What do you think?
Rate this book
Oxford Core Linguistics
I-Language
I-Language introduces the uninitiated to linguistics as cognitive science. In an engaging, down-to-earth style Daniela Isac and Charles Reiss give a crystal-clear demonstration of the application of the scientific method in linguistic theory. The recurring theme of equivalence classes in linguistic computation ties together the presentation of material from phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. The same theme is used to help students understand the place of linguistics in the broader context of the cognitive sciences, by drawing on examples from vision, audition, and even animal cognition.
Unknown Binding
First published March 1, 2008
6 people are currently reading
52 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 18, 2013
I took the class that is taught with this book, and had the opportunity to have Charles Reiss, one of the co-authors, as my teacher. This means I might have benefited from a certain insight from the author himself along the way.
I am not a linguistic major, but a philosophy major. I took the course because of my interested in cognitive science, philosophy of language and philosophy of mind.
The technical linguistic aspects of this book are extremely well-explained and very clear. The approach is efficient, and I have benefited a lot from doing the exercises presented in the book as homework for the class. I also found that the linguistic theory presented was relevant to the argument for universal grammar that the authors are ultimately trying to make, and that it was very clearly tied together in the text.
However, near the end chapters, the authors dive into philosophical waters, and this is where they are losing a couple of stars from me. It's not that their arguments aren't good (they borrow a lot from Chomsky and Jackendoff to make their points). But if you're going to argue for some kind of thesis about the nature of the human mind, I need to be shown that you have thoroughly examined the opposing and contrasting views relevant to your own. I feel like this part of the book falls short on several levels.
I doubt the authors are well-versed in philosophy at all, let alone philosophy of mind, and it felt cheap at times; as if they had only focused on the authors they agree with, and barely scratched the surface of the rest of the literature. They are busy linguists, I get it. But if you're going to make grandiose, almost arrogant claims about the human mind, you need to be proficient in the relevant literature to be taken seriously. As the authors often complained about philosophers having an opinion on language without knowing about the relevant linguistic data, I think they should hear my complain about linguists having an opinion on philosophy without having enough philosophical training. At times it felt like undeserved attacks on philosophy, and philosophy is way too important a discipline to be attacked for being 'scientifically impractical'.
Overall, I recommend the book for the linguistic knowledge I gained from it, and for exposing me to the main arguments for universal grammar. I recommend it as long as you are aware that there are other important philosophical theories out there, 'impractical' as they may be, and that the authors views on philosophy are way too narrow for the reader not to check out other philosophical works on related subjects. The authors do mention there are other views out there a few times in the book, yet they are so dismissive of those views that I doubt the average student will bother checking them out.
I am not a linguistic major, but a philosophy major. I took the course because of my interested in cognitive science, philosophy of language and philosophy of mind.
The technical linguistic aspects of this book are extremely well-explained and very clear. The approach is efficient, and I have benefited a lot from doing the exercises presented in the book as homework for the class. I also found that the linguistic theory presented was relevant to the argument for universal grammar that the authors are ultimately trying to make, and that it was very clearly tied together in the text.
However, near the end chapters, the authors dive into philosophical waters, and this is where they are losing a couple of stars from me. It's not that their arguments aren't good (they borrow a lot from Chomsky and Jackendoff to make their points). But if you're going to argue for some kind of thesis about the nature of the human mind, I need to be shown that you have thoroughly examined the opposing and contrasting views relevant to your own. I feel like this part of the book falls short on several levels.
I doubt the authors are well-versed in philosophy at all, let alone philosophy of mind, and it felt cheap at times; as if they had only focused on the authors they agree with, and barely scratched the surface of the rest of the literature. They are busy linguists, I get it. But if you're going to make grandiose, almost arrogant claims about the human mind, you need to be proficient in the relevant literature to be taken seriously. As the authors often complained about philosophers having an opinion on language without knowing about the relevant linguistic data, I think they should hear my complain about linguists having an opinion on philosophy without having enough philosophical training. At times it felt like undeserved attacks on philosophy, and philosophy is way too important a discipline to be attacked for being 'scientifically impractical'.
Overall, I recommend the book for the linguistic knowledge I gained from it, and for exposing me to the main arguments for universal grammar. I recommend it as long as you are aware that there are other important philosophical theories out there, 'impractical' as they may be, and that the authors views on philosophy are way too narrow for the reader not to check out other philosophical works on related subjects. The authors do mention there are other views out there a few times in the book, yet they are so dismissive of those views that I doubt the average student will bother checking them out.
January 26, 2015
I'm not actually a linguistics major, but this book presented the concepts of linguistics in a clear, easy to understand manner, including lots of funny anecdotes.
July 18, 2025
Chomsky fanboys writing a partisan tract disguised as a textbook. The book teaches you how to think about linguistics, rather than providing a comprehensive theory of grammar. It is quite philosophical throughout, and towards the end they take a stand on issues ranging from truth to reference to the mind-body problem, never deviating from Chomsky's takes.
January 6, 2013
Overall very interesting and informative. I'll have to go back to some of the more technical chapters, as I didn't set aside the proper amount of time to truly grasp all of the concepts. I enjoyed it.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews