Forests : the cross-linguistic perspective
(2017) The trouble with defining forests In Geographica Helvetica 72. p.455-464- Abstract
- Do all humans perceive, think and talk about tree cover (‘forests’) 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 mountain, valley and river cannot in fact be straightforwardly translated across languages. In this paper we describe, compare and evaluate some of the semantic... (More)
- Do all humans perceive, think and talk about tree cover (‘forests’) 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 mountain, valley and river 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 forest is a challenging category from the point of view of inter-cultural 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. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/814892fa-9ff0-4315-b70d-04d9d61f29a0
- author
- Burenhult, Niclas LU ; Hill, Clair LU ; Huber, Juliette ; van Putten, Saskia ; Rybka, Konrad and San Roque, Lila
- organization
- publishing date
- 2017-12-14
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Geographica Helvetica
- volume
- 72
- pages
- 455 - 464
- publisher
- Fotorotar AG
- conference name
- The trouble with defining forests
- conference location
- Stels, Switzerland
- conference dates
- 2016-06-21 - 2016-06-23
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85038416608
- ISSN
- 0016-7312
- DOI
- 10.5194/gh-72-455-2017
- project
- Language, cognition and landscape: understanding cross-cultural and individual variation in geographical ontology
- Language as key to perceptual diversity: an interdisciplinary approach to the senses
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 814892fa-9ff0-4315-b70d-04d9d61f29a0
- date added to LUP
- 2017-04-03 08:44:00
- date last changed
- 2023-11-02 14:10:25
@article{814892fa-9ff0-4315-b70d-04d9d61f29a0,
abstract = {{Do all humans perceive, think and talk about tree cover (‘forests’) 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 mountain, valley and river 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 forest is a challenging category from the point of view of inter-cultural 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.}},
author = {{Burenhult, Niclas and Hill, Clair and Huber, Juliette and van Putten, Saskia and Rybka, Konrad and San Roque, Lila}},
issn = {{0016-7312}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{12}},
pages = {{455--464}},
publisher = {{Fotorotar AG}},
series = {{Geographica Helvetica}},
title = {{Forests : the cross-linguistic perspective}},
url = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/35627683/gh_72_455_2017.pdf}},
doi = {{10.5194/gh-72-455-2017}},
volume = {{72}},
year = {{2017}},
}