16 of 19 people found the following review helpful
Not as promising as it sounds,
This review is from: A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (The Language Library) (Paperback)
At a first glimpse, this dictionary sounds like heaven: it's got more entries than all the other dictionaries before, it's been written by one of the gods in Linguistics and its layout is presented in a clear and user-friendly way.
However, this dictionary is far from being complete. It might be enough for first year under-graduate students in Linguistics and/or English Language, but it's not gonna make the deal for anything above that.
Since I bought that book not even half a year ago I came up some linguistic words I didn't understand. The first reaction is to look them up in this dictionary. Result: Problem 404 Object not found. It's very disappointing having such a promising book in one's hands and yet not being able to fully use it
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 10 Nov 2008 11:30:41 GMT
Dr. Willi Plöger says:
It doesn't seem fair to attach a review of the previous edition of 2003 to this new and revised edition of 2008, let alone to place the rating given by this one reviewer immediately under the title of Crystal's book. Thanks in advance for a due correction!
Posted on 31 Jul 2009 19:06:54 BDT
Laura Bailey says:
I agree with this review (and this also refers to this 2003 edition - I haven't seen the newer one). I bought it as essential reading a few years ago starting out in linguistics and almost immediately found it inadequate. Now I'm doing a PhD it is nowhere near good enough and I find Wikipedia a lot more useful for basic definitions. That said, the definitions it does have are quite good. The newer one may be better, I don't know, but this editions contains long explanations of quite irrelevant things and no entry at all for quite common terms that need explaining - polarity item, for example, is nowhere to be seen.
In reply to an earlier post on 21 Feb 2011 16:12:30 GMT
Last edited by the author on 21 Feb 2011 16:18:08 GMT
N. L. Esq says:
If you have a copy of the 2008 edition and can give a more objective review, why not do so. Amazon always welcomes new reviews. But until someone does, the review of the previous 2003 edition is the most objective that is available. Whilst it is possible that the new edition has been revised so much as to be unrecognisible, I doubt it. Three stars is not a brilliant review, nor is it a poor one. If this is a good book produced by David Crystal it probably only deserves three stars because we usually expect excellence from him!
The same applies to Blu-Ray vs DVD releases in the Film part of Amazon. (Though it would be nice to be able to filter out the non-exact matches).
‹ Previous 1 Next ›