What do you think?
Rate this book
The Years of Talking Dangerously
“There has never been,” Nunberg writes, “an age as wary as ours of the tricks words can play, obscuring distinctions and smoothing over the corrugations of the actual world.... Yet as advertisers and marketers know, our mistrust of words doesn’t inoculate us against them.” These are the years of talking dangerously, and Nunberg is a sure guide to the pitfalls. With illuminating intelligence and devastating humor, Nunberg decodes the changing syntax of Time Magazine, explains why grammar buffs are drawn to sarcasm, and deftly unpacks the telling phrases of our national conversation, from progressive to elite to change—not to mention national conversation itself.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published April 17, 2009
About the author
Geoffrey Nunberg
16 books20 followersGeoff Nunberg is a linguist and professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information in Berkeley, California, USA. He is also a frequent contributor to the National Public Radio program "Fresh Air".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 5, 2015
Collections of essays suffer from a lack of cohesiveness, consistency, and cogent purpose, and Nunberg's collection of essays collected from his New York Times' columns and NPR "Fresh Air" commentaries is an apt example of this flaw. The subject of language and vocabulary is especially susceptible to detailed and categorical organization (alphabetical, for example, in the case of a dictionary), so the scattershot results of an essay collection are also especially noticeable.
All of which might be excusable if Nunberg's essays were more linguistic then polemic in nature. At least then the reader could place the essays in her own mental taxonomy, rather than wasting valuable time and attention to rationalize or step around the political snobbery in many of the essays. The useful and interesting linguistic content in this slim volume would be easily covered in a 90-minute lecture, assuming a professor took the time to extract it, organize it, and explicate it.
The cover blurbs quote fulsome praise of Nunberg as a "standup linguist" whose writing is "especially valuable in revealing how words inform our understanding of issues." In fact, I found his essays neither particularly funny nor informative. The only thing dangerous about this collection is giving it more than the little time and attention that it deserves.
All of which might be excusable if Nunberg's essays were more linguistic then polemic in nature. At least then the reader could place the essays in her own mental taxonomy, rather than wasting valuable time and attention to rationalize or step around the political snobbery in many of the essays. The useful and interesting linguistic content in this slim volume would be easily covered in a 90-minute lecture, assuming a professor took the time to extract it, organize it, and explicate it.
The cover blurbs quote fulsome praise of Nunberg as a "standup linguist" whose writing is "especially valuable in revealing how words inform our understanding of issues." In fact, I found his essays neither particularly funny nor informative. The only thing dangerous about this collection is giving it more than the little time and attention that it deserves.
December 16, 2020
Some interesting observations, but as the book is a mere collection of rather dated (2004-2008) language columns, it clearly lacks systematicity and true wit.
Might have made for a grin or smile when it was first printed, but is no revelation 15 years later.
Might have made for a grin or smile when it was first printed, but is no revelation 15 years later.
April 4, 2012
This book is a madeleine for 2004-2008, dredging up long-forgotten personal bits and thoughts.
These essays create the same crystallized moment in time as JFK, WTC; a burned-in afterimage of who-you-were-when that can only be recalled by engaging some outside source, an unfiltered reemergence of the mid-aught's cultural zeitgeist through the lens of lexicography that forces your focus on a particular spot in time.
Not every article covers life-shaping events, but even the "trivial" comes rolling in across the sands of time, reminding you that conversational English changes so much and so gradually that few ever really notice.
Take this excerpt covering the rise of "Um" from April 2008:
"...[O]ver the past few years we've started to see a new use of the word, as a mock apology before you correct somebody who says something particularly stupid or does something inappropriate...you run into that pseudo-differential um all over the place these days. It has become the hallmark of a hip style of writing that affects the spontaneity of real-time communication, and the new um suggests a certain shift in attitude, too. You could think of it as a replacement for the snippy hello that first caught on in the 1980s. HelLO oozes condescending ridicule- "Is anybody home?"- whereas um involves a more subtle maneuver. You profess a polite hesitation to embarrass or confront, but make it pointedly clear that the person has a good reason to be chagrined."
These essays create the same crystallized moment in time as JFK, WTC; a burned-in afterimage of who-you-were-when that can only be recalled by engaging some outside source, an unfiltered reemergence of the mid-aught's cultural zeitgeist through the lens of lexicography that forces your focus on a particular spot in time.
Not every article covers life-shaping events, but even the "trivial" comes rolling in across the sands of time, reminding you that conversational English changes so much and so gradually that few ever really notice.
Take this excerpt covering the rise of "Um" from April 2008:
"...[O]ver the past few years we've started to see a new use of the word, as a mock apology before you correct somebody who says something particularly stupid or does something inappropriate...you run into that pseudo-differential um all over the place these days. It has become the hallmark of a hip style of writing that affects the spontaneity of real-time communication, and the new um suggests a certain shift in attitude, too. You could think of it as a replacement for the snippy hello that first caught on in the 1980s. HelLO oozes condescending ridicule- "Is anybody home?"- whereas um involves a more subtle maneuver. You profess a polite hesitation to embarrass or confront, but make it pointedly clear that the person has a good reason to be chagrined."
July 25, 2016
This collection of previously published opinion essays from various periodicals and the NPR radio program "Fresh Air" offers a breezy survey of word use, phrase popularity, and ways of communicating from the years 2004-2008. Ten years later, many of the examples already seem nostalgically cute - like descriptions of the author's early interactions with Wikipedia and the developing language culture of the blogosphere. (Aawww.) The pointed wordsmithing of the G.W. Bush administration and other Republican message-makers have been analyzed more rigorously elsewhere. Here, the political language essays educate and entertain about an individual phrase at a time, including historical context, without striving to build an overall sociolinguistic thesis (a la George Lakoff). I found more new (to me) ideas in the social commentary essays about such topics as the spread of 'word of the year' accolades, how media treatment of language conforms to set scripts, frequency of made-up statistics about language, and how brand names become lower-case words. Unlike other pop science books about linguistics, Nunberg's is in no way attempting to be an alternative to a traditional textbook. Recommended as beach or commute reading about language, or whenever else you're in the mood for snippets of mild educational snark.
March 22, 2011
This is a case where the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Printing 5-minute radio pieces in book form might seem like a good idea (and maybe it would be, if it were an anthology such as This I Believe). In this case, unfortunately, the finished product feels a bit superficial and repetitive. After a while, I found myself thinking "and...?" at the end of each chapter.
One thing I did appreciate was the fact that he includes a word/phrase index, in addition to the usual subject index. So you can look up um, see, or under the bus, if you are so inclined. My libschool friends might like the chapter on information literacy, especially those of you who have to teach it to the people. You can find the original online here.
One thing I did appreciate was the fact that he includes a word/phrase index, in addition to the usual subject index. So you can look up um, see, or under the bus, if you are so inclined. My libschool friends might like the chapter on information literacy, especially those of you who have to teach it to the people. You can find the original online here.
March 16, 2011
A collection of newspaper pieces and NPR commentaries on the foibles of modern English usage by the author, a linguist at Berkeley. The pieces - mostly on the uses of symbolic language by people with political points to make, some on how technology changes usage - are witty and erudite, and show Nurnberg's firm grasp on the political zeitgeist.
He makes his arguments in a breezy, engaging style; for example, in discussing how "conversation" can be used to mean more of a lecture than a discourse, he says, "when someone calls for a conversation about a specific topic... it sounds like a request for an open exchange of views, but you sense that most of the script has already been written." He can be amusing in one piece, incisive the next. Not only is he an expert on how people talk, but he appears to be well-versed in how they think as well; it's full of pointed remarks such as "After a thousand years of social inequality and natural disasters, the English language still doesn't have a word for someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family."
He makes his arguments in a breezy, engaging style; for example, in discussing how "conversation" can be used to mean more of a lecture than a discourse, he says, "when someone calls for a conversation about a specific topic... it sounds like a request for an open exchange of views, but you sense that most of the script has already been written." He can be amusing in one piece, incisive the next. Not only is he an expert on how people talk, but he appears to be well-versed in how they think as well; it's full of pointed remarks such as "After a thousand years of social inequality and natural disasters, the English language still doesn't have a word for someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family."
October 5, 2009
I loved Geoffrey Nunberg's "The Way We Talk Now" in 2001. It was truly pop linguistics. My favorite essay was about slang and what part of speech a generation chose for its slang. He had a young daughter at the time and wrote a lot of essays about her learning to speak.
So I was very excited to stumble on this book. It shouldn't have surprised me that it was a lot of political linguistics. But I wanted more cultural commentary about linguistics after 9/11.
So, my rating is more about my own expectations than it is Nunberg's performance.
So I was very excited to stumble on this book. It shouldn't have surprised me that it was a lot of political linguistics. But I wanted more cultural commentary about linguistics after 9/11.
So, my rating is more about my own expectations than it is Nunberg's performance.
June 23, 2009
I always like when linguist Geoffrey Nunberg is on "Fresh Air", and it was nice to read this collection of essays. Some essays would get two stars, some would get four, so I averaged it out. I most liked the essays about how the Bush administration manipulated language to fit its purposes ("enhanced interrogation", "Islamo-fascism", etc.).
Read
February 5, 2016I always enjoy Geoffrey Nunberg on NPR's Fresh Air when I can catch him. These essays are the same text. Now rather dated (they were published in 2009 and aired or printed earlier), these reprints from newspaper articles and NPR broadcasts are still entertaining.
Chapters are: Watching our words; Playing politics; English 2.0; Symbols; The Passing scene.
Chapters are: Watching our words; Playing politics; English 2.0; Symbols; The Passing scene.
Want to Read
May 6, 2009Great review in Shelf Awareness.
December 10, 2009
Unfortunately his political leanings colors much of his observations on language. Where politics is not involved, there is interesting stuff.
July 22, 2009
There were times when this book made me snort, chortle, and giggle. Many of it made me think :)
June 20, 2010
The title disappoints--you expect some in-depth commentary on language, and all you get is a collection of op-ed language pieces.
July 12, 2011
I'd give it more stars but it's simply a compilation of essays and editorials from Fresh Air and several newspapers. I do love his grasp and take on English and it's mis/use.
June 1, 2012
Officially giving up on this book as of today. Mostly a series of dated pot-shots at a former president. Didn't hold my interest at all, even as a commuter-read.
March 3, 2016
Lots of fun, very insightful. I always enjoy Nunberg on NPR; reading his commentary is equally as enjoyable, if not more, because I can read back and more fully understand his words.
Read
November 4, 2017- i love his attention to the common phrases we use each day: there's so much in here, i'm not sure i fully absorbed it all, but enjoyed every page
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews