1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2452-1949
  • E-ISSN: 2452-2147
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Placenames (toponyms) give insight into relationships involving people, place, and language. An exemplary placename derived from long-term engagement within the sensitive linguistic ecology of Norfolk Island in the South Pacific is used to detail how a fusing of linguistic analysis, words, and cultural memory is beneficial for what constitutes an ecolinguistic fieldwork methodology. Differences between the ethnographic method and an ecolinguistic fieldwork methodology are presented. This enduring and keyed-in commitment with Norfolk Island’s social and natural surroundings offers significant perceptiveness into and suggestions about how prolonged ecolinguistic work can be beneficial to language documentation projects, particular those incorporating lexical (word) and semantic (memory) description.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/le.17006.nas
2019-06-12
2019-12-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexander, R. J.
    2009Framing Discourse on the Environment: A Critical Discourse Approach. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Döring, M. and B. Nerlich
    2005 Assessing the topology of semantic change: From linguistic fields to ecolinguistics. Logos and Language4(1): 55–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Fill, A. F. and H. Penz
    eds. 2017The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315687391
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687391 [Google Scholar]
  4. Flint, E.
    1979 Stable diglossia in Norfolk Island. InW. F. Mackey and J. Ornstein, eds.Sociolinguistic Studies in Language Contact: Methods and Cases. The Hague: Mouton. 295–333. 10.1515/9783110810752.295
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110810752.295 [Google Scholar]
  5. Garner, M.
    2004Language: An Ecological View. Oxford: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Harré, R., J. Brockmeier and P. Mühlhäusler
    1999Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental Discourse. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hinton, L. and K. Hale
    eds. 2001The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. San Diego: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004261723
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004261723 [Google Scholar]
  8. Labov, W.
    1966The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Maffi, L.
    ed. 2001On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment. Washington DC: Smithsonian.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Mühlhäusler, P.
    2002 Why one cannot preserve languages (but can preserve language ecologies. InD. Bradley and M. Bradley, eds.Language Endangerment and Language Maintenance. London: Routledge. 34–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2003a English as an exotic language. InC. Mair, ed.The Politics of English as a World Language: New Horizons in Postcolonial Cultural Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 67–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2003bLanguage of Environment: Environment of Language – A Course in Ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ross, A. S. C. and A. W. Moverley
    eds. 1964The Pitcairnese Language with Contributions by E. Schubert, H. E. and Alaric Maude, E. H. Flint and A. C. Gimson. London: André Deutsch.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Saville-Troike, M.
    2003The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. 3rd ed.Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470758373
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758373 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/le.17006.nas
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error