37.3635, Reviews: Your Langauge Matters: Victor M. Prieto (2025)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-37-3635. Wed 04 Nov 2026. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 37.3635, Reviews: Your Langauge Matters: Victor M. Prieto (2025)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Valeriia Vyshnevetska <valeriia at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 04-Nov-2026
From: Pius Ten Hacken [pius.ten-hacken at uibk.ac.at]
Subject: General Linguistics: Victor M. Prieto (2025)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/37-1039

Title: Your Langauge Matters
Subtitle: Critical Questions about Language in a Twenty-first Century
World
Publication Year: 2025

Publisher: SIL International Publications
           http://www.sil.org/resources/publications
Book URL: https://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/111020

Author(s): Victor M. Prieto

Reviewer: Pius Ten Hacken

This book is meant as “the basis for lectures in the linguistics
course, “An introduction to language” at the university level”
(xviii). It is based on the author’s thirty years of experience
teaching linguistics at various universities and has as its mission to
dispel misconceptions about language he encountered in this context.
SUMMARY
The book consists of ten chapters with a preface and a usage guide
explaining the structure. Each chapter has a question as its title
which I will quote before summarizing the discussion.
1 - Do we really know what language is? Language is a system with
phonological, lexical and grammatical components. It consists of
symbols, is independent of a stimulus, is creative and productive.
Many people have misconceptions about what language is.
2- Do animals and robots really speak? Communication involves
interaction. Speakers can do things with words, but animals cannot do
this in the same way. Machines do not really communicate, they only
calculate in codes.
3 - Is your grammar good? As grammar is the system of rules for
producing language by connecting sounds, words and phrases, the
grammar of each person is inherently good. Some examples of different
possibilities are given, emphasizing that no language is superior to
any other.
4 - What do we mean when we talk? Successful communication depends on
the speaker and hearer’s shared understanding. Shared culture and
context are important factors in facilitating this. Figurative
meanings are often used.
5 - Who speaks English better? Sociolinguistic variables cause
variation in language, but no variety is inherently better than any
other.
6 - Did King Alfred really speak English? Old English is quite
different from the Late Modern English that is spoken today, but it is
also English. Language change is driven by economy, expressivity,
analogy, language contact and changes in the outside world.
7 - Do we mean what we say? Pragmatics is the last component of a
language a speaker learns. Both children and second language learners
often get it wrong. Pragmatics can be used in language-based
manipulation, e.g. false advertising and language-related
discrimination.
8 - Is language in our heart or our brain? Language is in the brain.
The relevant areas were discovered by the study of aphasia patients in
the 19th century, now supplemented by fMRI data. Animals communicate,
but they cannot learn human language.
9 - Can anybody learn a language? First language acquisition is
natural and follows certain general stages. At each stage there is a
system. Second language acquisition is not automatic, but it also
follows certain stages. In order to improve the SLA experience, one
should focus on communicative needs and on oral language.
10 - Does society help or harm language? In Mexico, indigenous
languages are often called dialects, which is a way of denying them
the status of language. The choice of language in communication can be
due to class, historical experience and beliefs. The recognition of
languages is part of social justice.
The conclusion consists of a list of the ten questions with a brief
answer based on the discussion and a list of ways how “Your language
matters”.
EVALUATION
There are two ways one can approach this book. The title shows a kind
of linguistic activism, reminding one of Hall (1950). The table of
contents is entirely in line with this interpretation. However, the
preface characterizes the book as a textbook for a specific
undergraduate introductory course in linguistics. Both perspectives
are elaborated in the text. As the summary shows, the author takes
clear positions on questions of language rights and social justice. At
the same time, basic theoretical notions are introduced, for instance
morphosyntactic agreement in Chapter 3 and semantic relations such as
synonymy and antonymy in Chapter 4.
As an undergraduate textbook, certain points and decisions seem
surprising or problematic from a theoretical perspective. Thus, in
chapter 2, Shannon & Weaver’s (1949) model of communication is
introduced and criticized because it is unidirectional. For students,
Jakobson’s (1960) model would have offered a much better starting
point of the discussion. Another issue is the interpretation of
‘dialect’ in Chapter 10. In linguistics, a dialect is generally
understood as a variety belonging to a language. Dialectology is a
branch of linguistics with a long tradition. Prieto uses ‘dialect’
exclusively as a derogatory term for a minority language. Here, the
activism, protecting speakers of minority languages, gets in the way
of a balanced presentation of basic concepts of linguistics. An issue
of a different kind comes up in Chapter 9, where Prieto presents one
particular approach to second language learning as the only valid one.
In view of the literature on the variation in motivation and learner
types, this seems too apodictic.
The standards for a textbook also require a good style of referencing
and accurate examples. Quoting Saussure in English (3) is acceptable,
but not indicating which translation was used is not. The bibliography
has Saussure (1916) with an English title and an American publisher.
As for examples, it is perhaps a typo that Latin domini is given as
the base form instead of the nominative singular dominus (30), but it
seems rather an inaccuracy when laptop and computer are given as
synonyms (46), especially because it is mentioned explicitly that any
laptop is a computer, but not all computers are laptops. In Chapter 5,
a somewhat confused picture of regional variation emerges when lexical
and phonological variation in the U.S. is followed without any
transition by the presentation of a language map of Southern Asia
giving the official languages in different administrative areas (64).
The style of presentation of the material is not typical of academic
texts. Prieto brings in a lot of his personal background and
experience. This is typical of informal, oral communication and may
show the author’s teaching style. Some features are also typical of
journalistic texts. Thus, each chapter starts with an anecdote, often
taken from the author’s personal experience. This may be useful in
drawing students’ attention, but the choice of anecdotes and their
discussion is not always a good introduction to the actual topic of
the chapter. Chapter 4 on semantics starts with an anecdote that
hinges on whether an offer of help is a sign of respect or a lack of
trust in a person’s capabilities. It illustrates pragmatic differences
in understanding rather than the direct meaning of phrases. Chapter 5
starts with an anecdote in which an African American gets a better
treatment when calling and using a standard American accent than when
she visited the same people. Prieto calls her a victim of linguistic
profiling, but the problem was rather ethnic profiling.
Another aspect that is typical of a journalistic style is the use of
figures. In the 133 pages of the main text, there are 66 figures. Many
of these do not add any information that is not already in the text.
When pronouncing judgement is given as an example of how human
communication can change the world, a drawing of a judge with a hammer
and a sign “judge” is given (20). In fact, most figures are of this
type.
The book is clearly focussed on an American readership. In the
discussion of language-based stereotyping, a large picture of two
sheriffs is given with the caption “Use of accent to portray
stereotypes” (59). Strictly speaking, this is not what is in the
picture. Unless one recognizes the people depicted, the picture is
meaningless.
There are also quite a few poorly formulated sentences. An example is:
“As a native speaker who has learned English as a second language,
this author’s own 200-page PhD dissertation analyzed …” (12). Another
example is: “After giving a lecture as a visiting professor of
linguistics at a university in Peru in the summer of 2012, a student
came to me …” (79). One would expect a proof reader would pick up such
cases before the text went to print.
A strong and positive message permeates the entire book. Nobody has to
be ashamed of their language. Everybody has the right to be accepted
in the way they speak. This is a message that I trust most linguists
will adhere to. The packaging of this message will raise more doubts.
Whether a textbook for undergraduate students should be used as a
vehicle for this message can be a matter of debate. The same goes for
the effectiveness of the style of presentation with the anecdotes and
pictures. The theoretical, factual and linguistic infelicities I noted
are certainly not helpful in spreading the message.
REFERENCES
Hall, Robert A. (1950), Leave Your Language Alone!, Ithaca (NY):
Linguistica.
Jakobson, Roman (1960), ‘Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics’,
in Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.), Style in Language, Cambridge MA: MIT
Press, pp. 350-377.
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916), Cours de linguistique générale, Charles
Bally & Albert Sechehaye (eds.), Lausanne: Payot.
Shannon, Claude E. & Weaver, Warren (1949), The Mathematical Theory of
Communication, Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Pius ten Hacken is a professor at the Department of Translation
Studies of the University of Innsbruck (Austria). His research
interests include terminology, word formation, lexicography and the
philosophy of linguistics. His latest monograph, co-authored with
Renáta Panocová, is “Word formation as a Naming Device” (Edinburgh
University Press, 2024).


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Australian Linguistics Society https://als.asn.au/Home

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

MDPI Languages https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications

University of Toronto Press https://utppublishing.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-37-3635
----------------------------------------------------------