Cover not available
To be specified published In:
Language Ecology
Vol. 3:1 (2019) ► pp.120–132
Research note

The long and short of it

Vowel length, placenames, and ecolinguistics

| Aarhus Institute of Advanced Studies
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.
Keywords: cultural memory, ethnography, fieldwork, the Norfolk Island language, phonology, toponymy
Article outline
  • 1.Anomaly
  • 2.The scene, the people, the language
  • 3.Processes
  • 4.The results
  • 5.The ethnographic method versus an ecolinguistic fieldwork methodology
  • 6.Implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 12 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/le.17006.nas
References (14)
References
Alexander, R. J. 2009. Framing Discourse on the Environment: A Critical Discourse Approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Döring, M. and B. Nerlich. 2005. Assessing the topology of semantic change: From linguistic fields to ecolinguistics. Logos and Language 4(1): 55–68.Google Scholar
Fill, A. F. and H. Penz, eds. 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flint, E. 1979. Stable diglossia in Norfolk Island. In W. F. Mackey and J. Ornstein, eds. Sociolinguistic Studies in Language Contact: Methods and Cases. The Hague: Mouton. 295–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garner, M. 2004. Language: An Ecological View. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Harré, R., J. Brockmeier and P. Mühlhäusler. 1999. Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental Discourse. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Hinton, L. and K. Hale, eds. 2001. The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Maffi, L., ed. 2001. On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment. Washington DC: Smithsonian.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. 2002. Why one cannot preserve languages (but can preserve language ecologies. In D. Bradley and M. Bradley, eds. Language Endangerment and Language Maintenance. London: Routledge. 34–39.Google Scholar
2003a. English as an exotic language. In C. Mair, ed. The Politics of English as a World Language: New Horizons in Postcolonial Cultural Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 67–86.Google Scholar
2003b. Language of Environment: Environment of Language – A Course in Ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Ross, A. S. C. and A. W. Moverley, eds. 1964. The Pitcairnese Language with Contributions by E. Schubert, H. E. and Alaric Maude, E. H. Flint and A. C. Gimson. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Saville-Troike, M. 2003. The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar