Forests: The Cross-linguistic Perspective - Geographica Helvetica

Articles | Volume 72, issue 4

• Article
• Metrics
• Related articles

Articles | Volume 72, issue 4 https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-72-455-2017 © Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Special issue:

• The trouble with forest: definitions, boundaries and values

https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-72-455-2017 © Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Articles | Volume 72, issue 4

• Article
• Metrics
• Related articles

Standard article | 14 Dec 2017 Standard article | | 14 Dec 2017 Forests: the cross-linguistic perspective Niclas Burenhult, Clair Hill, Juliette Huber, Saskia van Putten, Konrad Rybka, and Lila San Roque

Niclas Burenhult

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR [email protected] × Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Lund, 22100, Sweden Humanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, 22100, Sweden Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 6525 AH, the Netherlands

Clair Hill

× Humanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, 22100, Sweden Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 6525 AH, the Netherlands

Juliette Huber

× Department of General and Comparative Linguistics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, 93053, Germany

Saskia van Putten

× Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, 6525 HP, the Netherlands

Konrad Rybka

× Berkeley Linguistics Department, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

Lila San Roque

× Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, 6525 HP, the Netherlands Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 6525 AH, the Netherlands

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 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.

Download & links

• Article (PDF, 557 KB)

Download & links

• Article (557 KB)
• Full-text XML
• BibTeX
• EndNote

Share How to cite. Burenhult, N., Hill, C., Huber, J., van Putten, S., Rybka, K., and San Roque, L.: Forests: the cross-linguistic perspective, Geogr. Helv., 72, 455–464, https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-72-455-2017, 2017. Received: 17 Feb 2017 – Revised: 20 Aug 2017 – Accepted: 30 Aug 2017 – Published: 14 Dec 2017 Download

• Article (557 KB)
• Full-text XML

• BibTeX
• EndNote

Short summary In this paper we explore 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 six diverse languages. 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 intercultural translatability. In this paper we explore semantic diversity observed in relation to forests. We do so on the... Read more Share Theme issue The trouble with forest: definitions, boundaries and values