Another Language Column Going Down the Tubes?

14 April 2010

I’ve always liked Slate magazine’s The Good Word column. It appears infrequently, but when it does it features insightful commentary on language by a number of linguists, lexicographers, and other experts on language.

But today it features a column objecting to use of the word kabuki in political circles to mean something done for show with no real substance. The writer, Jon Lackman, objects to it because this meaning is not at all what real Kabuki theater in Japan is. And Lackman, who is a Ph.D. candidate in art criticism ought to know.

Unfortunately, Lackman doesn’t know about language and has fallen for the etymological fallacy. The meanings of words are not determined by their origin, but rather by how they are used. If enough English-speakers use the word kabuki to mean an empty display, then that is what it means, regardless of the word’s meaning in Japanese or the traditions of Japanese theater. Likewise, decimate does not mean to kill one out of every ten, garcon means waiter not boy, men can become hysterical, and anyone, not just popes, can pontificate. The etymological fallacy is one of the most basic errors a person writing about language usage can make, and no publication should tolerate this in a column on language.

Lackman does have a valid point that the word’s usage in English has little to do with real Kabuki theater, and the usage probably does give a false impression to westerners about what the actual art form is all about. But he’s not going to change the usage. I probably wouldn’t have objected to the column if it had been labeled as a theater or arts column, but Slate labeled it as a language column, and the editors really need to set a higher standard for who they let write their language column.

Drop the GRE?

8 April 2010

The Got Medieval blog is advocating grad schools do just that. And as someone who has just gone through the sausage grinder that is grad school admissions, I couldn’t agree more. I can’t see how the GRE (Graduate Record Examination; the standardized test for admission into American graduate schools) has any relevance whatsoever to success in grad school, and Got Medieval tells you why.

I should note that the only school I got into was the one that doesn’t use the GRE at all (Toronto, being Canadian, doesn’t use the test), although my scores were within the range the schools said were acceptable and my verbal score totally rocked. My test prep was to go the Barnes and Noble route and buy some some books on the test rather than pay tutors; perhaps I should have forked over the $1,000 for a prep course. I don’t know whether or not the GRE played a factor in my case, but I suspect it did in at least some of the schools I applied to. I’m sure that I would perform (relatively) dismally on the new version of the test which combines verbal and math.

But then again, Ph.D. admissions are also highly personalized. One’s application must also fit with the research interests of one or more of the faculty. And not getting into any particular school doesn’t mean that you will not excel at another school. So there is no way of telling what factors played a part in any individual application.

There are no sour grapes on my part. Toronto was my first choice and I couldn’t be happier. (For personal reasons, staying in Berkeley would have been nice, but academically Toronto is where I want to be.)

Singh Vindicated

1 April 2010

Earlier I wrote about the libel case against author Simon Singh. The British Chiropractic Association sued him for libel when he called chiropractic treatments “bogus” in an article in the Guardian.

Today, the appeals court handed down its decision, vindicating Singh. Language Log has a summary of the decision.

The decision, which also includes a quotation from Milton (!), quotes a decision by the Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals, Underwager v Salter 22 Fed. 3d 730 (1994), that aptly sums up the conclusion:

[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying “character assassination!,” silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. […] More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models—not larger awards of damages—mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us.