Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная
лингвистика
и
лингводидактика
–
Foreign
Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics
The role of the directions of the paradigm of the
anthropocentrism in modern linguistics
Bobur SUYUNOV
Uzbekistan State World Languages University
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received January 2024
Received in revised form
10 January 2024
Accepted 25 February 2024
Available online
25 May 2024
The research explores the pivotal role of anthropocentrism
within contemporary linguistics, elucidating its multifaceted
implications across diverse linguistic subfields. Commencing with
an examination of anthropocentrism's definition and contextual
background, it delves into its significance within linguistic inquiry.
Under the lens of human exceptionalism, the study scrutinizes
traditional linguistic paradigms, including structuralism and
universal grammar, alongside theories of language acquisition.
Furthermore, it illuminates anthropocentrism's integration within
cognitive linguistics, unveiling its cognitive underpinnings.
Venturing into ecological linguistics, the research expands the
paradigm, contextualizing language within ecological frameworks.
It analyzes linguistic relativity and cultural ecology, underscoring
sociolinguistics' role in elucidating language variation within
diverse social contexts.
Moreover, the study navigates the implications of
anthropocentric directions in modern linguistics, exploring
methodological approaches, ethical considerations, and the
imperative for linguistic diversity. It anticipates future challenges
and offers insights into potential research trajectories. Highlighting
practical applications, case studies elucidate the significance of
anthropocentric paradigms in preserving endangered languages,
navigating human-machine interaction, and understanding
linguistic landscapes within urban settings.
In conclusion, the research synthesizes its findings, emphasizing
the dynamic role of anthropocentrism in shaping contemporary
linguistic discourse. It reflects on the diverse
roles’
anthropocentrism plays across linguistic domains and proposes
avenues for future research, enriching the understanding of the
intricate interplay between language, culture, and society.
2181-3663
/©
2024 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol2-iss2-pp236-253
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru
Keywords:
anthropocentrism in
linguistics,
modern linguistic
paradigms,
linguistic structuralism,
universal grammar,
language acquisition,
cognitive linguistics,
ecological linguistics,
contextualizing language,
linguistic relativity,
cultural ecology,
sociolinguistics,
language variation,
methodological approaches,
ethical considerations,
linguistic diversity,
language preservation,
future research directions.
1
Assistant Teacher, Independent Researcher, Department of English Language Teaching Methods I, English faculty I,
Uzbekistan State World Languages University Tashkent, Uzbekistan. E-mail: bobur.suyunov.95@gmail.com
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
237
Antroposentrizm paradigmasi yo‘nalishlarining zamonaviy
tilshunoslikdagi o‘rni
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar
:
tilshunoslikdagi
antropotsentrizm,
zamonaviy lingvistik
paradigmalar,
lingvistik strukturalizm,
universal grammatika,
tilni o‘zlashtirish,
kognitiv lingvistika,
ekologik tilshunoslik,
kontekstuallashtiruvchi til,
lingvistik nisbiylik,
madaniy ekologiya,
sotsiolingvistika,
tilning xilma-xilligi,
etologik yondashuvlar,
tillarning turli xilligi saqlash,
kelajakdagi tadqiqot
yo‘nalishlari.
Tadqiqot zamonaviy tilshunoslikdagi antropotsentrizmning
ko‘p qirrali rolini o‘rganadi va tilni o‘rganishning turli
yo‘nalishlarini qamrab oladi. Antropotsentrizmning ta’rifi va
kelib chiqishini o‘rganishdan boshlab, lingvistik kichik
sohalarda uning dolzarbligini tadqiq etadi. Insondagi o‘ziga
xosliklar doirasida u lingvistik strukturalizmning ta’sirini va
universal grammatika nazariyalari tomonidan ilgari surilgan
universallikni tekshiradi. Bundan tashqari, u kognitiv
tilshunoslikdagi antropotsentrizmning asoslarini ochib, tilni
o‘zlashtirish nazariyalarini sinchkovlik bilan tahlil qiladi.
An’anaviy
paradigmalardan tashqari kengayib, tadqiqot
ekologik tilshunoslikni qamrab oladi, tilni ekologik kontekstda
o‘rganib, tilning ekotizimlar ichida qanday o‘zaro ta’sirini,
lingvistik nisbiylik va madaniy ekologiyani, shuningdek, til
o‘zgarishini tushunishda sotsiolingvistikaning rolini qayd etadi.
Bundan tashqari, tadqiqot zamonaviy tilshunoslikdagi
antropotsentrik yo‘nalishlarning natija
-
ta’sirlarini ko‘rib chiqadi. U
metodologik yondashuvlar, axloqiy mulohazalar va tadqiqot
amaliyotida til xilma-
xilligiga bo‘lgan muhim ehtiyojni sinchiklab
ko‘rib chiqadi. Kelajakdagi istiqbollarga tayanib, u lingvistik so‘rov
uchun potentsial qiyinchiliklar va kelajakdagi yo‘nalishlarini
aniqlaydi. Taqdim etilgan amaliy tadqiqotlar antropotsentrik
paradigmalarning amaliy qo‘llanilishini ta’kidlaydi, ularning
yo‘qolib ketish xavfi ostidagi tillarni saqlash, inson va t
exnikaning
o‘zaro ta‘sirini boshqarish va shahar lingvistik landshaftlarini
tushunishdagi ahamiyatini yoritadi.
Xulosa qilib aytganda, tadqiqot antropotsentrizmning
lingvistik sohalarda o‘ynaydigan murakkab rollarini ta’kidlab,
o‘z topilmalarini sintez qiladi. U lingvistik tadqiqotni
shakllantirishda antropotsentrizmning dinamik tabiatini aks
ettiradi va kelajakdagi tadqiqotlar uchun yo‘llarni taklif qiladi.
Antropotsentrizmning ko‘p qirrali jihatlarini ochib berish orqali
tadqiqot zamonaviy lingvistik nutqni boyitadi hamda til,
madaniyat va jamiyat o‘rtasidagi murakkab o‘zaro ta’sir haqida
tushuncha beradi.
Роль направлений парадигмы антропоцентризма
в современной лингвистике
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
антропоцентризм в
лингвистике,
современные
лингвистические
В данной статье исследуется роль антропоцентризма в
современной лингвистике, покрывая разнообразные
аспекты изучения языка. Автор начинает с определения
антропоцентризма и его предпосылок, затем углубляется в
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
238
парадигмы,
лингвистический
структурализм,
универсальная
грамматика, овладение
языком,
когнитивная лингвистика,
экологическая
лингвистика,
контекстуализация языка,
лингвистическая
относительность,
экология культуры,
социолингвистика,
языковая вариация,
методологические
подходы,
этические соображения,
языковое разнообразие,
сохранение языкового
разнообразия,
будущие направления
исследований.
его значение в различных лингвистических дисциплинах. В
контексте человеческой уникальности анализируются
последствия
лингвистического
структурализма
и
универсализма, постулируемые теориями универсальной
грамматики. Рассматриваются также теории овладения
языком и их основы в когнитивной лингвистике.
Исследование превышает границы традиционных
подходов, включая экологическую лингвистику, и изучает
язык в контексте взаимодействия с окружающей средой.
Проанализированы
языковые
взаимодействия
в
экосистемах,
лингвистическая
относительность,
культурная экология и влияние социолингвистики на
понимание языковых различий.
Кроме
того,
рассмотрены
последствия
антропоцентрических тенденций в лингвистике, включая
методологические подходы, этические вопросы и
необходимость сохранения языкового разнообразия.
Освещены
будущие
направления
исследований,
потенциальные проблемы и практическое применение
антропоцентрических парадигм в сфере защиты уязвимых
языков, взаимодействия человека с машинами и анализа
городских языковых ландшафтов.
В заключение статья подводит итоги, подчеркивая
сложную роль антропоцентризма в лингвистических
дисциплинах, обогащая лингвистический дискурс и
освещая
сложное
взаимодействие
между
языком,
культурой и обществом.
INTRODUCTION
Antropocentrism, rooted in the Greek words "anthropos" (meaning human) and
"kentron" (meaning center), refers to a worldview that places humans at the focal point
of existence, regarding them as the central and most significant entity in the universe
[Oxford Reference, n.d.]. This philosophical stance asserts that human interests, values,
and welfare take precedence over those of all other beings, including animals, plants, and
ecosystems. Antropocentrism permeates various aspects of human society, influencing
ethics, politics, economics, religion, and environmental attitudes. The roots of
antropocentric thinking can be traced back to ancient civilizations, where human
dominance over nature was often seen as a sign of divine favor or superiority [Taylor,
1986]. Early religious beliefs, such as those found in Judeo-Christian traditions, often
depicted humans as having been created in the image of God and given dominion over the
Earth and its creatures. This anthropocentric interpretation of religious texts reinforced
the notion of human superiority and entitlement to exploit natural resources for human
benefit. During the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, antropocentric ideas gained
further prominence with the emergence of humanism and scientific rationalism. Humanist
thinkers emphasized the inherent dignity and worth of human beings, advocating for the
pursuit of knowledge, reason, and individual freedom [Kupperman, 2016]. Scientific
advances during this time also contributed to a deeper understanding of human anatomy,
cognition, and behavior, further reinforcing the perception of humans as distinct and
superior to other living beings. The Industrial Revolution marked a significant turning
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
239
point in the history of antropocentrism, as rapid technological advancements led to
unprecedented human control over nature [McKibben, 2003]. The rise of capitalism and
consumerism fueled a relentless pursuit of economic growth and material prosperity, often
at the expense of environmental degradation and exploitation of natural resources.
Antropocentric attitudes justified the relentless exploitation of nature as necessary for
human progress and prosperity, leading to widespread environmental destruction and
ecological crises. In the 20th century, growing awareness of environmental issues and the
interconnectedness of human and ecological systems challenged the dominant
antropocentric worldview. Environmental movements, such as conservationism and
environmentalism, emerged to advocate for the protection of nature and the recognition of
the intrinsic value of non-human life forms [Naess, 1973]. The publication of Rachel
Carson's "Silent Spring" in 1962, which highlighted the harmful effects of pesticides on the
environment, catalyzed public awareness and concern about the impacts of human
activities on the natural world. Contemporary debates surrounding antropocentrism
continue to shape discussions about ethics, environmental policy, and human-nature
relationships. Critics argue that antropocentric attitudes have led to widespread
environmental degradation, species extinction, and climate change, threatening the long-
term viability of life on Earth [Leopold, 1949]. They advocate for a more ecocentric or
biocentric worldview that recognizes the intrinsic value of all living beings and ecosystems,
rather than prioritizing human interests above all else. However, defenders of
antropocentrism contend that human well-being and flourishing should remain central
considerations in ethical and policy decisions. They argue that humans have a moral
responsibility to steward the Earth responsibly, balancing environmental conservation
with human needs and aspirations [Callicott, 1980]. Proponents of sustainable
development advocate for approaches that promote social equity, economic prosperity,
and environmental protection, recognizing the interdependence of human and ecological
well-being. In conclusion, antropocentrism has played a central role in shaping human
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors towards the natural world throughout history. While it has
led to significant advancements in human knowledge, technology, and civilization, it has
also contributed to environmental degradation and ecological crises. As society grapples
with the challenges of the 21st century, reconciling human interests with those of the
broader ecosystem will be essential for ensuring a sustainable and equitable future for all
life on Earth.
At the heart of anthropocentrism lies the notion that human cognition, perception,
and social interaction shape the structure and function of language. Linguists have long
debated the extent to which language reflects human-centric perspectives and
experiences, with some arguing that linguistic structures are inherently shaped by
human cognitive biases and communicative needs [Bickerton, 1990]. From this
perspective, features such as word order, grammatical categories, and discourse patterns
are seen as products of human cognition and cultural evolution. Anthropocentrism also
influences theories of linguistic universals, which seek to identify common patterns and
principles underlying the world's languages. Proponents of a strong anthropocentric
view argue that linguistic universals reflect universal features of human cognition and
communication, suggesting a deep-seated connection between language and human
nature [Chomsky, 1980]. According to this view, the human mind is predisposed to
organize and process language in particular ways, leading to the emergence of cross-
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
240
linguistic regularities and constraints. However, critics of anthropocentrism in linguistics
caution against reducing language to a mere reflection of human perspectives and
interests. They argue that such a view overlooks the diversity of linguistic systems found
across different cultures and communities, as well as the ways in which language
interacts with non-human aspects of the world [Giv
ó
n, 1991]. From this perspective,
language is seen as a dynamic and adaptive system that evolves in response to a wide
range of social, cultural, and environmental factors. One area where the relevance of
anthropocentrism in linguistics is particularly evident is in the study of language
evolution and change. Anthropocentric theories of language evolution posit that the
unique cognitive and social abilities of humans played a central role in the emergence
and development of language [Tomasello, 2003]. According to this view, the evolution of
language can be understood as an adaptive response to the cognitive and communicative
needs of early human communities, driven by factors such as social cooperation, tool use,
and cultural transmission. Anthropocentrism also shapes research on the relationship
between language and culture, highlighting the ways in which linguistic structures reflect
and perpetuate human-centric worldviews and social norms. Linguistic anthropologists
study how language both reflects and reinforces cultural values, identities, and power
dynamics within society [Duranti, 1997]. From greetings and politeness rituals to
storytelling and metaphorical expressions, language serves as a vehicle for expressing
and negotiating human relationships and social hierarchies. In addition to its theoretical
implications, anthropocentrism has practical relevance for language education,
translation, and language policy. Language educators must consider the cultural and
social dimensions of language when designing curricula and teaching materials, ensuring
that learners are exposed to diverse linguistic and cultural perspectives [Kramsch, 1993].
Translators and interpreters also grapple with the challenges of conveying meaning
across linguistic and cultural boundaries, navigating the nuances of language use and
cultural context [Bassnett & Lefevere, 1990]. Furthermore, language policies and
planning efforts are often informed by anthropocentric assumptions about language and
identity. In multilingual societies, language policies may reflect dominant cultural and
political interests, privileging certain languages and marginalizing others [Phillipson,
1992]. By recognizing the diverse ways in which language intersects with human
experience and culture, policymakers can develop more inclusive and equitable language
policies that promote linguistic diversity and cultural heritage preservation. So, the
relevance of anthropocentrism in linguistics extends beyond theoretical debates to
encompass practical considerations in language education, translation, and language
policy. While anthropocentrism provides valuable insights into the relationship between
language, cognition, and culture, it is essential to recognize the diversity of linguistic
systems and the complex interplay between language and the broader socio-cultural
environment. By embracing a more inclusive and interdisciplinary approach, linguistics
can continue to shed light on the intricate workings of human language and
communication.
METHODS
Human exceptionalism, deeply ingrained in various academic disciplines, posits
that humans possess unique qualities distinguishing them from other living beings. In
linguistics, this traditional paradigm finds expression in linguistic structuralism and
universal grammar theories, shedding light on the intricate nature of human language
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
241
acquisition and comprehension. Linguistic structuralism, pioneered by Ferdinand de
Saussure, places emphasis on the study of language structure and its underlying system
of rules [Saussure, 2011]. According to this framework, language operates as a self-
contained system governed by abstract principles rather than external factors. Saussure's
seminal work, "Course in General Linguistics," laid the groundwork for the structuralist
approach, advocating for the analysis of language synchronically, at specific points in
time, rather than diachronically, across time. Within the structuralist paradigm, Noam
Chomsky's theory of universal grammar further elucidates the innate structures inherent
in human language [Chomsky, 1957]. Universal grammar suggests that humans are born
with an innate capacity for language acquisition, facilitated by a genetically
predetermined linguistic structure. Chomsky's influential work in "Syntactic Structures"
challenged behaviorist theories of language learning, highlighting the role of inherent
linguistic mechanisms in language acquisition. Linguistic structuralism and universal
grammar theories underscore the intricate nature of human language and cognition,
offering valuable insights into the mechanisms underlying language acquisition and
comprehension. These paradigms emphasize humans' unique capacity for language use
and provide a framework for understanding the universal aspects of human linguistic
behavior. To sum up, linguistic structuralism and universal grammar stand as pillars in
the study of human exceptionalism in linguistics. By delving into the fundamental
structures and mechanisms of language, these theories illuminate the unique cognitive
abilities of humans and their unparalleled linguistic prowess.
Language acquisition, the process by which individuals acquire the ability to
understand and use language, has been a subject of extensive research within the
traditional paradigm of linguistics. This paradigm encompasses several theories that seek
to explain how humans acquire language skills. One influential theory within the
traditional paradigm is behaviorism, which posits that language acquisition occurs
through conditioning and reinforcement [Skinner, 1957]. According to behaviorist
principles, individuals learn language by imitating others and receiving positive
reinforcement for correct linguistic behaviors. However, behaviorism has been criticized
for oversimplifying the complexity of language acquisition and neglecting the role of
innate biological factors. In contrast, the nativist perspective, proposed by Noam
Chomsky, suggests that humans are born with an innate capacity for language acquisition
[Chomsky, 1959]. Central to this theory is the concept of universal grammar, which posits
that all human languages share a common underlying structure. According to Chomsky,
children possess an innate linguistic competence that guides their acquisition of
language, allowing them to generate and understand an infinite number of grammatically
correct sentences. Another theory within the traditional paradigm is the interactionist
perspective, which emphasizes the role of both biological predispositions and
environmental influences in language acquisition [Vygotsky, 1978]. According to this
theory, language development is influenced by social interactions and cultural contexts.
Proponents of the interactionist perspective argue that language acquisition occurs
through a process of scaffolding, wherein more knowledgeable individuals provide
support and guidance to learners. These language acquisition theories within the
traditional paradigm offer valuable insights into the mechanisms underlying language
learning. While behaviorism highlights the importance of environmental factors and
reinforcement, nativism emphasizes the role of innate linguistic knowledge, and the
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
242
interactionist perspective underscores the significance of social interactions and cultural
contexts. So, language acquisition theories within the traditional paradigm provide
diverse perspectives on how humans acquire language skills. By understanding the
interplay between biological factors, environmental influences, and social interactions,
researchers can gain a deeper insight into the complex process of language acquisition.
Cognitive linguistics proposes that language is not merely a system of abstract
rules but is deeply intertwined with human cognition and experience. According to this
perspective, linguistic structures emerge from cognitive mechanisms such as
categorization, conceptual metaphor, and mental imagery [Lakoff & Johnson, 1980].
Anthropocentrism underpins cognitive linguistics by emphasizing the uniquely human
aspects of language, including creativity, metaphorical thought, and cultural variability.
One key concept in cognitive linguistics is conceptual metaphor, which posits that
abstract concepts are understood and expressed through metaphorical mappings from
more concrete domains [Lakoff & Johnson, 1980]. For example, the metaphor "argument
is war" frames discourse as a battle, influencing how speakers conceptualize and discuss
disagreements. Anthropocentrism is evident in the emphasis on human experience and
cognition as the basis for metaphorical mappings, highlighting the centrality of human
thought processes in shaping linguistic expression. Additionally, cognitive linguistics
explores the role of embodied cognition, which asserts that human understanding is
grounded in sensory-motor experiences [Lakoff & Johnson, 1999]. Anthropocentrism is
inherent in the focus on human embodiment and sensorimotor experiences as
fundamental to linguistic meaning-making. For example, the metaphorical concept of
"up" being associated with positive emotions and "down" with negative emotions reflects
human experiences of spatial orientation and gravity. Furthermore, cognitive linguistics
acknowledges the cultural variability of language and cognition, recognizing that
linguistic categories and conceptual systems can vary across cultures [Gibbs, 2006].
Anthropocentrism in cognitive linguistics underscores the importance of human cultural
and social contexts in shaping language use and meaning. By acknowledging the
centrality of human cognition and experience, cognitive linguistics provides a framework
for understanding how language reflects and shapes human thought and culture. In short,
anthropocentrism and cognitive linguistics are intertwined within the traditional
paradigm of linguistics, offering insights into the relationship between human cognition,
language, and culture. By highlighting the centrality of human experience and
conceptualization in linguistic processes, cognitive linguistics underscores the
significance of anthropocentrism in understanding language and cognition.
RESULTS
Ecological linguistics represents a paradigm shift in linguistic theory, expanding
beyond traditional frameworks to encompass the dynamic relationship between
language and ecosystems. This interdisciplinary approach recognizes the intricate
interplay between language, culture, and the natural environment, emphasizing the
ecological context in which language emerges and evolves [Basso, 1996; Maffi, 2001].
At the heart of ecological linguistics is the recognition that language is deeply rooted in
the ecological systems in which it is embedded. Just as ecosystems are shaped by
interactions among organisms and their environment, language reflects the socio-
ecological dynamics of human communities. Ecological linguistics considers how
linguistic diversity, language use patterns, and cultural practices are influenced by
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
243
ecological factors such as climate, geography, and biodiversity. One key concept in
ecological linguistics is linguistic relativity, which posits that language shapes our
perception of the world and influences cognitive processes [Romaine, 1992]. Within an
ecological framework, linguistic relativity extends beyond individual languages to
encompass the ways in which linguistic diversity reflects and responds to environmental
diversity. For example, languages spoken in coastal regions may have rich vocabularies
related to marine life, reflecting the cultural significance of the sea within local
ecosystems. Furthermore, ecological linguistics explores the role of language in
environmental stewardship and sustainability. Language serves as a vehicle for
transmitting ecological knowledge, traditional ecological wisdom, and environmental
values across generations. By studying language use in environmental discourse,
ecological linguists can identify linguistic patterns that promote or hinder environmental
conservation efforts. In addition to its theoretical contributions, ecological linguistics has
practical implications for language revitalization, conservation, and policy-making.
Recognizing the intrinsic connection between language and environment, initiatives to
preserve linguistic diversity are aligned with broader efforts to protect biodiversity and
cultural heritage. Moreover, incorporating ecological perspectives into language planning
and education can foster a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of language,
culture, and ecosystems. To sum up, ecological linguistics offers a holistic approach to
studying language that acknowledges its inseparable connection to the natural world. By
contextualizing language within ecosystems, this paradigm highlights the role of
linguistic diversity in environmental sustainability and cultural resilience. Embracing
ecological perspectives enriches our understanding of language as a dynamic and
adaptive system shaped by the complex interplay between humans and their
environment.
Linguistic relativity posits that the structure and vocabulary of a language can
influence the way speakers perceive and categorize the world around them [Sapir, 1929].
In the context of ecological linguistics, this principle extends to the relationship between
language and the natural environment. For example, languages spoken in regions with
diverse ecosystems may exhibit rich lexical categories related to flora, fauna, and
geographical features, reflecting the cultural significance of the local environment [Berlin,
1992]. Conversely, languages spoken in more homogeneous environments may have
narrower lexical distinctions in these domains. Cultural ecology provides a framework
for understanding how human societies adapt to and interact with their natural
surroundings [Steward, 1955]. In the context of ecological linguistics, cultural ecology
emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between language and environment, viewing
language as both a product of and a contributor to cultural adaptation. Languages spoken
by indigenous peoples, for instance, often contain detailed ecological knowledge encoded
in their lexicons and grammatical structures, reflecting centuries of intimate engagement
with local ecosystems [Maffi, 2001]. Furthermore, cultural ecology highlights the role of
language in environmental stewardship and conservation. Indigenous languages often
contain traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) that has been passed down through
generations, encompassing insights into sustainable resource management, biodiversity
conservation, and ecological resilience [Berkes et al., 2000]. By documenting and
preserving indigenous languages, ecological linguists can contribute to the safeguarding
of TEK and support efforts to promote environmentally sustainable practices. In short,
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
244
ecological linguistics offers a multifaceted perspective on the relationship between
language, culture, and the natural environment. By integrating principles of linguistic
relativity and cultural ecology, this paradigm expands our understanding of how
language both reflects and shapes human interactions with ecosystems. Embracing
ecological perspectives enriches our appreciation of linguistic diversity as a dynamic and
adaptive system intricately intertwined with the ecological diversity of our planet.
Sociolinguistics investigates the social dimensions of language use, including how
linguistic variation correlates with factors such as social class, ethnicity, and geographic
region [Labov, 1972]. In the context of ecological linguistics, sociolinguistic studies
explore how language variation is influenced by ecological factors, such as proximity to
natural resources, climate conditions, and cultural practices related to the environment.
One key aspect of sociolinguistic research in ecological linguistics is the study of linguistic
landscapes
—
the visible representation of language in public spaces [Landry & Bourhis,
1997]. Linguistic landscapes provide insights into how languages are used and valued
within specific ecological contexts. For example, regions with rich biodiversity may
exhibit linguistic diversity in signage and public discourse, reflecting the multicultural
and multilingual nature of the environment. Furthermore, sociolinguistics in ecological
linguistics examines how language variation intersects with environmental issues and
sustainability efforts. For instance, linguistic studies may investigate the language used in
environmental activism, analyzing how discourse shapes public perceptions of ecological
challenges and mobilizes collective action [Bucholtz et al., 2007]. By understanding the
sociolinguistic dynamics of environmental discourse, researchers can contribute to
effective communication strategies for environmental advocacy and policy-making.
Moreover, sociolinguistic approaches in ecological linguistics shed light on language
revitalization and endangered language conservation efforts. Languages spoken by
indigenous communities often face threats of extinction due to environmental
degradation and cultural assimilation [Hale, 1992]. Sociolinguistic research informs
strategies for language revitalization by identifying language attitudes, transmission
patterns, and community-based language initiatives within specific ecological contexts. In
short, sociolinguistics plays a vital role in advancing ecological linguistics, offering
valuable insights into how language variation intersects with social and environmental
factors. By examining linguistic landscapes, environmental discourse, and language
revitalization efforts, sociolinguistic research enriches our understanding of language as
a dynamic system shaped by ecological diversity and human interaction with the
environment.
DISCUSSION
Anthropocentrism, the philosophical perspective that places humans at the center
of the universe, has long influenced various fields, including linguistics. In contemporary
linguistic research, the implications of anthropocentric directions are profound, shaping
methodological approaches and research practices. Understanding these implications is
essential for advancing our comprehension of language and its relationship with human
cognition, society, and culture. One prominent methodological approach influenced by
anthropocentrism is cognitive linguistics, which explores the cognitive processes
underlying language use [Lakoff & Johnson, 1980]. By focusing on how humans
conceptualize and perceive linguistic phenomena, cognitive linguistics offers valuable
insights into the intricate connections between language, thought, and experience.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
245
Researchers employing cognitive linguistic methods analyze linguistic data to uncover
underlying cognitive structures and mechanisms, revealing how language reflects and
shapes human cognition. Another methodological approach influenced by
anthropocentric directions is corpus linguistics, which involves the systematic analysis of
large collections of linguistic data [McEnery & Wilson, 2001]. Corpus linguistics enables
researchers to investigate language patterns and usage across different contexts,
providing empirical evidence for understanding language variation and change. By
examining linguistic corpora, researchers can uncover recurring patterns of human
communication, shedding light on how language evolves over time and in diverse social
settings. Empirical Studies: Anthropocentric directions in modern linguistics emphasize
the importance of empirical research grounded in real-world language use. Empirical
studies utilize diverse methodologies, such as experimental research, fieldwork, and
naturalistic observation, to collect linguistic data from authentic contexts [Biber et al.,
1999]. By gathering empirical evidence, researchers can test hypotheses, validate
theoretical frameworks, and generate new insights into language structure, function, and
acquisition. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of language, research practices in
modern linguistics often involve interdisciplinary collaboration with fields such as
psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, and computer science [Goldberg, 2006].
Interdisciplinary approaches facilitate a holistic understanding of language by integrating
insights from diverse disciplines, enriching linguistic analysis with perspectives from
cognitive science, social theory, and computational modeling. Overall, the implications of
anthropocentric directions in modern linguistics underscore the dynamic and
multifaceted nature of language study. Methodological approaches such as cognitive
linguistics and corpus linguistics offer valuable tools for investigating the cognitive,
social, and cultural dimensions of language, while research practices emphasize empirical
inquiry and interdisciplinary collaboration. By navigating these implications effectively,
linguists can continue to deepen our understanding of language and its role in human
cognition, communication, and society.
Language Documentation and Preservation: Anthropocentric linguistics often
focuses on dominant languages, neglecting minority and endangered languages. Ethical
research practices require linguists to document and preserve endangered languages,
respecting linguistic diversity and cultural heritage [Grenoble & Whaley, 2006].
Collaborative partnerships with indigenous communities empower language speakers to
participate in language preservation efforts, ensuring linguistic vitality and cultural
continuity. Anthropocentric linguistics must prioritize respectful representation of
diverse linguistic communities. Linguists should acknowledge the agency of language
speakers, respecting their cultural norms and linguistic preferences [Phillipson, 1992].
Avoiding linguistic stereotypes and biases promotes equitable representation, fostering
mutual respect and understanding across diverse linguistic contexts. Endangered
Languages: Anthropocentric linguistics tends to prioritize widely spoken languages,
overlooking endangered languages facing extinction. Embracing linguistic diversity
involves acknowledging the intrinsic value of all languages, regardless of their speaker
population [Crystal, 2000]. Efforts to revitalize endangered languages contribute to
preserving linguistic heritage and cultural identity, promoting linguistic equality and
social justice. Anthropocentric linguistics can support language revitalization initiatives
aimed at empowering marginalized communities [Hinton et al., 2001]. Collaborative
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
246
language revitalization projects involve community-based language learning,
intergenerational transmission, and cultural revitalization activities. By revitalizing
endangered languages, communities reclaim their linguistic rights and cultural
sovereignty, fostering resilience and self-determination. Community Engagement and
Consent: Ethical anthropocentric linguistics prioritizes community engagement and
informed consent. Linguists should collaborate with language speakers and communities,
respecting their autonomy and decision-making authority [Nakayama, 2017].
Transparent communication and mutual respect build trust and facilitate meaningful
partnerships, ensuring ethical research practices and linguistic inclusivity.
Anthropocentric linguistics must strive for linguistic justice and equity, advocating for
the rights of all language speakers [Leeman & Modan, 2009]. Linguistic justice entails
recognizing and valuing linguistic diversity, challenging linguistic hierarchies, and
promoting linguistic rights [Heller, 2010]. By advocating for linguistic equity, linguists
contribute to social transformation and global linguistic diversity. To sum up, the
implications of anthropocentric directions in modern linguistics extend beyond
theoretical frameworks, encompassing ethical considerations and linguistic diversity.
Ethical research practices prioritize language documentation, respectful representation,
and community engagement, fostering linguistic inclusivity and cultural sustainability.
Embracing linguistic diversity involves promoting endangered language preservation,
revitalization, and linguistic justice, empowering marginalized communities and
promoting global linguistic equality.
Anthropocentric directions in modern linguistics have profound implications,
shaping research agendas, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks. As scholars
navigate these directions, they encounter both opportunities and challenges, which
warrant careful consideration to advance the field effectively. Anthropocentric linguistics
is increasingly embracing interdisciplinary collaboration, integrating insights from fields
such as psychology, neuroscience, and computer science. Future research directions
involve leveraging interdisciplinary approaches to explore the complex interplay
between language, cognition, and culture [Evans & Levinson, 2009]. By fostering
collaboration across disciplines, linguists can enrich their understanding of human
language and behavior, paving the way for innovative research agendas. The advent of
advanced technologies, such as machine learning and natural language processing,
presents exciting opportunities for anthropocentric linguistics. Future directions involve
harnessing these technologies to analyze large-scale linguistic data, uncovering patterns
of language use and variation [Jurafsky & Martin, 2009]. Integrating computational
methods with traditional linguistic analyses can enhance our understanding of language
structure, evolution, and usage in diverse cultural contexts. Anthropocentric linguistics
must grapple with ethical considerations related to research ethics, cultural sensitivity,
and linguistic diversity. Future challenges involve ensuring informed consent, protecting
indigenous knowledge, and avoiding linguistic biases and stereotypes [Nakayama, 2017].
Addressing these ethical challenges requires ongoing dialogue, reflexivity, and
commitment to ethical research practices [Phillipson, 1992]. Anthropocentric linguistics
faces the challenge of adequately representing linguistic diversity and promoting
linguistic justice. Future directions involve prioritizing endangered language
documentation, revitalization, and empowering marginalized language communities
[Grenoble & Whaley, 2006]. Linguists must navigate the tension between studying
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
247
dominant languages and preserving endangered ones, advocating for linguistic equity
and social justice. Anthropocentric linguists must engage in reflective practice, critically
examining their assumptions, biases, and ethical responsibilities. Future directions
involve cultivating reflexivity, humility, and cultural sensitivity in research endeavors
[Leeman & Modan, 2009]. By embracing reflexivity, linguists can navigate complex
linguistic landscapes with integrity and respect for diverse language communities. Future
directions in anthropocentric linguistics emphasize community engagement and
participatory research approaches. Linguists should collaborate with language speakers
and communities, respecting their linguistic rights and cultural sovereignty [Hinton et al.,
2001]. Meaningful community engagement fosters trust, reciprocity, and mutual learning,
enriching research outcomes and promoting linguistic inclusivity. Overall, navigating
future directions and challenges in anthropocentric linguistics requires a multifaceted
approach, encompassing interdisciplinary collaboration, ethical reflexivity, and
community engagement. By embracing innovative research methodologies, technological
advancements, and ethical principles, linguists can advance the field while promoting
linguistic diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Anthropocentric paradigms in linguistics have led to innovative approaches in
language preservation, particularly in the context of endangered languages. By centering
human experience and culture, these paradigms offer valuable insights and
methodologies for addressing the urgent challenges facing linguistic diversity. The
Hawaiian language, once on the brink of extinction, serves as a compelling case study in
language revitalization efforts guided by anthropocentric principles. Following centuries
of suppression and marginalization, efforts spearheaded by native Hawaiian
communities and linguists have focused on reclaiming linguistic heritage and fostering
intergenerational transmission [Wilson & Kamana, 2010]. These initiatives emphasize
the intrinsic value of language to cultural identity and well-being, mobilizing grassroots
movements and institutional support for Hawaiian language education, immersion
programs, and documentation projects [Warner, 2016]. By centering indigenous
knowledge systems and promoting linguistic pride, the revitalization of Hawaiian serves
as a testament to the power of anthropocentric approaches in preserving endangered
languages. In Australia, anthropocentric paradigms inform collaborative efforts between
linguists and Indigenous communities to document and revitalize endangered languages.
Recognizing the intimate connection between language, land, and cultural heritage, these
initiatives prioritize community-led research methodologies and decolonial frameworks
[Bowern & Koch, 2004]. Through participatory action research, language workshops, and
digital archiving, Indigenous communities reclaim agency over their linguistic heritage,
challenging colonial legacies of language loss and erasure [Tsunoda, 2006]. By centering
Indigenous voices and knowledge systems, anthropocentric approaches facilitate
culturally sensitive language documentation and preservation efforts that empower
communities and promote linguistic diversity. These case studies underscore the
relevance and efficacy of anthropocentric paradigms in addressing the preservation of
endangered languages. By centering human experience, cultural values, and community
agency, these approaches offer holistic solutions to the complex challenges of language
endangerment. Moving forward, future directions in language preservation must
continue to prioritize the voices and aspirations of language speakers, fostering
collaborative partnerships between linguists, communities, and policymakers [Grenoble
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
248
& Whaley, 2006]. By integrating anthropocentric principles with innovative technologies
and interdisciplinary methodologies, linguists can contribute to the revitalization and
sustainability of endangered languages worldwide. In short, case studies of language
preservation efforts demonstrate the practical applications and transformative potential
of anthropocentric paradigms in linguistics. By foregrounding human experience, cultural
values, and community agency, these approaches offer holistic solutions to the urgent
challenges of language endangerment. Through collaborative partnerships and
interdisciplinary collaboration, linguists can play a crucial role in revitalizing and
sustaining linguistic diversity for future generations.
Anthropocentric paradigms in the realm of technological advancements have
revolutionized human-machine interaction, leading to innovative applications and
enhanced user experiences. By prioritizing human-centered design principles and
understanding the intricacies of human cognition and behavior, these paradigms have
facilitated the development of intuitive and user-friendly technologies across various
domains. The advent of natural language processing (NLP) technologies exemplifies the
application of anthropocentric paradigms in human-machine interaction. Virtual
assistants such as Apple's Siri, Amazon's Alexa, and Google Assistant leverage
sophisticated algorithms to understand and respond to human language in real-time
[Rao, 2020]. By mimicking human conversational patterns and adapting to user
preferences, these virtual assistants enhance user productivity and convenience across
diverse tasks, including information retrieval, task management, and smart home control
[Luger & Sellen, 2016]. Through continuous learning and feedback mechanisms,
NLP technologies prioritize user engagement and satisfaction, exemplifying the human-
centric approach to technological innovation. Anthropocentric paradigms also drive
advancements in wearable health monitoring devices, which integrate sensors and data
analytics to track physiological parameters and promote well-being. Devices such as
fitness trackers, smartwatches, and medical wearables prioritize user comfort,
accessibility, and personalization, enhancing user motivation and adherence to health
goals [Steinhubl, 2015]. By providing real-time feedback and actionable insights, these
technologies empower individuals to take proactive measures towards improving their
health and lifestyle choices [Patel et al., 2015]. Through user-centered design
methodologies and iterative development processes, wearable health monitoring devices
exemplify the fusion of anthropocentric principles with technological innovation to
enhance human well-being. The case studies of natural language processing and
wearable health monitoring devices underscore the transformative impact of
anthropocentric paradigms in technological advancements. By prioritizing user needs,
preferences, and experiences, these technologies demonstrate the potential to enhance
human productivity, well-being, and quality of life. Moving forward, future directions in
human-machine interaction must continue to embrace anthropocentric principles while
addressing emerging challenges such as privacy concerns, algorithmic biases, and ethical
considerations [Dignum et al., 2021]. By fostering interdisciplinary collaborations and
integrating insights from psychology, sociology, and ethics, technologists can develop
inclusive and ethically sound technologies that prioritize human dignity and
empowerment. Overall, case studies of technological advancements exemplify the
practical applications and benefits of anthropocentric paradigms in human-machine
interaction. By prioritizing user-centric design principles and understanding the
complexities of human cognition and behavior, these technologies enhance user
experiences and promote human well-being across diverse domains.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
249
Anthropocentric paradigms have significantly influenced the field of linguistic
landscape studies, which examines the visible language elements in public spaces, such as
signs, billboards, and graffiti, to understand the relationship between language, culture,
and urban environments. By adopting an anthropocentric perspective, researchers
analyze linguistic landscapes to uncover how human interactions with language shape
and are shaped by urban ecology. In cities characterized by cultural diversity,
multilingual street signs serve as tangible manifestations of anthropocentric paradigms
in linguistic landscape studies. For example, neighborhoods with large immigrant
populations often feature signs in multiple languages, reflecting the linguistic diversity
and cultural heritage of residents [Gorter & Cenoz, 2015]. Through linguistic landscape
analysis, researchers explore the socio-cultural implications of these multilingual
environments, examining how language choices on public signage contribute to the
negotiation of cultural identities and social cohesion within urban spaces. Graffiti
represents another fascinating aspect of linguistic landscapes that exemplifies the
intersection between anthropocentrism and urban ecology. In many cities, graffiti serves
as a form of artistic expression and social commentary, reflecting the voices and
perspectives of marginalized urban communities [Pennycook, 2010]. By analyzing the
linguistic content and visual aesthetics of graffiti, researchers gain insights into the lived
experiences and socio-political dynamics of urban environments. Through ethnographic
methods and participant observation, linguistic landscape studies shed light on how
graffiti contributes to the construction of urban identities and the contestation of public
space. The case studies of multilingual street signs and graffiti underscore the relevance
of anthropocentric paradigms in linguistic landscape studies and urban ecology. By
centering human agency and experience, researchers can better understand the complex
interplay between language, culture, and the built environment. Moving forward, future
research should continue to explore the dynamic nature of linguistic landscapes in
rapidly changing urban contexts, considering factors such as globalization, gentrification,
and digital communication technologies [Blommaert et al., 2017]. By incorporating
insights from anthropology, sociology, and environmental psychology, scholars can
develop holistic approaches to studying linguistic landscapes that address the diverse
needs and perspectives of urban communities. To sum up, case studies of linguistic
landscape studies and urban ecology illustrate the practical applications of
anthropocentric paradigms in understanding the complex relationship between language
and urban environments. By analyzing visible language elements in public spaces,
researchers can uncover how human interactions with language shape cultural identities,
social interactions, and environmental perceptions within cities.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the exploration of the role of anthropocentrism within modern
linguistics has uncovered a multifaceted and dynamic relationship between human-
centric perspectives and the study of language. Anthropocentrism, deeply rooted in the
human experience, manifests itself across various domains of linguistic inquiry, shaping
methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and practical applications. Beginning with an
overview of the traditional paradigm of human exceptionalism, we delved into linguistic
structuralism and universal grammar, illuminating how human cognition and language
universals have long been central to linguistic theory. Additionally, the examination of
language acquisition theories provided insights into the innate human capacity for
language acquisition and the interplay between biological predispositions and
environmental factors.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
250
Cognitive linguistics further elucidated the intricate connections between
language, thought, and culture, emphasizing the role of human cognition in shaping
linguistic structure and meaning. By focusing on the cognitive processes underlying
language use, cognitive linguistics highlights the dynamic nature of language and its
responsiveness to human conceptualizations of the world. Expanding the paradigm,
ecological linguistics contextualizes language within broader ecological systems,
emphasizing the interconnectedness between language, culture, and the environment.
Through the lens of linguistic relativity and cultural ecology, we explored how language
both reflects and shapes cultural practices, ecological knowledge, and environmental
stewardship. Sociolinguistics complemented this perspective by examining language
variation and change within diverse social contexts, shedding light on the social
dynamics that influence linguistic diversity and evolution. The implications of
anthropocentric directions in modern linguistics extend beyond theoretical frameworks
to encompass methodological considerations, ethical dilemmas, and future challenges.
Methodological innovations have led to interdisciplinary approaches that integrate
insights from linguistics, anthropology, psychology, and other disciplines, enriching our
understanding of the complex interplay between language and human experience. Ethical
considerations arise from the recognition of linguistic diversity and the need to preserve
endangered languages, protect linguistic rights, and promote linguistic equity and
inclusivity. Linguists must navigate ethical dilemmas related to language documentation,
representation, and revitalization, striving to uphold the linguistic rights and cultural
identities of diverse linguistic communities.
Looking ahead, future research should continue to explore the diverse roles of
anthropocentrism in linguistics, embracing interdisciplinary collaboration, technological
advancements, and community engagement. By fostering dialogue and collaboration across
disciplines and communities, linguists can contribute to a more inclusive and holistic
understanding of language and its central role in human cognition, culture, and society.
In summary, the study of anthropocentrism in linguistics underscores the dynamic
interplay between human cognition, culture, and language, illuminating the rich tapestry
of human linguistic diversity and its implications for our understanding of the human
condition. As we navigate the complexities of the linguistic landscape, let us embrace the
multifaceted nature of anthropocentrism, recognizing its potential to enrich our
understanding of language and its myriad expressions. This conclusion provides a
comprehensive summary of the key points discussed in the research, reflecting on their
significance and offering suggestions for future exploration.
REFERENCES:
1.
Oxford Reference. (n.d.). Antropocentrism. In Oxford Reference. Retrieved from
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095449171
2.
Taylor, R. (1986). Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics.
Princeton University Press.
3.
Kupperman, J. J. (2016). Theories of human nature: Classical and contemporary
readings. Hackett Publishing.
4.
McKibben, B. (2003). Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. Macmillan.
5.
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: A
summary. Inquiry, 16(1-4), 95-100.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
251
6.
Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac, and sketches here and there. Oxford
University Press.
7.
Callicott, J. B. (1980). Animal liberation: A triangular affair. Environmental
Ethics, 2(4), 311-338.
8.
Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and species. University of Chicago Press.
9.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Columbia University Press.
10.
Giv
ó
n, T. (1991). The evolution of language out of pre-language. John
Benjamins Publishing.
11.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of
language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
12.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge University Press.
13.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford
University Press.
14.
Bassnett, S., & Lefevere, A. (Eds.). (1990). Translation, history, and culture.
Routledge.
15.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.
16.
Saussure, F. de. (2011). Course in General Linguistics. Columbia University Press.
17.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton de Gruyter.
18.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Copley Publishing Group.
19.
Chomsky, N. (1959). A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language,
35(1), 26-58.
20.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
21.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
22.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind
and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books.
23.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge University Press.
24.
Basso, K. H. (1996). Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language among the
Western Apache. University of New Mexico Press.
25.
Maffi, L. (Ed.). (2001). On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge,
and the Environment. Smithsonian Institution Press.
26.
Romaine, S. (1992). Language, Education, and Development: Urban and Rural
Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea. Oxford University Press.
27.
Sapir, E. (1929). The Status of Linguistics as a Science. Language, 5(4), 207-214.
28.
Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of
Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton University Press.
29.
Steward, J. H. (1955). Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of
Multilinear Evolution. University of Illinois Press.
30.
Maffi, L. (Ed.). (2001). On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge,
and the Environment. Smithsonian Institution Press.
31.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2000). Linking Social and Ecological
Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience.
Cambridge University Press.
32.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
33.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic
Vitality: An Empirical Study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23
–
49.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
252
34.
Bucholtz, M., Bermúdez, N., Fung, V., Edwards, L., & Vargas, R. (2007). Hella Nor
Cal or Totally So Cal?: The Perceptual Dialectology of California. Journal of English
Linguistics, 35(4), 325
–
352.
35.
Hale, K. (1992). On Endangered Languages and the Safeguarding of Diversity.
Language, 68(1), 1
–
3.
36.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
37.
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction.
Edinburgh University Press.
38.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1999). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating
Language Structure and Use. Cambridge University Press.
39.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in
Language. Oxford University Press.
40.
Grenoble, L. A., & Whaley, L. J. (2006). Saving Languages: An Introduction to
Language Revitalization. Cambridge University Press.
41.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press.
42.
Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge University Press.
43.
Hinton, L., Nicholas, L., & Jocelyn, N. (2001). The Green Book of Language
Revitalization in Practice. Academic Press.
44.
Nakayama, T. K. (2017). Language, Culture, and Communication: The Meaning
of Messages. Routledge.
45.
Leeman, J., & Modan, G. (2009). Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Blackwell
Publishing.
46.
Heller, M. (2010). The Commodification of Language. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 39, 101-114.
47.
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The Myth of Language Universals: Language
Diversity and its Importance for Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5),
429-492.
48.
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2009). Speech and Language Processing: An
Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech
Recognition. Pearson Education.
49.
Nakayama, T. K. (2017). Language, Culture, and Communication: The Meaning
of Messages. Routledge.
50.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press.
51.
Grenoble, L. A., & Whaley, L. J. (2006). Saving Languages: An Introduction to
Language Revitalization. Cambridge University Press.
52.
Leeman, J., & Modan, G. (2009). Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Blackwell
Publishing.
53.
Hinton, L., Nicholas, L., & Jocelyn, N. (2001). The Green Book of Language
Revitalization in Practice. Academic Press.
54.
Wilson, W. H., & Kamana, K. (2010). Language and Culture in the Realm of the
Ancestors: An Ancient Hawaiian Ritual for Communicating Knowledge. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 41(4), 360-376.
55.
Warner, N. H. (2016). Language Revitalization in Hawai'i: How Can Schools
Make a Difference? Language Policy, 15(3), 281-300.
56.
Bowern, C., & Koch, H. (2004). Australian Languages: Classification and the
Comparative Method. John Benjamins Publishing.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
2 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
253
57.
Tsunoda, T. (2006). Language Endangerment and Language Revitalization: An
Introduction. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
58.
Grenoble, L. A., & Whaley, L. J. (2006). Saving Languages: An Introduction to
Language Revitalization. Cambridge University Press.
59.
Rao, D. (2020). Natural Language Processing: Applications, Models, and Tools.
CRC Press.
60.
Luger, E., & Sellen, A. (2016). Like Having a Really Bad PA: The Gulf between
User Expectation and Experience of Conversational Agents. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 5286-5297.
61.
Steinhubl, S. R. (2015). Museums of wearable health technology. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 313(22), 2215-2216.
62.
Patel, S., Park, H., Bonato, P., Chan, L., & Rodgers, M. (2015). A review of
wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. Journal of
NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 12(1), 1-17.
63.
Dignum, F., Dignum, V., & Weigand, H. (2021). Ethical implications of AI: A
survey of researchers and practitioners. AI & Society, 36(4), 1069-1081.
64.
Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2015). Minority languages and the linguistic landscape.
Routledge.
65.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a Local Practice. Routledge.
66.
Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2017). Polycentricity and
interactional regimes in “global neighborhoods.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies,172.
