The Everett et al. (2016) article makes a strong and compelling case that some, if not many, aspects of language may be ecological adaptations to climate. Their argument is not just theoretical, but it is supported by many strands of evidence including careful and systematic worldwide cross-cultural research. The purpose of the present comment is not to detract from the ecological argument, but rather to suggest that linguists would do well to also consider some psychological mechanisms to explain language differences and similarities. The ‘personality integration of culture’ model first put forward by John W. M. Whiting and Irvin L. Child (1953) and elaborated further in subsequent years (Whiting and Whiting 1978: 44–45) has inspired many cross-cultural studies. It proposes that some aspects of culture (referred to as ‘maintenance systems’) respond directly to climate and ecological conditions. Maintenance systems include culture traits such as subsistence patterns, means of production, settlement patterns, family structure, and political and social structures. But there are other aspects of culture referred to as ‘projective or expressive systems’ (such as religion, rituals, folklore, games, and art, and crime rates) that are probably not adaptive and might best …

中文翻译：

---

评论：将语言视为表达性文化

埃弗雷特等人。(2016) 文章提出了一个强有力且令人信服的案例，即语言的某些方面（如果不是很多）可能是对气候的生态适应。他们的论点不仅仅是理论上的，而且得到了许多证据的支持，包括仔细和系统的全球跨文化研究。本评论的目的不是要贬低生态论点，而是建议语言学家最好也考虑一些心理机制来解释语言的差异和相似之处。“文化的人格整合”模型首先由 John WM Whiting 和 Irvin L. Child (1953) 提出并在随后的几年中得到进一步阐述 (Whiting and Whiting 1978: 44–45) 激发了许多跨文化研究。它提出文化的某些方面（称为“维护系统”）直接对气候和生态条件做出反应。维持系统包括文化特征，例如生存模式、生产方式、定居模式、家庭结构以及政治和社会结构。但是，文化的其他方面被称为“投射或表达系统”（例如宗教、仪式、民俗、游戏和艺术以及犯罪率），它们可能不具有适应性，并且可能是最好的……