Dense but entertaining and (of course) THOUGHT-provoking look at how language shapes our though and thought shapes our language. If you ever thought words are unimportant... ( )

Not as good of writing or as easily accessible as his other work, but still really good. Especially interesting for someone with young kids. ( )

The ideas Pinker presents in this book blew my mind. Though it was a very heavy, intense read, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Before I read this, I didn't even know psycho-linguistics existed, but now that is exactly what I am interested in learning more about. ( )

The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature by Steven Pinker (2007)

This is my second encounter with Pinker's works, the first being [b:The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language|869681|The Language Instinct How the Mind Creates Language|Steven Pinker|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1410763257l/869681._SY75_.jpg|2422982], which I read in 2015 (see my review here). As language is one of my interests, and [b:The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature|2813972|The Stuff of Thought Language as a Window into Human Nature|Steven Pinker|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348133891l/2813972._SY75_.jpg|2839893] being a sort of follow-up of / sequel to 'The Language Instinct', I simply had to read it, even if it took me a long time.

Like before, the material is heavy, not all that accessible (depending on the chapter, too), but Pinker expresses himself as clearly as possible and with the occasional wink/touch of humour. The book shows us how we humans play with language. We use words in various ways, give them literal and figurative meanings to express ourselves, our emotions, use them for plays on words, etc. in a way that fits the circumstances.

Semantics, pragmatics, different contexts (historical, political, personal, ...), taboo words, the technicalities of language, the politics, ... It's all there. Not only language is discussed here, but the sociological glasses were also used for this look into human nature with regards to language.

All in all, another recommended work by Steven Pinker. ( )

Very good. ( )

I read this alongside watching Jordan Petersen's lectures on the Personality (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...) and found the combination to be helpful.

The first 2-3 chapters are pretty dry for someone who is not an academic linguist. I assumed that this was essential foundation work for the chapters to come, but I'm still 100% convinced that wading through was wholly necessary.

Having said that, if you start this book, do not stall at this early point. I went from wishing it would get moving to wishing it would continue after I'd got to the end. It lays out clearly how we use language, the nuances of language, it's role as, not simply a method of communication, but in it's social context. One of the last chapters "Games People Play', covered how we use indirect speech, 'plausible deniability' and why in everything from bribing maitres d to sexual seduction.

Pinker's style is large able readable with a little effort. He stands up and then knocks down theory after theory, you might say with confidence in his own opinions. But overall I'd recommend this for anyone with an interest in where psychology and language meet. ( )

Love it so far. So much here to cover, so rich and multi-faceted and so many "aha!" moments. He really is brilliant, but with that brilliance comes a tad bit of (probably rightly-earned) arrogance. Will update when finished. ( )

Scholarly epic on language..which came first the chicken or the egg in human nature. Not a leisurely read but fascinating to anyone who loves words and how the English language uses them. ( )

Steven Pinker talks about how language reflects our thoughts in some ways, and comes up short in others. He mostly focuses on English, but does note some phrases in other languages. It is quite fascinating. I enjoyed it well enough, but I got a bit confused since he takes so long to get to the point he is trying to make. Also, his chapter titles don't really explain what they are about. So it is difficult to remember what each one covers.

Some of them are easy, but almost all of them are references or metaphors. Take the title of chapter 6 which is called "What's In a Name?" Obviously this is a reference to the scene in Romeo & Juliet where Juliet muses on the name of Montague and compares it to a rose still smelling the same regardless of what we call it. So it is apparent that this chapter is about names and how they come about.

Then there is the title of chapter 2, which is called "Down the Rabbit Hole." Now this one is also obvious in the reference to Alice in Wonderland, which is one of my favorite books, but I don't remember if it is talking about words in fiction in general, or in how we use words to transmit ideas. It has an entire chapter devoted to swear words and curse words, which to be honest, has always interested me, and it is called "The Seven Words You Can't Say On Television" after the George Carlin bit.

So, all in all, it is a fantastic book. Not breath-taking or anything, but it is what I would call good. ( )

Too tedious but informative ( )

Not nearly as good as the Blank Slate or How the Mind Works. If you are very interested in linguistics and what it reveals about how we think, then have a try at this one. I'm about half way through and some chapters are slow, but the content is very deep and original. ( )

This book really made me think about thought and about human language. I especially enjoyed the chapter on profanity. Admittedly, some parts of the book were dry for my tastes but in a lot of places, the author made some very good analyses and seemed to show some real insight. ( )

My favorite chapter was "Games People Play" which is all about how people save face by asking for things in indirect ways.

"If you know that I've asked you for sex and have been turned down, and I know that I've asked you for sex and been turned down, we can pretend that it never happened and continue to be (or at least pretend to be) friends. But if I know that you know, and you know that I know that you know, and so on, then the charade can no longer be maintained."

Go ahead, read that again. It really does make sense!
( )

This book is definitely not for someone with only a passing interest in linguistics. The first few chapter were slow reading for me but had a lot of good background information about the different theories of language acquisition. My favorite chapters were 5-8 about metaphor, naming, swearing and the "games people play" -- why do we speak in veiled language instead of being more direct?

I found this book really fascinating and funny. Pinker made some of the more difficult to grasp concepts as accessible as possible and made me laugh in the process. ( )

A bit tough, but still interesting look at the relation between language and the mind as well as language's role in society. Covers a wide field of topics, with some success in pragmatics, and becomes a bit tough over analysis of verb types. ( )

This is a difficult book to stick a rating on. Its content will no doubt appeal to a niche audience. The first half is a bit like reading the text for a college lecture. Pinker explores verbs and the way we use them, from tenses to the reasons for our various word choices in conversation. I found the information interesting but, at times, weighty and definitely not 'pleasure reading'.

The second half of this book is a much quicker, easier read. Pinker builds off the information in the first half, exploring our use of metaphors in speech and in thought, how names arise, why we find some words more offensive than others, and why people rarely say what they really mean.

If you're looking for a kind of pop culture, light read on language and thought, this probably isn't the one. If you love language and you're also interested in how the mind works, Steven Pinker will take you on a fascinating exploration. ( )

Interesting book on how we use language (English language) and the concept of expression, especially using metaphors.

I did skip over some of the boring bits (I found boring because there are just too many examples with too much details.) It give you thought on how you use the language, and how is it different from an non native speaker ponit of view. ( )

I like books that are a challenge to read and understand. I like being driven to think deeply about things that I take for granted. I like understanding how the universe works.

This is a crazy deep and difficult book. Massively rewarding, I struggled mightily to follow the arguments, understand the examples and look up lots of words in a dictionary.

Pinker is a great mind who puts forward amazing arguments to explain how human minds work, using language as the key. Every page of this book has me gasping in wonder and realisation.

Every page in this book has me floundering in arguments just out of my mental reach and uses words I never heard of (‘If that is what he meant, why not say so...?’).

This is an absolutely fascinating book from a popular author who wants to tell us how wonderful the human mind is and how language is the ultimate expression of that wonder. In doing so he made my brain hurt, but in a good way. ( )

An interesting look at language and what it can tell us about human nature. Some of it probably needs to be studied with more attention than one can provide when reading it in 20-minute spurts over the course of the day. Of particular interest are the chapters on swearing, baby names and the idea of people thinking in metaphors.

Pinker's writing style is accessible and witty, with some well-chosen pop culture references sprinkled throughout. I particularly enjoyed the Calvin and Hobbes and Dilbert references, as well as Monty Python, Doctor Who and Doonesbury. One can even apply some of the topics discussed to the world of writing -- the knowledge that a particular verb or subject choice can change the perspective of the sentence is very instructive. For example, saying that you poured milk into the glass is different than filling the glass with milk; you're focusing on different things. Subtle distinctions yes, but it may make all the difference.

This book is well worth a read if you're a linguist, psychologist or just love to read about how the mind works. ( )

Nel linguaggio, sia colto sia quotidiano, sono radicati un modello di sessualità, i concetti di divinità, potere e giustizia, le nozioni di intimità, benessere e pericolo, una filosofia del libero arbitrio. Un esame approfondito dei mezzi e delle modalità di comunicazione verbale può rivelarsi prezioso per capire chi siamo e le vere ragioni dei nostri comportamenti. È l'obiettivo che si pone Steven Pinker in "Fatti di parole", in cui confluiscono i due itinerari di ricerca da lui percorsi negli ultimi anni: lo studio della facoltà di linguaggio e l'indagine sui processi cognitivi e sulla natura umana. L'autore analizza il significato di parole e frasi in contesti sociali. La conclusione a cui giunge è che ogni essere umano si forma un'immagine del mondo fisico e del mondo sociale che non corrisponde al flusso di sensazioni provocato dall'incontro della mente con l'ambiente esterno, ma è costruita a partire da un repertorio limitato e identificabile di pensieri primari, che, grazie alla loro plasticità e valenza metaforica, sono in grado di ricomporre i dati d'esperienza in una molteplicità di oggetti ed eventi traducibili in vocaboli e proposizioni. La prevalenza di alcuni di questi "manufatti mentali" (nomi, parole, ecc) in quella rete di influenze reciproche che è la comunità dei parlanti, dove ogni individuo è insieme produttore e consumatore di significati, definisce ciò che chiamiamo "cultura" di una società, di cui la lingua è parte integrante.

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1487501.html

I was rather unimpressed by the Pinker book I read last year, but this seemed to be a more coherent assembly of facts and theories relating to linguistics, psychology and philosophy. I'm afraid I still wasn't gripped by it, but that is more to do with my own preferences for intellectual exercise than any fault of the book; I can't get very excited by deep philosophical questions, and psychology has never been an attractive field for me.

There were some points of interest.

* I was startled to read of an old family friend making her reputation by observing and writing up the process by which her daughters learned to speak, and indeed nervously wondered if I too had been an unwitting subject of her research. But on reflection, by the time we knew the family her daughters were well past the stage of language acquisition (in English anyway, though for all I know she may have also exploited the liguistic consequences of their subsequent emigration to the Netherlands).

* Good quote on linguistic determinism: 'The idea that Eskimos pay more attention to varieties of snow because they have more words for it is so topsy-turvy (can you think of any other reason why Eskimos might pay attention to snow?) that it's hard to believe it would be taken seriously wer it not for the feeling of cleverness it affords at having transcended common sense.'

* A joke about Eastern European aristocrats having a drinking contest where the winner is the one who can think of the biggest number. After long thought the first one says, 'Three.' The second one ponders long and hard, and finally says, 'You win.'

* But the reason that peoples who count 'one, two, many' don't have larger numbers is that thye don't really need them; Pinker quotes a researcher who finds that the Yanomanö warrior knows each of his arrows individually and so does not count them.

* Rude words for sex are transitive (take a direct object); polite words for sex are intransitive (require a preposition) - 'John bonked Mary'; 'John made love to Mary'. I wonder how true this is in languages other than English.

* Politeness strategies in many languages use similar strategies to make direct questions more acceptable - he gives an example from Tzeltal, 'You wouldn't perhaps sell your chicken, it was said' - similar in concept to English 'You wouldn't be selling your chicken by any chance, would you?'

That last point was rather unusual in that Pinker for once drew from languages other than English for his conclusions, and I would have enjoyed the book more if he had done so more often. I'm glad to have read a better book by him than How The Mind Works, but I won't go out of my way to track his stuff down in future. ( )

Steven Pinker is such a frustrating writer. His books are crammed with original and important ideas that impress, but which are presented in such a sea of words that the content gets lost. I find myself, at the end of an absorbing chapter, not able to bring to mind the key concepts just presented. Now, if Pinker wrote more like Jared Diamond, what a joy it would be. This book is more professional and better organised than Blank Slate, but is still a near miss. What a shame. Read July 2010. ( )

This is a truly fascinating book, really putting in perspective for me how language is a window into human nature. It is packed with facts, stories, examples and pure knowledge. There is just a bit too much of it, and some of it is too scholarly for my taste. Pinker uses too much space to explain theories he dosn't support, and the reader is left wondering why. The language itself, ironically, is at times too complicated.
However, some of the chapters are true gems, lifechanging I would say... ( )

Steven Pinker really is an amazing writer: amazing for his ability to attract crank reviews for his books.

Let’s take KromesTomes’s review as our example: one star, with the main (or rather the only) criticism being that Pinker is a ‘terribly “loose” writer’.

Now, for me, this is strange. It is easy to disagree with some of Pinker’s ideas, as he takes a contentious stand in some of the most fundamental debates in philosophy, psychology and linguistics. His writing style is not normally so controversial – for a writer who likes to tackle the big issues, his prose is unusually lucid.

Most people have a stereotype of academic writing in their heads: they think it is dense and dull. Like many stereotypes, it has some truth to it – many academic papers are impenetrable even to specialists in the same field. Academic writing on language, strangely enough, suffers just as much as any other field. Steven Pinker’s writing definitely does not fall into this category – he tries to engage with the reader, to stir up and maintain interest. This is definitely a good idea, as linguistics can be a little dry – try Steven Ullmann’s Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning as bedtime reading.

So, Pinker uses “actually” in a way which is not recorded in Webster’s. Well, I have news (I’m whispering): sometimes people use words in ways which are different to those described in the dictionary. Sometimes they even use words which aren’t even in the dictionary! Imagine that! Actually (can I say that?), this use is in my dictionary (the Oxford): “used to emphasize that something someone has said or done is surprising”. Yet, this is beside the point, which is that it is not at all difficult to know exactly what Pinker meant when he wrote that sentence, just as I know what is meant by a “loose” writer. I’m sure no native speaker of English requires a dictionary to understand it.

Google doesn’t sell noun phrases? Well, it sells to companies wishing to advertise on their search engine the right to have their ads display when certain words, usually noun phrases, are entered into the search box by a user. As I have worked on Microsoft’s attempt to compete with Google in this arena, I know that it is common within the industry to speak of “buying and selling keywords”, rather than use a two or three dozen word sentence as I’ve just done. Not only does it save a lot of time in meetings, but this linguistic phenomenon also has a name: synecdoche. I’m sure that one’s in Webster’s.

One could pick holes in the English used in the review: some people would object to the comma placed inside the inverted commas in “selling noun phrases,” as this implies that it is part of the quote, or to the use of “but” at the start of a sentence. You might say this is pedantry – I would agree and I apologise – but picking holes in perfectly clear and understandable language (or “how people use language in the real world”) is not restricted to this or the below review. Indeed, Pinker devoted a whole chapter of The Language Instinct to linguistic prescriptivism (Chapter 12 – The Language Mavens).

Don’t get me started on the count nouns and mass nouns thing, as I wouldn’t want to keep you here for another ten minutes, although it’s, erm, actually really interesting.

Have a read – you’ll enjoy it, even if you don’t agree with it. No dictionary needed. ( )