What an unsubstantiated article.<p>First, it oozes Sapir-Whorf: "Critically, the language one speaks or signs can have downstream effects on ostensibly nonlinguistic cognitive domains, ranging from memory, to social cognition, perception, decision-making, and more." Where is the bloody proof of that?<p>Second, nobody will deny that testing (young) students at predominantly English speaking schools will lead to biased results, results that don't generalize across all languages and cultures, but that's got nothing to do with the peculiarities of the language. Every language has its own idiosyncracies. But, there's enough research in other languages, and the basics seem to match.<p>Third: language is a small part of cognition. There's memory, attention, visual recognition, planning, learning, etc., and no reason to think that that's heavily influenced by language.<p>Fourth: progress in cognitive science is not hindered by lack of language, nor the subjects, it's the theory. We have no idea how cognition works, and adding yet another Stroop task but this time in some even smaller language isn't going to advance it an iota (Stroop task experiments have already been run in the Indo-European languages, Basque, Chinese, Japanese, bilingual Arabic-Hebrew, etc.).<p>Fifth: I would definitely discourage people from running experiments in languages they don't understand deeply. I've seen researchers run experiments in my native tongue with glaring agreement errors, and that just throws your subjects off.