Сognitive and ecolinguistics aspects of the “plant” frame in science fiction discourse in Sue Burke’s novel “Semiosis”

This article examines science fiction discourse from the perspective of ecolinguistics and cognitive linguistics. The primary focus is on the analysis of the “plant” frame and the identification of linguistic mechanisms that contribute to the formation of environmental values in science fiction narratives. The potential of ecolinguistic analysis for reconstructing the concept of “plant” is explored. The empirical basis of the study is Sue Burke’s novel “Semiosis”, in which the theme of alien flora is represented through the “plant” frame. The relevance of this topic is determined by global environmental challenges and the growing need to reconsider the traditional view of nature as an inexhaustible resource. The problem addressed in this study lies in the fact that contemporary linguistic practices often support an anthropocentric discourse that legitimizes environmental exploitation, despite the existence of alternative biocentric models. The aim of the research is to determine how science fiction discourse, through frame-slot analysis, contributes to the development of environmentally responsible thinking. To achieve this goal, the study sets the following objectives: to analyze the lexical and stylistic devices used in the text; to systematize the slots of the “plant” frame; and to assess the influence of employed discursive strategies on the perception of nature. The methodological foundation of the study is based on the principles of cognitive linguistics and ecolinguistics, which allow for the identification of ideological orientations embedded in language and their effect on ecological consciousness. Using frame-slot analysis, two key subframes are identified: “plant structure” and “plant intelligence”. The study analyzes the lexical and stylistic means through which plants are represented as active participants in the ecosystem. The results show that the traditional frame “plant = passive natural object” is transformed in science fiction discourse into “plant = active subject”. This transformation is articulated through lexical expressions of agency and intelligence, as well as through descriptions of strategic behavior, morphological adaptability, and chemical defense mechanisms. The findings demonstrate that the language of science fiction not only reshapes conventional frames of perceiving nature but also facilitates the formation of a sustainable, ethically oriented biocentric worldview, which challenges traditional anthropocentrism.

1. Ivanova EV. Goals, objectives and problems of ecolinguistics. The pragmatic aspect of communicative linguistics and stylistics: a collection of scientific works. Chelyabinsk: “Obrazovanie” Publishing House; 2007:41-47 (in Russian).

2. Galyardo I. Ecolinguistics and its didactic application. Speech Technologies. 2023:3. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ekolingvistika-i-ee-didakticheskoe-primenenie [Accessed 20 January 2025] (in Russian).

3. Kislitsina NN. Ecolinguistics – a new direction in linguistics. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359743226_Ekologiceskaa_lingvistika_text [Accessed 07 January 2025] (in Russian).

4. Pine JM, Lieven EVM. Slot and frame patterns and the development of the determiner category. Applied Psycholinguistics 1997;18(2):123-138 (in English). DOI: 10.1017/S0142716400009930

5. Henzelmann M, Fedorova NI. Frame semantics in the light of the environmental discourse in the Russian language based on the texts about the Volga-Kama reserve. Bulletin of TGGPU. 2016;43(1). Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/freymovaya-semantika-v-zerkale-ekologicheskogo-diskursa-v-russkom-yazyke-na-primere-tekstov-o-volzhsko-kamskom-zapovednike [Accessed 20 February 2025] (in Russian).

6. Haugen E. The Ecology of Language. The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment. 2006:57-66 (in English).

7. Nurusheva DA. Fundamental research. 2014;(5)4:890-893 (in Russian).

8. Meyer-Abich KM. An enriched and developed, up to date still seminal book on German-based deep ecology. Munich: 1997 (in German).

9. Sorokin YA. Do we need lingvoecology? The World of Linguistics and Communication: Electronic Scientific Journal. 2006. Vol. 1, No. 3. pp. 92 (in Russian).

10. Kurashkina NA. Main directions of contemporary Russian ecolinguistics. Scientific and methodological electronic journal “Concept”. 2016;2:166-170. Available at: http://e-koncept.ru/2016/46040.htm (in Russian).

11. Fokina EA. Features of translating terminological words in the ecolinguistic system of science fiction. In: Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference of Young Researchers. Ufa: 2022 (in Russian).

12. Garrard G. Ecocriticism. 2nd ed. Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge; 2012 (in English).

13. Andrews N. How cognitive frames about nature may affect felt sense of nature connectedness. Ecopsychology. 2018;10(1):1-12 (in English). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2017.0014

14. Burke S. Semiosis: A novel of first contact. London: HarperCollins; 2018:421 (in English).