What do you think?
Rate this book
The Miracle of Language
This book is about the English language, it's nature, history & development (including urban legends of etymologies), & how it is taught. The author makes a good case that English, like Chinese, is a distributive language (word positioning determines meaning) vs. Latin et al which are inflective languages (word endings, such as cases, determine meaning). p. 152: "Any careful examination of the so-called parts of speech will reveal that they mean very little...They do not reveal the functioning of Modern English. The grammar of an inflected language, Latin, has been forced upon a distributed language, English, which has been wrenched in an attempt to make it fit the alien grammar." Therefore, it is absurd to judge English by Latin standards & educators should modify their methods of teaching English to reflect this. Educators should admit that p. 219: "Words mean what they mean by common consent, so a given spelling, pronunciation, or construction is "right" or "wrong" depending upon its currency" & p. 218: "Adjectives often cannot be distinguished from adverbs & that words like up, out, off & by are frequently not prepositions but some part of the verb or complement." Furthermore, he argues that English has by far the most words, the greatest flexibility & precision, & virtually the only books of synonyms reflecting this-- p. 54: "Most speakers of other languages are not aware that such books exist." Furthermore, p. 236: "A movement from inflection as a grammatical device toward distribution seems to be a movement toward a modern world" & p. 238: "English has by all odds the best prospect of becoming a world language." He points out that historically, languages follow financial success vs. political success; daily usage (e.g. Anglo-Saxon) triumphs over political conquest (Norman French). As he perceptively p. 17: "If language is intimately related to being human, then when we study language we are, to a remarkable degree.
255 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1953
4 people are currently reading
57 people want to read
About the author
Charlton Grant Laird
31 books2 followersCharlton Grant Laird (1901–1984) was an American linguist, lexicographer, novelist, and essayist. Laird created the 1971 edition of the Webster's New World Thesaurus that became the standardized edition still used today. During his lifetime, he was probably best known for his language studies: books, textbooks, and reference works elucidating the English language for the layman along with his numerous contributions to dictionaries and thesauruses.
Source: Wikipedia
Source: Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
October 30, 2017
The book is about language in general and English in particular.
Laird notes that “basically all speech is dialectical.” “Language,” he writes, “will follow power, all sorts of power” and when one group becomes dominant, it defines what is proper and correct. “We used to assume that the New England dialects were better than the others,” he says, “because most of the lexicographers came from New England.”
Laird states that language is like an amoeba doing its thing, to a point. Words either generalize by taking on new meanings or divide to become more specialized. “The great bulk of meaning,” he writes, “are either logical enlargements of a meaning already established, or they are selections from within the general area of a meaning, with development from within. But not always. Some meanings are radical departures.”
Language is mainly sound. Only recently “could anybody read or write.” A stream of air “can be allowed to flow freely, or it can be disturbed,” he says. “If disturbed, it can be disturbed in three ways: it can be stopped completely; it can be constricted; it can be made to vibrate as a column….The three means of disturbing the breath stream are the means by which we speak….all speech employs this vocal trinity,” adding that for particular sounds, breath is “but little restricted” for vowels and “considerably restricted” for consonants.
Common references to the mother tongue are literally true. We learn word sounds early. “Mommy stays home, and Daddy does not – it is as simple as that. Women transmit the language, and they do it by oral means. Some of this transmission is deliberate….Most of it is unconscious.” Formal teaching of language is secondary. “You and I who read and write books have very little effect upon language. We may think about it, write about it, and read about it, but it goes on without us, or in spite of us.” Later, language comes from peers. “Usually the dullest dolt in school learned more English grammar playing with his fellows than was printed in his grammar book,” Laird comments.
The author’s commentary on grammar is a challenge. There are two fundamental principles. The first is inflection where the meaning of words changes forms (e.g., me, my, I), which comes from Latin. The other is the distributive principle where the meaning is determined by a word’s placement within a sentence, which he says is “the basis of English grammar.” Words “have precise meaning in a certain position, and are gibberish in another position” (e.g., John reads a book. A book reads John).
Laird then asks, “What is grammar? Does anyone know?” and his response is, “No….The best grammarians do not agree as to exactly how are grammar works.” The basic problem is that English uses both Latin grammar and its inflected language and the distributive language it has evolved to become. Grammarians try to put language into categories but, despite the gloss of correctness, he says this does not really work.
As an example (there are many), he provides the following sentence: “I expect to go,” and then asks, “is ‘to go’ the object of expect, or is ‘to go’ the main part of the verb and ‘expect’ an auxiliary, as ‘have’ surely must be in ‘I have to go.’” Similarly, in the sentence, “He went to the store,” Laird asks if ‘to the store is a prepositional phrase or the complement of the verb.’” Possessives are chronic problems. They do not literally mean something is possessed. “Your candidate” is yours only because you intend to vote for him/her,” he says. Though I can’t say I really understand this, it does put one on alert that there are issues.
If language is dialect, Laird asks, “who is doing the policing, and how?” Until recently, the problem has been with the “policemen of usage” who “were inclined to assume that there was a universal grammatical truth as there was a universal religious truth….if they appealed to authority at all, they appealed to Latin. But most of them did not appeal. They asserted.” Yet, he writes, “language must not only have flexibility to live and grow, it must have currency to be understood” through common meanings and rules. “Language should have restrictive but not coercive standards,” he concludes, and he acknowledges that increasingly “new books rest standards of grammatical correctness … upon usage.”
Laird notes that “basically all speech is dialectical.” “Language,” he writes, “will follow power, all sorts of power” and when one group becomes dominant, it defines what is proper and correct. “We used to assume that the New England dialects were better than the others,” he says, “because most of the lexicographers came from New England.”
Laird states that language is like an amoeba doing its thing, to a point. Words either generalize by taking on new meanings or divide to become more specialized. “The great bulk of meaning,” he writes, “are either logical enlargements of a meaning already established, or they are selections from within the general area of a meaning, with development from within. But not always. Some meanings are radical departures.”
Language is mainly sound. Only recently “could anybody read or write.” A stream of air “can be allowed to flow freely, or it can be disturbed,” he says. “If disturbed, it can be disturbed in three ways: it can be stopped completely; it can be constricted; it can be made to vibrate as a column….The three means of disturbing the breath stream are the means by which we speak….all speech employs this vocal trinity,” adding that for particular sounds, breath is “but little restricted” for vowels and “considerably restricted” for consonants.
Common references to the mother tongue are literally true. We learn word sounds early. “Mommy stays home, and Daddy does not – it is as simple as that. Women transmit the language, and they do it by oral means. Some of this transmission is deliberate….Most of it is unconscious.” Formal teaching of language is secondary. “You and I who read and write books have very little effect upon language. We may think about it, write about it, and read about it, but it goes on without us, or in spite of us.” Later, language comes from peers. “Usually the dullest dolt in school learned more English grammar playing with his fellows than was printed in his grammar book,” Laird comments.
The author’s commentary on grammar is a challenge. There are two fundamental principles. The first is inflection where the meaning of words changes forms (e.g., me, my, I), which comes from Latin. The other is the distributive principle where the meaning is determined by a word’s placement within a sentence, which he says is “the basis of English grammar.” Words “have precise meaning in a certain position, and are gibberish in another position” (e.g., John reads a book. A book reads John).
Laird then asks, “What is grammar? Does anyone know?” and his response is, “No….The best grammarians do not agree as to exactly how are grammar works.” The basic problem is that English uses both Latin grammar and its inflected language and the distributive language it has evolved to become. Grammarians try to put language into categories but, despite the gloss of correctness, he says this does not really work.
As an example (there are many), he provides the following sentence: “I expect to go,” and then asks, “is ‘to go’ the object of expect, or is ‘to go’ the main part of the verb and ‘expect’ an auxiliary, as ‘have’ surely must be in ‘I have to go.’” Similarly, in the sentence, “He went to the store,” Laird asks if ‘to the store is a prepositional phrase or the complement of the verb.’” Possessives are chronic problems. They do not literally mean something is possessed. “Your candidate” is yours only because you intend to vote for him/her,” he says. Though I can’t say I really understand this, it does put one on alert that there are issues.
If language is dialect, Laird asks, “who is doing the policing, and how?” Until recently, the problem has been with the “policemen of usage” who “were inclined to assume that there was a universal grammatical truth as there was a universal religious truth….if they appealed to authority at all, they appealed to Latin. But most of them did not appeal. They asserted.” Yet, he writes, “language must not only have flexibility to live and grow, it must have currency to be understood” through common meanings and rules. “Language should have restrictive but not coercive standards,” he concludes, and he acknowledges that increasingly “new books rest standards of grammatical correctness … upon usage.”
January 25, 2021
With this book, armchair linguists can find out how languages, especially English, develop over time. Chaucer broke ground by writing it down, Noah Webster by standardizing spelling, etc. It is interesting how one of the author's points--that language is constantly evolving--is proven in the book.
Obviously, even since the book was written in the 1950s, English has changed because I don't know of anyone who would write in the author's (to my ears) distinct, somewhat alien tone. I don't know exactly how to put it into words what that tone is. Gregory Peck and horn-rimmed glasses, I suppose, and Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and crackly speeches on the radio. We simply don't talk that way anymore. As the book so eloquently argues, time, and language, march on.
Obviously, even since the book was written in the 1950s, English has changed because I don't know of anyone who would write in the author's (to my ears) distinct, somewhat alien tone. I don't know exactly how to put it into words what that tone is. Gregory Peck and horn-rimmed glasses, I suppose, and Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and crackly speeches on the radio. We simply don't talk that way anymore. As the book so eloquently argues, time, and language, march on.
February 13, 2015
One of the best books I have ever read. He makes the study of language enjoyable. A friend of mine took courses with him while he worked on his doctorate and he says Laird was a great prof. I previously reviewed this book and not having my copy at hand took a list on this site to have the correct author. That was a mistake.
June 6, 2025
I have many criticisms, most of which occur as a reflection of the time period in which this was written—including but not limited to so many unacknowledged & unrecognized racist, colonialist, and imperialist ideas & biases which colored the author's view points at times—but there was still good to be found in here as well, and I was struck by how beautifully Laird could write about his subject, particularly in the beginning chapters of this book.
December 5, 2025
Imagine you live alone in a desert.
September 28, 2012
I loved this book, which is essentially an introduction to linguistics. I picked it up in Seattle for reasons i can't remember (i think i was looking for a book on chess) and read it on a bus ride back to Philly. The ride almost certainly influenced my feelings about the book but it's opening is sure to hook any skeptic. Charlton Laird was an editor of websters dictionary and whatever passions drove him to that he poured into this book. The edition I read was from the fifties and almost surely outdated by now, but it dips a toe into everything from regional accents, to the migration of languages to how we form speech. I'm sure there are better books on the subject, but if you're in a used bookstore, trying to find something to occupy your mind through the Dakotas and beyond, you could do worse.
Read
January 9, 2019good book
March 24, 2019
I loved this book and would recommend it enthusiastically. I am about to re-read it because it keeps coming to mind. It was in my living room bookshelf, and I thought somehow I had lost it. It explains a lot about the source and weirdness of the English language, and how languages spread throughout the world. Fascinating!
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews