What do you think?
Rate this book
What Language Is: And What It Isn't and What It Could Be
Most of our assumptions about language are wrong. Language is not pure. Language is not only words. Language is not divided into real languages and "dialects". Language is not what we write on a page. So what, then, is a language? John McWhorter asks us to do a simple thing: to look at language the way a linguist does. And once we make that leap, we see a whole new world of human communication, celebrating everything from ancient Persian to the Navajo language to "baby mama".
What Language Is argues that any language, left untouched, becomes more ingrown over time. Only adults attempting to learn a language (and constructively butchering it) can strip it down. Diving into the astounding complexities of Navajo, McWhorter outlines how a language can become downright disheveled, with more exceptions than rules. Looking at an African language called Twi, McWhorter elucidates how even tongues that sound primitive to the untrained ear enfold immense intricacies, and how what sounds like "improper" language actually constitute new and exciting grammar. McWhorter then examines the difference between written and oral language, and explains that, to a linguist, the notion that the written word is somehow elevated over the spoken in downright bizarre, especially because only two hundred of the world's six thousand languages are written. McWhorter also looks at the way languages cross-pollinate each other and occasionally become entirely new creatures via the example of Saramaccan, a wonderful languages that combines African languages with English, Dutch, and Portuguese.
What Language Is argues that any language, left untouched, becomes more ingrown over time. Only adults attempting to learn a language (and constructively butchering it) can strip it down. Diving into the astounding complexities of Navajo, McWhorter outlines how a language can become downright disheveled, with more exceptions than rules. Looking at an African language called Twi, McWhorter elucidates how even tongues that sound primitive to the untrained ear enfold immense intricacies, and how what sounds like "improper" language actually constitute new and exciting grammar. McWhorter then examines the difference between written and oral language, and explains that, to a linguist, the notion that the written word is somehow elevated over the spoken in downright bizarre, especially because only two hundred of the world's six thousand languages are written. McWhorter also looks at the way languages cross-pollinate each other and occasionally become entirely new creatures via the example of Saramaccan, a wonderful languages that combines African languages with English, Dutch, and Portuguese.
228 pages, Hardcover
First published August 4, 2011
43 people are currently reading
3251 people want to read
About the author
John McWhorter
46 books1,707 followersJohn Hamilton McWhorter (Professor McWhorter uses neither his title nor his middle initial as an author) is an American academic and linguist who is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, where he teaches linguistics, American studies, philosophy, and music history. He is the author of a number of books on language and on race relations. His research specializes on how creole languages form, and how language grammars change as the result of sociohistorical phenomena.
A popular writer, McWhorter has written for Time, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Politico, Forbes, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Daily News, City Journal, The New Yorker, among others; he is also contributing editor at The Atlantic and hosts Slate's Lexicon Valley podcas
A popular writer, McWhorter has written for Time, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Politico, Forbes, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Daily News, City Journal, The New Yorker, among others; he is also contributing editor at The Atlantic and hosts Slate's Lexicon Valley podcas
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews
August 4, 2011
To truly appreciate this book, you have to fall into one of these three categories: ( 1) you are a teacher (preferably of the English professorial persuasion); ( 2) you are a linguist, either by hobby or trade; or (3)you are a fanatical fan of languages and the development and fallout thereof.
While I am indeed a casual linguist (2) and I enjoy a rousing history of words as the next gal (3), I will focus my review on the impact of this book on my teaching (of reading) and my teaching of the teaching of reading. Because (does starting my sentence with ‘because’ make you cringe? If so, this is definitely the book for you!) I do see an impact that this book and these viewpoints could have on the way we currently teach our young people to read, or more specifically, for the remediation of students who have trouble mastering the art of reading.
In training, teachers are generally taught the we should have learn students learn to read by looking at the words and thinking about them and their connections to the words around them and other words similar to them (there’s a lot of thinking going on!). This author is advocating that language really isn’t meant to be understood by looking but by listening. Most of the students that I see do have trouble making that connection between what is written and what they hear. How could our teaching of reading change if we changed our practices to become more oral- and less sight-based? No more lists of ‘sight’ words; no more memorization of prepositions; no more drilling of the endless lists of exceptions that makes even native speakers of English want to pull out their hair.
How much and what should our students be learning so they make the transition to better comprehension and a true understanding of how the words work and fit together to make sense? McWhorter says, “The reason I have shown you things in such a wide and even weird variety of language (Archi? Keo?) is to get across how language looks to people who have fallen into the odd circumstance of studying it as a career. It filters how we read what is being said about languages in the newspaper, how we hear what people say about languages in passing, and how we perceive languages themselves when we hear them spoken, including our own.”
We are all studying ‘English’ in school. In our informational and technologically driven age, this book has created for me a set of questions about our current teaching of reading and language. I wish I had more answers but, right now, the questions this book has raised for me seem terribly important and troubling.
Overall, I understand more clearly than ever than learning English and being able to write clearly and effectively is akin to an art, much like singing or composing. I shall use it as an impetus on a new search for methods of teaching this thing called reading and thank the author for new ideas as yet undiscovered.
With all That Being Said (original title, much better than the settled on tongue twister), I enjoyed the book. Just enjoyed it as a read, no small task with such heavy content. McWhorter’s writing style is fluid and easy to follow for even a near novice of linguistics. There is a wicked sense of humor that lies hidden throughout the pages like a camouflaged snake, ready to strike. I found myself laughing out loud and then, when asked why I was laughing, couldn’t for the life of me explain because the audience did not fit into one of the three categories listed above.
I hope the author felt me chuckling. It’s tragic when such witty puns fall flat. Good read, John McWhorter!
While I am indeed a casual linguist (2) and I enjoy a rousing history of words as the next gal (3), I will focus my review on the impact of this book on my teaching (of reading) and my teaching of the teaching of reading. Because (does starting my sentence with ‘because’ make you cringe? If so, this is definitely the book for you!) I do see an impact that this book and these viewpoints could have on the way we currently teach our young people to read, or more specifically, for the remediation of students who have trouble mastering the art of reading.
In training, teachers are generally taught the we should have learn students learn to read by looking at the words and thinking about them and their connections to the words around them and other words similar to them (there’s a lot of thinking going on!). This author is advocating that language really isn’t meant to be understood by looking but by listening. Most of the students that I see do have trouble making that connection between what is written and what they hear. How could our teaching of reading change if we changed our practices to become more oral- and less sight-based? No more lists of ‘sight’ words; no more memorization of prepositions; no more drilling of the endless lists of exceptions that makes even native speakers of English want to pull out their hair.
How much and what should our students be learning so they make the transition to better comprehension and a true understanding of how the words work and fit together to make sense? McWhorter says, “The reason I have shown you things in such a wide and even weird variety of language (Archi? Keo?) is to get across how language looks to people who have fallen into the odd circumstance of studying it as a career. It filters how we read what is being said about languages in the newspaper, how we hear what people say about languages in passing, and how we perceive languages themselves when we hear them spoken, including our own.”
We are all studying ‘English’ in school. In our informational and technologically driven age, this book has created for me a set of questions about our current teaching of reading and language. I wish I had more answers but, right now, the questions this book has raised for me seem terribly important and troubling.
Overall, I understand more clearly than ever than learning English and being able to write clearly and effectively is akin to an art, much like singing or composing. I shall use it as an impetus on a new search for methods of teaching this thing called reading and thank the author for new ideas as yet undiscovered.
With all That Being Said (original title, much better than the settled on tongue twister), I enjoyed the book. Just enjoyed it as a read, no small task with such heavy content. McWhorter’s writing style is fluid and easy to follow for even a near novice of linguistics. There is a wicked sense of humor that lies hidden throughout the pages like a camouflaged snake, ready to strike. I found myself laughing out loud and then, when asked why I was laughing, couldn’t for the life of me explain because the audience did not fit into one of the three categories listed above.
I hope the author felt me chuckling. It’s tragic when such witty puns fall flat. Good read, John McWhorter!
April 21, 2012
If you've ever taken a linguistics class, you'll already have an understanding of the primary arguments of What Language Is. It also won't matter, because the heart of the book is a series of case studies of really interesting languages and how they evolved to be so interesting! If you haven't taken a linguistics class, and/or you are a strict grammarian, this book will help you loosen up by exposing you to the (much more sensible) way linguists understand language. (Since reading various articles by linguists in the last few years, I have given up prescriptive grammar in favor of clarity and joy - although my love affair with parts of speech and how they fit together will never abate.)
Either way, I think a lot of people (especially those people who are related to me) would really enjoy this one. McWhorter's voice is detailed and engaging. It was easy to tell that he loves his job. (It's a quick read, too.)
This book did bring up a little frustration for me, though, which is that I wish there were more nonfiction books in between nonfiction-for-popular-consumption and nonfiction-for-academics. Bowling Alone and Delusions of Gender both sort of fill that empty niche, but they're the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. Because I often don't need the basic, explicit, even casual explanations often provided in popular nonfiction; I want sources; and I sometimes want more in-depth and academic analysis of the subject material. But I also don't have the patience to wade through academic texts outside of my field of study - the jargon and the dithering and the formality can have me putting down even the most fascinating subject matter. I want nonfiction that assumes that I am a smart, well-educated, critical thinker with some background in the subject but needing a brief refresher.
Either way, I think a lot of people (especially those people who are related to me) would really enjoy this one. McWhorter's voice is detailed and engaging. It was easy to tell that he loves his job. (It's a quick read, too.)
This book did bring up a little frustration for me, though, which is that I wish there were more nonfiction books in between nonfiction-for-popular-consumption and nonfiction-for-academics. Bowling Alone and Delusions of Gender both sort of fill that empty niche, but they're the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. Because I often don't need the basic, explicit, even casual explanations often provided in popular nonfiction; I want sources; and I sometimes want more in-depth and academic analysis of the subject material. But I also don't have the patience to wade through academic texts outside of my field of study - the jargon and the dithering and the formality can have me putting down even the most fascinating subject matter. I want nonfiction that assumes that I am a smart, well-educated, critical thinker with some background in the subject but needing a brief refresher.
July 9, 2019
It's an interesting, easy-to-read book. It's full of examples (especially of grammar) of different languages, many of which I didn't even know existed.
The book is constructed like an argument, aiming to refute some preconceptions about language(s), and it's very consistent in this way. So I think the enjoyment of the book really depends on your stance towards these preconceptions.
If you're marginally interested in language(s) and have heard some discussions about what constitutes a language, but are not sure what you think about that, this book might be for you.
If, however, you already subscribe to the ideas advocated by the author (That there are no "better" or "worse" languages, that language doesn't necessarily have to be written down, that languages spoken in obscure corners of the world are not less, but much MORE complex than languages used by millions of people, that linguistic change should be regarded as natural and even creative process instead of "mistakes", etc), the tone of the book might sound preachy and repetitive.
I rolled my eyes at the very first metaphor in the book - that the 'uninitiated' look at languages like beach-goers at the sea animals, and linguists (later becoming 'we') get to see their true form and complexity from underwater. Like I said, I completely agree with author's ideas, but I don't like the moral superiority or even somehow patronizing tone that comes with it.
Maybe it's because I live in a bubble when it comes to languages and many things he speaks about seem self-evident - but I do know that many people still imagine isolated tribes speaking comically primitive languages, or think that Chinese has no grammar, or that internet is ruining our ability to use language. If you're unsure about these points or want to convince someone to abandon the aforementioned ideas, that's the book for you!
If you're not, you might want to skip through it just to look at the cool examples.
The book is constructed like an argument, aiming to refute some preconceptions about language(s), and it's very consistent in this way. So I think the enjoyment of the book really depends on your stance towards these preconceptions.
If you're marginally interested in language(s) and have heard some discussions about what constitutes a language, but are not sure what you think about that, this book might be for you.
If, however, you already subscribe to the ideas advocated by the author (That there are no "better" or "worse" languages, that language doesn't necessarily have to be written down, that languages spoken in obscure corners of the world are not less, but much MORE complex than languages used by millions of people, that linguistic change should be regarded as natural and even creative process instead of "mistakes", etc), the tone of the book might sound preachy and repetitive.
I rolled my eyes at the very first metaphor in the book - that the 'uninitiated' look at languages like beach-goers at the sea animals, and linguists (later becoming 'we') get to see their true form and complexity from underwater. Like I said, I completely agree with author's ideas, but I don't like the moral superiority or even somehow patronizing tone that comes with it.
Maybe it's because I live in a bubble when it comes to languages and many things he speaks about seem self-evident - but I do know that many people still imagine isolated tribes speaking comically primitive languages, or think that Chinese has no grammar, or that internet is ruining our ability to use language. If you're unsure about these points or want to convince someone to abandon the aforementioned ideas, that's the book for you!
If you're not, you might want to skip through it just to look at the cool examples.
March 10, 2013
A linguist explains for the layman, in easy, readable prose and affable wit, the professional view on languages: they are Ingrown, Disheveled, Intricate, Oral, and Mixed. He tries to dispel the ludicrous and unfounded belief that some languages are more “real” than others (which are thought of as “primitive”) simply because they are better known or have a tradition of literature. Rationally, with no dogmatic axe to grind, he explains the prescriptivist view of language – all languages – as ever-changing oral traditions, most of them a macedoine of borrowings from neighbors, colonists, conquerors, and subcultures. He inverts the layman’s suppositions about “primitive” creoles – it’s writing which is the perversion of language, not the other way around; and it’s the baffling impenetrability of, say, Navajo that is unusual, rather than the more simplistic grammars of Persian and English - which have been streamlined over time by an influx of adult immigrants who honed off some of the intricacies while learning them orally, as well as infusing some of their own language into the pot.
This is a terrific book, full of fascinating tidbits about individual languages (the English word “notch” used to be “otch” but the initial n was transferred to the indefinite article; Mandarin uses some shape-based classifiers for its numbered nouns; the African language Serer has ten genders; Twi uses various particles to indicate how you have come to know a statement; Berik nouns specify the time of day things happened to them) as well as wise, compelling pronouncements on language as whole. McWhorter looks at a language’s entire background – its history of colonization or conquest, its geographic setting – to explain its own individual quirks. As McWhorter notes, languages have fetishes over different things – English's insistence on differentiating the indefinite and definite articles of nouns baffles Mandarin and Russian speakers, who don’t use any articles, while other languages are anal about specific counting words or the relations of objects to the speaker. This doesn’t make them “strange” or not “real” languages, just individual, and it’s that variation that is so endlessly fascinating to us language geeks. Where I think McWhorter fails to convince is in his argument that textspeak and the slipping of written standards results in just as “real” a language than the AP Manual of Style; this may be true, from a linguistic point of view, but the actual criticism is that slipping standards are worse, not less real, than the heavy precedent of our vast, complex written tradition, which has ennobled us, and which is being forgotten. This aside, the book is charming, captivating, and compelling; anyone who makes misinformed comments about what language is – and that is so many otherwise perfectly rational people – should be forced to read it.
This is a terrific book, full of fascinating tidbits about individual languages (the English word “notch” used to be “otch” but the initial n was transferred to the indefinite article; Mandarin uses some shape-based classifiers for its numbered nouns; the African language Serer has ten genders; Twi uses various particles to indicate how you have come to know a statement; Berik nouns specify the time of day things happened to them) as well as wise, compelling pronouncements on language as whole. McWhorter looks at a language’s entire background – its history of colonization or conquest, its geographic setting – to explain its own individual quirks. As McWhorter notes, languages have fetishes over different things – English's insistence on differentiating the indefinite and definite articles of nouns baffles Mandarin and Russian speakers, who don’t use any articles, while other languages are anal about specific counting words or the relations of objects to the speaker. This doesn’t make them “strange” or not “real” languages, just individual, and it’s that variation that is so endlessly fascinating to us language geeks. Where I think McWhorter fails to convince is in his argument that textspeak and the slipping of written standards results in just as “real” a language than the AP Manual of Style; this may be true, from a linguistic point of view, but the actual criticism is that slipping standards are worse, not less real, than the heavy precedent of our vast, complex written tradition, which has ennobled us, and which is being forgotten. This aside, the book is charming, captivating, and compelling; anyone who makes misinformed comments about what language is – and that is so many otherwise perfectly rational people – should be forced to read it.
February 24, 2014
I love John McWhorter and totally wish we could be buddies. However, this book pretty much said exactly the same things as all his other books, and his Teaching Company course...but then again I was entirely charmed by his wacky footnotes about, like, okapis and Broadway songs and what-all. Adorbs.
July 14, 2014
Veronica has been on a McWhorter binge lately, and I've been following along. He's entertaining and a strong populizer/educator on linguistics. It's not hard to imagine him giving the same material as lectures to his college classes. And I'm always fascinated when people clearly explain what a thing is and why they love it to me.
I love how weird languages are, what arcane embellishments they accrue over time, and how imperialism strips those embellishments away. Now I feel reasonably well informed on linguistics, and curious to read some made-up language and see how real it feels. I always did like that aspect of The Sparrow.
Library copy.
I love how weird languages are, what arcane embellishments they accrue over time, and how imperialism strips those embellishments away. Now I feel reasonably well informed on linguistics, and curious to read some made-up language and see how real it feels. I always did like that aspect of The Sparrow.
Library copy.
October 9, 2011
John McWhorter’s What Language Is is essentially an expansion of his efforts in Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold Story of English to explore the intricacies of language. As such, it is not as “serious” an effort as The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language or some other works but I think its conclusion is important:
Language is whatever a group of people use to communicate with each other.
McWhorter divides the book up into five chapters based on the acronym IDIOM, which stands for “ingrown,” “disheveled,” “intricate,” “oral” and “mixed.” He makes the point that English (and any widespread, widely spoken language) is not “normal.” “Normal” languages tend to accumulate a baroque collection of irregularities and ornamentation that make them difficult for non-natives to learn fluently. In Chapter one, he uses several examples of this, including Pashto, which conjugates verbs differently in the past tense depending upon whether they are transitive or intransitive. In Kikuyu, a speaker makes a much finer distinction between “here”-ness and “there”-ness than English. And, as I know from personal experience, a Mandarin speaker has to use a classifier when indicating quantity.
In Chapter two, McWhorter uses Navajo as an example of dishevelment: In Navajo, nearly every verb is irregular. As he notes, it’s as if every verb in English declined like be. And thus it goes through every chapter as he draws on many examples to showcase the complexities of language.
Just as some people get enraptured by biology or astronomy (or, shudder, economics), I get starry-eyed over language & linguistics so I give this book a strong recommendation. As I mentioned, it’s not as strong as McWhorter’s more academic efforts but it’s an enjoyable read for anyone interested in “our magnificent bastard tongues.”
Language is whatever a group of people use to communicate with each other.
McWhorter divides the book up into five chapters based on the acronym IDIOM, which stands for “ingrown,” “disheveled,” “intricate,” “oral” and “mixed.” He makes the point that English (and any widespread, widely spoken language) is not “normal.” “Normal” languages tend to accumulate a baroque collection of irregularities and ornamentation that make them difficult for non-natives to learn fluently. In Chapter one, he uses several examples of this, including Pashto, which conjugates verbs differently in the past tense depending upon whether they are transitive or intransitive. In Kikuyu, a speaker makes a much finer distinction between “here”-ness and “there”-ness than English. And, as I know from personal experience, a Mandarin speaker has to use a classifier when indicating quantity.
In Chapter two, McWhorter uses Navajo as an example of dishevelment: In Navajo, nearly every verb is irregular. As he notes, it’s as if every verb in English declined like be. And thus it goes through every chapter as he draws on many examples to showcase the complexities of language.
Just as some people get enraptured by biology or astronomy (or, shudder, economics), I get starry-eyed over language & linguistics so I give this book a strong recommendation. As I mentioned, it’s not as strong as McWhorter’s more academic efforts but it’s an enjoyable read for anyone interested in “our magnificent bastard tongues.”
September 30, 2011
This was interesting which makes me what to find others by the same author. The author has real respect for all languages, including "creole" languages that others--including its speakers--look down on. He has definitely made me more aware. As I write this, I note the contrast between my spoken language and this written one. (He notes that many people mistakenly consider "written" language the "real" language)
In general, the chapters are organized around a few principles that he wants you to remember:
1. Language is Ingrown
2. Language is disheveled
3. Language is Intricate
4. Language is oral
5. Language is mixed
The book would be a good fit for anyone who has enjoyed finding the source of idioms and words in the English language. It would be a good fit for people who have tried to learn a new language and wondered why it was so difficult. It would be a good fit for the traveler who enjoys learning the culture of other people and the language that enriches that culture.
In general, the chapters are organized around a few principles that he wants you to remember:
1. Language is Ingrown
2. Language is disheveled
3. Language is Intricate
4. Language is oral
5. Language is mixed
The book would be a good fit for anyone who has enjoyed finding the source of idioms and words in the English language. It would be a good fit for people who have tried to learn a new language and wondered why it was so difficult. It would be a good fit for the traveler who enjoys learning the culture of other people and the language that enriches that culture.
August 4, 2017
Guys, this is so good. It's an honest, down-to-earth, clear, concise, and humorous look at the basics of language, with tons of amazingly well-sourced examples from many, many languages of the world. I learned an astonishing amount. I learned so much that I just wanted to go back to school for linguistics!
If you are not amazed by some of the "ingrown" properties of languages that haven't had to endure being dumbed down by adult learners (e.g. languages spoken only by remote tribes), then you are made of stone. The complexities are mind-boggling!
Two things I wish McWhorter had included in this book:
An accounting of how pidgins become creoles. My best understanding is that children exposed to pidgins end up applying their innate grammar to bridge the gap, but McWhorter doesn't touch this at all, which is strange given his focus on creoles.
Anything about signed languages. This is just a niche interest of mine, but the fact that signed languages aren't touched upon at all was just sort of a bummer.
If you are not amazed by some of the "ingrown" properties of languages that haven't had to endure being dumbed down by adult learners (e.g. languages spoken only by remote tribes), then you are made of stone. The complexities are mind-boggling!
Two things I wish McWhorter had included in this book:
An accounting of how pidgins become creoles. My best understanding is that children exposed to pidgins end up applying their innate grammar to bridge the gap, but McWhorter doesn't touch this at all, which is strange given his focus on creoles.
Anything about signed languages. This is just a niche interest of mine, but the fact that signed languages aren't touched upon at all was just sort of a bummer.
July 28, 2013
I just love that title. xD
_____________________________
If you're a linguist or studying that subject, the message of this book is nothing new: language is ingrown, dissheveled, intricate, oral and mixed (using the author's words here), who would have thought?
The thing is, many people still believe that language is something static that has to be documented to be real and anything away from the standard is worth less than this standard.
Admittedly, I am sometimes called a Grammar Nazi and people are right - it does give me the creeps if people use an apostrophe to mark possession in German (which is wrong, btw, though now it is okay if it's a proper name, much to my dismay) - or even the plural (*shudders*). I believe that in such cases people are just too lazy to care about the rules, and yes, I do believe standards are useful and necessary. I like to point out that one day someone wrote me a letter and mentioned "Kwalitet" ... it took me five minutes to understand what that person was trying to tell me. She meant "Qualität", btw. "Quality".
But apart from that? Yes, I try to use the genitive instead of the dative because I think it sounds nicer. (Speaking about German grammar again!) But more often than not I don't care, just as I heretically say that something makes sense, though in German the "correct" term would be "to produce sense" ... People can get really aggressive when it comes to that one. (If you ask German purists, English is a very evil villain indeed.) And just here, with using abbreviations like "btw", I contribute to the language decay that has infected the younger generations. I shall sit in a corner and weep with shame. Maybe.
Lucky me, there are people like John McWhorter who see language as what it is: something living, something changing and therefore irregular in some way or other. And with languages, all varieties are included; I won't elaborate much further, because this is actually not meant to be an essay, just let me say this: the author shows that even small varieties have their worth, and they are usually more complicated than languages with a certain prestige, such as English. Sure, English does have some grammar I constantly keep forgetting, and the pronunciation is really tricky from time to time, but there are no genders (for example) and even though there are some irregular verbs, there are regular ones, too. Out there, languages exist in which irregularity is the rule.
I haven't made up my mind about everything he said, yet, but generally speaking: this is a funny book for those who are interested in languages, and it should be compulsory reading for conservatives and purists. It's not hard to read, if any of you worried about that. The theory is presented without many technical terms and accompanied by many, many examples and case studies. (Though I should warn you: I now have the urge to learn some more languages. Especially Indonesian, just for fun.) If you already came to the conclusion the author draws, it might still be interesting to read about the different languages out there - at least some of them.
_____________________________
If you're a linguist or studying that subject, the message of this book is nothing new: language is ingrown, dissheveled, intricate, oral and mixed (using the author's words here), who would have thought?
The thing is, many people still believe that language is something static that has to be documented to be real and anything away from the standard is worth less than this standard.
Admittedly, I am sometimes called a Grammar Nazi and people are right - it does give me the creeps if people use an apostrophe to mark possession in German (which is wrong, btw, though now it is okay if it's a proper name, much to my dismay) - or even the plural (*shudders*). I believe that in such cases people are just too lazy to care about the rules, and yes, I do believe standards are useful and necessary. I like to point out that one day someone wrote me a letter and mentioned "Kwalitet" ... it took me five minutes to understand what that person was trying to tell me. She meant "Qualität", btw. "Quality".
But apart from that? Yes, I try to use the genitive instead of the dative because I think it sounds nicer. (Speaking about German grammar again!) But more often than not I don't care, just as I heretically say that something makes sense, though in German the "correct" term would be "to produce sense" ... People can get really aggressive when it comes to that one. (If you ask German purists, English is a very evil villain indeed.) And just here, with using abbreviations like "btw", I contribute to the language decay that has infected the younger generations. I shall sit in a corner and weep with shame. Maybe.
Lucky me, there are people like John McWhorter who see language as what it is: something living, something changing and therefore irregular in some way or other. And with languages, all varieties are included; I won't elaborate much further, because this is actually not meant to be an essay, just let me say this: the author shows that even small varieties have their worth, and they are usually more complicated than languages with a certain prestige, such as English. Sure, English does have some grammar I constantly keep forgetting, and the pronunciation is really tricky from time to time, but there are no genders (for example) and even though there are some irregular verbs, there are regular ones, too. Out there, languages exist in which irregularity is the rule.
I haven't made up my mind about everything he said, yet, but generally speaking: this is a funny book for those who are interested in languages, and it should be compulsory reading for conservatives and purists. It's not hard to read, if any of you worried about that. The theory is presented without many technical terms and accompanied by many, many examples and case studies. (Though I should warn you: I now have the urge to learn some more languages. Especially Indonesian, just for fun.) If you already came to the conclusion the author draws, it might still be interesting to read about the different languages out there - at least some of them.
November 26, 2011
Languages are intricate and complicated and often quite messy. Especially when you're trying to learn a new one, you'll realize just how many rules there are, and even more exceptions to those rules. Blessed those with a talent for learning foreign tongues. In What Language Is John McWorther introduces the reader in a both insightful and fun way to languages, shedding light not only on their history but also on the way they evolve and change.
Very entertainingly written, yet a bit heavy on actual examples (oh my), this book really intrigued me. The author not only discusses the most spoken languages of our world, but also points at the relevance of languages that seem doomed to extinction in the years to come. Admittedly it was a bit discouraging to read all his examples of translations, though it beautifully showed how intricate languages really are. From simple languages, such as English or Persian, straight to those that make you glad you don't need to actually learn them, such as Nasioi in New Guinea where you have 100 genders (and you thought having to learn two in French was tough). Add a fascinating excursion into Black English too.
As important as the written word may appear, it's noteworthy how McWorther puts an emphasis on language being oral. The spoken word is how it all started after all. And speaking remains the way that much of language is produced.
In short: A highly recommendable book for anyone interested in linguistics!
Very entertainingly written, yet a bit heavy on actual examples (oh my), this book really intrigued me. The author not only discusses the most spoken languages of our world, but also points at the relevance of languages that seem doomed to extinction in the years to come. Admittedly it was a bit discouraging to read all his examples of translations, though it beautifully showed how intricate languages really are. From simple languages, such as English or Persian, straight to those that make you glad you don't need to actually learn them, such as Nasioi in New Guinea where you have 100 genders (and you thought having to learn two in French was tough). Add a fascinating excursion into Black English too.
As important as the written word may appear, it's noteworthy how McWorther puts an emphasis on language being oral. The spoken word is how it all started after all. And speaking remains the way that much of language is produced.
In short: A highly recommendable book for anyone interested in linguistics!
October 10, 2011
I wanted to enjoy this book and with all the pop culture allusions McWhorter uses, I should have. Instead, it was just work. A lot of examples in tiny languages like Ket, Berik, and Saramaccan to prove, often, arguments I thought were either obscure or already self-evident.
McWhorter's premise is that Languages are "Ingrown", "Dissheveled"(McWhorter spells it with two s's), "Intricate", "Oral", and "Mixed". the acronym spells Idiom, meaning the language, dialect or style of speaking humans have. McWhorter devotes a chapter to each description.
I had difficulty following some of McWhorter's examples: at one point, to suggest some things just are in languages without rational grammar or reason, McWhorter uses the example in English of using an article with a superlative (The best)and states that there is no reason why we use the definite article. I think there is because the speaker is signaling a single thing. we say "The best" just as we say "the dog" when we're talking about a specific dog.
the author also spends a long time on the pronunciation of "Them" and whether it is more accurately "thehm" or "thum". He barely mentions "'em".
McWhorter's writings about Black English are interesting but I think he covers that topic more fully in another book.
I think if you're a linguist, you'd really enjoy this book.
McWhorter's premise is that Languages are "Ingrown", "Dissheveled"(McWhorter spells it with two s's), "Intricate", "Oral", and "Mixed". the acronym spells Idiom, meaning the language, dialect or style of speaking humans have. McWhorter devotes a chapter to each description.
I had difficulty following some of McWhorter's examples: at one point, to suggest some things just are in languages without rational grammar or reason, McWhorter uses the example in English of using an article with a superlative (The best)and states that there is no reason why we use the definite article. I think there is because the speaker is signaling a single thing. we say "The best" just as we say "the dog" when we're talking about a specific dog.
the author also spends a long time on the pronunciation of "Them" and whether it is more accurately "thehm" or "thum". He barely mentions "'em".
McWhorter's writings about Black English are interesting but I think he covers that topic more fully in another book.
I think if you're a linguist, you'd really enjoy this book.
November 16, 2016
Some fascinating stories about language rules, development... Debunked the idea that languages without a lot of grammar rules are easier by pointing to languages with lots of tones, languages where the verb changes based on who is the main actor, and other rules that seem very strange to English speakers.
August 6, 2017
Good book, interesting insights, surprisingly funny prose. But definitely long winded and some parts were repetitive, thus the lost star.
September 30, 2011
Did you know that I minored in Linguistics in college? Not that a linguistic minor makes me any sort of expert on language or anything, but it does mean that I really love language and that all of its intricacies absolutely fascinate me. As a Vocal Performance major, I was required to study the diction of English, Latin, Italian, French and German, plus take the 101 level class in at least 3 of those languages (well, not English). So I took Latin 101, Italian 101, and German 101. You'll notice that French is the one I left out, and consequently, my French diction suffers for it. (But I still like French.)
Anyway, then I served an LDS Mission to Romania and became fluent in that language. While I was learning Romanian, I found it really interesting that when I didn't know the word for something in Romanian, but I happened to know it in some other language besides English, I always used that word for it instead. A strange mixture of Romanian, Italian and German would often come flowing out of my mouth. My brain was totally in "anything but English" mode, I guess. Nowadays, we sometimes get phone calls from Spanish-speaking telemarketers. Our surname is of Portuguese descent, but it looks like it could be Spanish, and so we occasionally get these calls. Whenever I get a phone call like this, I always immediately say, "Nu vorbesc limba spaniolă" and it makes me laugh because my brain apparently feels like it has to go into foreign language mode whenever I hear a language I don't understand.
And now I'm rambling. But the point is, I really love learning about language, and so I really loved reviewing John McWhorter's latest book: What Language Is (And What It Isn't, and What It Could Be). I am embarrassed to admit that I hadn't read any of his previous books, although I have wanted to. I gulped this one down in less than a day, much of it during opera rehearsals, and I loved how many other singers came up to me and told me that they'd read either The Power of Babel or Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue and loved it. I wasn't surprised, because opera singers generally have a pretty vested interest in language (see first paragraph of post), and now those two books are on my definite to read list, even though our little library has neither.
This book focuses on the fact that English is actually an abnormal language because it is simpler than most. The reason being is that so many adults who are not native English speakers have had to learn it, and that changed the language drastically. And I'm not talking about immigrants from the 20th century, or even the 18th and 19th centuries. More like the Vikings conquering England. Or the French. Many of the Indo-European languages are more simplified for this reason. He then goes on to explain how language evolves, and how it becomes complicated. He uses the word IDIOM to illustrate this: Language is Ingrown, Disheveled, Intricate, Oral and Mixed.
Some of my favorite points from the book focused on the evolution of language. Language is constantly evolving, much to the chagrin of some purists. Consider these two passages concerning such evolution and particularly the usage of "lay" and "lie" (sorry Helena and Annette....):
"We tell people they have 'made a mistake' in saying I was just laying there because one is to use lie in such a context, laying being something you exert. If it was good enough for Anglo-Saxon shepherds, then it should be good enough for us. And then meanwhile we hear younger people saying He's all... instead of He said... and wince at this intrusive 'slang,' which 'isn't right' because, well, it wasn't familiar to the people who used to keep lie and lay separate? That Shakespeare spoke a different English from Chaucer is considered luscious. That people fifty years from now might speak slightly differently from us is considered a herald to the demise of civilization as we know it."
and
"...keeping lie and lay separate does not aid clarity: never have I heard someone say I'm going to just lay here for a bit and wondered desperately 'But what is he going to lay:? What???' And I most certainly have never wondered 'Who is he going to...' Plus, let us pass silently by the notion that I would think to myself 'Whom?: Whom is he...,' and the absurdity of that speaks to the general silliness in resisting the language's moving on as all languages always have--in order to become what they are now as opposed to what they were in antique stages we would never seek to restore. No one in Milan walks around annoyed that people aren't speaking Latin."
Now, I know the correct usage of lay vs. lie, and I think I usually use it correctly. But the fact is, I sometimes don't and it's probably because most of the people I hear talking do not use it correctly. Same thing with lots of different little grammar things. Our language is evolving, and though it sometimes hurts those of us who like grammar, that's just what language does. And, according to McWhorter, the way it evolves usually happens due to "an ongoing procession of mistakes."
I'm not sure how evident it is from the quotes, but McWhorter has a dry sense of humor that shines through on every page. He clearly loves his work as a linguist and finds joy in teaching others about it. This made the book much more enjoyable for me, because even though I do love the topic, who wants to read a clinical textbook? This was much more fun.
The only little criticism I have is that there was no IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) decoder. I know IPA fairly well (another thing I got to learn as a Vocal Performance Major), but I am not familiar with the symbols that occur outside of the standard opera languages. So when McWhorter cited these fabulously interesting and obscure languages, I didn't always know the IPA transcriptions used. Of course, it is easily found online, but I think it would have been nice to have it in the book, especially if we want people outside of linguist, speech therapist and singer circles to read it.
Loved this book. It gets high marks from me. And if you love learning about language, I have no doubt that you'll love it, too. Even if you are a lay/lie stickler.
Original review published here
Anyway, then I served an LDS Mission to Romania and became fluent in that language. While I was learning Romanian, I found it really interesting that when I didn't know the word for something in Romanian, but I happened to know it in some other language besides English, I always used that word for it instead. A strange mixture of Romanian, Italian and German would often come flowing out of my mouth. My brain was totally in "anything but English" mode, I guess. Nowadays, we sometimes get phone calls from Spanish-speaking telemarketers. Our surname is of Portuguese descent, but it looks like it could be Spanish, and so we occasionally get these calls. Whenever I get a phone call like this, I always immediately say, "Nu vorbesc limba spaniolă" and it makes me laugh because my brain apparently feels like it has to go into foreign language mode whenever I hear a language I don't understand.
And now I'm rambling. But the point is, I really love learning about language, and so I really loved reviewing John McWhorter's latest book: What Language Is (And What It Isn't, and What It Could Be). I am embarrassed to admit that I hadn't read any of his previous books, although I have wanted to. I gulped this one down in less than a day, much of it during opera rehearsals, and I loved how many other singers came up to me and told me that they'd read either The Power of Babel or Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue and loved it. I wasn't surprised, because opera singers generally have a pretty vested interest in language (see first paragraph of post), and now those two books are on my definite to read list, even though our little library has neither.
This book focuses on the fact that English is actually an abnormal language because it is simpler than most. The reason being is that so many adults who are not native English speakers have had to learn it, and that changed the language drastically. And I'm not talking about immigrants from the 20th century, or even the 18th and 19th centuries. More like the Vikings conquering England. Or the French. Many of the Indo-European languages are more simplified for this reason. He then goes on to explain how language evolves, and how it becomes complicated. He uses the word IDIOM to illustrate this: Language is Ingrown, Disheveled, Intricate, Oral and Mixed.
Some of my favorite points from the book focused on the evolution of language. Language is constantly evolving, much to the chagrin of some purists. Consider these two passages concerning such evolution and particularly the usage of "lay" and "lie" (sorry Helena and Annette....):
"We tell people they have 'made a mistake' in saying I was just laying there because one is to use lie in such a context, laying being something you exert. If it was good enough for Anglo-Saxon shepherds, then it should be good enough for us. And then meanwhile we hear younger people saying He's all... instead of He said... and wince at this intrusive 'slang,' which 'isn't right' because, well, it wasn't familiar to the people who used to keep lie and lay separate? That Shakespeare spoke a different English from Chaucer is considered luscious. That people fifty years from now might speak slightly differently from us is considered a herald to the demise of civilization as we know it."
and
"...keeping lie and lay separate does not aid clarity: never have I heard someone say I'm going to just lay here for a bit and wondered desperately 'But what is he going to lay:? What???' And I most certainly have never wondered 'Who is he going to...' Plus, let us pass silently by the notion that I would think to myself 'Whom?: Whom is he...,' and the absurdity of that speaks to the general silliness in resisting the language's moving on as all languages always have--in order to become what they are now as opposed to what they were in antique stages we would never seek to restore. No one in Milan walks around annoyed that people aren't speaking Latin."
Now, I know the correct usage of lay vs. lie, and I think I usually use it correctly. But the fact is, I sometimes don't and it's probably because most of the people I hear talking do not use it correctly. Same thing with lots of different little grammar things. Our language is evolving, and though it sometimes hurts those of us who like grammar, that's just what language does. And, according to McWhorter, the way it evolves usually happens due to "an ongoing procession of mistakes."
I'm not sure how evident it is from the quotes, but McWhorter has a dry sense of humor that shines through on every page. He clearly loves his work as a linguist and finds joy in teaching others about it. This made the book much more enjoyable for me, because even though I do love the topic, who wants to read a clinical textbook? This was much more fun.
The only little criticism I have is that there was no IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) decoder. I know IPA fairly well (another thing I got to learn as a Vocal Performance Major), but I am not familiar with the symbols that occur outside of the standard opera languages. So when McWhorter cited these fabulously interesting and obscure languages, I didn't always know the IPA transcriptions used. Of course, it is easily found online, but I think it would have been nice to have it in the book, especially if we want people outside of linguist, speech therapist and singer circles to read it.
Loved this book. It gets high marks from me. And if you love learning about language, I have no doubt that you'll love it, too. Even if you are a lay/lie stickler.
Original review published here
Read
July 23, 2024[Actually, I read the galleys for this book, when its title was still That Being Said, with a sticker of correction on the first page.]
McWhorter has a lot of counterintuitive metaphors. One of them – on the first page of the introduction – compares the way fish look when they are dead, lying on the beach, to the way they look alive, underwater. This is the difference between language in a grammar book and how it’s really spoken:
“And in many ways, quite often to be a linguist is to feel like you’re underwater in 1840 while everybody else is up on the beach laying jellyfish out on the rocks.”
I mention this because I read almost the entire book in the bathtub, and once I fell asleep, and it fell UNDERWATER! (So now my copy is slightly warped.)
Opening at random:
“English is an example: in that last sentence, language, mix, extent, original, replace, foreign, remain, and grammar are all borrowed from French and would have been alien to an Old English speaker.”
June 13, 2015
This book might very well be appreciated by a student of linguistics, but for the rest of us, it presents a number of difficulties which could limit its reach.
McWhorter has a rather charming style is writing: it is chatty, colloquial and intimate, as if the printed text is a transcription from spoken tapes of friendly lectures. Anyone who believes they might thus easily slide into McWhorter’s argument will come to a screeching halt the moment one arrives at transcriptions of various languages (and there are many of these throughout the text). I presume the symbols used are from the extended International Phonetics Alphabet (IPA); but unless you now what the odd squiggles and markings in, on and through the codes are, and how to speak of ‘hear’ them, one is immediately left high and dry, and not a little perplexed… Yet I have no idea how else McWhorter could have done otherwise for a printed book. Perhaps it would be better if presented in an audio version…
Be that as it may, I persisted — all books on language have many bits of information imbedded in them. McWhorter’s main argument here is that all languages start by being spoken, not written; and indeed the vast majority of languages spoken today are not even written at all. To argue that only written forms are what languages are about is as valid as saying that for marine biologists only those species which have been washed ashore (and therefore are hard and dead) constitute what they are on about; so just as real biological studies occur when the species are examined in the water where they live, so the study of languages should start from the spoken words, not the written ones.
McWhorter then proceeds to present his arguments by using the word “idiom” as an acrostic for Language being: Ingrown; Dissheveled (sic — see my comments below); Intricate; Oral; and Mixed. That is essentially what this book is about. Written language “solidifies” the sounds in specific ways which do not necessarily adequately represent the language as it is actually spoken; therefore the study of language through written transcripts is limited. (Ironically, in book form, the use of the IPA symbols themselves must therefore suggest that they, too, are limited in their expression of the sounds…)
McWhorter’s friendly style of writing also brings with it many colloquialisms which could baulk a reader, even if momentarily. Three examples come from page 12 early on in the book:
• ‘… in honor of the word idiom and its muttly history…” — I’m not going to quibble about the American spelling of “honour”, but “muttly”? Is this a colourful expression meaning “like a mongrel dog”? Or is this a misheard typo for “motley”?
• “If Archi were spoken by countless millions instead of a count-ful twelve hundred…” — “count-ful”: is this a neologism to counter and “resonate” with “countless”? Does it mean “a full count of”? In which case, should the neologism be spelled “count-full”? Or does “count-ful” merely mean “mere”?
• “dissheveled” — spelled this way throughout the whole text of the book; spelled “disheveled” (the “correct” American spelling) on the back cover blurb. Or is “dissheveled” simply a dishevelled way of spelling “disheveled”? ;-)
Another example comes towards the end of the book, from page 169:
• “Languages worldwide have been cooking down together for a very, very long time.” — If anything, “cooking down” means to heat food to thicken it and reduce it in volume; I’m not sure what that metaphor means specifically in relation to languages. Since this occurs in the section on “Language is Mixed”, I presume it means that when languages “meet” they sort of “co-habit” or borrow from one another. Whether this “thickens” either or both languages, or “reduces them in volume” is, I would suggest, a moot point.
None of the above “problems” would present too much difficulty if the text is heard rather than read. But when presented as “fixed” by being printed in a book, problems can and do arise.
More significant, however, is a conceptual difficulty. While it may be true that languages are essentially spoken, and that to study a language one must start there, I would suggest that even those languages which are written share many of the “fuzzy” qualities of the spoken word McWhorter writes about. Especially in the 21st century, the influence of the written word in any language has qualities of being Ingrown, Dishevelled, Intricate, has Oral implications, and Mixed.
In other words, the written language is also (and, indeed, has always been) in a state of flux (and, I would venture to suggest, will continue to be so into the future), so we today find ourselves in media res (as it were). To argue that to study a language properly one must start from the spoken version might very well be appropriate (maybe even necessary) for linguists; it is often also true that one could start from a written version of a language before progressing to the niceties of a spoken version…
McWhorter has a rather charming style is writing: it is chatty, colloquial and intimate, as if the printed text is a transcription from spoken tapes of friendly lectures. Anyone who believes they might thus easily slide into McWhorter’s argument will come to a screeching halt the moment one arrives at transcriptions of various languages (and there are many of these throughout the text). I presume the symbols used are from the extended International Phonetics Alphabet (IPA); but unless you now what the odd squiggles and markings in, on and through the codes are, and how to speak of ‘hear’ them, one is immediately left high and dry, and not a little perplexed… Yet I have no idea how else McWhorter could have done otherwise for a printed book. Perhaps it would be better if presented in an audio version…
Be that as it may, I persisted — all books on language have many bits of information imbedded in them. McWhorter’s main argument here is that all languages start by being spoken, not written; and indeed the vast majority of languages spoken today are not even written at all. To argue that only written forms are what languages are about is as valid as saying that for marine biologists only those species which have been washed ashore (and therefore are hard and dead) constitute what they are on about; so just as real biological studies occur when the species are examined in the water where they live, so the study of languages should start from the spoken words, not the written ones.
McWhorter then proceeds to present his arguments by using the word “idiom” as an acrostic for Language being: Ingrown; Dissheveled (sic — see my comments below); Intricate; Oral; and Mixed. That is essentially what this book is about. Written language “solidifies” the sounds in specific ways which do not necessarily adequately represent the language as it is actually spoken; therefore the study of language through written transcripts is limited. (Ironically, in book form, the use of the IPA symbols themselves must therefore suggest that they, too, are limited in their expression of the sounds…)
McWhorter’s friendly style of writing also brings with it many colloquialisms which could baulk a reader, even if momentarily. Three examples come from page 12 early on in the book:
• ‘… in honor of the word idiom and its muttly history…” — I’m not going to quibble about the American spelling of “honour”, but “muttly”? Is this a colourful expression meaning “like a mongrel dog”? Or is this a misheard typo for “motley”?
• “If Archi were spoken by countless millions instead of a count-ful twelve hundred…” — “count-ful”: is this a neologism to counter and “resonate” with “countless”? Does it mean “a full count of”? In which case, should the neologism be spelled “count-full”? Or does “count-ful” merely mean “mere”?
• “dissheveled” — spelled this way throughout the whole text of the book; spelled “disheveled” (the “correct” American spelling) on the back cover blurb. Or is “dissheveled” simply a dishevelled way of spelling “disheveled”? ;-)
Another example comes towards the end of the book, from page 169:
• “Languages worldwide have been cooking down together for a very, very long time.” — If anything, “cooking down” means to heat food to thicken it and reduce it in volume; I’m not sure what that metaphor means specifically in relation to languages. Since this occurs in the section on “Language is Mixed”, I presume it means that when languages “meet” they sort of “co-habit” or borrow from one another. Whether this “thickens” either or both languages, or “reduces them in volume” is, I would suggest, a moot point.
None of the above “problems” would present too much difficulty if the text is heard rather than read. But when presented as “fixed” by being printed in a book, problems can and do arise.
More significant, however, is a conceptual difficulty. While it may be true that languages are essentially spoken, and that to study a language one must start there, I would suggest that even those languages which are written share many of the “fuzzy” qualities of the spoken word McWhorter writes about. Especially in the 21st century, the influence of the written word in any language has qualities of being Ingrown, Dishevelled, Intricate, has Oral implications, and Mixed.
In other words, the written language is also (and, indeed, has always been) in a state of flux (and, I would venture to suggest, will continue to be so into the future), so we today find ourselves in media res (as it were). To argue that to study a language properly one must start from the spoken version might very well be appropriate (maybe even necessary) for linguists; it is often also true that one could start from a written version of a language before progressing to the niceties of a spoken version…
December 6, 2011
John McWhorter tries to dispel several misconceptions people have about language in this 2011 book "What Language Is (And What It Isn’t And What It Could Be)."
McWhorter, who taught at UC Berkeley for many years and as of this writing in 2011 teaches at Columbia, says that many languages, spoken by few people and isolated from the influences of other languages, become “ingrown,” that is, become amazingly complicated and prone to making distinctions that, to an outsider, can seem most trivial.
On the other hand, you have languages like Persian and English. Old Persian was a language with a great grammatical complexity, spoken in an empire 550–330 BCE that embraced many peoples and languages. Because these other peoples had to some extent to learn Persian as adults to live and work in the empire, the Persian language (Farsi) evolved to a language of greater simplicity, a kind of creole, McWhorter points out.
English is a prime example of a language who grammar was simplified as it moved from Old English to Middle English to Modern English. The Angles and Saxons in Britain of 1,500 years ago spoke a language that rubbed against those spoken by the Celts and the many invaders of Britain over the centuries, especially the Vikings, Danes, Romans, and Norman French. Old English is as complicated as modern German and Russian in its grammar, whereas English today has lost its noun, adjective, and article declensions; much of its verb conjugations; and is the only Indo-European language in Europe without grammatical gender.
McWhorter also makes the point that all languages are complex in their own way and that there is no thing as a “pure” language. English is the least pure of almost any of the world’s thousands of languages. Over the centuries, it has taken words and expressions from a long list of languages, both well-known and obscure: from Old German, classical Greek, Latin (half the vocabulary of English is originally from Latin), Russian (sputnik, intelligentsia, bolshevik, etc.) to Chinese (ketchup, tea, gung ho, etc.) to Nahuatl (chocolate, tomato) to Tshiluba (gumbo) to Malay (amok) to Guugu Yimidhirr (kangaroo), to name a few.
This book is not as insightful as his 2003 book "Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care," which I read several years ago, and I think this later book will be of interest only for students of linguistics.
McWhorter, who taught at UC Berkeley for many years and as of this writing in 2011 teaches at Columbia, says that many languages, spoken by few people and isolated from the influences of other languages, become “ingrown,” that is, become amazingly complicated and prone to making distinctions that, to an outsider, can seem most trivial.
On the other hand, you have languages like Persian and English. Old Persian was a language with a great grammatical complexity, spoken in an empire 550–330 BCE that embraced many peoples and languages. Because these other peoples had to some extent to learn Persian as adults to live and work in the empire, the Persian language (Farsi) evolved to a language of greater simplicity, a kind of creole, McWhorter points out.
English is a prime example of a language who grammar was simplified as it moved from Old English to Middle English to Modern English. The Angles and Saxons in Britain of 1,500 years ago spoke a language that rubbed against those spoken by the Celts and the many invaders of Britain over the centuries, especially the Vikings, Danes, Romans, and Norman French. Old English is as complicated as modern German and Russian in its grammar, whereas English today has lost its noun, adjective, and article declensions; much of its verb conjugations; and is the only Indo-European language in Europe without grammatical gender.
McWhorter also makes the point that all languages are complex in their own way and that there is no thing as a “pure” language. English is the least pure of almost any of the world’s thousands of languages. Over the centuries, it has taken words and expressions from a long list of languages, both well-known and obscure: from Old German, classical Greek, Latin (half the vocabulary of English is originally from Latin), Russian (sputnik, intelligentsia, bolshevik, etc.) to Chinese (ketchup, tea, gung ho, etc.) to Nahuatl (chocolate, tomato) to Tshiluba (gumbo) to Malay (amok) to Guugu Yimidhirr (kangaroo), to name a few.
This book is not as insightful as his 2003 book "Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care," which I read several years ago, and I think this later book will be of interest only for students of linguistics.
May 11, 2011
Insightful, surprising and humorous, John McWhorter’s latest book is a tour of human languages through time and around the world. He presents an almost biological view of language as a living, evolving organism, and does great job illustrating how languages proliferate, transform, and disperse, with fascinating examples of everyday speech from native tongues of the past and present.
If you are not familiar with his ideas this book may turn your unexamined assumptions about language upside down. For instance, he has an expanded view of what constitutes a “real” language, including speech commonly considered defective or improper even by the people using it, and he explains why a language is not primitive or lacking in clarity just because it does not have a written version. Most of the languages of the world are unwritten and it’s actually the unwritten languages that tend to be especially complex, with intricate, hard to learn grammars and lots of micro-specific qualifiers, noun cases, genders and verb tenses. In contrast, some of our most familiar modern languages, Persian, Swahili, Mandarin and English, have been drastically simplified-- dumbed-down and streamlined though perfectly functional--because they long ago had to be learned by legions of adults who had already outgrown the childhood knack of language acquisition (for English these adults were the Vikings).
Among the corollaries to the idea that languages evolve like living creatures is that it is natural to expect that languages will change and silly to try to prevent it. The form of Modern English cherished and defended by language purists today developed from Old English through hundreds of “mistakes”. Other topics covered in McWhorter’s book are why it’s natural for language to be filled with all kinds of illogical constructions that you just have to know, why Black English is more like nonstandard dialects of Great Britain than any African language, why the Navaho language could be used as an unbreakable code during WWII, and how languages can be used like DNA to track human migration.
Note--That Being Said seems to be the working title, but I believe the book will be published in August with the title What Language Is: And What it Isn't and What It Could Be
If you are not familiar with his ideas this book may turn your unexamined assumptions about language upside down. For instance, he has an expanded view of what constitutes a “real” language, including speech commonly considered defective or improper even by the people using it, and he explains why a language is not primitive or lacking in clarity just because it does not have a written version. Most of the languages of the world are unwritten and it’s actually the unwritten languages that tend to be especially complex, with intricate, hard to learn grammars and lots of micro-specific qualifiers, noun cases, genders and verb tenses. In contrast, some of our most familiar modern languages, Persian, Swahili, Mandarin and English, have been drastically simplified-- dumbed-down and streamlined though perfectly functional--because they long ago had to be learned by legions of adults who had already outgrown the childhood knack of language acquisition (for English these adults were the Vikings).
Among the corollaries to the idea that languages evolve like living creatures is that it is natural to expect that languages will change and silly to try to prevent it. The form of Modern English cherished and defended by language purists today developed from Old English through hundreds of “mistakes”. Other topics covered in McWhorter’s book are why it’s natural for language to be filled with all kinds of illogical constructions that you just have to know, why Black English is more like nonstandard dialects of Great Britain than any African language, why the Navaho language could be used as an unbreakable code during WWII, and how languages can be used like DNA to track human migration.
Note--That Being Said seems to be the working title, but I believe the book will be published in August with the title What Language Is: And What it Isn't and What It Could Be
January 6, 2012
This short popular book argues that language is five things. It is ingrown, which is to say by the virtue of its grammar each utterance provides more information than strictly necessary. In English, a sentence must indicate whether the event happened in the past or will happen in the future; in a language of West Papua, a sentence must indicate whether it was light or dark outside. It is disheveled, which is to say it contains illogical rules and exceptions. English has quite a few of these (why is being close called closeness, being warm called warmth, being humid called humidity, and being irrelevant called irrelevancy?), but Navajo has many more. It is intricate, which is to say it obeys the rules of its grammar; even young creole languages of the Caribbean have grammars that are hard to describe precisely. They are oral: in English, you can write, "Mom went to work, having spoiled my morning," but saying it will make you sound weird; you must say, "Mom spoiled my morning and went to work". The written form of the Sinhala language of Sri Lanka inflects the verbs, and the spoken form doesn't, and the latter is more important; this was especially true before the age of mass literacy. It is mixed; there is no such thing as a pure language. Some languages, however, are more mixed than others; a few villages in the Western China speak a language with a vocabulary that is mostly Chinese and Tibetan and a grammar that is mostly Mongolian. As in his other books, McWhorter discusses his favorite topic, African American Vernacular English. Like Moroccan Arabic compared to Standard Arabic and Modern Israeli Hebrew compared to Biblical Hebrew, African American Vernacular English started out with a slightly simplified grammar of English, and tacked on more complexity, such as using "ass" as a kind of metonymic pseudo-pronoun (which made me wonder whether "why don't you move your free black ass out my spot" in the Civil War movie "Glory" is anachronistic).
July 17, 2015
This is a fun book about language. McWhorter does a great job of highlighting all the completely normal bizarre weirdness that is language. He uses an acronym, IDIOM, to structure his discussion. IDIOM means that language is Ingrown, Disheveled, Intricate, Oral, and Mixed. By Ingrown he means that the languages, left to themselves without external influence of other languages, develop more and more features that indicate all kinds of things that other languages leave unmarked without a problem. For example, there are languages that have 10 genders (noun classifications)! Disheveled refers to the way languages have lots of illogical, redundant, and irregular features (e.g. flammable and inflammable). Intricate is about how all languages—even stripped down disheveled mixed up ones—have complex systems of rules. In the Oral chapter, McWhorter argues that writing is not the whole of a language and that we ought to pay more attention to the spoken aspect of language to really understand language. Lastly, Mixed is about how languages interact, coexist, borrow, and mix together. Along the way, you learn about Navajo, Black English, and lots of tiny language communities in Southeast Asia.
The book is not technical or ‘academic,’ so it is highly readable. That also means that it pretty much skims the surface of things. This is really a kind primer or appetizer for linguistics. (I’d recommend McWhorter’s Teaching Co. courses if you want some more detail: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/professors/john-mcwhorter/.) He has some views about language that will certainly piss some people off—in particularly the relationship between oral and written language and the implications of this for grammar. He is, though, good at noting disagreements and controversies within linguistics.
The book is not technical or ‘academic,’ so it is highly readable. That also means that it pretty much skims the surface of things. This is really a kind primer or appetizer for linguistics. (I’d recommend McWhorter’s Teaching Co. courses if you want some more detail: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/professors/john-mcwhorter/.) He has some views about language that will certainly piss some people off—in particularly the relationship between oral and written language and the implications of this for grammar. He is, though, good at noting disagreements and controversies within linguistics.
August 12, 2011
If you've ever wondered why the English language is structured the way it is ~ and why other languages are structured differently ~ What Language Is: And What It Isn't and What It Could Be by John McWhorter will shed light on the situation. McWharter, a renowned linguist, helps us understand how language develops over time, how each language relates to others and how brand new languages emerge within the modern world.
He presents this information using IDIOM as an acronym: Language, according to McWhorter, is Ingrown, Dissheveled, Intricate, Oral and Mixed. Each aspect gets its own chapter, where he presents stories and examples from many different languages ~ some that you've heard of and others that you probably didn't know existed. It's a fascinating look at the development and evolution of language around the world.
Overall, this is a very informative book. McWhorter interjects humor and interesting facts throughout in an effort to keep the discussion somewhat lighthearted. But the book definitely has an academic feel to it and is a bit dry at times. I personally got bogged down in the examples of conjugated verbs and other types of grammar in various languages. I think the examples are necessary but my brain wanted to sit and study them and understand them, when I should have just glanced at them and moved on.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in words, grammar or linguistics in general, as well as anyone who is interested in the history of languages around the world. As I said above, it really is a fascinating topic if you don't get too bogged down in the details.
He presents this information using IDIOM as an acronym: Language, according to McWhorter, is Ingrown, Dissheveled, Intricate, Oral and Mixed. Each aspect gets its own chapter, where he presents stories and examples from many different languages ~ some that you've heard of and others that you probably didn't know existed. It's a fascinating look at the development and evolution of language around the world.
Overall, this is a very informative book. McWhorter interjects humor and interesting facts throughout in an effort to keep the discussion somewhat lighthearted. But the book definitely has an academic feel to it and is a bit dry at times. I personally got bogged down in the examples of conjugated verbs and other types of grammar in various languages. I think the examples are necessary but my brain wanted to sit and study them and understand them, when I should have just glanced at them and moved on.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in words, grammar or linguistics in general, as well as anyone who is interested in the history of languages around the world. As I said above, it really is a fascinating topic if you don't get too bogged down in the details.
September 12, 2013
John McWhorter has written an engaging book on what language looks like to a linguist. These characteristics of language aren't tables of grammar and lists of vocabulary. Instead, using the mnemonic of "IDIOM", McWhorter characterizes all languages as ingrown, disheveled, intricate, oral, and mixed. Languages are complex, and a language's lack of complexity is an indication of something extraordinary in its development. Chapters 2 ("disheveled") and 3 ("intricate") were for me the most fascinating. Why do we do certain things in language and not others? McWhorter makes a persuasive case that correctness in language is not some fixed standard but socially constructed and quite variable.
Although I really liked this book, the "IDIOM" mnemonic feels a bit forced at times. The "ingrown" categorization was a bit confusing to me until I realized that "overgrown" was a better descriptor even though it doesn't help create a catchy mnemonic. Also, the first three categories ("ingrown", "disheveled", and "intricate") aren't as neatly separate as the idiom suggests.
If you're interested in languages, you'll find this an engaging read. I am a great fan of McWhorter's popular writing on language, but if you haven't read any of his work before, I'd actually recommend starting with an earlier book of his, Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold Story of English , before this one, as it would help you to better understand his arguments in this book.
Although I really liked this book, the "IDIOM" mnemonic feels a bit forced at times. The "ingrown" categorization was a bit confusing to me until I realized that "overgrown" was a better descriptor even though it doesn't help create a catchy mnemonic. Also, the first three categories ("ingrown", "disheveled", and "intricate") aren't as neatly separate as the idiom suggests.
If you're interested in languages, you'll find this an engaging read. I am a great fan of McWhorter's popular writing on language, but if you haven't read any of his work before, I'd actually recommend starting with an earlier book of his, Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold Story of English , before this one, as it would help you to better understand his arguments in this book.
October 12, 2011
Oh, man, I love him and I love linguistics and it's all so FUN. I love how he views languages and how he explains them - it makes such good sense to me. Language is evolving all the time because it's a living, breathing thing created by people. We change, it changes. We speak a bastardized version of Old English that Vikings massacred in their attempts to learn it, but it doesn't take away from our language at all. The constant evolution of Black English and informal internet writing styles aren't wrong, either. They're growing. I love it. And I loved the world wide look at how languages evolve and what makes languages simple (like English or Persian) as opposed to complicated (like, well, pretty much everything else).
Favorite footnote: The Viv character in an early episode of Lucille Ball's sitcom after I Love Lucy, The Lucy Show, did contrast oldth with youth. But it was intended as a joke, which is my point. I mention this because you'd be surprised how particular people get who write you after reading your books. I could not have it thought that I didn't buy the DVD set of the first season of The Lucy Show as soon as it came out. There are certain priorities in this thing called life, after all.
Amusing side note on how language changes meaning over time: As late as the 17th century, when applied to a woman the word [slut] could mean just high-spirited - from a modern perspective, one of the oddest entries in Samuel Pepys's diary is "Our little girl Susan is a most admirable slut, and pleases us mightily."
Favorite footnote: The Viv character in an early episode of Lucille Ball's sitcom after I Love Lucy, The Lucy Show, did contrast oldth with youth. But it was intended as a joke, which is my point. I mention this because you'd be surprised how particular people get who write you after reading your books. I could not have it thought that I didn't buy the DVD set of the first season of The Lucy Show as soon as it came out. There are certain priorities in this thing called life, after all.
Amusing side note on how language changes meaning over time: As late as the 17th century, when applied to a woman the word [slut] could mean just high-spirited - from a modern perspective, one of the oddest entries in Samuel Pepys's diary is "Our little girl Susan is a most admirable slut, and pleases us mightily."
January 22, 2012
The meme going around in my grade school so very many years ago was that English is one of the hardest languages to learn. It turns out that that is completely not true. In fact, English grammar is one of the simplest there is (Persian being another). If you want a language that's really hard to learn, look at languages that are spoken only within very small, insular societies; languages that aren't influenced by an influx of adult learners. There are languages in which virtually every verb is irregular; a language in which there are not just 2 noun genders (as in the romance languages) or 3 (as in German), but 10! Languages in which plural forms of nouns bear only the slightest resemblance to their singular form. Any kind of complexity you can think of, and lots that would never occur to you: some language has it.
So McWhorter talks about the nature of language, how languages evolve, how they accrete features and complexities, and how they get simplified if they are inundated by foreign adult language learners.
This is all pretty fascinating stuff, if you are interested in language.
One thing that was a little distracting about the book is that McWhorter's writing style wanders all over the place. In one paragraph he's academic and formal, in the next he's completely colloquial. He injects odd parenthetical comments where they are not needed. It can be a bit distracting.
But he certainly knows his stuff, has a point of view, and provides plenty of interesting examples to bolster his theses.
So McWhorter talks about the nature of language, how languages evolve, how they accrete features and complexities, and how they get simplified if they are inundated by foreign adult language learners.
This is all pretty fascinating stuff, if you are interested in language.
One thing that was a little distracting about the book is that McWhorter's writing style wanders all over the place. In one paragraph he's academic and formal, in the next he's completely colloquial. He injects odd parenthetical comments where they are not needed. It can be a bit distracting.
But he certainly knows his stuff, has a point of view, and provides plenty of interesting examples to bolster his theses.
Read
February 5, 2021Linguistics has got to be one of the dryest subjects on earth, with all its tenses and cases and inflections. Except in the hands of John McWhorter, who addresses the subject with such enthusiasm, and with such a perky style of writing that he makes it fun. His witty asides are the spoonful of sugar, but even without them, the medicine would still go down easily enough, because he explains complex concepts clearly, a little at a time.
The big concept is that languages, left alone over time, grow ever more complex. The languages of isolated peoples are not "primitive" languages, but so difficult to master that only children (who have a knack for it) can pick them up with ease. Languages become simplified when a large influx of foreign adults are forced to learn them, a process McWhorter calls the "Persian Conversion." What emerges is not "bad" language, but new language.
McWhorter wants us to respect the living, breathing words that people conduct their daily lives in. The written language is not better or purer or more correct, but is a snapshot of the past. Languages are constantly changing, and trying to prevent the changes is like someone on the beach "trying to keep the shoreline dry with a towel."
The big concept is that languages, left alone over time, grow ever more complex. The languages of isolated peoples are not "primitive" languages, but so difficult to master that only children (who have a knack for it) can pick them up with ease. Languages become simplified when a large influx of foreign adults are forced to learn them, a process McWhorter calls the "Persian Conversion." What emerges is not "bad" language, but new language.
McWhorter wants us to respect the living, breathing words that people conduct their daily lives in. The written language is not better or purer or more correct, but is a snapshot of the past. Languages are constantly changing, and trying to prevent the changes is like someone on the beach "trying to keep the shoreline dry with a towel."
August 5, 2018
McWhorter's exploration of the ins and outs of language is definitely not for everyone, but I found it particularly interesting. McWhorter covers a lot of different areas of language as he digs pretty deep into how language works, and his examples cover dozens of languages around the world, breaking down the grammar and structure and explaining how meaning is derived, so this book probably would appeal most to people with at least some familiarity with the science and/or philosophy of language. Despite the small-ish size, there's a lot of meat, and I found myself excitedly sharing different aspects with the people around me on more than one occasion. I found McWhorter's writing style very conversational, despite the topic. I could easily picture some of the chapters as "almost drunk party conversations."
October 2, 2018
Great Book to be used for a capstone project. Great resource with great references. His style is unique and I think I am become less fond of it the more I read. That being said, this is the third or fourth book I have reed by him in a few months. Great resource for anyone interested in language history, etc.
August 9, 2011
An absolute must for all libraries. My full review may be read on my book review blog Rundpinne.
August 15, 2011
Columbia University Professor and socical critic John McWhorter is what I call America's premier public linguist. And his latest book is an accessible and comprehensive overview on language that friendly in tone, and formidable in sscholarship - a must read!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews