Those other bad reviews are right on the mark. I have taught from this book a couple of times at the university level, and I found it a shameful piece of junk. There are many cartoons included in it,which make it appear user-friendly at first glance, but it is so poorly written, and it explains things so poorly, that even many of my brighter students had trouble understanding it. (One colleague of mine, who insists on using it, feels the need to hand out copious explanatory notes with each chapter.) The book is full of glaring errors -- not only in linguistic matters but even in general knowledge, such as in the meaning of certain common acronyms (just one example). Even though these errors are easily spotted and corrected, they remain in the book from one edition to the next. The section on Language and Gender (among others) is pitiful, consisting mainly of research from the 1970s on language phenomena that have probably not been common since the 19th century. (When is the last time you heard a prostitute called a "laundress" or a "needlewoman"? The book goes out of its way to explain how unjust such monikers are, even though they are dead. Besides, my grandfather could recount cases from the turn of the century of call girls claiming they had arrived at Mr. So-&So's apartment to "take the laundry.") Some portions of the book are so inaccurate and badly written that I suspected that they were written by textbook editors and not by linguists. My students found this book a torment to learn from, and I found it a torment to teach from. An instructor would be better off choosing Finegan's "Language: Its Structure and Use" or Yule's "The Study of Language". While these texts have their own problems, they are infinitely better than this one.