Forests: the cross-linguistic perspective

Do all humans perceive, think, and talk about tree cover (<q>forests</q>) in more or less the same way? International forestry programs frequently seem to operate on the assumption that they do. However, recent advances in the language sciences show that languages vary greatly as to h...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: N. Burenhult, C. Hill, J. Huber, S. van Putten, K. Rybka, L. San Roque
Format: Article
Language:deu
Published: Copernicus Publications 2017-12-01
Series:Geographica Helvetica
Online Access:https://www.geogr-helv.net/72/455/2017/gh-72-455-2017.pdf
id doaj-b2f33c7035084a338d63ff751feae174
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b2f33c7035084a338d63ff751feae1742020-11-24T23:03:43ZdeuCopernicus PublicationsGeographica Helvetica0016-73122194-87982017-12-017245546410.5194/gh-72-455-2017Forests: the cross-linguistic perspectiveN. Burenhult0N. Burenhult1N. Burenhult2C. Hill3C. Hill4C. Hill5J. Huber6S. van Putten7K. Rybka8L. San Roque9L. San Roque10Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Lund, 22100, SwedenHumanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, 22100, SwedenMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 6525 AH, the NetherlandsHumanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, 22100, SwedenDepartment of Linguistics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, AustraliaMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 6525 AH, the NetherlandsDepartment of General and Comparative Linguistics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, 93053, GermanyCentre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, 6525 HP, the NetherlandsBerkeley Linguistics Department, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USACentre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, 6525 HP, the NetherlandsMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 6525 AH, the NetherlandsDo all humans perceive, think, and talk about tree cover (<q>forests</q>) in more or less the same way? International forestry programs frequently seem to operate on the assumption that they do. However, recent advances in the language sciences show that languages vary greatly as to how the landscape domain is lexicalized and grammaticalized. Different languages segment and label the large-scale environment and its features according to astonishingly different semantic principles, often in tandem with highly culture-specific practices and ideologies. Presumed basic concepts like <i>mountain</i>, <i>valley</i>, and <i>river</i> cannot in fact be straightforwardly translated across languages. In this paper we describe, compare, and evaluate some of the semantic diversity observed in relation to forests. We do so on the basis of first-hand linguistic field data from a global sample of indigenous categorization systems as they are manifested in the following languages: Avatime (Ghana), Duna (Papua New Guinea), Jahai (Malay Peninsula), Lokono (the Guianas), Makalero (East Timor), and Umpila/Kuuku Ya'u (Cape York Peninsula). We show that basic linguistic categories relating to tree cover vary considerably in their principles of semantic encoding across languages, and that <i>forest</i> is a challenging category from the point of view of intercultural translatability. This has consequences for current global policies and programs aimed at standardizing forest definitions and measurements. It calls for greater attention to categorial diversity in designing and implementing such agendas, and for receptiveness to and understanding of local indigenous classification systems in communicating those agendas on the ground.https://www.geogr-helv.net/72/455/2017/gh-72-455-2017.pdf
collection DOAJ
language deu
format Article
sources DOAJ
author N. Burenhult
N. Burenhult
N. Burenhult
C. Hill
C. Hill
C. Hill
J. Huber
S. van Putten
K. Rybka
L. San Roque
L. San Roque
spellingShingle N. Burenhult
N. Burenhult
N. Burenhult
C. Hill
C. Hill
C. Hill
J. Huber
S. van Putten
K. Rybka
L. San Roque
L. San Roque
Forests: the cross-linguistic perspective
Geographica Helvetica
author_facet N. Burenhult
N. Burenhult
N. Burenhult
C. Hill
C. Hill
C. Hill
J. Huber
S. van Putten
K. Rybka
L. San Roque
L. San Roque
author_sort N. Burenhult
title Forests: the cross-linguistic perspective
title_short Forests: the cross-linguistic perspective
title_full Forests: the cross-linguistic perspective
title_fullStr Forests: the cross-linguistic perspective
title_full_unstemmed Forests: the cross-linguistic perspective
title_sort forests: the cross-linguistic perspective
publisher Copernicus Publications
series Geographica Helvetica
issn 0016-7312
2194-8798
publishDate 2017-12-01
description Do all humans perceive, think, and talk about tree cover (<q>forests</q>) in more or less the same way? International forestry programs frequently seem to operate on the assumption that they do. However, recent advances in the language sciences show that languages vary greatly as to how the landscape domain is lexicalized and grammaticalized. Different languages segment and label the large-scale environment and its features according to astonishingly different semantic principles, often in tandem with highly culture-specific practices and ideologies. Presumed basic concepts like <i>mountain</i>, <i>valley</i>, and <i>river</i> cannot in fact be straightforwardly translated across languages. In this paper we describe, compare, and evaluate some of the semantic diversity observed in relation to forests. We do so on the basis of first-hand linguistic field data from a global sample of indigenous categorization systems as they are manifested in the following languages: Avatime (Ghana), Duna (Papua New Guinea), Jahai (Malay Peninsula), Lokono (the Guianas), Makalero (East Timor), and Umpila/Kuuku Ya'u (Cape York Peninsula). We show that basic linguistic categories relating to tree cover vary considerably in their principles of semantic encoding across languages, and that <i>forest</i> is a challenging category from the point of view of intercultural translatability. This has consequences for current global policies and programs aimed at standardizing forest definitions and measurements. It calls for greater attention to categorial diversity in designing and implementing such agendas, and for receptiveness to and understanding of local indigenous classification systems in communicating those agendas on the ground.
url https://www.geogr-helv.net/72/455/2017/gh-72-455-2017.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT nburenhult foreststhecrosslinguisticperspective
AT nburenhult foreststhecrosslinguisticperspective
AT nburenhult foreststhecrosslinguisticperspective
AT chill foreststhecrosslinguisticperspective
AT chill foreststhecrosslinguisticperspective
AT chill foreststhecrosslinguisticperspective
AT jhuber foreststhecrosslinguisticperspective
AT svanputten foreststhecrosslinguisticperspective
AT krybka foreststhecrosslinguisticperspective
AT lsanroque foreststhecrosslinguisticperspective
AT lsanroque foreststhecrosslinguisticperspective
_version_ 1725632481769553920