Conceptualizing Landscapes Through Language: The Role of Native Language and Expertise in the Representation of Waterbody Related Terms

Abstract

Landscapes are essential to human life: they provide a multitude of material (food, water, pollination) and nonmaterial (beauty, tranquility, recreation) values. Their importance is enshrined in international conventions and treaties, committing signatories to protecting, monitoring, and managing all landscapes. Yet, relatively little is known about how people conceptualize “landscape” and its constituents. There is emerging evidence that conceptualizations of landscape entities may influence landscape management. This in turn raises the question as to how people speaking different languages, and with differing levels of expertise, may differ in conceptualizing landscape domains as a whole. In this paper, we investigated how people conceptualize landscape‐related terms in a specific domain—waterbodies—by comparing German and English‐speaking experts and nonexperts. We identified commonly used waterbody terms in sustainability discourses in both languages, and used those terms to collect sensory, motor, and affective ratings from participants. Speakers of all groups appear to conceptualize the domain of waterbody terms in comparable ways. Nevertheless, we uncovered subtle differences across languages for nonexperts. For example, there were differences in which waterbodies were associated with calm happiness in each language. In addition, olfaction seemingly plays a role in English speakers’ conceptualization of waterbodies, but not German speakers. Taken together, this suggests the ways in which people relate to landscape although shared in many respects may also be shaped in part by their specific language and culture.

The geo domain: a review on the conceptualization of geographical and geopolitical entities

“…They found significant differences between the tasks but no substantial effect of expertise. A recent study by Purves et al (2023) also failed to see such an effect. The authors compared the conceptualization of German and English-speaking experts and non-experts in geography on knowledge of 25 concepts related to water bodies (e.g., sea, river, reef ) by collecting sensory, motor, and affective ratings.…”

“…Indeed, numerous pieces of evidence showed that geo categories consistently vary across contexts, cultures, and languages (e.g., Burenhult and Levinson, 2008 ; Turk and Stea, 2014 ) and are even more variable than other semantic domains (e.g., Battig and Montague, 1969 ; van Overschelde et al, 2004 ; van Putten et al, 2020 ). Importantly, geo-meaning is also influenced by many other potential factors, such as people’s level of expertise (e.g., Giannakopoulou et al, 2013 ; Purves et al, 2023 ; but see also Wartmann et al, 2014 ), the kind of implemented task (e.g., Mark et al, 1999 , 2001 ; Smith and Mark, 2001a , b ; Pires, 2005 ), living environments along with their perceived familiarity (e.g., Williams et al, 2012 ; Wartmann et al, 2015 ). So, our review indicates that geo concepts are a highly flexible class of words.…”

“…These include experimental setups and levels of expertise, which reflect differences in tasks and the individuals tested. While evidence on linguistic and cultural factors appears strong across languages and cultures (e.g., Mark et al, 1999 , 2001 ; Smith and Mark, 2001a , b ; Pires, 2005 ), findings regarding expertise are more controversial (e.g., Giannakopoulou et al, 2013 ; Purves et al, 2023 ; but also see Wartmann et al, 2014 ).…”

“…Most studies, indeed, have emphasized the variability of these concepts when compared to other conceptual domains (e.g., Battig and Montague, 1969 ; van Overschelde et al, 2004 ; van Putten et al, 2020 ) and across different languages and cultures—both industrialized and rural—and current positions tend to favor a non-universalistic characterization of them (e.g., Burenhult and Levinson, 2008 ; Mark et al, 2011 ; Turk and Stea, 2014 ). In addition, the cognitive demand requested by specific tasks (e.g., Mark et al, 1999 , 2001 ; Smith and Mark, 2001a , b ; Pires, 2005 ), idiosyncratic characteristics of individuals such as their level of expertise (e.g., Giannakopoulou et al, 2013 ; Wartmann et al, 2014 ; Purves et al, 2023 ), as well as the typology of the inhabited environment (e.g., Williams et al, 2012 ; Wartmann et al, 2015 ) further impact geo conceptualization. Thus, geo concepts well-exemplify the flexibility of the human conceptual system (e.g., Barsalou, 1993 ; Connell and Lynott, 2014 ; Mazzuca et al, 2021 , 2022 ).…”

Toward Just and Sustainable Futures: Human Learning and Relationality Within Socio-Ecological Systems

“…J. Kim et al, 2023;Malt & Majid, 2023). Interestingly, scholarship has increasingly demonstrated that metaphors and language-and their heterogeneous affective qualities-are profoundly shaping children's learning and their capacities to value and act in ways that are important for socio-ecological systems (e.g., Malt & Marsh, 2023;Purves et al, 2023).…”