Wordorigins.org

Radiolab and NPR do a video on polysemy:

Evidently, the US Senate just passed The _____ Act of ______. Evidently, in a last minute rush of amendments they failed to actually name the bill. The Senate subsequently went out of session for the rest of the month. The House of Representatives is still in session, but if they want to pass it right away, they can’t make any changes—both houses must pass identical legislation. And President Obama wants to sign it right away, so there is a reasonable chance the House will approve the nameless bill.

The WashingtonWatch.com Blog has the full scoop.

(Hat tip to Grant Barrett and Martha Barnette of A Way With Words.)

(I’m not quite back. I’m in Toronto and have an internet connection, but that’s about it. I’m still rushing around trying to get a phone, car registration, etc.)

I don’t know how I missed this one. It’s been going since 2008, and I just discovered it. It immediately went into my RSS reader.

If you haven’t seen it, you have to check it out. You can spend ten seconds scanning the latest entries, or an hour scouring the archive. Either way, you’ll be glad you did.

My fave is “the Dr. Zoidberg of international relations.”

(Hat tip to the Dictionary Evangelist)

I’m getting to like The Economist’s “Johnson” blog on language more and more. I was disappointed in their debut posts, but since then they’ve rapidly come up in my estimation.

This time around they’ve aptly summarized the work of Stanford linguist Lena Boroditsky that was recently reported in the Wall Street Journal’s “Lost in Translation” article. What’s especially impressive for a bunch of journos, is that they’ve managed to look past the press release and actually see the data (including error bars!).

To summarize, Boroditsky’s research reinforces what linguists have known for a long time, that language does influence thought but the effect is small and subtle. There is a grain of truth to Whorf’s theory, but it is nothing like Orwell made it out to be in 1984.

(Over a year ago, I linked to another article on Boroditsky’s work.)

[Edited to correct typos]

This is a great little story about the expectations people have about language:

(Hat tip: James Fallows)

If you wish to contact us other than electronically, you can send postal mail to:

Dave Wilton
Wordorigins.org
457 Marlee Ave., #303
Toronto, ON M6B 3J2
Canada

Starting next week, the first week in August, I’ll be decamping to Toronto. As a result, I’ll have limited internet access for a week or so, as Dexter and I drive northeastward across the continent, and I’ll have no access to my print library for several weeks. (Fortunately, the online resources I now have access to through the University of Toronto are just superb.)

I’ll still be checking in at least daily to see how the site is going and to purge spammers, but my posting will be sparse. So go ahead and talk amongst yourselves.

Mark Liberman over at Language Log has some comments on a Canadian ruling that requires immigrants from English-speaking countries to undergo language testing. I’m personally interested because it is likely that I will have to take this test if I apply for permanent residency in Canada (which I may do to qualify for Canadian government grants and funding).

I’m not sure there is really a linguistic issue at stake here. I have no issue with language testing for immigrants, especially those seeking to live in a country under some sort of professional status, and this particular ruling is more in “bureaucrats gone wild” category. It’s simply a waste of time and money. Declaring that a university education in an English-speaking country meets the language requirement would both give the bureaucrats their box to check and save a lot of money.

On the other hand, the US requirements are even more silly and may actually undermine the credibility of the process. If you are going to have a requirement, make it meaningful. Otherwise, just drop it.

As an aside, I really like the Canadian term landed immigrant. I liked it even more when I found out that despite being officially dropped in favor of the boring permanent resident, Canadians are going right ahead and continuing to use it, including those who write many government documents. Jargon dies hard. (Kind of like green cards in the US, which haven’t actually been green for many years.)

As someone who, before decamping for a life in academia, edited marketing copy for high-tech firms, I heartily endorse this article by James Mathewson, editor-in-chief at ibm.com.

He presents hard evidence that editors are not a cost to corporations, but add value, increasing sales and bringing revenue into the firm. (And shows that those bean counters who propose “cost-cutting” measures often have not done their homework and have little understanding of the business processes they are purportedly improving.)

(Hat tip to John McIntyre of You Don’t Say)

I don’t know what’s in the water these days, but it seems like every single language blog is madly posting about copy editing. I had decided to stop linking to them in order to avoid topic fatigue, but then the Economist’s “Johnson” blog comes along with this post, which is chiefly notable for its very healthy attitude toward citing dictionaries and style guides as authorities.