Conceptualisations of landscape differ across European languages
(2020) LANG-KEY 2nd Project Meeting In PLoS ONE 15(10).- Abstract
- Policies aimed at sustainable landscape management recognise the importance of multiple cultural viewpoints, but the notion of landscape itself is implicitly assumed to be homogeneous across speech communities. We tested this assumption by collecting data about the concept of “landscape” from speakers of seven languages of European origin. Speakers were asked to freely list exemplars to “landscape” (a concrete concept for which the underlying conceptual structure is unclear), “animals” (a concrete and discrete concept) and “body parts” (a concrete concept characterised by segmentation). We found, across languages, participants considered listing landscape terms the hardest task, listed fewest exemplars, had the least number of shared... (More)
- Policies aimed at sustainable landscape management recognise the importance of multiple cultural viewpoints, but the notion of landscape itself is implicitly assumed to be homogeneous across speech communities. We tested this assumption by collecting data about the concept of “landscape” from speakers of seven languages of European origin. Speakers were asked to freely list exemplars to “landscape” (a concrete concept for which the underlying conceptual structure is unclear), “animals” (a concrete and discrete concept) and “body parts” (a concrete concept characterised by segmentation). We found, across languages, participants considered listing landscape terms the hardest task, listed fewest exemplars, had the least number of shared exemplars, and had fewer common co-occurrence pairs (i.e., pairs of exemplars listed adjacently). We also found important differences between languages in the types of exemplars that were cognitively salient and, most importantly, in how the exemplars are connected to each other in semantic networks. Overall, this shows that “landscape” is more weakly structured than other domains, with high variability both within and between languages. This diversity suggests that for sustainable landscape policies to be effective, they need to be better tailored to local conceptualisations. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/9e5c9c30-675a-4438-947f-b478a720c953
- author
- van Putten, Saskia ; O'Meara, Carolyn ; Wartmann, Flurina ; Yager, Joanne LU ; Villette, Julia ; Mazzuca, Claudia ; Bieling, Claudia ; Burenhult, Niclas LU ; Purves, Ross and Majid, Asifa
- organization
- publishing date
- 2020-10-14
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- PLoS ONE
- volume
- 15
- issue
- 10
- article number
- e0239858
- pages
- 16 pages
- publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- conference name
- LANG-KEY 2nd Project Meeting
- conference dates
- 2018-05-20 - 2018-05-24
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85092763623
- pmid:33052934
- ISSN
- 1932-6203
- DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0239858
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 9e5c9c30-675a-4438-947f-b478a720c953
- date added to LUP
- 2020-04-13 20:59:52
- date last changed
- 2023-12-04 11:34:10
@article{9e5c9c30-675a-4438-947f-b478a720c953, abstract = {{Policies aimed at sustainable landscape management recognise the importance of multiple cultural viewpoints, but the notion of landscape itself is implicitly assumed to be homogeneous across speech communities. We tested this assumption by collecting data about the concept of “landscape” from speakers of seven languages of European origin. Speakers were asked to freely list exemplars to “landscape” (a concrete concept for which the underlying conceptual structure is unclear), “animals” (a concrete and discrete concept) and “body parts” (a concrete concept characterised by segmentation). We found, across languages, participants considered listing landscape terms the hardest task, listed fewest exemplars, had the least number of shared exemplars, and had fewer common co-occurrence pairs (i.e., pairs of exemplars listed adjacently). We also found important differences between languages in the types of exemplars that were cognitively salient and, most importantly, in how the exemplars are connected to each other in semantic networks. Overall, this shows that “landscape” is more weakly structured than other domains, with high variability both within and between languages. This diversity suggests that for sustainable landscape policies to be effective, they need to be better tailored to local conceptualisations.}}, author = {{van Putten, Saskia and O'Meara, Carolyn and Wartmann, Flurina and Yager, Joanne and Villette, Julia and Mazzuca, Claudia and Bieling, Claudia and Burenhult, Niclas and Purves, Ross and Majid, Asifa}}, issn = {{1932-6203}}, language = {{eng}}, month = {{10}}, number = {{10}}, publisher = {{Public Library of Science (PLoS)}}, series = {{PLoS ONE}}, title = {{Conceptualisations of landscape differ across European languages}}, url = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/85419281/journal.pone.0239858.pdf}}, doi = {{10.1371/journal.pone.0239858}}, volume = {{15}}, year = {{2020}}, }