What do you think?
Rate this book
Language Myths
The media are ruining English"; "Some languages are harder than others"; "Children can't speak or write properly anymore." Such pieces of "cultural wisdom" are often expressed in newspapers and on radio and television. Rarely is there a response from experts in the fields of language and language development. In this book Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill have invited nineteen respected linguists from all over the world to address these "language myths"--showing that they vary from the misconceived to the downright wrong. With essays ranging from "Women Talk Too Much" and "In the Appalachians They Speak Like Shakespeare" to "Italian Is Beautiful, German Is Ugly" and "They Speak Really Bad English Down South and in New York City," Language Myths is a collection that is wide-ranging, entertaining, and authoritative.
189 pages, Paperback
First published November 26, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews
June 24, 2014
Interesting and fun if you want to dig deeper into how language and our perception of it changes over time (and space).
I borrowed this book from a colleague and read it with great pleasure, as I find language myths very exciting. I particularly enjoyed the essay "Women talk too much", and was quick to tell my colleague afterwards, when returning the book, that there is convincing evidence that it is a real myth! Men tend to have more air time and talk more in public and at meetings.
My colleague just raised an eyebrow, smiled sarcastically, and told me:
"There are always exceptions to the rule, as you know, Lisa!"
And then he left, whistling, leaving me to talk to myself!
I borrowed this book from a colleague and read it with great pleasure, as I find language myths very exciting. I particularly enjoyed the essay "Women talk too much", and was quick to tell my colleague afterwards, when returning the book, that there is convincing evidence that it is a real myth! Men tend to have more air time and talk more in public and at meetings.
My colleague just raised an eyebrow, smiled sarcastically, and told me:
"There are always exceptions to the rule, as you know, Lisa!"
And then he left, whistling, leaving me to talk to myself!
July 13, 2007
I found this book to be a great disappointment. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing I find healthier than a little myth-debunking. So I was predisposed to like this collection of 21 essays, edited by Bauer and Trudgill.
Each chapter takes a particular 'language myth' and then argues against the validity of the myth, some more convincingly than others. (Having tried to learn both Russian and Spanish as foreign languages, I think it's fair to say that the statement "Some languages are harder than others" is not a myth). The quality of the contributions is somewhat variable, though most are quite readable. This accessibility to readers who may not necessarily have any formal exposure to linguistics is the book's main strength, in my view.
The reason for my disappointment is that, for almost half the chapters, I found the stated myth to be a straw man, which made those chapters not particularly interesting to read. There were two common problems - in some cases, the wording of the myth was so non-specific as to be meaningless, another common flaw was that the myth was worded in a very extreme fashion, essentially presenting a straw man for the author to demolish.
For instance, myth 1 "The meanings of words should not be allowed to vary or change" is couched in such absolute terms that anyone expressing even slight disagreement is automatically made to seem unreasonable. Or take the example "bad grammar is slovenly". The author appears to interpret "bad" grammar to mean anything that deviates, even slightly, from some highly codified set of rules. The acknowledgement that one can communicate clearly, without ambiguity, without sticking to the letter of the law each and every time, is hardly startling, That said, there are some deviations from the rules which are not helpful, because they induce an avoidable ambiguity. This type of bad grammar is indeed slovenly. By arguing against a strawman of questionable relevance, an opportunity is lost to explore the question in a more nuanced fashion.
Other allegedly widespread myths whose prevalence I found questionable were "Some languages are just not good enough" (what does this even mean?), "French is a logical language", "Women talk too much" (are these people serious?), "Some languages have no grammar" (does anyone over the age of 10 seriously believe this for an instant?), "You shouldn't say 'It is me'" (why single out this particular example?), "Everyone has an accent except me", "They speak really bad English down South and in New York City", "In the Appalachians they speak like Shakespeare" (even if one tries to take this seriously, the inevitable question rises unbidden: "how would anyone know?")
I might have liked the book better if it had eschewed the "mythbusting" device, the effect of which was to polarize arguments unnecessarily, and instead had just explored the questions raised in a less artificially polemic manner.
Each chapter takes a particular 'language myth' and then argues against the validity of the myth, some more convincingly than others. (Having tried to learn both Russian and Spanish as foreign languages, I think it's fair to say that the statement "Some languages are harder than others" is not a myth). The quality of the contributions is somewhat variable, though most are quite readable. This accessibility to readers who may not necessarily have any formal exposure to linguistics is the book's main strength, in my view.
The reason for my disappointment is that, for almost half the chapters, I found the stated myth to be a straw man, which made those chapters not particularly interesting to read. There were two common problems - in some cases, the wording of the myth was so non-specific as to be meaningless, another common flaw was that the myth was worded in a very extreme fashion, essentially presenting a straw man for the author to demolish.
For instance, myth 1 "The meanings of words should not be allowed to vary or change" is couched in such absolute terms that anyone expressing even slight disagreement is automatically made to seem unreasonable. Or take the example "bad grammar is slovenly". The author appears to interpret "bad" grammar to mean anything that deviates, even slightly, from some highly codified set of rules. The acknowledgement that one can communicate clearly, without ambiguity, without sticking to the letter of the law each and every time, is hardly startling, That said, there are some deviations from the rules which are not helpful, because they induce an avoidable ambiguity. This type of bad grammar is indeed slovenly. By arguing against a strawman of questionable relevance, an opportunity is lost to explore the question in a more nuanced fashion.
Other allegedly widespread myths whose prevalence I found questionable were "Some languages are just not good enough" (what does this even mean?), "French is a logical language", "Women talk too much" (are these people serious?), "Some languages have no grammar" (does anyone over the age of 10 seriously believe this for an instant?), "You shouldn't say 'It is me'" (why single out this particular example?), "Everyone has an accent except me", "They speak really bad English down South and in New York City", "In the Appalachians they speak like Shakespeare" (even if one tries to take this seriously, the inevitable question rises unbidden: "how would anyone know?")
I might have liked the book better if it had eschewed the "mythbusting" device, the effect of which was to polarize arguments unnecessarily, and instead had just explored the questions raised in a less artificially polemic manner.
Read
August 5, 2025اگه علاقهمند به زبان هستید، کتاب جالب و سرراستی برای شروعه. شاید کمی outdated باشه بعضی از حرفاش ولی.
June 7, 2020
Language Myths is a short and sweet collection of essays from various linguists, ruminating on various language myths from the incredibly specific (“Maori is an inferior language because you cannot use it to discuss astrophysics”) to the words on everyone’s lips (“kids are ruining the English language with their sloppy usage”). Most of it will be unsurprising to anyone with a spec of linguistic knowledge, and the level of interest and depth varies depending on the linguist writing the given essay and how good they are at putting their point across.
I don’t agree with some other reviewers that all the myths are strawmen, because I’ve heard exactly these arguments coming from people who hate language change, think that young people are undermining the pure clarity of the English language as it was spoken When I Was A Lad, etc, etc. Some of the myths feel a little more awkward, though, and I suspect that it because it is the particular linguist’s bugbear, and they just really wanted to write about that specific thing.
It’s not mindblowing, and the quality varies a little, but it’s still a decent primer on some of the things that linguists have to say about common perceptions of how language works.
I don’t agree with some other reviewers that all the myths are strawmen, because I’ve heard exactly these arguments coming from people who hate language change, think that young people are undermining the pure clarity of the English language as it was spoken When I Was A Lad, etc, etc. Some of the myths feel a little more awkward, though, and I suspect that it because it is the particular linguist’s bugbear, and they just really wanted to write about that specific thing.
It’s not mindblowing, and the quality varies a little, but it’s still a decent primer on some of the things that linguists have to say about common perceptions of how language works.
January 4, 2026
Kinda suspicious that not a single one of the authors has made their Duolingo streak public
November 16, 2009
A lot of the reviews here are coming from people with linguistics backgrounds, and that is not who this book is aimed at. I read this book extra-curricularly (from film school, long ago) and I thought it was pretty informative. if you don't think that people genuinely believe that meanings of words and 'grammar rules' are set in stone and clearly good or bad, right or wrong, i think you must not spend much time with non-linguists. just bobbing around the internet, there are examples of ill-place language snobbery -everywhere-. and the chapters on indigenous australian languages enlighten us to an extremely common form of racism. people turn to dictionaries constantly to 'prove' someone is using a word "incorrectly", or that something "isn't a word".
the book is aimed to debunk laypeople's misunderstandings. not as an acedemic tome for people studying language. and for some of us, these are ideas we know are myths, but maybe not how to explain why.
the book is aimed to debunk laypeople's misunderstandings. not as an acedemic tome for people studying language. and for some of us, these are ideas we know are myths, but maybe not how to explain why.
April 26, 2020
This anthology isn't going to impress or educate anyone with a serious background in linguistics but it's a fun, interesting read for the general public and first-year students, precisely the audience it appears to be pitched to.
December 31, 2023
This was a book club read for me. Each chapter is written by a different linguist for a popular audience, and each chapter is based on a myth about languages—for example, “Everyone has an accent except me,” or “Some language are harder than others.” Though of course we disagreed on some points, I think we were all on the same page about several things as we read this book:
--We wanted to see an updated version. Some of the myths just weren’t ones we were familiar with and seemed to be more characteristic of an earlier stage of English language education that stressed prescriptive grammar more, and others, like “the media are ruining English” and “TV makes people sound the same,” would probably be really different in a context of social media, international streaming media, and the internet more generally. To some extent we could supplement discussions with ideas from previous book-club read Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language, but a more dedicated revisiting of language myths for the 2020s would probably be worth doing.
--It was really easy to read. Each chapter is very short—we were taking them two at a time, and it was still only taking us like 20 minutes to do the week’s reading.
--There was a good deal of repetition or, to be more generous, connection between the ideas in different chapters across the books. Two themes that came up again and again: Latin is just not that helpful a model for understanding language in general (and the fact that we do use Latin as a model is an unfortunate product of western imperialism), and our thoughts and feelings about any given language are tied up in our thoughts and feelings about the people who speak that language. Where the book really shone was in the specifics of different languages or constructions.
It was certainly informative, but despite it being a short book, we were all ready for it to end when it was over. I can’t decide whether this book would benefit more from being read all in one sitting, so things feel more coherent and less repetitive, or in individual chapters in the context of, say, a class or a discussion group. Trying to stretch out the reading over multiple weeks didn’t really do it any favors, though. I’d say it’s a very accessible book for the non-expert reader, but it’s kind of dated by this point, so a lot of the interest is in seeing the snapshot about what popular ideas about languages were current in the 1990s.
--We wanted to see an updated version. Some of the myths just weren’t ones we were familiar with and seemed to be more characteristic of an earlier stage of English language education that stressed prescriptive grammar more, and others, like “the media are ruining English” and “TV makes people sound the same,” would probably be really different in a context of social media, international streaming media, and the internet more generally. To some extent we could supplement discussions with ideas from previous book-club read Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language, but a more dedicated revisiting of language myths for the 2020s would probably be worth doing.
--It was really easy to read. Each chapter is very short—we were taking them two at a time, and it was still only taking us like 20 minutes to do the week’s reading.
--There was a good deal of repetition or, to be more generous, connection between the ideas in different chapters across the books. Two themes that came up again and again: Latin is just not that helpful a model for understanding language in general (and the fact that we do use Latin as a model is an unfortunate product of western imperialism), and our thoughts and feelings about any given language are tied up in our thoughts and feelings about the people who speak that language. Where the book really shone was in the specifics of different languages or constructions.
It was certainly informative, but despite it being a short book, we were all ready for it to end when it was over. I can’t decide whether this book would benefit more from being read all in one sitting, so things feel more coherent and less repetitive, or in individual chapters in the context of, say, a class or a discussion group. Trying to stretch out the reading over multiple weeks didn’t really do it any favors, though. I’d say it’s a very accessible book for the non-expert reader, but it’s kind of dated by this point, so a lot of the interest is in seeing the snapshot about what popular ideas about languages were current in the 1990s.
July 9, 2009
Provides a great perspective on language and American society's perception of it. Each essay is equally intriguing and revealing. I loved the essay about Southern and New York accents, given the fact I'm Southern.
Also, I do not understand the low ratings this book has. Langauge Myths DOES deconstruct what we assume about language. And, yes, they are right when they claim the idea that some langauges are harder to learn than others is bogus. I learned both French and Russian and did not ever think one language was harder than another. The only reason people assume this is because some languages, like Russian, differ vastly from English. So, of course to some people beginning to learn a langauge like that will appear hard at first. The key to learning any langauge is accepting the fact that not all langauges translate directly, word-for-word from English. Once you accept that idea, whatever language you study will seem fairly simple. Even Russian. (And I can say that with confidence!)
Also, I do not understand the low ratings this book has. Langauge Myths DOES deconstruct what we assume about language. And, yes, they are right when they claim the idea that some langauges are harder to learn than others is bogus. I learned both French and Russian and did not ever think one language was harder than another. The only reason people assume this is because some languages, like Russian, differ vastly from English. So, of course to some people beginning to learn a langauge like that will appear hard at first. The key to learning any langauge is accepting the fact that not all langauges translate directly, word-for-word from English. Once you accept that idea, whatever language you study will seem fairly simple. Even Russian. (And I can say that with confidence!)
August 21, 2007
An easy and ultimately disappointing read. I fully support all of David's arguments against this (about the "myths" being straw men and being questionable as myths or anything worth discussing with any amount of seriousness in the first place). To the book's credit, though, I don't think it is meant to be particularly profound, enlightening, or remotely academic, so no alarms, no surprises.
March 13, 2020
If you're a linguist or a language enthusiast, there's nothing new to learn from this book. This book is for the layperson. My two-star rating is for the fact that the book seems to be concentrating more on English for illustration.
March 16, 2020
A good, diverse set of linguistics essays targeted at the general public, written by linguists (rare for popular linguistics books). Includes accessible intros on how to think about language structure, as well as eye-opening essays on topics in sociolinguistics.
Did Not Finish
April 5, 2021The essays in this book are based around linguists responding to prompts of popular "language myths," such as "The Media are Ruining English" and "English Spelling is Kattastroffik". Unfortunately, instead of delving into the ideas and core concepts that would help someone gain a better understanding of linguistics, these essays tends towards citing experiments and scientific studies to disprove their "myth".
This focus on citing studies over explaining linguistic concepts leads to essays that are a bit dry and less engaging than I had hoped. Combine that with the fact that many of the essays felt like variations on a theme rather than fresh concepts, and I only found the energy to skim a couple of these before deciding there wasn't enough to chew on. I gave up about 8 essays in, so it's entirely possible I missed some good essays that took a different approach, but the first 8 didn't grant me enough confidence that that any of the other essays would be different.
In the intro the editors talk about their desire to get the public reading about linguistics straight from Linguists themselves, bemoaning the fact that many popular language books (including Pinker's "The Language Instinct") are not written by Linguists. "If you want to know how language works you should ask a linguist and not someone who has used language successfully in the past" the editors write. After reading a few of these essays, this statement reads like a Mathematician imploring you that you can't trust a Physicist to *truly* understand and explain Math to others. With that in mind, I'll stick with getting my linguistic concepts from an engaging psychologist who knows how to explain core linguistic concepts, over a set of linguists debunking myths by citing studies.
This focus on citing studies over explaining linguistic concepts leads to essays that are a bit dry and less engaging than I had hoped. Combine that with the fact that many of the essays felt like variations on a theme rather than fresh concepts, and I only found the energy to skim a couple of these before deciding there wasn't enough to chew on. I gave up about 8 essays in, so it's entirely possible I missed some good essays that took a different approach, but the first 8 didn't grant me enough confidence that that any of the other essays would be different.
In the intro the editors talk about their desire to get the public reading about linguistics straight from Linguists themselves, bemoaning the fact that many popular language books (including Pinker's "The Language Instinct") are not written by Linguists. "If you want to know how language works you should ask a linguist and not someone who has used language successfully in the past" the editors write. After reading a few of these essays, this statement reads like a Mathematician imploring you that you can't trust a Physicist to *truly* understand and explain Math to others. With that in mind, I'll stick with getting my linguistic concepts from an engaging psychologist who knows how to explain core linguistic concepts, over a set of linguists debunking myths by citing studies.
June 30, 2019
I liked this book because it explains in basic (socio)linguistic terms what makes these myths so incorrect. Some, however, I found a bit easily dealt with. "Some languages are harder than others" describes how the difficulty of languages are mostly due to very different factors and therefore cannot be pinned down or listed, but I do think that you could say that languages with a different alphabet or a grammatical system which is different in every aspect imaginable is much harder to learn. I realise that this is again, relative, because some languages are closely linked to the before mentioned languages and will therefore be easier to learn, but I hope to have made clear that I don't think such a statement is a myth.
October 10, 2021
For a linguist, somewhat boring and mostly uninformative. The topics are highly repetitive, mostly revolving around prescriptivisim - bad grammar is bad, neologisms are bad etc. The writing isn't technical at all, but it's not very witty either, which I would expect to be a suitable alternative for a book obviously written for the general public - and which would perhaps save it from a 3/5 star rating. For a regular person, I guess it could be used as some interesting food for thought, but it really does miss that typical funny flair that most pop-science books have.
August 14, 2024
This is a great little collection of misconceptions about languages. Overall, the message is that language will always change as life itself changes, there is no more correct grammar or better language, just those whose speakers have better social or political positioning, and all languages borrow heavily from each other (in other words, there is no truly "pure" form of any language.
I enjoyed how the authors dissect all of the myths and give perspective to help shape how we think of language and, ultimately, how we view others.
I enjoyed how the authors dissect all of the myths and give perspective to help shape how we think of language and, ultimately, how we view others.
September 11, 2019
La linguistique mise à la portée de tous ceux qui s'y intéressent, c'est mon créneau depuis longtemps. 21 essais lus en VO et parlant bien sûr de la langue anglaise mais pas que. Un aperçu des langues aborigènes m'a passionnée, entre autres. Un livre qui fait le point et dépoussière certains trucs qu'on peut lire sur les langues. Pas récent cependant.
November 5, 2020
Definitely worth reading for anyone interested in linguistics/language. However, at this point it’s outdated and if you’ve studied linguistics then you may probably already know most of the information in this. It’s a bit outdated but good for introductory knowledge. I’ve also read other linguistics books that I felt were more engaging but this took me a long time to get through.
July 10, 2025
Never a dull moment with this book. Each chapter explores a different linguistic myth. The writing is academic but accessible. Some chapters were more interesting than others, but generally speaking, for anyone interested in languages or linguistics will enjoy this tremendously.
Read
March 12, 2021interesting
Read
September 22, 2024quite interesting im ngl
January 22, 2016
I have always been fascinated by language, although I wouldn’t go as far as thinking I’m a linguist (albeit maybe an amateur one) or anything. To be perfectly honest, I was immediately disappointed by the time I reached the second out of the twenty one myths in the book. I guess that’s what happens when you read compilation of essays, some would have an interesting way of writing and some just don’t.
That aside, there were multiple moments where I felt tricked by these so-called ‘myths‘, because although some were definitely well known myths that I’m very much much interested in seeing it debunked or answered, it really didn’t turned out that way. Some of the essays did try to debunked or answered the myths but even the attempt was anything if not vague answers. And to be completely honest, again, I didn’t really plan to read essays written by an expert in this topic, linguists nonetheless, and only to be given vague answers. Do you see why I’m so disappointed about it?
Take for example myths #15, TV makes people sound the same. The essay argues that the the said myths to be nothing more than a myth. One of the leading arguments was that TV (or other types of mass media, but mostly TV) does not necessarily create certain words and/or phrases that eventually got so popular that the major population start picking the word up and therefore resulting in people sounding the same; in reality what the TV did was merely making the already existing words and/or phrases much more popular. Honestly, though, that argument did not debunked the myths whatsoever; technically, the fact that TV ‘help‘ popularise a certain word and/or phrase that eventually ‘triggered‘ the majority of the population to speak a certain way, then basically the myth is no longer a myth but actually a fact, because the myth itself did not say anything about whether or not TV creates the word or phrases that made people sound the same, it didn’t even mention anything about the origin but merely the result of what TV does. What I’m trying to say is that, in all technicality, TV does made people sound the same, although maybe it is not a solitary undoing of TV but it does take a contribution to how people sound. Honestly, I’m not debating the essay or the argument or the writer itself, I’m just saying what I had in my mind when I read the essay. It just doesn’t add up. But then again, seeing that this book was published in 1998 (therefore most of the essays surely were either written before or in 1998), the condition was very much different than today’s standard, that’s why the way I see things are in contrast to the writer’s point of view (also probably because I’m not a trained linguist, or an expert, or anything with proper knowledge whatsoever in language).
After the fifth myths or something, reading this book just felt like a chore to me. It’s as if I’m reading a textbook for a class the next day. And do you know what happened when I’m being forced to read textbooks? I skipped most of the contents. So, yeah, that’s basically what I did with this book; I skipped about two (or maybe three if I’m being honest, or probably more) myths due to sole reason that I don’t find the writing style enjoyable or I’m just having a really hard time concentrating amidst the jumble of words that felt like it’s going nowhere.
At the end of the day, I guess I’m not much of a language enthusiast as I though I was. The whole reading experience was constant boredom for me, I can’t seem to think of another feeling except for boredom if I have to look back to the time I was trying so hard to read and/or enjoy this book. I know that I am extremely bored when I read this book, but that’s not to say that this is not an interesting book. Trust me, the book is definitely interesting, especially when you read through some of the long held myths about languages being discussed in this book, but maybe this book was not meant for the amateur person that I am. Unless you are a true and genuine language enthusiast, you might be on the same boat as me when it comes to this book.
That aside, there were multiple moments where I felt tricked by these so-called ‘myths‘, because although some were definitely well known myths that I’m very much much interested in seeing it debunked or answered, it really didn’t turned out that way. Some of the essays did try to debunked or answered the myths but even the attempt was anything if not vague answers. And to be completely honest, again, I didn’t really plan to read essays written by an expert in this topic, linguists nonetheless, and only to be given vague answers. Do you see why I’m so disappointed about it?
Take for example myths #15, TV makes people sound the same. The essay argues that the the said myths to be nothing more than a myth. One of the leading arguments was that TV (or other types of mass media, but mostly TV) does not necessarily create certain words and/or phrases that eventually got so popular that the major population start picking the word up and therefore resulting in people sounding the same; in reality what the TV did was merely making the already existing words and/or phrases much more popular. Honestly, though, that argument did not debunked the myths whatsoever; technically, the fact that TV ‘help‘ popularise a certain word and/or phrase that eventually ‘triggered‘ the majority of the population to speak a certain way, then basically the myth is no longer a myth but actually a fact, because the myth itself did not say anything about whether or not TV creates the word or phrases that made people sound the same, it didn’t even mention anything about the origin but merely the result of what TV does. What I’m trying to say is that, in all technicality, TV does made people sound the same, although maybe it is not a solitary undoing of TV but it does take a contribution to how people sound. Honestly, I’m not debating the essay or the argument or the writer itself, I’m just saying what I had in my mind when I read the essay. It just doesn’t add up. But then again, seeing that this book was published in 1998 (therefore most of the essays surely were either written before or in 1998), the condition was very much different than today’s standard, that’s why the way I see things are in contrast to the writer’s point of view (also probably because I’m not a trained linguist, or an expert, or anything with proper knowledge whatsoever in language).
After the fifth myths or something, reading this book just felt like a chore to me. It’s as if I’m reading a textbook for a class the next day. And do you know what happened when I’m being forced to read textbooks? I skipped most of the contents. So, yeah, that’s basically what I did with this book; I skipped about two (or maybe three if I’m being honest, or probably more) myths due to sole reason that I don’t find the writing style enjoyable or I’m just having a really hard time concentrating amidst the jumble of words that felt like it’s going nowhere.
At the end of the day, I guess I’m not much of a language enthusiast as I though I was. The whole reading experience was constant boredom for me, I can’t seem to think of another feeling except for boredom if I have to look back to the time I was trying so hard to read and/or enjoy this book. I know that I am extremely bored when I read this book, but that’s not to say that this is not an interesting book. Trust me, the book is definitely interesting, especially when you read through some of the long held myths about languages being discussed in this book, but maybe this book was not meant for the amateur person that I am. Unless you are a true and genuine language enthusiast, you might be on the same boat as me when it comes to this book.
November 8, 2026
Ya know, I really liked this book. Gave me some things to think about in language and it questioned my own ignorance, which I believe is why you should read! (besides for enjoyment of course)
Page 23 Myth 4: French is a Logical Language
I found this super interesting. So the myth is that the French language "makes more sense" or is "better" than other languages. To me, I laughed at this because I'm not even sure how you would go about proving a language is better or worse. Also why are we judging languages based on their likeability? Thats a dangerous path to go down that could cause hurtfulness that does not need to be there. But I have witnessed this attitude in real life. I have meet some French people that indeed believed their language was superior and they were very snooty about it.
The first paragraph says: "French people have been claiming that theirs is a logical language for the past three and a half centuries, though what they mean when they say this rather obscure - which is a pity, since the other adjective they use to describe French, along with 'logical', is the word 'clear', as we shall see.
I didn't fully understand the authors meaning at first here but to my understanding is hes being kind of cheeky, "obscure" meaning vague or unclear but nobody can explain why its more logical. Hes saying thats ironic since the French is supposedly exceptionally clear.
Myth 2: Some Languages are Just Not Good Enough
Page 10 "I recall a comment in a New Zealand newspaper some years ago, which tried to make the point that Maori was no good as a language because it had to borrow words from English in order to express new ideas. English on the other hand could be seen to be a very flexible vital language because it had throughout its history been able to draw resources from all over the place to express new ideas!"
This quote^ blew my mind a little bit because I was like ya, that is a good point, Maori is totally allowed to borrow words from English. Lord knows English borrows a bunch! So that got me to researching a little bit on all the words I use that are not English-rooted in origin:
Déjà vu - I mean cmon it doesn't even look like English at all! But we use it all the time! Its from the French! No duh! Why did I never think about this before?? So fascinating!
Guru - Sanskrit
Paparazzi - Italian
Karaoke - Japanese
Glitch - Yiddish/German related etymological theories
Tsunami - Japanese
Paprika - Hungarian
Some cool realizations in these words.
Continuing on this same myth.. "X is not good enough because you can't discuss nuclear physics in it"
But as the author wrote.. "...there has been no occasion or need to discuss... nuclear physics in Maori..."
"A little thought, however, will show that this argument cannot be maintained. Computers were not discussed in Old English... What of course has happened is that through time English has developed the resources necessary to the discussion of computers and very many other topics which were simply unknown in earlier times... Rather, English expanded its vocabulary ina. variety of ways over the centuries so to meet the new demands being made of it."
Brilliant!
Myth 7: Some Languages are Harder than Others
Page 56: "...problem with talking about simplicity. Languages are not uniformly simple or difficult... Simplicity in one part of the language may be balanced by complexity in another part."
I found this to be true when learning ASL.
Myth 10: Some Languages Have No Grammar
Page 83: "If there weren't any patterns, people wouldn't be able to communicate because they could have no way of knowing what other people meant to say. You can understand what I say only because you know the same rules I do. That is what it means to speak the same language. Speakers can tell whether a particular string of words is an acceptable sentence of their language"
Page 84: "A language without any grammar is a contradiction in terms."
Myth 13: Black Children are Verbally Deprived
Page 104: "...especially when one group has been dehumanized in comparison with the other - the environment for cultivating myths about these differences is fertile. The end result of these myths is to provide a justification for the differential power relations between the groups"
Page 105: "entrenched myths about language inadequacy are like a jack-in-the-box that keeps springing back up."
Page 111: "All the evidence indicates that black culture is a highly verbal culture which values the development of verbal skills. Unfortunately, relationships of social and political inequality can lead to the dismissal"
I liked approach on these myths, that is the author is going full force into believing the myth then working backwards and questioning the legitimacy in them. I think thats a good way to go about this. Innocent until proven guilty kind of thing.
I also think people tend to immediately call the opposing viewpoint wrong. And that shuts the brain off for further exploration in the possibilities. This way, we can be more openminded, is it really a myth? Lets see.
Quotes I liked of course:
"How is it that so obviously mythical an idea as the logicality of French has taken such strong root in France and to some extent among her neighbors? The external perceptions of French are not too hard to explain - they seem to be bound up with the national stereotypes which developed in Europe a century ago and which are sadly still around today.
Italian became a 'musical language', no doubt because of its association in the minds of non-Italians with Italian opera; German became a 'harsh, guttural language' because of Prussian militarism. Spanish became a 'romantic language' because of bullfighters and flamenco dancing. French almost inevitably became 'logical language' thanks to prestigious philosophers like Descartes,"
Interesting! I have never thought of it like that before. These seemingly stereotypes of the language from history.
Page 23 Myth 4: French is a Logical Language
I found this super interesting. So the myth is that the French language "makes more sense" or is "better" than other languages. To me, I laughed at this because I'm not even sure how you would go about proving a language is better or worse. Also why are we judging languages based on their likeability? Thats a dangerous path to go down that could cause hurtfulness that does not need to be there. But I have witnessed this attitude in real life. I have meet some French people that indeed believed their language was superior and they were very snooty about it.
The first paragraph says: "French people have been claiming that theirs is a logical language for the past three and a half centuries, though what they mean when they say this rather obscure - which is a pity, since the other adjective they use to describe French, along with 'logical', is the word 'clear', as we shall see.
I didn't fully understand the authors meaning at first here but to my understanding is hes being kind of cheeky, "obscure" meaning vague or unclear but nobody can explain why its more logical. Hes saying thats ironic since the French is supposedly exceptionally clear.
Myth 2: Some Languages are Just Not Good Enough
Page 10 "I recall a comment in a New Zealand newspaper some years ago, which tried to make the point that Maori was no good as a language because it had to borrow words from English in order to express new ideas. English on the other hand could be seen to be a very flexible vital language because it had throughout its history been able to draw resources from all over the place to express new ideas!"
This quote^ blew my mind a little bit because I was like ya, that is a good point, Maori is totally allowed to borrow words from English. Lord knows English borrows a bunch! So that got me to researching a little bit on all the words I use that are not English-rooted in origin:
Déjà vu - I mean cmon it doesn't even look like English at all! But we use it all the time! Its from the French! No duh! Why did I never think about this before?? So fascinating!
Guru - Sanskrit
Paparazzi - Italian
Karaoke - Japanese
Glitch - Yiddish/German related etymological theories
Tsunami - Japanese
Paprika - Hungarian
Some cool realizations in these words.
Continuing on this same myth.. "X is not good enough because you can't discuss nuclear physics in it"
But as the author wrote.. "...there has been no occasion or need to discuss... nuclear physics in Maori..."
"A little thought, however, will show that this argument cannot be maintained. Computers were not discussed in Old English... What of course has happened is that through time English has developed the resources necessary to the discussion of computers and very many other topics which were simply unknown in earlier times... Rather, English expanded its vocabulary ina. variety of ways over the centuries so to meet the new demands being made of it."
Brilliant!
Myth 7: Some Languages are Harder than Others
Page 56: "...problem with talking about simplicity. Languages are not uniformly simple or difficult... Simplicity in one part of the language may be balanced by complexity in another part."
I found this to be true when learning ASL.
Myth 10: Some Languages Have No Grammar
Page 83: "If there weren't any patterns, people wouldn't be able to communicate because they could have no way of knowing what other people meant to say. You can understand what I say only because you know the same rules I do. That is what it means to speak the same language. Speakers can tell whether a particular string of words is an acceptable sentence of their language"
Page 84: "A language without any grammar is a contradiction in terms."
Myth 13: Black Children are Verbally Deprived
Page 104: "...especially when one group has been dehumanized in comparison with the other - the environment for cultivating myths about these differences is fertile. The end result of these myths is to provide a justification for the differential power relations between the groups"
Page 105: "entrenched myths about language inadequacy are like a jack-in-the-box that keeps springing back up."
Page 111: "All the evidence indicates that black culture is a highly verbal culture which values the development of verbal skills. Unfortunately, relationships of social and political inequality can lead to the dismissal"
I liked approach on these myths, that is the author is going full force into believing the myth then working backwards and questioning the legitimacy in them. I think thats a good way to go about this. Innocent until proven guilty kind of thing.
I also think people tend to immediately call the opposing viewpoint wrong. And that shuts the brain off for further exploration in the possibilities. This way, we can be more openminded, is it really a myth? Lets see.
Quotes I liked of course:
"How is it that so obviously mythical an idea as the logicality of French has taken such strong root in France and to some extent among her neighbors? The external perceptions of French are not too hard to explain - they seem to be bound up with the national stereotypes which developed in Europe a century ago and which are sadly still around today.
Italian became a 'musical language', no doubt because of its association in the minds of non-Italians with Italian opera; German became a 'harsh, guttural language' because of Prussian militarism. Spanish became a 'romantic language' because of bullfighters and flamenco dancing. French almost inevitably became 'logical language' thanks to prestigious philosophers like Descartes,"
Interesting! I have never thought of it like that before. These seemingly stereotypes of the language from history.
February 2, 2009
I don't really understand why this book is called Language Myths. I've never even heard of most of them ("Some Languages are Just Not Good Enough") and a few of them ("in the Appalachians they Speak Like Shakespeare", "They speak really bad English down south and in NYC") are just completely ridiculous. I feel like the authors just wanted an outlet for their own obscure essays about linguistics that probably wouldn't get read otherwise. It's also surprisingly and unnecessarily dry.
July 6, 2009
A good idea, I guess, to debunk language myths from an academic perspective, but it comes off as dry an scattered. Each chapter is by a different stuffed shirt, so it's kind of inconsistent in content. It's best just to read the chapter titles and know these are myths, but there's no need to read the chapters themselves, since the argumentation is usually lost in all the technicalities employed by these furiously signifying monkeys.
November 19, 2018
I had to read this book for my Advanced Linguistics class but I didn't mind that at all! I found this book to be really interesting and fun. It tackles some well known language myths and knocks them over by providing evidence in the form or research and short, good examples. I had such a blast reading this book, I wish it would get a sequel. If you are interested in languages and myths surrounding them I highly recommend you to pick this one up!
March 3, 2009
Inherent Value Hypothesis. WIred to us which language is more "attractive."
Perceived pleasantness ~ Intelligibility
It has a social currency(consequence). Purely social process of selecting "standard" language.(Linguistic security)
NYC and South ~ Less perceived as pleasant
Mideast(ohio,MI,..) ~ "No accent"
Perceived pleasantness ~ Intelligibility
It has a social currency(consequence). Purely social process of selecting "standard" language.(Linguistic security)
NYC and South ~ Less perceived as pleasant
Mideast(ohio,MI,..) ~ "No accent"
February 1, 2015
gelesen im zuge der vorlesung "english linguistics"; einfach geschrieben (auch auf englisch) und verständlich erklärt, vor allem für nicht-linguisten
July 27, 2019
I read this to review for student use in an intro to linguistics course, and I think at least some of the essays would be good discussion material for undergraduates. The book is laid out as a series of short essays, each one by a different author debunking a cultural "myth" about language. One advantage is that the essays are very short and engaging, requiring very little familiarity with linguistics. For classroom use, I could see using a myth or two as an introduction into a unit or paired with a more advanced article that deals with a similar question. Another useful feature is that each "myth" includes further readings at the end of the chapter, which would be useful for students doing projects on these topics.
One reviewer here mentioned that these "myths" are fairly exaggerated, "strawman" representations, and I do mostly agree with this assessment. Many of the myths are presented as absolutes/extremes, e.g. "some languages have NO grammar" when a very nuanced version of the statement might be more accurate to the position as well as the more interesting question. For instance, of course, "women talk too much" is easy to defeat: even if women did talk more than men, who's to say when it's "too much"? The more interesting question is: how much do women really talk and does the reality match the perception? To the author's credit, this is the question that she actually spent the most time addressing, demonstrating that mixed-gender groups do have an inflated perception of how much women speak during mixed-gender conversations. The author didn't address, however, how much women speak in single-gender situations versus men, and I suspect this would have interesting results that opens up a challenge to the premise of the question itself: is less speech actually a good thing and why do we assume this speech is frivolous (and IS it)?
But anyway, the best essays went beyond the hyper-simplified version of the myth as expressed in the chapter title. My favorites were ones that I've heard my students actually express: "9: Appalachians speak like Shakespeare," "11: Italian is Beautiful, German is Ugly," "14: Double-Negatives are Illogical," "17: They Speak Bad English Down South and in NYC," "20: Everyone has an Accent Except Me."
These deal mostly with aesthetic perceptions of language and accents, which I've heard from students. I suspect that people often feel freer to express these as general principles since they can easily back down and say they were asserting only personal "I don't like this..." quirks. I'm all for everyone having and sticking to their own preferences, but I do think you should recognize them as judgments framed by your own perceptions and question where these preferences come from every so often. And, in regards to judgments like "German is ugly" breaking this question down into possible hypotheses (is this a cultural judgement based in historical and/or media representations, or inherent in the language and how might we find this out?) is useful to disentangling assumptions and getting students to realize that they have to research/test/question rather than make blanket statements about languages and linguistic principles.
Overall, this is a pretty useful, accessible collection that's easy to pick through for student use. However, it's pretty dated at this point (1998) and could very much use an update both in terms of the science and references within its current essays as well as adding essays on topics that engage with questions about language and culture today. For instance, an update might include a myth about how emojis/gifs/digital culture are 'ruining' language, an essay on sign language/deaf culture (I've heard various myths on sign language e.g. 'you just make up the grammar as you go,' 'it's not as expressive as speech'), Braille, plagiarism/originality, perhaps one on bilingualism, neologisms/slang, "bad" words, and perhaps one on cultures that incorporate multiple languages. These topics seem to be in the air at the moment at least in the classes I teach.
One reviewer here mentioned that these "myths" are fairly exaggerated, "strawman" representations, and I do mostly agree with this assessment. Many of the myths are presented as absolutes/extremes, e.g. "some languages have NO grammar" when a very nuanced version of the statement might be more accurate to the position as well as the more interesting question. For instance, of course, "women talk too much" is easy to defeat: even if women did talk more than men, who's to say when it's "too much"? The more interesting question is: how much do women really talk and does the reality match the perception? To the author's credit, this is the question that she actually spent the most time addressing, demonstrating that mixed-gender groups do have an inflated perception of how much women speak during mixed-gender conversations. The author didn't address, however, how much women speak in single-gender situations versus men, and I suspect this would have interesting results that opens up a challenge to the premise of the question itself: is less speech actually a good thing and why do we assume this speech is frivolous (and IS it)?
But anyway, the best essays went beyond the hyper-simplified version of the myth as expressed in the chapter title. My favorites were ones that I've heard my students actually express: "9: Appalachians speak like Shakespeare," "11: Italian is Beautiful, German is Ugly," "14: Double-Negatives are Illogical," "17: They Speak Bad English Down South and in NYC," "20: Everyone has an Accent Except Me."
These deal mostly with aesthetic perceptions of language and accents, which I've heard from students. I suspect that people often feel freer to express these as general principles since they can easily back down and say they were asserting only personal "I don't like this..." quirks. I'm all for everyone having and sticking to their own preferences, but I do think you should recognize them as judgments framed by your own perceptions and question where these preferences come from every so often. And, in regards to judgments like "German is ugly" breaking this question down into possible hypotheses (is this a cultural judgement based in historical and/or media representations, or inherent in the language and how might we find this out?) is useful to disentangling assumptions and getting students to realize that they have to research/test/question rather than make blanket statements about languages and linguistic principles.
Overall, this is a pretty useful, accessible collection that's easy to pick through for student use. However, it's pretty dated at this point (1998) and could very much use an update both in terms of the science and references within its current essays as well as adding essays on topics that engage with questions about language and culture today. For instance, an update might include a myth about how emojis/gifs/digital culture are 'ruining' language, an essay on sign language/deaf culture (I've heard various myths on sign language e.g. 'you just make up the grammar as you go,' 'it's not as expressive as speech'), Braille, plagiarism/originality, perhaps one on bilingualism, neologisms/slang, "bad" words, and perhaps one on cultures that incorporate multiple languages. These topics seem to be in the air at the moment at least in the classes I teach.
January 26, 2011
I got my degree in Linguistics and this was one of the books for my classes. For some particular reason I kept it and decided to read it again today. Everyone loves a good myth, and just as much people generally enjoy debunking a myth as well. That is what this book sets out to do for language. It is comprised of several chapters, each having their title state what it is that will be discussed and written by several different authors.
The Meaning of Words Should Not Be Allowed to Vary or Change by Peter Trudgill
He takes the time to explain how languages naturally change and with them, their words change meaning as well. There is nothing wrong with this and it is a development that should not be feared. He gives several examples in this chapter as well.
Some Languages are Just Not Good Enough by Ray Harlow
This chapter takes the time to discuss people's notions that some languages are just not sufficient for the modern world. It also explores the concept of countries with several languages using one prominent language in place of all others for ease of communication.
The Media Are Ruining English by Jean Aitchison
This chapter explores the effects media have on speakers of English and how stylistically English is expressed through media.
French is a Logical Language by Anthony Lodge
Lodge attempts to explain how there isn't really a "logical" language in the sense that rules tend to change for different things and one base set can never be applied to any one language.
English Spelling is Kattastroffik by Edward Carney
Like it sounds, this chapter covers the different rules of English spelling and how at times they do not seem logical. It tells you why some things are not spelled phonetically but rather are taken from other languages and adapted to English. It explains the rules behind certain spellings as well.
Women Talk Too Much by Janet Holmes
This is one most everyone has probably heard and Holmes sets out to disprove this myth. While she can't entirely, she does offer interesting research on situational speaking and the difference between genders.
Some Languages are Harder Than Others by Lars-Gunnar Andersson
This is an interesting one to try to disprove as from personal experience, I do find some languages harder than others. However, Andersson points out facts about native language and learning others and other concepts that make things necessarily easier for some languages and harder for others depending on a person's background and that it is not a static fact all over the world.
Children Can't Speak or Write Properly Anymore by James Milroy
Everyone always hears about how each generation is worse than the last. This applies to language too. Milroy discusses children's language and skills and how they might possibly just be naturally progressing linguistically as opposed to destroying the language.
In the Appalachians, They Speak Like Shakespeare by Michael Montgomery
Yeah, this is an odd sounding one and I had never heard of this notion before this book. However, Montgomery explores the myth that deep in the Appalachia there is an area that sounds like they are rehearsing a Shakespearean play.
Some Languages Have No Grammar by Winifred Bauer
Some people do believe this and Bauer illustrates how every language has a grammar and rules. They may not be obvious at first, but they are there.
Italian is Beautiful, German is Ugly by Howard Giles and Nancy Niedzielski
Everyone has a language they think is especially nice and it is true how Italian sounds pretty beautiful. But everyone also has different tastes and while some things can be beautiful in some languages and not others, all languages have something valuable in them.
Bad Grammar is Slovenly by Lesley Milroy
Ah, Grammar. People say that its misuse can make their ears burn. However, not everyone follows every rule of grammar correctly because it is in human nature to imitate those around them and the lines become blurred. Milroy focuses on how a misuse of Grammar is not lazy as one might think.
Black Children are Verbally Deprived by Walt Wolfram
This is a pretty insulting myth and it touches on how a race of people with such wonderful orators can have children who do not speak the language correctly. Wolfram focuses on this language and how it is not "deprived" but rather slang and other dialects are linguistically important.
Double Negatives Are Illogical by Jenny Cheshire
We've all probably used a double negative at some point in our lives. And despite it being illogical, we were understood or understood someone who has used it. Cheshire looks at this and wonders how it could possibly be illogical, if it is understood.
TV Makes People Sound the Same by J.K.Chambers
Chambers dispels this myth and proves that tv does not create a common sound for all people in an area. He offers some interesting studies to back his point.
You Shouldn't Say "It is Me" because 'Me' is Accusative by Laurie Bauer
This chapter goes into grammar and use of cases. It takes a focus on Latin and its contributions to the case structure.
They Speak Really Bad English Down South and in New York City by Dennis R. Preston
Ah accents. Even in America we fall prey to assuming things about people just by what comes out of their mouths. Preston takes a look at certain region's accents and how you shouldn't judge a person just by how they talk.
Some Languages are Spoken More Quickly Than Others by Peter Roach
This one is just as the chapter title says, Roach takes a look at the speed in which languages are spoken.
Aborigines Speak a Primitive Language by Nicholas Evans
Evans sets out in this chapter to describe how Aboriginal languages are not primitive and can compete in the modern world and retain full use.
Everyone Has An Accent But Me by John H. Esling
Everyone would like to believe that they have no accent, however, Esling explains that as long as you use language, you will have an accent.
America is Ruining the English Language by John Algeo
This chapter primarily focuses on how most British, and some Americans think that the American use of English is destroying the language. He focuses on how no language remains pure as they are constantly evolving.
There is also an index and introduction to some of the authors in this book. It is interesting to note that most of these chapters are easily understandable to the general public. It wasn't written for in-depth study by Linguists, but rather for the regular person who may just have an interest. This means that there aren't really any technical terms and the book only gets into the subject very briefly without any expansive study on any of the subjects. It is a good book for those outside the study or perhaps beginners in the study. As a Linguist I would have greatly enjoyed the book more if there had been more detail to it.
While some of the topics were interesting to me (Aborigines Speak a Primitive Language, The Meanings of Words.., Women Talk Too Much) some I didn't like near as well. For example, Some Languages Have No Grammar, while I believe there are people out there that believe this, common sense tells you that all languages must have rules and rules equal grammar so this is easy to disprove. Also, French is a Logical Language, is just strange to me. I had never heard of this before the book and really the explanation to me seemed simplistic and like they made the myth up just for filler for the book. Some of the other "myths" seemed to follow this as well as they just didn't seem realistic to me.
It is an interesting book and if some topics don't appeal to you it is easy to skip over the chapter without missing anything. If you have any interest in Linguistics, its a good book to take a glance through.
Language Myths
Copyright 1998
189 pages
Review by M. Reynard 2010
The Meaning of Words Should Not Be Allowed to Vary or Change by Peter Trudgill
He takes the time to explain how languages naturally change and with them, their words change meaning as well. There is nothing wrong with this and it is a development that should not be feared. He gives several examples in this chapter as well.
Some Languages are Just Not Good Enough by Ray Harlow
This chapter takes the time to discuss people's notions that some languages are just not sufficient for the modern world. It also explores the concept of countries with several languages using one prominent language in place of all others for ease of communication.
The Media Are Ruining English by Jean Aitchison
This chapter explores the effects media have on speakers of English and how stylistically English is expressed through media.
French is a Logical Language by Anthony Lodge
Lodge attempts to explain how there isn't really a "logical" language in the sense that rules tend to change for different things and one base set can never be applied to any one language.
English Spelling is Kattastroffik by Edward Carney
Like it sounds, this chapter covers the different rules of English spelling and how at times they do not seem logical. It tells you why some things are not spelled phonetically but rather are taken from other languages and adapted to English. It explains the rules behind certain spellings as well.
Women Talk Too Much by Janet Holmes
This is one most everyone has probably heard and Holmes sets out to disprove this myth. While she can't entirely, she does offer interesting research on situational speaking and the difference between genders.
Some Languages are Harder Than Others by Lars-Gunnar Andersson
This is an interesting one to try to disprove as from personal experience, I do find some languages harder than others. However, Andersson points out facts about native language and learning others and other concepts that make things necessarily easier for some languages and harder for others depending on a person's background and that it is not a static fact all over the world.
Children Can't Speak or Write Properly Anymore by James Milroy
Everyone always hears about how each generation is worse than the last. This applies to language too. Milroy discusses children's language and skills and how they might possibly just be naturally progressing linguistically as opposed to destroying the language.
In the Appalachians, They Speak Like Shakespeare by Michael Montgomery
Yeah, this is an odd sounding one and I had never heard of this notion before this book. However, Montgomery explores the myth that deep in the Appalachia there is an area that sounds like they are rehearsing a Shakespearean play.
Some Languages Have No Grammar by Winifred Bauer
Some people do believe this and Bauer illustrates how every language has a grammar and rules. They may not be obvious at first, but they are there.
Italian is Beautiful, German is Ugly by Howard Giles and Nancy Niedzielski
Everyone has a language they think is especially nice and it is true how Italian sounds pretty beautiful. But everyone also has different tastes and while some things can be beautiful in some languages and not others, all languages have something valuable in them.
Bad Grammar is Slovenly by Lesley Milroy
Ah, Grammar. People say that its misuse can make their ears burn. However, not everyone follows every rule of grammar correctly because it is in human nature to imitate those around them and the lines become blurred. Milroy focuses on how a misuse of Grammar is not lazy as one might think.
Black Children are Verbally Deprived by Walt Wolfram
This is a pretty insulting myth and it touches on how a race of people with such wonderful orators can have children who do not speak the language correctly. Wolfram focuses on this language and how it is not "deprived" but rather slang and other dialects are linguistically important.
Double Negatives Are Illogical by Jenny Cheshire
We've all probably used a double negative at some point in our lives. And despite it being illogical, we were understood or understood someone who has used it. Cheshire looks at this and wonders how it could possibly be illogical, if it is understood.
TV Makes People Sound the Same by J.K.Chambers
Chambers dispels this myth and proves that tv does not create a common sound for all people in an area. He offers some interesting studies to back his point.
You Shouldn't Say "It is Me" because 'Me' is Accusative by Laurie Bauer
This chapter goes into grammar and use of cases. It takes a focus on Latin and its contributions to the case structure.
They Speak Really Bad English Down South and in New York City by Dennis R. Preston
Ah accents. Even in America we fall prey to assuming things about people just by what comes out of their mouths. Preston takes a look at certain region's accents and how you shouldn't judge a person just by how they talk.
Some Languages are Spoken More Quickly Than Others by Peter Roach
This one is just as the chapter title says, Roach takes a look at the speed in which languages are spoken.
Aborigines Speak a Primitive Language by Nicholas Evans
Evans sets out in this chapter to describe how Aboriginal languages are not primitive and can compete in the modern world and retain full use.
Everyone Has An Accent But Me by John H. Esling
Everyone would like to believe that they have no accent, however, Esling explains that as long as you use language, you will have an accent.
America is Ruining the English Language by John Algeo
This chapter primarily focuses on how most British, and some Americans think that the American use of English is destroying the language. He focuses on how no language remains pure as they are constantly evolving.
There is also an index and introduction to some of the authors in this book. It is interesting to note that most of these chapters are easily understandable to the general public. It wasn't written for in-depth study by Linguists, but rather for the regular person who may just have an interest. This means that there aren't really any technical terms and the book only gets into the subject very briefly without any expansive study on any of the subjects. It is a good book for those outside the study or perhaps beginners in the study. As a Linguist I would have greatly enjoyed the book more if there had been more detail to it.
While some of the topics were interesting to me (Aborigines Speak a Primitive Language, The Meanings of Words.., Women Talk Too Much) some I didn't like near as well. For example, Some Languages Have No Grammar, while I believe there are people out there that believe this, common sense tells you that all languages must have rules and rules equal grammar so this is easy to disprove. Also, French is a Logical Language, is just strange to me. I had never heard of this before the book and really the explanation to me seemed simplistic and like they made the myth up just for filler for the book. Some of the other "myths" seemed to follow this as well as they just didn't seem realistic to me.
It is an interesting book and if some topics don't appeal to you it is easy to skip over the chapter without missing anything. If you have any interest in Linguistics, its a good book to take a glance through.
Language Myths
Copyright 1998
189 pages
Review by M. Reynard 2010
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews