Futuretalk: one small step towards a Chronolinguistics

In the area of linguistics and language teaching, science fiction is useful in very many ways. An obvious way is that it sets up many complex and rich worlds and outlines the sorts of adjustments that language must make in those contexts. It thus draws a strong link between language and context; it shows how the construction of reality is largely a matter of language; and it speculates on where we are linguistically heading. It is a useful mirror on language development. Extrapolating the dialects of the future has been the province of science fiction in the last century. Though few SF writers are professional linguists, their method in general tends to take a holistic view of form, meaning and social context. Characters in science fiction are not individuals but are 'everyman' tokens, and the language they use symbolises the culture they inhabit. Linguistic extrapolation in science fiction thus treats language both as the technology of communication and as an index of social change. In this paper, I argue that predicting the language of the future, though extremely difficult, is possible. I call this new discipline chronolinguistics, and I set out the draft principles and parameters of a chronolinguistics, based on the future languages speculated by John Brunner, Russell Hoban, William Gibson, Greg Bear, Neal Stephenson and Iain M.Banks.

Beyond the human genome: microbes, metaphors and what it means to be human in an interconnected post-genomic world

Four years after the completion of the Human Genome Project, the US National Institutes for Health launched the Human Microbiome Project on 19 December 2007. Using metaphor analysis, this article investigates reporting in English-language newspapers on advances in microbiomics from 2003 onwards, when the word “microbiome” was first used. This research was said to open up a “new frontier” and was conceived as a “second human genome project”, this time focusing on the genomes of microbes that inhabit and populate humans rather than focusing on the human genome itself. The language used by scientists and by the journalists who reported on their research employed a type of metaphorical framing that was very different from the hyperbole surrounding the decipherment of the “book of life”. Whereas during the HGP genomic successes had been mainly framed as being based on a unidirectional process of reading off information from a passive genetic or genomic entity, the language employed to discuss advances in microbiomics frames genes, genomes and life in much more active and dynamic ways.