Excellent article. I really like the idea of ecolinguistics in terms of looking at the stories different societies tell. This fits with the observation that Loyal Rue and others in the Religious Naturalsim movement make that religions are built around a central myth:

https://religiousnaturalism.org/being-religious/loyal-rues-model-of-religion/

This does not, though, deal with an essential problem that you allude to with this statement: "it harkens back to an old colonial idea in Western philosophy that some ‘named languages” are better for thinking, and therefore more advanced than others."

The problem with the comparison of "named languages" is that there is an implied single comparative dimension. Mathematically, this is a "greater than" metric, which leads to a partial or a total ordering. This is very common in fields such as economics: a total ordering can be given based on how much money you've got, leading to the illusion that richer people are better ("more advanced") than us poor folk.

But life is more complex than that. There are multiple, often competing, dimensions upon which to base comparisons. To go back to the example of economics, the Friedman Doctrine that the primary responsibility of a company is to its stockholders reduces the comparison of companies to a single dimension, ignoring other societal responsibilities.

The analysis of societal stories can fall into this trap also. An attempt to argue that one story is better than another depends on what you are comparing: is one stroy more destructive of the environment? Perhaps, but does this story result in more income to each individual, even though the environment is affected? Does one story lead to a better future? Does it do so at the expense of the presnt? What are the tradeoffs?

Once you allow for multiple dimensions, you cannot say that one language or one story is somehow better or worse than another. Any such claim must be stated relative to the dimensions under consideration. The different objects are commensurable, but ultimately there is no ordering that applies to every analysis. The ordering is contextual and relative to your viewpoint.

I am not trying to argue for some sort of "moral relativism" in that every object has equal standing. Quite the contrary: there are multiple dimensions that provide a multiple metrics for comparison. The point is that when you give a standard of comparison, it must be contextualized for the purpose of the analysis.