Hacker News Reader

Comment by jobu | Hacker News Reader

Keith Chen has done some research about the effect of language on economic behavior. He also did a TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/keith_chen_could_your_language_aff...

What can economists learn from linguists? Behavioral economist Keith Chen introduces a fascinating pattern from his research: that languages without a concept for the future — "It rain tomorrow," instead of "It will rain tomorrow" — correlate strongly with high savings rates.

It seems like the lack of a future tense in one's language could make it easier for a person to identify with their "future self" (as the article terms it).

View on HN

>What can economists learn from linguists?

That's a question best left for a linguist to answer, not an economist. The Internet is full of amusing correlations between language and behavior, and most of them are bullshit.

Here's an analysis of Chen's argument by an actual linguist: http://sinoglot.com/blog/2013/04/futurity-in-chinese-and-eng...

The paper is

The effect of language on economic behavior: Evidence from savings rates, health behaviors, and retirement assets MK Chen - The American Economic Review, 2013

http://scholar.google.dk/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=...

That's funny. This is the exact kind of lingustic stereotyping we mock as pop science in intro linguistics course (at least in the US the last decade I took them).

How does "It rain tomorrow" not indicate a concept of the future?

For that matter, how does "It rain tomorrow" not indicate a phrase in the original language that might as well have been translated into English as "It will rain tomorrow"?

It does indicate a concept of future. What it doesn't do is use a different tense—the key verb is the same as when talking about the present. It's a subtle distinction, but he is arguing that this lack of differentiation in verbs has an impact on internalizing future events.

And while you very well could make the translation from whatever the original was to "It will rain tomorrow," it might not be a literal one that preserves the original tenses, which would obscure exactly what he was trying to point out.

It doesn't have grammaticalisation of time, is what was meant.

It's obviously got at least one word for the future ("tomorrow"), which is kind of like having a library function strcat instead of just +

Also, English doesn't have a future tense, so there's that.

> Also, English doesn't have a future tense, so there's that.

Has happened, is happening, will happen?

http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/future_tense.htm

[does happen, will happen], [go, will go] - notice that the active verb doesn't change from present to future, rather there is an auxiliary added to mark the tense. Contrast to French where you have [vois/see, verrai/will see] and the verb itself is modified.

Right, English doesn't have a future tense (in the sense of tense as marked by inflection). So what's the contrast of note? That the one sentence marks the future by use of a modal auxiliary (in addition to the explicit "tomorrow"), while the other marks the future only by explicit description of the time "tomorrow"? Mark me as highly skeptical that this is of any significance...

I'm saying it's a strange example to say that some languages do or don't have a grammaticalization of time, and then give two supposedly contrasting grammars as an example of each, when actually neither of them really has a future tense.

But they said it as if one does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com