The Linguist

There has been much talk recently of novels written about a world threatened by a pandemic but everyone has forgotten one of the most famous – written almost 200 years ago by Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus. This novel captured the imagination of the world and has been adapted for a plethora of films, but Shelley's last novel is possibly her greatest. The Last Man is set in a future where world travel is possible by balloon and a plague sweeps through humanity until only one man is left, perched on a Swiss mountain. If you haven't read it, read it now. Then translate it into a chosen language, because although Frankenstein has been translated all over the world, The Last Man has been neglected. Maurice H Varney FCIL 28 The Linguist Vol/60 No/1 2021 thelinguist.uberflip.com OPINION & COMMENT Email linguist.editor@ciol.org.uk with your views As many organisations closed their offices in response to the pandemic, our ability to be self-sufficient, self-disciplined and achieve the best possible results while working away from our colleagues was tested. The work-from- home (WFH) revolution was global. Dining tables, bedside cabinets and kitchen countertops became workstations for many. Even when the first lockdown ended, most companies allowed staff to continue working from home for at least half of the time. Siemens was one of the first to announce a flexible WFH model, enabling its 380,000 employees to work "anywhere they felt comfortable" for 2-3 days a week. This has now become a permanent agreement. The pandemic has forced us to think about professional life in different ways – to be more open to flexible hours and work styles. As the author Justin Bariso points out, our new remote work policies are "master classes in emotional intelligence" (cutt.ly/bariso). More importantly, they are a trust test between employer and staff. The shift is to an outcomes-based model whereby work is no longer assessed by the number of hours we spend working but by what is being delivered. From a linguistic point of view, there has been an even greater need for advanced communication skills in both spoken and written competencies. When meetings are held virtually it is extremely difficult to read people's gestures, so we are forced to listen carefully, speak clearly and at the right volume, and make sure participants have understood the message. Precision in formulating statements, agendas, emails, notes and presentations is now exceptionally important, including punctuation that leaves no room for interpretation. Working hours for remote activities can be more flexible than usual office hours, so clear guidelines regarding expected response times for messages by text, email, Zoom, WhatsApp, Skype or Teams need to be set. It is also important to establish the channels of communication so all concerned parties know where to send and receive messages. The communication aspect extends far beyond effective listening, reading, writing and speaking. The WFH mode, as well as the hybrid home and office model, requires better multitasking and concentration skills, especially when interacting virtually in conferences and chats with multiple colleagues or customers. Working from home requires self-sufficiency and self-discipline in organising the working day and establishing a practical routine that avoids the temptations of a homely environment. But the question arises: is home working for everyone? Humans are social animals and, for many of us, collaboration with others and face-to-face interactions are in our nature. Joanna Biernat MCIL Star Letter prize This issue's Star Letter writer wins a copy of Alex Bellos's The Language Lover's Puzzle Book. For your chance to win, share your views via linguist.editor@ciol.org.uk. STAR LETTER Mary Shelley's pandemic I note Christine Pocock's letter about being driven mad by the use of 'below' as an adjective (TL59,6); I can't say that I much like it either. However, the purpose of language, as I understand it, is for communication and if one applies the understandability test then I think that the answer has to be 'positive'. She says that this use of 'below' is incorrect, but I do not know the basis for this assertion because English does not have a prescriptive central body. There are a lot of things which I do not particularly like in modern English, but it has to be recognised that English is an organic entity which changes and develops with no central control. That is the way it has always been. Is it, perhaps, also a great strength? Mike Fulton FCIL Below control The home-working effect IMAGES © SHUTTERSTOCK

• Cover