You Are What You Speak: Grammar Grouches, Language Laws, and the Politics of Identity

by Robert Lane Greene

What is it about other people’s language that moves some of us to anxiety or even rage? For centuries, sticklers the world over have donned the cloak of authority to control the way people use words. Now this sensational new book strikes back to defend the fascinating, real-life diversity of this most basic human faculty.

With the erudite yet accessible style that marks his work as a journalist, Robert Lane Greene takes readers on a rollicking tour around the world, illustrating with vivid anecdotes the role language beliefs play in shaping our identities, for good and ill. Beginning with literal myths, from the Tower of Babel to the bloody origins of the word “shibboleth,” Greene shows how language “experts” went from myth-making to rule-making and from building cohesive communities to building modern nations. From the notion of one language’s superiority to the common perception that phrases like “It’s me” are “bad English,” linguistic beliefs too often define “us” and distance “them,” supporting class, ethnic, or national prejudices. In short: What we hear about language is often really about the politics of identity.

Governments foolishly try to police language development (the French Academy), nationalism leads to the violent suppression of minority languages (Kurdish and Basque), and even Americans fear that the most successful language in world history (English) may be threatened by increased immigration. These false language beliefs are often tied to harmful political ends and can lead to the violation of basic human rights. Conversely, political involvement in language can sometimes prove beneficial, as with the Zionist  revival of Hebrew or our present-day efforts to provide education in foreign languages essential to business, diplomacy, and intelligence. And yes, standardized languages play a crucial role in uniting modern societies.

As this fascinating book shows, everything we’ve been taught to think about language may not be wrong—but it is often about something more than language alone. You Are What You Speak will certainly get people talking.

Genres: Language, Nonfiction, Linguistics, Politics, History, Psychology, Writing

312 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2011

Reviews

[Angela · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have long identified myself as a grammar stickler. I'm an editor. My knowledge of the way writing should be structured, imperfect though it may still be, allows me a degree of smug personal satisfaction that I am, in fact, quite the smartypants. Being a stickler means that I don't limit my corrections to the work which I am contracted to correct. My sticklerism spreads its tentacles ever outward, causing me to snigger nastily when confronted with misspelled signage, poorly worded headlines, or anyone who expresses themselves in a "debased" form of the English language.

But being a stickler is entirely inconsistent with my desire to become more compassionate, more kind. And Greene pushes the reader further toward this understanding with every page. It's not that I'm unfamiliar with precepts of linguistics: the study of language in its natural habitat, the ever-changing flow of the spoken word. I love language, and profess to appreciate it in all its forms. I just... enjoy being a bit of a dick.

Take Lynne Truss's book Eats, Shoots & Leaves as an example. I found the first few chapters of that funny. But is the violent rhetoric really necessary? Should we, as a culture, be willing to normalize and endorse flying into violent rages over semicolons? Sniping furiously at the man running the fruit stand who doesn't pluralize "tomato" to our liking? Declaring that anyone who uses the wrong form of "your" deserves to be guillotined? And most importantly, is English really in so much danger that a violent backlash against bad grammar is justifiable?

Greene says no, on all accounts. English is a language of beautiful variation, of shifting forms, of change and growth. Communication is not on the decline. We are seeing language change within our lifetimes, and we should be thrilled to see the rebirth of, say, the third-person gender neutral singular.

The book is about more than just this, of course. But this is the lesson which stuck with me.

I'm not planning to stop editing, and I still firmly believe in the usefulness of a standard written form. But going through life acting as if those who can't punctuate are unworthy members of the human race is a despicable way to behave.

---

Greene is apparently a fan and friend of Steven Pinker's -- their work complements each other's well, and look to this book if you feel Pinker lacks the in-depth political context you seek.

[Cass · Rating 4 out of 5]

"To reply to an honest question that is perfectly understood with grammatical outrage is a sin against decency." p269.

My linguistics lecturer recommended this to me last semester and I finally got around to reading it. Studying linguistics was eye-opening. Realising that language was fluid and ever-changing. Realising that words such as "nice" and "silly" had wildly different meanings a few hundred years ago. Allowing the penny to drop about the progression of the English language (from the time of Beowulf to Shakespeare to the King James Bible to now) as it constantly changes. It reminds me that language serves us, not the other way around.

One thing I found fascinating was the idea of full-formed dialects, such as Aboriginal-English (in which the speakers conjugate some verbs in ways that prescriptivists find abhorrent) or American-Black-Vernacular-English (which is mocked all over the Internet but is a legitimate dialect of English with complex rules like any other language).

I love the idea that you could put 26 city-states in a row (call them A, B, C...Z), and the citizens of town A & B would speak mutually intelligble languages, likewise B&C would have no trouble communicating, C&D, D&E, and so forth. However citiziens from town A would likely find the language of town H to be unintelligble. The idea that rather than distinct languages, it really is a single planet with a whole lot of dialects.

Okay, it is far more complicated then that, and that is what this book is about. Explaining the notion that we should describe not prescribe the rules of a language, and discussing how language shapes and is shaped by the nations that it is used by, adopted by, or even prescribed by.

My eyes were opened during my university studies of linguistics... For me, all language is valid. If you understand me then I am doing okay, if you are offended because I made a grammatical error then you really should go read this book.

"Saying 'This is informal, and many usage books recommend against it' is more their [the linguistics] style. Pullum is the rare one who will add 'but you should feel free to tell them where they can shove it'" p81

I like this Pullum fellow, and I like Robert Greene's book.

[Zac Chase · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the reviews of this book faults Greene for writing about linguistics without being a linguist. I don't find the same fault in the pages here. Certainly, this has the density one would expect from an Economist writer, but don't let that fool you.
As an English major and English teacher who has been thinking about these things for some time, the initial introduction to prescriptivism and descriptivism did much to act as a refresher for the topics and lay the foundation of the different global perspectives of the book.
From a historical understanding of the resurrection of Hebrew to the formation of modern Turkish (an subsequent distance from pre-1930 Turkish texts), I'm walking away from this book with much richer and deeper understanding of language and it's formation around the world.
Perhaps most helpful for me was Greene's clear love of language. If there were any impediment created by his lack of training as a linguist, his love of language makes up for it handily.
Reading about language from the perspective of one who is so clearly curious and in love with language shapes the book as a tool for infectious love of language.
If you're curious about language, read this. If you're passionate about language, read this. If you are hungry for a appropriately-dense text acting as a primer to understanding linguistics, read this. It's not a book for everyone, but it's definitely a book for those who love and are fascinated by language.

[Al Bità · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of this book is essentially a tirade against “prescriptivists” (those who push the idea that there is a proper way of speaking, spelling, writing and/or punctuating English). Usually popular writers are most often the target, but there are also “more serious” contenders who are equally attacked for their temerity. The main argument is that they are attempting to impose rules that are evaluative and emotive, and that in some cases their arguments in favour of the proposed rule(s) may even be incorrect or mistaken. The preferred and apparently only appropriate approach is to eschew the evaluative and emotive aspects, and simply describe as scientifically as possible how a language is spoken (preferably) or written (less preferably) based on strict linguistic principles (aka “descriptivism”). The general tenor is that the “rules” prescribed by these prescriptivists aren’t really rules at all, and efforts are made to provide counter-examples, and even to point out that the author might not follow his or her own prescriptions. Lynne Truss, extremely popular author of Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation comes in for special treatment!

[Incidentally, the Australian version of Truss’ main title I had heard related to a deprecatory description (pun intended) of the typical Australian male, who is identified as a Wombat because the Wombat “eats, roots, shoots and leaves” (translation for non-Australians: he is only interested in food, participating in sexual activity, having an orgasm, and remaining non-attached and uncommitted, regardless) and this interpretation is caused solely by the insertion of the first comma only.]

The second half of Greene’s book concentrates more on the specific problem of the political imposition of some kind of linguistic diktat relating to the extension of prescriptive language rules for a State or Nation. Where this has occurred it has often resulted in (intended) discrimination on a number of policy issues often with dire results — particular examples relate to this approach catering for racism, nationalism, patriotism, religious rites and practices, etc. — and which can result in punitive and sometimes deadly actions by individuals against those who flout or otherwise “disobey” the “rules”. As historians have pointed out, over time, such politicisation has not been entirely successful, more often resulting in killing off the language (i.e. it becomes a Dead Language rather than a living one). Even so, this approach has had some influence in the lives of people, particularly if the particular political influence has lasted several decades, or even several lifetimes. And apparently we should start at stopping the Grouches and Pedants and Sticklers for “proper” language usage before they have a chance to develop worse atrocities.

And I guess it is just about here that I have concerns: are the descriptivists being proscriptive about prescriptivists?

At pages 265–6 Greene writes: “If we accept that language is more like music or traffic rules — a set of conventions, which can be violated harmlessly in most cases (music, most like speech) or which are best observed most of the time (traffic rules, most like writing) — we realise that we have been tearing our hair out over nothing in the language wars. Accept that speech and writing are different; that some situations call for highly formal and rigid styles and some call for innovation and rules-be-damned daring; accept that every country houses people who speak different dialects or even languages; that even speakers of the same dialect speak differently; that it has been this way throughout human history and will always be; and some of the anger and urgency will come out of our language debates. Relax, everyone. Language is too enjoyable to get so angry about it.”

I agree with all of this (and indeed, I feel I have always maintained this perspective on language) — so what was all the fuss about in the first half of this book? I must admit that, deep down, I do have an attraction for populist pedants and grouches precisely because, from the right perspective, they provide much to smile about; so I was naturally perplexed about the ferocity of the attacks on them, and more particularly annoyed at the often ad hominem and non-sequitur fallacies used by the anti-sticklers… This resulted in my questioning the terms “descriptive” and “prescriptive”. Perhaps they are merely two sides of the same coin? Certainly one must start with a description, but once that description is made, it would follow naturally that subsequent prescription requires that the previous description is the “proper” way to either speak or write a language — until the next “description” comes along, say, some hundred years later, when perhaps a different way of speaking and/or spelling has developed, at which time a “new” prescription will emerge…

Consequently I have overcome my temerity to provide some of the “grouches” I found in reading this book…

p. 251: Greene is in France, checking on the number of “adopted” English words along the walk between the Saint Michel Métro station along the Seine to the French Academy. He writes: “In just those few hundred meters, I saw…” — here “Métro” is capitalised and the “e” is accented in acknowledgement that this is the way it is spelled to in Paris; but this same acknowledgement is not extended to the spelling of the French word “metre”. This is a particular bugbear for me: a metre is a specific length; a meter is an instrument which measures something. The words are homophones, not homographs; the difference is useful, and instantly recognisable. In any case, as an American, why didn’t the author simply use “yards”?

p. 250: “But the Toubon Law still did provide for punishing individuals who flaunted the requirement for French in public domains such as advertising.” The Toubon Law effectively insisted that their prescription be flaunted (i.e. displayed ostentatiously) so it would be ridiculous for such flaunting to be punished! The correct word here is flouted (i.e. openly disregarded).

p. 164: “Hindi is written in the Devanagari script, characterised by the vertical line that connects the letters from above.” I find it difficult to imagine how letters can be connected from above with a vertical line. I suspect that “vertical” here should be “horizontal”.

p. 158: “But South Africa is no monodecilingual paradise.” Greene is referring here to the officially equal eleven languages in South Africa’s Constitutional Court. “Monodecilingual” is a neologism — it does not exist in any dictionary. It is a mix of Greek and Latin and is obviously meant to refer to the eleven languages; but Latin for “eleven” is undecim while the word in Greek is hendeca, both using “1.10” to indicate “eleven”. To use “mono” (which means sole; the same; alone) for the number 1 (hena in Greek; unum in Latin) is misguided. In English, the prefix for “eleven” has always been taken from the Greek, so the correct usage here should be “hendecalingual”.

And for a final grouch: the title of this book is: “You Are What You Speak”, with the sub-title “Grammar Grouches, Language Laws, and the Politics of Identity”. I initially interpreted this to be a positive assertion, something like: be proud of your language, it identifies who you are. This interpretation is reinforced by the cover image of a fingerprint inserted into a speech-bubble. By the time I had finished reading this book, I suspected that another interpretation was in order: the proscriptive use of languages to make political identification as a basis for social action and interaction — and not always for the better for those so “identified”! In these circumstances, one could interpret the title to mean: be careful of how you speak, because otherwise you might find yourself in trouble! Then, the more I thought about it, the weirder it all became: Canadians, Americans, New Zealanders, and Australians (to name but a few) all speak English: does that make them all English? And what about the cases where speakers of one language can also speak fluently in one or more other languages — do they change their identity when they are speaking different languages? In the end, the kindest thing I can say is that I have no idea what the title of this book means anymore…

[Raluca · Rating 5 out of 5]

What these attempts to control language have in common is that they are all highly political - even when not advertised as such. The belief that language is powerful and one's own language is special, combined with the fear of others speaking differently (especially if you can't understand them), tempts politicians, and the bureaucrats, schoolteachers, and others who support them, to elevate one specific form of a language and denigrate others, and to mess with language itself. The consequences are often ugly.

Linguistics is one of those areas which I claim to be interested in, without actually delving into it beyond isolated trivia. Which makes me, somehow, the perfect reader for Greene's analysis on what linguists actually do and why it matters. He answers questions I had half-assedly stumbled my way across in random conversations, such as:
- If prescriptivism wants to impose rules, does descriptivism mean that anything goes? (No. The way most people speak is governed by rules as well, even if they don't fully overlap with grammar books.)
- What makes a language a language instead of a dialect? (Artificial borders, mostly related to the nationalist rush of the previous centuries.)
- If your language doesn't have a word for something, can you nonetheless imagine that something? (Yes. "Enjoying someone else's misfortune" is a perfectly thinkable concept even in the absence of Schadenfreude as one word. "Hard" Whorfianism was pretty much disproven.)
- Can language reform work? (Yes. Rarely, and with unexpectedly awful consequences. See Ataturk's reform of Turkish.)
- Am I allowed to split the infinitive? (Yes. Someone made up a stupid rule because they liked Latin more than people. Split away.)
The most enjoyable bits of You Are What You Speak were Greene's anecdotes. The most interesting bits were the ones where he drew from history and sociology. His overarching point is that no language (or dialect, or variant, or whatever) is less than another; trying to elevate it or "protect" it from "polluting" foreign influences is pointless at best and socially dangerous at worst. An engaging and illuminating read.

[Bobscopatz · Rating 5 out of 5]

I won this book in a contest (pose a question) on a friend's grammar website.

PLUG: Arrant Pedantry is a terrific grammar blog: http://www.arrantpedantry.com/

So, if you care about language or are at all curious about where rules come from, or how language affects politics and wealth, this book is important! If you just like to think about language from time to time, this book is just plain fun.

Robert Lane Greene is a linguist. He is not a stickler or a purist. He is not a prescriptivist. But people who are sticklers, purists, or prescriptivists still will find much to like about this book, even if it does put those viewpoints into humbling perspective.

Greene tackles much more than language; venturing into politics and economics. He may go outside his areas of true expertise at times, but he always remains conscious of the departure and is careful to contain (most of) his points to influence of language and language policy on the social/political/economic events.

He is decidedly NOT a left-leaning academic elitist. I don't know that he's right-leaning. He's just data-driven. I found it refreshing to be presented with facts and a frank discussion of their possible meanings and limitations.

I want to buy this book for friends. I want my friends to buy it for their friends.

Bravo!

And I shall henceforth split my infinitives whenever I choose.

[Jacob Lines · Rating 4 out of 5]

Language is important. It helps us understand each other and helps us confuse each other. It holds groups together and keeps them apart. There is a story in the Book of Judges about language. The Gileadites and Ephraimites were at war. The Gileadites took control of some fords on the River Jordan. When somebody came to cross the river at the ford, they asked him if he was an Ephraimite. Then they would ask him to say “shibboleth,” a word that means either a flowing stream or a head of grain. The Ephraimites couldn’t pronounce the “sh” sound – they said “sibbolet” instead. This gave them away, and the Gileadites killed them. We still use shibboleths today. And, like then, it isn’t about proper pronunciation as much as it is about group identity.

In this book, Greene does a great job of showing what modern language battles are really about. First, he takes apart some of the language myths that many outspoken grammar lovers believe – you know, those “rules” that aren’t actually rules. Why do some people loudly insist on those rules, then? Because it makes them feel smart to play gotcha, and correcting someone’s usage is often an acceptable way to disguise their aggression.

An even bigger point of the book, though, is about how language battles are too often about class or ethnic prejudices. People have been complaining about the decline of language for centuries. Greene shows that change is a part of language. Speakers are always changing the way the language is used. That is inevitable. And while there ARE rules that speakers and writers must follow to be understood and taken seriously, a lot of the sticklers and grammar grouches are actually not talking about those rules at all. Most of our conflicts about usage but about politics, culture, and group identity. For example, Greene writes about Ebonics and the English-only movement. Standard English is not in danger in America – immigrants are learning English more quickly than they did in the past – the English-only movement is more about trying to preserve a certain culture and group identity than it is about helping immigrants learn English. And Ebonics was actually an effort to help teachers in Oakland understand the way their student spoke so they could more effectively teach them Standard English. But it got caricatured and turned into a culture battle. And the French Academy’s efforts to keep French pure and free of foreign words is based more on a “dented self-image” than real threats to the language.

I suppose that the best lesson from this book is for people that love language and love to hear it used properly. First, it is okay to encourage others to follow the rules of the language. Second, double-check those rules before speaking, because a lot of the “rules” aren’t real and never were (I recommend Garner’s Modern American Usage for this – it’s the best out there). Third, remember that language always changes and there is little use in complaining about that process. And fourth, think about why you are itching to correct someone – is it because they are really making a mistake, or is based on some sense of “aggrieved conservatism,” as Greene calls it?

[Elizabeth Cárdenas · Rating 4 out of 5]

“A truly enlightened attitude to language should simply be to let six thousand or more flowers bloom. Subcultures should be allowed to thrive, not just because it is wrong to squash them, because they enrich the wider culture. Just as Black English has left its mark on standard English Culture, South Africans take pride in the marks of Afrikaans and African languages on their vocabulary and syntax.
New Zealand's rugby team chants in Maori, dancing a traditional dance, before matches. French kids flirt with rebellion by using verlan, a slang that reverses words' sounds or syllables (so femmes becomes meuf). Argentines glory in lunfardo, an argot developed from the underworld a centyry ago that makes Argentine Spanish unique still today. The nonstandard greeting "Where y'at?" for "How are you?" is so common among certain whites in New Orleans that they bear their difference with pride, calling themselves Yats. And that's how it should be.”
― Robert Lane Greene, You Are What You Speak: Grammar Grouches, Language Laws, and the Politics of Identity

Readable, funny & informative, this book is not for those who want ammunition to scold the less erudite among us. It welcomes word and syntax changes which refresh the language and help to improve communication.

For those of us who worry about the state of the English language, a reminder that language is not static - it lives and changes as population, technology, and culture changes. Those who fear the influx of non-English speakers will kill the "king's English" should find comfort in the fact that English has been able to accommodate and embrace these "intrusions" by enlarging its vocabulary and improving the nuance of the language.

Besides being entertained I left the book with a more generous attitude toward other's language foibles and words that describe questionable phenomenon. Even though it seems that the language is diminished when we accept words like "twerking," it is actually being augmented - there is no existing word that would otherwise describe this "booty" movement.

[Sdluvingit · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will definitely encourage you to think about language differently. Lane approaches language as a linguist, not a grammarian. He thinks “flexibility, humility, and multilingualism should take the place of stickerism, arrogance, and nationalism when we think about language”. Not only does Lane give the precriptivists (the proponents of stickerism) short shift* but shows that languages around the world are all able to do the most important thing and that is to facilitate communication among people. He presents and debunks a lot of fun facts but as he says “fun facts are fun only when they are true”; I love it when he says let's look at the data. Lane shows language has been miss-used to socially stratify society, to be the boogieman of nationalism, and to restrict access to upward mobility. If you think English is in any danger in this country think again. English has not only been enhanced and enriched by the immigrants that have brought their languages and culture to America, all those immigrants' subsequent generations are fully English speaking. Lane is witty and engaging, giving lie to the title. This is an enlightening work, especially in light of the current immigration debate.

*An apt depiction of this is the following joke he offers which I appreciate even more for being Southern.

“A Georgia student visiting Harvard asks a passing student, 'Excuse me, can you tell me where the library's at?' The Harvard man says, 'Here at Harvard, we do not end a sentence with a preposition.' The Georgia boy thinks for a second and tries again; 'Sorry, can you tell me where the library's at, asshole?'”

[Ushan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Robert Lane Greene is a correspondent for The Economist; he speaks several European languages and some Arabic, but he is not a linguist. He writes about linguistics using material mostly gathered from other popular books on linguistics, most of which I must have already read, since the majority of his examples seemed familiar to me. Imagine someone who is not a professional computer programmer learning to program in college, reading The Mythical Man-Month, Programmers at Work and a few more such books, and writing a popular book about programming - he probably won't make many mistakes, but you will be better off reading another book. The first part of the book attacks the "sticklers" who write style manuals, promoting unnecessary and linguistically questionable rules. In the second paragraph of Stuart Little E. B. White writes "[...] Mrs. Little went into his [Stuart Little's] room and weighed him on a small scale which was really meant for weighing letters." In The Elements of Style he himself decries the use of "which" instead of "that" in such clauses. Other chapters talk about different aspects of sociolinguistics; I found the discussion of the topics that I am familiar with superficial. Is it really true that Stalin "flirted with Russification of minority areas in the old Soviet Union"? When the Tsars tried to Russify the Russian part of divided Poland, the use of Polish was forbidden in high schools and government offices; surely, this was not the case with the Soviet minority languages under Stalin.

[Alex Templeton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating! I feel like I've been waiting for a book like this to come along. Greene describes and in many cases debunks the political associations we make using language. (One of the most common is the idea that those who speak in a 'low' form of a language (those in this country might recognize Ebonics) are somehow dumber than those who speak in a 'higher' form of the language.) He also respectfully chides the 'sticklers' for grammar and language who sit around bemoaning the downfall of language, arguing that language is always evolving, and can never be expected to stay at the same 'high' point forever. Particularly interesting were the discussions of how notions about language figure into international politics--how it can mark you as "them" in an "us versus them" conflict (such as the '90s wars in the Balkans) and how language often stands in for anxiety about social prestige (the French often insisting their language is the finest in the world). A must read for anyone interested in language and how it shapes the world!

[Elizabeth Mosley · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you've ever found yourself smugly correcting someone's grammar mistake, Greene's book will make you think twice. I'll admit, I fall firmly in the category of what Greene calls "grammar sticklers." Greene argues, however, that language is much more fluid than most of us admit and stubbornly insisting that any given set of grammar rules is the "correct" way to speak or write is perhaps true, but only for right now, and only in certain settings. What we consider appropriate grammar rules probably weren't so a century ago and certainly weren't so beyond that. Additionally, it has always been true that people speak differently in a casual setting than they do in a formal setting. Doing so doesn't make one less educated or sophisticated. Greene does a nice job of discussing language and nationalism and political identity.

[Cynda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Readable. Enjoyed some particular parts, such describing some writers familiar with, such as Strunk/White and Bryson. I used to worship Strunk/White and Bryson. Once again, I learn how little I know.
Also, I appreciated learning how language binds/unbinds Isreal. An important part of Western Civ.

[Mackay · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read a review in the NYT and was intrigued, for I love language and grammar and thought, a book for me. It wasn't what I expected, but that's okay. At times it trends toward dry, with statistics from the study of linguistics, but never for too long. Mr Greene speaks 9 languages, so perhaps he's entitled to try to translate a rather arcane branch of study for general readers. The book is more a political investigation than a book about grammar, which thesis seems to be aimed at soothing the roiled waters of immigration-inspired fears for the core language, whether it be English here in America or French in France or...

The book contains some things everyone could benefit from reading, particularly the last chapter, which compares language to metaphors and clouds, and others which clearly burst the popular balloon that immigration (anywhere) destroys the dominant language or culture of the place where immigrants come. Yep, it's always and ever the reverse, and for linguist, the US is known as the killer of other languages, for by the third generation, and sometimes the second, the immigrant language is gone. Yep, even for Spanish speakers from Mexico and points south. There are interesting bits about Chinese, too, and why China holds to its own writing system, which is cumbersome, besides being heavily time-intensive to learn even halfway adequately for the Chinese. And the reason? Because linguistically, China hosts many separate languages (not just dialects) and they are only one in the written language, the dominant Mandarin. It would burst the Chinese political entity's myth of one China to adopt another, easier writing system.

Anyhow, it's an interesting book and not too long, and one could skip the portions one found uninteresting for the truly captivating sections about what languages are and how they grow and change. And how language is all metaphor.

[Little · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is dedicated largely to debunking some of the most common things we all "know" about language. For example, everyone is clear that English is in a state of terrible decline in the modern era. But nope, people have been saying that since there was a written record of English. English is constantly changing, and that continues to be true. All languages change, but change isn't the same thing as decline.

Another good one: if there isn't a word for something in your language, you can't think it. No, the way your language is structured inclines you to think in particular ways, but doesn't actually prevent you from thinking in other ways or about other things. (Example: In Indonesia, words for for self-reliance have negative connotations, but that doesn't mean Indonesians are incapable of understanding that in the US self-reliance is considered a positive trait.)

Greene also talks about "code switching," which is the fancy linguistics way of saying people use different dialects or languages for different situations. There are many people in the world who, for example, use one dialect at home and with friends and another dialect or language at the office. He works to clarify the Ebonics debate by describing the features of Black English that make it a distinct dialect, and then laying out the case for first teaching children to write in their home dialect and later teaching them to write in the standard language of academics and business, which is the model used in much of Europe.

There lots of fun facts and interesting tidbits scattered throughout the book. Greene's writing has a fairly straight-forward style with a bit of wit. If you have any interest in language or linguistics, I'd definitely recommend this book.

[Katie Cooper · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a departure from what I normally read - YA contemporary - but I do find language fascinating. I read Steven Pinker's The Stuff of Thought for fun in college, along with various other language and grammar books required in my courses, includig Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots, and Leaves which is mentioned several times in this book. I thought there was little too much history and I'll admit to skimming about 10 pages of middle eastern history. I would definitely consider myself more of a prescriptivist than a descriptivist and I am guilty of enforcing some of the more dubious "rules" denounced in You Are What You Speak. This book changed my mind on several issues and helped me see that it's almost impossible to have a perfectly correct language since it's constantly changing. There are some things I'll always stick to, but this book showed me that it's really quite pointless and even wrong to be such a grammar stickler about rules and usages that are changing and evolving. One thing I found interesting was the changing definition of "nonplussed", which I always took to mean as confused or bewildered. I know the meaning is shifting to mean not bothered, but it's confusing when it's written in a book. I remember reading a novel that used nonplussed to describe someone's reaction but I couldn't tell from the context which definition the author was using. I understand change, but at some point clarity is lost in the shift. I enjoyed reading this, I just wish it had a little less world history and a little more English usage information.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was yet another drive-by pickup in the library, so I'm not surprised that it was a little different than what I expected. Greene starts with what I thought would be the meat of the matter - a discussion of prescriptivist vs. descriptivist linguistics (which is a battle I've been having with my father for the entirety of my life). He quickly moves on, however, into the socio-political ramifications of language and language policy. In another life I had plans to become a socio-linguistic antropologist so you can imaging my delight at this! Unlike other reviewers, I appreciated his application of linguistic science to his descriptions, but I can see where all the talk of suffix, prefix and phoneme might have gotten a little boring for the uninitiated. As a "Spanish" speaker, I enjoyed his discussions on the sociological and political development of the language in the old and new world. My undergraduate degree was in Mandarin Chinese and I spent a year studying abroad in Hong Kong so I was already familiar with some of the linguistic challenges facing China, and while he did shed some light on things I had not considered before, I wish he had spent more time discussing Chinese and Asian Languages in general. Maybe in a sequel? I would sure pick it up. Either way this is a book worth reading if you're interested in language, politics, or culture.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

I highly recommend this book to people interested in language, especially if they are unfamiliar with or hostile to linguistics. Greene, an American writer for the British journal "The Economist," has written a non-technical introduction to the human phenomenon of language. He looks at three areas: 1) the science of linguistics, 2) "sticklerism" as a phenomenon of language purists, and 3) language as a reflection of the nation-state. For those interested in language, this would be a wonderful popular introduction. His coverage of linguistics is enough to convey how linguists approach language without going into the details that a book like John McWhorter's What Language Is: And What it Isn't and What it Could Be does (McWhorter's book would be an excellent follow-up to Greene's for those specifically curious about linguistics). But the heart of the book is Greene's exploration of language as a political expression of people. Awareness of this political element of language enables us to heed Greene's call to relax and enjoy the fun and diversity of language.

[Ryan Mishap · Rating 3 out of 5]

A robustly argued--while still managing the painting of stripes in the middle of the road--thesis that our languages are just fine; that when people complain about the decline of grammar or of attacks on language, their motives are political ones and not linguistic. He dismisses the idea that the kids these days don't speak nothing right, the idea that immigrants are destroying English and French in the U.S. and France respectively, and other bogeymen of the (mostly) conservative.

Evidence and arguments make that case. Greene brings nationalism into it, seeming to indict its existence as an anarchist might, but he backs away from the edge. That's fine. Nationalism still gets disparaged, mostly, and so few books even mention the term that any discussion of it is a positive.

I presume that most of you on Goodreads are lover's of or interested in language, so you may find this worthwhile. Those not concerned with linguistics much may find sections toilsome as he explains what the field does and how it applies to his thesis.

[Triciareader]

Wonderful romp through the question of language(s), superiority and politics. Greene responds to fear-mongers who insist that we are being over-run by Spanish by noting the historical record; far more people spoke German, and there were far more German publications (pre-television) - pre-WWII, than there are Hispanics now. Like most other ethnic groups, while the first generation may only speak Spanish, by the second children speak English away from home, and in the third generation no-one speaks Spanish. It will be interesting to see if he is correct, but only time will tell. If only educators could be convinced that children who are multi-lingual are smarter, and encourage early adoption of multiple languages.

[Daniel Christensen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice discussion by someone who really loves the diversity and richness of language. It’s a bit of a reaction against the more hysterical grammar grouches out there.
He makes the case quite strongly that spoken language precedes written language, and the obsession with applying the strict standards of written language to speech don’t always make sense. Also makes the case quite clearly that dialects (like ‘Black English’) should be accepted for what they are.
The real strength of the book is tying language to politics and history. Has some good examples of where languages have changed organically, and where they have changed top-down. If you want to geek out on language, grammar or geopolitics it’s worth a read.

[Popup-ch · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite the title, this is not a Whorfian manifesto, but a sober account of how language variation has been shaped by politics, and vice versa. Ataturk managed to completely change the Turkish language, changing the writing system to latin (from arabic) and removing most words with arab or persian roots. But that was probably the last time it was possible to do that. Today when e.g. the German spelling reform of 1996 tried to change the spelling in certain edge-cases, it was derided and opposed, leading to it being partly reverted and largely ignored.

The main bugbear of the book is Lynne Truss, whose 'Eats, Shoots and Leaves' is derided as misplaced ill-informed ranting, and is seen as representative of all prescriptivist attempts at freezing language in time .

[Marya · Rating 3 out of 5]

Journalists are great for writing clearly and objectively (well, less emotionally), and that style works well for such a technical subject like linguistics. Greene's argument is not just that language is not deteriorating (and he goes into depth explaining what exactly that would mean and how languages work); he also asserts that much of what goes on in the guise of language control is really geopolitical control. By stamping out minority languages, changing what is "official" language, and announcing the superiority of one language over another, what language sticklers and government officials are really saying that one culture is superior and all others need to be repressed.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

A readable introduction to prescriptivist/descriptivist usage debates, language policy, and some basic sociolinguistics issues. In a sense it's an odd hybrid of topics, but Greene pulls off the transitions without too much awkwardness. Chapters include many interesting anecdotes which are drawn from a wide variety of different languages. One can find a few nits to pick here or there where one has expertise, but overall Greene writes with authority and clarity. I recommend it (1) as a corrective to those who are too zealous in their grammar sticklerism and (2) as an accessible, recent treatment of some important topics to anyone interested in language learning or language policy.

[Donna · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't know what I was expecting, but this was not it. It was often a critique of the interesting views of 20th century self-appointed word stylists. I had never heard of many of them, nor their peculiar views. I had already reached many of the same conclusions as Mr Greene did. I'm not sorry I read it, but I don't think it contributed to my command of the English language much, which is what I was hoping for.

[Brian Eshleman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think the author's point is a valid one, that language is a living and adaptable tool which changes over time without necessarily degrading in the process. He carefully points out that the educated elite up each age have bemoaned the regression of their language, but that language does continue to function. Once he makes this central point and supports it historically, though, he has little more to say. It gets a little repetitive.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

I loved the first few chapters of this book where the author critiques the Stickler approach to language. However, as the book progresses, it seemed to me to get bogged down with one issue around language and nationalism and became too detailed and repetitive. I guess, overall, it covered the issues mentioned in the book title. But, for me, it became increasingly boring as the book progressed. I skimmed the last few chapters.

[Jen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very engaging read. It got a little dry toward the last 1/3 of the book, but that's probably more my fault than the book's. (Crazy thing about a book about the politics of language, it actually talks about politics--a lot.) I still highly recommend this book if you're into just learning more about language as a concept and practice.

[Kelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

Midway through and reluctant to finish. I would not recommend this to anyone familiar with the subject matter, especially if you are in grad school. The historical explanations of nationalism and state-building are elementary and the writing, though likely intentional, is overly simplified. One of Greene's points is that being overly "sticklerish" about grammar contradicts what language is and is not necessary. I guess the unintellectual tone is a part of that. (His biography is clear; he's highly accomplished.)
However, I have problems with some of his claims, especially where opinions are presented as facts. I.e. "[the Bible] is a book about language not religion" or even one of his main arguments; that linguistic nationalism caused the World Wars. He admits that "it would be glib" to say that, but then goes onto support his theory that modern nationalism unleashed WWI, and at the heart of that was language.
For the student of nationalism, identity politics or even history, it's a waste of time. Oversimplified and easily debated.

[Martin Cerjan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very enjoyable. This book was very well written and fun to read. The author takes on grammar grouches and discusses the political dimensions of the language wars. It is filled with many fun factoids and provokes deep thinking about language and how it tends to create its own rules. Reading it made me pay close attention to everything I said and heard for days. It probably helps to agree with the author's point of view!