Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting the selection of landscapes in the Corpus of Language and Nature
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.v2i2.28952Keywords:
Corpus Linguistics, landscape ecology, Corpus of Language and Nature (CLAN), perceptionAbstract
The present paper attempts to establish the relationship between the linguistic and cultural background of speakers of different L1 and their description of nature. Specifically, our research has an interdisciplinary foundation and investigates the relationship between language, environmental background and the contemplation of natural landscapes in the Corpus of Language and Nature (henceforth CLAN). The CLAN project is a collection of over 4,000 spoken descriptions of landscapes recorded online by 19 to 24-year-old university students from different parts of the world. The selection of the landscapes was based upon two variables: humid vs. non-humid landscapes and domesticated vs. non-domesticated landscapes. participants described 24 photographs combining the two variables, with six photographs per combination. The computer platform designed for the project presented the 24 photos in a random order and the students were instructed to freely choose the order of photos for their comments. The objective of the study is to analyze the participants’ behavior in two aspects: the selection order of the photos and the duration of the contemplation and description of the photos. The results showed that the background environment and the number of languages spoken by the participants influenced the order of photograph selection and the duration of the descriptions. In sum, our article presents for the first time the relationship between the contemplation of landscapes and emotions from a linguistic perspective, and we believe that it can open research avenues to understand the cognitive processes in the linguistic and emotional evaluation of landscapes.
References
Adevi, A. A. and Grahn, P. (2012). Preferences for landscapes: A matter of cultural determinants or innate reflexes that point to our evolutionary background? Landscape Research 37: 27–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.576884
Asah, S. T., Bengston, D. N., and Westphal, L. M. (2012). The influence of childhood: Operational pathways to adulthood participation in nature based activities. Environment and Behavior 44: 545–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510397757
Boas, F. (1911). Introduction to the Handbook of North American Indians, Smithsonian Institution, Bulletin 40, part 1.
Boeve-de Pauw, J. and Van Petegem, P. (2013). A cross-cultural study of environmental values and their effect on the environmental behavior of children. Environment and Behavior 45: 551–583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916511429819
Bromhead, H. (2011). Ethnogeographical categories in English and Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara. Language Sciences 33: 58–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.07.004
Cheng, J. C-H. and Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior 44: 31–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385082
Cleland, V. J., Ball, K., King, A. C., and Crawford, D. (2012). Do the individual, social, and environmental correlates of physical activity differ between urban and rural women? Environment and Behavior 44: 350–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510393275
Cordano, M., Welcomer, S., Scherer, R. F., Pradenas, L., and Parada, V. (2011). A cross-cultural assessment of three theories of pro-environmental behavior: A comparison between business students of Chile and the United States. Environment and Behavior 43: 634–657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510378528
Daniel, T. C. and Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method (USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RM-167). Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_3
Daniel, T. C. and Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Eds), Behavior and the Natural Environment, 39–84. New York: Plenum.
Gärling, T. (1998). Introduction: Conceptualizations of human environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18: 69–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0087
Gladkova, A. and Romero-Trillo, J. (2014). Ain’t it beautiful? The conceptualization of beauty from an ethnopragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 60: 140–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.005
Goddard, C. and Wierzbicka, A. (eds) (2002). Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings (2 Vols). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
González-Bernáldez, F. (1985). Invitación a la ecología humana: la adaptación afectiva al entorno. Barcelona: Tecnos.
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., and Carlsson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27: 220–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml013
Hathaway, S. M. (1976). The view from the North End: A study of landscape attitudes. Master of Regional Planning Thesis. University of Massachusetts, MA.
Herman, D. T., Lawless, R. H. and R. W. Marshall. (1957). Variables in the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived forms. Perceptual and Motor Skills: 7: 171–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1957.7.3.171
Jorgensen, A. (2014). Editorial. Landscape Research 39: 335–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2014.931615
Kaltura. (2014). Open Source Online Video Platform. Kaltura Inc.
Kaplan, R. (1985). The analysis of perceptions via preference: A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning 12: 161–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(85)90058-9
Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., and Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior 21, 509–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916589215001
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19: 3–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916587191001
Kaplan, S. (1972).The challenge of environmental psychology: A proposal for a new functionalism. American Psychologist 27: 140–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0032671
Kaplan, S. (1982). Where cognition and affect meet: A theoretical analysis of preference. In P. Bart, A. Chen, and G. Francescato (Eds), Knowledge for Design, 183–188. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.
Kaplan, S. (1988). Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. In J. L. Nascar (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics, 45–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511571213.006
Kaplan, S. (1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge using organism. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (Eds), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, 581–598. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger.
Kearney, A. R. and Bradley, G. A. (2011). The effects of viewer attributes on preference for forest scenes: Contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors, and stakeholder group membership. Environment and Behavior 43: 147–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916509353523
Kecskes, I. and Papp, T. (2000). Foreign Language and Mother Tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kecskes, I. and Romero-Trillo, J. (Eds) (2013). Research Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781614513735
Kurz, T. and Baudains, C. (2012). Biodiversity in the front yard: An investigation of landscape preference in a domestic urban context. Environment and Behavior 44: 166–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385542
Kyle, G., Mowen, A., and Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 213–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.006
Lenneberg, E. H. and Roberts, J. M. (1956). The Language of Experience. Indiana University Publications on Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 13.
Litton, R. B. (1972). Aesthetic dimensions of the landscape. In J. V. Krutilla (Ed.), Natural Environments: Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis, 262–291. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
López Santiago, C. (1994). Lo Universal y lo Cultural en la Estética del Paisaje. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Lund, K. (2012). Landscapes and narratives: Compositions and the walking body. Landscape Research 37: 225–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.651111
Maguire, L. and Romero-Trillo, J. (2013). Context dynamism in classroom discourse. In I. Kecskes and J. Romero-Trillo (Eds) Research Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics, 145–160. Berlin: de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781614513735.145
Mobley, C., Vagias, W. M. and DeWard, S. L. (2010). Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behavior: The influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior 42: 420–447.
Nasar, J. L. and Cubukcu, E. (2011). Evaluative appraisals of environmental mystery and surprise. Environment and Behavior 43: 387–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510364500
Nassauer, J. (1995). Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10: 229–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00129257
Nation, M., Fortney, T., and Wandersman, A. (2010) Race, place, and neighboring: Social ties among neighbors in urban, suburban, and rural contexts. Environment and Behavior 42: 581–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916508328599
Park, J. J. and Selman, P. (2011). Attitudes toward rural landscape change in England. Environment and Behavior 43: 182–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916509355123
Romero-Trillo, J. (Ed.) (2008). Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110199024
Romero-Trillo, J. (Ed.) (2013). The Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013: New Domains and Methodologies. Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3
Romero Trillo, J. (2013). Corpus of language and nature: A tool for the study of the relationship between cognition and emotions in language. In J. Romero-Trillo, (Ed.) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013: New Domains and Methodologies, 203–222 . Dortdrech: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3_10
Romero-Trillo, J. (Ed.). (2014). The Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms. Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06007-1
Romero-Trillo, J. and Espigares, T. (2012). The cognitive representation of natural landscapes in language. Pragmatics and Cognition 20: 168–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pc.20.1.07rom
Romero-Trillo, J. and Fuentes, V. (In press). What is pretty cannot be beautiful? A corpus-based analysis of the aesthetics of nature. In J. Blochowiak, C. Grisot, S. Durrleman-Tame, and C. Laenzlinger (Eds), Formal Models in the Study of Language. Dordrecht: Springer.
Slobin, D. I. (2002). Cognitive and communicative consequences of linguistic diversity. In S. Strömqvist (Ed.), The Diversity of Languages and Language Learning, 7–23. Lund: Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature.
Slobin, D. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology & the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist and L. Verhoeven (Eds). Relating Events in Narrative (Vol. 2), 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Slobin, D. (2005). Linguistic representations of motion events: What is signifier and what is signified? In C. Maeder, O. Fischer, and W. Herlofsky (Eds) Iconicity Inside Out: Iconicity in Language and Literature 4. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ill.4.22slo
Ward-Thompson, C., Aspinall, P. and Alicia M. (2008). The childhood factor: Adult visits to green places and the significance of childhood experience. Environment and Behavior 40: 111–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916507300119
Whorf, B. L. (1940). Science and Linguistics, Cambridge, Technology Review (MIT), 42: 229–231, 247–248. Reprinted in Language, Thought, and Reality (1956) (John B. Carroll, Ed.), 207–219.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1993). Reading human faces: Emotion components and universal semantics. Pragmatics & Cognition 1: 1–23.
Wild, K., Church, A., McCarthy, D. and Burgess, J. (2013). Quantifying lexical usage: Vocabulary pertaining to ecosystems and the environment. Corpora 8: 53–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0034
Yabiku, S. T., Casagrande, D. G., and Farley-Metzger, E. (2008). Preferences for Landscape Choice in a Southwestern Desert City. Environment and Behavior 40: 382–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916507300359
Asah, S. T., Bengston, D. N., and Westphal, L. M. (2012). The influence of childhood: Operational pathways to adulthood participation in nature based activities. Environment and Behavior 44: 545–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510397757
Boas, F. (1911). Introduction to the Handbook of North American Indians, Smithsonian Institution, Bulletin 40, part 1.
Boeve-de Pauw, J. and Van Petegem, P. (2013). A cross-cultural study of environmental values and their effect on the environmental behavior of children. Environment and Behavior 45: 551–583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916511429819
Bromhead, H. (2011). Ethnogeographical categories in English and Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara. Language Sciences 33: 58–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.07.004
Cheng, J. C-H. and Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior 44: 31–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385082
Cleland, V. J., Ball, K., King, A. C., and Crawford, D. (2012). Do the individual, social, and environmental correlates of physical activity differ between urban and rural women? Environment and Behavior 44: 350–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510393275
Cordano, M., Welcomer, S., Scherer, R. F., Pradenas, L., and Parada, V. (2011). A cross-cultural assessment of three theories of pro-environmental behavior: A comparison between business students of Chile and the United States. Environment and Behavior 43: 634–657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510378528
Daniel, T. C. and Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method (USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RM-167). Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_3
Daniel, T. C. and Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Eds), Behavior and the Natural Environment, 39–84. New York: Plenum.
Gärling, T. (1998). Introduction: Conceptualizations of human environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18: 69–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0087
Gladkova, A. and Romero-Trillo, J. (2014). Ain’t it beautiful? The conceptualization of beauty from an ethnopragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 60: 140–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.005
Goddard, C. and Wierzbicka, A. (eds) (2002). Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings (2 Vols). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
González-Bernáldez, F. (1985). Invitación a la ecología humana: la adaptación afectiva al entorno. Barcelona: Tecnos.
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., and Carlsson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27: 220–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml013
Hathaway, S. M. (1976). The view from the North End: A study of landscape attitudes. Master of Regional Planning Thesis. University of Massachusetts, MA.
Herman, D. T., Lawless, R. H. and R. W. Marshall. (1957). Variables in the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived forms. Perceptual and Motor Skills: 7: 171–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1957.7.3.171
Jorgensen, A. (2014). Editorial. Landscape Research 39: 335–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2014.931615
Kaltura. (2014). Open Source Online Video Platform. Kaltura Inc.
Kaplan, R. (1985). The analysis of perceptions via preference: A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning 12: 161–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(85)90058-9
Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., and Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior 21, 509–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916589215001
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19: 3–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916587191001
Kaplan, S. (1972).The challenge of environmental psychology: A proposal for a new functionalism. American Psychologist 27: 140–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0032671
Kaplan, S. (1982). Where cognition and affect meet: A theoretical analysis of preference. In P. Bart, A. Chen, and G. Francescato (Eds), Knowledge for Design, 183–188. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.
Kaplan, S. (1988). Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. In J. L. Nascar (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics, 45–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511571213.006
Kaplan, S. (1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge using organism. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (Eds), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, 581–598. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger.
Kearney, A. R. and Bradley, G. A. (2011). The effects of viewer attributes on preference for forest scenes: Contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors, and stakeholder group membership. Environment and Behavior 43: 147–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916509353523
Kecskes, I. and Papp, T. (2000). Foreign Language and Mother Tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kecskes, I. and Romero-Trillo, J. (Eds) (2013). Research Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781614513735
Kurz, T. and Baudains, C. (2012). Biodiversity in the front yard: An investigation of landscape preference in a domestic urban context. Environment and Behavior 44: 166–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385542
Kyle, G., Mowen, A., and Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 213–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.006
Lenneberg, E. H. and Roberts, J. M. (1956). The Language of Experience. Indiana University Publications on Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 13.
Litton, R. B. (1972). Aesthetic dimensions of the landscape. In J. V. Krutilla (Ed.), Natural Environments: Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis, 262–291. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
López Santiago, C. (1994). Lo Universal y lo Cultural en la Estética del Paisaje. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Lund, K. (2012). Landscapes and narratives: Compositions and the walking body. Landscape Research 37: 225–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.651111
Maguire, L. and Romero-Trillo, J. (2013). Context dynamism in classroom discourse. In I. Kecskes and J. Romero-Trillo (Eds) Research Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics, 145–160. Berlin: de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781614513735.145
Mobley, C., Vagias, W. M. and DeWard, S. L. (2010). Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behavior: The influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior 42: 420–447.
Nasar, J. L. and Cubukcu, E. (2011). Evaluative appraisals of environmental mystery and surprise. Environment and Behavior 43: 387–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510364500
Nassauer, J. (1995). Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10: 229–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00129257
Nation, M., Fortney, T., and Wandersman, A. (2010) Race, place, and neighboring: Social ties among neighbors in urban, suburban, and rural contexts. Environment and Behavior 42: 581–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916508328599
Park, J. J. and Selman, P. (2011). Attitudes toward rural landscape change in England. Environment and Behavior 43: 182–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916509355123
Romero-Trillo, J. (Ed.) (2008). Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110199024
Romero-Trillo, J. (Ed.) (2013). The Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013: New Domains and Methodologies. Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3
Romero Trillo, J. (2013). Corpus of language and nature: A tool for the study of the relationship between cognition and emotions in language. In J. Romero-Trillo, (Ed.) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013: New Domains and Methodologies, 203–222 . Dortdrech: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3_10
Romero-Trillo, J. (Ed.). (2014). The Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms. Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06007-1
Romero-Trillo, J. and Espigares, T. (2012). The cognitive representation of natural landscapes in language. Pragmatics and Cognition 20: 168–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pc.20.1.07rom
Romero-Trillo, J. and Fuentes, V. (In press). What is pretty cannot be beautiful? A corpus-based analysis of the aesthetics of nature. In J. Blochowiak, C. Grisot, S. Durrleman-Tame, and C. Laenzlinger (Eds), Formal Models in the Study of Language. Dordrecht: Springer.
Slobin, D. I. (2002). Cognitive and communicative consequences of linguistic diversity. In S. Strömqvist (Ed.), The Diversity of Languages and Language Learning, 7–23. Lund: Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature.
Slobin, D. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology & the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist and L. Verhoeven (Eds). Relating Events in Narrative (Vol. 2), 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Slobin, D. (2005). Linguistic representations of motion events: What is signifier and what is signified? In C. Maeder, O. Fischer, and W. Herlofsky (Eds) Iconicity Inside Out: Iconicity in Language and Literature 4. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ill.4.22slo
Ward-Thompson, C., Aspinall, P. and Alicia M. (2008). The childhood factor: Adult visits to green places and the significance of childhood experience. Environment and Behavior 40: 111–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916507300119
Whorf, B. L. (1940). Science and Linguistics, Cambridge, Technology Review (MIT), 42: 229–231, 247–248. Reprinted in Language, Thought, and Reality (1956) (John B. Carroll, Ed.), 207–219.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1993). Reading human faces: Emotion components and universal semantics. Pragmatics & Cognition 1: 1–23.
Wild, K., Church, A., McCarthy, D. and Burgess, J. (2013). Quantifying lexical usage: Vocabulary pertaining to ecosystems and the environment. Corpora 8: 53–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0034
Yabiku, S. T., Casagrande, D. G., and Farley-Metzger, E. (2008). Preferences for Landscape Choice in a Southwestern Desert City. Environment and Behavior 40: 382–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916507300359
Published
2016-07-19
Issue
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Romero-Trillo, J., & Espigares, T. (2016). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting the selection of landscapes in the Corpus of Language and Nature. Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science, 2(2), 157-179. https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.v2i2.28952
