Scan barcode
ameyawarde's review against another edition
4.0
Tons of super interesting information in here, though I, an autistic, had to FF through his chapter on autism. His heart was in the right place, but he only called us "autism sufferers" (a million times), and conflated autism & savant syndrome and... it just, got uncomfortable.
Which is too bad because other parts of his book, where he didn't even mention autism, i found extremely relevant to some of the conversations we have about language difficulties in the autism community these days, such as the DRASTIC variation in language skills among us-- some with very "stereotypical" autistic difficulties (such as not understanding subtlety or metaphor or what is left unspoken, etc etc) while others are better at language than neurotypicals in every conceivable way, and are even prolific and lauded authors.
But recently online somewhere a fellow autistic brought up the question of what if some of the "autistic language difficulties" aren't from inherent neurological differences themselves (unlike other aspects of autism) but side effects from the reduced socialization many autistics get from being ostracized from peers and even adults? Most of my family and friends are autistic and the kids, moving closer to puberty now, have had less and less of those language issues as they've gotten older (and I do very explicitly teach them all the language things I recognize they don't pick up as automatically as NT kids).. Anyway they last bit of of this book talked quite a bit about that without mentioning autism, and I do want to get an ebook version (i listened to the audiobook) so I can pull some quotes and hunt down citations and stuff because it sounded like he made some good points.
tl;dr - some accidental but not hateful abelism, a lot of other reviewers who take issues with some of his points (tho he does do a better job at mentioning the points of those who disagrees with him than most authors, who don't do it at all), but overall I think it's a really good and thorough history of human language.
Which is too bad because other parts of his book, where he didn't even mention autism, i found extremely relevant to some of the conversations we have about language difficulties in the autism community these days, such as the DRASTIC variation in language skills among us-- some with very "stereotypical" autistic difficulties (such as not understanding subtlety or metaphor or what is left unspoken, etc etc) while others are better at language than neurotypicals in every conceivable way, and are even prolific and lauded authors.
But recently online somewhere a fellow autistic brought up the question of what if some of the "autistic language difficulties" aren't from inherent neurological differences themselves (unlike other aspects of autism) but side effects from the reduced socialization many autistics get from being ostracized from peers and even adults? Most of my family and friends are autistic and the kids, moving closer to puberty now, have had less and less of those language issues as they've gotten older (and I do very explicitly teach them all the language things I recognize they don't pick up as automatically as NT kids).. Anyway they last bit of of this book talked quite a bit about that without mentioning autism, and I do want to get an ebook version (i listened to the audiobook) so I can pull some quotes and hunt down citations and stuff because it sounded like he made some good points.
tl;dr - some accidental but not hateful abelism, a lot of other reviewers who take issues with some of his points (tho he does do a better job at mentioning the points of those who disagrees with him than most authors, who don't do it at all), but overall I think it's a really good and thorough history of human language.
aidaninasia's review against another edition
5.0
I am so grateful to Dr. Everett for his wonderful work. The first time I came across Chomsky's work was when I was an education major, his theory of innatism never sat well with me but I felt that I must be crazy to question such a "great" linguist as he. Thankfully I was introduced to Everett's opposing theory a short while later and my heart shall never stop singing his praises.
defqon804's review against another edition
4.0
I struggled to finish this book because it is VERY repetitive, and I think it could have been structured better. Probably needs to be be re-edited and a second edition could be much better.
Having said that, the Author's arguments were very persuasive, logical, and concrete in my opinion. He brings a lot to the table by his exposure to Amazonian tribes that he stayed with in Brazil, and learned their languages. All of the evidence to support his theory are in depth, and gave me the ability, as a non-scientist, to understand them well since he explains of the science behind the evidence that he is proposing.
Having said that, the Author's arguments were very persuasive, logical, and concrete in my opinion. He brings a lot to the table by his exposure to Amazonian tribes that he stayed with in Brazil, and learned their languages. All of the evidence to support his theory are in depth, and gave me the ability, as a non-scientist, to understand them well since he explains of the science behind the evidence that he is proposing.
qaphsiel's review against another edition
3.0
This was... okay. I think the science behind it is quite reasonable. Certainly giving what we now know about human genetics and neurology it makes far more sense than the opposing view championed by Noam Chomsky and his disciples. That view -- than human ability to use language arose relatively recently and suddenly via a single mutation -- does not jive with the facts that there are no areas of the brain exclusively dedicated to language and language does not engage only one area of the brain, implying that such a mutation event would need to affect several areas of the brain (but not create new structures) as well as parts of human anatomy. Possible? Sure. Likely? No.
Instead, Everett proposes that language evolved gradually and as its utility (anthropomorphizing heavily here, but w/e) became obvious to evolution and selection for the parts of our neural and gross anatomy used in linguistic processing and production happened. Brains got bigger and areas within them got tweaked and enlarged to help humans 'do' language. The anatomy of our mouths and throats also underwent modification to enhance our production of speech sounds.
The upstart of this is that Neandert[h]als could speak (a view held by most anthropologists and linguists today) and probably our earlier ancestors (e.g., homo erectus) could too (a less common view, but in no way beyond the pale; the author holds this view as well).
The problems I had with this book were its unevenness and repetitiveness. At times things were overexplained while at others things were not. Much information is repeated ad nauseam -- for example a quotation about evolution satisficing, though at no point does he bother to point out that it's a portmanteau of satisfy and suffice. Sure, most people either know or will figure it out, but given the repetitive explanations of other things... wtf?
Finally, an error that irked me greatly. The author has done a lot of work in the Amazon and purports to speak Portuguese (which, not Spanish, is the official language of Brazil). However, he makes an observation about Portuguese verb conjugation that is flat out wrong. Wrong and something that one would learn in the 2nd week of a course. In the grand scheme of the book it's not a problem, but it is plainly wrong and no one who speaks the language even a little would ever claim. This sort of thing makes me wonder what other plainly wrong things are stated as facts.
Instead, Everett proposes that language evolved gradually and as its utility (anthropomorphizing heavily here, but w/e) became obvious to evolution and selection for the parts of our neural and gross anatomy used in linguistic processing and production happened. Brains got bigger and areas within them got tweaked and enlarged to help humans 'do' language. The anatomy of our mouths and throats also underwent modification to enhance our production of speech sounds.
The upstart of this is that Neandert[h]als could speak (a view held by most anthropologists and linguists today) and probably our earlier ancestors (e.g., homo erectus) could too (a less common view, but in no way beyond the pale; the author holds this view as well).
The problems I had with this book were its unevenness and repetitiveness. At times things were overexplained while at others things were not. Much information is repeated ad nauseam -- for example a quotation about evolution satisficing, though at no point does he bother to point out that it's a portmanteau of satisfy and suffice. Sure, most people either know or will figure it out, but given the repetitive explanations of other things... wtf?
Finally, an error that irked me greatly. The author has done a lot of work in the Amazon and purports to speak Portuguese (which, not Spanish, is the official language of Brazil). However, he makes an observation about Portuguese verb conjugation that is flat out wrong. Wrong and something that one would learn in the 2nd week of a course. In the grand scheme of the book it's not a problem, but it is plainly wrong and no one who speaks the language even a little would ever claim. This sort of thing makes me wonder what other plainly wrong things are stated as facts.