我们的言说方式能够改变气候:这是约翰·罗斯金1884年的惊人言论。罗斯金提出,邪恶之词像邪恶的风一样回过头来折磨说话的人;亵渎带来了凶险的云。本文试图找回罗斯金主张的合理性(这种主张常常被解读为他陷入了情感谬误,甚至陷入了疯狂)。为了做到这一点,本文对这一主张进行了重新诠释,认为它是对英国浪漫主义一个核心观念的一种回溯性的引申发挥:大气构成了人类交流和感觉的原初媒介;进而,文化的自我认知是受气候影响的。通过对其历史开端的这些大气术语进行复原,可以表明罗斯金的主张不是隐喻的而是本义的,不是无忧无虑的万物有灵论的或拟人的,而是唯物主义的。假如大气是一种交流媒介,那么交流实践也许就貌似有理地具有受气候影响的效果。气候变化文化史上这一基本被遗忘的一章对现在具有十分重要的影响。如今,语言又一次被认为正在改变气候——这是一种全球性的气候应答,例如,对当代的立法、合约、协定的语汇的应答,以及从最广泛的意义来说,对政治和公共领域的语汇的应答。 Our way of speaking can change the climate: it was astonishing 1884 by John Ruskin. Ruskin argues that the word of evil goes back to torment the speaker as an evil wind does; blasphemy brings a dangerous cloud. This article seeks to retrieve the legitimacy of Ruskin’s assertion (which is often interpreted as a fall in his emotional fallacy, or even into madness). To do this, the paper reinterprets this claim as a retrospective extension of a core concept of British romanticism: the atmosphere forms the original medium for human communication and sensation; and further, cultural Self-awareness is affected by the climate. Restoring these atmospheric terms, beginning with its history, shows that Ruskin’s claims are not metaphorical but primitive, not mind-set, or anthropomorphic, materialist. If the atmosphere is an exchange medium, then communication practices may appear plausibly climate-affected. This largely forgotten chapter in the history of climate change culture has a very significant impact on the present. Now, language is once again thought to be changing the climate - a global climate response - for example, the response to the rhetoric of contemporary legislation, contracts, agreements, and, in the broadest sense, political and public Field of vocabulary response.