What do you think?
Rate this book
Talk on the Wild Side: The Untameable Nature of Language
Language is a wild rough, ambiguous, inconsistent in countless ways. But that just makes it all the more tempting to tame it. Many have tried, from sticklers for supposedly correct grammar to inventors of supposedly perfect languages; from software engineers working on machine translation to governments that see language management as politics by another means. But when you enter the lair of a wild beast, you can be lucky to escape with your wits. Join Lane Greene on a journey of discovery into the deep strangeness of language. Learn why grammar rules can never capture the extraordinary variety of ordinary usage. See what happens when you try to design a language that really makes sense. Find out why, for all the talk of decline in English, no language in recorded history has ever gone to the dogs, or ever could. And learn the fate of those bold individuals who, through heroism or ignorance, ventured to teach their tongue some new tricks.
240 pages, Hardcover
Published September 20, 2018
47 people are currently reading
897 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
September 21, 2018
Must read!
Q:
I have my own peeves - I'd like to see literally used literally. You probably have your own strong opinions on language too, and you wouldn't be human if you didn't.
Q:
I have my own peeves - I'd like to see literally used literally. You probably have your own strong opinions on language too, and you wouldn't be human if you didn't.
September 6, 2018
Like everything else in the universe, language is always changing. It changes with outside influence, with fashion, with fads and by diktat. Sooner or later, writing follows suit. Talk on the Wild Side, Lane Greene’s newest look at English, debunks the “language tamers” and the fussy rules of experts. What I like about it is that the book is fun precisely because it is not judgmental. There is no One Right Way, Greene reminds readers often. (It “actually means linguistic incompetence,” he says). Instead, the book is a collection of anecdotes, criticisms and studies that commend the variety, power, and evolution of language.
There is a wonderful discussion of meaning, and dictionaries, and Johnson, which is not coincidently the name of Greene’s column in The Economist, the weekly newspaper. Meaning, like everything else, is constantly changing, so that words might not mean the same thing they did a century ago. One of the (many, it seems) things that drive me crazy is authors constantly breaking down words to their original Ancient Greek roots, to prove, well, nothing. It is all completely meaningless to a 21st century native speaker of English. Words today are what we make of them today - and don’t count on them meaning the same thing tomorrow. Greene cites the word buxom, which originally meant pliable, then happy/gay, and now, a large-chested woman. The connections are tenuous at best. Which is the whole point.
Like all evolution, languages evolve towards simplicity and efficiency. So, Greene points out, we combine words to make gotta, oughta, gonna and shoulda. And everyone instantly understands the new words. You can even insert a negative in there, if you remember the song “He shouldna hadna oughtna swung on me.” But English also has a nasty tendency to enlarge, pointlessly. My “favorite” examples are orientate for orient and irregardless for regardless. Singular “they” goes back to at least the 14th century and is not a 21st century abomination. Whom doesn’t matter. No one will fail to understand if you use who instead. Prepositions can end any English sentence – just not Latin ones. That rule is simply bogus. So is using the nominative “I” following “is”. He says you could “end a relationship gently by telling your soon-to-be ex that ‘It’s not you; it’s I’. I recommend this only if you really never want to see that person again.”
I disagree with Greene on some points. He thinks all languages are full-formed and effective, if not equally efficient, in communicating among its speakers. But in English we have few or no words to describe things like taste, for example. You cannot experience what I do biting into an apple by my words alone. The same goes for smell. Look at all the absurd words we use to describe wine. We co-opt the words of dozens of other things, from gravel and charcoal to leather and tobacco, not mention all kinds of fruit that aren’t there, to try to communicate a vintage. The speaker is willing, but the vocabulary is weak.
Another topic not in the book is the lack of effect of television. It might be argued that accentless, non-regionals actors, reporters and interviewers would have a slimming effect on all the regional variations. But they haven’t. I would have loved to have Greene’s take on that.
He also misses divergence. It is already the case that we use subtitles for speakers of dialects, even from our own towns. I have seen subtitles for speakers of Scottish English and for speakers of French from the banlieux (suburbs) and from Africa. It won’t be long before the English of Shakespeare is as incomprehensible to native English speakers as Old English is now. The national “Academies” for language purity cannot hope to stop it.
Possibly the most important concept in Talk on the Wild Side is Formal versus Normal (from Geoffrey Pullum). Donald Trump never speaks Formal. He is always Normal (at least in his speech). Regionalisms, right down to street level get classified in the Normal bin. Formal language is a lingua franca that supposedly rises above all the customization by the hoi polloi. Greene says teachers tell kids they are wrong when they speak what is for them Normal. The constant corrections simply turn them off school and learning. The result is adults with no concept of grammar or syntax, no feeling for the derivation or connection of words, and no desire to fit themselves into the Formal bin. Greene wisely prescribes teachers simply teach the difference between Formal and Normal, and not always prescribe the Formal. Formal can be useful in getting a job, or in giving a talk, or writing a report. There is nothing wrong with Normal; you just want the right tool for each task.
Languages, like everything else, come and go. They come into existence and disappear all the time. There are currently about 7000 of them in operation. And there are people who dedicate their lives to reviving dead ones, by, for example, speaking nothing but that language to their children. Of course, no one knows how those languages sounded, so they are colored by the accent of the speaker. Not that it matters.
Dead languages have very little prospect of flourishing. They died for a reason. Languages exhibit the network effect we hear so much about in internet services. The more people use them, the more powerful and important they become, until they are indispensible. Trying to preserve a failing language that few speak any more is a daunting task, and about the only successful implementation is Hebrew, which was, for hundreds of years, sacred, and only used in religious rites. (So it was never technically dead. Millions spoke it.) It is now the official language of Israel, which gives it much more clout. Languages like Cornish, Breton, and various native American languages don’t have the backing of a nation-state, and keeping them going is a struggle. They have been outcompeted and disadvantaged in a very Darwinian sense.
Children pick up language just by hearing and using it. They eventually get all the rules right. Greene says they need to do the same for the written language. They need to “read, read, read and read some more”. Teaching children grammatical rules is not nearly as effective.
There is so much that can be said about language. It fills several disciplines to overflowing. Lane Greene has selected a nice subset to demonstrate the flexibility and worry-free nature of it all.
David Wineberg
There is a wonderful discussion of meaning, and dictionaries, and Johnson, which is not coincidently the name of Greene’s column in The Economist, the weekly newspaper. Meaning, like everything else, is constantly changing, so that words might not mean the same thing they did a century ago. One of the (many, it seems) things that drive me crazy is authors constantly breaking down words to their original Ancient Greek roots, to prove, well, nothing. It is all completely meaningless to a 21st century native speaker of English. Words today are what we make of them today - and don’t count on them meaning the same thing tomorrow. Greene cites the word buxom, which originally meant pliable, then happy/gay, and now, a large-chested woman. The connections are tenuous at best. Which is the whole point.
Like all evolution, languages evolve towards simplicity and efficiency. So, Greene points out, we combine words to make gotta, oughta, gonna and shoulda. And everyone instantly understands the new words. You can even insert a negative in there, if you remember the song “He shouldna hadna oughtna swung on me.” But English also has a nasty tendency to enlarge, pointlessly. My “favorite” examples are orientate for orient and irregardless for regardless. Singular “they” goes back to at least the 14th century and is not a 21st century abomination. Whom doesn’t matter. No one will fail to understand if you use who instead. Prepositions can end any English sentence – just not Latin ones. That rule is simply bogus. So is using the nominative “I” following “is”. He says you could “end a relationship gently by telling your soon-to-be ex that ‘It’s not you; it’s I’. I recommend this only if you really never want to see that person again.”
I disagree with Greene on some points. He thinks all languages are full-formed and effective, if not equally efficient, in communicating among its speakers. But in English we have few or no words to describe things like taste, for example. You cannot experience what I do biting into an apple by my words alone. The same goes for smell. Look at all the absurd words we use to describe wine. We co-opt the words of dozens of other things, from gravel and charcoal to leather and tobacco, not mention all kinds of fruit that aren’t there, to try to communicate a vintage. The speaker is willing, but the vocabulary is weak.
Another topic not in the book is the lack of effect of television. It might be argued that accentless, non-regionals actors, reporters and interviewers would have a slimming effect on all the regional variations. But they haven’t. I would have loved to have Greene’s take on that.
He also misses divergence. It is already the case that we use subtitles for speakers of dialects, even from our own towns. I have seen subtitles for speakers of Scottish English and for speakers of French from the banlieux (suburbs) and from Africa. It won’t be long before the English of Shakespeare is as incomprehensible to native English speakers as Old English is now. The national “Academies” for language purity cannot hope to stop it.
Possibly the most important concept in Talk on the Wild Side is Formal versus Normal (from Geoffrey Pullum). Donald Trump never speaks Formal. He is always Normal (at least in his speech). Regionalisms, right down to street level get classified in the Normal bin. Formal language is a lingua franca that supposedly rises above all the customization by the hoi polloi. Greene says teachers tell kids they are wrong when they speak what is for them Normal. The constant corrections simply turn them off school and learning. The result is adults with no concept of grammar or syntax, no feeling for the derivation or connection of words, and no desire to fit themselves into the Formal bin. Greene wisely prescribes teachers simply teach the difference between Formal and Normal, and not always prescribe the Formal. Formal can be useful in getting a job, or in giving a talk, or writing a report. There is nothing wrong with Normal; you just want the right tool for each task.
Languages, like everything else, come and go. They come into existence and disappear all the time. There are currently about 7000 of them in operation. And there are people who dedicate their lives to reviving dead ones, by, for example, speaking nothing but that language to their children. Of course, no one knows how those languages sounded, so they are colored by the accent of the speaker. Not that it matters.
Dead languages have very little prospect of flourishing. They died for a reason. Languages exhibit the network effect we hear so much about in internet services. The more people use them, the more powerful and important they become, until they are indispensible. Trying to preserve a failing language that few speak any more is a daunting task, and about the only successful implementation is Hebrew, which was, for hundreds of years, sacred, and only used in religious rites. (So it was never technically dead. Millions spoke it.) It is now the official language of Israel, which gives it much more clout. Languages like Cornish, Breton, and various native American languages don’t have the backing of a nation-state, and keeping them going is a struggle. They have been outcompeted and disadvantaged in a very Darwinian sense.
Children pick up language just by hearing and using it. They eventually get all the rules right. Greene says they need to do the same for the written language. They need to “read, read, read and read some more”. Teaching children grammatical rules is not nearly as effective.
There is so much that can be said about language. It fills several disciplines to overflowing. Lane Greene has selected a nice subset to demonstrate the flexibility and worry-free nature of it all.
David Wineberg
January 23, 2019
I teach diction and phonetics in the music department at a university, and I found this book to be enlightening. Greene explains language “registers,” which helped me understand why some of my students submit seemingly poorly written academic papers...they are writing in the register that they use when talking to their friends and families. Each register has a place, and it’s my job to teach them which register to use and when! I’d recommend this book to anyone interested in language/writing.
December 12, 2018
Thank you to NetGalley, the Economist, and Lane Green for an ARC copy to review. As always, an honest review from me.
Talk on the Wild Side is an interesting foray into the world of ever evolving languages. Yes, languages are evolving. And no, that’s not a bad thing. I learned that language changes to better suit the needs of the speakers. Formal language is not necessarily better than informal, but more about the context. Formal language is more appropriate when writing an essay for English class. Informal is appropriate for family gatherings.
While these seem like such basic concepts, the book explains them in a more in depth manner. Teaching me new things throughout. Some of the concepts presented require an English major background, in theory, but the author explains it so well that most people will understand the nuances concepts. I also found it interesting to see the change of language over time in relation to historical, cultural and political influences. Speaking of politics, the section on language and political campaigns was fascinating and a bit terrifying.
However, as interesting as many parts were, other sections still went over my head and also bored me. The chapters about tech and language, and creating brand new languages didn’t intrigue me. Personal preference though.
All in all, an intriguing foray into the world of language. How we use it, why it changes and people’s thoughts about it.
Talk on the Wild Side is an interesting foray into the world of ever evolving languages. Yes, languages are evolving. And no, that’s not a bad thing. I learned that language changes to better suit the needs of the speakers. Formal language is not necessarily better than informal, but more about the context. Formal language is more appropriate when writing an essay for English class. Informal is appropriate for family gatherings.
While these seem like such basic concepts, the book explains them in a more in depth manner. Teaching me new things throughout. Some of the concepts presented require an English major background, in theory, but the author explains it so well that most people will understand the nuances concepts. I also found it interesting to see the change of language over time in relation to historical, cultural and political influences. Speaking of politics, the section on language and political campaigns was fascinating and a bit terrifying.
However, as interesting as many parts were, other sections still went over my head and also bored me. The chapters about tech and language, and creating brand new languages didn’t intrigue me. Personal preference though.
All in all, an intriguing foray into the world of language. How we use it, why it changes and people’s thoughts about it.
October 17, 2018
I received an ARC of this book via NetGalley in exchange for my honest review.
Enjoyable and informative read about the various intricacies of language. While not for everyone, this book is a fun read for those individuals interested in evolution, contrasts, influences, biases, and oddities in language.
Enjoyable and informative read about the various intricacies of language. While not for everyone, this book is a fun read for those individuals interested in evolution, contrasts, influences, biases, and oddities in language.
October 6, 2018
A very good book about language, particularly English, and how many of the grammar sticklers are wrong. Fun to read and thought provoking if you love language.
January 6, 2019
Great essays about language. They tend to meander a little but usually into interesting areas. I think I liked his previous book better, but they both cover similar ground anyway.
March 24, 2019
A fascinating look at, and deep dive into, the wonderful world of language. I truly had my eyes opened and will try to be less of an unnecessary grammar snob in the future.
February 11, 2020
Try as we may, the language can’t be tamed. But try we do and this book is about some of the ways in which that can transpire. We can bind it in grammatical rules, try to confine it to strict definitions, but lo and behold it’ll get free in time, because language tends to evolve. Survival of the fittest where fit is synonymous with adaptability. And languages tend to adapt to the needs of those utilizing them. That seems to be the essential message here, but the book takes its time getting there in chapters that cover various linguistic paradigms. There’s something for everyone…you might enjoy learning about the definitional evolution of various words, like buxom, or you might amuse yourself with the author taking on the prim and proper grammar grouches like Gwynne. There’s also a chapter of the AI language learning and translation. One on created languages, like Esperanto and Lojban. One of the socioeconomic and political ramifications of language. You get the idea. If it’s language related, it’s in here. It’s a lot to cover in a relatively slim volume and the author does an admirable job, albeit it one he’s much too serious about. Maybe it’s just me, I do prefer my nonfiction narratives to take a lighter, humorous even whenever possible, approach. Then again, the author is a very serious person, an editor for the Economist, so the tone seems about right. The narrative is engaging enough without the jokes and jocular digressions, I found it to be slightly repetitive at times, but tolerably so. It was even entertaining in its own way, but mainly very informative. The armchair linguist in me was delighted and, though there was a good amount of facts I was already familiar with, the book offered plenty of new fascinating information. My goal with nonfiction reading is mainly educational (ideally also entertaining) and this book certainly provided an education. Somewhat dense manner of delivery, but absolutely worth a read. Thanks Netgalley.
October 6, 2024
Talk on the Wild Side is a lively read but, ultimately, feels undercooked. The author lights on many aspects of the use of language but fails to explore them in depth. On the positive side, the gaps make this a great choice for a book group because it stimulates so many questions in the reader.
I felt that Lane Greene missed the main reason why we are interested in grammatical rules; they make text easy to follow and enjoyable to read. Unexpected words or forms of grammar can slow your reading. Sometimes this is done deliberately, in poetry or when the author is trying to make a point. Sometimes it is done in error and then it is irritating. It can undermine your trust in the author and, reading fiction, your ability to suspend disbelief. Weirdly, in a book about grammar, Lane Green does this at least twice, on pages 86 and 177. There might be other examples but these are the ones that tripped me up.
Lane Greene dips into but does not elaborate on the importance of language as a sign of belonging. This sent me back to Trevor Noah's 2016 autobiography. He describes how he was able to persuade different groups of people in his native South Africa that he was one of them by mastering not only their language but their way of using it. That is what Professor Higgins did for Eliza. If the author had spent a bit more time reflecting he might have remembered that the Nazis distorted language to support their political agenda.
Green Lane is right about teaching grammar at the right age and in the right way though. I can still remember one of my infant school classmates staring to make requests in the form 'can-may-I' after an early grammar lesson.
I felt that Lane Greene missed the main reason why we are interested in grammatical rules; they make text easy to follow and enjoyable to read. Unexpected words or forms of grammar can slow your reading. Sometimes this is done deliberately, in poetry or when the author is trying to make a point. Sometimes it is done in error and then it is irritating. It can undermine your trust in the author and, reading fiction, your ability to suspend disbelief. Weirdly, in a book about grammar, Lane Green does this at least twice, on pages 86 and 177. There might be other examples but these are the ones that tripped me up.
Lane Greene dips into but does not elaborate on the importance of language as a sign of belonging. This sent me back to Trevor Noah's 2016 autobiography. He describes how he was able to persuade different groups of people in his native South Africa that he was one of them by mastering not only their language but their way of using it. That is what Professor Higgins did for Eliza. If the author had spent a bit more time reflecting he might have remembered that the Nazis distorted language to support their political agenda.
Green Lane is right about teaching grammar at the right age and in the right way though. I can still remember one of my infant school classmates staring to make requests in the form 'can-may-I' after an early grammar lesson.
February 28, 2024
The author is plain, direct and doesn't treat the reader as a kid who doesn't understand the subject (which is something language sticklers tend to do). A very well written book about the descriptive approach and how it is important to self doubt about our own prescriptive perspective.
The only problem is that some ideas are repeated a bit too much throughout the chapters, and that tends to weigh on the reading experience.
Other than that I loved it from the beginning to the end.
The only problem is that some ideas are repeated a bit too much throughout the chapters, and that tends to weigh on the reading experience.
Other than that I loved it from the beginning to the end.
April 16, 2023
Enjoyable, well-written intro to linguistics.
Read
January 1, 2021Fascinating book on language by The Economist's Johnson columnist, with a particular focus on people's failed attempts to "tame" language, thus making the book good at busting myths about grammar rules or the role of language in politics.
March 8, 2019
A very readable book on language - primarily how language is constantly changing and how grammar sticklers are, thus, inherently fighting a losing battle.
The vast majority of language experts today - those who really understand what language is and how it works, rather than those who focus on how they think it ought to work - sit closer to the descriptivist camp, rather than being prescriptivists. But, yet, Greene feels the need to write a book explaining why the latter are wrong - why language can never be tamed or shaped to the will of a select few.
He's right, of course, and is very interestingly so. However, I fear that he will largely find himself preaching to the converted. His book is only likely to picked up (and lapped up) by those who already share his views. I can't see your typical language stickler being keen to read about why they are so wrong or having a relaxed and open enough mind to be persuaded - the very essence of being stickler presupposes a rigid unswayable mindset.
A good and welcome book, though.
The vast majority of language experts today - those who really understand what language is and how it works, rather than those who focus on how they think it ought to work - sit closer to the descriptivist camp, rather than being prescriptivists. But, yet, Greene feels the need to write a book explaining why the latter are wrong - why language can never be tamed or shaped to the will of a select few.
He's right, of course, and is very interestingly so. However, I fear that he will largely find himself preaching to the converted. His book is only likely to picked up (and lapped up) by those who already share his views. I can't see your typical language stickler being keen to read about why they are so wrong or having a relaxed and open enough mind to be persuaded - the very essence of being stickler presupposes a rigid unswayable mindset.
A good and welcome book, though.
November 22, 2019
A decent follow up to You Are What You Speak, but not as life changing. The first part spends too much time pedantically responding to particular language pedants. Yes it destroys them but it's overdone. Then Greene dives into logical languages, and it's sort of interesting, but again it's too deep for what it's worth. The gold is found in the next part that addresses AI attempts at natural language and translation. It's a good overview of the history of AI and its inherent limitations. Finally, Greene evaluates connections between language and politics and that's also gold. The inevitable conclusion that nothing will replace voter education is validated by looking at both Lakoff and Orwell on the opposite ends of language politics. No amount of framing or extreme clarity will save the uninformed from bad choices. Everyone needs some linguistics in their lives and this book has a good serving of it, but it didn't shake me like its prequel.
February 12, 2019
I enjoyed this, as would anyone who loves words and languages. The author does a good job of skewering grammar sticklers, explaining how languages grow and evolve, and pointing out the politics involved in parts of the world where what language you speak and how you speak it mean far more than they do for us English speakers.
November 25, 2018
I was really hoping to get more out of this book than I did. There is a lot of great information in it and Greene did a great job of stoking my interest in the subject. However there were large chunks that were stilted and felt like he veered way off course.
Overall I felt like the chapters on politics and focusing on specific grammarians faults were an a distraction, and I would have loved to see more information on how our language was changing with technology and new forms of writing like text messages, tweet, etc.
Overall I felt like the chapters on politics and focusing on specific grammarians faults were an a distraction, and I would have loved to see more information on how our language was changing with technology and new forms of writing like text messages, tweet, etc.
April 24, 2019
Non-fiction but not one of my usual subject areas but language is interesting in and of itself. Enjoyed Lane's coverage of grammar sticklers, whether you need complex language to ponder complex ideas, how words change significantly in meaning (buxom in the past, literally today), why dialects are not subpar versions of the supposed master tongue, and ended with discussion on political language.
January 22, 2019
Overall a solid read in a subject I favor. Greene had a couple of instances where I felt he reiterated his point LONG after I felt I thoroughly understood. I liked his use of "formal" and "normal" as well as his suggestion for how teachers could use these concepts to keep students from shutting down when presented with "formal" grammar.
March 7, 2019
Content matches the cliched title, predictably adopted from a randy song that uncharacteristically, beyond its own intent went Top 40 and become something of a cliche easily used as a cliche but with just enough strength to get over. Gives just enough cover to safe views expressed with would-be verve and courage but in order to fit in and receive due rewards using facility at hand. Over-boring.
January 9, 2020
Greene has many insightful, intelligent things to say about language, particularly the perils of being too regimented about rules. Worthwhile reeading for anyone deeply vested in the ways of speech and writing.
January 24, 2019
Very enjoyable.
July 25, 2019
I loved this book. Nothing gets me to lol like a book on grammar. So with that said, you're not going to like this review unless you are one with the grammar wit. And even if you are, you may not want to read this until after the book. It's really just a series of notes for my own benefit.
June 10, 2023
Excellent. Fact and evidence based. True expertise on the subject. So what? English grammarians don’t want to know the truth about the way the language works (grammar); they want to have the badly informed old rules they were taught at school re-inforced:
Never begin a sentence with but or so.
Never end a sentence with a preposition. (I’m OK there as “preposition” isn’t a preposition.
Do not split an infinitive.
Be clear to distinguish between that and which.
Green brilliantly dismisses a self-appointed nitwit like Neville Martin Gwynn (or Simon Heffer, or Toby Young, or Michael Gove or any one of these supposed experts (experts of the modern type that appeal to social media users, ie. who don’t know what they are talking about. Unfortunately Gwynn outsells Green 10 to 1. As I said, people who buy books on grammar want their own wrong ideas confirmed.
This book is a joy for anyone who studies the way our language really works. My hope is that natural wastage will eliminate the over-influential ones whose teacher once told them that “Micael and me” is wrong, you must say “Michael and I”. A good number of these people are older than me and I’m getting on.
I enjoyed the whole book but especially the chapters about how he feels English should be taught. His ideas correspond nicely with the way I taught English (very successfully if I may say so) for 30 years. Or should I follow the likes of Shakespeare, Jonson, Milton and Roddenberry and say I was able to successfully teach English. Despite pressure from the likes of Gwynn, Young and Gove to abandon the needs of the students and follow the dogma.
Never begin a sentence with but or so.
Never end a sentence with a preposition. (I’m OK there as “preposition” isn’t a preposition.
Do not split an infinitive.
Be clear to distinguish between that and which.
Green brilliantly dismisses a self-appointed nitwit like Neville Martin Gwynn (or Simon Heffer, or Toby Young, or Michael Gove or any one of these supposed experts (experts of the modern type that appeal to social media users, ie. who don’t know what they are talking about. Unfortunately Gwynn outsells Green 10 to 1. As I said, people who buy books on grammar want their own wrong ideas confirmed.
This book is a joy for anyone who studies the way our language really works. My hope is that natural wastage will eliminate the over-influential ones whose teacher once told them that “Micael and me” is wrong, you must say “Michael and I”. A good number of these people are older than me and I’m getting on.
I enjoyed the whole book but especially the chapters about how he feels English should be taught. His ideas correspond nicely with the way I taught English (very successfully if I may say so) for 30 years. Or should I follow the likes of Shakespeare, Jonson, Milton and Roddenberry and say I was able to successfully teach English. Despite pressure from the likes of Gwynn, Young and Gove to abandon the needs of the students and follow the dogma.
August 17, 2019
Lane Greene is a journalist, best known for his work in The Economist as editor and language columnist. He was born in Tennessee, is married to a Danish woman, and speaks seven languages. In this book, he describes how language is a wild (and beautiful) thing that can't be tamed --on the contrary, it is always changing.
*"Quickly on Twitter, more slowly in the spoken language, and more slowly still in writing, words change meaning, new ones are born, and other ones die. There is a change in the system, but it functions as a system, not as a lot of randomly fluctuating pieces." (p. 111)
*"To sum up: language is not so much logical as it is useful. It is not composed; it is improvised. It is not well behaved; it is resourceful. It is not delicate; it is hardy. It is not always efficient, but its redundancy makes it robust. It is not threatened; it is self-renewing. It is not perfect. But it is amazing." (p. 8)
*"Language is a many-faceted thing. Slang and dialect, jocular play with non-standard forms, teen-speak, corporate jargon, political waffle and all the other kinds of language typically loathed by the letter-to-the-editor type have their places. These are not a threat to language's health. Their persistence shows that they fill a need. Not all language is well behaved, nor does it need to be." (p. 13)
*"Quickly on Twitter, more slowly in the spoken language, and more slowly still in writing, words change meaning, new ones are born, and other ones die. There is a change in the system, but it functions as a system, not as a lot of randomly fluctuating pieces." (p. 111)
*"To sum up: language is not so much logical as it is useful. It is not composed; it is improvised. It is not well behaved; it is resourceful. It is not delicate; it is hardy. It is not always efficient, but its redundancy makes it robust. It is not threatened; it is self-renewing. It is not perfect. But it is amazing." (p. 8)
*"Language is a many-faceted thing. Slang and dialect, jocular play with non-standard forms, teen-speak, corporate jargon, political waffle and all the other kinds of language typically loathed by the letter-to-the-editor type have their places. These are not a threat to language's health. Their persistence shows that they fill a need. Not all language is well behaved, nor does it need to be." (p. 13)
August 28, 2022
Pretty disappointing. I picked this up after hearing the author on John McWhorter's Lexicon Valley podcast.
Sadly it turns out to be just one more in the endless series of books repetitiously pushing two basic positions: (1) people who express concern about language use - always represented by someone spectacularly easy to dismiss (in this case some ignorant hyper-traditionalist called Nevile Gwynne) are misguided and probably stupid and/or deeply reactionary, but in any case fundamentally wrong, and (2) all languages and all language use is just dandy.
It's full of poor argument and a vast amount of straw-man claims ("prescriptivists don't like multiple forms of a language hanging around", to take a random example), and it doesn't even bother trying to substantiate the second claim above, which would obviously take some doing. Much smarter folk than LG (Wittgenstein comes to mind) have fretted, to much greater purpose, about the ways that language - irrespective of how "grammatically" or even logically impeccable it is - can mess with people's heads.
Still, I'm giving it a generous 3 stars, because it's at least about language, and I did learn some interesting stuff from it, mainly about artificial languages (Esperanto, Loglan and others).
Sadly it turns out to be just one more in the endless series of books repetitiously pushing two basic positions: (1) people who express concern about language use - always represented by someone spectacularly easy to dismiss (in this case some ignorant hyper-traditionalist called Nevile Gwynne) are misguided and probably stupid and/or deeply reactionary, but in any case fundamentally wrong, and (2) all languages and all language use is just dandy.
It's full of poor argument and a vast amount of straw-man claims ("prescriptivists don't like multiple forms of a language hanging around", to take a random example), and it doesn't even bother trying to substantiate the second claim above, which would obviously take some doing. Much smarter folk than LG (Wittgenstein comes to mind) have fretted, to much greater purpose, about the ways that language - irrespective of how "grammatically" or even logically impeccable it is - can mess with people's heads.
Still, I'm giving it a generous 3 stars, because it's at least about language, and I did learn some interesting stuff from it, mainly about artificial languages (Esperanto, Loglan and others).
July 17, 2022
Overall an excellent read. Doesn't break a lot of new ground: many of the arguments that you expect from a descriptivist. Surprisingly approving of Garner and Pinker (just a little surprising, I should say). Best point is maybe that we no evidence of a language that has collapsed; he hits that harder than most similar texts. Also good on explanations of grammaticalization (though not especially good on the GVS). Also falls down on what it would mean to teach language and grammar--lots of "they should read" but without much consideration of what kind of things students should read, or how.
Also: modal verbs take bare infinitives. Somehow I've never had this stated so clearly.
Last chapter has a good summary of the whole book. Worth keeping in mind for teaching HOTEL.
Also: modal verbs take bare infinitives. Somehow I've never had this stated so clearly.
Last chapter has a good summary of the whole book. Worth keeping in mind for teaching HOTEL.
December 18, 2020
Fascinating reading from one of The Economist’s usually anonymous correspondents. His book asks the questions which worry serious users of written and spoken English.
As a card carrying pedant, I found much to ponder on. And why the ‘correct’ use of English is a slippery matter.
Should we worry, for example, about the correctness of using a proposition to end a sentence with?
Or how about starting a phone call ‘It’s I’?
The answers to both is ‘it depends’
Greene explains the how and the why. (And the way speech has a different set of guidelines than the written word has).
One for reading and consulting.
As a card carrying pedant, I found much to ponder on. And why the ‘correct’ use of English is a slippery matter.
Should we worry, for example, about the correctness of using a proposition to end a sentence with?
Or how about starting a phone call ‘It’s I’?
The answers to both is ‘it depends’
Greene explains the how and the why. (And the way speech has a different set of guidelines than the written word has).
One for reading and consulting.
July 29, 2020
Whenever in our Local Epic Bookshop, Donner Rotterdam, a new book on language appears on the science-language shelves, first floor, on the left, I hope its something good. And this one was: about controlling languages, about how to make children talk in the language the government would like them to, about two men in Cornwall raising their children with only the previous dead language Cornish to listen to (foolish, bordering cruel, and fullblown romantic thinking), about the way the language clock is ticking and moving. Great stuff.
January 19, 2022
Really enjoyable! I hadn’t read a nonfiction vignette book like this in a while and it definitely brought me back to middle school when it was my primary genre. A little too much sucking up to Stephen Pinker for my taste, but that can basically be forgiven. Perhaps I am in the minority in feeling that the strongest parts were the most pure linguistic sections, discussing how languages evolve from fusional to isolating to agglutinating. Either way, it made me want to read more about language, and learn more about the biggest linguistic debates going on today.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews