about the linguistic texture of human existence in the world and the interconnection between language and thought, as well as its ability to shape an individual’s perception and attention (see also Chapter-4.2). 3.2.2 Cultural Goals with Transculturality and Intercultural Learning Foreign language education has long recognized the social and cultural aspects of language learning. Since the Modern Language Reform Movement in the 1880s, reallife objects and authentic materials (in German Realia) were used to teach foreign languages, leading to the development of regional and cultural studies in the early 20th century (Meyer et al. 2022: 6, 153). Cultural goals familiarize learners with the historical ideas, achievements, customs, and value systems primarily of Great Britain and the United States. Since the 1980s, foreign language education has aimed at a more critical and interactive approach to cultures and integrated intercultural communicative competence as a guiding principle into the curriculum. The cultural goal thus transcends mere facts and figures to delve into the factors that enable the comprehension or interpretation of communicative scenarios, foreign language texts (in their broadest definition), or cultural tendencies (Delanoy & Volkmann 2006). With cultural goals, learners shall be enabled to communicate and engage with other cultural interlocutors in a critical and empathetic way. They are guided to develop an understanding of diverse cultural perspectives and practices through the changing of perspectives: First, pupils have to learn to identify and differentiate perspectives, to decenter their own perspectives, so they can next cognitively and affectively change into various perspectives, thereby virtually experiencing the view on the world of others, including reconstructing their knowledge or their attitudes. Eventually, they learn to coordinate different perspectives with their own take and, thus, internalize the foundational skill of negotiating meanings and changing viewpoints in order to form 56 3 The Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) <?page no="57"?> critical opinions (Meyer et al. 2022: 158-159; see also Freitag-Hild 2018: 166; Bredella 2012). The fundamental intercultural communicative competence has evolved to incorpo‐ rate transculturality, which recognizes that cultural phenomena no longer abide by traditional boundaries or definitions but, instead, are characterized by complexity and hybridity, polyphony, and a high degree of internal differentiation, further entangle‐ ment and enmeshment of characteristics, and the blurring of boundaries (Freitag-Hild 2018: 167). This approach aims to help learners understand that diverse experiences or knowledge are equally valuable rather than hierarchical. By embracing diversity as a resource, learners can develop tolerance, empathy, anti-racism, social justice, and global citizenship (Matz & Römhild 2024; Braselmann 2023; Römhild 2023; Römhild & Gaudelli 2022). These cultural goals ultimately transform diversity into a resource for language education, societal integration, and personal growth. Developing skills like changing perspective, empathy, and integrating multiple viewpoints enables learners to navigate cultural interactions, cultivate a critical approach to socio-cultural phenomena, acquiring social and cultural orientational knowledge. These goals are rooted in an understanding of culture as a complex framework of mental concepts, value judgments, and symbolic systems, or in other words, as a semiotic, anthropological, and comparative approach (Meyer et al. 2023: 160-161; Freitag-Hild 2018: 160-162). Viewing culture as “interworked systems of construable signs” (Geertz 1973: 14) as a “shared set of meanings” or as “discursive practice” (Freitag-Hild 2018: 161) emphasizes its role as a context shaping social events rather than a deterministic power. A significant element of this goal is the recognition of intricate interconnections between language and culture. Cultural symbols, mental imagery, metaphors, and their meanings can facilitate this process, particularly when considered in terms of their vividness, conceptualization, and manifestation through language (Meyer et al. 2022: 153-154). Developing intercultural communication skills is crucial for effective interaction in diverse contexts. This involves cultivating functional language skills, language awareness, and language learning awareness, as well as applying these skills to text and media analysis and social-cultural orientation knowledge (KM-BW 2016). Notably, environmental issues offer a unique opportunity to integrate these skills with environmental literacy, as they reflect the complex relationships between human and non-human environments. By exploring environmental topics, learners can develop a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of cultural, social, and ecological systems and further cultivate critical thinking, empathy, and perspective-taking skills. This alignment of cultural goals with environmental literacy enables learners to navigate the complexities of a globalized world and address the pressing challenges of sustainability and environmental stewardship (see Chapter-4.3). 3.2 Goals and Purposes of English (as Foreign Language Education) 57 <?page no="58"?> 3.2.3 Literary Goals and Texts (in the Broadest Sense) Literary goals play a vital role in today’s foreign language education, as they enable learners to develop perspective-taking skills, intercultural competence, and cultural awareness through the study of literary texts. Historically, foreign language methodol‐ ogy (e.g., Grammar-Translation Method) focused on literary texts to develop language skills and cultural knowledge (Meyer et al. 2023: 61-62). Although the communicative turn in the 1970s marginalized literary content, it experienced a resurgence in the late 1980s, shifting from New Criticism’s text-immanent approach to literary aesthetics and Reception Theory, which emphasize the reader’s role (Bredella 2007; Meyer et al. 2022: 181-182). Since the 1990s, literary texts have been recognized as valuable devices to initiate and practice the changing of perspectives and thus also intercultural learning (Bredella 2005, 2000; Meyer et al. 2022: 180-182). Through literature, learners refine their perspectives on various phenomena, including self-perception, and develop skills in comparing, contrasting, and coordinating perspectives. Literary texts provide the cultural and social context needed for intercultural interaction. Engagement with authentic materials (Volkmann, 2010: 238-241) offers insights into the values, mindsets, and everyday experiences of target cultures, promoting a deeper understanding of social and multicultural contexts. The literary goals of foreign language education are rooted in the idea that literature has the power to shape the understanding of the world and individual experiences, as reading literary texts must not be misunderstood as a one-way process of decoding information, but rather it is a complex process of creating individual meanings and interpretations. As readers engage with literary texts, they develop a mental representation of the situations, circumstances, and character constellations presented in the text, effectively creating a model of a fictional world (Radvan 2019: 280-281; Bredella 2007). Storytelling must be considered a fundamental human need that enables individuals to make sense of their experiences and the world around them (Bredella 2012: 14). Through literature, learners can develop a refined understanding of the human condition, including the complexities of identity, culture, and social context. Complementing the creative goal of world-making, literary education also aims to foster a deep understanding and analysis of literary texts and their ability to convey complex ideas, emotions, and experiences. Christiane Lütge (2012: 193-195) has developed a model for literary literacy that encompasses not only the ability to read and analyze literary texts but also to understand the cultural, social, and historical contexts in which they were written (see Chapter 5.2). Literary education should aim to foster a sense of contingency awareness, which involves recognizing the limitations of one’s own perspective and being open to alternative worldviews (Nünning 2004: 89). This aspect makes literary texts such an ideal training ground for the development of empathy and perspective-taking, as readers learn to engage with different characters, experiences, and cultural contexts (Bredella 2012: 15-17; Meyer et al. 2023: 179-180). Literature, as a product of a culture, offers unique insights that can hardly be gleaned from other cultural artifacts or media products. It has the power to bridge 58 3 The Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) <?page no="59"?> the gap between different perspectives, experiences, and analyses and allows readers to connect with others across time and space (Radvan 2019: 280). The emotional and personal components of literary texts are essential for their educational value, as they confront readers with their emotions and those of protagonists, therefore encouraging empathy and perspective-taking (Bredella 2012, 15-17; also 2007). However, these components can be challenging to operationalize and standardize, making it difficult to assess their impact (Burwitz-Melzer 2008; Lütge 2012: 195). By fostering literary literacy, intercultural competence, and critical thinking, foreign language education aims to help learners develop a deeper understanding of the human condition and the importance of empathy, perspective-taking, and cultural awareness in a globalized world (Lütge 2012: 195; Meyer et al. 2022: 182-185). In conclusion, literary goals remain a vital part of education, as they offer unique opportunities for personal growth, social awareness, and cultural understanding. The selection of literary texts for EFL classrooms is particularly significant when addressing contemporary issues like environmental concerns, climate change, and biodiversity. These topics require innovative approaches, interesting tasks, and a deeper engage‐ ment with humanity’s relationship with the non-human environment. To effectively integrate environmental issues into the teaching of English, a thoughtful text selection, topical focus, and supporting materials are essential. This involves moving beyond a sole focus on catastrophic scenarios and incorporating more positive, hopeful topics and materials (see Chapter 4.5). Literary goals should be refined to align with insights from disciplines such as ecocriticism, cultural ecology, and others (see Chapter 4.3). By exploring literary texts that address environmental issues relevant to learners’ reality, students can engage with a diverse range of concerns, voices, and subjective perspectives. This, in turn, enables learners to develop a deeper understanding of the complex relationships between human and non-human environments, while cultivating critical thinking, empathy, and skills in perspective-taking. 3.2.4 Media Communication Goals By incorporating media communication goals into foreign language teaching, ed‐ ucators can provide learners with a more comprehensive and engaging learning experience, one that prepares them for the diverse media landscape of the 21st century. Even though literature could also be considered a medium that communicates stories or sociocultural information, it is singled out for its distinct features of subjective storytelling and addressing the imaginative capacities of readers. Historically, novels, real objects, images, and maps were exemplary media used in the foreign language classroom, but with the rapid pace of technological innovation, a wide range of new gadgets and tools have been found to be increasingly useful in supporting teaching endeavors. Auditory (tapes, discs) and audiovisual media (TV, video, DVDs) open up new possibilities for practicing receptive and productive skills, such as listening 3.2 Goals and Purposes of English (as Foreign Language Education) 59 <?page no="60"?> comprehension and audiovisual watching (Meyer et al. 2022: 198-200; Schmidt & Strasser 2018: 212-213). The semiotic understanding of culture is reiterated in media education: Foreign lan‐ guage education operates with a conceptualization of texts in the broadest sense or “texts in media” (Meyer et al. 2022: 200), encompassing a wide range of media messages and materials that convey meaning. Such a broad definition of texts acknowledges that meaning is created and communicated through various channels and modes. Individuals must navigate and interpret these diverse forms of communication to effectively participate in contemporary society (Cope & Kalantzis 2023; The New London Group 1996: 77). This includes various formats beyond traditional written or printed words, such as films, conversations, cartoons, or even games, images, and graffiti-styled slogans. This approach is reflected in the aims to equip learners with an understanding of those text types in the broadest sense, covering all forms of oral, written, visual, audiovisual, or performative communication in their respective cultural and medial contexts, regardless of whether they are conveyed through analog or digital means (KM-BW 2016: 5). To prepare for their professional and personal lives, learners have to navigate the multiplied media landscape and know how to technically access or use media for their purposes. However, media goals require learners to engage with texts in a more complex and multifaceted manner. They should not only be recipients or consumers of media worlds, knowing how to use them for entertainment, profession, or education. Instead, learners should strive for more productive interaction with media worlds, participating in and producing media communications. This entails acquiring the skills to structure, analyze, reflect upon, and evaluate texts, as well as to recontextualize and recreate them (KM-BW 2016: 5; see also Hobbs 2011: 11-19). Multimodal and multimedia forms of expression, the digital transformation, along‐ side the increasing availability of machine intelligence and chatbots, underscores the importance of integrating media communication into foreign language teaching. By doing so, media goals facilitate transmission, negotiation, and mediation between learners and diverse cultures, languages, and perspectives, thereby fostering the understanding of the complexities of human communication. Moreover, the core of this goal is the many possibilities of decoding and encoding messages, the possibilities to rework and transform a text in different channels or media should be part of the classroom agenda and become essential for the media communication goal (Volkmann 2010: 66-67). Integrating media communication goals with environmental issues helps learners understand the complex relationships between human communication, technology, and the natural world. The use of technology has environmental implications, and learners can develop a critical awareness of these implications in media production and consumption. As most classroom materials are media-based, learners need to develop an informed perspective on environmental challenges and use their language skills to advocate for sustainability and environmental justice. This empowerment enables 60 3 The Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) <?page no="61"?> learners to participate in discussions about sustainability, make a positive impact, and adopt a holistic approach to language learning that recognizes the connections between human communication, culture, and the environment (see Chapter-4.4). 3.2 Goals and Purposes of English (as Foreign Language Education) 61 <?page no="63"?> 4 The Related Disciplines “Humanity is embedded within, intertwined with, and dependent upon the living biosphere.” (Folke et al. 2021: 25) Modern English (as a foreign language) teaching focuses on the adequate and appro‐ priate use of English in everyday scenarios and on navigating authentic communicative challenges. In addition to this focus, English lessons also aim to help learners better un‐ derstand themselves and the world around them. As new topics, issues, or approaches are introduced into the classroom, existing conceptualizations must be reevaluated and adapted to ensure they remain relevant and effective. For these reasons, as well as for academic tradition in Germany, English as a Foreign Language (TEFL or TESOL) is situated between the discipline units of English or American Studies and pedagogy. As a branch of foreign language education, EFL explores the innovative knowledge and insights of linguistics, English and American literary studies, cultural studies, and media studies. In close dialogue with related disciplines, foreign language education contextualizes and debates these areas of study, ultimately highlighting the interplay between theoretical frameworks and practical teaching methods that is at the heart of foreign language education (Schmenk 2019; Digester 1983). The transfer of new knowledge into teachable issues and teaching techniques will not occur spontaneously but requires a concerted effort from the academic disciplines. To integrate new areas of knowledge into teaching research and practices, it is essential to clearly describe their key concepts, ideas, and terminology. This includes under‐ standing how interdisciplinary and transcultural comparisons can inform innovative teaching approaches. Providing a clear and interdisciplinary overview with concrete examples would make it easier to apply these new areas of knowledge in the classroom in a meaningful and engaging way. Insights on nature, environment, and sustainability can serve as a valuable example of how to integrate new knowledge into teaching practices. This process involves adapting to teaching conditions and learners’ needs, as well as developing a content-specific rationale. Different approaches and methods must be used when addressing a specific academic issue, taking into account its unique structures and logic. In contrast, teaching and learning scenarios involve dynamic, complex factors that require ongoing consideration and adaptation (Küchler 2019a: 409-410; Edmondson & House 2006: 25). <?page no="64"?> Fig. 2: English and its related environmental disciplines (modified and adapted from Jank & Meyer 1991: 33), illustration by Anna Voigtländer. This chapter explores several central related disciplines of foreign language educa‐ tion, focusing on their environmentally oriented subfields and the role of nature, environment, or sustainability in their disciplinary self-image and knowledge base. Many related disciplines have developed environmental subfields that investigate the relationship between the discipline and its subject matter and the non-human environ‐ ment. In particular, the objective of this chapter is to explore whether environmental sub-disciplines, while making significant contributions to their respective fields, can also offer unexpected insights to foreign language education: What image of the relationship between humanity and the non-human environment is presented and promoted in the various disciplines? Therefore, the subsequent parts of this chapter aim to integrate fundamental elements of each of the environmental disciplines into this study guide for students and educators. This integration introduces readers to the diverse landscape of environmental sub-disciplines and the connections between them. By fostering a comprehensive understanding of specialized fields, this approach seeks to enhance students’, educators’, and researchers’ knowledge and expertise in those areas in order to better understand the possible cross sections between them and foreign language education. Ultimately, the success of an environmental literacy approach in foreign language education will depend on whether linking nature, environment, 64 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="65"?> and sustainability with the study of languages, literatures, cultures, and media can inspire meaningful engagement with language per se, but also its narratives, cultural encounters, and the environment. The disciplines of linguistics, literary studies, cultural studies, and media studies constitute the disciplinary core of English as a foreign language education. These fields possess subject-specific relevance, and they directly inform the subject matter and the choice of classroom content itself, as they are intrinsic to what the school subject English entails. Their environmental subfields (ecolinguistics, ecocriticism, cultural ecology, and ecomedia studies), therefore, need to be discussed in this chapter, as they represent a natural extension of the discipline’s own knowledge domains and expand beyond the subject’s epistemological boundaries. At the same time, disciplines such as education and psychology, while not directly informing English or the study of foreign languages per se, possess complementary pedagogical relevance. They illuminate the fundamental concerns and processes of teaching and learning that are central to any classroom endeavor. Their environmental subdisciplines offer essential considerations into the acquisition, processing, and application of environmental knowledge in any subject, including the language arts. But particularly regarding English, environmental psychology, as well as environment and sustainability education, offer crucial consid‐ erations that support the implementation of environmental issues and environmental literacy. It is therefore necessary to introduce them in this chapter as well. Beyond the Sum of Interdisciplinarity’s Parts The entire history of language pedagogy and education is marked by periodic changes and reorientation in teaching styles, methodologies, content selection as well as research emphasis. The reorientation of the discipline’s core is owed to impulses from other fields of knowledge, such as education, English and American studies, pedagogy, psychology, and, particularly, teaching practice and policy. This allows for a discussion of the influences that have shaped the development of foreign language education and its future directions (Schmenk 2019: 29-31; Küchler 2016: 83-85). Many topics go beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries and the notion of teaching as transformation and transfer of specialized knowledge into classroom discourse, but especially the environmental humanities. Interdisciplinary research addresses challenges from knowledge transfer, interdisciplinary convergence, and lack of clarity and orientation. Interdisciplinarity can be defined as research that draws on insights or methodo‐ logical procedures from other knowledge domains, which recognizes that disciplines are specialized knowledge areas that share a common knowledge base and methodolog‐ ical repertoire (Klein 1990: 43-44). Since the late 19th century, universities have expan‐ ded their subject areas, leading to a more specialized and compartmentalized approach to knowledge (Hausman 1979: 2). Interdisciplinary research and collaboration with related disciplines offer both opportunities and challenges for transcending traditional 4 The Related Disciplines 65 <?page no="66"?> boundaries and generating new knowledge. Crossing boundaries holds great promise for novel findings and discoveries (Pratt 1991). However, interdisciplinarity may also lead to administrative overlaps or render findings less classifiable within traditional disciplines, which still challenges academics who engage in interdisciplinary work with uncertainties. To fully understand the epistemological field of foreign language education, it is essential to consider its complex array of factors (Edmondson & House 2006: 25). As a result, foreign language education is grounded in a broad, interdisciplinary framework that draws on a range of disciplines, including linguistics, language acquisition, literary and cultural studies, educational studies, and psychology. These disciplines are central to foreign language education because they provide a compre‐ hensive understanding of the processes involved in learning another language and its close relationship to culture, literature, or media. Furthermore, they inform about the developmental process and effective teaching methods and materials (Haß 2006: 14; Digester 1983). Researchers in foreign language education have a key responsibility to embrace interdisciplinarity and explore the complex array of factors that make the foreign language classroom an exciting learning environment. This involves seeking out original, unusual research questions rather than being swayed by fleeting fashions, trends, or funding opportunities. Theory and practice in foreign language education are intertwined, involving an exchange of ideas and content from related disciplines, such as English and American studies. Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are crucial features in this area of knowledge. Whether consciously or not, students, teachers, and researchers develop their knowledge and understanding through personal experiences and a heuristic, experiential learning cycle (Schüssler et al. 2014: 146). By gaining a deeper understanding of these processes, foreign language education can inform and improve teaching practices. This approach is based on the assumption that reflective and effective teaching and learning can only be achieved through a deep understanding of the complex factors involved. By integrating the epistemologies of English and American studies with those of foreign language education, new and innovative teaching approaches can be developed. The outcome of such interdisciplinarity, of incorporating insights from related fields, is typically more than the sum of its parts. It is greater than the individual contributions per se. The teaching of English evolves in conjunction with changes in society’s value system, or academia’s, education’s, and the humanities’ foci. This development is evident in the updates to curricula, textbooks, and teaching materials, as well as in the thematic content and the methodological approaches to issues. Effectively integrating new knowledge and insights from related disciplines, ongoing adaptations and updates require continuous and sustained effort by foreign language educators and researchers. 66 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="67"?> Crossing Boundaries, Discovering Extraordinary Richness In particular, in areas such as (foreign) language education, the epistemological transgression of boundaries can be seen as exceptionally indispensable. All of the demands and responsibilities of the field - from answering research questions and developing innovative teaching projects to finding solutions for classroom problems or transferring conceptual innovations into practice - all these require consulting and drawing on insights, terminology, or methodologies from related disciplines. Foreign language education should be viewed as an interdisciplinary force field. By definition, this knowledge area is a nexus between different entities and knowledge areas, between theoretical conceptualizations and teaching practice, between research impulses from the inside (English and American studies) and from the outside (Econ‐ omy, Politics) (Hallet & Königs 2010: 10-17). For illustration, let me mention two metaphorical conceptions that notably visualize the similarities of disciplines and the possibilities of interdisciplinary work: The linguistic and transcultural concept of the contact zone, and the biological-geographic concept of the ecotone. Both concepts share a focus on the image of bordering areas and boundary crossing. The binding component is the exchange between seemingly disparate sectors or knowledge fields, which must be assumed to contribute to a productive and innovative problem solution or development. Perhaps it is expected that boundaries and the exchange across borders are perceived as a particularly fruitful and diverse endeavor in linguistics and cultural studies, as well as in the natural sciences. However, it is remarkable that concepts and their application appear to be confined to specific disciplines, and the close connections between these phenomena and their context have not been further explored for interdisciplinary research, teaching, learning, and humanities studies. The US-American linguist Mary Louise Pratt introduced the term contact zone to describe and define bordering regions and their unique situations involving language contact, language mixing, and transculturation (Pratt 1991). The contact zone encompasses both geographic and social spaces where people with different languages and cultures “meet, clash, and grapple with each other” (1991: 34). To interact despite their differences, individuals must negotiate and change perspectives, interpret others, and improvise their responses. While such cultural exchanges often imply power imbalances and tensions, they also provide a framework for exploring cultural connections and interactions. A further takeaway from the concept of the contact zone is that dominant languages or cultures also evolve and transform through these contact interactions, as linguistic, cultural, or social borrowings or adaptations emerge over time. The presence of these diverse agents in such spaces can be assumed to create a dynamic and innovative force field, fostering new forms of cooperation, interaction, and creativity. Given that this concept encourages the analysis of communication and interaction within contexts of high diversity, promoting exchange across boundaries and highlighting the importance of dialogue and decision-making, it can be considered a catalyst for intercultural learning. 4 The Related Disciplines 67 <?page no="68"?> The ecotone is an ecological concept primarily used in biology and geography that characterizes the transitional area or corridor between two or more neighboring biological regions, sharing traits from both and hosting species unique to the overlap zone. Often described as an edge effect, the ecotone presents appealing possibilities for biodiversity. Along this biological-geographic contact zone, an extraordinary diversity of species thrives due to favorable living conditions and ecological niches (OED ‘ecotone’; Eppelsheimer et al. 2014: 57; Küchler 2010: 8). The fluid interactions in an ecotone resemble the dynamics of the contact zone, where boundaries are crossed, and common ground is established through diversity. John Elder, US-American environmental educator, explicitly associates this concept with teaching and learning scenarios (Christensen & Elder 2003: 199). Already, substantial work is emerging through the earnest engagement of environmental humanities scholars with edge effect conditions, which investigate the impact of the two neighboring communities on one another. Rob Nixon persuasively argues that scholarly ecotones present comparable risks and challenges as biological ones for both “may […] facilitate the emergence of novel configurations of possibility” (Nixon 2011: 30) and - an aspect that undoubtedly applies to numerous academic disciplines - may “for some species, introduce novel threats” (30). Both concepts, contact zone and ecotone, focus on boundaries, transitions, and border crossings, as well as on the creativity, hybridity, and improvisations that emerge when crossing or navigating these borders from various disciplinary perspectives. Thus, it could be said that each of them, in their own unique manner, also describes interdisciplinarity, which must rely on contact, exchange, and collaboration be‐ tween rather disparate knowledge areas. These principles should also serve as the guiding framework for the forthcoming chapters on ecological knowledge areas and the corresponding disciplines of foreign language education. The work with related disciplines has the potential to yield an extraordinary richness and diversity of knowledge. New innovative content and topics - such as nature, environment, and sustainability - can only be truly effective within foreign language education when the field adopts an interdisciplinary approach that integrates insights from related disciplines so as to create connective pathways between the diverse yet overlapping areas or territories of knowledge. Greening the Disciplines The past few decades have seen remarkable advancements in disciplines related to ecological and environmental issues, along with increasingly interdisciplinary approaches that cross traditional boundaries. Fields such as bionics in technology and engineering, green architecture inspired by natural blueprints and sustainable materials, and the burgeoning “green economy” exemplify this shift (Benyus 2009; McDonough & Braungart 2002; Hopkins 2013). Yet, the humanities have also estab‐ lished several intriguing and remarkably innovative research fields that integrate 68 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="69"?> environmental perspectives into the discipline’s mission, research focus, concepts, or methodologies. From the realization of the cultural, textual, and narrative constructions of the image of nature, the conceptualization of the environment, and the discourses on sustainability, many critical trends within individual disciplines have sprung up since the 1970s. These new, innovative knowledge areas provide ample stimuli for research, teaching, and learning that incorporate ecological and environmental questions, enrich the specialized topics, and foster an understanding of the complex relationships between human and natural systems (Finke 2003: 70). The thematic focus of this book is reflected in the fact that virtually all related disciplines have developed specialized environmental knowledge areas driven by this impetus. Given its self-perception and grounded in academic reasoning, foreign language education is compelled to acknowledge and address the exemplary contributions made by its related disciplines to matters pertaining to nature, ecology, and the environment. Innovative ideas and unconventional arguments from related disciplines provide valuable resources for revitalizing the EFL classroom. Even though foreign language education regularly falls back on its related disciplines, particularly for linguistic, literary, and cultural analysis, classification as well as contextualization of its contents, it has been reluctant in doing so with regard to the epochal issues of nature, environment, and sustainability (Surkamp 2022: 5; Küchler 2025: 68). Even the most recent publications that appear to tackle the issues at hand and tug at environmental questions in chosen fields, do more often than not ignore or overlook publications in the related environmental subfields or do not realize the importance of those interconnections. At the forefront of public, political, and scientific discourse, it appears that this thrust effortlessly translates into the preoccupation with the foreign language classroom. There lies the search for technological solutions to the overwhelming environmental scenarios, such as climate change, rampant pollution, and biosphere degradation. Escalating environmental crises and global warming not only demand new ap‐ proaches to environmental education but also draw increasing public, media, and political attention to educational matters. While climate change dominates public discourse through crisis narratives and catastrophic scenarios, it represents just one of several critical environmental challenges. Gradual, but less visible processes may pose even greater threats to human and species survival than more dramatic environmental changes. It has been argued that the ecological crisis is not primarily about unsolvable technological problems, but rather about the need to change lifestyles, cultural and societal patterns, and redefine our understanding of nature (Goodbody 1998: 25), as well as to reconceptualize a good life without rampant consumerism, resource depletion, or other forms of extractive economies. These concepts are culturally constructed, and as such, they require an understanding of the humanities. Therefore, I propose considering the insights of related disciplines to gain a deeper understanding of the ecological crisis. 4 The Related Disciplines 69 <?page no="70"?> Before integrating environmental insights into language education, it is essential to consider the inherent relationships between language, culture, environment, and the language learning process. A crucial challenge is to determine whether these relationships can be clearly identified and illustrated in a way that enhances teaching and teacher education. This inquiry raises several key questions that will be explored in this book, although their implications extend beyond its scope: How do language, culture, literature, and media communication intersect with the environment, and what are the implications for this book’s central argument? Should language, litera‐ ture, culture, and media communication be recognized as pivotal factors in shaping humanity’s relationship with the non-human environment? How can exploring these connections within an environmental context inform and enrich foreign language education, particularly in fostering language and cultural awareness, as well as environmental literacy among learners? Might a more comprehensive engagement with the humanities provide innovative solutions to environmental challenges? To effectively integrate nature, environment, and sustainability into foreign language education, teaching approaches must incorporate innovative insights, perspectives, and theories from related disciplines, which necessitates an interdisciplinary approach. 4.1 The Environmental Humanities: Understanding Cultures, Patterns, and Ecologies “Aiming not for dispassionate study but for intervention and change (cognitive as well as worldly), work within the environmental hu‐ manities is nothing if not ambitious.” (Cohen & Foote 2021: 2) The Western world’s reliance on scientific and technological innovations as a means of salvation and redemption is rooted in Christian cultural traditions, institutions, and moral values, as argued by US historian Lynn White Jr. (1996: 12). According to White, simply applying more science and technology will not suffice to solve the collapse of ecological systems. Rather, the solution depends on a deeper understanding of the relationship between humans, nature, and the environment. This critique implicitly highlights the importance of the humanities, which, despite their analytical power, have often been marginalized in discourse. As the ecological movement gained momentum in the 1970s, large parts of the humanities remained comparatively disengaged. Scholars like Evernden (1996: 96) argue that the humanities, which traditionally examine cultural assumptions and human values, have been supplanted by natural scientific reasoning, which promises quicker and more tangible results. This predominance of scientific approaches has overlooked the social, cultural, and ethical dimensions of the human-environment relationship, which are essential for understanding and addressing the environmental crisis. 70 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="71"?> In recent decades, a growing discourse has emerged about a “crisis” in the humani‐ ties, with scholars calling for a reconceptualization of their societal and epistemological roles. Critics have questioned the humanities’ societal and economic usefulness, leading some to suggest that these fields should be defunded to allocate resources to other areas (Summers 2012). Other critique and advocacy for change come from scholars within the humanities (Fish 2008; 2006), particularly regarding the need to situate the humanities in a broader environmental context. US literary critic Lawrence Buell (1995: 2) frames the environmental crisis as a “crisis of imagination,” emphasizing the need for new ways of conceptualizing nature and humanity’s relationship to it. Similarly, British ecocritic Richard Kerridge (1998: 4) suggests that the ecological crisis is also a “cultural crisis” or “crisis of representation” (see also Mayer & Wilson 2006: 1), while US environmental educator David Orr (1992: 10) argues that the disorder in ecosystems reflects a deeper “disorder of the mind,” making the ecological crisis fundamentally a “crisis of education.” The crisis in the humanities, then, is not just about funding or a perceived lack of interest, but also about the systematic undervaluation of their potential to provide cultural insights and alternative frameworks for thinking about the world. Maybe the reason for the crises and one-sidedness is the absence of a comprehensive cultural framework for environmental studies in the context of the history of science (Meyer- Abich 1990: 108). Because the humanities make it their explicit goal to provide insight into cultural phenomena and to offer orientation and future scenarios for further action and development, the role of culture in the broadest sense is indispensable in debating and resolving current environmental issues. The humanities, with their focus on culture, history, and human experience, are uniquely equipped to contribute to environmental discourse by offering perspectives that challenge dominant assump‐ tions and guide future action (Welzer et al. 2010: 13). Within numerous disciplines of the humanities, this lack had been widely acknowledged. As scholars increasingly recognize, the environmental crisis cannot be fully understood without considering the cultural and societal contexts that shape and mediate humankind’s relationship with nature. This has led to the emergence of the environmental humanities, an interdisciplinary field that brings together insights from various humanistic disciplines to engage with environmental issues in a more holistic and culturally informed way. The forces of technology or social media do not have to determine the future of how people live, what they value, or which cultural practices to retain or abandon. Instead, with their focus on studying cultural patterns and human behaviors, the humanities can help societies with those decisions; they can challenge perspectives and develop new visions (Hagner 2010: 30). They are called to do their part in making original, significant, and possibly decisive contributions to the ecological situation and the environmental debate. 4.1 The Environmental Humanities: Understanding Cultures, Patterns, and Ecologies 71 <?page no="72"?> 4.1.1 Self-Concept and Purpose of the (General) Humanities Humanities research, particularly in education, encompasses a wide range of topics and interests. However, a fundamental question often overlooked in academic discussions is: what is the purpose of studying the humanities? This question is further complicated by the fact that the term “humanities” is commonly ambiguous and unfamiliar to many students, as it serves as an umbrella term for various disciplines rather than a specific field of study with a clear foundational program. As a result, students may struggle to understand the scope and relevance of humanities education. Yet, this raises further questions: what is the goal of humanities education, and what role can it play in addressing the complexities and challenges of the contemporary world? Can humanities studies contribute to mitigating the conflicts and problems that plague the world? Before defining the environmental humanities, it is desirable to reexamine the self-concept of the humanities and recapitulate their core characteristics. By reasserting their role in the academic landscape, particularly in understanding humanity’s relationship with the nonhuman world, scholars can relegitimize their place among other disciplines. The humanities cover a broad range of disciplines, including literature, language, culture, and history, as well as subfields focused on issues like race, class, gender, and the environment. Rooted in classical Greek thought, the humanities emphasize the conditio humana, or human condition, which spans the complexities and frailties of human existence (Ueding et al. 1992: 337-346). This foundational concept drives the development of the humanities, which seek to explore and understand diverse ways of life and social institutions. The humanities investigate and interpret human culture, ideas, and experiences, documenting and contextualizing socio-cultural characteristics (Beiner 2009: 11). As disciplines of intellectual thought, exploration, and reasoning, the humanities provide a platform for defining, discussing, and negotiating concepts, enabling societies to negotiate their cultural identity and organize their cultural memory. Through their work, humanities scholars gain insights into the concept of “otherness” and its significance, they identify trends, interpret cultural products, and analyze their impact on societies, cultures, and education. To address the challenges of the future, Marcus Beiner (2009) has identified eight key characteristics that define the humanities, which I have adapted and rearranged for this study book. • Reflexivity: The concept of reflexivity in the humanities involves considering human thought and action in academic and intellectual deliberations. This involves not only individual perspectives but also historical periods, social and cultural systems, and educational practices (Forster 2014: 589-590). By questioning and scrutinizing their objects of study, contextualizing and historicizing their work, and maintaining a critical distance, the humanities provide societies with a deeper understanding of complex matters and processes (Beiner 2009: 104-109). Reflexivity, a long-standing mindset and methodology in the humanities, has gained prominence due to the recognition of the researcher’s personality and 72 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="73"?> individual methodological choices in shaping research outcomes. Clifford Geertz’s concept of thick description (Forster 2014: 591; Geertz 1973) has been influential in this shift, as it considers the socio-cultural context, symbolic interactionism, and communication of different cultures, enabling reflections on both other societies and one’s own. This reflective turn in the humanities (Bachmann-Medick 2021) involves a shift in attention from study objects to analytic categories and method‐ ology, transforming reflexivity into a methodological tool for producing insights and knowledge. As a result, academic writing, knowledge production, and meaning negotiation are also subject to scrutiny and questioning (Forster 2014: 592). The reflective turn in the humanities corresponds to developments in the social sciences, where the researcher’s subject position can no longer be assumed to be absolute or unquestioned (592). Growing attention to privileged subject positions in fields like feminism and intersectionality has driven awareness of the need for reflexivity. As Jon Dean suggests, considering the researcher’s personal choices and context is not an autobiographical indulgence but an epistemological necessity (Dean 2017: 11). Given the human-centered nature of humanities research, scholars must reflect on the formative role of human involvement and relationships in their work. Methodologically, this involves cognitive operations like combining knowledge forms, describing, explaining, and analyzing complex matters (Beiner 2009: 114). • Universality: The principle of universality in the humanities asserts that research can address any topic related to human experiences as long as it can be made plausible and understandable (Beiner 2009: 117). This includes the study of individual and communal expressions, interactions, and how experiences adapt, change, or evolve over time. The humanities seek to understand the organization of values, beliefs, knowledge forms, and behavioral patterns that individuals and societies develop to navigate their realities (62). By examining cultures, ideas, and traditions, the humanities provide insight into the world and offer orientation for everyday life. Their task is to bring order and perspective to complex, chaotic, or overwhelming texts and realities, making them more comprehensible and manageable. • Transgressing Boundaries: To go beyond established boundaries is a charac‐ teristic and driving force in the humanities, as it enables the development of interdisciplinary and thought-provoking impulses and invites new possibilities for knowledge creation and understanding. Leaving the beaten (disciplinary or institutional) path in a qualified way often stimulates research, asking new ques‐ tions, and opening up new perspectives. Crossing disciplinary or methodological boundaries opens the doors particularly to intercultural and transcultural learning, which is so important for the teaching and learning of other languages. The notion of borders, territories, and boundaries is also relevant to the humanities and for education: In academic contexts, it refers to political and socio-cultural boundaries, yet also to boundaries between (disciplinary) forms of knowledge and 4.1 The Environmental Humanities: Understanding Cultures, Patterns, and Ecologies 73 <?page no="74"?> methodologies. Interdisciplinarity transcends such epistemological boundaries and establishes connections between different disciplines or fields of knowledge (Kruse et al. 2005: 9). It is here that the metaphors of contact zone, for example in the study of contact languages and cultures (Pratt 1991), or the ecotone, ecological niche, or edge-effect have unfolded their symbolic potential also for the humanities (see also Chapter-4.0.2; Eppelsheimer et al. 2015: 5-6; Nixon 2011: 30). • Historicity: Research topics in the humanities must be examined within their historical and socio-cultural context; their genesis, conditions, circumstances, developments, and social or cultural fabric must be considered (Beiner 2009: 33). This context is crucial for understanding the significance of socio-cultural and historical context in shaping all forms of knowledge. The humanities are particularly important in times of change, as they enable rethinking and reevaluating existing knowledge and its meaning. By examining human expressions, artifacts, and works within their historical contexts, the humanities can relate past experiences to contemporary issues and reveal underlying cultural dynamics and change (95-96). In an era of globalization, ecological shifts, and epochal thresholds like environmental extremes, climate change, and biodiversity loss, the humanities play a crucial role in informing decision-making and developing alternative future scenarios. As knowledge is continually renewed and expanded, the humanities must adapt and evolve to provide new perspectives and approaches. This involves reconsidering established understandings of individuals, disciplines, institutions, and societies, as well as the relationships between past, present, and future. By opening perspectives on the human experience, the humanities seek meaning and purpose in a world increasingly driven by technological innovation, digital transformation, and machine learning. • Multiple Perspectives: The humanities seek to uncover and explain thought patterns and processes, shaped by social and cultural conditions, world views, and individual characteristics (Beiner 2009: 33). This gives the humanities a significant, politically charged, and innovative role in society and culture. A key feature of the humanities, including foreign language education and literary and cultural studies, is working with diverse perspectives (see Chapter 3.2). The ability to identify, differentiate, change, and coordinate perspectives is crucial for intercultural learning and foreign language education (Meyer et al. 2022: 158-159; Freitag-Hild 2018: 166). The work with diverse perspectives fosters possibilities for change and improvement. Humanities research must reflect on its object of study in terms of its historical and contemporary legitimacy, significance, and validity (Beiner 2009: 69). This necessitates each generation to re-engage with humanities research questions and to adapt them to their own contexts, conditions, and perspectives. The humanities are responsible for defining and redefining values, determining normativity in societal, cultural, and educational systems, and considering the relativity of norms within social, historical, and cultural contexts (Führer 2022: 11-13). 74 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="75"?> • Dialogue & Intersubjectivity: Dialogue is an open and thoughtful exchange of ideas, perspectives, and knowledge. It requires a commitment to mutual exchange. It can take various forms, including conversational, argumentative, heuristic, or epistemological. Dialogue allows different perspectives to come together and interact dynamically to enrich and diversify the humanities’ pursuit of intellectual thought, insight, and knowledge. It involves a reciprocal exchange of ideas, the negotiation of meaning with initially divergent perspectives, and the arriving at a mutual understanding that can influence the experiences and viewpoints of those involved. This process is related to the concept of intersubjectivity, which describes the intersection of people’s shared thoughts or perspectives. Dialogue and intersubjectivity are fundamental to humanities research, which often explores abstract and idiosyncratic concepts related to human experience and communica‐ tion. Research in the humanities frequently involves symbolic, verbal, visual, and representational forms, and acknowledges the subjective and contextual nature of knowledge. As a result, research findings require interpretation, negotiation of meaning, and dialogue to be meaningful and understandable. This process reflects the complex communication dynamics at play in the humanities, which involve the implicit or explicit expression of political, ideological, socio-cultural, and intellectual positions (Beiner 2009: 43ff.). • Specificity: The humanities do not aim to establish universal laws or rules. Instead, they focus on specific, exemplary cases or individual examples, such as communications, narratives, images, or contexts, as their research material (Beiner 2009: 55ff.). By examining the particularities of a research object, compar‐ ing and contrasting it with others, and situating it within larger contexts, the humanities seek to understand the unique aspects of a given issue rather than seeking generalizable regularities. The specificity and exemplarity of humanities research objects and questions are key considerations in the discussion of research methodologies and instruments. Humanities research seeks to uncover the unique aspects of its objects of inquiry, attending to subtle details and nuances in social and cultural contexts to reveal complex meanings and distinctive features (67). This approach is rooted in a deep understanding of the intricacies that shape human creativity and thought. As a result, the humanities are often skeptical of evidencebased research approaches, which can oversimplify the complexities of human experience and neglect the importance of contextual understanding. The human‐ ities’ methodological repertoire is well-suited to meet the challenges of studying complex phenomena. The epistemological techniques used in the humanities are primarily analytical and critical. They involve the rigorous gathering, assessment, and interpretation of information. Interpreting texts is a dialogical practice that relates others’ assumptions to one’s own, and persuasive arguments are devel‐ oped through reasoning, valid inference, and contextualizing knowledge (50f.). Humanities scholars employ various techniques, including Socratic questioning, critical thinking, and content analysis, to find and interpret indications in collected 4.1 The Environmental Humanities: Understanding Cultures, Patterns, and Ecologies 75 <?page no="76"?> data. By combining critical thinking, analytical skills, and communicative finesse, scholars cluster their findings into patterns and arrange them into explanations that attempt to make sense of the material, ultimately following clues to a plausible interpretation (see also Weatherby 2020). • Verbalization and Language: The humanities are disciplines rooted in negotia‐ tion and argumentation, with language as their fundamental tool. Language is the common denominator that unites the humanities, as it enables the sharing, processing, and memorization of human insights and accomplishments through verbalization. The humanities are characterized by their focus on the verbal, linguistic, and symbolic aspects of the world (Beiner 2009: 83). This involves not only language competence, but also an awareness of language’s ambiguity and complexity, and the negotiation of meaning that occurs through language. The humanities explore languages, cultures, and various forms of media communica‐ tion and aesthetic expression, including cultural narratives, verbal imagery, and language arts, with a particular interest in the expressive potential and conceivable pitfalls of metaphors. The principle of verbalization also informs the quality requirements for presenting humanities research, which must strike a balance between the complexity of the insights and the audience’s expectations or prior knowledge. The presentation and argumentation should be tailored to the research findings while remaining clear and accessible. By building on the verbalized experiences and knowledge of previous generations, as recorded in language (94), researchers can draw on existing knowledge without having to recreate it from scratch. Therefore, the humanities return to language the attention and role that the natural sciences and social sciences may not afford to such tools and symbolic systems of communication. By examining language use, the humanities can reveal manipulative or ideological influences that may be embedded in language, making visible the ways in which power and ideology can shape communicative exchange. Considering the eight principles and the broad scope of humanities research, the underlying socio-cultural force field is a powerful catalyst for changing perspectives and reworking understandings of the world. As the pivotal issue of ecological change in the 21st century is navigated, it is clear that a fundamental reevaluation of the foundations of democratic societies and individual behaviors is necessary. The human‐ ities are uniquely positioned to facilitate this process by fostering interdisciplinary connections, tracing knowledge transfer, and critically examining the legitimacy and accessibility of various knowledge forms. By scrutinizing fundamental value systems and epistemological patterns that shape expression and understanding, the humanities can help address issues of social inequality and access to knowledge, ultimately empowering participation in and shaping of a more sustainable and equitable future. In light of this book, it seems important to explore how the humanities can contribute to redefining the relationship between humans and the non-human environment. Specifically, which humanist research issues, questions, and methodologies can enrich environmental discourse and introduce new perspectives? How can insights into his‐ 76 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="77"?> toricity, dialogue, and intersubjectivity inform ecological, environmental, and cultural research? In the context of language teaching, particularly in the English classroom, the verbalization of environmental phenomena and its interor transcultural commu‐ nication are of significant interest. 4.1.2 An Interdisciplinary Spin on the Humanities and the Environment The environmental humanities have gained momentum in recent years, emerging in parallel with the concept of the Anthropocene, which has underscored the need for humanities scholars to investigate the intricate relationships between human existence and the natural world (Adamson 2016: 136; see also Chapter 2.1). The field was probably initiated by a manifesto calling for “ecological humanities,” where Australian researchers seek to overcome the arbitrary separations between sciences and humanities as well as between Western and non-Western cultures (Robin & Rose 2021). They set out to foster a more integrated understanding of the pressing challenges of the planet, for example by promoting collaboration, cultural diversity, and academic diversity. Since then, prestigious universities have established research initiatives and innovative study programs. They bring together scholars from diverse disciplines across campus, explore the cultural dimensions of ecological change and encourage to imagine alternative environmental imaginations and futures (Adamson 2016: 138; Sörlin 2012: 788; see also Horn & Bergthaller 2016: 6). As a research field, the environmental humanities emerged over the past few decades and brought together scholars from various disciplines to address ecological and environmental contexts. They have been shaped by the work of early thinkers like Alexander von Humboldt, who recognized the interconnectedness of environmental change, deforestation, and overpopulation, or anthropologists like Franz Boaz and Ruth Benedict, who emphasized the importance of social and cultural factors in under‐ standing human relationships with the environment (Adamson 2016: 137-138). These early examples of thinking outside the box may be the reason why environmental humanities are characterized by a certain resistance to being defined or nailed down. After all, the young research field embraces a dynamic and multifaceted approach that challenges the status quo (Hutchings 2014: 213). The environmental humanities question traditional disciplinary boundaries and promote cross-disciplinary collabora‐ tion and collective knowledge-creation to bridge the gap between diverse perspectives on ecological issues (Cohen & Foote 2021: 1, 3; Sörlin 2012: 789). This approach validates that ecological emergencies, such as global warming or pandemics, are not solely natural phenomena, but rather complex issues with political, social, and cultural implications that require an interdisciplinary understanding (Cohen & Foote 2021: 7-8). By bridging the gap between traditional human culture-focused disciplines (arts, humanities, and social studies) and natural sciences, the environmental humanities address ecological crises that transcend disciplinary boundaries. This approach estab‐ 4.1 The Environmental Humanities: Understanding Cultures, Patterns, and Ecologies 77 <?page no="78"?> lishes that understanding human behavior’s ecological effects requires grasping belief systems and social structures that shape societal responses to scientific developments. The environmental humanities are distinct from traditional humanities scholarship in their orientation towards the general public. They acknowledge the need for new ways of thinking that produce environmental solutions as general and communal knowledge (Horn & Bergthaller 2016: 6). Furthermore, they offer a unique source of knowledge, activity, and practice that can inform and guide a more humane and sus‐ tainable transformation of the environment and society. The European Environmental Humanities Alliance (EEHA 2013: 1) suggests drawing on all relevant knowledge bases to enhance knowledge quality and usefulness. Combining social and natural sciences with humanities interpretative knowledge provides a deeper understanding of issues and more effective solutions. Ultimately, as humans are both the primary cause and potential solution to global environmental changes, the environmental humanities play a pivotal role in addressing these ecological challenges. Despite their resistance to definition, the environmental humanities can be charac‐ terized by several key features, including the reconceptualizing of the environment as a complex network of relationships, the unsettling of dominant narratives that per‐ petuate oppressive and exploitative patterns, and the construction of bridges between disparate narratives and fields of knowledge (Hutchings 2014: 213). Therefore, research in the field does not just critically examine the relationship between humankind and the non-human environment. It also reimagines the world in light of ecology and environment and develops new narratives that could foster change and guide such a transformation toward more sustainable ways of life (214). The environmental humanities reimagine the knowledge bases, research ques‐ tions, methodologies, and approaches of their traditional disciplines while they retain and renew the strengths of their subject matter and adapt it to new challenges (Adamson 2016: 139). This field integrates the humanities’ engagement with language and narrative to imaginatively reframe and envision alternative futures. By further exploring the power of narrative, the environmental humanities can transform under‐ standing and contribute to environmental discourse. The environmental humanities employ a range of methods to interpret human perception and experience and foster social engagement (EEHA 2013: 1). These methods are characterized by inclusive, ex‐ perimental, and flexible frameworks that comprehend the interconnectedness between humans and nonhuman entities, rejecting rigidity (Cohen & Foote 2021: 3). The environmental humanities draw on ancient narratives and archives to under‐ stand and explain human relations to other species and the natural world (Adamson 2016: 136). By reevaluating traditional texts and incorporating new perspectives, scholars challenge anthropocentric values and belief systems that have originally contributed to environmental degradation (137). Narrative remains a powerful tool in this endeavor as it shapes the world, mediates power, and influences perceptions of ecological and cultural systems (Cohen & Foote 2021: 3). The field’s emphasis on nar‐ rative also explores the selection of stories, their exclusions, and the potential to narrate 78 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="79"?> lost futures and alternative possibilities for ecological resilience. This ultimately raises questions about how language can encompass phenomena beyond anthropocentric understanding (10). By contemplating the relationships between nonhuman entities and envisioning alternative futures, the environmental humanities cultivate a sense of ecological commons and foster a profound comprehension of the interconnectedness of human and nonhuman realms (Lemenager & Foote 2008: 575). Consequently, the environmental humanities provide a comprehensive framework for addressing many different issues and topics in the purview of ecology and culture by integrating emotional, aesthetic, and cognitive approaches (Cohen & Foote 2021: 3). The field rejects static definitions of nature and culture, thereby exposing the ideological underpinnings of exploitative systems. Through the recovery of concealed histories and narratives, it illuminates the profound connections between nature, culture, matter, and life, challenging prevailing biopolitical narratives. The environmental humanities direct their critical attention to perspectives that are frequently overlooked. By critically analyzing texts and drawing narrative attention to marginalized voices, the humanities provide a more comprehensive and realistic portrayal of social phenomena (Lemenager & Foote 2008: 574). The environmental humanities also emphasize social and environmental justice by highlighting the disproportionate impacts of colonial legacies, environmental racism, and systemic inequalities on marginalized communi‐ ties. By incorporating intersectional analyses of race, gender, and class, the field offers a nuanced understanding of the interconnected dimensions of ecological harm and inequality. Ultimately, the environmental humanities employ innovative frameworks to connect local and global systems, revealing the intricate relationships between human and non-human worlds (Cohen & Foote 2021: 3-9). Academic work in the environmental humanities requires a commitment to using language and communication tools without dominance, imperialism, or one-sidedness (Lemenager & Foote 2008: 575-577). This involves careful consideration of pedagogical design, teaching techniques, and academic program contents, as well as cooperation between fields of knowledge and institutions. By promoting an understanding of rhetorical patterns, definitions, and concepts, the field develops resilience to ecological challenges and contributes to a sustainable future. Such a focus on language should involve the environmental humanities to broaden their scope beyond their monolin‐ gual biases, addressing the “anglophone dilemma” and its intricate connections to diverse cultures and languages (Finch-Race & Ritson 2021: 4; Eppelsheimer et al. 2014). English and foreign language education can play a pivotal role in catalyzing this transformation, promoting multilingualism and plurilingualism within the field, and acknowledging the cultural dimensions of ecological concerns (Eppelsheimer et al. 2014, 2015). 4.1 The Environmental Humanities: Understanding Cultures, Patterns, and Ecologies 79 <?page no="80"?> 4.2 Ecolinguistics - Language, Thought, and the Environment “In seeking solutions to the ecological challenges we face, we may have to explore and reconsider some of the fundamental stories that underlie our culture, including stories about who we are as humans.” Arran Stibbe (2021: 5) Language, in its shape and form, in its variations and dynamics, plays a pivotal role in shaping human existence and, to some extent, defining its unique characteristics. Through the use of abstract and symbolic language, humans develop their (self)aware‐ ness and gain the ability to perceive, identify, and relate to the non-human environment and other living beings. Language serves as the most crucial communicative means for any given speaker’s community. Moreover, it holds the key to perceiving, interpreting, and symbolically interacting with the surrounding world. Language and linguistics not only form the basis for societies, but they must also be acknowledged as the core of language teaching, defined in various ways. The importance of language is evident in how people think and talk about the environment, even in academic and scientific contexts. Ernest Callenbach notes that technical terms are never neutral but rather convey a narrative about the world that often serves the interests of those in power (Callenbach 2000: 164). This highlights the power of language in shaping the perceptions and understandings of the world. Callenbach’s reasoning emphasizes that new ideas require new words and that the acceptance or decline of such vocabulary negotiates and adapts the thinking patterns about new social realities. His pocketbook aims to broaden the understanding of the web of life and ecology, rather than limiting it to specific disciplines (2000: 166). He is not alone in this endeavor, as new words and glossaries are being developed that also try to make sense of ecological and environmental changes in light of the needs of speakers’ communities: At one end of the spectrum lies The Lost Words (Macfarlane & Morris 2017), a beautifully illustrated collection of “magic” poems that center on nature words in the attempt to rescue from oblivion those terms that have fallen out of common use. British nature writer Robert Macfarlane notes that environmental destruction is accompanied by a decline in language. The removal of natural, environmental vocabulary from the Oxford Junior Dictionary has led to a displacement of the outdoor and natural by the indoor and virtual (Macfarlane 2015). By using poetic language to describe plants and animals, he aims to inspire a deeper environmental awareness and appreciation. In contrast to lost vocabulary, An Ecotopian Lexicon (Schneider-Meyerson & Bellamy 2019) occupies the other end, introducing new words and concepts that capture the experiences and emotions of living in the Anthropocene, and which could prove invaluable in navigating the complexities of current times and imagining a more ecologically conscious future. 80 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="81"?> A glimpse into the historical foundations of modern linguistic theory may offer context for tracing the history of ecolinguistics. People have pondered language for a long time, yet at the beginning of the 20th century, the formal and systematic discipline of structural linguistics emerged, mainly through the work of Ferdinand de Saussure. This field focused on the language system (langue), linguistic structures, and their formal rules and conventions. Saussure’s approach distinguished between the signifier (the linguistic form, such as sound or symbol) and the signified (the concept it denotes). It emphasized how language functions as a network of signs that exists independently of individual usage (parole). During the 1960s, Noam Chomsky’s theory of generative linguistics shifted the focus to the cognitive mechanisms under‐ lying language production and comprehension. Chomsky introduced the concept of universal grammar, a set of innate linguistic principles shared by all human languages, which he argued is part of humanity’s biological endowment (Meyer et al. 2022: 43-45). Such a theory aims to uncover the mental grammar (competence) underlying verbal communication by distinguishing it from the way language is used in concrete contexts by individual speakers (performance). Structural and generative linguistics view language as a self-contained system of rules and forms, making it a fundamental aspect of foreign language education. These insights provide an understanding of the building blocks of language. Both theoretical approaches were criticized for the limited scope of their earlier models in considering the broader sociocultural dimensions of language or external influences. Albeit for foreign language education, these criteria are particularly per‐ tinent as they align with the need to engage with language as a social practice, shaped by cultural and contextual factors. Approaches such as sociolinguistics and cognitive linguistics question the universality and modularity underpinning earlier frameworks. Sociolinguistics examines how language varies and functions across social groups of a speaker’s community or society, considering factors like social class, gender, or ethnicity. It explores how various English varieties, ranging from regional dialects to sociolects, and even the diverse “Englishes” of the world, serve as reflections of social identities and power structures. Contemporary scholars focus on the relationship between language and power to explore how languages reflect and reinforce social inequalities (Fairclough 2015; Cameron 1990). Cognitive linguistics prioritizes language usage, meaning-making processes, and the relationship between language, cognition, and cultural context. Language is understood as a dynamic system shaped by human experience and social interaction. Cognitive linguists argue that language emerges from embodied experience and is shaped by conceptual structures and cultural context (Evans 2015; Lakoff 1980, 1993). They contend that language is a product of human cognition interacting with the physical and social world. Evans argues that studying language in its social context provides a more accurate understanding of its functioning. Thus, cognitive linguists propose an embodied and experiential view of language grounded in human cognition, bodily experience, and social interaction. 4.2 Ecolinguistics - Language, Thought, and the Environment 81 <?page no="82"?> In The Crucible of Language (2015), Welsh linguist Vyvyan Evans explores the dynamic interplay between language, cognition, and the external world. Thereby, he offers a framework that resonates with the foundations of ecolinguistics. Evans (2015: 17, 20, 24) contends that language is not merely a tool for expressing internal thought but is fundamentally shaped by, and reciprocally shapes, the social and physical environments in which it is used. To illustrate this argument, he highlights three critical relationships of language: 1. Language reflects individual cognition and influences how thoughts are concep‐ tualized. It serves as a bridge between the internal self and the external world, so that it enables the structuring and communication of abstract thought. 2. Language is also a collaborative tool for social interaction, shaped by shared cultural and social contexts. It allows individuals to communicate and reach mutual understanding within a community of speakers by emphasizing the coconstruction of meanings. 3. Evans stresses that language also represents the external world as it connects human cognition to physical reality, it mediates human perception of the environ‐ ment, and links thought with the material world. By recognizing language’s role in reflecting individual cognition, facilitating social interaction, and representing the external world, Evans’s model can inform foreign language practices by emphasizing the interconnectedness of language with cul‐ tural, social, and environmental contexts, thus enriching the learning experience in a globalized world (Evans 2015: 313-320). These considerations are enhanced by examining human perceptual frameworks and linguistic cognition, exploring how language mediates environmental understanding. The focus is on two key dimensions: encoding and representing environmental concepts through linguistic, discursive, and iconographic mechanisms and constructing and negotiating human-environment relationships. 4.2.1 Defining Ecolinguistics: Historical Emergence and Major Research Directions While the traditional branches of linguistics mentioned above primarily focus on the internal structure of language, mental language processing, or its social contexts, the field of ecolinguistics expands the scope to explore the complex interplay between language and the environment. Ecolinguistics constitutes an attempt to understand language and communication more holistically, as such responses were increasingly needed to understand and conceptualize the relationship between language, culture, and the environment. In his introduction to the field, Welsh linguist Arran Stibbe (2021: 1) succinctly defines: “Ecolinguistics, then, is about critiquing forms of language that contribute to ecological destruction and aiding in the search for new forms of language that inspire people to protect the natural world.” The environmental challenges must 82 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="83"?> be understood with regard to how issues are communicated, and the role language plays in shaping perceptions of environmental problems. Ecolinguists adopted the task to explore the connection between language use, environmental crises, and the broader ecological and social contexts of language education (Halliday 1990, 2001). Thus, ecolinguistics seeks to enhance language awareness and deepen the understanding of the interdependence between language and the environment. It explores how language shapes the perception of nature, environmental issues, and the relationships between humans and ecosystems. By an‐ alyzing the reciprocity between those entities and their dynamics, it critiques harmful discourses and develops new tools and narratives to foster ecological awareness and sustainability. The field examines the connections between linguistic diversity and ecological sustainability, as well as how language influences thought, vocabulary, grammar, metaphors, and rhetorical framing in environmental discourse (Fill & Penz 2022; Stibbe 2021; Fill 1993: 4). In the course of the 1960s, Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking book Silent Spring (1962) gained widespread attention, as it exposed the harmful effects of excessive pesticide use. The book remains famous today and, at the time, played a crucial role in sparking the global environmental movement, inadvertently opening up new possibilities for ecological thought. The term ‘ecology’ gained a more specific meaning still used today, and the field of linguistics began to develop its own ecological sub-disciplines, which became known as ecolinguistics (Fill 2022: 2). Particularly the American linguist Einar Haugen is recognized to have broken the ground for an epistemological connection between ecology and language, thereby initiating the discipline of modern ecolinguistics. In a now famous talk, “The Ecology of Language,” Haugen defined language ecology as “the study of interactions between any given language and its environment” (Fill 2022: 3). With such abundant research possibilities, two branches and knowledge areas emerged, complementing each other. Ecolinguistics serves as a comprehensive term for both. One strand, the ecology of language, pioneered by Haugen (1972), establishes connections between ecological diversity and linguistic diversity, examining the relationships that languages have with their natural environments and the interaction of a language, its speakers’ society, or other languages. Hence, the field delves into topics like language diversity or language endangerment as well as multilingualism. The other strand is called ecological linguistics and directs its attention to language’s role in humans’ relationship to their biological, natural environment or the impact of language and discourse on the environment. This branch follows the works of British linguist Michael Halliday by analyzing how language helps construct the relationship with nature, the ideology of growth, or the understanding of resources. Halliday takes recourse to a hypothesis developed by Sapir and Whorf that “Language does not passively reflect reality; language actively creates reality” (Halliday 2001: 179; also cited in Fill 2022: 4). Ecological linguistics is thus concerned with how a language helps to perceive or describe, to aggravate or alleviate environmental phenomena. 4.2 Ecolinguistics - Language, Thought, and the Environment 83 <?page no="84"?> Ecolinguistics evolves beyond a subfield of linguistics. Some scholars view it as a unified ecological worldview that promotes harmony between humans and nature, emphasizing the ethical and religious aspects of human ecology. This perspective sees ecolinguistics leading towards transdisciplinarity, where disciplines merge to create a holistic understanding of our interconnected world (Fill 2022; Penz & Fill 2022). 4.2.2 Language Diversity and the Ecology of Language(s) The foundation of the ecology of language lies in the application of ecological principles, terminology, and methodology to linguistic phenomena or contexts. This approach explores the interconnections between language and its social, cultural, and political environments. As part of the broader field of ecolinguistics, the ecology of language examines how ecological concepts such as environment, conservation, interaction, and the language world system (borrowed from ecosystems) are used to reframe psychoand sociolinguistic phenomena and offer new perspectives on these topics. By analyzing these dynamics, the ecology of language critiques harmful discourses and develops new tools and narratives to promote ecological awareness and sustainability. The ecological system, therefore, serves as a metaphor for understanding the relationships between speech communities and the diverse linguistic worlds they inhabit. It advocates for the preservation of both linguistic and ecological diversity (Fill 2001: 44; cf. also 2022; 1993). The ecology of language emphasizes studying the interactions between a language and its environment, for example by focusing on how they influence and shape one another (Haugen 2001: 57). Haugen suggests that it would be crucial to examine the broader context of a language, such as “where a language stands and where it is going in comparison with the other languages of the world” (2001: 65). This includes to explore the classification of languages based on their relationships with one another; the study of speaker communities and their linguistic demographics; the examination of pragmatic aspects of language, such as sociolinguistics, dialects, written traditions, and standardization/ codification; and the synchronic developmental stages of languages, all of which can offer further insights into language diversity (Haugen 2001: 57). The metaphorical application of ecological logic and thought to linguistic phenom‐ ena manifests its potency primarily in the discourse surrounding the displacement, decay, or even demise of languages. The Canadian poet and ecolinguist Robert Bringhurst, whose work focuses mainly on the endangerment of indigenous oral traditions and the importance of preserving linguistic diversity, perceives language as an organism embedded within an ecological cycle of life, evolving and eventually passing away. Bringhurst argues that language transcends its role as a mere tool for communication. It evolves, adapts, and flourishes within its unique social and cultural context, much like in an ecosystem (2006: 160f.). Even though languages erode gradually through their use or neglect in everyday life, the loss of a language represents the disappearance of a unique way of perceiving 84 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="85"?> and interacting with the world. Consequently, this diminishes opportunities to understand and engage with the world, making the planet less intelligent, articulate, and beautiful (Bringhurst 2006: 163). Through this metaphorical transfer, the fabric of language diversity and the development of dominant or endangered languages can be described as an ecosystem. The demise of languages, particularly those of indigenous and minority communities, correlates with a significant loss of traditional ecological knowledge, which is intricately linked to environmental understanding and sustainable practices (Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2003). Indigenous and minority communities, as they often live in close interaction with their ecosystems, depend on it for survival and hold valuable ecological knowledge. This knowledge is conveyed and preserved through language, and hence supporting these languages is essential to maintaining such special knowledge (Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2003: 35-36). However, due to colonization, national assimilation policies, and economic globalization, the loss of languages has accelerated over recent centuries and decades (29). Yet, the ecology of language extends beyond the possible demise of languages or the metaphorical transfer; it draws strength from the confluence of linguistic, cultural, and ecological diversity, learning from the inherent connections between languages and the natural world, environment, or sustainability. This field of research examines how language and ecolinguistics contribute to the representation and shaping of environmental issues, whether in terms of escalating degradation and pollution or in efforts to find sustainable solutions (Fill 1993: 8-9). Consequently, a UNESCO publication from the turn of the millennium advocates for researchers to collaboratively explore the interconnections between language, culture, and the environment, and recognizes the strong correlations among the developments of these fields (Skutnabb- Kangas et al.: 9): […] The world’s languages represent an extraordinary wealth of human creativity. They contain and express the total ‘pool of ideas,’ nurtured over time through heritage, local traditions and customs communicated through local languages. The diversity of ideas carried by different languages and sustained by different cultures is as necessary as the diversity of species and ecosystems for the survival of humanity and of life on our planet. With this realization, Skutnabb-Kangas et al. argue that the interconnection and mu‐ tual reinforcement of biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity form the foundation for resilience and adaptation in both human and ecological systems (9, 12). These three forms of diversity are deeply intertwined: linguistic diversity encodes cultural knowledge and practices, which in turn are shaped by and contribute to ecological conditions. Like biodiversity, cultural and linguistic diversity enhances resilience, allowing communities to adapt to change and preserve sustainable practices (18-19). Here, languages act as repositories of cultural knowledge, reflecting unique worldviews and environmental adaptations. Therefore, Skutnabb-Kangas et al. advocate for an integrated approach that values and preserves biological, cultural, and linguistic 4.2 Ecolinguistics - Language, Thought, and the Environment 85 <?page no="86"?> diversity as essential to humanity’s and the planet’s health (43-44; see also Skutnabb- Kangas & Harmon 2022). While educational systems and sustainable development frameworks often focus on environmental protection, they frequently overlook the critical role of languages in maintaining (traditional) ecological knowledge. This oversight not only risks the erosion of localized wisdom but - especially in the context of foreign language education and the role of dominant, postcolonial languages such as English - it also limits the potential for fostering multilingualism and language awareness. Building on the authors’ emphasis on linguistic diversity, it is worth considering the role of dominant languages, such as English, in this context. While English facilitates global communication and access to resources, its dominance can overshadow the value of linguistic diversity and even contribute to the endangerment of local lan‐ guages. Encouraging a more conscious and inclusive use of English—alongside other languages—could open pathways for greater multilingual engagement, fostering a deeper appreciation for the linguistic variety and its connection to ecological and cultural resilience. 4.2.3 Language, Thought, and Perception: A Bridge to Extralinguisc Realities The idea that language influences thought is not new; it suggests that different linguistic forms may reflect distinct cognitive patterns. Early proponents of this idea in Germany include the renowned Prussian linguist and politician Wilhelm von Hum‐ boldt, who emphasized that the diversity of languages and their construction patterns reflects a diversity of human thought (1836: 5, 8). In discussions on the significance of language, its societal context, and its relationship to the environment, the influence of language on the human perception of the world becomes a crucial next focus. The profound impact of language on shaping environmental perceptions and understanding ecological issues must be explored, along with the concept that language may influence people’s thoughts but thereby shape environmental awareness. Since the 1930s, the concept of linguistic relativity developed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, later popularized as the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis, has gained prominence, refining the relationship between language and thought. This theoretical concept posits that a language’s structure influences how speakers perceive and think about the external world. An interpretation of the hypothesis, particularly championed by Whorf, suggested that language determines the basic patterns in which people think and perceive their environment. This deterministic view, also known as linguistic determinism, was criticized for implying that language shapes thought more than the external world, effectively overriding perception (Wolff & Holmes 2011: 254f.). Consequently, this conceptual focus was increasingly rejected in the 1990s for presenting implausible assumptions about how language, thought, and the world 86 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="87"?> interact (253-4). But following a period of diminished scholarly interest, the study of language and thought has regained new momentum since the 2000s. The concept of linguistic relativity has experienced a revitalization through a reinterpretation that abandons the deterministic perspective and instead adopts a more comprehensive and dynamic understanding of its implications (Wolff & Holmes 2011). When individuals struggle to express their thoughts, it suggests that these thoughts cannot be fully captured by their language; otherwise, such difficulties in expression would hardly occur. The language system and the conceptual system cannot be identical; they must be distinct entities. Additionally, the ability to understand ambiguous or imprecise expressions suggests that human cognition involves more than what is directly encoded in language. This complexity shows that language is not only a tool for communication but also a reflection of underlying mental processes. Therefore, research in cognitive science offers an alternative view, proposing a weaker connection between language and thought and a stronger one between thought and external reality. For instance, people across cultures may have different terms for storage containers, but their basic understanding of what a container is remains consistent. This suggests that thought is not entirely shaped by language, though language can still subtly influence thought. The differences between language and thought create a dynamic relationship where each can influence the other (Wolff & Holmes 2011: 255). Cognitive linguists acknowledge that language has a subtle influence on thought. They propose a dynamic tension between language and conceptual systems, which allows room for mutual influence. These ideas suggest that while language does not dictate fundamental thought categories, it still primes how people perceive, categorize, and reason about the world. The structure of a language can directly focus on some aspects of thought, thereby shaping how information is organized and communicated. Additionally, language works alongside non-verbal forms of cognition, such as visual or emotional representations, and thus affects decision-making and actions. It also facilitates the creation of new concepts by combining linguistic and non-linguistic representations, enhancing problem-solving abilities, and deepening understanding (Wolff & Holmes 2011: 261). Comprehending the relationship between language and thought offers valuable insights into knowledge formation. The question is how specific words or phrases influence perception, memory, or thought processes. The structure of a language seems to shape and train its speakers’ cognitive abilities. Recent linguistic research suggests that language even affects the most fundamental aspects of thinking, such as understanding space, time, cause-effect relations, and interpersonal dynamics (Boroditsky 2012, 2001, 2000; Boroditsky et al. 2002). Language and thought are deeply interconnected, as language shapes perception, categorization, and decision-making. This relationship extends beyond individual cognition, as language also operates within a cultural and societal context. Grammatical structures, vocabulary, and metaphors not only mold personal thought but also influ‐ ence social interactions and collective behaviors. Language guides the way individuals and communities think about and respond to the world. Thus, language reflects and 4.2 Ecolinguistics - Language, Thought, and the Environment 87 <?page no="88"?> directs social structures, cultural norms, and human behavior. It not only functions as a means of communication but also plays a critical role in the construction of cultural identities, social roles, and the (cultured) ways people understand the world. Hence, language is deeply embedded in cultural practices and social structures, influencing and being influenced by them. This anthropological link between language, culture, and society illustrates how language organizes thought, affects social behavior, and primes collective perceptions through cultural models and societal norms. Overall, the study of language and cognition remains a fascinating and vital area of research, with the potential to shed light on some of the most fundamental questions about human society and the environment. 4.2.4 The Power of Metaphors, Meanings, and Mindsets Language plays a significant role in shaping thought, particularly in terms of environ‐ mental awareness. Through its conceptualizing and framing of environmental issues, language has an influence on public opinion of sustainability and ecological concerns. The transfer of environmental thought to cultural contexts raises the question of how language impacts the perception and structuring of the world. Conversely, it also prompts an exploration of how the environment and ecological surroundings influence the development and structure of language itself. British linguist Michael A. K. Halliday, drawing upon the work of Sapir and Whorf, posits that language exerts a pivotal influence on shaping the perception of reality. This influence manifests in the manner in which grammar and vocabulary model individual experiences, imbuing them with meaning. Halliday (2001: 179) contends that language helps construct the categories and concepts that constitute material existence, which are not inherent but rather emerge through the interaction of the material and symbolic realms. Consequently, grammar, as a system of syntax and vocabulary, serves both as a theoretical framework for human experience and as a guiding principle for social action. This dual role of grammar shapes both individual and collective cultural existence, determining the boundaries of expression while simultaneously enabling and constraining the meanings that can be articulated (Halliday 2001: 179). In light of these arguments, Halliday offers a concise definition of language, when he says: Language is not a superstructure on a base; it is a product of the conscious and the material impacting each on the other - the contradiction between our material being and our conscious being as antithetic realms of experience. Hence language has the power to shape our consciousness; and it does so for each human child, by providing the theory that he or she uses to interpret and to manipulate their environment. (2001: 179-180) From his definition, Halliday identifies three functions of language: it can be viewed as part of reality, an interpretation of reality, and a metaphor for reality. This definition positions language as a part, product, and symbol of a community’s culture. If language is considered both a product of and a force within culture, a 88 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="89"?> parallel can be drawn with Greenblatt’s concept of culture, which describes the role of any cultural component—language in this case—as providing both “mobility” and “constraint” (Greenblatt 1990: 228-229). As part of reality, language enables speakers to agree on social practices and establish social relations. By providing the means for communicative action and symbolic transfer, language facilitates continuous develop‐ ment. However, language also constrains developments by codifying contradictions within its social, cultural, or linguistic systems, enforcing specific linguistic structures and thought patterns. The tension between language’s adaptability and its constraints manifests in its interpretive function. Halliday argues that the contradictions and tensions inherent in reality are mirrored in the language system, functioning as a metaphor for the ongoing processes within both language and society (2001: 180). Similarly to Halliday’s perspective on language, Evans’ cognitive linguistic framework (2015: 313-320) underscores language’s active role in shaping perception, thought, and social interaction. It emphasizes language’s dual function as a cognitive tool and a mediator between internal concepts and the external world. Ecolinguistics is particularly manifest in environmental degradation and pollution, as it sheds light on language’s pivotal role in shaping the understanding of social categories. Furthermore, these perceptions profoundly influence the actions taken to address complex environmental challenges. Chawla (2001: 119) elucidates how the linguistic and conceptual separation of abstract entities - such as the state, corporations, or the public - influences how individuals and institutions perceive and respond to ecological and social issues. He contends that language’s role in constructing fragmented societal perceptions contributes to detrimental environmental and social outcomes. The state’s regulatory capacity, as defined through its linguistic connection with corporations, diminishes its ability to safeguard the public from pollution. By compartmentalizing societal roles within narrow terms, language perpetuates a structural disconnection that exacerbates environmental damage and undermines collective responsibility. This is to say that language serves communicative purposes and also plays an orientational role within its culture, guiding its speakers’ community. Several functions have developed in this role, as Fill (1993: 104) points out: • Cooperation and survival, particularly in relation to the hardships of nature, are facilitated through the exchange of information, communication, interaction, and mutual agreements. These processes are closely linked to language’s informative and persuasive functions. • Through language, individuals stay connected with one another, form or strengthen cohesive communities, and resolve conflicts, fulfilling the phatic function of maintaining social bonds. • Language also helps to cognitively structure the complexity of the world, enabling people to classify and process perceptions of a multifaceted, incommensurable re‐ ality. This classification function simplifies thinking and communication, allowing for abstract thought and more efficient cognitive processing. 4.2 Ecolinguistics - Language, Thought, and the Environment 89 <?page no="90"?> The functions of language outlined above are relevant to contemporary issues. Before exploring the complex and symbolic role of language in relation to nature, the environment, and sustainability, it is useful to consider debates on feminism, multicul‐ turalism, and political correctness. Dominant cultural codes often remain implicit and, thereby, make their role in shaping meaning largely unconscious to those who use them. Studying the processes of meaning-making and the representation of reality, Chandler (2002: 157) explains this phenomenon as linguistic markedness. These widespread codes make the meanings they convey appear self-evident and “natural,” so their dominant status is reinforced. This concept highlights how culturally dominant perceptions can go unchallenged, as their inherent biases are rarely questioned by those who are most familiar with them. In a semiotic context, Chandler explains that messages often go unnoticed and are perceived as neutral by those who use them routinely. This is because language and texts evolve to serve specific purposes and are designed to be incidental to the task at hand. The more frequently a manner of speech is used, the more invisible it becomes, as users typically do not need to be conscious of it for it to be effective. In fact, heightened awareness of the medium can interfere with its efficiency in achieving its intended goal (2002: 3). The question of linguistic (un)markedness may lead to misunderstandings, particularly for speakers with different cultural or linguistic backgrounds. Only differing perspectives are marked linguistically and highlighted by linguistic features (grammatical, lexical). Linguistic markers often attach value judgments to certain phenomena and make them appear either desirable or stigmatized. For instance, in racial and feminist discourses, language can frame marginalized groups or ideas as “deviant” or outside the norm, reinforcing societal biases. An awareness of language, therefore, can highlight cultural differences and, at times, transform “otherness” into a debilitating stigma (on the question of language and the issue of migration in schoolbook cf. Schissler 2005: 62). Resisting forms of discrimination, such as xenophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, and ethnocentrism, requires not only cultural and political action but also a heightened awareness of the linguistic mechanisms that shape how people define the world around them. By recognizing that language influences cultural, ideological, and cognitive processes, speakers can better understand its role in reinforcing or challenging societal norms and perceptions. This awareness is crucial, particularly for addressing issues like environmental degradation, climate change, and anthropocentrism, as these challenges are deeply tied to how language shapes and sustains dominant worldviews while marginalizing alternative perspectives. Although seemingly unmarked, certain language phenom‐ ena are ideologically loaded, notably in the domains of nature, environment, and sustainability. As Fill (1993: 6) argues, it is important to recognize that language reflects judgments, often embedded in the way it describes ‘nature’ as something defined by its utility for humans (see also Chapter 2.2). This anthropocentric framing is not limited to environmental discourse but also permeates discussions on sustainability, where language tends to position anything unfamiliar or unconventional as “other” or 90 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="91"?> even unrealistic. They encode in a word or phrase an anthropocentric stance, which also occurs concerning the environmental debate and the demand for sustainability: the language marks anything that appears to be different, unknown, or unusual, any thought outside the box. Because of the linguistic marker, the phenomena gain a prominent position and can be considered unusual or even stigmatized as unrealistic. Furthermore, especially for foreign language learners, an examination of how language, particularly vocabulary, lexical items, and idiomatic expressions, reflects and shapes perceptions of the world may be of interest. This includes the cultural expectations and values that are attached to words, especially those related to the environment. The meaning of a word can be understood in two ways: denotation, which refers to its direct, literal meaning, and connotation, which involves the underlying associations and emotional or cultural responses it evokes. For example, the word “insects” denotes a class of small, invertebrate animals. However, alternative expressions like “bug” or “pest” may have similar denotations, but they often connote disease, harm, or nuisance from an anthropocentrist perspective. These connotations can influence speakers’ attitudes towards insects and shape their behavior towards them. Similarly, some words may imply that certain plants or animals are used for food or not, reflecting anthropocentric values that prioritize human needs and interests, such as “herbs” and “weeds”, or “corn” and “cockroaches.” The connotations of environmental words often include negative associations with harm, degradation, and destruction, or positive associations with usefulness, benefits, or conservation. These connotations can inscribe a suggested course of action into the vocabulary, influencing how individuals perceive their environment and shaping their willingness to take action. By examining the language used to describe the environment, ecolinguistics reveals the complex relationships between language, culture, and the natural world, and highlights the importance of considering the linguistic and cultural contexts in which environmental issues are framed and addressed. As a next logical step, it may be necessary to move from linguistic markedness, individual expressions, and lexical items to broader patterns such as metaphors and figurative language use. What makes metaphors particularly intriguing is not their literal accuracy, but the functional role they play in shaping communication. As Fill (2001: 3) emphasizes, “Like any other heuristic tool, [metaphors] have to be evaluated not in terms of truth conditions (language is no more an ecology than a mental organ or a calculus) but in terms of the work they do.” Metaphors are powerful linguistic tools that help structure complex ideas and make abstract concepts more accessible. As Tendahl and Gibbs (2008: 1825) explain, Verbal metaphors do not only exist as ornamental, communicative devices to talk about topics that are inherently difficult to describe in literal terms. Instead, verbal metaphors, including conventional expressions based on metaphor, reflect underlying conceptual mappings in which people metaphorically conceptualize vague, abstract domains of knowledge (e.g. time, causation, spatial orientation, ideas, emotions, concepts of understanding) in terms of more specific, familiar, and concrete knowledge. 4.2 Ecolinguistics - Language, Thought, and the Environment 91 <?page no="92"?> These characteristics make metaphors integral to human thought, guiding how people perceive and understand the world. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) highlight that metaphors are deeply embedded in cognition, organizing abstract concepts through familiar, concrete knowledge. They help convey complex ideas by mapping concepts from one domain to another, such as understanding time in terms of space (Tendahl & Gibbs 2008: 1825). Metaphors are crucial for reasoning and understanding, particularly in discussions of complex issues like climate change, where they help frame public per‐ ceptions and actions (Tendahl & Gibbs 2008: 1825). According to cognitive linguistics, metaphors structure human perceptions, thinking and suggest that language has the power to transform minds in different ways (Evans 2015: 19). By pre-structuring the understanding of the world and invoking mental representations, metaphors subtly shape ideological contexts, particularly in how speakers view the relationship between humanity and the environment (Stibbe 2021). Moreover, metaphors play a pragmatic role in communication by enhancing relevance. They effectively convey complex or abstract concepts, facilitating a more concise and meaningful understanding (Tendahl & Gibbs, 2008, p. 1831). However, metaphors can also be manipulated with harmful intentions, as seen in political discourse, where they shape public perception to serve particular agendas (Lakoff & Wehling 2016). As Fill (1993: 2f.) notes about ecolinguistic concerns, metaphorical imagery influences thought patterns and actions, demonstrating the significant role of language in understanding and engaging with environmental issues. With environmental communication as an example, metaphors contextualize issues, evoke emotions, and influence perceptions, engaging the audience and guiding their understanding in specific ways. The imaginary worlds that are created and communicated by such linguistic features do not necessarily offer plausible visions for changing the self-harming path that mankind is plodding along. Instead, the language plays for its audience a frivolous game of stereotypes and cliches that inadvertently may also stifle or paralyze the audience: “[…] the hallmarks of apocalyptic rhetoric - a linear temporality emphasizing the catastrophic endpoint that is more or less outside the purview of human agency - permeate selected discourse” (Foust & Murphy 2009: 1). These destructive visions demonstrate the failure of many of these models for future human societies. Together with external problems, political maneuvering and industrial lobbying — all of this lets the rhetorical framing and media communication become a source of frustration and possibly resignation. The knowledge of ecological facts weighs heavily on people’s minds, but so does the way these issues are rhetorically framed. Linguistic and narrative frames con‐ tribute to feelings of resignation, inertia, or paralysis regarding climate change, reducing the likelihood of engagement in environmental action, as an ecolinguistic analysis of notable print media, such as New York Times and Washington Post, has shown (Foust & Murphy 2009: 153; see also Chapter 4.5). They identify particularly apocalyptic rhetoric as a key factor stifling both individual and collective engagement. The linguistic phenomenon described in this example is called rhetorical framing. It focuses on how issues or concepts are presented to trigger specific associations, 92 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="93"?> shape viewpoints, and suppress others. A frame works by highlighting specific aspects of a topic while obscuring or diminishing others. Thereby, the rhetorical frame can be used to influence how people interpret information. In political and environmental contexts, framing is not inherently negative but can be used positively and negatively. While historically associated with harmful uses, the technique of framing is also central to more constructive forms of discourse, such as environmental education and advocacy. Learners must understand how framing works, especially in shaping their perceptions of environmental issues, and recognize its impact on communicating and understanding issues (Stibbe 2021: 47). For this reason, a comprehensive newspaper article on framing and metaphors was included in the 2023 Abiturprüfung in Baden- Württemberg (Lobin 2019), which expands the notion of critical language awareness into the field of (eco)linguistics and of teaching students how languages shape perception and influence political, social, and environmental issues. It also fosters ethical literacy, preparing students to critically engage with public discourse. 4.2.5 From Ecolinguistics to Language Pedagogy Both general linguistics and ecolinguistics are fundamental to teaching English in a modern, global context and with a focus on environmental issues. While general lin‐ guistics provides the foundational understanding of language structure, commu‐ nication, and cognitive processes, ecolinguistics offers a framework for integrating environmental awareness into language education. Ecolinguistics explores the dynamic relationship between language, culture, and the environment and highlights concepts such as linguistic diversity, the ecology of language, and the role of metaphors and frames in shaping environmental awareness. These key concepts serve as the basis for applying ecolinguistic perspectives to foreign language teaching and for enabling educators to incorporate environmental themes and sustainability into language learning. Ecolinguistics emerges as a critical analytical framework that examines the mechanisms of language that underlie any discourse on environmental and ecolog‐ ical issues. By reviewing how language encodes and perpetuates meanings and ideo‐ logical perspectives, this interdisciplinary approach reveals how linguistic structures subtly mediate human-environment relationships. The core insight is that linguistic expressions are not neutral conduits of information, but dynamic constructs em‐ bedded with cultural and social biases. Through careful analysis of linguistic patterns, ecolinguistics exposes hidden power dynamics and anthropocentric worldviews that shape environmental understanding and communication. Thereby, ecolinguistics can: 1. unveil implicit linguistic frameworks that condition ecological perception, 2. demonstrate language’s role in constructing environmental narratives, 3. challenge the presumed objectivity or neutrality of communicative practices. By critically interrogating linguistic representations, ecolinguistics offers a methodol‐ ogy for understanding how communicative practices reinforce or potentially challenge 4.2 Ecolinguistics - Language, Thought, and the Environment 93 <?page no="94"?> dominant environmental paradigms. This approach invites speakers to develop a more reflexive engagement with language and its profound ecological implications. As language primes, shapes, and triggers mental imagery, ideas, and thought patterns, learning foreign languages should offer a unique opportunity for students to engage with different perspectives, modes of expression, and possible courses of action. As language learners not only process linguistic means but inadvertently always already grapple with understanding diverse cultures and worldviews, it can be claimed that: […] operations to create and process knowledge are intrinsic to language, for they depend, as research tells us, on the verbal and cultural codes used by different peoples to perceive the environment around them and make sense of their experiences. It is the use of language in the broadest sense that allows people to clarify and assess their views on the world. […] Matters of language, then, including its foreignness, become central to understanding context. The comparatist […] learning of a target language and culture from the perspective of someone else’s first language […] gains unique insights into the similarities and differences of alternate worldviews.” (Eppelsheimer et al. 2014: 3) Ecolinguistics offers foreign language classrooms a transformative approach to explore all levels of language, from vocabulary and phrases to metaphors and environmental discourse. It positions language learning as a dynamic intercultural dialogue. By encouraging learners to critically examine how different languages encode environ‐ mental meanings and social relationships, this approach enables students to challenge cultural assumptions and develop more reflexive, globally aware communication skills. Foreign language education emerges as a fertile ground for integrating ecological perspectives, leveraging linguistic learning as a pathway to expanding cognitive frameworks. Pupils become active interpreters who can critically examine, articulate, and engage with complex ecological narratives across linguistic and cultural contexts. Thereby promoting environmental literacy through nuanced language exploration. Therefore, ecolinguistics can be crucial in foreign language education by promoting environmental literacy through language teaching (see also Chapter-5). 4.3 Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us “[…] how can we apply the energy, the creativ‐ ity, the knowledge, the vision we know to be in literature to the human-made problems ecology tells us are destroying the biosphere which is our home? […] How can we turn words into something other than more words […]? ” William Rueckert (1996: 121) 94 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="95"?> The seminal “Blue Marble” and “Earthrise” photographs, captured during NASA’s space missions in the early 1970s, represent what Stephen Yearley characterizes as potentially the most effective image in environmental discourse history (2010: 65). These images fundamentally transformed the global perception of ecology, suggesting a collective resilience against a seemingly hostile universe while simultaneously presenting a “God’s perspective” of planetary existence. This potentially inspired the inaugural Earth Day in 1970 and also catalyzed the emergence of ecocriticism in literary studies (Garrard 2004; Grober 2010; Jasanoff 2004). Garrard (2004: 162) describes this phenomenon as “globalization of the imagination,” where physical distances dissolve through increased mobility and information technologies, enabling virtual communities to emerge. By presenting the planet as a fragile, suspended azure sphere in cosmic vastness, these photographs dramatically reframe human understanding of planetary existence and emphasize the planet’s ecological vulnerability and interconnectedness (Grober 2010: 28). However, these iconic images simultaneously embody a complex dialectic of en‐ vironmental awareness and potential disengagement. While celebrating Earth’s unique beauty, they risk inadvertently promoting a detached perspective that could justify planetary abandonment. The hazard lies in discarding Earth as a stepping-stone towards the fantasies of extra-terrestrial colonization, for example, through the recent narratives about Elon Musk’s Mars Mission. This might undermine commitment to terrestrial ecological preservation. Such a profoundly problematic perspective could dangerously suggest that environmental degradation would be acceptable if humanity finds a way to migrate to alternative planetary habitats (Gaard 2010: 658; Jasanoff 2004: 37). While these Earth images serve as a striking example of an iconic symbol that has evolved into a widespread representation of various ecological movements, they also illustrate the concept of ‘text’ in its broadest sense, encompassing not only written narratives but also visual imagery, mental representations, behavioral scripts, poetry, and prose. Imaginative literature implicitly constructs its own world, presenting a range of possibilities for agency within that world (Radvan 2019: 278; Bredella 2007). Reading literary texts is not simply decoding facts or fixed meanings but generating diverse interpretations as readers form mental representations of situations, circumstances, or character constellations (Radvan 2019: 281; see also Küchler 2019a). This process broadens human understanding by fostering empathy, challenging perspectives, and offering insights into experiences beyond one’s immediate real‐ ity. As Nussbaum (1997) asserts, literature helps us “wrest from our frequently obtuse and blunted imagination an acknowledgment of those who are other than ourselves” (111-112). Through this, literature provides readers with unfamiliar experiences across time scales - past, present, and future (Radvan 2019: 280). By narrating deviations from social norms, literature stimulates reflection and metacognitive processes; it engages readers’ emotions, encouraging empathy and the ability to adopt different perspectives (Bredella 2012: 15-17). The emotional component of literary texts - how 4.3 Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us 95 <?page no="96"?> 4 While ecocriticism emerged as an established field in the US during the 1990s, its integration into German literary studies was significantly delayed. Despite Germany’s reputation for environmen‐ tal consciousness, this reluctance stemmed largely from the traditional disciplinary boundaries in German higher education, which discouraged multidisciplinary approaches common in anglophone academia (Goodbody 1998: 12-14). they provoke personal involvement - plays a crucial role in their impact, though it is challenging to measure empirically. As Bruner (1990: 49) notes, individuals turn to storytelling to make sense of exceptions, highlighting literature’s role in human cognition and social understanding. Bredella (2012: 14) suggests that storytelling aids in contextualizing unfamiliar events within temporal or causal frameworks, giving them cultural, moral, and ethical significance. Literature not only helps navigate daily life and construct identity but also fosters cognitive development by integrating the unfamiliar into established patterns, activating cultural norms, expectations, and values. Through metaphors, characters, and settings, literary texts allow readers to explore diverse per‐ spectives, ultimately shaping how readers perceive their surroundings. They provide profound insights into human relationships and social realities. 4.3.1 Defining Ecocriticism: Nature, Culture, and the Environmental Lens The human relationship to nature has long been acknowledged in literature and the arts, but it was rarely a central concern. Nature played a significant role in the literature of the Romantic period when poetry and prose operated as a bridge between the gap of lived experience and artistic expression. The Romantic poets manifested nature in a collective dimension, where nature becomes integrated into broader cultural frameworks, and an individual dimension, where nature serves as a medium for expressing personal genius and universal truth while maintaining accessibility (Reinfandt 2012: 48, 51). Nature’s role in literature became more nuanced during the 19th and 20th centuries, when it evolved into a reflection of environmental concerns. The representation of nature often became intertwined with an increasing awareness of industrialization’s impact on the environment. This shift in literary focus paved the way for the emergence of ecocriticism as a field of study in response to the environmental crisis (Zapf 2012: 253; Bate 1991: 11; Buell 1995: 1-6). The environmental movement gained international momentum through multiple channels, among which Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) emerged as an especially influential catalyst. Since the 1990s, ecocriticism has become a comprehensive transdis‐ ciplinary field within literary and cultural studies. 4 It investigates how environmental and ecological issues are represented across literary genres, narrative texts, im‐ agery, arts, and other forms of cultural expression (Zapf 2012: 253). Through this lens, ecocriticism both examines how literary texts engage with ecological concerns and challenges conventional literary criticism by prioritizing environmental perspectives. The term “ecocriticism” was coined by William Rueckert in 1978 (see Rueckert 1996; 96 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="97"?> Slovic 2010) and ultimately became established in academic and international discourse, despite Lawrence Buell later advocating for the more inclusive term “environmental criticism” (Buell 2005: viii; 1995: 13ff.). Building on Ernst Haeckel’s 19th-century definition of ecology as the study of organism-environment interactions, Cheryl Glotfelty (1996: xviii) propagated ecocriti‐ cism as an “earth-centered approach” to literary studies that examines the interplay between literature and the physical environment (Zapf 2012: 253). The field gained broader academic recognition through several seminal publications, notably Lawrence Buell’s The Environmental Imagination (1995) and the groundbreaking anthology by Glotfelty and Fromm’s The Ecocriticism Reader (1996). In her introduction to the reader, Glotfelty points out the close, reciprocal relationship between literature and culture: […] all ecological criticism shares the fundamental premise that human culture is connected to the physical world, affecting it and affected by it. Ecocriticism takes as its subject the interconnections between nature and culture, specifically the cultural artifacts of language and literature. (Glotfelty 1996: xix) With her definition, Glotfelty pays attention to (the fact that) assumptions about the world and its perception in the humanities often take the social fabric into account. She considers this new, ecological, and critical direction a call to understand the in‐ terrelations between mankind and the non-human environment. An ecocritical perspective would depend on discussing the entire ecosphere and understanding the perceptions of the environment as sociocultural constructions. Different theoretical orientations within ecocriticism reflect varying approaches to the nature-culture relationship. While environmentalism as a movement takes a political and pragmatic stance, other positions include the philosophical framework of deep ecology, the focus on environmental justice and class-based power relations that social ecology and eco-marxism take, or the gender-oriented perspective of ecofeminism (Zapf 2012: 254; Gaard 2010; Gaard & Murphy 1998). Though ecocriticism generally maintains an anthropocentric focus that distinguishes it from the more bio‐ centric activism of deep ecology (Tiefenökologie), both approaches share fundamental principles: they situate human existence within broader biological contexts and reject the nature-culture dichotomy, thus they view cultural evolution as an extension of biological development (Zapf 2002: 30). 4.3.2 Ecocriticism’s Scope and Analytical Category Ecocriticism’s distinctive approach emerges from what Heise (2006: 506) describes as a “triple allegiance” to the scientific study of nature, analysis of cultural represen‐ tations, and advocacy for sustainable living. The field critically examines modernist assumptions about human-nature relationships, particularly focusing on dichotomies between “subject and object, body and environment, nature and culture” (Heise 2006: 4.3 Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us 97 <?page no="98"?> 507). It is those considerations that set ecocriticism apart from other theoretical currents: Environmentalism and ecocriticism aim their critique of modernity at its presumption to know the natural world scientifically, to manipulate it technologically and exploit it economically, and thereby ultimately to create a human sphere apart from it in a historical process that is usually labeled ‘progress’. This domination strips nature of any value other than as a material resource and commodity and leads to a gradual destruction that may in the end deprive humanity of its basis for subsistence. (Heise 2006: 507) This critical stance mainly targets modernity’s technological and economic exploita‐ tion of nature, which reduces nature to a mere resource while alienating humans from their environmental connections (Heise 2006: 507). Slovic distinguishes between activist and epistemological approaches in ecocriticism; he positions literary and critical writing as primarily epistemological endeavors. As he argues: “To write about a problem is not necessarily to produce a solution, but the kindling of consciousness - one’s own and one’s reader’s - is a first step, an essential first step” (Slovic 1996: 364). Rather than directly solving environmental crises, literature’s key contribution lies in illuminating the relationships between self and other, between human and nonhuman environments. Building on Rueckert’s foundational work, the field aims to clarify relationships between the biosphere, literature, and community while developing an ecological vision applicable across economic, political, and social contexts. As Rueckert (1996: 115) argues: “[…] we live by the word, and by the power of the word, but are increasingly powerless to act upon the word. Real power in our time is political, economic, and technological; real knowledge is increasingly scientific”. Therefore, ecocriticism has evolved into an interand transdisciplinary framework where scientific ecological knowledge is crucial. Still, it requires meticulous scrutiny due to its role in the tech‐ nological and economic developments that have contributed to today’s environmental crises (Zapf 2012: 253). Literary and cultural perspectives are vital to environmental discourse, particularly in their capacity to generate alternative worldviews and foster self-reflection. As Rueckert (1996: 116) notes, literature serves as an “enormous, ever increasing, wonderfully diverse storehouse of creative and cooperative energy which can never be used up.” This understanding informs how reading, writing, and literary criticism are approached. The critical environmental engagement with literature and culture faces a paradox during the ecological crisis. A particular challenge lies in bridging the gap between intellectual understanding and emotional connection to the natural environment: “The gospel of ecology has become an intellectual commonplace. But it is not yet an emotional one” (Sanders 1996: 194). This paradox reflects a broader tension between increasing technological alienation from nature and the need for environmental reconnection. Literature’s role becomes crucial in “making us feel the ache and tug of that organic web passing through us” while situating characters and 98 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="99"?> readers within nature (Sanders 1996: 194). Despite skepticism about the transformative power of literature and language arts in contemporary discourse, words continue to shape individuals, public debates, and social movements, with political developments often pivoting on rhetorical moments. At its core, therefore, ecocriticism investigates how ecological perspectives intersect with literary analysis, revealing connections that might otherwise remain hidden or unacknowledged. Kerridge (1998: 7) captures this comprehensive vision: An ecological perspective strives to see how all things are interdependent, even those apparently most separate. Nothing may be discarded or buried without consequences. Literature is not leisure, not separate from science and politics, any more than ‘nature’ can be separate from human life, or someone’s backyard be immune from pollution. The ecocritical approach manifests through the analysis of creative imagination in its various forms or shapes - metaphors, cultural patterns, genres, images, or narratives - always considering these elements intricately interwoven within their social and cultural contexts of emergence and use. Ecocriticism examines the historical intersections of environmental move‐ ments, economic systems, and cultural formations through a rhetorical lens that analyzes the creation and transformation of cultural metaphors (Glotfelty 1996: xxi; Garrard 2004: 7). With a striking play on words, Garrard (2004: 5-6) gets to the heart of the matter: To describe something as an ecological problem is to make a normative claim about how we would wish things to be, and while this arises out of the claims of ecological scientists, it is not defined by them. A ‘weed’ is not a kind of plant, only the wrong kind in the wrong place. Eliminating weeds is obviously a ‘problem of gardening’, but defining weeds in the first place requires a cultural, not horticultural, analysis. This positions ecocriticism and the humanities—particularly language, literature, and communication studies—as crucial to environmental discourse. The field navigates a distinct epistemological tension: while acknowledging nature’s cultural construction, it must simultaneously recognize physical reality, thus balancing postmodern skep‐ ticism of scientific objectivity with necessary reliance on scientific frameworks. This creates a unique analytical position where cultural contexts shape scientific knowl‐ edge production while still depending on scientific understanding (Garrard 2004: 4). The emergence of ecocriticism highlighted a significant gap in literary and cultural studies’ analytical framework. While the Civil Rights Movement and feminist theory had successfully established race, class, and gender as fundamental categories of analysis during the 1980s and 1990s (Appiah & Gates 1992: 625; Heise 2006: 505), environmental concerns remained notably absent from this conceptual toolkit (Love 1996: 226). This omission was particularly striking given that the environmental movement had been as active as other social movements since the 1960s (Wess 2010: 764). The development of environmental perspectives in literary analysis involved 4.3 Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us 99 <?page no="100"?> engaging with multiple interrelated concepts. While Buell (2005: 63) provided crucial distinctions between ‘space’ as a physical concept and ‘place’ as a sociocultural-physical intersection, these were more than stepping-stones toward environmental analysis but rather complementary frameworks. His observation that “nature and culture must be seen as a mutuality rather than as separable domains” (Buell 2005: 67) emphasizes this interconnectedness. Evernden’s (1993: 122-124) concept of humans as “natural aliens” further complicates this relationship and highlights both human adaptability and the human need to examine their relationships to the environment critically. Together, these theoretical developments contributed to a more refined understanding of how environmental perspectives could function as an analytical framework in literary and cultural studies. Building on these foundations, contemporary ecocriticism has established the environment as a distinct analytical category alongside race, class, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality. Zapf (2012: 253) describes this as “a strangely hybrid category located somewhere between world and text, realist concept and discursive construct.” This theoretical development also considers the bioregional approach, which integrates ecological and cultural interrelations with place-based sensitivity, moving beyond potentially ethnocentric spatial constructions (Buell 2005: 81). 4.3.3 Developments, Directions, and Dimensions Ursula Heise attributes ecocriticism’s delayed theoretical development to the dominant influence of French language philosophy and its approach to nature as a sociocultural construct. This intellectual climate, focused on “denaturalization,” initially created resistance to movements seeking to “reground human cultures in natural systems” (2006: 505). Elizabeth Ammons specifically critiques New Historicism and Poststructuralist Literary Criticism for their premise that “all we can know of what we call reality is our linguistic invention of it” (2010: 5), arguing that such assumptions fostered alienation between humans and non-human nature. Significantly, ecocriticism did not emerge as an academic extension of political envi‐ ronmental activism. Instead, it gained prominence when the environmental movement had already diversified, coinciding with the revaluation of the role of biology through advances in sociobiology and genetics research. This timing shaped ecocriticism’s distinctive character as more than theoretical literary analysis. As Greg Garrard notes through his concept of “poetics of responsibility” (2004: 179), ecocriticism deliberately combines textual criticism with political engagement and, thereby, positions itself as a pragmatic, solution-oriented form of academic environmental activism. Heise (2006: 504) encapsulates this distinctive approach through fundamental questions about human-nature relationships: In what ways do highly evolved and self-aware beings relate to nature? What roles do language, literature, and art play in this relation? How have modernization and globalization processes transformed it? Is it possible to return to more ecologically attuned ways of inhabiting nature, and what would be the cultural prerequisite for such a change? (2006: 504) 100 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="101"?> She reflects ecocriticism’s dual commitment to both critical analysis and environmental engagement. They also form the bedrock of ecocriticism’s foundation: the relationship between homo sapiens and the non-human environment, science, and activism. The development of ecocriticism since the 1990s has been characterized by various metaphors, including “waves” (Buell 2005: 18-19) and “rhizomes” (Oppermann et al. 2011: 459). Rather than considering discrete stages, Zapf (2012: 254) argues for recognizing the coexisting directions within a field of interacting approaches. This perspective better captures how different aspects of ecocritical thought have evolved simultaneously, often informing and enriching each other (cf. also Buell 2005: 17ff.; Slovic 2010: 4ff.). Early ecocriticism, emerging from North American and British contexts, focused on realistic representations of nature in English-language texts, particularly the nonfiction genre of nature writing, wilderness experiences, and personal encounters with the non-human environment (Buell 1995: 40). This early phase emphasized scientific literacy and methodological approaches to oppose cultural relativism, while critically examining the foundations of nature conservation and environmental protection (Buell 2005: 18; Slovic 2010: 4f.). Since the mid-1990s, however, the scope expanded significantly, with Buell noting that environmental criticism was “extending the concept of environment beyond the arena of the ‘natural’ alone” to examine how “‘natural’ and ‘social’ environments impinge on each other” (2005: 127). This broaden‐ ing encompassed urban or “man-made” environments (Slovic 2010: 5f.; Armbruster & Wallace 2001: 4) and integrated environmental justice with analyses of race, class, and gender. Environmental justice ecocriticism joins forces with postcolonial studies in critiquing globalization tendencies as a continuation of postcolonial power structures and persisting colonization of nature and women while also examining how global networks, technologies, and economic interconnections generate systemic environmental vulnerabilities (Zapf 2012: 254; Adamson & Slovic 2009; Adamson et al. 2002) Latest developments also increasingly reflect cultural backgrounds, ethnic identi‐ ties, and global, transcultural perspectives (Adamson 2010: 12). Murphy (2000: 58) argues that moving beyond national and genre-specific limitations enables “a greater inclusiveness of literatures from around the world,” arguing that the predominance of specific genres and national literary traditions, along with their embedded cultural hierarchies, should be called into question (Slovic 2010: 7; Adamson & Slovic 2009; Heise 2008). Contemporary ecocriticism explores the intersections of global, cosmopolitical, and bioregional readings of place (Slovic 2010: 7; Heise 2008). Different research direc‐ tions continue to coexist and enrich each other. Current debates on the field’s strategic orientation reflect this multiplicity, with some scholars advocating stronger scientific interdisciplinarity while others emphasize expanding humanist and comparative cul‐ tural approaches. Ecocriticism extends environmental discourse beyond scientific and social studies frameworks, functioning as “a polycentric praxis” that weaves together diverse socio-cultural, ethical, ecological, and literary relationships (Oppermann et al. 4.3 Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us 101 <?page no="102"?> 2011: 459). The field aims to illuminate ecological patterns and their interconnections with cultural systems (Zapf 2002: 28). While acknowledging the inextricable link between humans and their non-human environment, Zapf emphasizes humanity’s unique role in environmental thought and action. He argues that ecocriticism positions humans as active agents in reimagining and reconstructing their relationship with the non-human world, while remaining mindful of their responsibility in shaping new environmental value systems (2002: 28). 4.3.4 Representation, Perception, and the Genre of Nature Writing To analyze environmental aspects in literature and culture requires a systematic ex‐ amination of how texts represent both human subjects and their natural environments. While this foundational concept gave rise to ecocriticism as a field, it simultaneously offers an accessible entry point for educational contexts: How do texts and narratives construct and mediate the relationship between humans and their non-human environment? Which images, metaphors, and narratives shape these representations, and how can stereotypical perceptions be identified and critically examined? Of particular analytical interest are not only explicit representations but also the implicit treatment of nature and environment or even their absence from discourse, their marginalization, or their deliberate concealment in texts in the broadest sense. Ecocriticism opens the door to the representative function of languages and texts, concentrating on the conceptual localization of entities, phenomena, or imaginations within temporal and spatial dimensions. The semantic content of an utterance or narrative is contextualized within a physical location yet also placed within sociocul‐ tural contexts. The US American critic William Howarth characterizes the relationship between literature or texts and ecology in the following manner: “Ecocriticism observes in nature and culture the ubiquity of signs, indicators of value that shape form and meaning” (1996: 77). When characterizing literature and the environment, Howarth gives particular attention to the deictic function of nature imagery, perceptual patterns and their underlying value system that is symbolized by those tokens. Such a deictic dimension provided languages and texts a specific orientation: A landscape can be ‘read’ by determining its conditions and functions. The inhabitants of a region usually provide the landscape with numerous names, terms, and stories. Hence, those labels can be decoded in the context of their cultural interrelations. Such an analysis results in a cultural map of a given region (Ryden 1993: 27-29). Metaphorical representations of nature, despite their rhetorical power in environ‐ mental discourse, can paradoxically reinforce the very anthropocentric assumptions about human separation from and mastery over the more-than-human world that ecocriticism seeks to challenge. Nevertheless, these critical frameworks offer valuable analytical tools for examining environmental texts, particularly in language education contexts where students must simultaneously develop their linguistic competence and ability to recognize, analyze, and navigate different modes of environmental represen‐ 102 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="103"?> tation (see also Morton 2007; Soper 1995; Evernden 1992). Before ecocriticism was formally established, O’Riordan (1981) introduced an influential distinction between ecocentric and technocentric worldviews. His conception of ecocentricity rejected the growth-oriented capitalist notion that “bigger is better,” instead advocating for lowimpact interactions with the environment. He argued that criteria should not represent humans and their needs as the measure of all things. Instead, ethical principles must be embedded in society to prioritize ecological stability and permanence over continuous economic expansion. While O’Riordan’s ecocentric concept helped understand broader environmental philosophies, Buell (1995: 7-8) proposed specific criteria for identifying and ana‐ lyzing “environmentally oriented work” while cautioning against using such cri‐ teria too restrictively in ecocritical analysis. Buell established four key characteristics of environmental texts: First, they present the natural environment as an active force that shapes human history rather than a mere backdrop. Second, they recognize the intrinsic value of non-human interests alongside human ones. Third, they incorporate environmental responsibility as a core ethical dimension. Finally, they portray the environment as a dynamic, evolving system rather than a static entity. In its earliest stages, ecocriticism concentrated on analyzing local and regional literary texts and their ecological substance (Buell 2005: 68). Such a narrow topical focus risks establishing normative narratives that make ethical or moralistic claims, potentially marginalizing or ignoring texts with different worldviews or dismissing them as uninteresting. Expanding the scope of ecocritical analysis beyond thematically environmental texts would better serve ecocriticism’s analytical and activist aims by helping to analyze diverse cultural expressions—even those seemingly unsympathetic to environmental concerns. A “mature ecocritical practice,” as Bracke argues, “needs to question what such problematic texts reveal about our experience and perceptions of the (natural) environment” (2010: 766). Therefore, ecological understanding and aesthetic experiences should enable the experience and expression of environmental connections through various forms of representation, with literary texts being just one option (see also Xiangzhan 2010: 786). Opening up ecocritical analysis to the broad range of texts and genres, signifying patterns, and cultural products highlights the diversity of linguistic and sociocultural manifestations of environmental awareness. Yet, the silences, omissions, and oversights regarding environmental influences also reveal significant social and cultural conditions - an insight parallel to Tillie Olsen’s foundational feminist analysis of silences in literature (1965). Contemporary ecocriticism has evolved into a richly pluralistic field, encompass‐ ing diverse theoretical approaches from posthumanism to environmental justice, postcolonial environmentalism, and queer ecology, each offering distinct perspectives on human-environment relationships and challenging different aspects of traditional environmental thought. This diversification of ecocritical theories and perspectives offers vibrant opportunities for environmental education. 4.3 Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us 103 <?page no="104"?> Engaging critically with literature and culture can also enhance understanding of human perception and thought processes. Texts play a vital role in constructing an individual’s worldview or determining the relationship between humans and the non-human environment (Sanders 1996: 194). By the same token, literature can be considered a historical documentation of human ecological thought. By the use of narratives, metaphors, and figures of speech, writers implicitly represent, confirm or possibly re-negotiate the position of mankind within the natural order. In his exploration of classical American literature, Scott Russel Sanders illustrates how powerful (inherited and transmitted) perspectives or stereotypes can be and the significant challenges they pose to readers and critics. He demonstrates through the lens of English and American literature the ways in which these perspectives shape the understanding and highlight the difficulties involved in examining these cultural viewpoints. This insight resonates with current ecocritical discussions about representational modes, mainly how cultural inheritance influences the perception and interpretation of nature (Garrard 2014; Heise 2008). It is a central tenet of this opinion that both perception and the organization of human relationships with the non-human world have an ever-provisional and constructive character. They are always in the making, and it is possible to continually overhaul and change them. Morton’s (2013) concept of “hyperobject” describes phenomena—like climate change, nuclear waste, or microplastics — that are so massively distributed across time and space that they exceed traditional human scales of perception and comprehension. While profoundly influencing human existence, these phenomena resist conventional representation due to their temporal and spatial vastness. Literary works merit critical examination not despite but because of writers’ limited access to political governance, technical understanding, or scientific data. Their imaginative treatment intensifies implicit cultural and societal attitudes. While not offering solutions, literature’s actual value lies in how it articulates and frames problems, thereby revealing prevalent patterns of thought (Goodbody 1998: 22). This insight encapsulates how literary representation serves as a lens for understanding societal perspectives on complex issues, whether technological or environmental. The study of literature, therefore, has the capacity to identify and work out social, cultural, or even individual anomalies in the relationship to the environment and also to devise possible alternatives (see also Hoydis et al. 2023). While theoretical approaches to environmental perception help understand how readers process ecological information, nature writing as a genre provides a practical laboratory for studying these processes in individual writers’ cases and chosen phenomena. The evolution of this genre, particularly in English-language traditions, demonstrates how changing environmental perceptions influence literary forms and vice versa. Nature writing, by origin a distinctly British and American genre, has profoundly shaped the perception and representation of human-environment relation‐ ships in the English-speaking world, establishing itself as a uniquely influential form 104 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="105"?> 5 Although Germany has historically lacked a strong tradition of nature writing (Goodbody 1998, 13f.), recent developments signal a significant shift. In 2017, two key initiatives emerged: the establishment of the German Prize for Nature Writing (Deutscher Preis für Nature Writing) and the launch of the ‘Naturkunden’ book series by Matthes & Seitz Berlin Publishers. These initiatives aim to promote the genre within Germany while facilitating the translation of anglophone nature writing classics, thereby fostering a cultural transfer of this literary tradition. of environmental literature. 5 Nature writing employs a non-fictional, personal, and documentary approach to experiencing and engaging with the non-human environ‐ ment, combining close observation with profound reflections on broader issues. The genre characteristically interweaves environmental observation and descriptions of living beings with explorations of human perception, cultural meaning-making, and humanity’s relationship with the non-human world (Goodbody 1998: 13f.; see also Armbruster & Wallace 2001; Slovic 1996). Nature writing in the anglophone tradition exemplifies the intricate relationship between perception and linguistic expression. From Thoreau’s meticulous observations in Walden (1854) to Rachel Carson’s “A Fable for Tomorrow” as introduction to The Silent Spring (1962) to Annie Dillard’s observation that “seeing is of course very much a matter of verbalization” (1974: 30) in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, this tradition demonstrates how careful attention and linguistic precision shape environmental awareness. Also in Teaching a Stone to Talk (1982), Dillard’s not theoretical, but deeply observant and introspective reflections demonstrate how careful observation can lead to deeper environmental understanding. While Thoreau’s detailed botanical inventories and Carson’s scientifically informed descriptions serve different purposes than Barry Lopez’s Arctic Dreams (1986), for example, these writers share a fundamental insight: human perception of the natural world is inseparable from the capacity to describe it. This understanding—that linguistic articulation shapes environmental perception— helps explain early ecocriticism’s sustained focus on nature writing (Glotfelty & Fromm 1996). As Slovic (1996) argues in his analysis of Dillard’s work, these texts reveal the complex interplay between attention, perception, and language, showing how disruptions in attention and the challenges of describing more-than-human phenomena can either limit or enhance the understanding of the environment. While traditional nature writing established foundational approaches to environ‐ mental perception and description, some scholars have criticized its sometimes roman‐ ticized, mimetic portrayals of pristine wilderness and its potential reinforcement of the nature-culture divide (Phillips 2003: 8). As the discourse on the Anthropocene gained urgency in the new millennium, traditional concepts of untouched nature and pastoral landscapes became increasingly inadequate for capturing environmental realities. In response, a distinctive approach emerged, particularly in Great Britain, theorized by Jos Smith in The New Nature Writing (2017) as a genre that deliberately engages with the complexities of human-altered landscapes. A new generation of writers exemplifies this approach, as they ground their narratives in ordinary landscapes while maintaining rigorous attention to natural history. More recent works by Robert Macfarlane, particu‐ 4.3 Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us 105 <?page no="106"?> larly Landmarks (2015) and Underland (2019), show how precise, scientifically informed descriptions can enhance the understanding of place and ecological relationships. Unlike their predecessors’ focus on wilderness, the new nature writers deliberately examine the entanglements of human and more-than-human worlds in everyday environments. New nature writing distinguishes itself by combining rigorous natural history observation with acute social awareness, examining how environmental issues intersect with questions of class, gender, and political engagement. These writers focus on everyday landscapes and demonstrate how ordinary places reveal complex humannature relationships in the Anthropocene. The transformation of nature writing from its traditional forms to contemporary expressions mirrors a broader development in ecocriticism: the recognition that environmental representation cannot be limited to conventional eco-centric texts or single cultural perspectives. This expansion of focus reflects both the complexity of environmental challenges and the need for diverse voices in environmental discourse. The diverse approaches to ecocriticism and nature writing reveal how environmental meaning-making operates through complex symbolic representations and interactions with cultural power. These theoretical frameworks illustrate how different societies interpret, represent, and relate to their natural environments. As these perspectives move across cultural and linguistic boundaries, they offer particular relevance for for‐ eign language education, where intercultural understanding and multiple viewpoints form core pedagogical principles. The following sections examine key theoretical approaches explaining these cultural-environmental intersections while pointing to their potential applications in language learning contexts. 4.3.5 Diversifying Ecocriticism: Theoretical Frameworks The theorization of a research field requires conceptual frameworks that capture its dynamics, components, and conflicts while connecting it to fundamental questions of existence and diverse modes of expression. While ecocriticism emerged from regional, pragmatic, and activist roots, early critiques centered on its perceived lack of theoretical rigor (Oppermann et al. 2011: 478; Oppermann 2010, 2006; Estok 2009). Oppermann contends that ecocriticism requires theoretical engagement to “revise our conceptualizations that are highly responsible for our ecological problems” (2010: 769). For her, this revision demands the integration of discursivity and materiality through robust theoretical frameworks that can effectively bridge both material and discursive realms. The subsequent development of theoretical frameworks and the field’s international expansion have generated fundamental questions about ecocri‐ ticism’s scope, inclusiveness, and theoretical trajectories. This internationalization has highlighted the need to examine how different cultural and linguistic traditions conceptualize environmental relationships, raising new theoretical challenges about the field’s evolution and capacity to address diverse global perspectives. 106 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="107"?> Cultural Ecology: Nature-Culture Coevolution Cultural ecology and ecocriticism share foundational concerns about culture-environ‐ ment interactions. Zapf positions cultural ecology as a branch of ecocriticism; it distinctively examines how cultural systems interact with and adapt to their en‐ vironments through various forms of representation (Zapf 2012: 255). The approach analyzes the reciprocal relationship between cultural practices and environmental transformations, encompassing both literary and broader anthropological or sociolog‐ ical frameworks (Finke 2003). A basic tenet of cultural ecology is the realization that the arts and literature can be understood as constituting distinct cultural ecosystems that actively shape broader cultural evolution through processes of selection and renewal. Cultural ecology empasizes the equal significance of internal cultural landscapes and external environments. The field recognizes humans as simultaneously instinctual and cultural beings inhabiting both physical and cultural-ecological spaces (Zapf 2012: 255). This dual inhabitation becomes particularly crucial as literature, aesthetics, and cultural creativity actively resist the standardizing forces of economic reductionism by revitalizing the mind’s inner landscapes of imagination, emotion, and communication. Julian H. Steward introduced the term ‘cultural ecology’ in the 1950s to describe the complex culture-environment relationships, arguing that humans uniquely contribute the “super-organic factor of culture” into ecological systems (1955: 31). Through this cultural dimension, humans both affect and are affected by the web of life, creating reciprocal influences through technologies, work patterns, value systems, and behavioral ideals. His theory of cultural adaptation suggested that cultural changes, while similar to evolutionary processes, follow multilinear rather than linear paths, with individual cultures adapting their structures in response to specific environmental conditions. Through his seminal work Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972), Gregory Bateson established fundamental connections between communication systems, cultural learn‐ ing, and ecological understanding. Drawing on Uexküll’s concepts of Umwelt (the physiological, material world) and Innenwelt (the inner, psychic world), Bateson developed a framework that viewed culture and mind as interconnected dynamic systems, extending ecological theories beyond purely scientific contexts into social and cultural studies (Finke 2003: 256). Building on these insights, Finke developed the concept of evolutionary cultural ecology. His approach introduced the notion of “mental/ psychic energy” manifesting through emotions and impulses such as curiosity, interest, love, and hatred. Culture concentrates and channels these individual energies, as seen in collective enthusiasm or fanaticism in organizations and social groups (Finke 2003: 265). The foundations of cultural ecology emerge from understanding culture as an evolutionary adaptive strategy. Joseph Meeker positions adaptation and accommo‐ dation as central forces, with literary and cultural traditions serving as repositories of survival strategies. His argument frames evolution itself as an “unscrupulous, opportunistic comedy” aimed at maximizing life’s diversity rather than advancing 4.3 Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us 107 <?page no="108"?> moral ideals (Meeker 1996: 166). Through such an ecological-evolutionary lens, Meeker reconfirms the vital function of culture and literature: texts (in the broadest sense) archive and generate adaptive behavioral patterns, thereby challenging both the tragic view of life and simplistic nature-civilization binaries. Meeker strongly opposes reduc‐ tive thinking, asserting that human survival depends on adaptability and acceptance of limitations, not environmental mastery (168-169). William Rueckert advances evolutionary perspectives by juxtaposing literary anal‐ ysis with thermodynamic principles: He posits that textual energy, akin to physical energy, undergoes transformations and redistributions rather than being lost or cre‐ ated. He conceptualizes texts as systems of stored creative energy that transfer to readers and position culture within Earth’s energy cycles. Rueckert critiques culture’s parasitic relationship with nature, where human achievements often fail to establish reciprocal energy transfer with the biosphere (1996: 119). Cultural ecology synthesizes these perspectives with evolutionary thinking and shows the deep historical connection between human cultures and natural systems. Love (2010: 774) argues that evolutionary theory can meaningfully inform human affairs while remaining attentive to human diversity and social justice, as evidenced by the work of evolutionary thinkers such as Peter Singer, Helena Cronin or Edward O. Wilson. This synthesis illuminates how human cultural adaptations function as evolutionary responses to environmental challenges, moving beyond biological determinism to show how cultural systems evolve in dynamic relationships with environmental conditions. Andreas Weber (2007: 136, 139) connects this theoretical framework to early human development, arguing that symbolic abstractions like animal figures and cave paintings — what he terms “symbolic ecology” - allowed humans to create distinct cultural orders separate from biology. The capacity for symbolic understanding and abstraction provided a crucial evolutionary advantage, ultimately facilitating language and intelligence developments. Finke integrates these perspectives by conceptualizing culture as an evolutionary extension of ecosystems, with language serving as humanity’s primary symbolic tool and evolutionary advantage. He traces this development from “pre-human cognitive systems” through “proto-cultures” to contemporary cultural systems (2003: 258-259). This evolutionary trajectory shows how human ancestors developed increasingly sophisticated communication and behavioral coordination, gradually loosening their ties to natural surroundings. Unlike natural laws, cultural patterns exhibit lower stability but greater adaptability to environmental changes, though they require implicit or explicit normative frameworks to regulate behavior (Finke 2003: 259). Through this lens, contemporary cultures exhibit fundamental ecosystem structures through their productive, consumptive, and reductive cycles. Drawing on US biologist John Tyler Bonner’s distinction between cultural transmission (through behavior and communication) and natural transmission (through genetics), he demonstrates how cultural systems operate through information cycles rather than nutritional cycles, where energy flows through symbolic communication rather than biomass 108 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="109"?> (Finke 2003: 251; see also Bonner 1980). This mechanism finds further theoretical expression in Richard Dawkins’ concept of “memes” in The Selfish Gene (1976). These memes carry abstract content — emotions, ideas, thoughts — expressed through increasingly sophisticated communicative forms, from gestures or behavioral patterns to verbal language (Finke 2003: 262-263), so that cultural information is passed along through non-physical replication, allowing for more permeable and rapid information exchange. Similar to natural ecosystems, cultures form complex and interconnected systems. Finke (2003: 261) describes how these cultural systems are multilayered and nested within one another, ranging from individual cultural expressions to broader social institutions and, ultimately, to the interactions between different cultures. This inter‐ connected nature mirrors ecological relationships, providing a valuable framework for understanding cultural and environmental relationships in language education. Ultimately, Finke (2003: 261) challenges the perceived nature-culture detachment by emphasizing the intrinsic unity between our mental and physical existence. He argues that humans are equally embedded in and dependent on both cultural foundations and natural resources, only together are they forming an integrated ecosystem essential for (human) survival. This theoretical framework navigates between anthropocentric dualism and ecocentric naturalism, finding philosophical expression in what Iovino terms “nonanthropocentric humanism” (Zapf 2012: 256). This conceptual framework establishes the foundation for understanding culture’s evolutionary dynamics while maintaining its distinctive ecological character. To systematize cultural-ecological analysis, German Americanist Hubert Zapf moves beyond explicitly ecocentric literature to examine how all texts participate in culturalecological dynamics. He, therefore, develops a tripartite model to demonstrate how literature functions as cultural ecology through three interconnected discursive func‐ tions, revealing how symbolic systems and cultural communication actively shape environmental response. This comprehensive framework examines the interplay between ecology, literature, and culture. While sharing ecocriticism’s funda‐ mental goal of exploring humanity’s relationship with the non-human environment, his approach moves beyond explicit activist and ideological stances. Instead, Zapf establishes the analytical framework “literature as cultural ecology” that examines how literary texts function within broader cultural-ecological processes. He critiques ecocriticism’s tendency to rely on simplifying mimetic concepts in its treatment of nature, physical environment, and biosphere (Zapf 2002: 30), arguing instead for understanding literature as an active force in cultural-ecological dynamics. Like Love and Wess, Zapf (2002: 53) positions his cultural ecological approach as complementary to existing literary analysis. His approach aims to bridge divides be‐ tween nature and culture, and consequently between natural sciences and humanities, pursuing genuine interdisciplinarity. While appreciating ecocriticism’s novel analyti‐ cal perspectives, he examines how nature functions in literary constructs: character 4.3 Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us 109 <?page no="110"?> development, plot, narrative meaning-making, and spatio-temporal frameworks within society’s nature-culture dynamics (Zapf 2002: 29). As a research field, cultural ecology emerged as distinct from traditional ecologi‐ cal science, which primarily studies relational networks in natural systems. While ecology enables researchers to systematically document flora and fauna in specific regions, thereby illuminating both local habitat characteristics and broader biosphere interconnections, cultural ecology extends these principles to human cultural systems. By applying ecological terminology metaphorically to cultural phenomena, researchers have developed innovative methodological approaches for studying human culture through an ecological lens. Finke (2003: 249-250) argues that this perspective enables the analysis of culture - humanity’s specific world-building - within its ecological networks and contexts. This interdisciplinary transfer is evident in nowcommon terms like “cultural landscape” or “urban ecology” and demonstrate how ecological concepts have been productively integrated into cultural analysis. Zapf advocates studying literature’s dynamic relationship with its cultural context, particularly focusing on how texts reflect and shape contemporary thought patterns or value systems. He makes a crucial distinction between ecological and lit‐ erary discourse: While ecological discourse directly addresses concrete environmental and socio-economic problems, literary discourse works indirectly through symbolic representation. It helps to process psychological and anthropological crises in an increasingly ambivalent modern culture (Zapf 2002: 5). Through these symbolic pro‐ cesses, literature or any media artifacts perform specific cultural work and demonstrate their “ecological function” through dynamic tensions between cultural discourses and their complex symbolic language. Significantly, Zapf emphasizes literature’s distinctive temporal dimension in per‐ forming cultural work. Unlike politics, economics, or media with their short-term but immediate impacts, literary texts provide sustained, culture-correcting impulses over extended periods (Zapf 2002: 56). Within cultural ecology’s framework, literature emerges as a powerful ecological force within cultural systems, actively inter‐ vening in and transforming cultural discourse through its unique symbolic capacities (Zapf 2012: 256). Rather than merely reflecting culture-nature relationships, literary texts function as dynamic agents of cultural transformation, systematically dismantling traditional binaries while forging innovative conceptual frameworks for understand‐ ing human-environmental interactions. This transformative power operates through literature’s ability to generate critical insights that transcend disciplinary boundaries, establishing new paradigms for cultural-ecological understanding. Literature’s ecological function manifests in its dual capacity: it serves simultane‐ ously as a diagnostic instrument, exposing society’s life-negating practices and alienation from natural processes, while acting as a generative force for cultural renewal. Through this approach, literary texts become engines of sustainable cultural energy, continuously generating new interpretive possibilities across time (Zapf 2012: 256; see also Rueckert 1996). As self-reflexive catalysts of transformation, they actively 110 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="111"?> disrupt fossilized patterns of thought and compel anthropocentric civilization to confront its relationship with biocentric existence. Italian philosopher and ecocritic Serenella Iovino builds on Bateson’s cybernetic perspective on nature-culture relationships (Iovino 2010: 760; Bateson 1972) when she conceptualizes text and world as a complex informational unit connected through feedback loops. Beyond fostering social awareness and creativity, narratives elicit cognitive responses and enhance receptivity to values and responsibilities. In this way, narratives become vehicles for ethical engagement with contemporary issues, trans‐ forming textual concerns into moral and political discourse. From this understanding of literature’s unique ecological function and transformative power, Zapf systematizes the ecological function of literature through a triadic model that captures its transformative power and helps analyze how literary texts operate within cultural-ecological processes (Zapf 2012: 256). This model consists of three interconnected discursive functions: • First, as cultural-critical metadiscourse, literature exposes systemic contradic‐ tions and aberrations inherent within a society. Texts reveal growing alienations between nature and culture, the destruction of natural habitats, and other forms of systemic oppression. • Second, as imaginative counter-discourse, literature empowers marginalized voices and perspectives. By creating alternative possibilities through polyphony and multiple perspectives, literature uses linguistic ambiguity to transcend static worldviews. Thereby, through clever use of literary and artistic means, texts engage with the culturally marginalized (Zapf 2002: 65), and open up space for those aspects of culture that are frequently tabooed, or systematically overlooked. • Third, as re-integrative inter-discourse, literature forges new connections between dominant systems and their exclusions. Literary texts draw power from the tension between societal conventions and cultural experience. They reintegrate marginalized topics into a comprehensive vision of reality. Building on Michel Foucault’s concept of discourse as demarcated fields of knowledge, this ‘interdiscourse’ bridges traditionally separated domains and challenges established boundaries between the speakable and unspeakable. Through this strategic recon‐ ciliation, literature drives cultural renewal (Zapf 2012: 256; 2002: 64-66). This model demonstrates how texts in the broadest sense - literature specifically, but also other media products - actively reshape cultural discourse while advancing ecocriticism’s interpretive frameworks. The implications of cultural ecology for foreign language education emerge from its fundamental reconceptualization of human-nature relationships. Environmental concerns must be understood and implemented as an integral part of human culture rather than solely as a natural scientific endeavor (as frequently practiced, for example, in bilingual courses on biology or geography). A co-evolutionary perspective demon‐ strates that cultures develop in constant interaction with their natural foundations - a 4.3 Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us 111 <?page no="112"?> crucial insight for foreign language education, where understanding ‘target’ cultures must necessarily begin to include recognizing their environmental embeddedness. Finke symbolizes this nature-culture relationship through epiphytes - organisms, such as mosses and orchids, that grow on other plants without causing parasitic effects. This metaphor suggests that culture develops in a symbiotic rather than exploitative relationship with nature, flourishing only in harmony with its natural foundation (Finke 2003: 277). Cultural ecology illuminates how interdisciplinary relationships enrich ecological thinking. It shows — much like in intercultural thought — how diverse perspectives converge around human experience. Zapf ’s model offers valuable parallels to the changing of perspective in intercultural learning, perhaps opening possibilities for nature-oriented approaches in foreign language education. Literary texts can function as cultural-critical metadiscourse exposing environmental challenges, as imaginative counter-discourse exploring alternative human-nature relationships, and as reintegra‐ tive interdiscourse bridging cultural and natural systems. Given the growing interest in environmental literacy also in foreign language education, cultural ecology lays the foundation for exploring how cultural-ecological thinking influences modes of communication and meaning-making. Further Research Trajectories Ecocriticism has expanded significantly, and its further exploration could yield valuable insights for foreign language education as the new directions parallel many current issues that are debated also in the context of foreign language learning. These devel‐ opments cannot be elaborated upon in detail here. Instead, I will briefly highlight some research trajectories, with the hope that interested students, teachers, or researchers will find them worth exploring further. As a foundational branch of ecocriticism, ecofeminism examines the intersection of environmental exploitation and gender-based oppression, recognizing the correlation between institutionalized patriarchy and environmental degradation (Plumwood 1993; Glotfelty 1996). This approach is based on the premise that the anthropocentric dualism separating humankind from nature underlies destructive and oppressive practices, including the parallel subjugation of women and nature within patriarchal systems. Kolodny’s (1975) concept of the “land-as-woman symbolization” highlights the profound implications of gendered metaphors in environmental communication. Ecofeminism recognizes that women’s bodies and environmental entities are both subject to appropriation and colonization, highlighting the need for a holistic and intersectional approach to justice and sustainability that addresses the ecological dimensions of women’s rights (Gaard 2016: 71). This makes ecofeminism a framework to understand and address the cultural, social, and historical connections between women and nature, as well as the intersection of various forms of oppression (Gaard 2016: 69; Gaard & Murphy 1998; Warren 2010). 112 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="113"?> Ecofeminism critiques traditional environmental ethics by revealing the intercon‐ nected patterns of oppression in Western societies, where the exploitation of nature, gender-based tyranny, and the marginalization of cultural minorities and other species are intertwined. The field approaches ethics as a narrative about the relationships among humans, animals, and nature (Gaard 2016: 68-69). It reveals the need to reframe dominant models of thinking and being as they branch out into many different inter‐ sections (Gaard 2010; Mortimer-Sandilands & Erickson 2010). It has overlapped with queer theory, sexuality, and gender studies to further expand these perspectives and examine how heteronormative assumptions shape environmental discourse, bridge LGBTQI+ concerns and the environmental justice frameworks (Mortimer-Sandilands & Erickson 2010; Seymour 2013). Recognizing nature’s otherness has profound ethical implications, as it acknowl‐ edges the right of every species to exist and simultaneously accepts humanity’s ani‐ malistic aspects and evolutionary kinship with other life forms. This raises intriguing questions: What new perspectives can emerge from the interface of feminism, gender, queerness, and ecology? By exploring ecofeminist perspectives in English (foreign) language teaching and learning, educators can enrich discussions of gender, diversity, and social justice to further meet the students’ interests and foster critical thinking. These topics empower students to explore the complex intersections between human and environmental well-being. A further interesting and most crucial research trajectory is that of environmental justice, a direction that shares parallels with ecofeminism as it examines the nexus of power structures, environmental degradation, and social inequality. Environmental justice is a social, political, and moral struggle for human rights and healthy environ‐ ments, which highlights the disproportionate impact of toxic contamination, waste dumping, environmental devastation and degradation on low-income, economically disadvantaged, and marginalized communities, including communities of color and colonized territories (Di Chiro 2016: 100; Ammons 2010; Adamson et al. 2002; 2000). Environmental justice involves investigating how environmental discourse, narratives, or policy reflect and perpetuate systemic inequalities based on race, class, and gender, as well as analyzing how linguistic and cultural frameworks influence environmental decision-making and vulnerability (Adamson et al. 2002; 2000). It seeks to promote fairness and equity in the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, thereby recognizing the intrinsic link between environmental issues and social justice. By centering indigenous knowledge and voices in environmental protection and justice efforts, environmental justice aims to create a more just and equitable world, where all communities have access to healthy environments, economic opportunities, and social justice (Di Chiro 2016: 105). Environmental justice challenges traditional hierarchical views of human-nature relationships and the oppressive binary systems that construct divisions between “local and global,” “economic and ecological,” or “human and envi‐ ronmental.” It thus advocates for an understanding that recognizes both environmental and social justice as inseparable components of sustainable futures, and promotes 4.3 Ecocriticism - Imagination, Narratives, and the World Around Us 113 <?page no="114"?> community building, action research, and sustainable development strategies grounded in grassroots organizing (Ammons 2010: 109; Di Chiro 2016: 102-105). By integrating environmental justice into English language teaching, educators can tap into a rich terrain of complex relationships between language, culture, and the environment. They can build on foundational work that is already done at the intersection of language education, global citizenship education, and cultural learning (Matz & Römhild 2024: 12-16; Römhild 2023; Freitag-Hild 2022: 62-64, 67-70; Surkamp 2022: 33-34). This approach empowers educators to create more inclusive and sustainable learning scenarios that foster critical, ethical thinking and cultivate a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of human and environmental issues. 4.3.6 Future Developments and Pedagogical Tasks In her 2010 work, Elizabeth Ammons argues that ecocriticism must transcend theoret‐ ical critique to provide practical solutions and inspire environmental and social justice as much as activism (Ammons 2010: xiv). A decade later, the field responded positively to this call, generating diverse, multifaceted approaches—including educational initia‐ tives like this book—representing a fundamental form of activism through knowledge work. In Brave New Words, Ammons (2010) positions language as a catalyst for social change while diagnosing a crisis of relevance in literary studies. Beyond just offering critique or expressing despair, she argues that “the liberal arts as a place to learn not only what’s wrong in the world but also how we might fix it” should become central to humanities education (14). Her vision advocates reimagining the humanities as both a critical force and an active agent for change, emphasizing “the power of words to inspire us, to transform us, to give us strength and courage for the difficult task of recreating the world” (14). Through this lens, scholars must offer workable ideas and inspiration for achieving social justice and environmental restoration (xx). A crucial aspect shaping ecocriticism’s future is its pedagogical potential and im‐ plementation in educational contexts. Warren (2010: 772) emphasizes this connection to practice: “We have to remember that what we do matters, that the world we work in as scholars, teachers, writers, and citizens is the real world.” Offering many interdisciplinary connections makes ecocriticism more potent, convincing, and prolific as a theoretical framework. This could strengthen the fields’ pedagogical applications (Warren 2010; Heise 2006). Lawrence Buell (2005: 113) points to a crucial challenge when he argues that ecocriticism must matter “for those readers, critics, teachers, and students for whom environmental concern does not mean nature preservation first and foremost.” This suggests that future teaching approaches connect environmental concerns with students’ diverse interests and backgrounds, making ecocritical analysis relevant beyond purely environmental contexts. Thus, ecocriticism can be understood as an attempt to synthesize theoretical insights with everyday experiences and practices that people make in nature and their environments. As Heise (2006: 514) argues, this makes it particularly valuable for 114 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="115"?> educational contexts: “Ecological issues are situated at the complex intersection of politics, economy, technology, and culture,” requiring an engagement that makes these connections visible and accessible to learners. For teaching practice, this means moving beyond purely literary analysis. Garrard’s concept of ecocritical cultural materialism suggests embedding texts in their his‐ torical environmental contexts and thereby offering students concrete ways to overcome the nature-culture dichotomy in their analyses. This aligns with SueEllen Campbell’s (1996: 131f.) perspective that available cultural repertoires still enable a unity of culture and nature - an important insight for classroom practice. Looking toward future developments, Oppermann et al.’s (2011: 475f.) framework combines the crucial components and, indirectly, offers guidance for teaching approaches: ecocriticism will work ‘being’ (ontology), ‘knowing’ (epistemology), and ‘valuing’ (ethics) through one another to provide the necessary theoretical framework for the understanding of the relationship between discursive practices and the material world, between culture and nature, and between human and the non-human existence. This framework helps students understand relationships between the work of the hu‐ manities and their material, real-life realities while developing their own ethical stance. A crucial aspect is whether ecocriticism can transcend its literary and cultural studies origins and academic concerns to find relevance in broader pedagogical contexts, particularly in the environmental humanities, the language arts and pedagogies, and of course foreign language education. 4.4 Ecomedia Studies - Communicating Content, Formats, and Impacts “The availability of media has allowed people to become viewers of an endless number of expe‐ riences - from sex and war to trekking in remote forests or viewing sea life at the bottom of the ocean. This mediated proximity allows people to disconnect from the affective intensity of place-based realities, stifling our ability to emo‐ tionally “know” what these experiences actually entail. Such affective disconnection maintains a form of colonial unknowing that facilitates the extractive processes of colonial capitalism by insisting on an arelational approach to a world.” (Weik von Mossner 2018: 107) Photographers, journalists, and scientists document and disseminate powerful images of environmental change, from before-and-after photos of deforested landscapes 4.4 Ecomedia Studies - Communicating Content, Formats, and Impacts 115 <?page no="116"?> to drone footage of oil spills. In an increasingly visualized or mediatized mass communication, these images are readily utilized in attempts to raise political awareness and education about the environment, or climate change. With their power to stir up emotional responses, these images have become a tool for capturing public attention, for communicating urgency and the need for action. In short, many images play with depicting catastrophe, destructiveness, or fear at the expense of hopefulness, creativity, or diversity - a pattern whose psychological implications for environmental engagement need to be taken into consideration (see details in Chapter-4.5). Fig. 3: Cologne Cathedral, as featured on the 1986 cover of DER SPIEGEL news magazine. The 1986 cover of the influential German news magazine DER SPIEGEL features Cologne Cathedral partially submerged in a flood in an utterly eye-catching manner. This is a seminal example of early climate change visualization. By manipulating scale and geography, this iconic image brought climate change consequences into the German cultural imagination and exemplified broader patterns in environmental visual communication. Relying on catastrophic scenarios and iconic landmarks, en‐ vironmental visualizations may raise questions about the public’s fascination with disaster and the “normalizing tendency” of escalating catastrophes (Kelsey 2020: 4). The limited “visual vocabulary” used in mass media is blatantly dominated by disaster and destruction; it may be criticized for its lack of diversity, for example in climate change imagery (Henk & Uchatius 2015). The attempt to use fear-inducing images or drastic metaphors to shock audiences into awareness has questionable effectiveness, 116 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="117"?> as research shows that fear’s motivational power diminishes quickly, failing to drive lasting behavioral change (see Chapter-4.5). Fig. 4: The 4 Waves cartoon by Graeme MacKay (2020a) In 2020, Graeme MacKay’s cartoon gained widespread attention on social media, as it resonates well with the public’s experience of being overwhelmed by the numerous large-scale problems facing societies (MacKay 2020a). The cartoon’s visual representation of this issue has been adapted and expanded by others, with MacKay revising and republishing the original. The illustrated phenomenon shows how individuals tend to focus on immediate, personally relevant problems, while neglecting or downplaying broader, long-term issues such as global warming or environmental concerns. This skewed perception is driven by the psychological inability to fully grasp complex, diverse challenges and their long-term consequences. The cartoon also demonstrates the vital role media plays in shaping public awareness and perception of environmental issues: It provides a platform and communicative amplifier for discussing and exploring the complex, interconnected challenges that underlie these problems. 4.4.1 Defining Ecomedia Studies The term ecomedia intersects and merges interests of ecology and media but also refers to the representation and communication of human and natural environments in media forms beyond traditional print (Ziser 2016: 1). Building on this definition as 4.4 Ecomedia Studies - Communicating Content, Formats, and Impacts 117 <?page no="118"?> a field of research, ecomedia has emerged over the past few decades as a response to the widespread marginalization of ecological perspectives in general media studies (López et al. 2023: 1). Ecomedia transcends the notion that media is merely a collection of text, images, and sound transmitted through machines. Instead, it places significant emphasis on the exploration of the social and material relationships that either involve or facilitate such transmission. As a subdiscipline within media studies and the environmental humanities, ecomedia delves into the interplay between media systems, media artifacts, and their ecological contexts. Yet in contrast to (general) media studies, ecomedia interprets those relationships in terms of agency beyond the immediate cultural purposes of communicated content (Lioi 2021: 243). Ecomedia studies may still be a “sphere” rather than a “field” because it retains dynamic energy, explores various areas, transgresses boundaries, and uses diverse methods (López et al. 2023: 3). In this vein, the conceptualization facilitates a critical discussion of environmental representation across various disciplines, including new media studies, literature, art history, and film studies (Ziser 2016: 1). In addition, ecomedia aligns well with several of the other environmental subdisciplines. It shares with ecocriticism the “triple allegiance” to the scientific study of the natural environ‐ ment, the analysis of cultural representations, and the advocacy for sustainable living (Heise 2006: 507 see also Brereton 2016: 215; López et al. 2023: 1). Ecomedia studies also aligns with the environmental justice movement and ecofeminism, as they all strive to address the tangible impacts of the digital revolution on disadvantaged communities in both the Global South and the Global North. It acknowledges the enduring impact of Western colonial epistemology. Ecomedia studies aim to consider the material and affective perspectives with ecocritical and postcolonial lenses. By doing so, it broadens the boundaries of media scholarship to encompass the non-human realm and its biotic communities (López et al. 2023: 1). Given that ecomedia studies is still a developing research area, scholars may hold diverse viewpoints on its fundamental principles. In order to learn from this related discipline, I propose categorizing its principal aspects into well-established and manageable categories: content of texts in the broadest sense, format and functions, as well as the consequences and impacts of ecomedia. 4.4.2 Texts (in the Broadest Sense): Messages, Contents and Ecomedia In part, the term ecomedia is used to describe a “wide variety of ecologically oriented media texts” (López et al. 2023: 2), and to refer to media communication about ecological content, which includes products that feature environmental themes, topics, or motifs. Hence, ecomedia studies investigates the circulation, interpretation, and recontextualization of environmental ideas, thoughts, and images across diverse media platforms. In essence, the field explores how media influences a society’s comprehension of the environment (Ziser 2016: 2). It may thus range from 118 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="119"?> environmental documentaries, environmentalist communications, nature and wildlife films, to green popular culture. However, as the term’s meaning remains fluid and contested, it is often being used to categorize specific types of media as “ecological” in content or to imply a binary distinction between media that is deemed environmentally conscious and others that are not (2). Audiences are confronted with a constant, versatile stream of content that can be overwhelming, while the boundaries between private and public may be increasingly blurred (Lioi 2021: 249). One notable feature of media content is its dynamic circulation through media networks, where producers, fans, and activists have productive agency and can thus reinterprete, recontextualize, or recycle the content or its form (Lioi 2021: 250). According to Henry Jenkins’ theory of “media convergence,” fans are increasingly brought into a position to yield significant influence over media content and produc‐ tion. As Anthony Lioi (2021: 250-251) argues, the dynamic circulation of media content and the influence of fans and activists are crucial aspects of media convergence. This insight is particularly relevant for ecomedia scholars, who acknowledge the pivotal role of activists in shaping media narratives and recognize their capacity to drive change in the complex interplay between media, environment, and society. 4.4.3 Channels: Formats and Functions in Ecomedia Ecomedia studies is invested in the redefinition and expansion of media theories and terminology. It transcends conventional boundaries that view media merely as texts, industries, or audiences. Instead, the field conceptualizes ecomedia as “energetic and material exchanges that comprise, encompass, and produce environments, milieus, objects (texts, gadgets, platforms), and infrastructures.” (López et al. 2023: 3). Moreover, ecomedia studies further expands its conceptualization of media by incorporating the concept of “three ecologies” (Ivakhiv 2013, 2018; quoted in López et al. 2023: 5), which considers the intersections between material, social, and mental dimensions. This framework allows for a deeper understanding of the relationships between media, environment, and perception as highlighted by López et al. (2023: 5). Ecomedia studies attempts to abandon anthropocentrism and overcome ecocriti‐ cism’s preoccupation with literary texts. Yet, ecomedia studies shares with ecocriticism the recognition of the semiotic, anthropological significance of cultural artifacts and processes. Or in other words, media and the contexts within which they are utilized not only convey the “message” they are made to convey. They also provide insights into the societies in which they are produced and consumed. Notably, ecomedia studies extends agency and vitality beyond human actors and recognizes the active role of nonhuman agents and systems. Consequently, it deliberately includes living, elemental, and mechanical entities (Lioi 2021: 244). Anthony Lioi (2021: 248) takes Marshall McLuhan’s definition of a medium as the “extension of ourselves” as a starting point for redefining ecomedia. Such a perspective would be rather limited by its anthropocentric prioritization of human 4.4 Ecomedia Studies - Communicating Content, Formats, and Impacts 119 <?page no="120"?> selves over multispecies communities or other environmental concerns. Therefore, he uses the term “mediation” to refer to the processes by which media technologies extend and transform human communication (2021: 248). Hence, this insight demands a broader understanding of media concepts, one that takes into account the complex interplay between media, environment, and society, and recognizes the farreaching effects of media technologies on ecosystems and non-human entities. By examining the diverse ways in which media technologies interact with or mediate human communication and environmental relationships, ecomedia studies develops a more multi-faceted and inclusive approach to media analysis. As Lioi (2021: 243) argues, ecomedia studies encompasses a wide range of media forms, formats, and genres. This includes film, television, radio, photography, cartoons, comic books, video games, and social media, which are now subjects of scholarly inquiry alongside literature. By examining various formats and genres, ecomedia considers not only their formal characteristics but also their production and consumption contexts. This approach recognizes that different media types have distinct material foundations and socio-cultural contexts, which shape their ecological interactions. For example, a movie’s ecological impact varies depending on whether it is screened in a theater or watched on a mobile phone. Through a detailed analysis of the formal characteristics of media form and genre, researchers better understand the complex relationships between media, environment, and society. This focus on format and genre, developed in fields like cinema, television, or video game studies, highlights the importance of materiality and ecological dimensions in media production and consumption. It furthers the understanding of how media forms influence and are influenced by ecological processes. 4.4.4 Consequences: The Impact of Ecomedia A third pathway is the inquiry into the ecological impacts that media can have, which clarifies the contexts in which ecomedia operate, are communicated, and exert their conscious, intended, or unintended effects. This includes the materiality of media communication, its political, cultural, or affective contexts, and the broader ecological implications (López et al. 2023: 3). When ecomedia studies is described as being interested in the ecological relationships as well as the materiality of media systems and artifacts, this means it focusses on the social, cultural, and environmental implications of mass communication and asks, what ideological or ecological effects media communication may have? More specifically, how does media communication influence moral or aesthetic thoughts (Lioi 2021: 244)? One of the impacts is that of the materiality of media communications and its specific histories, meanings, and consequences stemming from the way texts are mediated, embodied, extracted, or otherwise materially connected to natural and social systems (Ziser 2016: 1-2; López et al. 2023: 6). The concept of “ecomateriality” refers to the study of how media are embedded in and extracted from the environment, including both 120 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="121"?> infrastructural and ecological aspects. This includes the material impacts of media production, distribution, and disposal, such as energy consumption, resource extraction, and waste generation, which have significant effects on the environment and human health (López et al., 2023, p. 6). The ecomaterial approach is occasionally referred to as the “physical footprint” of media practices (Ziser 2016: 2), as it examines issues such as resource consumption and depletion through the lens of technology. The material flow of resources and waste (Lioi 2021: 250) serves as a crucial lens to examine the complexities of (digital) ecomedia. Researchers might, for example, investigate the environmental history of technologies, such as the toxic legacy of film processing or the rapid “aging” and frequent replacement of (mobile) computer technology with its intense consumption of resources. They analyze how these material histories are reflected in artworks such as films, cartoons, and video games. Such an inquiry requires the detailed examination of the environmental context not only of media production, distribution, and consumption, but also of their cultural afterlife (Ziser 2016: 2). An additional example may be media infrastructures, such as “cables, satellites, electromagnetic energy, server farms” or resource extraction and industrial production, such as “mining, manufacturing, energy consumption, waste production and disposal” (López et al. 2023: 6). The supply chains and distribution infrastructure for materials often work on a transnational, global scale and thereby underscores the intricate interplay between ecomedia, digital cultures and the continued exploitation of post-colonial nations, for example when electronic waste is shipped from Europe or North America to China and Ghana (Lioi 2021: 250). Looking at the material base of ecomedia illustrates that the production or disposal of (digital) technologies have significant environmental impacts, from the extraction of minerals and chemicals to the burning of fossil fuels. In contrast to the often-romanticized notion of “weightless and friction-free” computing, the environmental impact of computer technology, streaming services, and artificial intelligence proves to be substantial, with big greenhouse gas emissions profiles (Lioi 2021: 250). The exploration of material consequences of ecomedia production, however, must include all kinds of media to consider the physical environment’s impact on modern-day lives (López et al. 2023: 6). Another significant impact of ecomedia is the political influence exerted by framing, which shapes audience perceptions by delimiting visual space or manipulating the presentation of environmental issues. This can be achieved through three distinct forms of framing: aesthetic framing, which refers to the literal boundaries of an image; ideological framing, which involves presenting and interpreting issues in a particular way; and rhetorical framing, which shapes the way language and discourse influence environmental understanding (Lioi 2021: 251; see Chapter 4.2). Ecomedia studies investigates how media communication is shaped by structural and cultural elements, such as the circulation of environmental ideologies or their reproduction of dominant socio-ecological relations (López et al. 2023: 7-8). Studying framing strategies enables the learner to see through underlying power dynamics, as evident in greenwashing 4.4 Ecomedia Studies - Communicating Content, Formats, and Impacts 121 <?page no="122"?> campaigns. In the context of environmental crises or news reports, framing media items influences public opinion or drives political and social readiness for change. Hence, framing underscores the political impact of environmental representation in media, with significant implications for democratic societies, the environmental activist movement, and also their opponents (Lioi 2021: 251-254). This focus on the political impact of ecomedia aligns with considerations of environmental justice and the analysis of its role in social, cultural, and environmental conflicts. Furthermore, ecomedia can obscure its own destructive impact and respond to ideologies that drive consumption and consumer cultures (López et al. 2023: 8). The ecological impact of media is multifaceted, and one significant aspect is the reciprocal influence of cultural processes and ecomedia, which is explored in the research branch of “ecocultures” (López et al. 2023: 9). Ecomedia play a crucial role in shaping and being shaped by the cultural sphere, wherein environmental meanings, values, and practices are constituted, negotiated, and transformed. This dynamic interaction gives rise to complex intersections of identity formations, epistemological frameworks, and ritualistic practices that emerge in the context of the environmental crisis. A critical question arises: how do ecomedia facilitate collective interpretations and sense-making practices that influence cultural responses to environmental con‐ cerns? Furthermore, it is important to examine the ways in which diverse linguistic, discursive, and narrative modalities are mediated and negotiated in ecomedia. By investigating these intersections, researchers gain a deeper understanding of the ways in which ecomedia contribute to the co-construction and mediation of cultural meanings and values, ultimately informing environmental attitudes, behaviors, and practices (López et al. 2023: 9). Furthermore, the way humans experience and feel their connection to the environ‐ ment through media use needs to be examined, particularly the affective and sensorial dimensions of environmental engagement. This research area is known as “eco-affects” (López et al. 2023: 10-11), which considers how ecomedia can evoke both positive emotions, such as wonder, awe, or optimism, and negative emotions, such as anxiety, grief, guilt, or melancholia. In this respect Alexa Weik von Mossner (2017: 3) observes astutely, “Both reading and watching are highly embodied activities not only in that we need our senses in order to be able to perceive things, but also in that our bodies act as sounding boards for our mental situations of storyworlds and of characters’ perceptions, emotions, and actions within virtual worlds” (see also López et al. 2023: 11). This idea highlights the complex interplay between media, emotions, and environmen‐ tal awareness. As part of a broader scholarly conversation, this research contributes the intricate emotional topographies of environmental and climate communication, environmental rhetoric, and sustainability education, encompassing a wide range of emotional responses (López et al. 2023: 11; see also Chapter-4.5). Ecomedia studies is a diverse field that recognizes the profound impact of media on human experiences, perceptions, and interactions with the world. It highlights the need for a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics at play. By examining 122 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="123"?> the intricacies of ecomedia contents and representation, the different formats and channels as well as the many impacts and interactions of media cycles, ecomedia studies shed light on many critical considerations and find more sustainable and environmentally conscious approaches to media production and consumption (López et al. 2023: 12-13; Ziser 2016: 2). As a result, this work offers a profound understanding of the interdependencies between humans, technology, and the natural world, informing a more sustainable future for media, environment, and eventually also (foreign) language education. 4.4.5 A Path Toward Ecomedia and (Foreign) Language Education At the heart of English and American Studies’ principles lies the critical analysis of texts (in the broadest sense), which includes a great number of text types and media genres, such as images, cartoons, multimodal narratives, films or other imaginative works (see Chapter 3). Building on this foundation, the humanities - especially communicative subjects like English - must interpret and critically examine how environmental challenges shape and are shaped by ecomedia. The rise of ecomedia is poised to sig‐ nificantly impact environmental engagement as non-print media increasingly become the primary platform for citizens to interact with environmental issues (Ziser 2016: 2). In this context, ecomedia may not supplant traditional approaches to print books, digital texts, or the reading skill per se, but it offers a unique and multidimensional understanding of environmental issues that cannot and should not be ignored in (foreign) language classrooms. As environmental issues become increasingly largescale, complex, and abstract, it is even more critical to examine the intricacies of verbal, visual, and audiovisual discourses in circulation and highlight the pivotal role of ecomedia in shaping the understanding of the environment. Ricardo Römhild (2023: 13, 262-269) recently explored ecomedia for foreign language education. His work brings together ecomedia education, ecocriticism, and media studies with the example of documentary films about the environment. On this basis, he develops an ecopedagogically informed approach to English language education and designs a framework for analyzing documentaries. He thus intergrates the many objectives and principles, creates connecting points for multifaceted literacies and interdisciplinary interfaces, such as foreign language education, ecomedia education, ecocriticism or citizenship education. By integrating the principles of ecomedia studies into English or foreign language education, educators can create a rich and diversified learning environment that fosters not only linguistic proficiency and cultural awareness, but also critical positioning and media literacy. This interdisciplinary approach potentially yields an understanding of the complex relationships between language, culture, modern media technology, and the environment; it may ultimately empower learners to become more informed and engaged global citizens. The field of foreign language education would benefit from further exploring ecomedia as one of its related disciplines, as it offers a rich 4.4 Ecomedia Studies - Communicating Content, Formats, and Impacts 123 <?page no="124"?> understanding of the complex relationships between language, culture, media, and the environment. By drawing on the insights and methods of ecomedia, foreign language education can develop more innovative and effective approaches to media communication in language teaching and learning. 4.5 Environmental Psychology - Mindsets, Behaviors, and Hopeful Pathways “Simply put, one cannot assume that increased knowledge about nature leads to a favorable attitude toward nature which in turn motivates action on behalf of nature” (Kretz 2012: 14) Psychology’s domain encompasses the investigation of human behavior, which is profoundly influenced by an intricate interplay of cognitive, emotional, and structural elements. These factors include individual knowledge, aspirations, and broader eco‐ nomic systems and infrastructures. Consequently, personal actions exert a significant impact on broader social patterns. They establish a mutually reinforcing dynamic between individuals and any societal development. Theodore Roszak’s influential work The Voice of the Earth (1992) critiqued mainstream psychology’s neglect of human-environment relationships, helping establish this new distinct subdiscipline. Since the 1960s, research has explored the interrelationships between humans and their environment, seeking answers to questions such as: how do environmental conditions influence human behavior and being in the world? How do people influ‐ ence their environment? How do environmental changes affect the human psyche (Gifford 2014: 2)? Despite growing awareness of environmental changes and longterm threats, this knowledge often has little impact on daily actions. Environmental psychologists investigate this disconnect, asking: What keeps people from putting their knowledge and awareness into practice? Why does knowledge have so little influence on everyday behavior? How can individual and community attitudes be changed and translated into actions and capabilities (Reese 2021)? The subdiscipline of ecopsychology or environmental psychology, which emerged in the late 1960s, provides a framework for understanding these dynamics. It emphasizes that human perception, experience, and behavior in relation to the environment operate within complex social, cultural, and societal contexts (Ernst et al. 2024: 2). By focusing on human agency and responses to environmental transformation, environmental psychology complements the natural sciences’ understanding of Earth system changes, uniquely positioning the field to examine how humans both cause and cope with environmental transformation (2). In short, environmental psychology examines the complex relationships between human perception, psyche, thought or behavior patterns, and ecological systems (Gifford 2014: 2-4). The discipline employs three interconnected analytical levels 124 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="125"?> to address its subject matter. Firstly, it draws upon complex systems theory to comprehend both environmental challenges and societal dynamics. Secondly, it delves into the psychological processes through which individuals perceive environmental alterations, particularly climate change, and the associated risks. This analysis eluci‐ dates how these perceptions shape behavioral patterns. Lastly, it explores theoretical frameworks and practical examples that can be utilized to modify environmental behavior and foster social innovation (Ernst et al. 2024: 25). Drawing upon systems theory to comprehend phenomena, psychologists employ the concept of stable equilibrium, where a system regains its initial state following perturbation (Ernst et al., 2024: 7-9). This comprehension of systemic stability and recovery holds significant implications for analyzing both environmental and psy‐ chological resilience. Scientific research has demonstrated that human intervention in Earth systems has pushed stable states or equilibria beyond their tipping points, thus prompting psychologists’ research to transfer the concept of the tipping point from environmental contexts to social contexts. This underscores that incremental alterations in intricate systems can precipitate abrupt and transformative transforma‐ tions when critical thresholds are attained in both the environment and society. Ernst et al. (10) assert that resilient systems possess the capacity to endure both natural and human-induced disruptions without experiencing gradual deterioration or abrupt transitions to undesirable states. Resilience is thus defined as a system’s (or a human’s) capacity to maintain its fundamental functions, structural integrity, and identity while effectively absorbing disturbances without exceeding critical thresholds. This concept is particularly pertinent in analyzing the responses of both environmental and social systems to stressors. Environmental psychology emphasizes the inherent interdisciplinarity of humanenvironment interactions. Researchers acknowledge that environmental behavior must be understood within its social and cultural contexts, as humans organize their interaction with Earth systems through group structures (Ernst et al. 2024: 3-4). The complexity of the human-environment behavioral system can only be comprehended by simultaneously considering multiple interacting factors, such as geobiophysical environmental opportunities and barriers, individual goals and needs, social and cultural contexts, and experiential and learning history. These factors exist in dynamic interaction, making any single-factor analysis insufficient for understanding the larger system (6). 4.5.1 Of Perception, Cognition, and Framing Rather than an untouched nature or rural landscapes, particular significance of environmental psychology also rests on urban environments, where most people conduct their daily activities. Therefore, a dual focus is required in understanding human-environment relationships: attending to both natural and urban environmental aspects, as both significantly impact psychological and physical well-being (Ernst et 4.5 Environmental Psychology - Mindsets, Behaviors, and Hopeful Pathways 125 <?page no="126"?> al. 2024: 65). A striking tension emerges between (romantic) cultural and literary traditions that idealize pristine nature and the predominantly urban reality that shapes today’s environmental experience for many people, including learners in rural areas. This disconnect between cultural representations and lived experience creates a specific challenge. Yet, to understand this detachment becomes crucial for developing more effective approaches to fundamental environmental questions that acknowledge both cultural heritage and psychological reality. Perception can be considered the foundation of behavior in environmental psychol‐ ogy, as it extends beyond immediate physical surroundings to include anticipated fu‐ ture changes. Considering environmental risk perception requires recognizing the gap between everyday and scientific understanding of environmental challenges (Ernst et al. 2024: 65). This discrepancy becomes crucial in analyzing how individuals perceive, accept, or deny environmental risks, ultimately influencing societal responses to environmental challenges. When examining how people perceive their futures, psychologists refer back to the distinction between real danger and socially constructed risk (Slovic 1999). Risk perception combines mathematical probability - the frequency of occurrence and extent of damage - with psychological factors that influence how people process and evaluate uncertainty (Ernst et al. 2024: 78-85). Rationalizing this becomes particularly relevant for environmental risks, where the randomness and probability of events, such as floods, hurricanes, or fires, create a complex relationship between individual actions and collective outcomes. Noteworthy for the humanities, the phenomenon of framing is considered to significantly influence risk behavior. People tend to avoid risks when presented with potential gains, but become more risk-tolerant when facing potential losses from their current position. Therefore, the public or political acceptance of environmental innovations depends not just on the measure itself but on contextual factors, including a gain or loss framing, moral risk evaluation, and trust in those implementing the changes (2024: 95-96). Particularly since many environmental changes remain imperceptible to human senses in direct observation, a crucial mechanism for managing the complexity and uncertainty in environmental risk perception is trust (96-97). While Ernst et al. distinguish between specific trust, which is based on personal experience, and generalized trust, which requires institutional interactions, they posit that media dependence makes generalized trust essential for environmental awareness. Transferred to the reliance on mediated information, this means that risk perception is shaped not only by the mediated information itself but by trust in information sources and the rhetorical framing of communicated messages. Identifying key challenges in how societies perceive and respond to environmental risks is highly relevant because it helps to understand the perception of environmental problems and climate change. For many phenomena, human cognition fails to grasp accumulation processes or long-term developments (2024: 102, 117). It may hap‐ pen, therefore, that environmental changes are met with skepticism, rejection, or denial as those perspectives emerge not just from factual disagreement but actually feed from 126 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="127"?> a host of complex sociological, economic, and political factors. This proffers researchers to develop better models for understanding cumulative processes such as scaling and to engage the general public or educational scenarios with diverse psychological, social, and interdisciplinary factors that go beyond mere fact presentation. While emotional responses to environmental crises might suggest universal eco‐ logical instincts, the American Psychological Association (APA 2011: 5) highlights how climate change understanding and response are mediated through “a person’s worldview, culture, and social identities.” Therefore, perception cannot be consid‐ ered a neutral, objective process, but instead, individual perception is fundamentally shaped by prior knowledge and cultural frameworks. Perception is not a simple mirroring of reality, but a dynamic, culturally constructed experience that reflects the interplay between individual knowledge, cultural frameworks, and environmental contexts (Gifford 2014: 69-70). These explications on perception may help rationalize why purely factual and cognitive approaches to environmental communication may prove ineffective. They suggest the importance of considering framing effects in environmental education and communication. 4.5.2 Bridging the Knowledge-Behavior Divide The environmental situation is further aggravated by the slow pace of social change and the rebound effect, which describes the phenomenon of technical or organizational improvements in efficiency that paradoxically lead to increased consumption rather than resource conservation (Ernst et al. 2024: 178-179; see Chapter 2.1). The rebound effect constitutes a significant psychological barrier to sustainability efforts and behavioral change, as it severely undermines motivation for sustainable choices and reinforces a sense of futility and hopelessness. This can lead to a counterproductive cycle, where individual behavior counteracts efficiency-based sustainability strategies, ultimately reinforcing traditional consumption patterns. Despite efforts to raise awareness and promote new perspectives, desired changes in public perceptions and individual behavior are often elusive. Ernst et al. (2024: 251-252) identify four key dilemmas that underlie most environmental problems and hinder long-term, sustainable behavioral change. These recognized dangers help to explain why solving environmental problems and triggering behavioral changes is such a complex and multi-factorial endeavor. Understanding these dilemmas can help develop strategies to overcome them and promote more sustainable behaviors. One of the most significant challenges is the social dilemma, which often arises when individual interests conflict with collective well-being. The pursuit of personal gain can lead to collective losses, as individuals prioritize their own benefits over the greater good (Ernst et al. 2024: 244-248, 251). For instance, the temptation to overfish or overhunt can lead to the depletion of resources, ultimately harming the community as a whole. 4.5 Environmental Psychology - Mindsets, Behaviors, and Hopeful Pathways 127 <?page no="128"?> The temporal dilemma presents another challenge, as individuals must weigh the benefits of short-term gains against the potential long-term consequences of their actions. This dilemma can be characterized by the maxim “benefits now, costs later,” where the immediate advantage of resource exploitation outweighs the potential longterm costs (Ernst et al. 2024: 248-249, 251; Vlek & Keren 1992: 259). Meanwhile, the state of the resource is affected by its past and present use, which means that every action has consequences. In this context, rational behavior for an individual may involve immediate exploitation of the resource, while rational behavior for a community involves preserving the resource for sustainable use over time. The spatial dilemma highlights the tension between the individual benefits or community interests, as individuals often oppose controversial development projects in their own vicinity, such as mining operations or wind farms (Ernst et al. 2024: 251; Vlek & Keren 1992: 265-267). However, they may acknowledge the need for such facilities in other locations, illustrating the complex trade-offs involved in environmental decisionmaking. The security-vulnerability dilemma presents a particularly stark challenge, as industrialized countries in the Global North, which have largely driven climate change, are also best equipped to mitigate its consequences (Ernst et al. 2024: 252). In contrast, similar countries in the global South are highly vulnerable to the negative consequences of climate change, despite having contributed only minimally to its causes. Ironically, the fact that industrialized countries can protect themselves and mitigate climate change consequences diminishes their incentive to alter their behavior. These four dilemmas - social, temporal, spatial, and security-vulnerability - char‐ acterize the complex web of challenges that hinder or prevent sustainable behavior change. Developing strategies to overcome these dilemmas requires a thorough understanding of their complexities and implications. One key insight of environmental psychology confronts the popular belief and profound paradox that knowledge, environmental awareness and actual behav‐ ior do not share a linear or simple causal relationship (Ernst et al. 2024: 123; APA 2011: 4; Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002: 239). Environmental psychology investigates this challenge by examining human behavior and social institutions as complex systems that can, however, hardly be fully captured empirically. Theories aim to generalize the complexity by highlighting essential relationships and guiding research, yet cannot strive for complete representation (Ernst et al., 2024: 123; Kollmus & Agyeman 2002: 240). The challenge is to balance generalization and detail when studying factors that influence behavior change. Single-factor approaches, such as purely information-based strategies, often prove insufficient for environmental behavior change. Environmental psychology has iden‐ tified multiple components affecting environmental action, including (Ernst et al., 2024: 151-152): • Basic knowledge about the environment, its functions, and processes as well as the impact of technology, 128 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="129"?> • General knowledge, such as the economic, social, and psychological costs of change measures, as well as their practicality, • Social knowledge about prevalent norms and values of a society as well as the behavioral patterns of others, • Action knowledge about the practical questions of implementing environmental changes, • Knowledge about habits and habit formation. These knowledge types inform several specific intervention strategies that can lead to behavioral change in the long run. While education is essential for environmental knowledge, research suggests that knowledge alone is not a direct driver of environmental behavior (Kollmus & Agyeman 2002: 250). Emotional involvement emerges as a more critical catalyst in shaping environmental attitudes and perceptual frameworks (248). The most sig‐ nificant behavioral change occurs when internal and external factors interact in a complementary way, resulting in the emergence of environmental awareness from a complex interplay of knowledge, values, attitudes, and emotional involvement (256-257). Information delivery approaches, such as direct information, behavioral feedback, and model learning, can positively influence environmental behavior (Ernst et al. 2024: 152-155). These approaches can modify attitudes, expand behavioral reper‐ toires, and strengthen perceived behavioral control. However, building on information campaigns alone remains insufficient for behavioral change. Emotional involvement with the natural world is a critical component of environ‐ mental attitudes, shaping environmental beliefs and values (Chawla 2001). The field defines attitude as a person’s subjective evaluation of a phenomenon but recognizes that attitudes alone cannot predict or determine behavior (Ernst et al. 2024: 138). An individual’s sense of agency and self-efficacy also plays a crucial role in shaping their environmental attitudes. Those who feel empowered believe their own actions shape their circumstances, while those who feel powerless attribute events to external factors beyond their control. However, environmental attitudes have a limited impact on behavior, as individuals often prioritize convenience and comfort over environmental values (Kollmus & Agyeman 2002: 252). This internal conflict arises when personal interests clash with broader environmental values or beliefs (250). To establish sus‐ tainable environmental behavior requires persistent practice, which can eventually transform intentions into habitual actions, a process that often occurs below conscious awareness. Habits are context-dependent behavioral patterns that require minimal cognitive effort. They often occur “on the side” while thoughts focus elsewhere (Ernst et al., 2024: 131). Changing habits requires a different approach than changing conscious behaviors. Habitual behaviors are deeply connected to an individual’s sense of self, which makes it essential to consider this relationship when trying to change them (131). The social influence manifests through the recognition and internalization of social norms, which operate at various group and societal levels, often below 4.5 Environmental Psychology - Mindsets, Behaviors, and Hopeful Pathways 129 <?page no="130"?> conscious awareness. Thus, behavioral adaptation occurs not just in response to physical environments but also to complex social structures. Ernst et al. (2024: 135) describe how people adjust their behavior across multiple social contexts -from family, friends and peer groups to colleagues and neighbors- using social heuristics. In this context, their personal values have a strong impact on their behavior, particularly when influenced by an individual’s immediate social environment. Research on cultural norms and values highlights their significant role in shaping environmental behavior, although broader social influences like media, politics, and cultural context have a somewhat weaker effect on behavioral change as compared to personal and social values (Kollmus & Agyeman 2002: 249-251). Social processes are powerful drivers of behavioral change. They are based on the fundamental human need to belong and affiliate with others. Consequently, social rewards, punishments, or collective actions work in both directions: while individuals are influenced by social movements, their behaviors also contribute to strengthening these movements. Seeing others engage in sustainable behavior enhances an individ‐ ual’s sense of self-efficacy. It also helps to prevent a sense of despair or helplessness in face of global challenges (Ernst et al. (2024: 157). If a community shares values, this will shape also individual attitudes and make social trends another powerful influence of an individuals’ behavior. While knowledge is powerful, one of its shortcomings is that alone it cannot over‐ come social dilemma situations where individual and collective interests collide and are in conflict with each other. Therefore, behavioral change requires motivational approaches that can shift the balance between individual and community benefits (Ernst et al. 2024: 155-156). The motivation can be influenced by changing what people perceive as the consequences of an action. Or else, it can be altered by the likelihood with which those consequences may occur. To modify one’s attitude, a combination of knowledge and motivation is needed. The concept of environmental awareness encompasses both cognitive knowledge and affective perception of human environmental impact. However, cognitive limi‐ tations can compromise emotional engagement and willingness to act (Kollmus & Agyeman 2002: 253-254). Environmental psychology therefore investigates barriers to environmental action and examines how both individual and community attitudes might be effectively transformed into practical engagement (Ernst et al. 2024: 51-53; Reese 2021; APA 2011). Humans tend to seek simplicity when confronting complex environmental issues and thus face fundamental cognitive limitations that hinder them from understanding environmental issues clearly. While humans excel at detecting sudden shifts, they struggle to recognize slow and incremental environmental changes. Further‐ more, the non-immediacy and imperceptibility of certain environmental changes, such as the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, pose tremendous challenges for human understanding. Because environmental problems are intricate and overly complex systems, humans tend to oversimplify and interpret them in a 130 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="131"?> linear manner. They are struggling to track and understand the multiplicity of factors. This tendency lets people potentially underestimate the problem’s extent, because it prevents them from a deeper understanding of the consequences to be drawn from environmental destruction (Kollmus & Agyeman 2002: 250). To positively change or influence less conscious behaviors and habits, nudging is considered an appropriate technique for behavioral modification. It reduces the cogni‐ tive effort and energy required to make decisions while it preserves an individual’s sense of freedom. Ernst et al. (2024: 169-170) define these “behavioral nudges” as interventions based on the restructuring of the physical environment with the intention to overcome cognitive biases, dysfunctional, and contradictory behaviors. At the same time, they reduce the costs for adaptation. For educational purposes, this may be particularly important, as nudging offers possibilities for changing behavior in a noncoercive and non-manipulative way. To reduce humanity’s environmental impact and to mitigate behaviors, multiple levels of intervention are needed that complement technological solutions and efficiency strategies with efforts for behavioral changes that integrate individual, social-communal as well as cultural levels. Ernst et al. (2024: 213) call for fundamental intervention strategies that combine improved resource use (efficiency) and the reduction of consumption (sufficiency) with the alignment of natural systems and their capacity (consistency). 4.5.3 Despair’s Grueling Effectiveness As many other disciplines, environmental psychology has formerly also emphasized negative aspects of human-environment relationships, focusing on alienation from nature, environmental destruction, anxiety, or paralysis. While this deficit-oriented approach has led to valuable therapeutic insights, it may limit broader pedagogical applications (Kelsey 2020; 2021). As learners and teachers are exposed to climate crisis information, they may experience significant emotional impacts, including anxiety, negative emotional states, and psychological burdens (Ernst et al. 2024: 407). This can lead to various emotional experiences, such as eco-anxiety, climate anxiety, eco-grief, and solastalgia. Eco-anxiety and climate anxiety refer to the fear and worry about environmental collapse and climate change, while eco-grief and solastalgia involve mourning environmental losses and feeling powerless about environmental change (Pihkala 2018: 546, 549; Clayton 2020; Cunsolo & Landmann 2017: xiii). Understanding these emotional responses is essential for developing coping strategies and supporting mental health in the face of environmental crises. Environmental challenges can have a psychological impact on behavior, where negative emotions may hinder environmental action rather than encourage it. While developing psychological mindsets attuned to environmental concerns appears crucial, environmental psychological research reveals that fear-based approaches are counterproductive. This is particularly evident in environmental education, where climate change anxiety among young learners 4.5 Environmental Psychology - Mindsets, Behaviors, and Hopeful Pathways 131 <?page no="132"?> can lead to frustration, powerlessness, and paralysis. Paradoxically, such negative emotional experiences may result in environmental disengagement, as learners develop protective disinterest in nature and sustainability to avoid psychological distress (Kelsey 2020). Media coverage of environmental issues - including educational materials and cur‐ ricula - tends to adopt alarmist and moralizing tones that mirror mainstream media’s approach to environmental communication. This prevalent discourse underestimates both the paralyzing effect of despair on environmental engagement and the potential power of hope-oriented perspectives in addressing human-environment relationships. Environmental discourse reveals a paradoxical relationship between hope and despair. The environmental movement and many organizations may have long benefited from warnings about the deplorable state of the planet in order to activate the masses, to inform people, and to raise funds for further actions. Greta Thunberg’s influential Davos speech, with its memorable declaration “I don’t want you to be hopeful, I want you to panic” (2019 a, b) exemplifies the powerful rhetoric of environmental activism aimed at prompting political action through fear and urgency. The rejection of hope in environmental activism reflects a broader philosophi‐ cal position, exemplified by US philosopher and activist Derrick Jensen’s essay “Beyond Hope.” He argues that hope itself can be paralyzing: “Hope is what keeps us chained to the system […] All of these false hopes lead to inaction, or at least to ineffectiveness” (2006). This critique specifically targets forms of hope that encourage passive waiting for external solutions - whether divine, governmental, or technological. Yet, environ‐ mental psychology research demonstrates how continuous exposure to catastrophic environmental narratives, from global warming to unsustainable practices, can trigger responses of mourning or escapism (Kretz 2017: 258). Such findings indicate that the scale of environmental challenges, be it global warming or the sixth extinction, evokes responses that transcend purely rational or factual engagement. Lisa Kretz identifies how environmental loss combined with perceived inaction can trigger despair and avoidance behavior, particularly “if there is an absence of community support and action” (2017: 259). While acknowledging mourning as a legitimate response to ecological loss, Kretz warns against “falling into despair” (2017: 283). Her research suggests that despair represents more than temporary hopelessness. It manifests as a fundamental loss of belief in human capacity for change, leading to withdrawal from environmental engagement. This disengagement can create a destructive cycle where the loss of belief in making a difference results in complete abandonment of environmental action (Kretz 2019: 159). Constant and sustained exposure to catastrophic environmental narratives creates cognitive dissonance. This psychological conflict can trigger a destructive cycle: overwhelming negativity leads to lethargy and cynicism, ultimately resulting in apathy and disengagement from envi‐ ronmental concerns. Kretz demonstrates how such a psychological burden can disrupt coping mechanisms, leading to lethargy, cynicism, and ultimately disengagement from environmental causes (2019: 164-165). 132 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="133"?> 4.5.4 Hope’s (Educational) Implications Despite growing emphasis on environmental catastrophe, some journalists like Paddy Woodworth (2015) of The Irish Times advocate for a fundamental shift in environmental communication: “the constant association of ‘the environment’ with ‘catastrophe’ is profoundly unhelpful, disabling, and simply wrong. Engaging with nature should be a source of pleasure, not a trigger for crippling anxiety”. Kretz, therefore, develops a psychological framework for understanding hope and despair in environmental contexts, arguing that “resisting ecological despair” represents a crucial challenge in the face of anthropogenic environmental impact (2019: 156). Drawing on Nancy Snow’s work, she defines hope as a complex, multifaceted concept, “a dynamic orientation toward the future, characterized by the general expectancy of positive outcomes and openness toward future possibilities” (Snow 2013: 153; Kretz 2019: 160). This conceptualization presents hope as an adaptive attitude that enables proactive engagement with future opportunities and challenges. It fosters flexibility in exploring new approaches to environmental action (Snow 2013: 154). While critics like Jensen argue that hope can function as self-delusion leading to environmental inaction (2006), Kretz counters that effective hope must be grounded in realism (2019: 163). True hopefulness requires balancing acknowledgment of environmental realities with maintained agency and solution-oriented thinking, which distinguishes it from naive optimism or passive waiting for external salvation. Hope fundamentally depends on both imagination and agency: “Without the capacity to imagine something other than what is currently the case, hope would have no direction” (Kretz 2019: 161). As a future-oriented psychological state, hope generates motivational energy while correlating with problem-solving abilities and self-esteem. Kretz demonstrates that hopeful individuals not only maintain greater perceived control over their lives and expect more positive outcomes (2019: 163), but their hope often emerges as a direct response to problematic situations and expresses both desire for change and belief in individual agency to effect that change. The insights of environmental psychology gain further support in Elin Kelsey’s Hope Matters (2020), which argues that hope provides a more effective mindset than despair for environmental engagement, communication, and education. Kelsey cautions that overwhelming focus on environmental damage creates a “starting-line fallacy that makes it feel as if nothing useful has ever been accomplished and that all the hard work lies ahead” (2020: loc 113). This crisis of hope (Kelsey 2020: loc 2) stems partly from limited public awareness of environmental successes, from ecosystem restoration to species recovery. Kelsey argues that fatalistic perspectives are self-defeating: The vast scale, complexity, urgency, and destructive power of biodiversity loss, climate change, and countless other issues are real. Yet assuming a fatalistic perspective and positioning hopelessness as a foregone conclusion is not reality. It is a mindset, and it’s a widespread and debilitating one. (2020: loc 9) 4.5 Environmental Psychology - Mindsets, Behaviors, and Hopeful Pathways 133 <?page no="134"?> Kelsey’s analysis of environmental discourse reveals how persistent exposure to negative and dystopian narratives in journalism and science communication pro‐ duces harmful psychological effects. These findings have great relevance for education, particularly for content decisions, textbook design and materials development, where doom-laden environmental scenarios can negatively impact both teachers and students (Kelsey 2020: loc 381). Environmental psychology’s insights about hope suggest important pedagogical directions: the capacity to imagine alternative worlds can serve as both artistic and educational tool. It could be imperative to develop hope-based pedagogical approaches to generate positive societal and environmental change (Kretz 2019: 155-156; Römhild & Weik von Mossner 2024). Since hope and positive emotions spread through group interaction and correlate with improved academic performance and selfesteem, incorporating these psychological insights into educational practice becomes a key strategy for environmental education. 4.5.5 Conclusion and Implications for Language Education Environmental psychology has emerged as a vital subdiscipline, committed to under‐ standing climate and environmental crises and developing practical applications and behavioral interventions (Ernst et al. 2024: 279). The field’s focus on perception, knowledge, and behavior has made significant contributions to understanding the complex relationships between humans and the natural environment. However, its success in applying knowledge to various domains, such as energy consumption and mobility, has also revealed the need for greater integration of cultural and educational dimensions. The insights from environmental psychology are particularly relevant for environ‐ mental education and language teaching contexts, where the relationship between knowledge, emotion, and action is central to effective pedagogy. However, reductive approaches that rely on the knowledge-gap-hypothesis, individual behavioral modi‐ fication, or moralistic rhetoric of impending catastrophe can be counterproductive. These approaches place undue moral pressure on individuals while obscuring systemic and structural dimensions of environmental transformation. Moving beyond these frameworks is essential for developing more effective approaches to ecological chal‐ lenges. Environmental psychology’s insights can help explain the disconnect between awareness of long-term environmental challenges and limited behavioral responses to these threats. A dialogue between environmental psychology, the environmental hu‐ manities, and language teaching can provide a promising starting point for integrating cultural and educational dimensions into environmental education. By incorporating environmental psychology’s findings into educational settings, educators can develop more effective and culturally sensitive teaching techniques to promote sustainable behaviors and address environmental challenges. Thereby, the humanities can play a 134 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="135"?> crucial role in shaping cultural narratives and values that prioritize sustainability and environmental stewardship, ultimately contributing to a more sustainable and hopeful future. 4.6 Environmental and Sustainability Education - Learning Critical Awareness for Social Change “The disorder of ecosystems reflects a prior disorder of the mind, making it a central concern to those institutions that purport to improve minds. In other words, the ecological crisis is in every way a crisis of education.” (Orr 1992: 10) US environmental studies scholar David Orr makes issues of nature, environment, and sustainability primary concerns for the entire educational system (1992). He equates the ecological situation with a crisis of education and posits that “Until we see the crisis of sustainability as one with roots that extend from public politics and technology down into our assumptions about science, culture, and human nature, we are unlikely to extend our prospects much” (Orr 1992: 1). Along with him, the German educator Wolfgang Klafki (1996: 56) postulated ecology to be one of the “epoch-making key issues” that have to be incorporated into every discipline and every knowledge area. These thoughts have since been reflected in education and pedagogy. Educational traditions have a profound and enduring influence on how the relationship between humans and their environment is understood, disseminated, and passed on to next generations. Particularly in the environmental field, these traditions shape the perspectives and practices within education as they reflect the ongoing tension between technological-industrial paradigms and those advocating for environmental coexistence. Scientists have long emphasized the societal implications of environmental changes, particularly climate change, and the reception of these issues and concern in the educational arena begins early. While environmental education gained prominence in the 1960s, concerns about environmental degradation date back to medieval Europe, where resource depletion was temporarily offset through colonial expansion and exploitation of other territo‐ ries (Grober 2010). Environmental education gained new urgency in response to unprecedented threats, including nuclear testing fallout and widespread chemical con‐ tamination from modern industrial substances, despite their initially intended benefits. This chapter traces the development of environmental education and its key branches, examining significant models and theoretical frameworks. It will culminate in the discussion of Education of Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals as a pathway to potential applications for foreign language education. 4.6 Environmental and Sustainability Education - Learning Critical Awareness for Social Change 135 <?page no="136"?> 4.6.1 Tracing Historical Roots, Branches, and Definitions Environmental education seeks to thoughtfully integrate issues of nature, environment and sustainability into educational contexts. By cultivating appreciation for the natural world in students and citizens of all ages, the field aims to guide societies towards a more sustainable, secure and peaceful future (Palmer-Cooper & Neal 2003: 12). While the natural sciences, engineering, social studies, and political science have historically been the primary focus of environmental education, there is growing recognition of the importance of language, communication, and the humanities in this field. A key driving force behind environmental education is the aspiration to broaden the scope of engagement with environmental matters beyond the exclusive purview of policymakers, technical experts and engineers, legal professionals, or social scientists. Instead of confining these issues to select domains, environmental educators strive to equip learners across diverse disciplines, and crucially, the general public, with the tools to actively participate in tackling multifaceted challenges. The pressing need to address the intricate interplay between humanity and the Earth’s ecological framework underscores the significance of environmental education. Environmental education has its roots in a long history of addressing natural livelihood and environmental concerns. Comenius’s work in the 17th century, early 20th-century Reform Pedagogy, and the development of Heimatkunde (a German school subject focusing on local history and geography studies) (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 24) all contributed to this heritage. The emergence of systematic environmental education in the late 1960s marked a significant shift in the way environmental issues were addressed in education. The first national environmental program integrated ecological topics into select school subjects, including Sachkunde (general studies), sciences, political education, and work studies (24f.). This initiative aimed to transform environmental issues from research concerns and political decisions into matters of public awareness and shared societal responsibility (23f.). The environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s, marked by anti-nuclear activism and the formation of the Green Party, further strengthened ecological awareness in education and society (25). Global environmental education gained momentum through influential publications like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) and the Club of Rome’s The Limits of Growth (Meadows et al. 1972). UNESCO has been a key player in shaping and advancing environmental education since the early 1970s. The 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm and UNESCO’s 1975 Belgrade International Workshop on Environmental Education led to the development of the Belgrade Charter, establishing the first global framework for environmental education (Palmer-Cooper 2003: 14; Dorn 2020). This document advocated for a new global environmental ethic, establishing environmental education as a lifelong, interdisciplinary process aimed at transforming individual and societal behavior (UNESCO 1975: 1). It emphasized humanity’s place within the biosphere, understanding environmental issues across global and local scales, and fosters active participation in environmental protection while connecting 136 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="137"?> ecological, social, and educational objectives (4). The Charter positioned education as crucial to addressing environmental crises and called for fundamental reforms in educational relationships and systems (2). However, the significant gap between environmental knowledge and actual behavior (see Chapter 4.5) indicates that this envisioned global transformation has not yet materialized, making today’s need for epistemological and educational reform even more urgent than in the 1970s. The 1977 Tbilisi Declaration (UNESCO-UNEP 1978) established six parameters for Environmental Education that remain relevant today: • awareness of environmental systems and human impacts; • knowledge of environmental principles and sustainability competencies; • attitudes that foster environmental values and motivation; • skills for engagement, including problem identification, prediction, and solution development; • evaluation capacity across multiple dimensions (ecological, social, economic); • and participation in ecological citizenship and sustainable development initiatives. These parameters have had a lasting impact on the development of modern environ‐ mental education frameworks (Palmer-Cooper 2009: 22-23; McBride et al. 2013: 5-6) and continue to influence contemporary environmental education theory and practice. From this point on, environmental education played a vital role in shaping ecological consciousness and promoting sustainable societal development. According to Rieß and Apel (2006: 7), the mission of environmental education encompasses three key aspects: raising awareness of ecological interconnections, situating environmental issues within a broader social context, and empowering individuals to develop and implement sustainable behaviors. Yet, considerable responsibility continues to be placed on learners to comply with environmental policy measures and to change their ways or behaviors, which “individualizes” environmental problems rather than changing broader structural issues. Critics note that this approach effectively posi‐ tioned school education as a corrective for societal problems, placing the burden of addressing previous generations’ environmental mistakes primarily on students rather than engaging society as a whole (Stevenson 2007: 146; Maniates 2001: 33, 49). Building on the momentum of these global political initiatives and the growing environmental movement, educators started to explore new ways to integrate envi‐ ronmental awareness into their teaching practices, leading to the emergence of diverse pedagogical approaches in the 1980s: • Environmental Pedagogy (Umwelterziehung), developed specifically for school contexts, integrates cognitive learning with experiential understanding to address environmental challenges. As Hauenschild & Bolscho (2005: 28) explain, this approach views cognitive learning and experiential knowledge as mutually re‐ inforcing elements for promoting environmentally conscious behavior at both individual and societal levels. Its distinctive feature lies in analyzing the complex relationships between society and its natural environment, recognizing that human 4.6 Environmental and Sustainability Education - Learning Critical Awareness for Social Change 137 <?page no="138"?> transformation of nature is inherent to existence while requiring interdisciplinary exploration. By focusing on problem-solving within ecological systems, this pedagogical framework transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries to foster ecologically minded action competence (Bolscho & Seybold 1996). • Nature-Based Pedagogy (Naturbezogene Pädagogik) emphasizes emotional and holistic understanding of nature through direct sensory experience, rejecting “cat‐ astrophe pedagogy” and moralistic approaches that can create guilt (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 29). Instead, it prioritizes personal identity formation through immediate natural experiences. Critics, however, argue that this approach has limitations, such as the insufficient attention to action-oriented learning and societal contexts as well as its tendency toward esoteric elements (Göpfert 1988: 11, 26). • Ecopedagogy (Ökopädagogik) emerges from the (international) environmental movement and offers a radical critique of anthropocentric and techno-economic worldviews. It challenges traditional environmental education’s utilitarian ap‐ proach and argues that it may inadvertently perpetuate ecological destruction (de Haan 1984: 80). Instead, ecopedagogy emphasizes learning through confrontation with environmental limits and societal contradictions, rejecting institutionalized approaches in favor of a critical examination of the historical relationships between nature and society (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 28). During the 1970s, environmental education was approached with a focus on environ‐ mental protection and conservation. With the publication of the UN Report Our Common Future in 1987, also known as the Brundtland Report, the concept of sustainability gained traction. This documentation defined sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987: 41). It emphasized the intrinsic connection between economic, social, and ecological dimensions, highlighting the need for a holistic approach to development that balances human well-being with environmental protection and social justice. The Brundtland Report’s impact has been lasting, triggering significant political developments and inspiring a new wave of educational initiatives that have shaped the way we think about sustainability and education (McKeown & Hopkins 2005: 221; Sterling 2013: 46). This educational framework gained further global significance at the 1992 Earth Summit, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The conference resulted in the creation of Agenda 21, a comprehensive plan for sustainable development. Environmental protection was formally grounded in principles of biodiversity and sustainability and established these as global guiding concepts (UN 1992). The crucial role of the sciences was called upon to inform about environmental changes, to justify political strategies or to improve the efficiency of resource utilization (311). Critically, Agenda 21 called for a fundamental at‐ titudinal change in the global population and the development of ecological and ethical awareness (320). It explicitly built on the Tbilisi Declaration’s principles, particularly 138 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="139"?> emphasizing youth engagement (UNESCO 1992: 277) and calling for comprehensive educational reform. The chapter dedicated to education marked a significant evolution from environmental education toward an Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). With this, a minimal opening was created for the humanities disciplines and for cultural developments by directing the focus onto “the dynamics of both the physical/ biological and socio-economic environment and human […] development” (320). The document advocated for integrating environmental and developmental education across physical, biological, and socioeconomic domains, while nominally acknowledging sociocultural aspects (320-321). In the 1990s, environmental issues were largely introduced in classrooms through science-related subjects like biology, geography, and chemistry, as well as mathe‐ matics, regional education or the arts. Alternatively, environmental concerns were addressed through topics such as health, mobility, and political issues (Beyersdorf et al. 1998: 225ff.). Yet, the integration of subjects or topics into academic programs remained uneven, particularly in teacher education (see also Haan & Harenberg 1999: 41-42). Key barriers to environmental education’s development included rigid disciplinary structures, the perception of environmental issues as ideological or exotic, and a lack of foundational research. Despite these challenges, environmental education and particularly the Education for Sustainable Development has since experienced significant growth, with research associations diversifying their focus, scope and methodologies. 4.6.2 Education for Sustainable Development and the SDGs The concept of sustainability originates in 18th-century German forestry practices, where it described the principle of harvesting only what could regenerate naturally (see Chapter 2.2). This fundamental understanding evolved through the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development, which emphasized meeting present needs without compromising future generations’ ability to meet theirs (WCED 1987). Building on the foundations laid by Agenda 21 and other earlier initiatives, the new millennium marked a significant shift in the global approach to sustainability, with sustainability emerging as a core concept in education and many institutions and organizations recognizing the need to incorporate sustainable principles into their curricula and operations (UNESCO -UNEP 2012). Although Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) evolved as a direct outgrowth of Agenda 21 and sustainability discourses, it shares common goals and concerns with traditional environmental education but represents a broader pedagog‐ ical approach (McKeown & Hopkins 2005: 221). While traditional environmental education aims to create advocates for preserving natural resources, ESD demands more: learners shall become mediators, capable of analyzing conflicts, weighing solutions, and implementing compromises (222; BLK 1998: 5). ESD recognizes that knowledge and awareness are not sufficient to bring about behavior change but rather 4.6 Environmental and Sustainability Education - Learning Critical Awareness for Social Change 139 <?page no="140"?> require supporting skills and values (222). Notably, ESD transcends both environmental and development education through its comprehensive scope, aiming to enable people to actively shape an ecologically sustainable, economically viable, and socially just environment with consideration of global aspects (McKeown & Hopkins 2005: 223). While ESD broadened its focus beyond purely environmental concerns to include social and cultural contexts, this expansion toward sociocultural dimensions remains somewhat tentative. While environmental education policy often took an instrumental approach, priori‐ tizing education as a tool for administrative, technological, and economic measures (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 44), such an approach has only limited reach, as it relies too heavily on information transfer and awareness-raising, which may not lead to sustainable behavioral change (UN 1992: 320-322). This tension between institutional approaches and an understanding of behavioral change is further reinforced by the emphasis on cognitive competencies in Education for Sustainable Development, which prioritizes developing knowledge and understanding of sustainable development con‐ cepts and principles, as well as critical thinking and problem-solving skills (UNESCO 2014: 14). While ESD aims to integrate cognitive skills with other competencies, such as emotional and social skills, values and attitudes, and practical skills and handson experience (UNESCO 2014: 14, 18), a more balanced approach to ESD could help to ensure more effectiveness in promoting sustainable behavior than in traditional environmental education. To achieve this, ESD must strike a balance between cognitive skills and other essential competencies. The integration of sustainability into education gained momentum in the 2000s, with the launch of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) from 2005 to 2014 (UNESCO 2005). At its core, this global effort sought to reorient education policy, challenge existing educational systems, and promote a holistic approach to learning that fosters critical thinking, collaboration, and dialogue (Tilbury 2011: 4, 12, 20). Throughout the UN Decade, a range of educational programs and activities were developed to encourage learners to clarify their values and make informed decisions that promote sustainability (35). As part of this initiative, educators and policymakers worked to promote lifelong learning, international cooperation, and the development of pioneering initiatives that support sustainable development. The impact of these efforts was multifaceted, with contributions ranging from improving environmental management practices to protecting biodiversity and natural resources, and from changing consumer choices to reducing ecological footprints and vulnerability to climate change (Tilbury 2011: 50). Despite facing challenges, including varying levels of commitment from countries, the sustainability education movement highlighted the transformative potential of education in building a more sustainable future (Tilbury 2010: 102). One of the key outcomes of this approach was a significant increase in public awareness of sustainability issues, as well as expanded participation in education for sustainable development initiatives (106). By adopting new ways of thinking about teaching and learning, and creating a culture 140 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="141"?> of organizational learning and change, such initiatives aimed to empower learners to make a positive impact on the world and contribute to the achievement of sustainable development (Tilbury 2011: 54). The UN Decade laid the groundwork for a significant milestone in 2015, when 193 member states united to adopt the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development (UN 2015). This landmark agreement chartered a course for the planet’s future, forging an even tighter link between ecological and environmental considerations as well as economic and developmental strategies (UN 2015; BMZ 2017). The Agenda 2030 also marked a significant expansion of the field’s scope and horizon: It moves beyond a focus solely on ecological and scientific knowledge to increasingly encompass critical, ethical, and creative dimensions related to planetary well-being (see also Surkamp 2022: 10). This development has far-reaching implications for education, as it seeks to stimulate engagement and activism in support of the global environment and catalyze transformations in individual and collective behaviors. As one of the noblest results of the Agenda 2030, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent a groundbreaking achievement, as they were adopted by all participating countries through a global agreement that facilitated extensive participa‐ tion and exchange on sustainable development. The Agenda 2030 outlines those 17 goals that aim to ensure a sustainable, peaceful, prosperous, and equitable life for current and future generations. In addition, the Goals also intertwine the four facets of economic efficiency, social justice, ecological viability, and democratic governance (Surkamp 2022: 12). They have emerged as highly influential guideposts, frequently serving as touchstones for bridging environmental and language education (Burwitz-Melzer et al. 2021; Surkamp 2022; Römhild 2023). However, the SDG’s framework has faced significant critiques, including internal inconsistencies, overlooked interconnections between goals, and the fundamental conflict between ecological sustainability and economic growth. These challenges raise important cultural and ethical questions about how different societies conceptualize development and progress, highlighting the need for nuanced consideration of the SDG’s complexities (Ernst et al. 2024: 379-380; Hickel 2019) Environmental transformation requires active participation from individuals and groups, as emphasized by the SDGs. Successful educational interventions must address both personal and collective psychological condition for sustainable behavior adoption, such as motivational factors or behavioral determinants (Ernst et al. 2024: 410). Education for Sustainable Development has taken first steps to do so by expanding the focus on environmental matters, incorporating a broader spectrum of societal considerations. By weaving together research, knowledge, and interconnected issues, ESD aims to craft a sustainable future that addresses environmental concerns, poverty, social disparities, social and environmental justice, cultural diversity, and economic viability (Leicht 2018: 7, 11, 30). The UN Decade, the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals mark a sig‐ nificant institutional advancement, fostering both increased educational engagement 4.6 Environmental and Sustainability Education - Learning Critical Awareness for Social Change 141 <?page no="142"?> with sustainability and enhanced networking of educational projects at national and in‐ ternational levels. The German UNESCO Commission’s central mandate is to integrate Education for Sustainable Development comprehensively across all educational sectors in Germany. This cross-curricular approach aims to interconnect different knowledge domains while emphasizing that ESD is relevant to all individuals (BMBF 2020: 35-36). The first orientational framework for ESD in Germany was established in 1998. It integrated system orientation, value-based communication, cooperation, participatory action, self-management, and holistic approaches (BLK 1998: 6-9; Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 45f). This framework laid the foundation for transforming ESD from a theoretical concept into systematic educational practice and institutionalizing ESD across all educational sectors in Germany. To further integrate sustainability into its educational system, Germany devised an already revised “Orientational Curricular Framework for Global Development” in 2007, subsequently refining it to align with the Agenda 2030. This framework places emphasis on cultivating learners’ competencies in perception, evaluation, and action (Schreiber & Siege 2016: 18; Becker et al. 2016: 156; Surkamp 2022: 16). While ESD responds to current societal conditions and environmental challenges across political, economic, and cultural domains and emphasizes that sustainability principles can only be effective through global, regional, and local consensus on ecological and social values (BLK 1998: 23), the framework requires integrating multiple dimensions and further considering the dynamics of cultural thought patterns and action routines (24), yet it lacked specific implementation guidance for humanities subjects in particular. As cultural differences can enrich sustainability education, trans‐ cultural education emerges as a critical component of ESD (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 69). Yet, the framework overlooks the crucial interplay between cultures and languages in sustainability contexts (see Chapter-4.3). By prioritizing globalization and transculturality over the interplay between cultures and languages, the frame‐ work risks reducing cultural aspects to mere byproducts of economic and mass media developments and neglects deeper connections between nature, ecology, language, and culture. The global-local dynamic in environmental education poses a challenge, but also an opportunity for subjects such as foreign language education, where navigating cultural and linguistic contexts is fundamental. An assiduous emphasis on global issues creates pedagogical challenges for foreign language education as it may include the neglect of local contexts specific to a language or culture or an oversimplification of sociocultural dimensions. This can undermine affective engagement and opportunities in language teaching. Therefore, a more refined approach is needed, one that balances global perspectives with local opportunities for exploring specific cultural and linguistic details, and recognizes that individuals can maintain coherent identities while navigating multiple cultural influences. Such an approach would acknowledge that intercultural learning is not about static cultural definitions, but rather about fostering empathy, understanding, and critical thinking in the face of cultural complexity. For English and foreign 142 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="143"?> languages, this means aligning topics, techniques, and approaches with language, literature, culture, and media methodologies to contribute to environmental discourse (see Surkamp 2022; Küchler 2025; Küchler & Preiß 2020). This requires a better understanding of how education principles and the related disciplines can be brought to effect in English or foreign language teaching. Sustainability education in the foreign language classroom should foster empathetic engagement with the natural environment and facilitate cultural transformation through personal connection, rather than relying on technological fixes or political mandates. 4.6.3 Conclusion: Language Teaching for Sustainability The political mainstreaming of environmental issues, while successful in raising aware‐ ness, may paradoxically hinder environmental education (Hauenschild & Bolscho 2005: 117). The highly normative framing of environmental goals can create resistance, and the core challenge appears to be cultural rather than technological. This conclusion is supported by the earlier discussion of the importance of humanitiesbased approaches to ESD. Those debates highlight the need for fundamental shifts in lifestyle, economic thinking, but most importantly in sociocultural perception and communication, which cannot be achieved through legislative pressure alone. The tension between knowledge, cognitive analysis and emotional involvement or engagement is also visible in Education for Sustainable Development. To succeed, education must balance rational understanding with emotional investment in environ‐ mental issues, highlighting the need for more effective cultural, linguistic, and communicative strategies. As Garrard (2004: 168) notes, scientific sustainability claims often embed Western moral values and customs, and, thus. potentially serve as a means of globalization. This highlights the need for Education for Sustainable Development (as much as foreign language education) to critically evaluate the global Sustainable Development Goals and argue for the inseparability of scientific understanding from humanities as much as cultural or linguistics contexts. Questioning whether Western-centric frameworks truly serve diverse educational contexts and cultural perspectives is part and parcel of the cultural and historical contexts, the communication features and the humanities at large. Amidst the momentum surrounding ESD’s reach into the humanities and the language arts, it may be important to acknowledge a potential concern: the risk of promoting uncritical compliance with the forces that drive environmental degradation and social injustice, and, thereby, possibly overlooking the complexities and challenges inherent in these issues. With an increased awareness of doom-gloom approaches, it is crucial to address how scholars can do justice to their responsibility about uncritical optimism in environmental education or education for sustainable development. For example, Vanessa Andreotti (2021) examines how education might avoid becoming complicit with systems that cause environmental harm or enable it by subtly accepting the status quo. All the while, Pradanós (2020) provocatively challenges 4.6 Environmental and Sustainability Education - Learning Critical Awareness for Social Change 143 <?page no="144"?> traditional pedagogical approaches by asking students how their education prepares them for extinction. These scholars raise crucial questions about the responsibilities of researchers and educators: How can educators foster critical thinking and agency in students without perpetuating feelings of hopelessness or disempowerment? What knowledge and approaches should humanities education prioritize? Their critiques, while problem-focused, do not default to crisis narratives. Instead, one may want to suggest reframing Greta Thunberg’s challenge (2019a, b): How dare educators place the full burden of the environmental crisis on young learners? This book, particularly the current chapter, demonstrates that integrating English or foreign language teaching with environmental education and Education for Sustain‐ able Development (ESD) can enhance both language pedagogy and environmental literacy. Incorporating sustainability perspectives into language education enriches both research possibilities and pedagogical practice, as environmental issues provide meaningful contexts for authentic communication and affective engagement in the language classroom. Conversely, foreign language education offers unique contribu‐ tions to education for sustainable development, including intercultural learning, multilingualism, and cultural comparison, which are essential for understanding global sustainability challenges and have been underexplored in environmental discourse. 144 4 The Related Disciplines <?page no="145"?> 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom “Communicating successfully in another lan‐ guage means shifting frames of reference, shift‐ ing norms, shifting assumptions of what can and cannot be said, what has to be explicit and what ought to remain tacit, and so on. In other words, using another language effectively involves more than vocabulary and structures; it involves thinking differently about language and communication.” (Kern 2000: 1) The integration of environmental literacy in language pedagogy raises a fundamental question: can it contribute to a transformative shift in environmental awareness, perception, thought, and communication? Rather than silently making use of environ‐ mental themes, some researchers provoke the discipline and challenge it to reconsider its role in addressing the ecological crisis. For instance, they ask how literature and language pedagogy can prepare students for the realities of extinction (Pradànos 2020) or how the teaching of poetry (Felstiner 2009) or, more broadly, the teaching of litera‐ ture (Ammons 2010) can contribute to saving the planet. While these questions may not have definitive answers, the discussion of environmentally-oriented disciplines has yielded a rich array of insights, ideas, and materials that can be applied to foreign language teaching. The challenge is quite clear: language pedagogy must further engage with these emerging fields of environmental knowledge and explore their potential applications. Although the concept of literacy reaches beyond reading and writing skills in foreign language education, it encompasses a broader range of competences that can inform language teaching and learning (Kern 2000: 2). A closer look into literacy can provide valuable insights into language and thought, social and cultural conventions, and also the relationship between language and the environment. To effectively integrate envi‐ ronmental awareness into foreign language education, a robust theoretical reasoning is needed to conceptualize the interface between the environment and language teaching. This chapter provides an overview of some of the research literature on literacy in TESOL, leading towards key ideas and influential texts that inform the development of environmental literacy in the field. To achieve this goal, the chapter aims to develop a framework that can be applied and operationalized in the foreign language classroom to foster environmental literacy. <?page no="146"?> The previous chapters have explored diverse environmental thoughts and conceptu‐ alizations through the related disciplines. These new perspectives can now be applied to learning and teaching, particularly in the foreign language classroom. New spaces open for learning and teaching about nature, environment, and sustainability differently, if the diverse insights are shared with, transferred, and transposed to the language classroom. Against the background of the various new and multiple literacies, the challenge lies in reconciling these concepts with environmental teaching endeavors to create a model of literacy tailored to the humanities and the specific needs of second and foreign language education. A primary requirement is to balance scientific literacies with humanities-focused approaches. From existing models, a literacy concept customized to foreign language education shall be argued for, drawing on an interdisciplinary synthesis of insights from modern languages, philologies, and educational practice. This chapter is guided by three key questions: • What core considerations must guide the conceptualization of environmental literacy in foreign language education? • How can insights from related disciplines be leveraged to innovate language teaching and learning? • How can environmental issues serve a dual purpose, motivating learners to engage with languages, literatures, cultures, and media communication while also fostering a deeper appreciation for the environment? Ultimately, the concept of literacy proves to be a crucial and indispensable framework for establishing robust connections between fields of knowledge, academic disciplines, and language learning. It further facilitates a deeper understanding of the complex interrelationships between these domains. The reticence of social sciences, the arts, and humanities to fully dwell on environ‐ mental issues and the reluctance to let those fields in on the environmental debate restricts the discourse to rather traditional disciplinary boundaries. Reference works that cater to a scientific readership explain ecology or climate change comprehensively and well, yet remain within the exclusive perimeter of the natural sciences. This under‐ estimates the importance of education in considering environmental issues. I propose taking a step back to redefine literacy and explore why the reading metaphor is crucial in this context. This will involve an overview of ecologically and environmentally minded literacies and a reconceptualization of this framework within the humanities and the teaching of English. 5.1 Literacy and its Development Even though literacy has been a somewhat un-used, if not neglected concept in foreign language education, its definitions are manifold (Kern 2000: 3; Kupetz 2017: 264). The expansion of the literacy concept and its inclusion of meanings of specialized fields of knowledge boosted its refreshed relevance in the foreign language discourses and 146 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="147"?> its suitability for metaphorical extension. The concept of literacy has expanded beyond traditional reading skills, encompassing various forms of competence, such as computer and technological literacy, reflecting a broader understanding of literacy as a multifaceted and context-dependent phenomenon (Stables 1998: 156). In his seminal book Literacy and Language Teaching (2000), Richard Kern traces the evolution of the concept in language teaching and suggests a comprehensive, workable definition that facilitates a better grasp of the expanded notion (6). He defines three aspects: the linguistic, cognitive and socio-cultural dimensions. To understand the different areas of application, learners must gain insights not only into the mechanics of the (foreign) language at hand but also into meaning-making processes in general and the functioning of cultures, societies and their conventions. The literacy terminology is often defined too broadly for general knowledge forms in specialized knowledge areas (Graff & Duffy 2017). To avoid a generic, mystifying usage of the concept, precise terminology better be used. Therefore, students, teachers, and researchers must ensure that terms, concepts, and models are used clearly and specifically, so that they retain their selectivity and clearly define agreed-upon issues, circumstances, or phenomena. From the earliest focus on reading and writing abilities, more complex and higher-order skills are derived. The concept is associated with complex skills such as abstraction and hermeneutical abilities, which involve the construction and negotiation of meanings. Literacy does not describe a singular skill, but rather refers to complex social practices or even cultural technologies that are situated in learning contexts. Its usage is directed as the learners’ life-worlds, their functional use of those abilities for orientation in professional, sociocultural, political, or other contexts. 5.1.1 Literacy in Foreign Language Education The competence paradigm has dominated the academic debate for years, with a focus on developing and implementing competence grids across subjects and curricula. However, this approach has also been criticized for its limitations, particularly in capturing the complexities of language and culture learning (Harsch 2017: 168). The competence concept can be challenging to apply, especially when it comes to abilities that cannot be easily tested or measured. Furthermore, the emphasis on individual achievement and competition may not align with the growing demand for diversity and inclusiveness in education. The digital transformation and the multiliteracies concept have also raised questions about the usefulness of the competence terminol‐ ogy, as they highlighted the need for a more intricates understanding of learning and education. In the German educational context, literacy is often associated with scientific or anglophone academic discourses (Hallet 2010: 68). However, when applied to foreign language education, the concept requires special consideration. A more practice-ori‐ ented approach to literacy, which emphasizes real-life relevance (Lebensweltbezug), 5.1 Literacy and its Development 147 <?page no="148"?> can help learners develop a deeper understanding of how knowledge and skills relate to their everyday lives (68). This approach shifts beyond a narrow functional view, aiming to equip learners with the ability to apply, evaluate, and understand their knowledge and skills in authentic contexts. Notably, this understanding of literacy parallels the concept of competence. Hallet identifies a theoretical overlap between the two concepts (68). While both concepts share common aspects, Hallet argues that literacy in foreign language education places greater emphasis on communicative competences, requiring learners to develop knowledge about language and its effective use for self-expression and communication. The concept of literacy may lend itself to an educational conceptualization of foreign language learning, which also includes formative areas such as intercultural understanding, reflection on language and multilingualism, or even aesthetic-imaginative language use (Hu et al. 2008: 172).- The re-conceptualization of literacy, offered by Kern (2000: 16), conveys a broader perspective and reveals insights that extend beyond language and texts to encompass more complex aspects of learning and communication: Literacy is the use of socially-, historically-, and culturally-situated practices of creating and interpreting meaning through texts. It entails at least a tacit awareness of the relationships between textual conventions and their contexts of use and, ideally, the ability to reflect critically on those relationships. Because it is purpose-sensitive, literacy is dynamic -not static- and variable across and within discourse communities and cultures. It draws on a wide range of cognitive abilities, on knowledge of written and spoken language, on knowledge of genres, and on cultural knowledge. Conveniently, this definition of literacy integrates language, cognition, society, and culture and strictly situates communicative acts within their social and cultural contexts. It thereby addresses a previous gap in language education, highlighting the importance of social and cultural expectations in shaping communication. Moreover, Kern’s literacy framework embraces a broad understanding of language and commu‐ nication, including diverse modes (visual, auditory, digital, multiple) and illuminates the role of language in perception, thought, and meaning-making. 5.1.2 (Functional) Literacy The general definition of literacy constitutes the ability to make oneself understood with any communicative means or to understand what others are trying to express (Mayer 2008: 359). Traditionally, those skills were conceptualized merely with reference to the functional language skills, most notably reading or writing. In such a narrow, literal sense, literacy can be understood as a set of cognitive abilities in combination with linguistic aptitude and knowledge (Bloome & Ryu 2017: 286). Yet, the root of the term literacy lies in the Latin word for letter (“littera”). This reference to the symbolic system of letters, to the graphic representation of 148 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="149"?> language, lays the foundation for the metaphorical extension of the term. Whenever people speak of any new literacy, they refer to the ability of appropriately using symbolic systems of language. In linguistic terms, functional literacy involves not only decoding individual words, but also comprehending their meanings within the context of sentences, facilitated by phonetic and contextual cues. This functional literacy requires readers to navigate commonplace abstractions, such as the abstract concepts beauty or goodness, and to demonstrate literal comprehension of written text (Stables 1998: 158). The reading skill, often described as functional literacy, is defined as the ability to navigate all operations that involve recognizing, understanding, and producing the handwritten or printed symbols of communication (Richards et al. 2002: 313-314). Or in other words, functional literacy brings together the use of the written representation (grapheme), the sound structure and phonetic representation (phoneme) with the semantic representation of language, that is the construction of meaning (Kern 2000: 25). In traditional language use, this refers to the alphabet, but leaves room for many different kinds of handwritings or typographies. While functional reading and writing are among the five crucial skills of (foreign) language competence, they have a solid place in all language classrooms or lecture halls (see Chapter 3.2). Yet, foreign language education has already moved beyond the traditional understanding of literacy. The ability to read and write has been a powerful instrument of social control and distinction since the development of symbolic notation systems or alphabets in the late Middle Ages. With industrialization in the 19th century, this skill became a prerequisite for technological and societal developments, particularly in Europe and North America. The educational system was designed to prepare the workforce for industrial jobs, instilling discipline, faith, and moral values (Foley 2017: 109; Graff & Duffy 2017). Literacy was initially seen as a potential threat to established social systems, as it could empower individuals to challenge cultural traditions and social order (Graff & Duffy 2017: 68). Therefore, literacy education was a double-edged sword, facilitating industrial and technological advancement while also potentially destabilizing the status quo of societies. The need for educational campaigns has become a pressing issue worldwide, as literacy carries both empowering and stigmatizing connotations. In Western societies, adult literacy has become a renewed problem, while in the Global South, it has long been a persistent issue. Literacy is often seen as a means to empower the population and approach democratization ideals (Foley 2017: 110). However, this historical confluence of literacy education with ideology has led to the “literacy myth,” which posits that reading and writing are the sole path to progress and happiness (Graff & Duffy 2017: 69). This myth is closely tied to industrial modernization keywords, such as economic growth and technological advances (71). In contemporary terms, functional literacy is often seen as the only means to achieve democracy and social mobility. In the “literacy myth,” the relationship between this ability and social change is oversimplified, as the complexities of historical context and changing communication channels are ignored 5.1 Literacy and its Development 149 <?page no="150"?> (Graff & Duffy 2017: 69-70). Literacy is never neutral, but is shaped by and reflects the contexts in which it is taught and used (72-73; Foley 2017: 111). A broader understanding of literacy may, therefore, be more effective in promoting social change and critical thinking than a narrow focus on the functional aspects. Literacy education must emphasize critical thinking, open debate, and tolerance for opposing views, and consider the complex relationships between literacy, power, and social change (Graff & Duffy 2017: 73). It is not surprising that discussions about social inequality and literacy are repeatedly sparked by new expansions of the concept, particularly in the context of the digital age, where the digital divide and hybrid teaching efforts have highlighted the need for access to technological tools and gadgets. One possible expansion of literacy is a focus on the health of the planet and the survival of humanity and other species in the face of ecological challenges. This could involve exploring the inscribed relationship between humans, the Anthropocene, and the environment. Some argue that focusing on anything but functional skills will dis‐ tract from learning communication skills, but this misunderstands how communication functions and learning procedures work (Foley 2017: 111). Before examining multiple literacies, consideration will be given to the metaphorical use of the reading skill. 5.1.3 Aside: Reading as Skill and Metaphor- To grasp the concept of literacy, it should be helpful to understand the neurological basis of reading, which involves attaching meaning to written symbols and represen‐ tations. This process is closely tied to human cognition, including skills like forming analogies, finding examples, and generalizing summaries. This ultimately reveals reading as a symbolic representation of human thought and cognitive development. Reading can be understood as a process of encoding and decoding symbols. It thus provides a theoretical foundation for drawing literacy analogies (Volkmann 2010: 66-69). According to British neurologist Oliver Sacks (2010), the ability to read and write is not innate, but rather a creative transfer of existing neuronal functions to a new use. This idea is supported by French cognitive psychologist Stanislas Dehaene’s research, which views reading as a unique human cultural achievement that distinguishes homo sapiens from other primates, and is made possible by the brain’s ability to adapt and reorganize itself to process symbols and signs. Dehaene’s work on the reading process provides valuable insights into the human brain’s mode of operation, which are also relevant when using reading as a metaphor for literacy. His work challenges the idea of an arbitrary brain plasticity, instead he suggests that the brain’s processing of cultural achievements, such as reading, has a neurological and biological foundation (Dehaene 2009: 14). He proposes the model of neuronal recycling, which suggests that the brain’s plasticity is limited and that new skills, such as reading, are built upon existing abilities. According to this model, reading must be integrated into known processes (137), with precursors to skill components like 150 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="151"?> grapheme, phoneme, and meaning differentiation, and symbol-meaning association. This process of recycling existing skills requires access to prior, similar knowledge or experiences, allowing the brain to adapt, reorganize, or recycle new functions from known abilities: Far from being a blank slate that absorbs everything in its surroundings, our brain adapts to a given culture by minimally turning its predispositions to a different use. It is not a tabula rasa within which cultural constructions are amassed, but a very carefully structured device that manages to convert some of its parts to a new use. When we learn a new skill, we recycle some of our old primate brain circuits—insofar, of course, as those circuits can tolerate the change. (Dehaene 2009: 16) Like other primates, the human brain has a region specialized in object recognition, but homo sapiens has a more extensive development of associative regions in the cerebral cortex (2009: 138f.). This enables the complex process of reading, where the brain parses and interrelates individual symbolic components of decoded signs or symbols, rather than recognizing words holistically. The brain breaks down visual information into fragments and reassembles them through analysis of letter sequences - “graphemes, syllables, prefixes, suffixes, and word roots” (20) - and linking them to sounds and meanings. The effectiveness of reading as a cultural technique can be attributed to the psychological concept of perceptual invariance: Our word recognition device meets two seemingly contradictory requirements: it neglects irrelevant variations in character shape, even if they are huge, but amplifies relevant differences, even if they are tiny. Unbeknownst to us, our visual system automatically compensates for enormous variations in size or font. (Dehaene 2009: 29) This allows for the recognition of diverse shapes and forms, including idiosyncratic handwriting and various printing types. Through neuronal recycling, this ability may be originally linked to the perception and interpretation of animal tracks or to the substitution of face recognition (Dehaene 2014: 321). He emphasizes that the human brain has a latent learning potential. Learning can be significantly enhanced if teaching arrangements consider the learner’s mind and scaffold activities in a systematic progression (2014: 324). This excursion into Dehaene’s research reveals that reading and literacy have ecological roots, where recognizing signs and patterns was crucial for survival and compensating for human limitations. The reading metaphor can be applied to various contexts, connecting literacy to the ability to decode and interpret symbols in multiple domains. To develop literacy, learners should acquire codes and building blocks in small steps, using prior knowledge and examples to familiarize themselves with encoding and decoding processes. This approach enables the acquisition of exemplary knowledge and teaches cultural techniques, following the principles of a spiral curriculum. 5.1 Literacy and its Development 151 <?page no="152"?> In modern foreign language learning, functional literacy serves as a foundation for other literacies and allows for the literacy metaphor to be applied to various areas of expertise. Literacy involves registering, decoding, and contextualizing details and signs against prior knowledge and cultural patterns. To become informed and reflective individuals, learners need to develop encoding and decoding skills, critically recognizing and interpreting complex symbols and messages (Volkmann 2010: 66). By reflecting on cultural meanings, students develop a deeper understanding of intercultural communication and identify patterns of meaning-making. As a next step, I will give an overview of literacies in different contexts and further examine literacy concepts for foreign language education in order to lay the groundwork for a transition to the environmental literacy framework, which sheds light on human decoding abilities and their relationship to the non-human environment. 5.2 Literacy in Context: Multiple Levels and Meanings Literacy involves more than coordinating graphemes, phonemes, and meanings, as functional understanding may insinuate. It requires navigating complex situations competently using contextual knowledge and skills, including communication, inter‐ pretation, and meaning-making (Kern 2000: 3-4). Literacy involves decoding symbols, interpreting cultural norms, and producing knowledge, all of which are important to negotiate (social, cultural, and environmental) relationships. By broadening literacy beyond traditional reading and writing skills, language teachers can create a more cohesive curriculum that integrates communicative skills, as Kern (2000: 5) suggests, or moves “even beyond the skills of text-centric literary interpretation.” When considering context, literacy becomes a symbolic construct itself that entails knowledge of social practices. Context then emerges as a space for meaning-making and negotiation (Bloome & Ryu 2017: 287). When establishing coherence in the classroom and navigating complex situations, it is indispensable to consider extralinguistic aspects, such as social, cultural, and topical contexts. According to Kern (2000: 6), the concept of literacy has evolved over the past few decades and gives rise to diverse socially, medially, and culturally framed notions of literacy. As a result, literacy can no longer be defined homogeneously as a reading-writing ability but rather as multiple literacies that derive meaning from the plurality of their contexts and usages. Therefore, in language education, literacy has been broadened and expanded to various language designs: linguistic or communicative patterns, text types in the broadest sense, or even media genres. Those patterns describe socially and culturally dynamic communicative practices in specific contexts. This broader understanding of literacy, therefore, also enables critical comparison and contrast, such as the “relationship between texts, discourse, conventions, and social and cultural contexts” (6). 152 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="153"?> 5.2.1 Literary Literacy: Storytelling and World-Making When national standards and the competence orientation were introduced around the turn of the millennium (see also Chapter 3.1), literary competence was inadequately developed, and its broader significance was largely overlooked. That is because iden‐ tifying the pertinent skills to develop literary competence is challenging and lacks clear definitions. The pragmatic and functional approach to the foreign language learning, as outlined by the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) neglects the systematic development and assessment of reading literary texts and comprehending them (Lütge 2012: 192-193). This oversight has prompted a re-evaluation of the role of literature in the classroom, leading to a redefinition of literary learning and its assessment. In light of the reading metaphor discussed earlier and the various literacies covered in this chapter, the term “literary literacy” surfaces as a valuable umbrella concept. Christiane Lütge reviews diverse competencies and skills related to reading, interpreting, and responding to literary texts, eventually merging them (192). While the field of foreign language education broadens the concept of text to metaphorically include “texts in the broadest sense,” it also narrows the definition of literature to mean the totality of written texts characterized by artistic and aesthetic features (Moser 2016: 943). Yet, what then is considered a literary text? The conven‐ tional understanding of literature describes imagined and fictional constellations in addition to an aesthetically formed use of language, artistic use of narrative means, and storytelling, thereby inadvertently distinguishing literature from fact sheets or functional, informational texts. Literature derives its authority and esteem from its inherent ability to construct a unique world, delineating the potential for action within that sphere. It embodies a unique discourse system with its own conventions that readers must understand and engage with to uncover its distinctive intricacies, which requires a sophisticated framework of rules and assumptions for comprehension (Hallet 2025: 318). Learners need this framework to interpret signs and unravel the complex structures and meanings within a literary text. This potent world-making explains the fascination and learning opportunities associated with fictional literature, as it allows for a host of subjective ways to attribute meaning to the text (Radvan 2019: 278; see also Bredella 2007; Hoydis et al. 2023). To read, comprehend, and enjoy literary texts, learners must engage in a process that leads to the creation of mental representations (imaginations) of situations, circumstances, or constellations among protagonists that are designed by the storytelling in the text and essentially create a model of the story’s fictional world (Bredella 2012: 14; Lütge 2012: 198). Most importantly, literature captivates learners through their emotions; it provides a rare moment of learning about the emotions of others or exploring the repertory of one’s own emotional landscape. Thus, affective aspects are crucial for teaching literature and foreign languages. The capability to generate and engage with narratives is fundamental for the appreciation and reflection of literary works, necessitating both emotional and written responses (Lütge 2012: 195-197; Bredella 2012). 5.2 Literacy in Context: Multiple Levels and Meanings 153 <?page no="154"?> Especially in foreign language education, literature is valued highly as a bridge between cultures. Through the changing of perspectives, it fosters understanding and empathy, which allows learners to recognize and appreciate differences in thought, emotion, and experience. By telling stories, writers organize extraordinary events and personal narratives within moral and cultural frameworks; they thus provide meaning and context to be explored and negotiated. Through storytelling, literature supports identity formation, cognitive development, and navigating daily life, while deviations from norms stimulate critical thinking and enhance readers’ capacity for empathy and perspective-taking (Bredella 2012, 15-7; Bredella 2007). Also, the encoded ambiguity of literary texts and the opportunity to negotiate be‐ tween multiple possible meanings enhance the understanding of narrative patterns and boost memory retention. The human brain seems to be better equipped to remember long and complex stories with all their plot twists, overlaps, and conflicts rather than facts. This indicates that people do not need to explicitly learn narrative structures and story frameworks (Bredella 2012: 18). The storytelling of literary texts also serves as a means of recognition and understanding. The cognitive and emotional processing of literary texts can be seen as knowledge and meaning construction. Purposeful learning occurs when literature with new information is consciously processed, understood, evaluated, and linked to existing personal prior knowledge (see also Küchler 2019a: 561-563). While literature can facilitate various learning goals, the honing of specific literary skills is most valuable and important for language learning: pupils are exposed to diverse expressions, cultural contexts, conflicting meanings, and emotional depths, which can enrich their understanding of literature, but also of culture, interpersonal communication, and the use of language (see also Chapter-3.2). Literature’s role in foreign language education has moved from a rigid canon to an increasingly inclusive approach that values contemporary works, postcolonial authors, and marginalized voices (Lütge 2012: 191). The role of readers and their involvement in reading and meaning-making have moved to the foreground due to the recognition of reception theory and reader response criticism. With the focus on intercultural learning and communication since the 1990s, literary texts were recognized as a vital vehicle for reflecting one’s own and other perspectives, thus for the process of changing perspectives and building intercultural awareness (191). Because literary literacy is complex, contested, and multifaceted, it must be described using aspects and components of literariness (Lütge 2012: 199). The four components — literary reading, literature as a cultural bridge, reflection, and foreign language discourse—must not be understood as mutually exclusive; instead, they all need to be considered simultaneously to develop a comprehensive literary literacy (199). The ability to engage in literary reading involves the development not only of general reading skills but, importantly, also of close reading and emotionally responsive reading. Readers learn to understand and interpret literary texts on a basic level while they deeply and emotionally engage with them. Because literature functions 154 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="155"?> as a cultural bridge, the texts address the ability to recognize (trans)cultural and historical knowledge and create intercultural comparative connections between reader and literature. Literary texts lend themselves to being templates for subjective narrative responses so learners can enter into a dialogue with the text. Hence, the cultural and historical context of literary works, along with the reader’s unique (multior trans)cultural backgrounds, need to be taken into account (Lütge 2012: 199). The ability to reflect on literary texts involves not only focusing on the actions, attitudes, and values presented in the literary work but also analyzing the narrative patterns, discourses, and representations. It further involves reflecting on the reading process itself and the emotions triggered, engaged, or involved in it (Lütge 2012: 199). Reflection underscores the importance of critical thinking in the reading process and the ability to identify, differentiate, change, and coordinate multiple perspectives and interpretations. Foreign language discourse refers to the ability to further one’s foreign language learning through literature and recognize its use for communication and interaction. This involves, for example, relating perspectives or world views in literary works to one’s own life and communication (199). By adopting a comprehensive concept of literary literacy that draws on these four components, researchers and educators can establish the significance of literature in foreign language teaching and foster a better understanding of its role in the foreign language classroom (Lütge 2012; Hallet 2025). For literary literacy to succeed, educators and researchers must consider the diverse needs and interests of students as much as the dynamic changes and expansion of the literary landscape, particularly with digital transformation. Therefore, both educators and researchers should adapt the selection of literary texts used in the classroom. This approach recognizes the diversity of literary and potentially multimodal genres, as well as the specific needs of younger readers (Lütge 2012: 200). The concept of literary literacy offers a framework for understanding the complex relationships between literature, literacy, and (foreign) language teaching. All the while, the question of operationalization and testability remains largely unresolved, as it is recognized in teaching literature that “literary literacy” cannot be standardized or evaluated straightforwardly. This complicates the development of competency standards, making it difficult to assess literary literacy validly and reliably (Hallet 2025: 317). 5.2.2 Critical Literacy and Global Citizenship Education The concept of literacy has shifted significantly; it now encompasses more than language skills and includes pathways to language awareness. Richard Kern (2000) notes that this new perspective highlights the socio-cultural aspect of literacy, con‐ necting communication with the expectations, assumptions, and values inherent in interactions. Expanded definitions of literacy incorporate “socially and culturally situated practices” (Foley 2017: 109; Flood et al. 2005: xv; Oda 2008: 170). Since the 1960s 5.2 Literacy in Context: Multiple Levels and Meanings 155 <?page no="156"?> and 1970s, social issues and critical theory, particularly from the Frankfurt School, have shaped literacy debates by examining social structures and power dynamics in capitalist societies while also exploring avenues for social justice and resource distribution. This shift underscores the importance of addressing social justice, equality, and human dignity, especially in education. If the goal is to critique societal functions, reveal social realities, and address injustices and power imbalances, complex issues can be analyzed through categories such as “race,” ethnicity, class, or gender (Morgan 1997: 9). These categories shape individuals’ social realities but are not fixed; they are created by societal norms and power dynamics. If socially constructed, they can be challenged or redefined for greater social justice (Foley 2017: 110-111). Paulo Freire’s work on critical consciousness and literacy advanced critical pedagogy (Foley 2017: 110; see also hooks 1994: 14ff.). He argues that elites use power to dictate valued knowledge, which is integrated into curricula and communication. Critical pedagogy empowers learners to understand society and challenge oppressive education (Gerlach 2020: 110; Foley 2017: 110-111) Focusing on language in use enables critical pedagogy to uncover how those in power utilize language and culture to legitimize their dominance (Foley 2017: 112; Street & May 2017: 142). Therefore, it is important to identify and question the social and ideological foundations written or encoded into texts (Giroux 1992: 28-30). Yet the ideologies of the powerful are also embedded in everyday communication, often masquerading as “common sense” (Foley 2017: 111). No text, image, curriculum, or schoolbook can be viewed as neutral, for they inevitably serve the interests of some, typically those in power (Römhild 2023: 115). Instead of taking language at face value, critical pedagogy examines the social and cultural formations underlying language use and explores the purposes for which language is employed. These purposes may arise from the specific application of linguistic features, as well as from social, cultural, or other characteristics that reveal power or ideology (Gerlach 2020: 12-14). Critical education aims to include diverse learners and foster participatory learning by transforming the educational environment. It also seeks to uncover hidden interests and empower marginalized groups by developing critical literacy skills: learners learn to detect ideological biases and connect them with their social reality. This, in turn, provides them with practical skills for navigating their everyday lives (Foley 2017: 111-113; see also Janks 2013). By broadening the concept of literacy to include these critical contexts, learners can gain a better understanding of how language use and communication are influenced by social and cultural norms. This expansion also inadvertently reaffirms the importance of the semiotic processes. It may be directed as signs, symbols, or images in the broadest sense; however, particularly metaphors and narratives lend themselves to exploring the manifold “connections between language, knowledge, power, and subjectivities” (Andreotti 2014: 12). One framework for examining critical literacy and the connection between language and power is discourse analysis. By examining how language practice and commu‐ nicative interaction construct power differentials and shape learners’ values and beliefs 156 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="157"?> (Foley 2017: 114-116), discourse analysis reveals how everyday communication influences social change. The concept has shifted from emphasizing syntax to including discussions on social contexts and intercultural encounters. As Richard Kern (2000: 2) observes, this shift has transitioned from analyzing “what texts mean” to considering “what people mean by texts” and ultimately to understanding “what texts signify to people from different discourse communities.” Language awareness, especially critical language awareness, is crucial for understanding how meaning is constructed in verbal expressions, as well as in texts and intercultural encounters (Gnutzmann 2017; Breidbach et al. 2011; Fairclough 2015, 2013; James & Garret 1992). Vanessa Andreotti (2014: 12) argues that uncovering “root narratives” (sometimes referred to as meta-narratives or grand narratives) can be a helpful strategy, as these narratives tend to express underlying premises and shared assumptions embedded in educational discourse. Examining metaphors, language patterns, and narratives establishes connections among functional language means, sociocultural factors, and critical contexts, illuminating how they influence educational discourse. By considering the intersections of “race,” class, and gender, as well as the tensions between the Global North and Global South and the environmental discourse, Andreotti explores how language and narratives can become complicit in harm or perpetuate injustices. She asks, “[W]ho decides what problems and solutions are? ” (15). These significations can reproduce unequal relationships, and learners may be affected, influenced, or even manipulated by the language used in a text or classroom. Although individuals can reflect on their beliefs, knowledge, and life experiences, this capability must be distinguished from the collective cultural work of root narra‐ tives. These narratives are shaped by inherited languages, shared references, and interpretations, which influence individual perspectives. By engaging with these narratives, learners cultivate the ability to contextualize their reflections within a broader historical and socio-cultural frame. They learn to understand how a community’s conceptualization shapes its reality, knowledge, and ideals (Andreotti 2014: 17). Examining narratives, whether individual or collective, helps people grasp the complexities of inequality and injustice (22). They provide insight into the often hidden, inherent, and invisible “assumptions, patterns, trends, differences, similarities, paradoxes, and contradictions” (22). For instance, the concept of anthropocentrism embodies a pattern that positions humanity at the center of importance, while teleology implies a predetermined outcome (23; see also Chapter 2.2 Foundational Definitions and Terms). All the while, the narrative of Western education systems, as Andreotti (23) notes, is that “education is perceived as a way to maximize the performance of individuals in global markets,” ultimately serving national and economic interests. Andreotti (2014) highlights the intersection of critical literacy and global citizenship education and thereby shows its importance in equipping individuals with the skills to critically evaluate knowledge production and navigate the complexities of global citizenship. Global citizenship education describes a multidisciplinary approach that is somewhat difficult to define because it merges contentious concepts such as globality, 5.2 Literacy in Context: Multiple Levels and Meanings 157 <?page no="158"?> citizenship, and education, each with ongoing discourses (Römhild 2025: 158-160). The focus is directed at the interconnectedness of global issues like social injustice, ecological degradation, and human diversity. Global citizenship education aims to foster critical engagement with global interdependencies and collaborate with critical pedagogy and critical literacy, decolonization and postcolonial studies, social justice, and sustainability education. By addressing these issues, global citizenship education nurtures critical thinking, empathy, and responsible citizenship, cultivating a more engaged global community (Römhild 2025: 158-160; 2023: 108; see also Freitag-Hild 2022: 67-70, Surkamp 2022: 33-34). Critical pedagogy remains relevant today, as movements like #MeToo, anti-racism, Black Lives Matter, environmental activism, and Fridays for Future reveal the ties be‐ tween language and power (Braselmann 2023; Boscheinen & Bortfeldt 2021; Arghavan et al. 2019). Critical literacy and communication underscore the need to address these issues in foreign language education (Gerlach 2020). Themes of justice, inequality, and identity formation are linked to meaning-making processes, which frequently manifest as symbolic practices in language classrooms. To support this, a wider variety of text types and expressions is essential, referred to as “available designs” (The New London Group 1996: 15; Kern 2000: 2). 5.2.3 The Intercultural Dimension and Transculturality The cultural turn in German foreign language education emphasizes intercultural communicative competence and distinguishes it clearly from E.D. Hirsch’s (1988) concept of “cultural literacy.” Andrew Stables (1998: 157) describes that cultural literacy as “passive” and focused on recognizing established cultural references rather than actively engaging with or critically evaluating them. This approach prioritizes received wisdom over personal meaning-making, where individuals absorb cultural knowledge without critically assessing it. The absence of “intercultural literacy” in German foreign language education literature may stem from the complex history of that term and leads to a preference for alternative conceptualizations such as “intercultural dimension,” “intercultural competence,” or “intercultural and transcultural learning” (Meyer et al. 2022: 151; Freitag-Hild 2018: 159, 163; Risager 2012: 143, 145; Surkamp 2025). Never‐ theless, intercultural learning is of utmost importance in foreign language education, where learners engage with multiple cultural backgrounds, navigate complex social interactions, and learn empathy, understanding, and effective communication (see also Chapter-3.2). Therefore, in addition to functional literacy and social critique, foreign language learners are expected to develop intercultural competence to comprehend language utterances, texts, images, and objects as cultural artifacts embedded in the history and sociocultural traditions of the speakers’ community (Meyer et al. 2022: 158-159; Freitag- Hild 2018: 166; Bredella 2012). Intercultural learning has expanded to encompass transculturality, acknowledging that cultural expressions and practices are marked 158 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="159"?> by complexity, hybridity, internal diversity, and dynamic changes (Freitag-Hild 2018: 167). Although under heavy criticism for the suspicion of promoting a nationalistic notion of culture (Römhild & Gaudelli 2022), I would argue that the term “intercultural” refers to the dynamic and reciprocal interactions, exchanges, and relationships among individuals from different (socio)cultural backgrounds. In contrast, the concept of “transculturality” describes a state of hybrid influences and cultural flux, which cannot be considered pure or homogeneous. This understanding recognizes that cultural phenomena are characterized by multiple voices, overlapping characteristics, and blurred boundaries, resulting in a rich and dynamic cultural landscape (Delanoy 2012). While “intercultural” emphasizes the quality of relationships through reciprocal and communicative exchanges, “transcultural” pertains to the complex and multifaceted definitions of culture on which these assertions are based. Keeping these thoughts in mind, both concepts play a valuable role in foreign language education, as they complement rather than contradict the respectful goals of “intercultural learning.” The redefined importance of cultural conventions in text use and communication highlights the variability of concepts across different cultural contexts and speakers’ communities. This understanding is even more critical when learning other languages or communicating about environmental perceptions, where cultural conventions and codes are communicated via aesthetics, taste, food, and other aspects of “cultivatedness” (Kern 2000: 3). The concept of the “third space” (Kramsch 1993) highlights the intercultural dynamic and interpretive space between cultures, giving rise to new understandings and perspectives (Nünning 2000, 1997; Bredella 2005, 1999, 1988). 5.2.4 Multimodal Literacy, Multiliteracies, and the Digital Transformation In German foreign language education, the notion of literacy was once approached with caution, but its interpretation has evolved and expanded considerably over the past few years. This change reflects a transition from a narrow emphasis on isolated skills to a broader understanding that acknowledges literacy as influenced by social, cultural, political, and historical factors, underscoring its role in fostering social involvement and critical engagement (Kupetz & Römhild 2025: 315-316). This shift in meaning and usage was likely prompted by the growing significance of critical literacy and media literacy in its broadest sense. For a while, foreign language education has used terms such as audio, film, or (multi)media literacy (Meyer et al. 2022; Blell 2017; Lütge 2011; Mayer 2008). The concept has further evolved in response to the digital transformation, which has expanded the understanding of literacy to encompass a range of modes and channels. As digital technology, social networks, and artificial intelligence continue to shape our environment, the key aspects of media literacy are continually evolving (Hobbs 2011; Schmidt & Strasser 2018; Burniske 2008). With the digital transformation, the term “new literacies” emerged, though it risks being short-lived and quickly replaced by newer concepts. The Handbook of Research on 5.2 Literacy in Context: Multiple Levels and Meanings 159 <?page no="160"?> New Literacies (Coiro et al. 2008) outlines an expanded understanding of literacy where the “newness” centers on a range of technological and digital competencies. However, their focus on technological prowess must be criticized for overlooking critical issues such as environmental justice, climate change, and territorial warfare. The editors’ call for “bold new thinking” and open-mindedness is undermined by a lack of consideration for alternative “new” perspectives. The omission of insights from ecomedia studies in the handbook’s conceptualization of “new literacies” represents a notable gap and highlights the need for broader theoretical impulses and a literacy model that can be integrated into foreign language education to respond effectively to the ecological challenges in the present day. The New London Group (1996) originated the multiliteracies pedagogy and aims to equip learners with essential critical skills for engaging with society and shaping their social future. This group of researchers and educators from the USA, Great Britain, and Australia, in their effort to redefine literacy concepts, emphasizes the importance of understanding the roles of cultural and linguistic diversity in shaping communicative patterns. They pose the questions, “How do we ensure that cultural, language, and gender differences do not hinder educational success? What are the implications for literacy pedagogy? ” (The New London Group 1996: 4). Their concept is founded on global economic shifts and the need to reconcile diverse interests to ensure equitable access to wealth and power. By recognizing learners’ complexities and identities, they advocated for a pedagogy embracing diversity and cognitive flexibility (10). Hence, the group asserts that education should foster an “epistemology of pluralism” (13), which allows access to diverse perspectives without erasing individual differences. The growth and ubiquity of digital communication integrates various modes, channels, and formats, ranging from typefaces to images, colors, and sounds, ultimately forming a sophisticated digital multimodality. All those diverse signs and symbols convey meaning, making these processes vital for foreign language education as well. To encourage societal participation and (digital) media competence, foreign language education needs a reconceptualized literacy that covers cognitive, communicative, discursive, and strategic skills, ultimately reflecting the insights of the New London Group (Kupetz & Römhild 2025: 316; Hallet & Königs 2010: 68). They identified multiple dimensions of meaning essential for understanding multiliteracies’ complexities. They outline six key areas of meaning-making, each requiring its own system of rules: linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, spatial, and multimodal patterns, which represent the interconnections among the other modes (The New London Group 1996: 17-19). By recognizing the complexity and interrelationship of these modes of meaning, educators and researchers can better comprehend how meaning is created and negotiated in different contexts, including those related to environmental and media literacy. The multiliteracies approach advocates for a pedagogy that addresses linguistic, multimodal, contextual, as well as social, and cultural dimensions of media communica‐ 160 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="161"?> tion. They view learners as “designers of social futures,” actively constructing meaning through language (1996: 7). They conceptualize meaning as an active and dynamic process involving the interplay of three components: available designs, designing, and the redesigned; and propose that “any semiotic activity, including using language to produce or consume texts, [should be treated] as a matter of Design” (14). When speaking of “design,” they highlight that meaning-making is not a process that introduces entirely novel or unexpected elements. Informed by Norman Fairclough’s theory of discourse, the New London Group views semiotic activity as a dynamic process that both reproduces and transforms existing patterns, conventions, and elements; or, in other words, that “transforms knowledge in producing new constructions and representations of reality” and “it always involves making new use of old materials” (16). In this way, known patterns available to learners can be creatively applied, possibly also adapted, or transformed in the process. In the course of things, patterns will have to be represented and, depending on the social and cultural context of a communicative situation, recontextualized against the backdrop of existing patterns. This makes “designing” such a dynamic and iterative process as it works through communicative ideas, interpersonal and socio-cultural contexts, and the functions of expressions or language. This process helps people change how they relate to each other and themselves, and it also allows them to form new meanings that can vary depending on the situation (16-17). The resources learners have at their disposal to support the creation of meanings are then called “available designs” (15). They constitute the inventory of patterns as well as the “grammar” they follow. This brings the questions of linguistic means or the (multi)modalities of media formats, such as films, photos, or performative gestures, to the foreground. The collection of structures and rules from various semiotic systems available to learners is influenced by specific conventions within social spaces. These spaces can include societies, institutions, or individual lifeworlds. As the various types of communication actively engage with one another and are shaped by their sociocultural contexts, they also influence how individuals understand and create meaning, serving as a foundation for both the development of meanings and their evolution (15). As a third component, the New London Group conceptualizes the “redesigned” to describe the result of the “designing” and meaning-making process, emphasizing once again that it is “never a reinstantiation” or “even a simple recombination” (17) of the available design. Instead, it represents a novel creation that builds upon historically, socially, and culturally received patterns of meaning. As a result of this process, the new meaning and media communication enable learners to reinvent themselves or leave their personal mark. In due course, the redesigned concept is incorporated into the available repertoire of patterns and can be drawn upon in the next cycle of meaning-making (or ‘designing) (17). From the cycle of meaning-making, the New London Group outlines a multiliteracies pedagogy that views knowledge as embodied, situated, and social. They emphasize the importance of contextualizing learning in social, cultural, and material contexts 5.2 Literacy in Context: Multiple Levels and Meanings 161 <?page no="162"?> and recognize that human knowledge is initially developed in concrete situations and through experiences (22). Thus, their pedagogy consists of four components: Situated Practice, which involves immersion in experience and the utilization of available discourses; Overt Instruction, which provides systematic and analytic understanding through the introduction of explicit metalanguages; Critical Framing, which involves interpreting the social and cultural context of particular designs of meaning; and Transformed Practice, which enables the transfer of meaning-making practices to other contexts and cultural sites. By integrating these components, the multiliteracies pedagogy aims to create conditions where learners can become active creators of meaning and capable of navigating or creating multiple forms of literacy in a rapidly changing world (26). The multiliteracies concept has been revised and expanded (Kalantzis & Cope 2015), and today, the concept of multimodal literacy increasingly serves as an umbrella term that reflects the interplay of various literacies, including the multimodal ones (Kupetz & Römhild 2025: 316). 5.2.5 Literacy in Broader Contexts By adopting a broadened, expanded perspective on literacy, the concept can be reimagined in the context of environmental humanities and the teaching of English (as a foreign language). It offers a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between language, literature, culture, media communication, and the environment. The attempts to redefine literacy have met some skepticism and resistance, possibly due to fear of losing focus on functional and communicative language skills. Good questions are posed by Flood et al. (2005: xvi) when they ask: Can anything get lost in language learning when broadening the horizon to other ways of creating and communicating meaning? When considering social and cultural contexts, are learners robbed of any opportunity to learn a language? The implied answers to those questions demonstrate that such a “perspective of loss” misconstrues the way learning happens, and information is processed. After all, language learning and the classroom cannot be removed from reality as little as content can be separated from communication (xvi). It has become a matter of course to apply those assertions to auditory and visual arts or the digital transformation of language learning. A few decades into the 21st century, it is felt that such fears concerning multimedia and the multimodality of the language classroom seem utterly unfounded. However, what about other aspects of reality creep into the classroom? Are the fears and perceived obstacles more founded if the environmental crises seep into foreign language education? Would reservations about environmental literacy be slightly more justified when it comes to skills and knowledge forms that take their cue from those somewhat ‘other’ areas of expertise? The next chapter will introduce notions of literacy that focus on ecology and the environment and, eventually, join forces with language learning. The only loss environmental literacy provides for foreign language learning would be the “privilege” 162 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="163"?> to align with the social elites and powers at work in communities, the privilege to be complicit in pollution or other toxic, destructive behavioral habits of a society. The expansion and extensive discourse surrounding literacy concepts reveal that this idea is intricately linked to the classroom’s social, cultural, and political realities. While this complexity may hinder a straightforward overview, it simultaneously offers diverse opportunities for making literacy relevant across various intersectional and environmental contexts. 5.3 Literacy Models in the Context of Nature, Environment, and Sustainability Via the close ties to the anglophone academic world and particularly in the form of newly coined literacies, the notion of literacy finds its way into the (German) educa‐ tional system and (foreign) language pedagogy. However, most of the “new literacies” are geared towards new digital media or technological abilities (Coiro et al. 2008; see also Street & May 2017), but not so much towards environmental or sustainability literacy. At the same time, there is a considerable number of books that focus on ecological or environmental issues, but only a limited number seem to be aligned with the foreign language educational concern. Most focus on scientific knowledge and ecology, some on campus-wide university initiatives or interdisciplinary teaching across the curriculum, others are directed at behavioral mitigation. Only very few engage with the humanities. It remains somewhat challenging to locate the place for environmental issues, such an epoch-making topic, within the epistemological field of foreign language education and, hence, help researchers, teachers, and learners to come to terms with their understanding of ‘ecological’ or ‘environmental’ concerns with the goals of the foreign language classroom (O’Sullivan & Taylor 2004; Stone & Barlow 2005; Orr 1992). The intriguing, occasionally surprising, and in any case interesting insights intro‐ duced by the related disciplines (see Chapter 4) underscore that the issues and considerations of nature, environment and sustainability align extraordinarily well with the principles and goals of foreign language education. Yet, how can those findings be applied in language learning? In the chapter at hand, I will try to braid together two models of literacy in order to do justice to the individual concepts, but more so to the premises of foreign language education. After all, what the literacy models have in common also happens to be at the heart of foreign language education: The ability to decipher and decode symbolic communication, to contextualize and communicate utterances in whichever semiotic form needed (Kern 2000: 24; Stables 1998: 157; Kramsch 2021: 5). 5.3 Literacy Models in the Context of Nature, Environment, and Sustainability 163 <?page no="164"?> 5.3.1 Functional, Cultural, and Critical Environmental Literacy Dehaene (2009: 247) directs attention to the impactful ability of indigenous groups in “read[ing] the natural world” and their immediate environments. They are apt at deciphering environmental cues, such as animal tracks and other signs in their habitat. This raises intriguing questions about the evolutionary precursors of literacy and the ability to read - literally and not just metaphorically - one’s environment similar to typeset on a page. While it is not within the purview of humanities disciplines to determine whether the ability to read and interpret environmental signs represents a cognitive foundation for the development of reading and writing skills, as Dehaene ponders (2009: 247), language pedagogy may be well-suited to develop an environmental literacy that incorporates and highlights the principles and goals of (foreign) language education, thereby illustrating the unique value of the humanities in promoting environmental awareness. Even though Andrew Stables’ work on “Teaching and Learning the Book of the World” predates Dehaene’s inquiry, both authors grapple with the interest in exploring the intersections between literacy, environment, and culture. Researchers at the University of Bath, including Keith Bishop and notably Andrew Stables, have long explored the connection between environmental literacy and reading skills in the humanities, specifically decoding and contextualizing abilities (Stables 1996; 1997; 1998; Bishop et al. 2000; Stables 2006). Their model of environmental literacy integrates insights from multiple disciplines, including philosophy, literary studies, and linguistics, and demonstrates the relevance and compatibility of environmental issues in the humanities. Stables emphasizes the importance of considering the environment - here with the example of landscape - as a complex system shaped by human values and cultural norms. This understanding, which resonates with today’s core ideas of the An‐ thropocene, underscores the need for an interdisciplinary approach, combines insights from the sciences and humanities to grasp the intricate relationships between human and natural systems (Stables 1998: 155). This approach captures the complexity and nuances of both environmental issues and language, literature, and culture teaching. Its relative simplicity also enables easy adaptation and transfer to the classroom. The three-step model effectively scaffolds the progression from a foundational functional level to a more complex, culturally informed, and ultimately critical level. While critical literacy is increasingly valued, it is essential to recognize that learners must first develop a certain level of functional knowledge and cultural context before they can meaningfully engage with and critically evaluate environmental issues (Stables 2006: 148). However, the model is grounded in several assumptions that situate it firmly within the humanities and reflect the theoretical discourse of the late 20th century. Stables sets his approach resolutely against positivism and embraces a more refined understanding of human experience. He tries to acknowledge the complexity and diversity of human experience, where positivism privileges empirical observation and reasoning, thereby reduces human experience to observable, quantifiable behavior and 164 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="165"?> neglects cultural and contextual differences. By rejecting the reductionism inherent in the Western scientific tradition, which has historically marginalized the arts and humanities as secondary to scientific progress, Stables highlights the importance of cultural differences, linguistic diversity, and literary arts in shaping the understanding of human experience. This is in opposition to the dominant scien‐ tific paradigm, which assumes that objective truth can be attained through rigorous methodology and observation, thereby relegating the humanities to an auxiliary status (2005: 147-148). Furthermore, Stables challenges the poststructuralist notion that signs are not reality and that, therefore, there is no reality beyond signs. With reference to Jacques Derrida, he argues that while nothing may exist outside of text in the classical sense, this does not mean that only traditional texts are relevant. He considers Derrida’s concept as more expansive when arguing: “While implying that nothing lies beyond text, it does not imply that only the things we commonly call texts exist. The play with dehors texte/ de hors-texte seems to mean most strongly that there is nothing that is not a text” (2006: 148). Instead, Stables emphasizes that all human lived experiences are characterized by semiotic engagement. As individuals perceive and interpret their environment through multisensory experiences, they draw on a range of signs and symbols, including linguistic, iconographic, olfactory, tactile, and gustatory cues. This process of perception, reflection, and interaction with the environment can be seen as a “reading” of the world, where learners engage with and interpret the symbols and signs that surround them. By framing environmental issues as texts in the broadest sense, Stables argues that they can be read, decoded, and interpreted through the lens of sociocultural conventions. In this view, human relationships with the non-human environment or observations in nature can be analyzed as texts, relying on the frameworks of communication, iconicity, and metaphoricity. Language and culture are understood as symbolic systems, and the processes of meaning-making, encoding, and decoding signs and symbols are foregrounded. To sum up, by conceptualizing human existence as semiotic engagement, it is possible to acknowledge the world’s reality while regarding it as a complex web of texts, discourses, and signs that can be explored through humanities-based modes of inquiry (2006: 146-147). The three-step model offers a framework for conceptualizing environmental issues also in language pedagogy, as it highlights the need for interdisciplinarity and integrates insights from diverse areas of expertise. It describes the interrelated steps of functional, (socio)cultural, and critical environmental literacy: The functional dimension, or “functional environmental literacy”, primarily focuses on ecological knowledge and background information. It involves the basic ability to decode and understand signs on a basic level, so that individuals are able to comprehend literal meanings or follow straightforward instructions (Stables 1998: 157). At this level, learners develop an understanding of their natural surroundings, including the characteristic features of their region and its recurring phenomena or cycles. 5.3 Literacy Models in the Context of Nature, Environment, and Sustainability 165 <?page no="166"?> The functional dimension also encompasses the ability to recognize and distinguish between different environmental features, such as trees and their spatial relationships. This form of literacy is dynamic and cumulative, that is it involves the ongoing development of complex skills and knowledge (1998: 158). In practice, much of science education in schools may inadvertently focus on developing this type of functional literacy, even if it is not the primary intention. At this level, learners are guided by their teachers to engage in close observation of the environment. They should seek to explore their local surroundings or anglo‐ phone landscapes without being influenced by prior assumptions or “prefabricated” perceptions. Through carefully designed activities and prompts, teachers encourage learners to explore the environment, asking questions like: What are the names of the nearby river or mountain range? What features can be described, and what changes can be observed over time? How does this region compare to others, and what special characteristics does it possess? Additionally, learners examine how language interacts with natural phenomena, recognizing that language is an arbitrary system of signs that can also be used in a playful, imitative, or mimetic way to represent nature. For example, Robert Macfarlane’s use of acrostics, where the vocal sounds of words mimic the calls of magpies, illustrates this intersection of language and nature (Macfarlane & Morris 2017: 27). This functional dimension enables parallels to be drawn between exploring a text (or a design or a genre) and observing natural phenomena, both of which involve close observation and initially suspension of judgement or normative evaluation. Hence, this dimension resonates with the practice of “close reading” in literary analysis, where careful attention is paid to detail and nuance. Furthermore, the focus on identifying and differentiating perspectives echoes the approaches used in intercultural learning. As a result, this dimension establishes connections to cultural studies and language awareness, highlighting the interconnectedness between ecological, sociocultural, and linguistic observations. However, the functional efforts must not stop there (as it occasionally does in textbooks) as it primarily focuses on scientific knowledge without necessarily engaging learners on an emotional or intellectual level. Moreover, this would overlook the importance of environmental values and meanings, which are essential for fostering a deeper understanding of environmental issues. To overcome these limitations and integrate scientific observation and knowledge with value judgments, moving from functional reading the environment onwards to cultivate the cultural and critical environmental dimensions is imperative. A comprehensive approach to environmental literacy must strike this balance between functional, cultural, and critical aspects (Stables 1998: 158-159). Now, the cultural dimension (or “cultural environmental literacy”) points out the significance of social and cultural practices in relation to the environment. These may be dominant or subordinate, yet they cover, for example, traditions, perceptual conventions, or perspectives. This dimension can be understood in terms of the social, material, and conceptual aspects of a culture, as described by Erll & Gymnich (2020: 166 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="167"?> 18-28), which comprise not only the perceptible and observable but also the underlying mental aspects of a culture. In other words, the cultural dimension involves understanding the significance that society attaches to cultural icons or landscapes. It asks to recognize the role of cultural and social forces in shaping the environment, or better yet, the interrelations between society, culture, and environment. The cultural level enables individuals to explain why landscapes exist as they do, beyond mere geological or climatic factors, and to recognize the impact of human activities on the environment, such as enclosure, land ownership, or resource extraction. To a certain degree, the cultural dimension also requires learners to navigate dominant value systems and cultural hegemony. Ultimately, the cultural dimension of environmental literacy seeks to understand the patterns, molds, and formats that a culture provides. It may err on the side of tradition and cultural heritage. Nevertheless, it does not necessarily enable them to act upon this awareness (Stables 1998: 159). For example: What does one culture or society consider as important? Who gets to be a heroine or hero, who is a villain and for what reason, with which historical, cultural, social or communicative markers? What are the historical conditions to develop images, metaphors or narratives? What agency is ascribed to individuals, for example when it comes to bringing climate change to a halt? How are sociocultural value systems projected onto the environment? When closing in on an environmental discourse, therefore, one needs to ask, which (environmental) topics are popular, and which animals or plants? Consider, for instance, the disparity in popularity between polar bears (apex predators) and the common earthworm (together with other species often nicknamed ‘compost’ worms). They are ecologically vital but often viewed as lowly, slimy, and ugly. Their “image” reflects perhaps a cultural arrogance that devalues the humble and the unseen, and overlooks the vital contribution of humble, unseen species that are just as crucial to the ecosystem. Teaching and learning within the cultural environmental dimension involves ex‐ ploring the interrelations between cultural and environmental, sustainable patterns. For instance, metaphors for technology, such as computer worms and viruses, are often borrowed from the natural world (Thomas 2015: 6; see also Küchler & Preiß 2020: 30-31). To recognize these interrelations, learners must become aware of the characteristics that others consider significant. This process has parallels with interand transcultural learning, as well as environmental literacy. For language education, the (socio)cultural dimension is particularly crucial, as comparing and exploring social and cultural practices, concepts, and pattern is at the core of the discipline. In pedagogical terms, these aspects are realized in language through available designs, a concept developed by the New London Group (1996) and Kern (2000; see also Chaptr 5.2.4), which refers to conventional forms of communication, interaction, and discourse that have been developed socially and culturally over time. By acknowledging these connections, language educators can foster a deeper 5.3 Literacy Models in the Context of Nature, Environment, and Sustainability 167 <?page no="168"?> understanding of the cultural environmental dimension and its relevance to culturally (and environmentally) sensitive communication. Critical literacy involves actively exploring and interpreting texts to uncover their ideological underpinnings, including their cultural, social, and political contexts (see Chapter 5.2). Stables’ concept brings this understanding to environmental dis‐ course (critical environmental literacy) and, thus, enables individuals to analyze the motivations and ideologies underlying environmental texts. This critical dimension empowers learners to explore beyond the literal meaning of environmental issues, to distinguish between fact and manipulation, to guard against being influenced by texts without awareness of their underlying forces, and to negotiate and then translate their values into agency or effective communicative action (Stables 1998: 160). Ultimately, critical environmental literacy requires an understanding of the complex relationships between ecological, cultural, and social factors, and the ability to develop a personal and social response to environmental issues. The critical environmental dimension, which is the third level of the model, can only be achieved by building on the foundations of the functional environmental dimension, with its foundational ecological background information, and the cultural environmental dimension, which enables individuals to understand the social and cultural embeddedness of norms and values. By integrating all three dimensions, individuals develop a more solid understanding of the complex relationships between ecological, cultural, and social factors, and cultivate the critical thinking skills necessary to analyze environmental texts, distin‐ guish between fact and manipulation, and develop a personal and social response to environmental issues (Stables 1998: 160). Learners develop a critical understanding of the hierarchy of environmental topics and learn how to ‘unpack’ texts, patterns, and language from a critical perspective. For instance, they can scrutinize and ask specific questions, such as: How are texts, images, films, or behavioral scripts analyzed, discussed, and interpreted? How do media products reflect a broader social context, and how do individuals engage with them? What role do forms of expression, such as linguistic, visual, filmic, or multimodal representations, play in shaping perceptual conventions of one society or culture? And how do these aspects relate to environmental issues? Most importantly, learners can explore how learning about languages, literatures, cultures, and media communication makes a difference in their understanding of environmental issues. For example, how can knowledge of languages and their patterns help detect and understand greenwashing attempts? How can awareness of languages, cultures, diversity, and the humanities enable learners to find their role in the global, multicultural environment and critically engage with environmental issues? By developing critical environmental literacy, learners can move beyond mere awareness and take communicative action, using their knowledge to make a positive impact on the world. To conclude, this three-step model enriches the understanding of languages, texts, and media communication, while it simultaneously highlights the interconnectedness and multifaceted relationships between humans and the non-human world. Already, 168 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="169"?> the functional environmental dimension is often found in teaching materials and textbooks, as it aligns with science education, ecology, and climate change initiatives. This alignment suggests that it not only provides a solid foundation for the other di‐ mensions but can also serve as a crucial bridge between the sciences and the humanities. For English and other foreign languages, the cultural dimension plays a pivotal role in uncovering normalization tendencies in sociocultural patterns or texts, where the habitual is often considered “normal” and the unusual is marginalized or excluded as “other”, thereby once again strongly influencing the perception and understanding of the environment. It seems imperative that cultural environmental literacy receives sig‐ nificantly more attention in foreign language research and teaching, as it holds the key to fostering a deeper knowledge of the complex relationships between human cultures and the natural environment. Although foreign language learners are often encouraged to critically position themselves, Stables notes that environmental problems typically require scientific analysis and solutions, which can limit the educational function of the critical dimension (1998: 161). Especially with the critical dimension, it is crucial to acknowledge that language education has a distinct role in addressing environmental issues, without shouldering the sole responsibility for resolving complex ecological problems. The critical dimension remains vital in humanities education, as it enables students to consider human value systems with their ethical and aesthetic implications. Consequently, the arts, humanities, language education, and cultural studies should inform environmental decision-making, alongside scientific knowledge (Stables 1998: 161). This model of environmental literacy resonates with the principles and beliefs of foreign language education and reflects a shared understanding of the complex rela‐ tionships between language, culture, and the environment. By exploring the world as (metaphorical) text and with texts (in the broadest sense), students can develop deeper awareness of the environment as a dynamic and relational process, and gain greater appreciation for the role of languages and literatures in shaping the understanding of reality (Stables 2006: 151-155). Rooted in the arts and humanities, this approach recognizes that human perception of the environment is a cultural construct, shaped by sociocultural conditions and language. To develop a robust teaching rationale, specific content on nature, environment, and sustainability must be grounded in a theoretical framework, which balances collaboration with other fields and critical examination of unique contributions, and drawing on the rich resources of language, literature, culture, and media communication. The unique contribution of foreign language education can be a strengthening of the reading process, expanded from letters on a page or images online to the reading of signs in the environment. This, in turn, helps learners realize the sociocultural constructedness of perceptual conventions, signs, and interpretations, and, thus, also a deeper understanding of the metaphors, stories, and cultural narratives that shape the understanding of the environment. The metaphors, stories or (cultural) narratives about mankind and the non-human environment are, 5.3 Literacy Models in the Context of Nature, Environment, and Sustainability 169 <?page no="170"?> in that sense, also sociocultural construction and function as “available designs” (The New London Group 1996; Kern 2000). While this model is well-suited for discussing language, literature, and culture, it has limitations in capturing the complexities of diversity and otherness in foreign language education. Developed in a native speaker setting, the model requires adaptations for multilingual contexts or foreign language education, where the conditions are different (see Chapter 3). To address this, a comparatist strand should be integrated into all dimensions, acknowledging that students will inevitably perceive environmental and cultural elements through a comparative lens. 5.3.2 Education for Sustainable Development in the EFL Classroom In recent years, the integration of environmental issues and sustainability into for‐ eign language teaching has emerged as a thriving area of research and conceptual development. Although foreign language education has historically trailed behind first language education in this regard (Surkamp 2022: 5; Küchler 2025: 68), it is now undergoing significant research activity and growth. In contrast, first language education had a much longer tradition of incorporating related disciplines, such as environmental education or ecocriticism (see Matthewman 2011; Beach et al. 2017). As foreign language education gains momentum in researching environmental matters, it is principally driven by the convergence of efforts in foreign language education and the global Sustainable Development Goals (see also Chapter 4.6). Carola Surkamp (2022) has developed a comprehensive pedagogical framework that connects the Sustainable Development Goals with the curricular premises of foreign language education, here specifically English. This model proposes a holistic approach to language education, one that emphasizes the interdependence of linguistic, cultural, literary, and media dimensions. By tracing the development of Education for Sustain‐ able Development and summarizing the Goals, Surkamp’s framework provides a robust rationale for integrating environmental concerns into foreign language teaching. The framework takes its cues from UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development publications and Germany’s “Curriculum for Global Development,” which provides an interdisciplinary framework to integrate sustainable development into all school subjects (Surkamp 2022: 17-18, 35; Schreiber & Siege 2016: 18; Leicht et al. 2018). At its core, this (foreign language) model is grounded in three fundamental compe‐ tences that are shared across all school subjects: perceiving, evaluating, and taking action. These three competences collectively comprise the focal point of the model; And interestingly, in the graphic representation of the model, the boundaries between the competences are visualized by a dotted line (rather than sharp boundaries) and thus depicted as somewhat fluid, indicating their interconnectedness. 170 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="171"?> Fig. 5: English’s contribution to Education for Sustainable Development (adapted from Surkamp 2023: 35), illustration by Anna Voigtländer. The ability to perceive (in the German original “Erkennen”) involves acquiring foundational and orientational knowledge, honing analytical skills, which then enable learners to recognize different levels of issues or global changes (Surkamp 2022: 17, 35). This, in turn, raises questions about how learners can acquire knowledge and awareness about language, cultures, or enviornment, including its dimensions and its relationships. That highlights the need to explore how language, cultures, and environments function and interact, and how their dynamic interrelations can be systematically explored. The ability to evaluate (or “Bewerten” in the German original) involves changing perspectives and adopting multiple viewpoints, cultivating empathy, and critically reflecting on insights to find one’s own position and form a personal stance. The process can be facilitated by questions such as: How does language influence the understanding of the environment? And how can learners become aware of the potential impacts of language on social interactions, including its manipulative uses, the interplay between language and power, and the role of language in discrimination (Surkamp 2022: 17, 35)? For example, how can learners apply their critical thinking 5.3 Literacy Models in the Context of Nature, Environment, and Sustainability 171 <?page no="172"?> skills to analyze and interpret different types of texts, including those that promote environmental awareness or social justice? The most complex ability, taking action (or “Handeln” in the German original), requires from learners to demonstrate solidarity and shared responsibility, to navigate conflicts, respond to global challenges, or to contribute to the finding of solutions. To foster this competence, guiding questions can be posed, such as: What agency can individuals exert through language? Surkamp (2022: 17, 35)? However, this competence may still profit from further development and refinement in settings, especially in language pedagogy, in order to avoid misleading understandings. Needless to say, in the context of language education, the three competences must be embedded in a set of concentric circles, with the innermost circle symbolizing the work with language and its functional linguistic means, which can be receptive (e.g., reading, listening), productive (e.g., writing, speaking), or reflexive (e.g., metalinguistic awareness, self-editing) to enable and facilitate effective commu‐ nication. To operate deeply and also broadly with language and linguistic means, these skills are further embedded in a subsequent circle, which encompasses a wide range of texts and media products in the broadest sense, including diverse genres such as fictional or non-fictional texts, and multiple modes, such as multimodal and digital texts. The rather concrete (even though broad) texts are understood to be embedded in a next outer circle, which represents a more complex and nuanced context, namely the diverse discourse communities and cultures that learners engage with, spanning multiple levels, including local, regional, national, and global spheres. The successive circles that enwrap the three competences, which can also be interpreted as contexts, are firmly grounded in the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and abilities. The concentric circles illustrate the increasing degrees of complexity and diversity of contexts, ranging from the language circle (focusing on linguistic means) to the text circle (encompassing diverse texts in the broadest sense and genres) and the culture circle (embracing broader cultural, social, and communal contexts). The surrounding and outermost field of knowledge, attitudes, and abilities symbolizes the foundational context that students bring to the classroom, but also continuously develop and refine throughout their learning. This context is particularly complex, as it requires learners to integrate their own knowledge, attitudes, and abilities in creative and innovative ways. While doing so, they learn to adapt to new situations and apply their learnings in authentic and meaningful contexts. The model, as a whole, effectively encapsulates the core of what foreign language education is all about. It intricately interweaves the complex relationships between language, literary texts, and texts in the broadest sense, as well as the crucial role that diverse cultures (including anglophone cultures or beyond) and media communication formats play. It thus proves to be sufficiently robust to meaningfully capture the principles and goals of English language education, while also being flexible enough to be adapted to different contexts and refined in response to emerging developments 172 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="173"?> in the field of foreign language education. In other words, it can easily be adapted to accommodate different proficiency levels or learning styles, it can be used for diverse cultural backgrounds or language varieties. Language pedagogy, in accord with the general understanding within the German educational system, is not aimed at promoting chosen political standpoints. Instead, because many issues discussed in foreign language education are inherently political, language educationalists take their cues from political educators and find appeal in an agreement nationwide known as the Consensus of Beutelsbach (or “Beutelsbacher Konsens” in German; see bpb 2011). This agreement serves as a guiding principle for addressing political topics also in the foreign language classroom. This agreement obliges educators to refrain from imposing their own biases. At the same time, teachers aim at presenting a diverse range of perspectives on contentious issues. By doing so, teachers empower learners to critically examine their own societies, contexts, and positions, as well as those of others (bpb 2011). The focus is on providing linguistic means, a solid communicative base, and an emotional disposition to engage in society (Surkamp 2022: 22). Yet, the ability to ‘take action’ implies a profound shift in personal behavior, driven by the desire to address real-world problems and develop tangible solutions. As much as this may be desirable for the citizens at large, this phrase can easily be misinterpreted and, thus, foster unrealistic expectations of language education. As noted by Surkamp (2022: 22) and Alter & Wehrmann (2022: 97), a more critical understanding is necessary to clarify the complexities involved. Therefore, within the perimeter of language education, “taking action” can only refer to acting communicatively and interculturally, that means negotiating meaning, coordinating perspectives, or navigating literature and media communication (Surkamp 2022: 22). Even though political education, political issues, and debates are clearly an issue in the foreign language classroom, it should not be misunderstood as promoting a specific political or activist agenda to environmental problems. In other words, the role of language education is much broader than providing functional means to communicate about environmental change and sustainable living. Language and thought, culture and creativity are closely intertwined and interrelated, and learning an additional language offers complementary perspectives, helping pupils to think differently and imagine other worlds. Language is what constitutes (critical) thinking and world-making (Surkamp 2022: 22-23; Freitag-Hild 2022: 63). It may be noteworthy that neither ‘perceiving’ nor ‘taking action’ are part of the list of task descriptors (or “Operatoren” in German) circulated in the competence paradigm. Both abilities are rather difficult to operationalize and assess, and hence, it is challenging to directly determine whether (or not) students have acquired the desired skill to perceive or to observe. The advantage of the task descriptors is that they provide a clear framework for teachers, guiding them on how to approach this dimension and formulate tasks. On the one hand, it gives teachers some autonomy to decide upon and find their own task operators depending on conditions and learners’ proficiency. On the other hand, it leaves them with the responsibility of interpreting the model for 5.3 Literacy Models in the Context of Nature, Environment, and Sustainability 173 <?page no="174"?> themselves and making decisions on their own, which can be both empowering and overwhelming. 5.3.3 Climate Change Literacy Julia Hoydis, Roman Bartosch, and Jens Gurr (2023) propose a comprehensive synthesis of humanities theories and culminate it into a literacy model that lends itself to con‐ sidering pedagogies of the humanities, which certainly includes the foreign language classroom. The strength of their book lies in its ability to present concepts and theoret‐ ical approaches that introduce new perspectives on the significant and inevitable role of the environmental humanities within climate change discourses. The book brings together arguments from contemporary researchers across various disciplines and discusses persuasively the value of narrative literature. Fictional narratives bring about and enable the ability to gather, condense, and convey knowledge about human societies, individual destinies, and the environment. Hoydis et al. (2023) deliberately center their work on the issue of climate change. This prioritization is clearly strategic, designed to address these pressing issues and pinpoint arguments on matters that are genuinely urgent and all-pervasive. Although the intent of this study book is somewhat broader, encompassing nature, environment, and sustainability as further and wider concerns, climate change literacy, of course, deserves inclusion in a more comprehensive approach to foreign language education. Even though Hoydis et al. are less concerned about the other related disciplines discussed and emphasized in Chapter 4 of this book, their exclusive attention on fictional literature, narrative power, and storytelling adds a welcom and important facet to the more comprehensive understanding of environmental literacy in the foreign language classroom. The main line of argument prioritizes the multiple fortes of narrative literature, which is not to be found in factual text types but only in the ambiguity and condensation that derive from combining individual fates with different social, environmental, or scientific constellations. It allows for the foregrounding and framing of certain aspects (or the de-emphasizing of others). Hoydis et al. inquire astutely: “what literary reading might offer in response to the climate crisis and, in a second step, reflect on what this means for teaching literature” (5) - a reflection that leads them to consider pedagogical settings and educational improvements. First, the authors throw a critical glance at existing academic discussions and point out fallacies as an argumentative trigger and reference point. Through the cognitive fallacy, they explore psychological research and demonstrate that knowledge groun‐ ded in facts does not achieve the intended persuasive or educational outcomes (16ff; see also Chapter 4.5). Facts alone often fail to inspire accountability or responsibility in decision-making, and they may not lead to changed attitudes, behaviors, or subsequent actions (14). This is the context in which comprehending the advantages of literature becomes significant. With reference to Greg Garrard (2017: 122), it is posited that 174 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="175"?> narrative texts assist in portraying cultural mechanisms in a manner that renders climate change “readable” and, consequently, also comprehensible in both cognitive and emotional dimensions (Hoydis et al. 2023: 15). Yet by highlighting a sentimental fallacy, Hoydis, Bartosch, and Gurr assert that focusing solely on emotional aspects is also inadequate (18). Fictional narratives are not only grounded in or intertwined with a factual base, but they also serve as practical tools for memorizing and comprehending factual information (18). Hoydis et al. criticize that, in order to create space for emotional responses in the classroom, “scholars and educators thus tend to conceive of emotions as a switch that can be turned on or off for a specific effect” (18). Therefore, they urge a thorough reconsideration and redefinition of emotional engagement with narratives and storytelling to explore emotions in climate change literature and better specify the possible functions reading and literary reception may have (19). In recognizing and discussing both fallacies, they argue that fictional literature cannot easily communicate facts that translate into behavioral changes, nor can it elicit emotional reactions in readers that will inevitably prompt them into action (23). To conceptualize what they would consider climate change literacy and to draw conclusions on pedagogical considerations, Hoydis et al. work with widening circles of theoretical thought and discuss discourse awareness, critical empathy, and systems thinking. Positioning their ambitious theoretical reasoning across disciplines and then placing it in pedagogical contexts via their trifecta of texts, textures, and tasks makes this model particularly innovative. Rather than considering ideological suitabil‐ ity or poetic virtuosity for conceptualizing “text,” Hoydis et al. (2023: 42) emphasize literary texts’ ability, in rather stark contrast to scientific and factual text genres, to create specific “storyworlds” that generate unique and alternative epistemological pathways for understanding climate change. Thus, a text performatively spreads across multiple levels—whether it be story, narrative means, protagonists, characterization, or readers’ responses. Thus, a text illustrates how climate change is intricately linked to the various dimensions of human experience. Hoydis et al. do not see critical might or emotional engagement contribute to the quality of a text as much as the text’s capacity to provoke awareness of discourses, foster critical (rather than merely sympathetic) empathy, and situate climate change within its socio-ecological contexts. No single text, no matter how diligently chosen, can adequately capture or exemplify the intricate complexities of climate change. Therefore, Hoydis et al. add the notion of “texture” to their model (43). With the texture category, they hence suggest a cumulation of different, multiperspectival, and multimodal texts that could not only represent different ways of storytelling and worldmaking but also represent scales of climate change. Such a compilation of diverse texts and text types (the texture) represents a rich semiotic miniature literary field. It promises to “yield better insights into the multifaceted ways of knowing, feeling, and speaking or writing about climate change, and one that offers more diverse entrances into climate change literacy for more diverse groups of learners” (44). 5.3 Literacy Models in the Context of Nature, Environment, and Sustainability 175 <?page no="176"?> The challenges of the third category, “tasks,” are to build bridges between the texts and textures on climate change, as well as the lived reality of learners’ daily existence. Daniel Kahneman (2011; see Hoydis et al. 2023: 21-22) suggests that thinking functions in two separate modes: one that is fast, intuitive, and emotional, and another that is slower, logical, and analytical. Now, Hoydis et al. link those modes of thought to reading and the skill of literary literacy: They liken these modes to an aesthetic reading for pleasure, on the one hand, and the analytical discussion of texts and textures, on the other. In consequence, they suggest that reading literature yields a third “way of thinking that oscillates between these two modes of thinking” (48). Rather than focusing on myopic changes in individual behavior, adjusting tasks in this way provides the opportunity to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of climate change and its intricacies in a learner’s reality (48). Additionally, they substantiate the goal formulation of “taking action” by specifying it as “action-in-language” (21). Not only do they thus clear up an unease with the term voiced at different occasions (Surkamp 2022: 22; Alter & Wehrmann 2022: 97; Küchler 2025: 69), but they also cleverly broaden the scope of taking action-in-language to “imaginative, communicative, collaborative, and ultimately, political” agency (Hoydis et al., 2023: 47). Hoydis, Bartosch, and Gurr’s framework presents valuable insights that may influ‐ ence how educators approach literature and environmental teaching. Their theoretical argumentation gains its particular strength through its grounding in popular contem‐ porary climate fiction, such as works by T.C. Boyle, Kim Stanley Robinson, Paolo Bacigalupi, Barbara Kingsolver, and Sacci Lloyd, among others (24). By examining how popular climate fiction texts employ narrative strategies such as framing, scaling, and multiperspectival storytelling (25-32), the authors illuminate concrete pathways for classroom application. Their approach addresses fundamental questions about “the pedagogically useful links between imaginative literature, literary competence, and ecological thinking” (Hoydis et al. 2023: 2). Rather than seeking singular truths, climate change literacy, as they conceive it, embraces the productive tensions inherent in fictional narratives. Literature’s strength lies precisely in its celebration of “subjectivity and idiosyncrasies,” and thus it carves out qualities that stand “in pronounced contrast to scientific attempts at an impartial voice” (33). This multiplicity of perspectives becomes not a limitation but an essential tool for changing perspectives and disrupting entrenched patterns of thought. By cultivating students’ capacity to navigate these tensions through literary engagement, this approach to climate change literacy offers a vital preparation for the “dissent, controversy, and conflict” ahead and the complex negotiations that accompany them. 176 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="177"?> 5.4 Environmental Literacy and the Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) In this final chapter, I aim to explore ways of integrating the complex, comprehensive, and progressive findings from the related disciplines with the literacy models discussed above. By doing this, I strive to uphold the goals and principles of teaching English. Yet, I also try to find room in the model to acknowledge their importance and (desperately needed) impulses, insights, and influences of the related disciplines. After all, those are the disciplines that inspire and shape the field with their knowledge, conceptualizations, and methodologies. In the previous chapter, I have introduced three conceptualizations for language and literature education that help to further interlace foreign language education with issues of nature, environment, and sustainability. Two of these models explicitly develop a literacy-based approach (Stables 2006, 2005, 1998; Hoydis et al. 2023), while one aligns more closely with the Global Sustainability Goals and does not explicitly refer to literacy as such (Surkamp 2022). Yet, all three models appear particularly conducive to integrating environmental issues into the English (as a foreign language) classroom. I will, therefore, attempt to synthesize their most significant elements to provide language instructors with a comprehensive model. The related (environmental) disciplines and their groundwork can significantly enrich language education and therefore need to be integrated into a conceptual framework. This framework aims to provide students, pre-service teachers, and reflective practitioners a solid, compre‐ hensive reasoning for teaching any aspects of the language with environmental issues in mind. It can also serve as a mold to inform material development and guide graduate research in this topical area. Moreover, it must be practical and applicable in real-world classroom settings. 5.4 Environmental Literacy and the Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) 177 <?page no="178"?> Fig. 6: A Comprehensive Framework for Environmental Literacy in the Teaching of English (“The Bonsai Model”), illustration by Anna Voigtländer. 178 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="179"?> Bonsai is a Japanese horticultural art form and a science that involves meticulously creating miniature replicas of natural trees or even entire landscapes. The bonsai is designed to represent a living art form that is meant to evoke a mature, balanced, and aged tree or natural setting in a miniature format. Thus, the art form exemplifies the important harmony between the different elements in the environment or phenomena a tree experiences, such as bending towards light, enduring strong winds, or growing on a rocky cliff. The bonsai tradition places equal importance on aesthetics, natural growth, and cultural foundations. While it seeks to represent nature’s impressions, it simultaneously embodies a cultural aesthetic that highlights the inseparability of these elements (Kharwar and Raghuwanshi 2019: 1735). Such characteristics make bonsai a fitting metaphor for environmental literacy in foreign language education. The miniaturized format illustrates the concept of a part representing the whole (pars pro toto), effectively transforming metaphorical language into both horticultural practice and reflection on environmental learning, language and aesthetics, as well as cultural values. In its proportionality, the art form offers insight into the natural environment, including trees and habitats, as well as the occurrence and significance of phenomena within those contexts, while remaining acutely aware of the artificiality of the circumstances. In foreign language education, this awareness metaphorically transfers to the educational environment, highlighting the “foreignness” of both the teaching and learning contexts that exist outside the community of (foreign language) speakers. It enables teaching and learning a foreign language with the option to choose or somewhat reduce the wealth of content, methods, and objectives. The roots of this symbolic bonsai represent its strong foundation in the related disciplines of foreign language education, with the given topical focus also partic‐ ularly on their environmental subdisciplines (as described in Chapter 4; see also the definition of foreign language education in Chapter 3). Working with environmental issues can thus be placed on a solid foundation of the humanities and related disciplines, while maintaining an open gaze towards the sciences, social studies disciplines such as education and psychology, as well as other influences and epistemologies. The roots in these graphics take their cues from the model developed by Jank and Meyer (1990) to define the interdisciplinary and collaborative nature of Fachdidaktik or foreign language education. The stem of a tree processes and transports nutrients and impulses (from related disciplines) to its different branches, leaves, and energy hubs of the tree. The stem in this bonsai graphic is likely the most complex part. Its gnarledness symbolizes the diverse requirements and processes at play, channeling energy through various outlets towards environmental literacy, other subject-specific literacies, and the four main goals and purposes of teaching English (as a foreign language) in mind: language and linguistic means, literature, culture, and media communication. To better understand these processes, the cross-section of the gnarled stem provides insight into the 5.4 Environmental Literacy and the Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) 179 <?page no="180"?> diverse tree rings. Those rings also represent the growth and the embeddedness in broader, grown, traditional contexts: The models of Stables (2006, 2005, 1998; see Chapter 5.3.1), Surkamp (2022: 35; see Chapter 5.3.2), and Hoydis et al. (2023; see Chapter 5.3.3) offer themselves to be integrated in a more comprehensive one. In parts they already utilize the structural device of embedded rings and can organically be represented by the bonsai’s tree rings. At the center are the three abilities: The foundational ability of noticing and perceiving patterns, phenomena, and functions across language, nature, environment, and sustainability permits for learners to observe and understand phenomena in multiple domains—from linguistic and literary patterns to cultural and environmental systems. It encompasses both Stables’ functional level and the comparative dimension of his cultural environmental literacy. Through developing this capacity, learners acquire foundational knowledge while honing the analytical skills essential for un‐ derstanding the interconnections between language, culture, and environment (See also ‘Erkennen’ in Surkamp: 17, 35; ‘functional environmental literacy’ and ‘cultural environmental literacy’ in Stables 1998, 2005, 2006). The ability to evaluate merges Surkamp’s eponymous category with parts of Stables’ critical environmental literacy. This skill encompasses changing perspective, comparing and contrasting viewpoints, and their critical analysis, as well as cultivating empathy, ultimately enabling learners to develop informed personal stances. The eval‐ uative process is enhanced through examining how language shapes environmental understanding and influences social interactions (See also Surkamp 2022: 17, 35; both Stables cultural (comparatist) and critical environmental literacy). The third component, taking action-in-language, represents the most complex ability. It requires learners to demonstrate solidarity, navigate conflicts, and contribute communicatively to solutions. Following Hoydis et al.’s argument, the reformulation from ‘taking action’ to ‘taking action-in-language’ maintains focus on language education’s core mission - which is communication - while expanding to encompass imaginative, collaborative, and political forms of agency. This ability develops through guided exploration of individual agency within communicative contexts (See also Surkamp 2022: 17, 35; Hoydis et al. 2023: 47; Stables 1997; 2006). The three fundamental abilities at the center or core of the stem are encircled by the growth rings of the stem, which represent the concentric circles of contexts. Additional rings provide increasingly broader settings for language work and foreign language classrooms; thus, the concentric circles illustrate rising levels of complexity and diversity. These range from the language circle (focused on linguistic means) to the text circle (encompassing diverse texts across the widest range of genres) and the culture circle (embracing larger cultural, social, and communal contexts) (see Surkamp 2022: 35). The ring that immediately surrounds those three basic abilities (the innermost ring) symbolizes the intensive engagement with learning and teaching a language, as well as its functional linguistic means, to enable and facilitate 180 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="181"?> effective communication (language ring). Those means can be receptive (e.g., reading and listening), productive (e.g., writing and speaking), or reflexive (e.g., metalinguistic awareness or self-reflection)(See also Surkamp 2022: 35). To engage comprehensively and profoundly with language and linguistic means, additional skills are integrated into subsequent rings. In Surkamp’s original model, the second ring includes a wide array of “texts and media” products (text ring), covering various genres, such as fiction and non-fiction, along with multimodal and digital texts. A third ring then signifies a more complex context, encompassing the various “discourse communities and cultures” learners engage with at local, regional, national, and global levels (culture ring) (Surkamp 2022: 35). These crucial rings could be well expanded to represent the three-part model suggested by Hoydis et al. (2023) and their layers of texts, textures, and tasks. Probably, it would be best to imagine a broader ring with a layer of text (in the broadest sense) and textures in the form of topic-specific, sensitive textual ensembles that have a semi-permeable boundary towards the rings of “texts and media” as well as “discourses and cultures,” thus inadvertently intertwining and expanding the interlacing of texts with literary and cultural discourses (text ring and culture ring). After all, literature and culture are “by nature” closely intertwined, one representing the other. Furthermore, they cannot stand on their own feet when it comes to representing nature, environment, and sustainability. The way human and non-human relationships are encoded in one culture’s texts will vary from the way another culture inscribes those aspects into texts and discourses. The way individual ensembles of texts (Hoydis et al. 2023: 41) represent the environment is likely rather complex, but also differs from one educational, topical, or learner-specific context to the next. To go beyond working linguistic means in texts and textures most likely requires all three modes of reading and engaging with those examples, as suggested by Hoydis et al. (2023): the aesthetic mode, the analytical mode and the oscillating mode concatenating those two ways of thinking with each other and thus bringing the cultural mechanisms of human and non-human interactions to the awareness of learners and readers. The surrounding and outermost field of knowledge, attitudes, and abilities symbol‐ izes the foundational context that students bring to the classroom, but also continu‐ ously develop and refine throughout their learning. Thus, they bring the reality of learners into play and could well embrace the task category and learners’ realities that Hoydis et al. speak about (2023: 44-47; Surkamp 2022: 35). This context is particularly complex, as it requires learners to integrate their own knowledge, attitudes, and abilities with the classroom activities and teachings in creative and innovative ways. While doing so, pupils learn to adapt to new situations and apply their learning in authentic and meaningful contexts. Teachers are also asked to consider linguistic means, texts, and textures, or further contexts, when setting out tasks that help learners expand or challenge their knowledge, develop attitudes and emotional responses, or help students to expand their abilities and hone skills with regard to texts, contexts, or texture ensembles. 5.4 Environmental Literacy and the Teaching of English (as a Foreign Language) 181 <?page no="182"?> To stick to the imaginative visualization of this bonsai model, the branches of a bonsai tree, even though they feed from the same roots and stem, can now grow in quite different directions. Most often, they will develop in the direction of the core principles of foreign language education, encompassing the four main fields of application: linguistic means and language awareness, literature, culture, and media communication. Yet, the canopy of the bonsai also provides space for the outgrowth of more specific kinds of literacies, such as climate change literacy (Hoydis et al. 2023), or ecoliteracy (Bartosch 2025) or as a rather broad literacy concept that includes nature, environment, and sustainability: Environmental literacy can grow a mighty branch. The model as a whole effectively encapsulates the core of what foreign language education is all about: It intricately interweaves the complex relationships between language, literary texts, and texts in the broadest sense, as well as the crucial role that diverse cultures and media communication formats play. It thus proves to be sufficiently robust to capture the principles and goals of English language education meaningfully, while also being flexible enough to be adapted to different contexts and refined in response to emerging developments in the field of foreign language educa‐ tion. In other words, it can be easily adapted to accommodate different proficiency levels or learning styles, and can be used for diverse cultural backgrounds and language varieties. 182 5 Environmental Literacy in the Foreign Language Classroom <?page no="183"?> 6 Conclusion With this study book, I attempt to show that environmental literacy in foreign language education requires moving far beyond isolated topic integration toward deeper theoretical grounding in related environmental humanities disciplines. Rather than competing with language learning goals, environmental issues enhance all four core areas of foreign language education, as they offer meaningful content for prac‐ ticing intercultural communication. Language awareness reveals how environmental discourse is culturally constructed, and critical thinking reconfirms the need to change perspectives and negotiate meanings. Chapter-1 reveals a fundamental misalignment in current practice: while textbooks and additional materials increasingly suggest and incorporate environmental themes through authentic materials, they lack the theoretical conceptualization and discipli‐ nary backing necessary for meaningful integration. The frequent consequence - a one-sided focus on ecological doom and catastrophic narratives - undermines both environmental awareness and the effectiveness of language learning. The humanities perspective on the ecological situation establishes the essential groundwork for this approach (Chapter 2). Despite sixty years of environmental awareness and technological progress, environmental crises persist with relentless intensity, precisely because factual approaches alone cannot address phenomena that exceed human perceptual capacities (Chapter 2.1). People fundamentally rely on narratives, images, and cultural imaginaries to understand imperceptible changes - a reality that positions foreign language education at the center of environmental discourse rather than its periphery. The examination of English as a discipline (Chapter 3) demonstrates that environ‐ mental issues align perfectly with the core goals and principles of foreign language education rather than competing with them. This book’s systematic examination of related disciplines reveals an unprecedented convergence: all fields informing foreign language education have developed environmental subfields offering unique contributions. These considerations determined the choice of disciplines examined in Chapter 4: linguistics, literature, culture, and media studies possess subject-specific relevance as core reference disciplines that define content, goals, and purposes of teaching and learning English (Chapters 3 and 4), while education and psychology provide complementary insights by illuminating fundamental teaching and learning processes that both inform effective pedagogy and substantiate the argument against doom-laden approaches to more hopeful approaches to environmental education (Chapters 4.5 and 4.6). The environmental humanities provide cultural frameworks that sciences alone cannot offer (Chapter-4.1). Ecolinguistics demonstrates how language actively shapes environmental perception rather than merely reflecting reality (Chapter 4.2). Ecocri‐ ticism reveals literature’s dual function as both a diagnostic tool and a generative <?page no="184"?> force for cultural renewal (Chapter-4.3), while ecomedia studies expose the social and cultural impact, as well as the hidden material environmental footprints, of media technologies (Chapter 4.4). Environmental psychology’s insights prove that knowledge alone cannot drive behavioral change (Chapter 4.5), while sustainability education frameworks offer global perspectives requiring critical examination of Western-centric assumptions (Chapter-4.6). The culminating “Bonsai Model” (Chapter 5.4) synthesizes insights from Andrew Stables’ three-step environmental literacy progression, Carola Surkamp’s Education for Sustainable Development framework, and Julia Hoydis, Roman Bartosch, and Jens Gurr’s climate change literacy model. This integration creates a comprehensive frame‐ work rooted in related disciplines, processing diverse influences through three core abilities - perceiving, evaluating, and taking action-in-language - across concentric contexts that grow into the main branches of language education while supporting various pedagogical emphases, including environmental literacy. The model’s strength lies in its adaptable framework, which guides rather than prescribes, much like bonsai cultivation itself. Just as bonsai requires attentive consideration of both aesthetic principles and natural growth patterns, so does environmental literacy in foreign language education, acknowledging the culturally constructed nature of the learning environment while honoring authentic developmental processes. This framework demands significant shifts in multiple domains related to foreign language education and the school subject of English. Teacher education programs, for example, should integrate environmental humanities perspectives into their core curricula, so they can ensure that future educators understand both the subject-specific and complementary relevance of environmental issues not just in the sciences but also in the humanities. Curriculum developers may want to use this framework to move toward systematic integration and support of nature, environment, and sustainability. This way, they enhance rather than dilute language learning objectives within foreign language education specifically. Materials developers can find inspiration in this book and the comprehensive ‘bonsai’ model as guidance for creating resources that engage with environmental complexity without resorting to fear-based approaches or oversimplified representations. Students, pre-service teachers, and reflective prac‐ titioners can study this framework to improve lesson planning, diversify sources and environmental materials from multiple anglophone cultures, and develop teaching approaches that foster meaningful environmental engagement through authentic language use and critical language awareness. The research agenda emerging from this work includes investigating how multilingual learners navigate environmental concepts across languages, and how assessment strategies for environmental literacy can honor linguistic, cultural, and ecological complexity. The transformation this study book advocates extends beyond pedagogical innova‐ tion to fundamental renewal in the discipline. By demonstrating that environmental engagement strengthens rather than weakens the core mission of foreign language ed‐ ucation, this approach offers a pathway for the field to claim its vital role in addressing 184 6 Conclusion <?page no="185"?> humanity’s most pressing challenges while simultaneously renewing its pedagogical practices. The ultimate vision extends far beyond merely adding environmental content to language curricula. Instead, it aims to foster a generation of multilingual global citizens capable of thinking, communicating, and acting across linguistic and cultural boundaries to address environmental challenges. This represents neither compromise nor dilution, but the full realization of foreign language education’s transformative potential in an interconnected world where environmental and cultural literacy are inseparable prerequisites for meaningful participation in global discourse. 6 Conclusion 185 <?page no="187"?> Works Cited Adamson, Joni. 2010. “Environmental Justice and Third Wave Ecocritical Approaches to Literature and Film.” Ecozon@ 1, no. 1: 11-16. https: / / doi.org/ 10.37536/ ECOZONA.2010.1.1.313. Adamson, Joni. 2016. “Humanities.” In Keywords for Environmental Studies, ed. by Joni Adamson, William A. Gleason, and David N. Pellow, 135-39. New York: New York University Press. Adamson, Joni, Rachel Stein, Simon Ortiz, Teresa Leal, Devon Peña, and Terrell Dixon. 2000. “Environmental Justice: A Roundtable Discussion.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 7, no. 2: 155-170. https: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 44085765. Adamson, Joni, Mei Mei Evans, and Rachel Stein, eds. 2002. The Environmental Justice Reader: Politics, Poetics, & Pedagogy. Tucson, Arz.: University of Arizona Press. Adamson, Joni, and Scott Slovic. 2009. “The Shoulders We Stand On: An Introduction to Ethnicity and Ecocriticism.” MELUS 34, no. 2: 5-24. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1353/ mel.0.0019. Alston, Veronja R. 2016. “Environment.” In Keywords for Environmental Studies, ed. by Joni Adamson, William A. Gleason, and David N. Pellow, 93-96. New York: New York University Press. Alter, Grit, and Jürgen Wehrmann. 2022. “Auf dem Weg zu einer Kulturdidaktik des Globalen Ler‐ nens: Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zu fachexternen Impulsen und fremdsprachdidaktischen Entwicklungen.” In unterricht_kultur_theorie: Kulturelles Lernen im Fremdsprachenunterricht gemeinsam anders denken, ed. by Lotta König, Birgit Schädlich, and Carola Surkamp, 91-111. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-662-63782-1_6. Ammons, Elizabeth. 2010. Brave New Words: How Literature Will Save the Planet. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Andreotti, Vanessa de Oliveira. 2014. “Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices in Development Education.” Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, no. 19: 12-32. https: / / www.d evelopmenteducationreview.com/ issue/ issue-19/ critical-literacy-theories-and-practi ces-dev elopment-education. Andreotti, Vanessa de Oliveira. 2021. “The task of education as we confront the potential for social and ecological collapse.” Ethics and Education 16, no. 2: 143-58. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080 / 17449642.2021.1896632. APA, American Psychological Association. 2011. Psychology and Global Climate Change: Ad‐ dressing a Multifaceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges. https: / / www.apa.org/ science/ abo ut/ publications/ climate-change.pdf. Appiah, Anthony Kwame, and Henry Louis Gates Jr. 1992. “Multiplying Identities.” Critical Inquiry 18, no. 4: 625-29. https: / / www.journals.uchicago.edu/ toc/ ci/ 1992/ 18/ 4. Arghavan, Mahmoud, Nicole Hirschfelder, Luvena Kopp, and Katharina Motyl, eds. 2019. Who Can Speak and Who Is Heard/ Hurt? : Facing Problems of Race, Racism, and Ethnic Diversity in the Humanities in Germany. transcript Verlag. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1515/ 9783839441039. Argyeman, Julian. 2016. “Sustainability.” In Keywords for Environmental Studies, ed. by Joni Adamson, William A. Gleason, and David N. Pellow, 186-89. New York: New York University Press. <?page no="188"?> Armbruster, Karla, and Kathleen R. Wallace. 2001. Beyond Nature Writing: Expanding the Boundaries of Ecocriticism. Charlottesville, London: University of Virginia Press. Bachmann-Medick, Doris. 2021. Cultural Turns: Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Reinbek: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. Bate, Jonathan. 1991. Romantic Ecology: Wordsworth and the Environmental Tradition. London, New York: Routledge. Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco et al.: Chandler. Barkowski, Hans. 2003. “Der Gemeinsame Europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen (GERR) - Ein ‘Wolf im Schafspelz’? ” In Leistung und Leistungsbewertung, ed. by Klaus Petzold and Volker Woest, 203-13. Jena: Zentrum für Didaktik. Bartosch, Roman. 2019. Literature, Pedagogy, and Climate Change: Text Models for a Transcultural Ecology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bartosch, Roman, ed. 2021a. Cultivating Sustainability in Language and Literature Pedagogy: Steps to an Educational Ecology. London: New York: Routledge. Bartosch, Roman, ed. 2021b. Towards Transformative Literature Pedagogy. Trier: WVT Wissen‐ schaftlicher Verlag Trier. Bartosch, Roman, and Sieglinde Grimm, eds. 2014. Teaching Environments: Ecocritical Encounters. Frankfurt/ M., New York, Wien: Peter Lang. Bauriedl, Sybille, ed. 2016. Wörterbuch Klimadebatte. Bielefeld: transkript. Beach, Richard, Jeff Share, and Allen Webb. 2017. Teaching Climate Change to Adolescents. Reading, Writing, and Making a Difference. New York: Routledge. Becker, Thomas, Otfried Börner, Christoph Edelhoff, and Konrad Schröder. 2016. “Neue Fremd‐ sprachen.” In Orientierungsrahmen für den Lernbereich Globale Entwicklung, ed. by Jörg- Robert Schreiber and Hannes Siege, 156-175. Berlin: Cornelsen. https: / / www.kmk.org/ file admin/ Dateien/ veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/ 2015/ 2015_06_00-Orientierungsrahmen-G lobale-Entwicklung.pdf. Beiner, Marcus. 2009. Humanities: Was Geisteswissenschaft macht. Und was sie ausmacht. Berlin: Berlin University Press. Benyus, Janine M. 2009. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York, NY: Perennial. Beyersdorf, Martin, Gerd Michelsen, and Horst Siebert, eds. 1998. Umweltbildung: theoretische Konzepte empirische Erkenntnisse praktische Erfahrungen. Neuwied Kriftel: Luchterhand. Bishop, Keith, Alan Reid, Andrew Stables, Marina Lencastre, Steven Stoer, and Ronald Soetaert. 2000. “Developing Environmental Awareness through Literature and Media Education: Curriculum Development in the Context of Teachers’ Practice.” Canadian Journal of Environ‐ mental Education 5 (Spring): 268-86. Blell, Gabriele. 2017. “Audio Literacy.” In Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik: Ansätze - Methoden - Grundbegriffe, 7-8. Stuttgart: Metzler Accessed July 23, 2025. https: / / link.springe r.com/ book/ 10.1007/ 978-3-476-04474-7. Bloome, David, and SangHee Ryu. 2017. “Literacies in the Classroom”. In Literacies and Language Education, ed. by Brian V. Street and Stephen May, 285-95. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-319-02252-9. 188 Works Cited <?page no="189"?> BLK, Bund-Länder-Kommission für Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung. 1998. Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Orientierungsrahmen. Bonn: BLK. https: / / doi.org/ 10.25656/ 01: 147. BMBF, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, ed. 2011. Klimaschutz erfordert Handeln: Beiträge der sozial-ökologischen Forschung. Bonn, Berlin. https: / / www.ioew.de/ fileadmin/ _mi grated/ tx_ukioewdb/ klimaschutz_erfordert_handeln.pdf. BMBF, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, ed. 2020. Nationaler Aktionsplan Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. https: / / www.bne-portal.de/ bne/ de/ nationaler-aktionsplan/ nati onaler-aktionsplan_node.html. BMBF, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, ed. 2021. Research for Sustainability: A Strategy of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. https: / / www.bmbf.de/ SharedD ocs/ Publikationen/ de/ bmbf/ FS/ 31648_Forschung_fuer_Nachhaltigkeit_en.pdf ? __blob=publi cationFile&v=6. BMZ, Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. 2017. Der Zukunftsvertrag für die Welt: Die Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung. https: / / www. bmz.de/ resource/ blob/ 23366/ d52688f07df7a2c9aa78a3970295f5f5/ materialie270-zukunftsvert rag-data.pdf. Böhm, Winfried. 2000. Wörterbuch Der Pädagogik. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag. Bolscho, Dietmar, Hansjörg Seybold. 1996. Umweltbildung und ökologisches Lernen: Ein Studien- und Praxisbuch. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Bonner, John Tyler. 1980. The Evolution of Culture in Animals. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Boscheinen, Jens, and Laurens Bortfeldt. eds. 2021. Umwelt- und Ökologiebewegungen. Wiesba‐ den: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-658-35908-9_3. Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. “Metaphoric Structuring: Understanding Time through Spatial Meta‐ phors.” Cognition 75, no. 1: 1-28. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ S0010-0277(99)00073-6. Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. “Does Language Shape Thought? : Mandarin and English Speakers’ Concept of Time.” Cognitive Psychology 43, no.1: 1-22. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1006/ cogp.2001.0748. Boroditsky, Lera. 2012. “How the Languages We Speak Shape the Way We Think: The FAQs.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. by Michael Spivey, Ken McRae, and Mark Joanisse, 615-32. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge UP. Boroditsky, Lera, Michael Ramscar, and Michael C. Frank. 2002. “The Roles of Body and Mind in Abstract Thought.” Psychological Science 13, no. 2: 185-89. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ 1467-92 80.00434. bpb, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. 2011. “Beutelsbacher Konsens.” bpb.de. April 04. ht tps: / / www.bpb.de/ die-bpb/ ueber-uns/ auftrag/ 51310/ beutelsbacher-konsens/ . Bracke, Astrid. 2010. “Redrawing the Boundaries of Ecocritical Practice.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 17, no. 4: 765-68. https: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 44087670. Braselmann, Silke. 2023. “I’m Not Racist! - Addressing Racism in Predominantly White Class‐ rooms with Cooperatively Designed Multimodal Text Ensembles.” In Taboos and Controversial Issues in Foreign Language Education, ed. by Christian Ludwig and Theresa Summer, 168-80. London: Routledge. https: / / doi.org/ 10.4324/ 9781003220701-19. Works Cited 189 <?page no="190"?> Bredella, Lothar. 1988. “How is Intercultural Understanding Possible? ” In Perceptions and Misperceptions. The United States and Germany: Studies in Intercultural Understanding, ed. by Lothar Bredella and Dietmar Haack, 1-25. Tübingen: Narr. Bredella, Lothar. 1999. “Zielsetzungen des interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterrichts.” In Inter‐ kultureller Fremdsprachenunterricht, ed. by Lothar Bredella and W. Delanoy. Tübingen: Narr, 85-120. Bredella, Lothar. 2000. “Fremdverstehen mit literarischen Texten.” In Wie ist Fremdverstehen lehr- und lernbar, ed. by Lothar Bredella, Franz-Joseph Meißner, Ansgar Nünning and Dietmar Rösler, 133-163. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Bredella, Lothar. 2005. “Was bedeutet interkulturelle Kompetenz? ” In Unbegrenztes Lernen - Lernen über Grenzen: Generierung und Verteilung von Wissen in der Hochschulentwicklung, ed. by Elke Kruse, Uwe Küchler and Maria Kuhl, 37-50. Münster: LIT-Verlag. Bredella, Lothar. 2007. “Die welterzeugende und welterschliessende Kraft literarischer Texte: Gegen einen verengten Begriff von literarischer Kompetenz und Bildung.” In Literaturunter‐ richt, Kompetenzen Und Bildung, ed. by Lothar Bredella and Wolfgang Hallet, 65-85. Trier: WVT. Bredella, Lothar. 2012. Narratives und interkulturelles Verstehen: Zur Entwicklung von Empathie-, Urteils- und Kooperationsfähigkeit. Tübingen: Narr Verlag. Breidbach, Stephan, Daniela Elsner, and Andrea Young. 2011. Language Awareness in Teacher Education: Cultural-Political and Socio-Educational Dimensions. Frankfurt/ M.: Peter Lang. Brereton, Pat. 2019. Environmental Literacy and New Digital Audiences. London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Bringhurst, Robert. 2006. The Tree of Meaning: Language, Mind and Ecology. Berkeley: Counter‐ point. Bringezu, Stefan, Martin Distelkamp, Christian Lutz, Florian Wimmer, Rüdiger Schaldach, Klaus Josef Hennenberg, Hannes Böttcher, and Vincent Egenolf. 2021. “Environmental and Socioeconomic Footprints of the German Bioeconomy.” Nature Sustainability 4, no. 9: 775-83. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1038/ s41893-021-00725-3. Brockhaus. 1991. “Natur.” In Brockhaus: Enzyklopädie in 24 Bänden, 19th ed., 372. Mannheim: FA. Brockhaus. Brodny, Jarosław, and Magdalena Tutak. 2021. “The analysis of similarities between the European Union countries in terms of the level and structure of the emissions of selected gases and air pollutants into the atmosphere.” Journal of Cleaner Production 279 ( January): 123641. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.jclepro.2020.123641. Bruner, Jerôme. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass., London: Harvard University Press. Buell, Lawrence. 1995. The Environmental Imagination: Thoreau, Nature Writing, and the Forma‐ tion of American Culture. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Buell, Lawrence. 2005. The Future of Environmental Criticism: Environmental Crisis and Literary Imagination. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Buell, Lawrence. 2016. “Foreword.” In Keywords for Environmental Studies, ed. by Joni Adamson, William A. Gleason, and David N. Pellow, vii-viii. New York: New York University Press. Burniske, R. W. 2008. Literacy in the Digital Age. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 190 Works Cited <?page no="191"?> Burniske, R. W., and Lowell Monke. 2001. Breaking Down the Digital Walls: Learning to Teach in a Post-Modem World. Albany: State University of New York Press. Burwitz-Melzer, Eva. 2008. “Zur Einführung in den Themenschwerpunkt ‘Lehren und Lernen mit literarischen Texten.’” In Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 37: 3-17. Burwitz-Melzer, Eva, Claudia Riemer, and Lars Schmelter, eds. 2021. Entwicklung von Nachhal‐ tigkeit beim Lehren und Lernen von Fremd- und Zweitsprachen. Narr Francke Attempto Verlag. Byram, Michael. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Cleve‐ don; Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Byram, Michael, ed. 2004. Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. CAPAS, Center for Apocalyptic and Postapocalyptic Studies. 2021. “CAPAS - About us.” Universität Heidelberg. April 13. https: / / www.capas.uni-heidelberg.de/ about_us.html. Callenbach, Ernest. 1998. Ecology. A Pocket Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press. Callenbach, Ernest. 2000. Ökologie von A - Z. Hamburg: Rotbuch Verlag. Cameron, Deborah. 1990. The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. London, New York: Routledge. Campbell, SueEllen. 1996. “The Land and Language of Desire: Where Deep Ecology and Post- Structuralism Meet.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 124-36. Athens: U of Georgia Press. Caspers-Merk, Marion, Erich G Fritz, Renate Blank, Dr Paul Laufs, Christa Reichard, Minister‐ ialrat Friedhelm Dreyling, Dr Martin Baumert, et al. 1998. “Konzept Nachhaltigkeit: - Vom Leitbild zur Umsetzung. Abschlußbericht der Enquete-Kommission ‘Schutz des Menschen und der Umwelt - Ziele und Rahmenbedingungen einer nachhaltig zukunftsverträglichen Entwicklung’” Deutscher Bundestag. https: / / dserver.bundestag.de/ btd/ 13/ 112/ 1311200.pdf. Castree, Noel. 2016. “Nature.” In Keywords for Environmental Studies, ed. by Joni Adamson, William A. Gleason, and David N. Pellow, 151-56. New York: New York University Press. Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2010. “Das Klima der Geschichte: Vier Thesen”. In KlimaKulturen: Soziale Wirklichkeiten im Klimawandel, ed. by Harald Welzer, Hans-Georg Soeffner, and Dana Giesecke, 270-301. Frankfurt/ M.: Campus Verlag. Chakrabarty, Dipesh, and Bruno Latour. 2021. The Climate of History in a Planetary Age. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. Chandler, Daniel. 2002. Semiotics: The Basics. London: Routledge. Chawla, Saroj. 2001. “Linguistic and Philosophical Roots of Our Enviromental Crisis.” In The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology, and Environment, ed. by Alwin Fill and Peter Mühlhäusler, 115-23. London, New York: Continuum. Christ, Ingeborg. 2003. “Staatliche Regelungen für den Fremdsprachenunterricht: Curricula, Richtlinien, Lehrpläne.” In Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht, ed. by Karl-Richard Bausch, Herbert Christ, and Hans-Jürgen Krumm, 71-77. Tübingen, Basel: A. Francke Verlag. Christensen, Laird, and John Elder. 2003. “The Voice of Experience: An Interview with John Elder.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 10, no. 1: 195-213. https: / / doi. org/ 10.1093/ isle/ 10.1.195. Works Cited 191 <?page no="192"?> Christensen, Laird, Mark C. Long, and Frederick O. Waage, eds. 2008. Teaching North American Environmental Literature. New York: Modern Language Association of America. Clark, Timothy. 2019. The Value of Ecocriticism. Cambridge, United Kingdom New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Clayton, Susan. 2020. “Climate Anxiety: Psychological Responses to Climate Change.” Journal of Anxiety Disorders 74: 102263. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.janxdis.2020.102263. Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome, and Stephanie Foote, eds. 2021. The Cambridge Companion to Environ‐ mental Humanities. Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Coiro, Julie, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear, and Donald L. Leu, eds. 2008. Handbook of Research on New Literacies, 1-21. New York, London: LEA Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cope, Bill, and Mary Kalantzis. 2023. “Towards Education Justice: A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies, Revisited.” In Multiliteracies in International Educational Contexts: Towards Education Justice, edited by Gabriela C. Zapata, Bill Cope, and Mary Kalantzis, 1-26. London: Routledge. Council of Europe. 2001. A Common European Framework for Language Learning, Teaching and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collste, David, Sarah E. Cornell, Jorgen Randers, Johan Rockström, and Per Espen Stoknes. 2021. “Human Well-Being in the Anthropocene: Limits to Growth.” Global Sustainability 4: e30. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1017/ sus.2021.26. Christ, Herbert, and Rudolf de Cilia. 2003. “Geschichte des Fremdsprachenunterrichts in deutschsprachigen Ländern seit 1945.” In Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht, ed. by Karl- Richard Bausch, Herbert Christ, and Hans-Jürgen Krumm, 614-22. Tübingen, Basel: A. Francke Verlag. Crutzen, Paul. 2002. “The Geology of Mankind.” Nature 415: 23. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1038/ 415023a. Cunsolo, Ashlee, and Karen Landman. 2017. Mourning Nature: Hope at the Heart of Ecological Loss and Grief. McGill-Queen’s Press - MQUP. Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press. Dean, Jon. 2017. Doing Reflexivity: An Introduction. Bristol: Policy press. de Haan, Gerhard. 1984. “Die Schwierigkeiten der Pädagogik.” In: Ökopädagogik: Aufstehen gegen den Untergang der Natur, ed. by W. Beer and G. de Haan. Weinheim: Beltz, 77-91. Dehaene, Stanislas. 2009. Reading in the Brain. New York: Penguin. Dehaene, Stanislas. 2014. “Reading in the Brain Revisited and Extended: Response to Comments.” Mind & Language 29, no. 3: 320-35. https: / / www.unicog.org/ publications/ Dehaene_Reading _inthebrainrevisitedandextendedMindLanguage2014.pdf. Delanoy, Werner. 2012. “From ‘Inter’ to ‘Trans’? Or: Quo Vadis Cultural Learning? ” In Basic Issues in EFL Teaching and Learning, ed. by Maria Eisenmann and Theresa Summer, 157-67. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag WINTER. Delanoy, Werner, and Laurenz Volkmann, eds. 2006. Cultural Studies in the EFL Classroom. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. Dennison, Susi, Rafael Loss, and Jenny Söderström. 2021. “Europe’s Green Moment: How to Meet the Climate Challenges.” European Council of Foreign Relations. April 20. https: / / ecfr. eu/ publication/ europes-green-moment-how-to-meet-the-climate-challenge/ . 192 Works Cited <?page no="193"?> DER SPIEGEL. 1986. “Das Weltklima gerät aus den Fugen.”August 10. http: / / www.spiegel.de/ sp iegel/ print/ d-13519133.html. Deutscher Bildungsrat, ed. 1970. Empfehlungen der Bildungskommission: Strukturplan für das Bildungswesen. Stuttgart: Klett. Di Chiro, Giovanna. 2016. “Environmental Justice.” In Keywords for Environmental Studies, ed. by Joni Adamson, William A. Gleason, and David N. Pellow, 100-105. New York: New York University Press. Digeser, Andreas. 1983. Fremdsprachendidaktik und ihre Bezugswissenschaften. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett. Dillard, Annie. 1982. Teaching a Stone to Talk: Expeditions and Encounters. New York: Harper Perennial. Dobson, A. 2000. “Drei Konzepte ökologischer Nachhaltigkeit.” Natur und Kultur. Transdiszipli‐ näre Zeitschrift für Natur und Kultur, no. 1/ 2: 62-85. https: / / www.umweltethik.at/ wp/ wp-co ntent/ uploads/ DobsonKonzepteNachhaltigkeit.pdf. Doll, Shauna, and Tarah Wright. 2019. “Climate Change Art: Examining How the Artistic Community Expresses the Climate Crisis.” The International Journal of Social, Political and Community Agendas in the Arts 14, no. 2: 13-29. https: / / doi.org/ 10.18848/ 2326-9960/ CGP/ v1 4i02/ 13-29. Doff, Sabine. 2018. “English Language Teaching and English Language Education— History and Methods.” In Teaching English as a Foreign Language, ed. by Carola Surkamp and Britta Viebrock, 1-16. Stuttgart: Metzler. Doff, Sabine, and Friederike Klippel. 2007. Englischdidaktik: Praxishandbuch für die Sekundarstufe I und II. Berlin: Cornelsen-Scriptor. Dorn, Charles. 2020. “«A New Global Ethic»: A History of the United Nations International Environmental Education Program, 1975-1995.” Foro de Educación 18, no. 2: 83-108. https: / / d oi.org/ 10.14516/ fde.808. EEA, European Environment Agency. 2015. “Germany Country Briefing - The European Environment — State and Outlook 2015.” EEA, European Environment Agency. February 18. https: / / www.eea.europa.eu/ soer/ 2015/ countries/ germany. EEHA, European Environmental Humanities Alliance. 2013. “Vilnius Declaration.” September 26. http: / / europeanenvironmentalhumanities.wordpress.com. Eder, Klaus. 1988. Die Vergesellschaftung der Natur. Frankfurt/ M.: Suhrkamp. Edmondson, Willis J., and Juliane House, eds. 2006. Einführung in Die Sprachlehrforschung. Tübingen, Basel: A. Francke Verlag. Ehrlich, Paul. 1969. “‘Wir sind dabei, den Planeten Erde zu ermorden’ Umwelt-Verseuchung bis zum Jahre 1980.” DER SPIEGEL, November 23. http: / / www.spiegel.de/ spiegel/ print/ d-453179 61.html. Eppelsheimer, Natalie, Uwe Küchler, and Charlotte Melin. 2014. “Letter to the Editors.” Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities 1, no. 2. http: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 10.5250/ resil ience.1.2.008 . Works Cited 193 <?page no="194"?> Eppelsheimer, Natalie, Uwe Küchler, and Charlotte Melin. 2015. “Claiming the Language Ecotone: Translinguality, Resilience, and the Environmental Humanities.” Resilience 1, no. 2: 1-16. http: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 10.5250/ resilience.1.3.005. Ernst, Andreas. 2010. “Individuelles Umweltverhalten - Probleme, Chancen, Vielfalt.” In Klima‐ Kulturen: Soziale Wirklichkeiten im Klimawandel, ed. by Harald Welzer, Hans-Georg Soeffner, and Dana Giesecke, 128-43. Frankfurt/ M.: Campus Verlag. Erll, Astrid, and Marion Gymnich. 2020. Interkulturelle Komptenzen: Erfolgreich kommunizieren zwischen den Kulturen. Stuttgart: Klett. Ernst, Andreas, Gerhard Reese, and Laura Henn. 2024. Umweltpsychologie: Mensch-Umwelt- Systeme verstehen. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-662-69166-3. Estok, Simon C. 2009. “Theorizing in a Space of Ambivalent Openness: Ecocriticism and Ecophobia.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 16, no. 2: 203-25. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1093/ isle/ isp010. Europarat. 2001. Gemeinsamer Europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: Lernen, Lehren, Beurteilen. Berlin: Langenscheidt. Evans, Vyvyan. 2015. The Crucible of Language: How Language and Mind Create Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evernden, Neil. 1992. The Social Creation of Nature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Evernden, Neil. 1993. The Natural Alien: Humankind and Environment. University of Toronto Press. https: / / doi.org/ 10.3138/ 9781442627444. Evernden, Neil. 1996. “Beyond Ecology: Self, Place, and the Pathetic Fallacy.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 92-104. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Fairclough, Norman. 2013. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Routledge. Fairclough, Norman. 2015. Language and Power. London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Felstiner, John. 2009. Can Poetry Save the Earth? A Field Guide to Nature Poems. New Haven: Yale University Press. Fill, Alwin. 1993. Ökolinguistik: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr. Fill, Alwin. 2001. “Introduction.” In The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology, and Environ‐ ment, ed. by Alwin Fill and Peter Mühlhäusler, 1-9. London, New York: Continuum. Fill, Alwin. 2022. “Introduction.” In The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics, ed. by Alwin Fill and Hermine Penz, 1-7. New York London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Fill, Alwin F., and Hermine Penz. 2022. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York, NY : Routledge. https: / / doi.org/ 10.4324/ 9781315687391-30. Finch-Race, Dan, and Katie Ritson. 2021. “The Anglophone Dilemma in the Environmental Humanities.” July 28. https: / / seeingthewoods.org/ 2021/ 07/ 28/ the-anglophone-dilemma-in-th e-environmental-humanities/ . Finke, Peter. 2003. “Kulturökologie.” In Konzepte Der Kulturwissenschaften, ed. by Ansgar Nünning and Vera Nünning, 248-79. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler Verlag. 194 Works Cited <?page no="195"?> Finkenstaedt, Thomas. 1983. Kleine Geschichte der Anglistik in Deutschland: Eine Einführung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Fish, Stanley. 2006. “Tip to Professors: Just Do Your Job.” The New York Times, October 22. http: / / opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 10/ 22/ tip-to-professors-just-do-your-job/ . Fish, Stanley. 2008. “Will the Humanities Save Us? ” The New York Times, January 6. http: / / opin ionator.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 01/ 06/ will-the-humanities-save-us/ . Flood, James, Shirley Brice Heath, and Diane Lapp, eds. 2005. Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy Through the Communicative and Visual Arts. Mahwah, New Jersey & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Foley, Yvonne. 2017. “Critical Literacy.” In Literacies and Language Education, ed. by Brian V. Street and Stephen May, 109-20. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https: / / doi.org/ 1 0.1007/ 978-3-319-02252-9. Folke, Carl, Stephen Polasky, Johan Rockström, Victor Galaz, Frances Westley, Michèle Lamont, Marten Scheffer, Henrick Österbloom, Stephen R. Carpenter, F. Stuart Chapin III, n III, Karen C. Seto, Elke U. Weber,ber, Beatrice I. Crona, Gretchen etchen C. Daily, ly, Partha Dasgupta, Owen Gaffney, Line J. Gordon, Holger Hoff, Simon A Levin, Jane Lubchenko, Will Steffen, Brian H. Walker. 2021. “Our Future in the Anthropocene Biosphere.” Ambio 50, no. 4: 834-69. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ s13280-021-01544-8. Forster, Edgar. 2014. “Reflexivität.” In Handbuch Pädagogische Anthropologie, ed. by Christoph Wulf and Jörg Zirfas, 589-97. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-531-18970-3_54. Foust, Christina, and William O’Shannon Murphy. 2009. “Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy in Global Warming Discourse.” Environmental Communication 3, no. 2: 151-67. htt ps: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 17524030902916624. Freire, Paulo. 1994. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Continuum. Freitag-Hild, Britta. 2018. “Teaching Culture: Intercultural Competence, Transcultural Learning, Global Education.” In Teaching English as a Foreign Language, ed. by Carola Surkamp and Britta Viebrock, 159-75. Stuttgart: Metzler. Freitag-Hild, Britta. 2022. “Kulturelles Lernen und Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung im Fremdsprachenunterricht.” In Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung im Englischunterricht: Grundlagen und Unterrichtsbeispiele, ed. by Carola Surkamp, 1. Auflage, 60-77. Hannover: Klett, Kallmeyer. Freese, Peter. 2005. “American Studies und EFL-Teaching in Germany: A Troubled Relationship.” Amerikastudien / American Studies 50, no.1/ 2: 183-229. Führer, Carolin. 2022. “Relativität und Bildung: Fachübergreifende Herausforderungenund fachspezifische Grenzen.” In Relativität und Bildung: fachübergreifende Herausforderungen und fachspezifische Grenzen, ed. by Carolin Führer, Friedrich Schweitzer, Bernd Tesch, Britta Eiben-Zach, Fahimah Ulfat, Philipp Thomas, Wolfgang Polleichtner, Bernd-Stefan Grewe, and Uwe Küchler, 9-23. Münster New York: Waxmann. Funk, Hermann, and Christina Kuhn. 2003. “Der Europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen & Profile Deutsch - ‘McDonalidisierung’ des Fremdsprachenunterrichts oder neue Qualität der Planung fremdsprachlichen Lehrens und Lernens? ” In Leistung und Leistungsbewertung, Works Cited 195 <?page no="196"?> ed. by Klaus Petzold and Volker Woest, 187-213. Jena: Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena (Zentrum für Didaktik). Gaard, Greta. 2010. “New Directions for Ecofeminism: Toward a More Feminist Ecocriticism.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 17, no. 4: 643-65. Gaard, Greta. 2016. “Ecofeminism.” In Keywords for Environmental Studies, ed. by Joni Adamson, William A. Gleason, and David N. Pellow, 68-71. New York: New York University Press. htt ps: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 44087661. Gaard, Greta Claire, and Patrick D. Murphy. 1998. Ecofeminist Literary Criticism: Theory, Interpretation, Pedagogy. The Environment and the Human Condition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Garrard, Greg. 2004. Ecocriticism. London; New York: Routledge. Garrard, Greg, ed. 2012. Teaching Ecocriticism and Green Cultural Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Garrard, Greg, ed. 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Ecocriticism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, 3-30. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Gerlach, David. 2020. Kritische Fremdsprachendidaktik: Grundlagen, Ziele, Beispiele. Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG. Gifford, Robert. 1997. Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Giroux, Henry A. 1992. Border Crossings: Cultural Works and the Politics of Education. New York, London: Routledge. Global Footprint Network. 2025. “Earth Overshoot Day.” Accessed June 23, 2025. Glotfelty, Cheryll. 1996. “Introduction: Literary Studies in an Age of Environmental Crisis.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, xv-xxxvii. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Glotfelty, Cheryll, and Harold Fromm. 1996. The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Gnutzmann, Claus. 2005. “Bildungsstandards. Eine neue Perspektive für das Lernen und Lehren fremder Sprachen? ” In Bildungstandards für den Fremdsprachenunterricht auf dem Prüfstand, ed. by Karl-Richard Bausch et al., 105-12. Tübingen: Narr. Gnutzmann, Claus. 2017. “Bewusstmachung / Bewusstheit.” In Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachen‐ didaktik: Ansätze - Methoden - Grundbegriffe, ed. by Carola Surkamp, 20-21. Stuttgart: Metzler. Goleman, Daniel, Lisa Bennett, and Zenobia Barlow. 2012. Ecoliterate: How Educators Are Cultivating Emotional, Social, and Ecological Intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Goodbody, Axel. 1998. Literatur und Ökologie. Amsterdam - Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. Göpfert, Hans. 1988. Naturbezogene Pädagogik. Weinheim: Deutscher Studienverlag. Görg, Christoph. 2016. “Planetarische Grenzen.” In Wörterbuch Klimadebatte, ed. by Sibylle Bauriedl, 239-43. Bielefeld: transcript. 196 Works Cited <?page no="197"?> Graff, Harvey J. 2010. “The literacy myth: literacy, education and demography.” Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 8: 17-23. https: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 23025507. Graff, Harvey J., and John Duffy. 2017. “Literacy Myths”. In Literacies and Language Education, ed. by Brian V. Street and Stephen May, 31-42. Cham: Springer International Publishing. htt ps: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-319-02252-9. Greenblatt, Stephen. 1990. “Culture.” In Critical Terms for Literary Study, ed. by Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin, 225-32. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Grober, Ulrich. 2010. Die Entdeckung der Nachhaltigkeit: Kulturgeschichte eines Begriffs. Mün‐ chen: Verlag Antje Kunstmann. Haan, Gerhard de, Dorothee Harenberg. 1999. Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Gu‐ tachten zum Programm. BLK : Bonn. https: / / doi.org/ 10.25656/ 01: 218. Haeckel, Ernst. 1866. Allgemeine Entwicklungsgeschichte der Organismen: Kritische Grundzüge der mechanischen Wissenschaft von den entstehenden Formen der Organismen. Band 2: Allge‐ meine Entwickelungsgeschichte der Organismen. De Gruyter. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1515/ 9783111 419336. Hagner, Michael. 2010. “Haben die Geisteswissenschaften die Zukunft vergessen? ” In KlimaKul‐ turen: Soziale Wirklichkeiten im Klimawandel, ed. by Harald Welzer, Hans-Georg Soeffner, and Dana Giesecke, 20-32. Frankfurt/ M.: Campus Verlag. Hallet, Wolfgang. 2010. “Fremdsprachliche Literacies.” In: Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik, ed. by Wolfgang Hallet and Frank G. Königs, 68-70. Seelze-Velber: Kallmeyer/ Klett. Hallet, Wolfgang. 2025. “Literarische Kompetenz.” In Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik: Ansätze - Methoden - Grundbegriffe, ed. by Carola Surkamp, 317-18. Stuttgart: Metzler. http s: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-476-06000-6. Hallet, Wolfgang, and Andreas Müller-Hartmann. 2006. “For Better or for Worse? Bildungsstan‐ dards Englisch im Überblick.” Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 40, no. 81: 2-11. Hallet, Wolfgang, and Frank G. Königs. 2010. Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik. Seelze-Velber: Kallmeyer/ Klett. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1990. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, Michael A. K. 2001. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Harant, Martin, Philipp Thomas, and Uwe Küchler. 2020. Theorien! Horizonte für die Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. http: / / hdl.handle.net/ 10900/ 104249. Tübingen: Tübingen University Press. Harsch, Claudia. 2017. “Kompetenz.” In Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik: Ansätze - Methoden - Grundbegriffe, ed. by Carola Surkamp, 166-69. Stuttgart: Metzler. Haß, Frank, ed. 2006. Fachdidaktik Englisch: Tradition, Innovation, Praxis. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen. Hauenschild, Katrin, and Dietmar Bolscho. 2005. Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung in der Schule. Frankfurt M.: Peter Lang. Haugen, Einar. 1972. The Ecology of Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Haugen, Einar. 2001. “The Ecology of Language.” In The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology, and Environment, ed. by Alwin Fill and Peter Mühlhäusler, 57-66. London, New York: Continuum. Works Cited 197 <?page no="198"?> Hausman, Carl R. 1979. “Introduction: Disciplinarity or Interdisciplinarity? ” In Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education, ed. by Joseph J. Kockelmans, 1-10. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Heise, Ursula K. 2006. “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Ecocriticism.” PMLA 121, no. 2: 503-16. https : / / doi.org/ 10.1632/ 003081206X129684. Heise, Ursula K. 2008. Sense of Place and Sense of Planet: The Environmental Imagination of the Global. New York: Oxford University Press. Henk, Malte, and Wolfgang Uchatius. 2015. “Morgen vielleicht: Die Grenzen der menschlichen Natur.” DIE ZEIT, June 23. https: / / www.zeit.de/ 2015/ 23/ klimawandel-diskussion-co2-emissio nen. Henzelmann, Torsten, and Matthias Stoever. 2011. “Germany — The Greenest of All”. In Green Growth, Green Profit: How Green Transformation Boosts Business, ed. by Roland Berger, 105-16. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1057/ 9780230303874_7. Herring, Horace. 2008. “Rebound Effect - The Encyclopedia of Earth.” The Encyclopedia of Earth. November 18, 2008. https: / / editors.eol.org/ eoearth/ wiki/ Rebound_effect. Hickel, Jason. 2019. “The Contradiction of the Sustainable Development Goals: Growth versus Ecology on a Finite Planet.” Sustainable Development 27, no. 5: 873-84. https: / / doi.org/ 10.100 2/ sd.1947. Hirsch, E. D. 1988. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. New York: Vintage Books. Hobbs, Renee. 2011. Ditigal and Media Literacy: Connecting Culture and Classroom. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Corwin. Höhler, Sabine. 2016. “Resilienz.” In Wörterbuch Klimadebatte, ed. by Sibylle Bauriedl, 261-67. Bielefeld: transkript. hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York, London: Routledge. Hopkins, Rob. 2013. The Transition Companion: Making Your Community More Resilient in Uncertain Times. Cambridge: Green Books. Hopmann, Stefan, and Kurt Riquarts. 1995. “Starting a Dialogue: Issues in a Beginning Conver‐ sation Between Didaktik and the Curriculum Traditions.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 27, no. 1: 3-12. Horn, Eva, and Hannes Bergthaller. 2020. The Anthropocene: Key Issues for the Humanities. London: Routledge. Howarth, William L. 1996. “Some Principles of Ecocriticism.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 69-91. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Howatt, A. P. R., and Richard Smith. 2014. “The History of Teaching English as a Foreign Language, from a British and European Perspective.” Language & History 57, no. 1: 75-95. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1179/ 1759753614Z.00000000028. Hoydis, Julia, Roman Bartosch, and Jens Gurr. 2023. Climate Change Literacy. Cambridge Elements. 198 Works Cited <?page no="199"?> Hu, Adelheid, Daniela Caspari, Andreas Grünewald, Lutz Küster, Günter Nold, Helmut Johannes Vollmer, and Wolfgang Zydatiß. 2008. “Kompetenzorientierung, Bildungsstandards und fremdsprachliches Lernen --Herausforderungen an die Fremdsprachenforschung (Position‐ spapier vom Vorstand und Beirat der DGFF).” Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 19, no. 2: 163-86. https: / / www.dgff.de/ publikationen/ zff/ ausgabe/ band-19-heft-2-2008. Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Hüllen, Werner. 2005. Kleine Geschichte des Fremdsprachenlernens. Berlin: Schmidt Verlag. Hutchings, Rich. 2014. “Understanding of and Vision for the Environmental Humanities.” Environmental Humanities 4, no. 1: 213-20. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1215/ 22011919-3615007. Iovino, Serenella. 2010. “Ecocriticism, Ecology of Mind, and Narrative Ethics: A Theoretical Ground for Ecocriticism as Educational Practice.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 17, no. 4: 759-62. https: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 44087668. IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2021. “Press Release: Climate Change Widespread, Rapid, and Intensifying.” IPPC. August 9. https: / / www.ipcc.ch/ 2021/ 08/ 09/ ar6-w g1-20210809-pr/ . IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, ed. by Hans-Otto Pörtner, Debra C Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, u.-a. Cambridge, UK; New York, USA: Cambridge UP. https: / / doi.org/ doi: 10.1017/ 9781009325844. James, Carl, and Peter Garrett. 1992. Language Awareness in the Classroom. London; New York: Longman. Jank, Werner, and Hilbert Meyer. 1991. Didaktische Modelle. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag. Janks, Hilary. 2013. “Critical Literacy in Teaching and Research.” Education Inquiry 4, no. 2: 225-42. https: / / doi.org/ 10.3402/ edui.v4i2.22071. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2010. “A New Climate for Society.” Theory, Culture & Society 27, no. (2-3): 233-53. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1177/ 0263276409361497. Jensen, Derrick. 2006. “Beyond Hope.” Orion Magazine, May 2, 2006. https: / / orionmagazine.org / article/ beyond-hope/ . Jungjohann, Arne. 2019. How Germany’s Green Party Leverages Its Influence to Promote Ecological Modernisation. Heinrich Böll Foundation. https: / / www.boell.de/ sites/ default/ files/ boell_gove rning-ecologically.pdf. Kalantzis, Mary, and Bill Cope. 2015. “Regimes of Literacy.” In Negotiating Spaces for Literacy Learning: Multimodality and Governmentality, ed. by Mary Hamilton, Rachel Heydon, Ka‐ thryn Hibbert, and Roz Stooke, 15-24. London et al.: Bloomsbury Academic. Keppner, Benno, Walter Kahlenborn, Holger Hoff, Wolfgang Lucht, and Dieter Gerten. 2020. Planetary Boundaries: Challenges for Science, Civil Society and Politics. Dessau-Roßlau: Um‐ weltbundesamt. Kelsey, Elin. 2020. Hope Matters: Why Changing the Way We Think is Critical to Solving the Environmental Crisis. Vancouver; Berkeley: Greystone Books. Works Cited 199 <?page no="200"?> Kelsey, Elin. 2021. “An Antidote for Environmental Despair.” In Hakai Magazine. January 18, 2021. https: / / www.hakaimagazine.com/ features/ an-antidote-for-environmental-despair/ . Kern, Richard. 2000. Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kerridge, Richard. 1998. “Introduction.” In Writing the Environment: Ecocriticism and Literature, ed. by Richard Kerridge and Neil Sammells, 1-10. London; New York, NY: Zed Books. Klafki, Wolfgang. 1996. Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik: zeitgemäße Allgemein‐ bildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik. Weinheim Basel: Beltz. Klein, Julie Thompson. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Klippel, Friederike, and Dorottya Ruisz. 2020. “Vorwort zum Themenheft ‘Umbruchphasen in der Geschichte des Fremdsprachenunterrichts: Konstanz und Wandel.’” ZFF Zeitschrift Für Fremdsprachenforschung 31, no. 1: 3-6. https: / / www.dgff.de/ assets/ Uploads/ ausgaben-zff/ ZF F-2020/ ZFF_2020_1_Vorwort.pdf. KM-BW, Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg. 2016. “Bildungsplan 2016, Allgemeinbildenden Schulen, Gymnasium: Englisch Als Erste Fremdsprache.” Bildungs‐ pläne Baden-Württemberg. Accessed July 16. http: / / www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/ site/ bildun gsplan/ get/ documents/ lsbw/ export-pdf/ depot-pdf/ ALLG/ BP2016BW_ALLG_GYM_E1.pdf. KMK, Kultursministerkonferenz. 2021. “The Education System in the Federal Republic of Germany 2019/ 2020: A Description of the Responsibilities, Structures and Developments in Education Policy for the Exchange of Information in Europe.” Ed by Thomas Eckhardt. h ttps: / / www.kmk.org/ fileadmin/ Dateien/ pdf/ Eurydice/ Bildungswesen-engl-pdfs/ dossier_en_ ebook.pdf. Köller, Olaf, Michel Knigge, and Bernd Tesch, eds. 2010. Sprachliche Kompetenzen im Länderver‐ gleich. Münster: Waxmann. Kolbert, Elizabeth. 2006. Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change. New York: Bloomsbury Pub.  Kolbert, Elizabeth. 2015. The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. New York: Picador, Henry Holt and Company. Kollmus, Anja, and Julian Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior? ” Environmental Education Research 8, no. 3: 239-60. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 13504620220145401. Kolodny, Annette. 1975. The Lay of the Land: Metaphor as Experience and History in American Life and Letters. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press. ———. 1996. “Unearthing Herstory: An Introduction.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 170-81. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Kramsch, Claire. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, Claire. 1998. “The Priviledge of the Intercultural Speaker.” In Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches Through Drama and Ethnography, ed. by Michael Byram and Michael Fleming, 16-31. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press. 200 Works Cited <?page no="201"?> Kramsch, Claire 2021. Language as Symbolic Power. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Krebs, Angelika. 1999. The Ethics of Nature: A Map. Berlin: De Gruyter. Kretz, Lisa. 2012. “Climate Change: Bridging the Theory-Action Gap.” Ethics and the Environment 17, no. 2: 9-27. http: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 10.2979/ ethicsenviro.17.2.9. Kretz, Lisa. 2017. “Emotional Solidarity: Ecological Emotional Outlaws Mourning Environmental Loss and Empowering Positive Change.” In Mourning Nature: Hope at the Heart of Ecological Loss and Grief, ed. by Ashlee Consolo and Karen Landman, 258-91. McGill-Queens University Press. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ j.ctt1w6t9hg. Kretz, Lisa. 2019. “Hope, the Environment and Moral Imagination.” In Theories of Hope: Exploring Alternative Affective Dimensions of Human Experience, ed. by Rochelle M. Green, 155-76. Lanham: Lexington Books. Krumm, Hans-Jürgen. 2003. “Lehr- und Lernziele.” In Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht, ed. by Karl-Richard Bausch, Herbert Christ, and Hans-Jürgen Krumm, 116-21. Tübingen, Basel: A. Francke Verlag. Kruse, Elke, Uwe Küchler, and Maria Kuhl. 2005. “Mosaik des Lernens und Lehrens an der Hochschule: Zur Einführung.” In Unbegrenztes Lernen - Lernen über Grenzen? Generierung und Verteilung von Wissen in der Hochschulentwicklung, ed. by Elke Kruse, Uwe Küchler, and Maria Kuhl, 5-11. Münster: LIT Verlag. Küchler, Uwe. 2010. “Interdisziplinäre Kontaktzonen: Sprache, Kultur, Ökologie und ihre Didak‐ tik.” In Hochschuldidaktik aufgefächert - Vernetzte Hochschulbildung, ed. by Birgit Szczyrba and Ralf Schneider, 102-16. Münster: LIT-Verlag. Küchler, Uwe. 2016. “Fremdsprachendidaktik als interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft: Ökologie, Umwelt und die Inhaltsfrage.” In Fachkulturen in der Lehrerbildung, ed. by Peter Geiss, Roland Ißler, and Rainer Kaenders, 179-94. Göttingen: Bonn University Press/ V&R unipress. Küchler, Uwe. 2017. “Signs, Images, and Narratives.” In Teaching Climate Change in the Human‐ ities, ed. by Stephen Siperstein, Shane Hall, and Stephanie LeMenager, 153-60. Abingdon/ New York: Routledge. Küchler, Uwe. 2019a. “Knowledge Transfer.” In The Bonn Handbook of Globality, Volume 1, ed. by Ludger Kühnhardt and Tilman Mayer, 409-17. Wiesbaden: Springer International Publishing. Küchler, Uwe. 2019b. “III.1.5 Hochschuldidaktische Aspekte Der Vermittlung von Literatur.” In Grundthemen Der Literaturwissenschaft: Literaturdidaktik, 202-16. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1515/ 9783110410709-009. Küchler, Uwe. 2021 “What’s in a language: environmental concepts and metaphors in foreign language education.” In: Cultivating Sustainability in Language and Literature Pedagogy: Steps to an Educational Ecology, ed. by Roman Bartosch, 64-79. London: Routledge. Küchler, Uwe. 2022. “Book Review of ‘Hope Matters: Why Changing the Way We Think Is Critical to Solving the Environmental Crisis.’” Ecozon@ - European Journal of Literature, Culture and Environment 13, no. 2: 241-43. https: / / doi.org/ 10.37536/ ecozona.2022.13.2.4784. Küchler, Uwe. 2025. “Imagining the Environment in a Different, More Hopeful Language.” In Engaging with Environmental Education through the Language Arts, ed. by Nicholas McGuinn and Amanda Naylor, 63-79. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Works Cited 201 <?page no="202"?> Küchler, Uwe, and Judith Preiß. 2020. Schwerpunktthema Abitur Englisch - Sekundarstufe II/ Green Matters: Planet Earth-Language-Culture (Textheft). Berlin: Cornelsen. Kuckartz, Udo. 2010. “Nicht hier, nicht jetzt, nicht ich - Über die symbolische Bearbeitung eines ernsten Problems.” In KlimaKulturen: Soziale Wirklichkeiten im Klimawandel, ed. by Harald Welzer, Hans-Georg Soeffner, and Dana Giesecke, 144-60. Frankfurt/ M.: Campus Verlag. Kuckartz, Udo, and Anke Rheingans-Heintze. 2006. Trends im Umweltbewusstsein: Umweltger‐ echtigkeit, Lebensqualität und persönliches Engagement. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwis‐ senschaften. Kupetz, Rita. 2017. “Multiple Literacies.” In Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik: Ansätze - Methoden - Grundbegriffe, ed. by Carola Surkamp, 258-59. Stuttgart: Metzler. Kupetz, Rita, and Ricardo Römhild. 2025. “Literacy.” In Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik: Ansätze - Methoden - Grundbegriffe, ed. by Carola Surkamp, 315-17. Stuttgart: Metzler. http s: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-476-06000-6. Lakoff, George. 1993. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortnoy, 202-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, Amsterdam, Philadel‐ phia: Chicago University Press. Lakoff, George, and Elisabeth Wehling. 2016. Auf leisen Sohlen ins Gehirn: politische Sprache und ihre heimliche Macht. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag. Leicht, A., J. Heiss, and W. J. Byun, eds. 2018. Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development. Paris: UNESCO. https: / / doi.org/ 10.54675/ YELO2332. Lemenager, Stephanie, and Stephanie Foote. 2008. “The Sustainable Humanities.” PMLA 127, no. 3: 572-78. doi: 10.1632/ pmla.2012.127.3.572. Leupold, Eynar. 2002. Französisch unterrichten: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anregungen. Seelze- Velber: Kallmeyer. Leupold, Eynar. 2010. “Bildungsstandards.” In Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik, ed. by Wolfgang Hallet and Frank G. Königs, 49-54. Seelze-Velber: Kallmeyer/ Klett. Leupold, Eynar, and Raphaela Porsch. 2011. “Von der Rezeption zur Handlungskompetenz: Bildungsstandards und ihre Konsequenzen für unterrichtliches Handeln.” Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 22, no. 1: 85-111. https: / / www.dgff.de/ assets/ Uploads/ ausgaben-zff / ZFF-1-2011-Leupold-Porsch.pdf. Lioi, Anthony. 2021. “Ecomedia.” In The Cambridge Companion to Environmental Humanities, ed. by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and Stephanie Foote. Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lobin, Henning. 2019. “Framing - Warum wir eine Ethik der Metapher brauchen.” Süddeutsche Zeitung, February 21. https: / / www.sueddeutsche.de/ kultur/ framing-metapher-afd-ethik-spr achwissenschaft-1.4337984. Love, Glen A. 1996. “Revaluing Nature: Toward an Ecological Criticism.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 225-40. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Love, Glen A. 2010. “Ecocriticism, Theory and Darwin.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 17, no. 4: 773-75. https: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 44087673. 202 Works Cited <?page no="203"?> López, Antonio, Adrian Ivakhiv, Stephen Rust, Miriam Tola, Alenda Y. Chang, and Kiu-wai Chu, eds. 2023. “Introduction.” In The Routledge Handbook of Ecomedia Studies, 1-16. London: Routledge. Lopez, Barry. 1986. Arctic Dreams. New York: Scribener. Louv, Richard. 2008. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. Lütge, Christiane. 2011. Mit Filmen Englisch unterrichten. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag. Lütge, Christiane. 2012. “Developing ‘Literary Literacy’? Towards a Progression of Literary Learning.” In Basic Issues in EFL Teaching and Learning, ed. by Maria Eisenmann and Theresa Summer, 191-202. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag WINTER. Macfarlane, Robert. 2015. Landmarks. London: Hamish Hamilton, Penguin Books. Macfarlane, Robert. 2019. Underland: A Deep Time Journey. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Macfarlane, Robert, and Jackie Morris. 2017. The Lost Words: A Spell Book. Hamish Hamilton, Penguin Books. MacKay, Graeme. 2020a. 4 Waves Cartoon. Cartoon. MacKay, Graeme. 2020b. “Wednesday March 11, 2020.” Graeme MacKay’s Editorial Cartoon Archive (blog). March 11. https: / / mackaycartoons.net/ 2020/ 03/ 18/ wednesday-march-11-2020/ . Maniates, Michael F. 2001. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World? ” Global Environmental Politics 1, no. 3: 31-52. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1162/ 152638001316881395. Matthewman, Sasha. 2011. Teaching Secondary English as If the Planet Matters. London, New York: Routledge. Matz, Frauke, and Michael Rogge. 2020. “Widening the Horizon: The Challenges of Teaching Nigeria in the German EFL Classroom.” AAA: Arbeiten Aus Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 45, no. 2: 153-72. Matz, Frauke, and Ricardo Römhild. 2024. “Critical Language Education for Peace: On the Sig‐ nificance of Communicative Agency for Education for Human Rights, Peace, and Sustainable Develoment.” Journal of International Human Rights Education 8, no. 1: 1-26. https: / / reposit ory.usfca.edu/ ijhre/ vol8/ iss1/ 6. Mauelshagen, Franz, and Christian Pfister. 2010. “Vom Klima zur Gesellschaft: Klimageschichte im 21. Jahrhundert.” In KlimaKulturen: Soziale Wirklichkeiten im Klimawandel, ed. by Harald Welzer, Hans-Georg Soeffner, and Dana Giesecke, 241-69. Frankfurt/ M.: Campus Verlag. Mayer, Richard E. 2008. “Multimedia Literacy.” In Handbook of Research on New Literacies, ed. Julie Coiro, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear by, and Donald L. Leu, 359-76. New York, London: LEA Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mayer, Sylvia, and Graham Wilson, eds. 2006. Ecodidactic Perspectives on English Language, Literatures and Cultures. Münster: LIT-Verlag. Meeker, Joseph W. 1996. “The Comic Mode.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 155-69. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Mentz, Steve. 2008. “After Sustainability.” PMLA 127, no. 3: 586-92. https: / / stevementz.com/ wp -content/ uploads/ 2012/ 07/ After-Sustainability-Mentz-PMLA-20121.pdf. Works Cited 203 <?page no="204"?> Meyer, Michael, Laurenz Volkmann, and Nancy Grimm. 2022. Teaching English. 2nd ed. Gunter Narr Verlag. McBride, B. B., C. A. Brewer, A. R. Berkowitz, and W. T. Borrie. 2013. “Environmental Literacy, Ecological Literacy, Ecoliteracy: What Do We Mean and How Did We Get Here? ” Ecosphere 4, no. 5. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1890/ ES13-00075.1. McBride, James. 2022. “How Green-Party Success Is Reshaping Global Politics.” Council on Foreign Relations, May 5. https: / / www.cfr.org/ backgrounder/ how-green-party-success-resh aping-global-politics. McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press. McMichael, A. J. 2000. “The Urban Environment and Health in a World of Increasing Globaliza‐ tion: Issues for Developing Countries.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78, no. 9: 1117-26. https: / / www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/ articles/ PMC2560839/ . McKeown, Rosalyn, and Chuck Hopkins. 2005. “EE and ESD: Two Paradigms, One Crucial Goal.” Applied Environmental Education & Communication 4, no. 3: 221-24. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 15330150591004616. McKibben, Bill. 2005. “What the Warming World Needs Now Is Art, Sweet Art.” Grist Magazine, April 22, 2005. www.grist.org/ article/ mckibben-imagine/ . Meadows, Donella H., Jørgen Randers, and Dennis L. Meadows. 2004. Grenzen des Wachstums: Das 30-Jahre-Update. Signal zum Kurswechsel. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Verlag. Meadows, Donella H., ed. 1972. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books. Meyer, Teva. 2017. “Comparing the Success of Environmental Conflicts in Germany and France: A Geopolitical Approach.” Herodote 165, no. 2: 31-52. https: / / www.cairn-int.info/ article-E_H ER_165_0031--comparing-the-success-of-environmental.htm. Meyer-Abich, Klaus Michael. 1990. Aufstand für die Natur: Von der Umwelt zur Mitwelt. München: Hanser. Miller, Richard E., and Kurt Spellmeyer, eds. 2005. The New Humanities Reader. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Mitchell, Candace, and Kathleen Weiler. 1991. Rewriting Literacy: Culture and the Discourse of the Other. New York et al.: Bergin & Garvey. Moeller, Aleidine J., and Theresa Catalano. 2015. “Foreign Language Teaching and Learning.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., 9: 327-32. Oxford: Elsevier. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ B978-0-08-097086-8.92082-8. Mortimer-Sandilands, Catriona, and Bruce Erickson, eds. 2010. Queer Ecologies: Sex, Nature, Politics, Desire. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press. Morgan, Wendy. 1997. Critical Literacy in the Classroom: The Art of the Possible. London: Routledge. Morton, Timothy. 2007. Ecology Without Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Morton, Timothy. 2013. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 204 Works Cited <?page no="205"?> Moser, Christian. 2016. “Literatur.” In Bonner Enzyklopädie der Globalität, ed. by Ludger Kühn‐ hardt and Tilman Mayer, 943-53. Wiesbaden: Springer. Murphy, Patrick D. 2000. Farther Afield in the Study of Nature-Oriented Literature. Charlottesville, London: UP of Virginia. Niavis, Paulus, and Paul Krenkel. 1953. Das Gericht der Götter über den Bergbau. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. https: / / digital.slub-dresden.de/ data/ kitodo/ NiavIudi_1680687964/ NiavIud i_1680687964_tif/ jpegs/ NiavIudi_1680687964.pdf. Access: 07.03.2023. Nixon, Rob. 2011. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Nussbaum, Martha. 1997. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nünning, Ansgar. 1997. “Perspektivenübernahme und Perspektivenkoordination.” In Literatur‐ didaktik - Konkret: Theorie und Praxis des fremdsprachlichen Literaturunterrichts, ed. by Günther Jarfe, 137-161. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. Nünning, Ansgar. 2000. “‘Intermisunderstanding’: Prolegomena zu einer literaturdidaktischen Theorie des Fremdverstehens: Erzählerische Vermittlung, Perspektivenwechsel und Perspek‐ tivenübernahme.” In Wie ist Fremdverstehen lehr- und lernbar? ed. by Lothar Bredella, Franz- Joseph Meißner, Ansgar Nünning and Dietmar Rösler, 84-133. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Nünning, Ansgar. 2004. “Es geht immer auch anders, Oder: Unzeitgemäßes Plädoyer für den Nutzen (und die ‘Praxisrelevanz’! ) literaturwissenschaftlicher Theorien, Modelle und Methoden für die Literaturdidaktik und den Literaturunterricht.” In Literaturdidaktik im Dialog, ed. by Lothar Bredella, Werner Delanoy, and Carola Surkamp, 65-97. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Oda, Megumi. 2008. “Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking in TESOL: EAST vs. WEST.” The Journal of ASIA TEFL 5, no. 1: 145-73. https: / / www.researchgate.net/ publication/ 358649 992_Thinking_Critically_about_Critical_Thinking_in_TESOL_East_vs_West. OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2004. “Implementing Envi‐ ronmental Policies.” In OECD Environmental Performance Reviews, 29-52. https: / / doi.org/ 10. 1787/ 9789264108592-3-en. OED, Oxford English Dictionary. 2025. “Environment, n.” Accessed March 23, 2025. https: / / ww w.oed.com/ dictionary/ environment_n. OED, Oxford English Dictionary. 2025. “Ecology, n.” Accessed March 23, 2025. https: / / www.oed .com/ dictionary/ ecology_n. OED, Oxford English Dictionary. 2025. “Ecotone, n.” Accessed March 23, 2025. https: / / www.oe d.com/ dictionary/ ecotone_n. OED, Oxford English Dictionary. 2025. “Nature, n.” Accessed March 23, 2025. https: / / www.oed. com/ dictionary/ nature_n. OED, Oxford English Dictionary. 2025. “Sustainability, n.” Accessed March 23, 2025. https: / / www.oed.com/ dictionary/ sustainability_n. Olsen, Tillie. 1965. Silences. New York: Delacorte Press, Seymour Lawrence. Works Cited 205 <?page no="206"?> O’Neill, Daniel W., Andrew L. Fanning, William F. Lamb, und Julia K. Steinberger. 2018. “A Good Life for All Within Planetary Boundaries.” Nature Sustainability 1, no. 2: 88-95. https: / / doi.o rg/ 10.1038/ s41893-018-0021-4. Online Lexikon für Psychologie und Pädagogik. n.d. “Literacy” Accessed September 19, 2022. htt ps: / / lexikon.stangl.eu/ 21348/ literacy. Oppermann, Serpil. 2006. “Theorizing Ecocriticism: Toward a Postmodern Ecocritical Practice.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 13, no. 2: 103-28. https: / / www.jstor.o rg/ stable/ 44070262. Oppermann, Serpil. 2010. “Ecocriticism’s Phobic Relations with Theory.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 17, no. 4: 768-70. https: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 44087671. Oppermann, Serpil, Ufuk Özdag, Nevin Özkan, and Scott Slovic, eds. 2011. The Future of Ecocriticism: New Horizons. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. O’Riordan, Timothy. 1976. Environmentalism. London: Pion Limited. O’Sullivan, Edmund, and Marilyn Taylor, eds. 2004. Learning Toward an Ecological Consciousness. New York: Palgrave. Orr, David W. 1992. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Palmer-Cooper, Joy A. 2009. Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice, Progress and Promise. London: Routledge. Palmer-Cooper, Joy A., and Philip Neal. 2003. The Handbook of Environmental Education. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library. Phillips, Dana. 2003. The Truth of Ecology: Nature, Culture, and Literature in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1093/ acprof: oso/ 9780195137699.001.0001. Pichler, Melanie. 2016. “Nachhaltigkeit.” In Wörterbuch Klimadebatte, ed. by Sibylle Bauriedl, 209-15. Bielefeld: transkript. Piepho, Hans-Eberhard. 1974. Kommunikative Kompetenz als übergeordnetes Lernziel im Engli‐ schunterricht. Dornburg-Frickhofen. Pihkala, Panu. 2018. “Eco-Anxiety, Tragedy, and Hope: Psychological and Spiritual Dimensions of Climate Change.” Zygon® 53, no. 2: 545-69. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ zygo.12407. Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge. Pradanós, Luis. 2020. “How Did This Class Prepare You for Extinction? Insight and Inspiration in Turbulent Times.” Resilience (blog). April 21. https: / / www.resilience.org/ stories/ 2020-04-2 1/ how-did-this-class-prepare-you-for-extinction/ . Pratt, Mary Louise. 1991. “Arts of the Contact Zone.” Profession 91, 33-41. https: / / www.jstor.or g/ stables/ 25595469. Radvan, Florian. 2019. “Reading.” In The Bonn Handbook of Globality, ed. by Ludger Kühn‐ hardt and Tilman Mayer, 277-85. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-319-90377-4_23. Randers, Jorgan. 2012. 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green Pub. 206 Works Cited <?page no="207"?> Reese, Gerhard. 2021.“Warum wir wider besseres Wissen der Umwelt schaden.” June 13. Deutschlandfunk Nova. Podcast, 36 min. https: / / www.deutschlandfunknova.de/ beitrag/ kl ima-warum-wir-wider-besseren-wissens-der-umwelt-schaden-und-wie-wir-es-besser-mach en-koennen. Reimann, Daniel. 2019. “Mediation in den neuen Skalen und Deskriptoren des CEFR Companion Volume.” ZFF Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 30, no. 2: 163-80. https: / / dgff.de/ assets/ Uploads.ZFF-2-2019-02-Daniel.Reimann.pdf. Reimann, Daniel. 2020. “Sprachmittlung - Mediation im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Kompetenz und Bildungsziel.” Babylonia, no. 3, 10-21. https: / / doi.org/ 10.55393/ babylonia.v3i1.36. s. Reinfandt, Christoph. 2012. “Romanticism.” In English and American Studies: Theory and Practice, ed. by Martin Middeke, Timo Müller, Christina Wald, and Hubert Zapf, 46-55. Stuttgart: Metzler. Richards, Jack C., and Richard W. Schmidt. 2002. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. New York: Longman. Rieß, Werner, and Heino Apel, eds. 2006. Bildung füre eine nachhaltige Entwicklung: Aktuelle Forschungsfelder und -ansätze. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Risager, Karen. 2012. “Introduction: Intercultural Learning: Raising Cultural Awareness.” In Basic Issues in EFL Teaching and Learning, ed. by Maria Eisenmann and Theresa Summer, 143-55. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag WINTER. Robin, Libby, and Deborah Rose. 2021. “A Manifesto for the Ecological Humanities.” https: / / fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au/ ecologicalhumanities/ manifesto.php. Robinet-Borgomano, Alexandre. 2021. “The Economic Policy of the German Greens.” Institut Montaigne. March 21. https: / / www.institutmontaigne.org/ en/ analysis/ economic-policy-ger man-greens. Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart III Chapin, Eric Lambin, Timothy Lenton, et al. 2009. “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Ecology and Society 14, no. 2. https: / / doi.org/ 10.5751/ ES-03180-140232. Römhild, Ricardo. 2023. Global Citizenship, Ecomedia and English Language Education. Palgrave Studies in Education and the Environment. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https: / / doi. org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-031-44674-0. Römhild, Ricardo. 2025. “Global Citizenship Education.” In Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendi‐ daktik: Ansätze - Methoden - Grundbegriffe, ed. by Carola Surkamp, 158-60. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-476-06000-6. Römhild, Ricardo, and Alexa Weik von Mossner. 2024. “The Case for Hope in Language Education: Exploring Solarpunk for the English Language Classroom.” World Futures, 81, no. 3: 192-206. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 02604027.2024.2417042. Römhild, R., and W. Gaudelli. 2022. “Target Country, Target Culture: Rethinking Cultural Learning in Language Education for Sustainable Development.” Anglistik 33, no. 3: 15-32. ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.33675/ ANGL/ 2022/ 3/ 5. Rossa, Henning, and Raphaela Porsch. 2019. “Zur Relevanz des Companion Volume to the CEFR für die Weiterentwicklung nationaler Bildungsstandards für die erste Fremdsprache.” ZFF Works Cited 207 <?page no="208"?> Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 30, no. 2: 233-50. https: / / www.dgff.de/ assets/ Upload s/ ZFF-2-2019-06-Rossa-Porsch.pdf. Roszak, Theodore. 1992. The Voice of the Earth. New York: Simon & Schuster. Rubik, Frieder, Ria Müller, Richard Harnisch, Brigitte Holzhauer, Michael Schipperges, and Sonja Geiger. 2019. “Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2018 Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage.” Umweltbundesamt; Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. https: / / www.umweltbundesamt.de/ sites/ default/ files/ medien/ 1410/ p ublikationen/ ubs2018_-_m_3.3_basisdatenbroschuere_barrierefrei-02_cps_bf.pdf. Rueckert, William. 1996. “Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 105-23. Athens: U of Georgia Press. Ryden, Kent C. 1993. Mapping the Invisible Landscape: Folklore, Writing, and the Sense of Place. Iowa City: Iowa University Press. Sacks, Oliver. 2010. “A Man of Letters: Why Was the Morning Paper Suddenly in a Foreign language? ” The New Yorker 86, no. 18: 22-28. https: / / www.newyorker.com/ magazine/ 2010/ 0 6/ 28/ a-man-of-letters-2. Salden-Foerster, Nadine. 2010. “Standards.” In Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik : Ansätze - Methoden - Grundbegriffe, ed. by Carola Surkamp, 294-97. Stuttgart: Metzler. Sanders, Scott Russell. 1996. “Speaking a Word for Nature.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 182-95. Athens: U of Georgia Press. Saville-Troike, Muriel. 2016. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. Schissler, Hanna. 2005. “Toleranz ist nicht genug. Migration in Deutschen Schulbüchern und Curricula.” In Des Fremden Freund, des Fremden Feind: Fremdverstehen in interdisziplinärer Perspektive, ed. by Manuela Boatcâ, Claudia Neudecker, and Stefan Rinke, 51-64. Münster et al.: Waxmann. Schmenk, Barbara. 2019. “Zum Spannungsfeld der Fremdsprachendidaktik und ihrer Bezugs‐ wissenschaften.” In Fremdsprachenforschung als interdisziplinäres Projekt, ed. by Eva Wilden and Henning Rossa, 15-34. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Schmidt, Thorben, and Thomas Strasser. 2018. “Media-Assistend Foreign Language Learning: Concepts and Functions.” In Teaching English as a Foreign Language, ed. by Carola Surkamp and Britta Viebrock, 211-31. Stuttgart: Metzler. Schneider-Meyerson, Matthew, and Brent Ryan Bellamy. 2019. “Introduction.” In An Ecotopian Lexicon, ed. by Matthew Schneider-Mayerson and Brent Ryan Bellamy, 1-14. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Schreiber, Jörg-Robert, and Hannes Siege, eds. 2016. Orientierungsrahmen für den Lernbereich Globale Entwicklung. Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) und Bundes-Ministeriums für wirt‐ schaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) 2004-2015, Bonn. Berlin: Cornelsen. htt ps: / / www.kmk.org/ fileadmin/ Dateien/ veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/ 2015/ 2015_06_00-O rientierungsrahmen-Globale-Entwicklung.pdf. 208 Works Cited <?page no="209"?> Schüssler, Renate, Volker Schwier, Gabriele Klewin, Saskia Schicht, Anke Schöning, and Ulrike Weyland, eds. 2014. Das Praxissemester im Lehramtsstudium: Forschen, Unterrichten, Reflek‐ tieren. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt. Seymour, Nicole, ed. 2013. Strange Natures: Futurity, Empathy, and the Queer Ecological Imagi‐ nation. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, Luisa Maffi, and David Harmon. 2003. Sharing a World of Difference: The Earth’s Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. http: / / p ortal.unesco.org/ education/ en/ ev.php-URL_ID=18391&URL_DO=DO_Printpage&URL_Secti on=20.html. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and David Harmon. 2022. “Biological Diversity and Language Diver‐ sity.” In The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics, ed. by Alwin Fill and Hermine Penz, 11-25. New York, London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Slovic, Paul. 1999. “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield.” Risk Analysis 19, no. 4: 689-701. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ j.1539-6924.1999.tb0043 9.x. Slovic, Scott. 1996. “Nature Writing and Environmental Psychology.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 351-70. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Slovic, Scott. 2010. “The Third Wave of Ecocricism: North American Reflections on the Current Phase of the Discipline.” Ecozon@ 1, no. 1: 4-10. https: / / doi.org/ 10.37536/ ECOZONA.2010.1. 1.312. Smith, Jos. 2017. The New Nature Writing: Rethinking the Literature of Place. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Snow, Nancy E. 2013. “Hope as an Intellectual Virtue.” In Virtues in Action, ed. by Michael W. Austin, 153-70. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1057/ 9781137280299_11. Soper, Kate. 1995. What is Nature. Oxford: Blackwell. Sörlin, Sverker. 2012. “Environmental Humanities: Why Should Biologists Interested in the Environment Take the Humanities Seriously? ” BioScience 62, no. 9: 788-89. https: / / doi.org/ 1 0.1525/ bio.2012.62.9.2. Spellmeyer, Kurt. 2003. Arts of Living: Reinventing the Humanities for the Twenty-First Century. Albany: State University of New York Press. Stables, Andrew. 1996. “Reading the Environment as Text: Literary Theory and Environmental Education.” Environmental Education Research 2, no. 2: 189-95. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 13504 62960020205. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 1350462960020205. Stables, Andrew. 1997. “The Landscape and the ‘Death of the Author.’” Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 2, no.1: 104-13. https: / / cjee.lakeheadu.ca/ article/ view/ 35. Stables, Andrew. 1998. “Environmental Literacy: Functional, Cultural, Critical. The Case of the SCAA Guidelines.” Environmental Education Research 4, no. 2: 155-64. https: / / doi.org/ 10.108 0/ 1350462980040203. Stables, Andrew. 2006. “On Teaching and Learning the Book of the World.” In Ecodidactic Perspectives on English Language, Literatures and Cultures, ed. by Sylvia Mayer and Graham Wilson, 145-62. Münster: Rodopi. Works Cited 209 <?page no="210"?> Steffen, Will, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena M. Bennett, Reinette Biggs, et al. 2015. “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet.” Science 347 (6223): 1259855. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1126/ science.1259855. Sterling, Stephen. 2013. “An Analysis of the Development of Sustainability Education Inter‐ nationally: Evolution, Interpretation and Transformative Potential. In The Sustainability Curriculum, ed. by John Blewitt and Cedric Cullingford, 43-62. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. https: / / doi.org/ 10.4324/ 9781849773287. Stern, Nicholas. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1017/ CBO9780511817434. Stern, Nicholas. 2012. “Umweltschutz für den Euro.” DIE ZEIT, May 24. https: / / www.zeit.de/ 201 2/ 22/ Europa-Wachstum-Umweltschutz. Stern, Nicholas. 2015. “Economic Development, Climate and Values: Making Policy.” In Proceed‐ ings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282, no. 1812: 1-9. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1098/ rspb. 2015.0820. Stevenson, Robert B. 2007. “Schooling and Environmental Education: Contradictions in Purpose and Practice.” Environmental Education Research 13, no. 2: 139-53. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 13 504620701295726. Steward, Julian H. 1955. Theory of Culture Change. The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: U of Illinois P. Stibbe, Arran. 2021. Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology, and the Stories We Live By. London: Routledge. Stiglitz, Joseph E., Amartya Sen, und Jean-Paul Fitoussi. 2009. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. https: / / ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/ documents/ 813 1721/ 8131772/ Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi-Commission-report.pdf. Stone, Michael K., and Zenobia Barlow, eds. 2005. Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Street, Brian V., and Stephen May, eds. 2017. Literacies and Language Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-319-02252-9. Stümer, Jenny, and Felicitas Loest. 2022. “The Apocalyptic Word: Why begin with the end of the world? ” Apocalyptica 2022, no. 1: 4-17. https: / / doi.org/ 10.17885/ heiup. apoc.2022.1.24602. Summers, Lawrence. 2012. “What You (Really) Need to Know.” The New York Times, January 20. Surkamp, Carola, ed. 2022. Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung im Englischunterricht: Grundla‐ gen und Unterrichtsbeispiele. Hannover: Klett, Kallmeyer. Surkamp, Carola, ed. 2025. Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik: Ansätze - Methoden - Grundbegriffe. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-476-06000-6. Tendahl, Markus, and Raymond W. Gibbs. 2008. “Complementary Perspectives on Metaphor.” Journal of Pragmatics 40, no.11: 1823-64. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.pragma.2008.02.001. The New London Group, Courtney Cazden, Bill Cope, Norman Fairclough, Jim Gee, Mary Kalantzi, Gunther Kress, Allan Luke, Carmen Luke, Sarah Michaels, Martin Nikata. 1996. “A 210 Works Cited <?page no="211"?> Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 66, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 1-30. https: / / doi.org/ 10.17763/ haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u. Tilbury, Daniella. 2010. “Are We Learning to Change? Mapping Global Progress in Education for Sustainable Development in the Lead Up to ‘Rio Plus 20.’” Global Environmental Research 2010 14, no. 2: 101-7. https: / / www.airies.or.jp/ attach.php/ 6a6f75726e616c5f31342d32656e67/ save/ 0/ 0/ 14_2-02.pdf. Tilbury, Daniella. 2011. Education for Sustainable Development: An Expert Review of Processes and Learning. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Thomas, Sue. 2015. “Enumeration: 10 Words Technology Borrowed from Nature.” Orion Maga‐ zine, September 28. https: / / orionmagazine.org/ article/ 10-words-technology-borrowed-from -nature/ . Thoreau, Henry David. (1854) 1995. Walden; Or, Life in the Woods. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. Thornbury, Scott. 2006. An A - Z of ELT: A Dictionary of Terms and Concepts Used in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan. Thunberg, Greta. 2019a. “‘Our House Is on Fire’: Greta Thunberg, 16, Urges Leaders to Act on Climate”. The Guardian, January 25. https: / / www.theguardian.com/ environment/ 2019/ jan/ 2 5/ our-house-is-on-fire-greta-thunberg16-urges-leaders-to-act-on-climate. Thunberg, Greta. 2019b. “’I want you to panic’: 16-year-old issues climate warning at Davos”, January 2019. Guardian News, 02: 35. https: / / www.youtube.com/ watch? v=RjsLm5PCdVQ. Trim, John L. M. 2004. “Common European Framework.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, edited by Michael Byram, 122-24. London; New York: Routledge. Ueding, Gert, Gregor Kalivoda, Franz-Hubert Robling, Thomas Zinsmaier, and Sandra Fröhlich, eds. 1992. “Conditio Humana.” In Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, 337-46. Tübingen: Niemeyer. UN, United Nations. 1992. Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. New York, NY: United Nations Dept. of Public Information. UN, United Nations. 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop‐ ment. https: / / sdgs.un.org/ sites/ default/ files/ publications/ 21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sus tainable%20Development%20web.pdf. UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 1975. The Belgrade Charter. A Global Framework for Environmental Education. http: / / portal.unesco.org/ educatio n/ en/ ev.php-URL_ID=33037&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. UNESCO, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. 1992. Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development, 3-14 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. New York, NY: United Nations Dept. of Public Information. UNESCO. 2005. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014: The DESD at a Glance. https: / / unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark: / 48223/ pf0000141629. UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 2014. Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development. https: / / sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/ documents/ 1674unescoroadmap.pdf. Works Cited 211 <?page no="212"?> UNESCO-UNEP, United Nations Environmental Program. 1978 (2012). Intergovernmental Con‐ ference on Environmental Education: Final Report. Tblissi (USSR) 14 - 26 October 1977. Paris. http: / / issuu.com/ tbilisiplus35/ docs/ ee_tbilisi_declaration_report_eng/ 27. UNDP, United Nations Development Programme. 2020. Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier - Human Development and the Anthropocene. http: / / hdr.undp.org/ en/ content/ h uman-development-report-2020-next-frontier-human-development-and-anthropocene. Vlek, Charles, and Gideon Keren. 1992. “Behavioral Decision Theory and Environmental Risk Management: Assessment and Resolution of Four ‘Survival’ Dilemmas.” Acta Psychologica 80, no. 1: 249-78. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ 0001-6918(92)90050-N. Volkmann, Laurenz. 2010. Fachdidaktik Englisch: Kultur und Sprache. Tübingen: Narr. Vollmer, Helmut Johannes. 2015. “Zur Organisation Fremdsprachendidaktischen Wissens.” In WECHSEL-Jahre? Wandel Und Wirken in Der Fremdsprachenforschung, ed. by Sabine Doff and Andreas Grünewald, 113-30. Trier: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Warren, Jim. 2010. “Placing Ecocriticism.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 17, no. 4: 770-72. https: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 44087672. Waters, Colin N., Jan Zalasiewicz, Colin Summerhayes, Anthony D. Barnosky, Clément Poirier, Agneszka Gauszka, Alejandro Cearreta, Matt Edgeworth, Erle C. Ellis, Michael Ellis, Cather‐ ine Jeandel, Reinhold Leinfelder, Daniel deB Richter, Will Steffen, James Syvitski, Davor Vidas, Michael Wagreich, Mark Williams, An Zhishengi, Jacques Grinevaldic, Eric Odada, Naomi Oreskes, Alexander P.e Wolfe. 2016. “The Anthropocene is Functionally and Stratigraphically Distinct from the Holocene.” Science 351, no. 6269. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1126/ science.aad2622. WCED, World Commission on Environment and Development, ed. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Weatherby, Leif. 2020. “Data and the Task of the Humanities.” The Hedgehog Review 22, no. 2. http s: / / hedgehogreview.com/ issues/ questioning-the-quantified-life/ articles/ data-and-the-task-o f-the-humanities. Weber, Andreas. 2007. Alles fühlt: Mensch, Natur und die Revolution der Lebenswissenschaften. Berlin: Berlin Verlag. Weik von Mossner, Alexa. 2017. Affective Ecologies: Empathy, Emotion, and Environmental Narrative. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. Weik von Mossner, Alexa. 2018. “From Nostalgic Longing to Solastalgic Distress- A Cognitive Approach to Love in the Anthropocene.” In Affective Ecocriticism: Emotion, Embodiment, Environment, ed. by Kyle Bladow and Jennifer K. Ladino, 51-69. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Weinert, Franz E. 1999. Concepts of Competence: Contribution within the OECD project Definition and Selection of Competencies: Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations. Neuchâtel: DeSeCo. Weinert, Franz E. 2001. “Vergleichende Leistungsmessung in Schulen --eine umstrittene Selbstverständlichkeit”. In Leistungsmessungen in Schulen, ed. by Franz E. Weinert, 17-31. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag. 212 Works Cited <?page no="213"?> Welzer, Harald. 2009. “Ich bin das Problem: Je kaputter die Umwelt, umso größer meine Wagen: Bekenntnisse des Autoholikers.” DIE ZEIT, December 3. https: / / www.zeit.de/ 2009/ 50/ Green-I ssue-Welzer. Welzer, Harald. 2013. “Noch mal erschrecken! Der renommierte Forscher Stephen Emmott will das Publikum mit Fakten zum Klimawandel aufrütteln. Ob das hilft? ” DIE ZEIT, September 5. https: / / www.zeit.de/ 2013/ 37/ sachbuch-stephen-emmott-zehn-milliarden. Welzer, Harald, Hans-Georg Soeffner, and Dana Giesecke. 2010. KlimaKulturen: Soziale Wir‐ klichkeiten im Klimawandel. Frankfurt/ M.: Campus Verlag. Welzer, Harald, and Stephan Rammler, eds. 2013. Der FUTURZWEI Zukunftsalmanach 2013: Ge‐ schichten vom guten Umgang mit der Welt: Schwerpunkt Mobilität. Bonn: Bpb, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Welzer, Harald, Dana Giesecke, and Luise Tremel, eds. 2015. Das FUTURZWEI Zukunftsalmanach 2015/ 16: Material. Frankfurt, M: Fischer. Welzer, Harald, Dana Giesecke, and Saskia Hebert, eds. 2016. Das FUTURZWEI Zukunftsalma‐ nach 2017/ 18: Die Stadt. Frankfurt M: Fischer. Wess, Robert. 2010. “The Theory Ecocriticism Needs.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 17, no.4: 762-65. https: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 44087669. White Jr., Lynn. 1996. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 3-14. Athens: University of Georgia Press. WHO, World Health Organization. 2020. “WHO COVID-19 Dashboard.” https: / / covid19.who.int/ . Williams, Terry Tempest. 2008. Finding Beauty in a Broken World. New York: Pantheon Books. Wolff, Phillip, and Kevin J. Holmes. 2011. “Linguistic Relativity.” WIREs Cognitive Science 2, no. 3: 253-65. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1002/ wcs.104. Woodworth, Paddy. 2015. “New Environmental Coverage in the Irish Times.” The Irish Times, October 15. https: / / www.irishtimes.com/ news/ environment/ new-environmental-coverage-i n-the-irish-times-1.2411366. World Bank. 2020. World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value Chains. Washington, DC: World Bank. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1596/ 978-1-4648-1457-0. Xiangzhan, Cheng. 2010. “Ecoaesthetics and Ecocriticism.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 17, no. 4: 785-89. https: / / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 44087678. Yearley, Steven. 2010. Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization: Reinventing the Globe. London: SAGE Publications. Zalasiewicz, Jan, Mark Williams, and Waters, Colin N. 2016. “Anthropocene.” In Keywords for Environmental Studies, ed. by Joni Adamson, William A. Gleason, and David N. Pellow, 14-16. New York: New York University Press. Zapf, Hubert. 2002. Literatur als kulturelle Ökologie: Zur kulturellen Funktion imaginativer Texte an Beispielen des amerikanischen Romans. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. Zapf, Hubert. 2012. “Ecocriticism and Cultural Ecology.” In English and American Studies: Theory and Practice, ed. by Martin Middeke, Timo Müller, Christina Wald, and Hubert Zapf, 253-58. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Works Cited 213 <?page no="214"?> Ziser, Michael. 2016. “Ecomedia.” In Keywords for Environmental Studies, ed. by Joni Adamson, William A. Gleason, and David N. Pellow, 75-76. New York: New York University Press. Zydatiß, Wolfgang 2010. “Kompetenzen und Fremdsprachenlernen”. In: Handbuch Fremdspra‐ chendidaktik, ed. by Wolfgang Hallet and Frank G. Königs, 59-63. Seelze-Velber: Kallmeyer/ Klett. 214 Works Cited <?page no="215"?> List of Figures Fig. 1: English and its related disciplines (modified and adapted from Jank & Meyer 1991: 33), illustration by Anna Voigtländer. . . . . . 50 Fig. 2: English and its related environmental disciplines (modified and adapted from Jank & Meyer 1991: 33), illustration by Anna Voigtländer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Fig. 3: Cologne Cathedral, as featured on the 1986 cover of DER SPIEGEL news magazine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Fig. 4: The 4 Waves cartoon by Graeme MacKay (2020a) . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Fig. 5: English’s contribution to Education for Sustainable Development (adapted from Surkamp 2023: 35), illustration by Anna Voigtländer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Fig. 6: A Comprehensive Framework for Environmental Literacy in the Teaching of English (“The Bonsai Model”), illustration by Anna Voigtländer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 <?page no="216"?> ISBN 978-3-8233-8537-0 How can foreign language education be the spark that ignites environmental awareness and sustainability? This book offers a humanities approach to this topic, highlighting the potential of language, literature, culture, and media communication to enrich environmental discussions. It examines foreign language education and explores related fields, such as environmental humanities, environmental education, and education for sustainable development. It also investigates ecolinguistics, ecocriticism, and cultural ecology. The book presents a framework for environmental literacy in foreign language teaching, providing a unique perspective on the role of foreign language education in promoting sustainability, environmental awareness, and critical thinking, ultimately nurturing more hopeful paths for a sustainable future.