Even More on Language and Thought

30 July 2010

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]

Canadian Language Testing

29 July 2010

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.)

The Value of Editors

29 July 2010

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)