An Eclectic Bestiary 2019
DOI: 10.1515/9783839445662-001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Introduction: Multispecies Chronotopes— Keywords for Thinking Creatively Beyond the Human

Abstract: The essays, poetry, and visual art collected here consider the more-than-human cultures of our multispecies world. At a time when humanity's impact has put our planet's ecosystems into great jeopardy, the book explores literary, sonic, and visual imaginaries that feature encounters between and across a variety of living creatures: beetles and bisons, people and pigeons, trees and spiderwebs, vegetables and violets, orchards and octopi, vampires and tricksters. Offering a wide range of critical and creative con… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Linguistically, plants are generally classified as inanimate because their mobility is much slower and of a different appearance than that of animals; this is typically an understood rule within languages (e.g., the Slavic languages (Radanović & Milin, 2011) and Persian (Bayanati & Toivonen, 2019)). However, there are languages, especially indigenous languages, where plants and sometimes even clearly inanimate and non‐living objects are recognized as animate (Gillon, 2019; Holmberg, 2022; Kimmerer, 2017). The Meso‐Melanesian language groups legless animals and plants within a single animacy class while utensils and other inanimate objects are present within both this class and the higher class that contains humans and the other animals (Palmer, Butt, & King, 2012).…”
Section: Animacy Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Linguistically, plants are generally classified as inanimate because their mobility is much slower and of a different appearance than that of animals; this is typically an understood rule within languages (e.g., the Slavic languages (Radanović & Milin, 2011) and Persian (Bayanati & Toivonen, 2019)). However, there are languages, especially indigenous languages, where plants and sometimes even clearly inanimate and non‐living objects are recognized as animate (Gillon, 2019; Holmberg, 2022; Kimmerer, 2017). The Meso‐Melanesian language groups legless animals and plants within a single animacy class while utensils and other inanimate objects are present within both this class and the higher class that contains humans and the other animals (Palmer, Butt, & King, 2012).…”
Section: Animacy Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The general consensus within linguistics places plants as inanimate (Bayanati & Toivonen, 2019; Radanović & Milin, 2011). Although some languages do label some plants as animate, many of these do so with mixed groupings of plants with genuinely inanimate objects or they have a lack of animacy for closely related and functionally similar plants (Gillon, 2019; Holmberg, 2022). For many Native Americans, plants are viewed as one group among many in an intricate and expansive system, in which not only humans and animals but also natural kinds, such as rocks and water, are perceived as alive (Herrmann, Waxman & Medin, 2010). )…”
Section: Animacy Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%