Try as we may, the language can’t be tamed. But try we do and this book is about some of the ways in which that can transpire. We can bind it in grammatical rules, try to confine it to strict definitions, but lo and behold it’ll get free in time, because language tends to evolve. Survival of the fittest where fit is synonymous with adaptability. And languages tend to adapt to the needs of those utilizing them. That seems to be the essential message here, but the book takes its time getting there in chapters that cover various linguistic paradigms. There’s something for everyone…you might enjoy learning about the definitional evolution of various words, like buxom, or you might amuse yourself with the author taking on the prim and proper grammar grouches like Gwynne. There’s also a chapter of the AI language learning and translation. One on created languages, like Esperanto and Lojban. One of the socioeconomic and political ramifications of language. You get the idea. If it’s language related, it’s in here. It’s a lot to cover in a relatively slim volume and the author does an admirable job, albeit it one he’s much too serious about. Maybe it’s just me, I do prefer my nonfiction narratives to take a lighter, humorous even whenever possible, approach. Then again, the author is a very serious person, an editor for the Economist, so the tone seems about right. The narrative is engaging enough without the jokes and jocular digressions, I found it to be slightly repetitive at times, but tolerably so. It was even entertaining in its own way, but mainly very informative. The armchair linguist in me was delighted and, though there was a good amount of facts I was already familiar with, the book offered plenty of new fascinating information. My goal with nonfiction reading is mainly educational (ideally also entertaining) and this book certainly provided an education. Somewhat dense manner of delivery, but absolutely worth a read. Thanks Netgalley.

Thank you to NetGalley, the Economist, and Lane Green for an ARC copy to review. As always, an honest review from me.

Talk on the Wild Side is an interesting foray into the world of ever evolving languages. Yes, languages are evolving. And no, that’s not a bad thing. I learned that language changes to better suit the needs of the speakers. Formal language is not necessarily better than informal, but more about the context. Formal language is more appropriate when writing an essay for English class. Informal is appropriate for family gatherings.

While these seem like such basic concepts, the book explains them in a more in depth manner. Teaching me new things throughout. Some of the concepts presented require an English major background, in theory, but the author explains it so well that most people will understand the nuances concepts. I also found it interesting to see the change of language over time in relation to historical, cultural and political influences. Speaking of politics, the section on language and political campaigns was fascinating and a bit terrifying.

However, as interesting as many parts were, other sections still went over my head and also bored me. The chapters about tech and language, and creating brand new languages didn’t intrigue me. Personal preference though.

All in all, an intriguing foray into the world of language. How we use it, why it changes and people’s thoughts about it.

Enjoyable and informative read about the various intricacies of language. While not for everyone, this book is a fun read for those individuals interested in evolution, contrasts, influences, biases, and oddities in language.

Like everything else in the universe, language is always changing. It changes with outside influence, with fashion, with fads and by diktat. Sooner or later, writing follows suit. Talk on the Wild Side, Lane Greene’s newest look at English, debunks the “language tamers” and the fussy rules of experts. What I like about it is that the book is fun precisely because it is not judgmental. There is no One Right Way, Greene reminds readers often. (It “actually means linguistic incompetence,” he says). Instead, the book is a collection of anecdotes, criticisms and studies that commend the variety, power, and evolution of language.

There is a wonderful discussion of meaning, and dictionaries, and Johnson, which is not coincidently the name of Greene’s column in The Economist, the weekly newspaper. Meaning, like everything else, is constantly changing, so that words might not mean the same thing they did a century ago. One of the (many, it seems) things that drive me crazy is authors constantly breaking down words to their original Ancient Greek roots, to prove, well, nothing. It is all completely meaningless to a 21st century native speaker of English. Words today are what we make of them today - and don’t count on them meaning the same thing tomorrow. Greene cites the word buxom, which originally meant pliable, then happy/gay, and now, a large-chested woman. The connections are tenuous at best. Which is the whole point.

Like all evolution, languages evolve towards simplicity and efficiency. So, Greene points out, we combine words to make gotta, oughta, gonna and shoulda. And everyone instantly understands the new words. You can even insert a negative in there, if you remember the song “He shouldna hadna oughtna swung on me.” But English also has a nasty tendency to enlarge, pointlessly. My “favorite” examples are orientate for orient and irregardless for regardless. Singular “they” goes back to at least the 14th century and is not a 21st century abomination. Whom doesn’t matter. No one will fail to understand if you use who instead. Prepositions can end any English sentence – just not Latin ones. That rule is simply bogus. So is using the nominative “I” following “is”. He says you could “end a relationship gently by telling your soon-to-be ex that ‘It’s not you; it’s I’. I recommend this only if you really never want to see that person again.”

I disagree with Greene on some points. He thinks all languages are full-formed and effective, if not equally efficient, in communicating among its speakers. But in English we have few or no words to describe things like taste, for example. You cannot experience what I do biting into an apple by my words alone. The same goes for smell. Look at all the absurd words we use to describe wine. We co-opt the words of dozens of other things, from gravel and charcoal to leather and tobacco, not mention all kinds of fruit that aren’t there, to try to communicate a vintage. The speaker is willing, but the vocabulary is weak.

Another topic not in the book is the lack of effect of television. It might be argued that accentless, non-regionals actors, reporters and interviewers would have a slimming effect on all the regional variations. But they haven’t. I would have loved to have Greene’s take on that.

He also misses divergence. It is already the case that we use subtitles for speakers of dialects, even from our own towns. I have seen subtitles for speakers of Scottish English and for speakers of French from the banlieux (suburbs) and from Africa. It won’t be long before the English of Shakespeare is as incomprehensible to native English speakers as Old English is now. The national “Academies” for language purity cannot hope to stop it.

Possibly the most important concept in Talk on the Wild Side is Formal versus Normal (from Geoffrey Pullum). Donald Trump never speaks Formal. He is always Normal (at least in his speech). Regionalisms, right down to street level get classified in the Normal bin. Formal language is a lingua franca that supposedly rises above all the customization by the hoi polloi. Greene says teachers tell kids they are wrong when they speak what is for them Normal. The constant corrections simply turn them off school and learning. The result is adults with no concept of grammar or syntax, no feeling for the derivation or connection of words, and no desire to fit themselves into the Formal bin. Greene wisely prescribes teachers simply teach the difference between Formal and Normal, and not always prescribe the Formal. Formal can be useful in getting a job, or in giving a talk, or writing a report. There is nothing wrong with Normal; you just want the right tool for each task.

Languages, like everything else, come and go. They come into existence and disappear all the time. There are currently about 7000 of them in operation. And there are people who dedicate their lives to reviving dead ones, by, for example, speaking nothing but that language to their children. Of course, no one knows how those languages sounded, so they are colored by the accent of the speaker. Not that it matters.

Dead languages have very little prospect of flourishing. They died for a reason. Languages exhibit the network effect we hear so much about in internet services. The more people use them, the more powerful and important they become, until they are indispensible. Trying to preserve a failing language that few speak any more is a daunting task, and about the only successful implementation is Hebrew, which was, for hundreds of years, sacred, and only used in religious rites. (So it was never technically dead. Millions spoke it.) It is now the official language of Israel, which gives it much more clout. Languages like Cornish, Breton, and various native American languages don’t have the backing of a nation-state, and keeping them going is a struggle. They have been outcompeted and disadvantaged in a very Darwinian sense.


Children pick up language just by hearing and using it. They eventually get all the rules right. Greene says they need to do the same for the written language. They need to “read, read, read and read some more”. Teaching children grammatical rules is not nearly as effective.

There is so much that can be said about language. It fills several disciplines to overflowing. Lane Greene has selected a nice subset to demonstrate the flexibility and worry-free nature of it all.

David Wineberg