What do you think?
Rate this book
Introducing Graphic Guides
Introducing Linguistics by R. L. Trask
"More than anything else, language is what makes us human. Linguistics, the discipline which studies the structure, function and phenomena of language, has uncovered many surprising and fascinating things about the nature of our human language faculty. But these findings are often presented in opaque technical terminology which hides their simplicity and beauty." "Introducing Linguistics demystifies the subject, presenting a clear account of what linguists do, how they go about it, and what they have achieved so far. A summary of the history of linguistics, from Aristotle to Chomsky, includes the chief contributions of its leading figures - Saussure, the Prague Circle, the American structuralists, Sapir, Bloomfield and others." This book provides a review of the most recent and dramatic advances in the field, such as first-language acquisition by children, language in the brain, sign languages, language change and linguistic prehistory, men's and women's language, language engineering and the universal properties of languages.
Paperback
First published October 29, 1996
638 people are currently reading
1482 people want to read
About the author
R.L. Trask
28 books24 followersRobert Lawrence "Larry" Trask was Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sussex in England. He was an authority on the Basque language: his book The History of Basque (1997) is an essential reference on diachronic Basque linguistics and probably the best introduction to Basque linguistics as a whole. He was also an authority on historical linguistics, and had written about the problem of the origin of language. He also published two introductory books to linguistics: Language: The basics (1995) and Introducing Linguistics (coauthored with Bill Mayblin) (2000), and several dictionaries on different topics of this science: A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics (1993), A dictionary of phonetics and phonology (1996), A student's dictionary of language and linguistics (1997), Key concepts in language and linguistics (1999), The dictionary of historical and comparative linguistics (2000) and The Penguin dictionary of English grammar (2000).
He was at work compiling an etymological dictionary of Basque when he died, posthumously published by Max W. Wheeler (Etymological Dictionary of Basque, 2008).
He was at work compiling an etymological dictionary of Basque when he died, posthumously published by Max W. Wheeler (Etymological Dictionary of Basque, 2008).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 123 reviews
March 2, 2020
Ziman heke neba
اگر زبان نبود
Em çi bûn!?
ما چه بودیم!؟
Nebûn
هیچ
اگر زبان نبود
Em çi bûn!?
ما چه بودیم!؟
Nebûn
هیچ
October 23, 2024
A funny mini guide for beginner linguists or anyone interested in linguistics
May 12, 2025
والا انقدر فضای گودریدز داره شبیه توییتر میشه (نخبگانی از نوع... خوب... شاید) که آدم روش نمیشه یه ریویو بد بنویسه به خصوص درباره این مدل کتاب ها.
انی وی. چند تا سوال که احتمالا ریشه تو دانش نسبتا کم من دارن برام پیش اومده...
یه قسمتی گفت که ما دو نوع زبان داریم. پیش زبان و زبان کامل. و گفت که ما زبانی بین این دو تا نداریم پس اجداد میمون طوری ما باید یهو از ناکجاآباد یه تیکه تو مغزشون ظاهر شده باشه که بهشون یه سری سوپر پاور داده + یه زبان که دست بر قضا مشترک هم هست. خدا میدونه شاید انیشتین نیششون زده.
منو یاد اونجایی میندازه که تو انیمیشن سیاره گنج یهو حافظه روباته رو میذارن سرجاش. حالا یه جا دیگه میگه که زبونی مثل باسک در جاهای مختلف با گویش های متفاوتی صحبت میشده. یا حتی بعضی زبان ها بعدا به یه سری کلمات معیار رسیدن (مثلا همه به فلان پرنده بگن طوطی به عنوان مثال البته). سوالات من اینجا شروع میشن:
زبانی مثل باسک با گویش های متفاوت یا هر زبانی دیگه ای (لهجه منظورم نیست ها. مثل گیلکی) که هنوز کامل نشده(به عنوان زبان با کلمات و قواعد مشترک بین همه متکلمینش) و از طرفی قسمت محدودیش بین گوینده هاش مشترکه جزو کدوم دسته قرار میگیره؟ آیا جزو زبان های پی‌جین قرار میگیره با توجه به اینکه مردمش کلمات مشترک کمی با هم داشتن؟ یا چون زبان مادریه میشه کرئول؟ یا اصلا هیچکدوم؟
سوال بعدی... وقتی میگیم تدریجی چه بازه زمانی مد نظره؟ یه سال؟ صد سال؟ یه میلیون؟ بچه هایی که بین خودشون یه زبون جدید درست کردن آیا یهویی و ناگهانی یه تیکه گمشده تو مدار مغزشون جا خورده که شامل دیکشنری زبان اشاره‌ست؟ یا 《به تدریج》 اونو شکل دادن و یاد گرفتن؟
چه چیزی باعث میشه که ما با اطمینان بگیم که استعداد زبان فقط مختص به ماست؟ چند نفر اینجا زبون کلاغا رو بلدن که با اطمینان میگن فقط ما بلدیم جمله و استعاره بسازیم؟ یه 《آها》 گفتن تو فارسی با توجه به موقعیت و حالت صوت و صورت هزار تا معنی میتونه داشته باشه. از کجا معلوم پرنده ها و گربه ها هم همچین قابلیتی نداشته باشن؟
در جواب اونایی که ممکنه به تفاوت ساختار مغز حیوانات و انسان ها اشاره کنن باید بگم که... آخه الله بندسی تو فهمیدن کارکرد مغز خودتون موندین از کجا میدونی مغز میمون چجوری کار میکنه؟ غیر از اینکه یه بزرگواری یه زمانی یه اشتباهی کرد و گفت انسان اشرف مخلوقاته دیگه چه مدرکی دارید؟
بیاین فرض کنیم زبان فارسی و زبان ترکی (چون ترکی استانبولی خیلی دوست دارم) ریشه گرفته از زبانی به اسم چه میدونم یه اسمی بگید. فارکی یا ترسیه هر چی...اگر من با این ادم حرف بزنم و تا حد زیادی منظور همدیگه رو بفهمیم اما به یه زبان مشترک صحبت نکنیم و دست بر قضا این زبون نصفه نیمه یه نسخه ناقص از زبون مادر (همون ترسی و فارکی) باشه.... این چه زبونیه؟ تو کدوم دسته قرار میگیره؟
چرا درباره زبان اسپرانتو یا بقیه زبان های انسان ساخت (حالا انگار بقیه زبون ها رو دلفین ها ساختن) تو کتاب صحبتی نشده بود؟ اگر من تصمیم بگیرم با بچه‌م فقط اسپرانتو حرف بزنم زبون مادریش اسپرانتوعه؟ بعد از مدتی جزو زبان های مادری (طبیعی) به حساب میاد؟ اگر به مرور افراد بیشتری صحبتش کنن و تکامل پیدا کنه چی؟ دیگه جزو زبون های مصنوعی نیست حتی اگر قواعد اصلیش هنوز یکی باشن؟ اگر بچه من بره بیرون و با کسایی که ایتالیایی یا لاتین حرف میزنن حرف بزنه و زبان مشترکی بسازن ایا اسپرانتو زبان مادر محسوب میشه؟
حالا این کتاب بیشتر راجع به زبان های ممالک واقع در بلاد کفر بود درباره زبان فارسی کتاب یا منبع مشابهی هست؟ اگر میشناسید ممنون میشم بگید.
اون قسمت مربوط به یه زبان تو استرالیا و قسمت زنان و مار ها و آتش و چیزای خطرناک واقعا جالب بود. طرفدارای اندرو تیت میتونن پکیج آموزشیشو بخرن تو لامبورگینیشون گوش کنن یاد بگیرن.
من به جرات میتونم بگم زندگیمو (اگر سه سالم بود) تماما وقف آموزش این قضیه کردم که اون قضیه IO برای آموزش زبان 《به طور کامل به نحوی که نیاز به روش دیگه ای و مطالعه گرامر نباشه》 منتفیه. پس انقدر نشینین پای سریال های چرت و پرت پشمکی به بهونه یادگیری زبان. البته کسی نمیتونه بهتون بگه چیکار کنید (بعضی وقتا بین بخش با درک و شعور و محترمم و اون بخشم که تو توییتر ترامپ و ماسک و عمو تیتی رو فالو میکنه نوسان دارم).
عااا. تا یادم نرفته. اون پست های زرد اینستا که میگه ما به طور طبیعی همه زبان ها رو تو مغزمون داریم و شما فقط کافیه یه grep تو ترمینال تایپ کنی یهو به شیر بگی Milch هم منتفیه. عزیزم مگه جاده خاکی که پا بخوره هموار شه زبان جدید یاد بگیری؟ اون همه سیناپس توی مغزت هر روز دارن جون میکنن راه جدید میسازن که تو بیای یه چرت و پرت جدید بگی عزیزم. اینا قدیمی شده گوزلیم.
یه نقطه اون گوشی پست هست بزنید. اونی که میگه دیگه نمیخوام محتوای این پیج زرد پرررررنگ برام بیاد رو بزنید و عمری دعام کنید. چون حتی خود چامسکی هم خیلی نتونسته ادعاشو ثابت کنه. دو تا پیج اینستا که میخوان بهتون پکیج چگونه در دو ساعت زبان انگولایی رو به زبان پیتجانتجاتجارا ترجمه کنیم که دیگه جای خود دارند. عا این زبون اخری هم واقعیه.
و من الله توفیق
و البته کلی پول 💰
انی وی. چند تا سوال که احتمالا ریشه تو دانش نسبتا کم من دارن برام پیش اومده...
یه قسمتی گفت که ما دو نوع زبان داریم. پیش زبان و زبان کامل. و گفت که ما زبانی بین این دو تا نداریم پس اجداد میمون طوری ما باید یهو از ناکجاآباد یه تیکه تو مغزشون ظاهر شده باشه که بهشون یه سری سوپر پاور داده + یه زبان که دست بر قضا مشترک هم هست. خدا میدونه شاید انیشتین نیششون زده.
منو یاد اونجایی میندازه که تو انیمیشن سیاره گنج یهو حافظه روباته رو میذارن سرجاش. حالا یه جا دیگه میگه که زبونی مثل باسک در جاهای مختلف با گویش های متفاوتی صحبت میشده. یا حتی بعضی زبان ها بعدا به یه سری کلمات معیار رسیدن (مثلا همه به فلان پرنده بگن طوطی به عنوان مثال البته). سوالات من اینجا شروع میشن:
زبانی مثل باسک با گویش های متفاوت یا هر زبانی دیگه ای (لهجه منظورم نیست ها. مثل گیلکی) که هنوز کامل نشده(به عنوان زبان با کلمات و قواعد مشترک بین همه متکلمینش) و از طرفی قسمت محدودیش بین گوینده هاش مشترکه جزو کدوم دسته قرار میگیره؟ آیا جزو زبان های پی‌جین قرار میگیره با توجه به اینکه مردمش کلمات مشترک کمی با هم داشتن؟ یا چون زبان مادریه میشه کرئول؟ یا اصلا هیچکدوم؟
سوال بعدی... وقتی میگیم تدریجی چه بازه زمانی مد نظره؟ یه سال؟ صد سال؟ یه میلیون؟ بچه هایی که بین خودشون یه زبون جدید درست کردن آیا یهویی و ناگهانی یه تیکه گمشده تو مدار مغزشون جا خورده که شامل دیکشنری زبان اشاره‌ست؟ یا 《به تدریج》 اونو شکل دادن و یاد گرفتن؟
چه چیزی باعث میشه که ما با اطمینان بگیم که استعداد زبان فقط مختص به ماست؟ چند نفر اینجا زبون کلاغا رو بلدن که با اطمینان میگن فقط ما بلدیم جمله و استعاره بسازیم؟ یه 《آها》 گفتن تو فارسی با توجه به موقعیت و حالت صوت و صورت هزار تا معنی میتونه داشته باشه. از کجا معلوم پرنده ها و گربه ها هم همچین قابلیتی نداشته باشن؟
در جواب اونایی که ممکنه به تفاوت ساختار مغز حیوانات و انسان ها اشاره کنن باید بگم که... آخه الله بندسی تو فهمیدن کارکرد مغز خودتون موندین از کجا میدونی مغز میمون چجوری کار میکنه؟ غیر از اینکه یه بزرگواری یه زمانی یه اشتباهی کرد و گفت انسان اشرف مخلوقاته دیگه چه مدرکی دارید؟
بیاین فرض کنیم زبان فارسی و زبان ترکی (چون ترکی استانبولی خیلی دوست دارم) ریشه گرفته از زبانی به اسم چه میدونم یه اسمی بگید. فارکی یا ترسیه هر چی...اگر من با این ادم حرف بزنم و تا حد زیادی منظور همدیگه رو بفهمیم اما به یه زبان مشترک صحبت نکنیم و دست بر قضا این زبون نصفه نیمه یه نسخه ناقص از زبون مادر (همون ترسی و فارکی) باشه.... این چه زبونیه؟ تو کدوم دسته قرار میگیره؟
چرا درباره زبان اسپرانتو یا بقیه زبان های انسان ساخت (حالا انگار بقیه زبون ها رو دلفین ها ساختن) تو کتاب صحبتی نشده بود؟ اگر من تصمیم بگیرم با بچه‌م فقط اسپرانتو حرف بزنم زبون مادریش اسپرانتوعه؟ بعد از مدتی جزو زبان های مادری (طبیعی) به حساب میاد؟ اگر به مرور افراد بیشتری صحبتش کنن و تکامل پیدا کنه چی؟ دیگه جزو زبون های مصنوعی نیست حتی اگر قواعد اصلیش هنوز یکی باشن؟ اگر بچه من بره بیرون و با کسایی که ایتالیایی یا لاتین حرف میزنن حرف بزنه و زبان مشترکی بسازن ایا اسپرانتو زبان مادر محسوب میشه؟
حالا این کتاب بیشتر راجع به زبان های ممالک واقع در بلاد کفر بود درباره زبان فارسی کتاب یا منبع مشابهی هست؟ اگر میشناسید ممنون میشم بگید.
اون قسمت مربوط به یه زبان تو استرالیا و قسمت زنان و مار ها و آتش و چیزای خطرناک واقعا جالب بود. طرفدارای اندرو تیت میتونن پکیج آموزشیشو بخرن تو لامبورگینیشون گوش کنن یاد بگیرن.
من به جرات میتونم بگم زندگیمو (اگر سه سالم بود) تماما وقف آموزش این قضیه کردم که اون قضیه IO برای آموزش زبان 《به طور کامل به نحوی که نیاز به روش دیگه ای و مطالعه گرامر نباشه》 منتفیه. پس انقدر نشینین پای سریال های چرت و پرت پشمکی به بهونه یادگیری زبان. البته کسی نمیتونه بهتون بگه چیکار کنید (بعضی وقتا بین بخش با درک و شعور و محترمم و اون بخشم که تو توییتر ترامپ و ماسک و عمو تیتی رو فالو میکنه نوسان دارم).
عااا. تا یادم نرفته. اون پست های زرد اینستا که میگه ما به طور طبیعی همه زبان ها رو تو مغزمون داریم و شما فقط کافیه یه grep تو ترمینال تایپ کنی یهو به شیر بگی Milch هم منتفیه. عزیزم مگه جاده خاکی که پا بخوره هموار شه زبان جدید یاد بگیری؟ اون همه سیناپس توی مغزت هر روز دارن جون میکنن راه جدید میسازن که تو بیای یه چرت و پرت جدید بگی عزیزم. اینا قدیمی شده گوزلیم.
یه نقطه اون گوشی پست هست بزنید. اونی که میگه دیگه نمیخوام محتوای این پیج زرد پرررررنگ برام بیاد رو بزنید و عمری دعام کنید. چون حتی خود چامسکی هم خیلی نتونسته ادعاشو ثابت کنه. دو تا پیج اینستا که میخوان بهتون پکیج چگونه در دو ساعت زبان انگولایی رو به زبان پیتجانتجاتجارا ترجمه کنیم که دیگه جای خود دارند. عا این زبون اخری هم واقعیه.
و من الله توفیق
و البته کلی پول 💰
November 14, 2015
این کتاب خواندنی گشت‌وگذاری است در عالم زبان و زبان‌شناسی. سبک و لحن نویسنده‌ی آن، همان‌گونه که در مقدمه آمده، بسیار خودمانی است و در آن، از سبک فرادستانه‌ی علمی به‌شدت پرهیز شده است. این ویژگی صمیمیت بسیاری به نثر کتاب بخشیده است؛ تاآن‌جاکه مخاطب احساس می‌کند نویسنده‌ی آن با وجود اینکه استاد دانش‌گاه و شخصیتی برجسته است، روبه‌رویش نشسته و با بیانی سخت دوستانه با او گپ می‌زند. در این کتاب از موضوعات متنوع و گسترده‌ای که همه به زبان مربوط‌اند، سخن به‌میان آمده است؛ از تاریخ پیدایش زبان و سازکار زبان گرفته تا دستور زبان و روان‌شناسی زبان و فرایند پیچیده و جالب یادگیری زبان در کودکان. عنوان فصل‌های آن به این قرار است: بی‌همانندی زبان انسان، رکن دستور در زبان، زبان و معنا، گوناگونی در زبان، تغییر زبان، زبان در کاربرد، زبان، ذهن و مغز، کودک و زبان، نگرش‌های مختلف به زبان. در پایان هر فصل، فهرست ارزنده‌ای از آثار دست‌اول و معتبر درخصوص موضوع آن فصل معرفی شده و نویسنده، در حد یک‌دو سطر درباره‌ی هریک از آن‌ها و میزان کارآمدی‌شان سخن گفته است. در پایان کتاب نیز شمار بیشتری از کتاب‌های مرتبط و سودمند معرفی شده است. فارغ از مسائل کلی مطرح‌شده در کتاب که به تمام زبان‌ها ارتباط دارد، برای فهم مناسب این اثر ضروری است مخاطب دانشی نسبی از زبان انگلیسی داشته باشد؛ چراکه نویسنده‌ی آن عمده‌ی نمونه‌ها را از این زبان برگزیده و با آن‌ها به شرح و توضیح مطلب‌ها پرداخته است. فصل آخر کتاب، موضوعی به‌غایت جالب را پیش می‌کشد: نگرش‌های مختلف درباره‌ی زبان. این فصل به بررسی تغییرات بسیاری می‌پردازد که در طول زمان در زبان پدید می‌آید و دیدگاه‌های موجود درباره‌ی این تغییرات را واکاوی می‌کند. یک دیدگاه، مقاومت دربرابر تغییرات است و دیدگاه دیگر، آسان‌گیری و پذیرفتن آن‌ها. نویسنده پیشینه‌ی این جنگ‌وجدال‌ها را که چند دهه‌ای است در کشور ما هم برپا است، در زبان انگلیسی با شرح‌وتفصیل و در برخی زبان‌های دیگر به‌صورت جسته‌گریخته بررسیده است. این فصل به‌ویژه برای علاقه‌مندان به مباحث ویرایشی و واژه‌گزینی پرفایده است.
January 19, 2012
The "Introducing" books are a fun series, like a mini version of all the college classes you wish you took back when you had the chance. Available editions include Budha, Time, Foucault, Logic, Feminism... the list goes on and on.
My daughter bought me the linguistics book after I commented that I wished I'd studies the subject more in college. Surprisingly, the Introducing book isn't just silly fluff, which was my initial impression based on the cover. Instead, it provides a nice overview of the field, from history through modern applications, and I found myself both entertained and educated.
Obviously, these type of books can only scratch the surface, but Introducing Linguistics taught me a few things that I didn't know before, kept me engaged, and was a worthwhile way to pass an afternoon.
My daughter bought me the linguistics book after I commented that I wished I'd studies the subject more in college. Surprisingly, the Introducing book isn't just silly fluff, which was my initial impression based on the cover. Instead, it provides a nice overview of the field, from history through modern applications, and I found myself both entertained and educated.
Obviously, these type of books can only scratch the surface, but Introducing Linguistics taught me a few things that I didn't know before, kept me engaged, and was a worthwhile way to pass an afternoon.
January 14, 2019
هیچ فکر نمی‌کردم کتابی مصور در کمتر از ۲۰۰ صفحه اینقدر دیدگاهم رو نسبت به زبان و زبان‌شناسی عوض کنه. به‌عنوان گام بعدی، میرم به سراغ «مقدمات زبان‌شناسی» از همین نویسنده.
August 9, 2014
In general the book is interesting and sums up the most important facts. Still, there are two downsides. Firstly, some major linguistic terms and concepts are just left out (Great Vowel Shift, Grimm`s Law). Secondly, the author is very biased towards Standard English, calling all dialect speakers uneducated. I think that this is not acceptable for a linguist because linguistics is also about dialects and minorities. Nevertheless, it is a good introduction to the subject.
November 4, 2016
Think a fun review of or introduction to linguistics, by no means is this comprehensive nor is it intended to be. Rather, it briefly goes over the core ideas of linguistics. I bought these for me to test out interest in several topics and found that these books are delightful. They can be finished in a night and may be appropriate for younger audiences, too. Be prepared to have Google handy for some unfamiliar topics, if this is a new subject for you.
February 2, 2013
The book serves its purpose by providing a sprinkling of many of the important ideas involved in the study of linguistics. If you were interested in something, you can go look it up elsewhere. I particularly enjoyed the way photos of young Noam Chomsky show up everywhere to comment on the ideas of different thinkers.
February 7, 2017
Bien concreta y clara, una guía útil para visualizar el panorama lingüístico general (o, en mi caso, refrescar lo visto en Lingüística de la facultad). Yo sólo creo que podría haber profundizado un poquito más en las teorías de Chosmky.
May 4, 2017
It was a quick, easy read that gave a very brief introduction of linguistics. It is not in depth by any means, but it had some good references at the end. I also liked the comical illustrations they provided!
March 12, 2018
I recommend it because it is interesting and light to read. I will defenitely read more "Introducing" books.
I don't give it more stars because some of the examples felt completely deactualized, witch made me think that the book didn't change much since first edition in 1996.
I don't give it more stars because some of the examples felt completely deactualized, witch made me think that the book didn't change much since first edition in 1996.
November 17, 2020
I really enjoyed the graphic additions to this topic. It made for a very light read and kept me interested throughout. The graphics were placed nicely throughout and broke up the topic nicely. This book is of course, just a brief overview/introduction into linguistics. It is not an in-depth look into the topic nor is it meant to be. I found it to be intriguing enough and it was written nicely in a way to understand the basics. Yes, it only quickly went over the various theories, but that is the point. These "Introducing" books are meant to give you a quick look into the topic. In my opinion, it is a nice way to learn a little more about a topic and also discover if you like a topic enough to learn further on your own. I will definitely be reading more of these now that I found them on Amazon for free (with my kindle unlimited membership).
November 22, 2020
What a fascinating insightful book. I love these little graphic guides. There very informative but don’t overwhelm you with too much information. Plus the fact they are a graphic guide makes it more eye catching. I feel like I’ve learnt a lot and have certainly got a drive to find out more about our language. I found it interesting the way children learn languages and the different theories surrounding it. And reading more on Noam Chomsky who I have read about a few times whilst doing child development and psychology. This is great as a beginners guide to linguistics before going onto anything more.
October 16, 2023
Excellent book for beginners. A lot of Linguistics concepts are explained clearly and without going into much depth, so it’s perfect for somebody who is just curious on the subject. It’s also quite fun for people who already know about it, since all the concepts are short and to the point, so it kinda works as a small remembrance guide in a way. I liked it.
April 21, 2018
Only I could have a great time procrastinating my linguistics assessment by reading a fun linguistics book ..............
January 30, 2023
Really good resource I will be using in my reaching.
August 24, 2024
4/5- Ahhhhh Reading Slump :((
Linguistic ist geil. Für nen guten Überblick über ein paar interessante Sachen auf jeden Fall sehr hilfreich!
Linguistic ist geil. Für nen guten Überblick über ein paar interessante Sachen auf jeden Fall sehr hilfreich!
March 12, 2022
Really compellingly presented, touches on a range of key issues and ideas.
May 5, 2015
A nice introduction, using heavy doses of graphics arts to make it a very easy read. The first part covers some historical schools of analysis, starting with grammar, and is less interesting. Language depends on common metaphors, but these are cultural (e.g., direction of time for Greeks is reversed). Human languages, unlike signaling systems, assemble sounds into units and are infinitely extensible. New words are created, words can be modified, have negation, can form questions, permit abstractions, ability to talk about other than the here and now, allow fictional utterances. Linguistic abilities are uniquely human. Spoken language is composed of small sound units, phonemes, that are assembled. Word order, tense, are not essential. Language constantly changes. Semantics (meaning) and pragmatics (context). Relevance is a rule of pragmatics. Language is a combination of rules and memorization.
July 14, 2018
Language sets us apart from other, non-human animals, but exactly when or why we developed this abililty is still unknown (and might never be known). However, describing, how language works and what its functioning elements are is part of studying linguistics. This short book explains basic theories and definitions of linguistics and presents important linguists (lots of Chomsky, tbh.) and their theories and research focus.
As somebody who's interested in languages and their relationships to each other, this quick read gave a good start for further reading, and the author even provided a little list of suggested books bases on one's own focus of interest.
Recommended for novices. The illustrations could be improved though.
As somebody who's interested in languages and their relationships to each other, this quick read gave a good start for further reading, and the author even provided a little list of suggested books bases on one's own focus of interest.
Recommended for novices. The illustrations could be improved though.
May 9, 2016
Introducing series does a good job in explaining big subjects in simple ways. Who doesn't want to understand in simple terms?
As I am really into Linguistics, I got this book. I am fascinated by the different schools in Linguistics. Something that caught my attention in the book, we learn rules of language, not the words. Secondly, language could define our way of looking at reality for example, The Greeks viewed time as overtaking themselves, now this sounds counter-intuitive.
I would recommend this to anyone who is interested in Linguistics, Philosophy.
As I am really into Linguistics, I got this book. I am fascinated by the different schools in Linguistics. Something that caught my attention in the book, we learn rules of language, not the words. Secondly, language could define our way of looking at reality for example, The Greeks viewed time as overtaking themselves, now this sounds counter-intuitive.
I would recommend this to anyone who is interested in Linguistics, Philosophy.
January 13, 2019
:)
I would just like to express my love for the fact that the graphic guides series exists. Not only is this a good introductory text for Linguistics (in a really interesting and accessible, though arguably slightly gimmicky, graphic novel format), it's on Kindle Unlimited. Which is incredible, because academic texts normally cost a small fortune.
I would just like to express my love for the fact that the graphic guides series exists. Not only is this a good introductory text for Linguistics (in a really interesting and accessible, though arguably slightly gimmicky, graphic novel format), it's on Kindle Unlimited. Which is incredible, because academic texts normally cost a small fortune.
February 4, 2021
Quite a decent little graphical guides to the arts of linguistics and the importance that linguistics has in our life whether people realize it or not. Having read language thoughts and reality by Benjamin Lee whorf in my 20s I remember being hugely influenced by the power that the spoken and the written and even the thought word can have over individuals over society and humanity at large. This is a short little book with lots of pictures because it is a graphic guide inside it with a few interesting points which I've listed below:
Linguistics provided the model of analyzing language as a structured system that produces meanings. Semiotics attempts to extend this approach to other long linguistic systems, that is, to every aspect of social experience that can be analyzed as structured systems of science.
The Greek have a very interesting perception of time. The answer appears to lie in the way that people perceive time. We English speakers apparently perceive time as standing still while we travel forward through it. Hence the future is in front. We are traveling towards it. While the past is behind us. We've already been there. But the Greeks perceive it differently. We Greeks perceive ourselves as standing still while time overtakes us from behind. Such an interesting juxtaposition of the ways that an individual can perceive time.
In European Spanish you must say le he visto a juan if you saw jaune earlier today. But you must say le vi juan if you saw him before today.
Speakers of this language then spread southward into much of northern Europe where their language began breaking up into a number of distinct regional varieties. One group moved into the North Sea coast of the continent where their speech developed into a collection of local varieties we call Ingvaeonic. after the Roman retreat from Britain some of these speakers moved into Britain where their speech gradually diverged from that of their relatives back home. Until finally it was so different that it had to be regarded as a different language altogether and that language is the ancestor of our own English.
So for example before the Norman conquest of England all English speakers said “here” for an army. Sometime after the conquest a few people began to use the Norman French word army when speaking English. For a long time the two words coexisted in English. But more and more people began to use army in preference to here and finally a day came when there was no one left saying here at all. And the word became extinct. Today this old word survives only in a few place names such as he referred in England which literally means army Ford and no one accept a specialist any longer knows what this name means.
In English if we say that a cockrel is at the back of the house where will the cockrill be? Well of course it will be behind the house at the side opposite from the front correct? Fine but in quite a number of languages above all in parts of Africa when speakers describe a bird as being literally at the back of the house what they actually mean is that it's on the roof. How can that possibly be? Well in English it appears we Orient ourselves in terms of human beings. And our backs are behind us. So something which is at our back is behind us. But you have to recognize that not all languages work in the same way. That is that they don't all use the same metaphors. The speakers of some language think metaphorically not in terms of people but in terms of four footed animals such as Buffalo. So where is the cockle gonna be if it's on the back of the Buffalo? That's right it's gonna be right on the top. So different choice of metaphor produces different senses for the same words. And the cognitive linguists are arguing that nothing almost nothing can be expressed in any human language without the selection of a metaphor through which to express it.
Linguistics provided the model of analyzing language as a structured system that produces meanings. Semiotics attempts to extend this approach to other long linguistic systems, that is, to every aspect of social experience that can be analyzed as structured systems of science.
The Greek have a very interesting perception of time. The answer appears to lie in the way that people perceive time. We English speakers apparently perceive time as standing still while we travel forward through it. Hence the future is in front. We are traveling towards it. While the past is behind us. We've already been there. But the Greeks perceive it differently. We Greeks perceive ourselves as standing still while time overtakes us from behind. Such an interesting juxtaposition of the ways that an individual can perceive time.
In European Spanish you must say le he visto a juan if you saw jaune earlier today. But you must say le vi juan if you saw him before today.
Speakers of this language then spread southward into much of northern Europe where their language began breaking up into a number of distinct regional varieties. One group moved into the North Sea coast of the continent where their speech developed into a collection of local varieties we call Ingvaeonic. after the Roman retreat from Britain some of these speakers moved into Britain where their speech gradually diverged from that of their relatives back home. Until finally it was so different that it had to be regarded as a different language altogether and that language is the ancestor of our own English.
So for example before the Norman conquest of England all English speakers said “here” for an army. Sometime after the conquest a few people began to use the Norman French word army when speaking English. For a long time the two words coexisted in English. But more and more people began to use army in preference to here and finally a day came when there was no one left saying here at all. And the word became extinct. Today this old word survives only in a few place names such as he referred in England which literally means army Ford and no one accept a specialist any longer knows what this name means.
In English if we say that a cockrel is at the back of the house where will the cockrill be? Well of course it will be behind the house at the side opposite from the front correct? Fine but in quite a number of languages above all in parts of Africa when speakers describe a bird as being literally at the back of the house what they actually mean is that it's on the roof. How can that possibly be? Well in English it appears we Orient ourselves in terms of human beings. And our backs are behind us. So something which is at our back is behind us. But you have to recognize that not all languages work in the same way. That is that they don't all use the same metaphors. The speakers of some language think metaphorically not in terms of people but in terms of four footed animals such as Buffalo. So where is the cockle gonna be if it's on the back of the Buffalo? That's right it's gonna be right on the top. So different choice of metaphor produces different senses for the same words. And the cognitive linguists are arguing that nothing almost nothing can be expressed in any human language without the selection of a metaphor through which to express it.
April 27, 2023
This was a great way to get an overview of how language actually works - something we often don't think about. It was worth reading just for this passage alone ... **SPOILER ALERT**
'...In English if we say that 'a Cockerel is at the back of the house' where is the bird? Of course, it's behind the house, at the side opposite the front...But in quite a number of languages, above all in parts of Africa, when speakers describe a bird as (literally) "at the back of the house" we mean that it is on the roof. How do we understand this difference?
Well, in English, it appears, we orient ourselves in terms of human beings. And our backs are behind us. So, something which is 'at our back' is behind us. But not all languages work in the same way - that is, they don't all use the same metaphors. The speakers of some languages think metaphorically, not in terms of people, but in terms of four-footed animals, such as buffalo. And where is a bird which is 'on the back' of a buffalo? That's Right. On Top of it.'
'...In English if we say that 'a Cockerel is at the back of the house' where is the bird? Of course, it's behind the house, at the side opposite the front...But in quite a number of languages, above all in parts of Africa, when speakers describe a bird as (literally) "at the back of the house" we mean that it is on the roof. How do we understand this difference?
Well, in English, it appears, we orient ourselves in terms of human beings. And our backs are behind us. So, something which is 'at our back' is behind us. But not all languages work in the same way - that is, they don't all use the same metaphors. The speakers of some languages think metaphorically, not in terms of people, but in terms of four-footed animals, such as buffalo. And where is a bird which is 'on the back' of a buffalo? That's Right. On Top of it.'
June 24, 2019
The book draws a picture of how language can be understood as a system of systems at a semantic and pragmatic level. The book explores more on the questions to which answer seems variable and at times even shallow. Nevertheless, while the approaches used for the dissection of language are effective they are, however, not dictating a path that likely leads to a definite answer. All the while the book guides the reader to a much better consensus on what linguistics is, it also hints at the nowhere situation in linguistics which ought to be overcome.
August 4, 2020
This book does a good job of summarising the history and the different approaches of studying linguistics.
However, it spends maybe four or five sentences for each theory/argument and in my opinion, does not go into enough depth to pique an interest in these theories. Even as an introductory book I feel like it can go into more detail.
Another flaw was the outdated Anglocentric views presented (which is probably inevitable since the book was first published a few decades ago), especially the patronising tone towards the "uneducated speakers of vernacular english".
However, it spends maybe four or five sentences for each theory/argument and in my opinion, does not go into enough depth to pique an interest in these theories. Even as an introductory book I feel like it can go into more detail.
Another flaw was the outdated Anglocentric views presented (which is probably inevitable since the book was first published a few decades ago), especially the patronising tone towards the "uneducated speakers of vernacular english".
February 11, 2018
Informative and entertaining read
This book is a good introduction to linguistics, a topic that could get dull quickly but the author of this book manages to pace the book so it reads quickly and is entertaining. The illustrations on my kindle app were fairly small but once zoomed in they were witty and moved the book along nicely. I recommend this book for those interested in language.
This book is a good introduction to linguistics, a topic that could get dull quickly but the author of this book manages to pace the book so it reads quickly and is entertaining. The illustrations on my kindle app were fairly small but once zoomed in they were witty and moved the book along nicely. I recommend this book for those interested in language.
May 13, 2018
Clear and concise! It's a book that takes you from understanding what linguistics is, and what it is not. Then rapidly progresses to explain how language is constructed, and how we as humans seemingly perceive and process language.
This is my first book in linguistics, but not my first dive into language studies as such. By reading this book, I've come to a few conclusions on how to better acquire knowledge in more languages.
This is my first book in linguistics, but not my first dive into language studies as such. By reading this book, I've come to a few conclusions on how to better acquire knowledge in more languages.
April 2, 2022
This book is a gentle and engaging introduction to Linguistics. It covers aspects like syntax, semantics and pragmatics. It also covers things like descriptive vs. prescriptive linguistics and many more. So, overall, very interesting.
Why a 4 and not a 5? The book could include a couple of things to complete the intro:
* Mention of topics like discourse analysis.
* A bibliography which is more ample than just the UK-centric bibliography presented.
Why a 4 and not a 5? The book could include a couple of things to complete the intro:
* Mention of topics like discourse analysis.
* A bibliography which is more ample than just the UK-centric bibliography presented.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 123 reviews