PROTECTING NATURE THROUGH LANGUAGES* PUBLISHEDR. PAȘCALĂU1, S. STANCIU1, Laura ȘMULEAC1, A. ȘMULEAC1, C. SĂLĂȘAN1, Alina- Andreea URLICĂ1 1 Banat’s University of Agriculture Science and Veterinary Medicine “King Michael I of Romania” from Timisoara email@example.com
At the crossroads of biology, language sciences and anthropology, scientists have wondered whether, speaking of nature, the human species, in the diversity of languages, speaks the same thing. In Europe, we almost all use a variant of the Latin “natura", which becomes "nature” in French and English, "natür" in German, or náttúran »" in Icelandic. These words for “nature” almost always come from liturgical languages (Latin, Arabic, Sanskrit, Pali.) and are therefore defined in specific religious and cultural contexts. The "wilderness" in the United States, for example, emerges in an American context of conquest of the West that shapes the vision of a wilderness, where humans have no place. In South-East Asia, "thoamachat" refers to a nature made up of great cycles, which encompass both the race of the stars as well as that of the seasons or biological cycles. In India, the "prakrti" carries rather the very dynamic idea of a perpetual creative hatching. Thus, protecting “nature," "wilderness," "thoamachat" or "praktri” does not have the same meaning. Thus, understanding the concept hidden behind these words have major implications for conservation policy. They assess that the American hegemonic vision of the wilderness, disseminated around the world and institutionalized by some NGOs, may conflict with the conservation methods of other countries shaped in different cultural contexts. Nature in France, for example, has been built up a lot with man and his pastoral or landscape activities, as demonstrated, among other things, by our conservation policies in the form of regional parks in which fields and villages can be found, which is inconceivable for the concept of "wilderness". All the actors of conservation policies (scientists, rulers, agents of international institutions, even teachers) strives not to participate in the dissemination of the dominant vision, but to propose policies and practices that take into account the natural and cultural substrate of the country in which they would be established.
nature, protection, language, concepts, diversity