Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages

I cannot wait to read this highly recommended book! It arrived fast and in perfect condition. Thank you!

Ein sehr erhellendes Buch wenn man Sprache faszinierend findet und nicht nur für Linguisten verständlich. Spannender als jeder Krimi, denn es betrifft die Wirklichkeit.

Un libro interesantísimo y entretenido. Fascinante de principio a fin. Altamente recomendable especialmente para estudiantes de lingüística cognitiva y filología.

This seems to be worth 4.99 stars for content and I would round up to 6.0 (if possible) for Deutscher's style and humor, even if the content were not as good. This is an excellent introduction to the current state of investigation of the relationship between thought and language. While there are no in-line references, the Notes section in the back of the book provides references to the 19 page Bibliography ( 300 entries).I do have a few minor gripes that I want to get off my chest.1) I feel that Deutscher presents Whorf's most extreme position -almost a caricature. Whorf was an M.I.T. graduate in Chemical Engineering whose entire career was as a safety engineer for The Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Linguistics was his avocation. Whorf died at the age of 44 and many of his papers were published by his friends and colleagues after his death. We cannot know what changes he might have made prior to publication had he lived. His defenders point out that his written statements include many more moderate statements of position; indeed it is difficult to discern the exact limits of his position. In fairness to Deutscher, personifying the extreme position seems to be an effective pedagogical technique, and Whorf did take extreme positions at times.I consider myself a moderate Whorfian; I find the most succinct expression of my position is an adaptation of the astrologer's formulation concerning the stars: "Languages impel, they do not compel." Perhaps one attribute of genius is the ability to overcome the impulses and promptings of language. This leads to an expansion of the language that permits non-geniuses to share in the genius' insight. And, this provides the mechanism by which we all augment our cognitive toolboxes and "stand on the shoulders of giants".2) Deutscher gives an excellent explanation of "factive vs. non-factive verbs" (P-150). He uses this to support his claim that people can learn new concepts that were not previously present in their individual languages and to argue that therefore language does not constrain thought.HOWEVER, before Deutscher explained the concept I would not have realized verbs could be categorized in that manner. Now I do. Previously, I would never have thought of that characteristic when analyzing a verb; in the future I shall. Now that Deutscher has expanded my language by adding the concept of factive, my language is different and I think differently. Deutscher's argument has actually confirmed Whorf! -moderately!3) Although Deutscher writes excellent English, it is not his native language and in a couple of cases he seems to lack a native speaker's feel for the Whorfian underpinnings and nuances of English.Deutscher asks "Or think about it another way, when you ask someone ...something like `are you coming tomorrow?' do you feel your grasp of futurity is slipping?" (PP. 145 -6)When I compare "Are you coming tomorrow?" with "Will you come tomorrow?" I feel, in the first case the query asks: "Is it your current intention to come tomorrow?" and in the second "Do you believe your plans and external circumstances will result in your coming tomorrow?" The first one is rooted in the present, the second in the future. I will accept that this has elements of connotation vs. denotation, but the language still impels me to address either the present state of affairs or the future. I will also grant that the answer to the first might be "I intend to come, but it looks like the creek's going to rise and I may not be able to get across the ford with my old car.", but that is a different matter -providing as much information as is necessary for the purposes of the exchange. (H.P. Grice's Maxim of Quantity). Language does not compel me to ignore the future, it merely nudges me. Perhaps being a native English-speaker leads me to see nuances second-language speakers do not. (And, by the way, I used futurity will twice, when I was really speaking about the present, to indicate a concession -"I will accept.") I just heard a Yale Economist speculating that the reason the Germans save for the future is that they habitually use the present tense for future events: Es regnet am Morgen (literally "It rains tomorrow" for English "It's going to rain tomorrow." Or "It will raan tomorrow."As Hebrew has gender (Masc. Fem. Neu.) for all nouns, Deutscher finds the use of he or she to be "poetic" and even "arch" for English nouns that are normally neuter. He has not met the farmer, miner or assembly line worker whose favorite rifle or tool is a she, or tried calling someone's household pet or favorite horse "it". I have heard computer programmers describe the operation of a piece of software as "he wants to ...". I have a 24-year old sports car that has acquired personhood over the years, as have some of the quirkier computers I've worked on. I also must wonder whether a native speaker of a language with two genders (e.g. Spanish) would find this natural or "arch"? -or a native speaker of two languages with contradictory genders?However, when everything is considered this book has my highest recommendation for style, content and humor -every star amazon will allow!

Quasi esclusivamente sullo studio della percezione dei colori, ma veramente interessante. Lo stile è veramente stupendo, il migliore che io abbia mai letto in un libro di divulgazione scientifica. Ho fatto un corso sul linguaggio, con una parte dedicato sul rapporto tra linguaggio e percezione, ma devo dire che l'argomento non l'ho capito finché non ho letto questo libro.