| 1 |
The grammar of engagement I: framework and initialexemplification
|
|
|
|
In: Language and Cognition (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 2 |
The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony
|
|
|
|
In: Language and Cognition (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 14 |
Smell is coded in grammar and frequent in discourse: Cha'palaa olfactory language in cross-linguistic perspective
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 15 |
Forests : the cross-linguistic perspective
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Keyword:
language and languages; linguistics; XXXXXX - Unknown
|
|
URL: https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-72-455-2017
https://hdl.handle.net/1959.7/uws:53571
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 18 |
‘Where’ Questions and Their Responses in Duna (Papua New Guinea)
|
|
|
|
In: Open Linguistics, Vol 2, Iss 1 (2016) (2016)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 20 |
Epistemic marking in typological perspective. - Language typology and universals ; 68,2 : special issue : Epistemic marking in typological perspective. -
|
|
|
|
IDS Mannheim
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
