An Ontology of Landscape and Seascape in Greenland: the Linguistic Encoding of Land in Kalaallisut 1

AN ONTOLOGY OF LANDSCAPE AND SEASCAPE IN GREENLAND: THE LINGUISTIC ENCODING OF LAND IN KALAALLISUT 1 LENORE A. GRENOBLE, HILARY MCMAHAN UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND ALLIAQ KLEIST PETRUSSEN GUX, SISIMIUT The linguistic encoding of landscape and seascape in Kalaallisut, an Unangan-Yupik- Inuit language spoken on the west coast of Greenland, exists within a complex domain of spatial language, coming together with a coastal-based orientation system and an extensive demonstrative system anchored in the geophysiography of Greenland. In this paper we describe the Kalaallisut landscape lexicon, unpacking its categorization as well as the close relationship between landscape and toponyms. As a framework for our analysis, we use the principles of ethnophysiography and the study of landscape terminology to present a culturally specific ontology for Kalaallisut. The categorization of landscape features is shaped by both the physical topography of the land and the cultural practices of engagement with the land, resulting in the primacy of shape, material, and function, particularly within the context of navigation. [KEYWORDS: Inuit, Greenland, landscape, spatial deixis] 1. Introduction. This paper describes the linguistic encoding of landscape in Kalaallisut (ISO 639-3 kal), a Unangan-Yupik-Inuit language spoken 1 Research on this project was funded by the Visiting Committee of the Division of the Humanities, University of Chicago; NSF BCS-1056497, The Lexicon of a Polysynthetic Lan- guage; NSF IGERT-0801490, Polar Environmental Change (Ross Virginia, PI, Institute of Arctic Studies, Dartmouth College); a Dissertation Research Travel Grant from the Division of the Humanities, University of Chicago; and the American Philosophical Society’s Phillips Fund for Native American Research. We are grateful for their support. Particular thanks go to Carmen Caswell for creating the maps, and to Bryan Head for his help with the cluster analysis. We would especially like to thank Carl Chr. Olsen (puju), Knud Johansen, Pauline Johansen, Lene Kielsen Holm, Magdaline Kleist, Birthe Kleist Petrussen, Hanseeraq Petrussen, Nuka-Dorthe Kleist Petrussen, Tikaajaat Kristensen, Miilla Lennert, Ivalu Mathiassen, Avijâja Jepsen, Nivi Olsen, Morten Heilmann, Vilhelm Willumsen, Mette L. Willumsen, Dennis Ingemann, Marius Elisasen, Evi Kreutzmann, ArnánguaK Lyberth, Paarnannguaq Egede Fisker, Martha Noahsen, Aviaja Quist, Johannes Olsen, Regine Therkelsen, and all the other speakers of Kalaallisut who spent time and energy to help us with our research. A special thanks to the anonymous referees, whose thoughtful comments greatly improved the paper. Any errors are our own. [IJAL, vol. 85, no. 1, January 2019, pp. 1–43] © 2019 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0020–7071/2019/8501–0001$10.00 DOI 10.1086/700317 1 7KLVFRQWHQWGRZQORDGHGIURPRQ-DQXDU\30 $OOXVHVXEMHFWWR8QLYHUVLW\RI&KLFDJR3UHVV7HUPVDQG&RQGLWLRQV KWWSZZZMRXUQDOVXFKLFDJRHGXWDQGF 2 international journal of american linguistics on the west coast of Greenland. Kalaallisut exhibits a rich grammatical and lexical system for the encoding of spatial relations, embedded with environmental knowledge. The language family stretches from the eastern part of Siberia across Alaska and the Canadian Arctic to Greenland. The Inuit branch, which includes Kalaallisut, forms a rough dialect continuum from northwest Alaska across Canada to Greenland; thus, Kalaallisut is closely related to the Inuit languages of eastern Canada. The Inuit languages of Greenland fall into three main groups: Inuktun (Avanersuarmiutut or North Greenlandic), Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic), and Tunumiisut (East Green- landic). Kalaallisut is the official (standard and standardized) language of Greenland, based on central dialects spoken in the Sisimiut/Nuuk/Maniitsoq area, along the west coast. We argue for a complex interplay between language, culture, and environment: the categorization of landscape features is shaped by the physical topography of the land on the one hand and the cultural practices of engagement with the land on the other. We demonstrate that culturally specific conceptual ontologies are encoded in Kalaallisut landscape terms. Our analysis uses the frameworks of ethno-physiography (e.g., Mark et al. 2011) and what we might call landscape linguistics, a term we coin from work on the study of the linguistic encoding of landscape terminology (land, sea, geographical formations) and how this terminology is related to spatial language and orientation systems (e.g., Burenhult and Levinson 2008; Turk et al. 2012). Our study of landscape linguistics informs work in sociotopography (Palmer et al. 2017:457), which similarly argues that “spatial language shows sensitivity to features of the topography, but this is mediated by the way speakers interact with the landscape.” 1.1. Why landscape? A commonality to all languages is the need for a mechanism through which to describe the physical environment in which speakers interact. Though the environments are diverse, all humans experi- ence landscape in some form, and language must be able to make reference to it, in whatever ways are necessary for human interaction and functioning. Thus, landscape provides a common domain through which cross-linguistic comparisons can be made. Landscape terminology requires the discretization of a geologically con- tinuous surface, such that the landscape categories that result from naming are a product of the speakers and encode culturally shaped ontologies and conceptual templates (Burenhult and Levinson 2008; Levinson 2008). Ethno physiography studies the relationship between the continuousness of the Earth’s geological surface and inherently discretized landform terminology used to describe it. The domain of landscape is thus necessarily segmented through a linguistic/cultural system allowing for variation in the discretization of the same landscape. 7KLVFRQWHQWGRZQORDGHGIURPRQ-DQXDU\30 $OOXVHVXEMHFWWR8QLYHUVLW\RI&KLFDJR3UHVV7HUPVDQG&RQGLWLRQV KWWSZZZMRXUQDOVXFKLFDJRHGXWDQGF the linguistic encoding of land in kalaallisut 3 Affordances are often identified as playing an important role in the con- struction of landscape categories, such that elements of the landscape with similar functions in human interaction are likely to be grouped together (Turk et al. 2012). Levinson (2008) suggests several possible motivations for the category formation of the landscape domain achieved linguistically: percep- tual/cognitive salience, affordances, and conceptual templates and cultural beliefs. Landforms and topography, hydrology, and vegetation are the most important natural landscape domains with respect to affordances, the char- acteristics of the physical environment relating to its potential usability or potential interaction, in particular by humans (Turk et al. 2012:2). Landform terms and place names are the two fundamental and universal linguistic manifestations of landscape (Burenhult and Levinson 2008). Many questions arise in regards to landscape and place names in a language: How is landscape divided into categories and what motivates this categorization? How is the landscape lexicon organized? What gets named? What land features are labelable? What is the relationship between landscape terms and place names? Does hierarchy play a role in naming practices? This article begins to address these questions for the case of Kalaallisut language use by speakers in Greenland, where the single largest category of toponyms is derived from landscape terminology. 1.2. Greenland and Kalaallisut. Research on the sociocultural concep- tion of space and place in the Arctic (e.g., Collignon 2006; Holton 2011) has shown a deep connection between Arctic indigenous communities and their physical environment, expressed linguistically through place names, landscape, and orientation systems. The ancestors of the Inuit who inhabit Greenland today, the Thule or proto-Inuit, migrated there from western Arc- tic regions, arriving in the Thule (Qaanaaq) area. The date of their settlement is controversial, but archaeological evidence and carbon dating point to no later than the thirteenth century (Friesen and Arnold 2008; McGhee 2000). Prior to their arrival, Greenland was inhabited by the Dorset people, who were supplanted by the Thule; modern Inuit are descendants of the Thule people, who are named for the place in northwest Greenland where their archaeological remains were first found. The arrival of the Thule people resulted in rapid expansion along both coasts, spreading what can be con- sidered proto-Greenlandic (Fortescue 1986). The result of this expansion was the settlement of regions along the coast, with subsequent migrations around the coast. The net result of these migrations and more recent resettlements is that the majority of the population lives in West Greenland today. Critically for our purposes, settlements are coastal, as seen in the map of Greenland in figure 1, with the area where we have focused our research circled. Greenland encompasses more than 2 million square kilometers, and the terrain varies considerably from north to south. The northernmost parts of 7KLVFRQWHQWGRZQORDGHGIURPRQ-DQXDU\30 $OOXVHVXEMHFWWR8QLYHUVLW\RI&KLFDJR3UHVV7HUPVDQG&RQGLWLRQV KWWSZZZMRXUQDOVXFKLFDJRHGXWDQGF 4 international journal of american linguistics FIG. 1—Map of Greenland with major towns. Created by Carmen Caswell using data from the Geological Survey of Greenland and Denmark (GEUS). Greenland are tundra climate with sea ice, whereas the southern

Load more