Journal cover Journal topic
Geographica Helvetica
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • CiteScore value: 0.74 CiteScore 0.74
  • SNIP value: 0.585 SNIP 0.585
  • SJR value: 0.385 SJR 0.385
  • IPP value: 0.62 IPP 0.62
  • h5-index value: 10 h5-index 10
  • Scimago H index value: 13 Scimago H index 13
Volume 72, issue 4
Geogr. Helv., 72, 455-464, 2017
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

Geogr. Helv., 72, 455-464, 2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-72-455-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Standard article 14 Dec 2017

Standard article | 14 Dec 2017

Forests: the cross-linguistic perspective

Niclas Burenhult1,2,7, Clair Hill2,3,7, Juliette Huber4, Saskia van Putten5, Konrad Rybka6, and Lila San Roque5,7 Niclas Burenhult et al.
  • 1Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Lund, 22100, Sweden
  • 2Humanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, 22100, Sweden
  • 3Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
  • 4Department of General and Comparative Linguistics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, 93053, Germany
  • 5Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, 6525 HP, the Netherlands
  • 6Berkeley Linguistics Department, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
  • 7Max 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.

Publications Copernicus
Special issue
Download
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...
Citation
Share