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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |