Documenting linguistic practices for navigating space and place in Greenland
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Language provides a unique window into the ways that a community conceptualizes and relates to its spatial environment. Calling attention to both similarities and differences in the cross-linguistic structuring of space, investigations into the linguistic encoding of space and place yield much insight into the interactions between language, cognition, and the external environment (Levinson & Wilkins 2003). Insofar as language documentation is concerned with “provid[ing] a comprehensive record of the linguistic practices characteristic of a given speech community” (Himmelmann 1998:166), it is important to document how people use language to interact with and navigate their spatial environment and create a sense of place, especially in communities where such practices reflect a fundamental way of life. This is clearly illustrated by our work with Kalaallisut (Greenlandic) speakers in Greenland. Our research works to elucidate the frameworks of knowledge embedded within Kalaallisut speech for referencing the Arctic environment, illustrating variation among speakers in the use of speech and kinds of knowledge embedded in place names and landscape terminology. Across the Inuit-Yupik languages of the Arctic, we find a rich framework of spatial understanding embedded with environmental and sociocultural knowledge within speech patterns, paralleling a deep connection between the Inuit and their physical environment. Studies of Inuit place names and landscape (e.g. Alia 2006; Collignon 2006 for Canadian Inuit; Holton 2011 for Alaskan Inuit; Nuttall 1991 for NW Greenland) emphasize the multidimensional nature of these place names as well as the culturally specific conceptual ontologies encoded in landscape terms. In Greenland, we find sociolinguistic variation across such spatial reference that correlates not only with age and gender but primarily with overall engagement with the land and hunting. However, large-scale changes in the Arctic environment associated with climate change and economic development are rapidly altering the relationship between Inuit and their environment. The documentation of place and space in this context is of particular importance as Greenland undergoes massive political and economic change. Using an ethno-linguistic approach to documentation and analysis, we show that Kalaallisut toponyms and landscape terms exist within a complex domain of spatial language, coming together with an extensive demonstrative system, relational nouns signifying intrinsic topological relations, a coastal (and, more recently, cardinal) based orientation system (Fortescue 1988), slope terms, spatial locating verbs, and local case morphology. These numerous linguistic patterns together form an organized framework of knowledge through which Kalaallisut speakers have navigated their Arctic environment for hundreds of years. References Alia, Valerie. 2006. Names and Nunavut. Culture and identity in the Inuit homeland. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books. Collignon, Béatrice. 2006. Inuit place names and sense of place. In Pamela Stern & Lisa Stevenson, eds., Critical Inuit Studies. An Anthology of Contemporary Arctic Ethnography , 187-205. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Fortescue, Michael. 1988. Eskimo orientation systems. Meddelelser om Grønland 11. Holton, Gary. 2011. Differing conceptualizations of the same landscape. The Athabaskan and Eskimo language boundary in Alaska. In D.M. Mark, A.G. Turk, N. Burenhult & D. Stea, eds., Landscape in language, 225-37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36:161-95. Levinson, Stephen C., & Wilkins, David P. (Eds.). 2006. Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity (No. 6). Cambridge University Press. Nuttall, Mark. 1991. Memoryscape: a sense of locality in northwest Greenland. North Atlantic Studies 1(2): 39-50.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».