See also: https://theconversation.com/indigenous-languages-matter-but-all-is-not-lost-when-they-change-or-even-disappear-127519 Abstract: In today’s world of global commerce and communication, linguistic diversity is in steady decline across the world as speakers of smaller languages adopt dominant forms. While this phenomenon, known as ‘language shift’, is usually regarded as a loss, this book adopts a different angle, asking for instance: What difference does it actually make, in terms of the way speakers communicate, to use a new language? To which extent does adopting a new language alter speakers’ day-to-day communication practices? Does it, in turn, affect their social life and ‘world views’? To answer these questions, the book investigates the expression of emotions in two languages on each side of a shift: Kriol, an English-based creole spoken in northern Australia, and Dalabon, an Australian Aboriginal language that is being replaced by Kriol. The semantic domain considered for this case study is that of emotions, which offers a large set of semiotically and socially rich linguistic devices. One of the main take-home points of the volume is that language is highly plastic, so that speakers are able to shape their new linguistic code in ways that let them convey the contents they want. This is apparent for instance from the study of the Kriol lexicon, where we observe that speakers easily re-package old meanings under the guise of new word-forms. Another example of the plasticity of language is speakers’ ability to circumvent the absence of certain grammatical tools simply by creating new ones. Overall, linguistic plasticity means that equipped with a new linguistic code, a community of speakers is likely to bend their new tool so that it fulfills their needs for communication. In spite of this plasticity, not all aspects of Kriol match the language it replaces. For instance, we find important differences in figurative descriptions of emotions. The figurative association of emotions with the belly in particular, which is prevalent in Australian languages, is relatively backgrounded in Kriol. Nevertheless, there is evidence that Kriol speakers maintain a conceptual association between emotions and the belly. In other words, linguistic alteration does not always entail modifications in speakers’ representations. By and large, in the case under scrutiny, using a new language does not seem to have an enormous impact on the way speakers communicate or think. Notwithstanding other modes of attachment to one’s language – be they esthetical, emotional, political etc. –, such a conclusion may shed a soothing light on language ‘loss’: communities who have already shifted to a new language, or face an imminent transition, should not necessarily feel that this loss threatens their identities or shared values.