Keywords
foreign language
ecolinguistics
linguistic diversity
panphilology
embamicity
transcultural communication
How to Cite
Abstract
The article examines the need to revise the established terminology in language teaching and linguistic research, proposing to replace the term ‘foreign language’ with ‘non-native language (‘other language’). This proposal aligns with the principles of ecolinguistics, which view languages as interconnected elements of a complex cultural- communicative ecosystem. The paper traces the historical evolution of the concept of the ‘foreign language’, analyzes its semantic and cultural limitations, and argues that the term ‘non-native language’ more accurately reflects the realities of globalization, migration, and multilingualism. The terminological shift is not merely linguistic but also axiological and educational, promoting a more inclusive, balanced, and ecological understanding of language and culture.
References
Allen, T.F.H, & T.W. Hoekstra. (1992). Toward a unified ecology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bańkowski, A. (2000). Etymologiczny słownik języka polskiego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Boas, F. (1911). Handbook of American Indian Languages. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Chomsky, N. (2011). How the world works. Berkeley, CA: Soft Skull Press.
Crystal, D. (2000). Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139106856
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eriksen, T.H. (1992). Linguistic hegemony and minority resistance. Journal of Peace Research 29.3. 313–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343392029003007
Fill, A., & Mühlhäusler, P. (red.). (2001). The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment. London: Continuum.
Fishman, J. A. (1977). Language and ethnicity. In H. Giles (red.), Language, ethnicity and inter-group relations (pp. 15–57). London: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In A. Fill & P. Mühlhäusler (red.), The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment (pp. 175–202). London: Continuum.
Haubrichs, W. (2023). Rustica Romana lingua und Theotisca lingua – Frühmittelalterliche Mehrsprachigkeit im Raum von Rhein, Maas und Mosel. In R. Franceschini, M. Hüning, & P. Maitz (red.), Historische Mehrsprachigkeit: Europäische Perspektiven (pp. 179–206). Berlin & Bos-ton: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111338668-009
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Krawczak, M. (2017). Poznańska szkoła ekolingwistyki. Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia, XVII, 145–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/snp.2017.17.11
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Modzelewski, K. (2004). Barbarzyńska Europa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Iskry. Morys-Twardowski, M. (2023). Barbarica. Tysiąc lat zapomnianej historii ziem polskich. Kraków: Znak.
Mühlhäusler, P. (2003). Language of environment, environment of language: A course in ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge.
Puppel, S. (2017). ECOLI[S]2: Essays and notes on ecolinguistic synergy and synthesis. Poznań: Katedra Ekokomunikacji UAM.
Puppel, S. (2019). Krótki zarys ewolucji filologii: ujęcie portalowe. Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia, XIX, 13–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/snp.2019.19.12
Puppel, S. 2022. Habent sua fata linguae: (czyli szkic o tym, że wszyscy mamy język, że „mieszkamy” w nim i co się z nim dzieje). Szkic napisany z okazji 20-lecia istnienia ekolingwistyki i komunikologii w ramach Wydziału Neofilologii UAM (2002–2022). Poznań: Zakład Ekolingwistyki i Komunikologii UAM.
Puppel, S. (2024). Language “depth”: Deep first language acquisition versus shallow second/foreign language learning, and the presence of the “embammic seal” in the embammic language– non-embammic language dichotomy. Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia, XXIV, 73–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/snp.2024.24.05
Ratcliffe, S. (red.). (2017). Oxford essential quotations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robins, R. H. (1997). A short history of linguistics. London: Longman. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024532
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Steciąg, M. (2023). Język w epoce antropocenu. Ujęcie ekolingwistyczne. Zielona Góra: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego.
Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: language, ecology and the stories we live by. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315718071
Steffensen, S. V., & Fill, A. (2014). Ecolinguistics: The state of the art and future horizons. Language Sciences, 41, 6–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.08.003
UNESCO. (2020). Inclusion and Education: All Means All. Paris: UNESCO.
Veracini, L. (2022). Colonialism: a global history. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003050599
Weinreich, M. (1945). A language is a dialect with an army and a navy. YIVO Bleter, 25(1), 13. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Joanna Puppel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.