Core Idea
- Difficulty
- Medium
- Read it if
- You are fascinated by the intersection of language, culture, and cognition, and want a sophisticated, evidence-based exploration of how the words we use might subtly shape our perception of reality.
- Skip it if
- You prefer a quick, definitive answer to the language-thought debate, or are looking for a practical guide to language learning rather than a deep dive into linguistic theory and history.
Key Takeaways from Through the Language Glass
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: A Nuanced Revival
Language doesn't just express thought; it shapes it, albeit subtly.
Deutscher carefully brings back and redefines the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, arguing against its full dismissal by mainstream linguistics. He shows that while language does not absolutely control thought (the strong Whorfian claim), it does have a significant, often unconscious, effect on how we see, categorize, and remember the world. This 'weak Whorfianism' suggests that the grammar, words, and required distinctions of our native language act as a 'language glass,' subtly guiding our attention and making certain ways of thinking more common or noticeable. It is not that speakers of different languages cannot understand certain ideas, but that their languages make them more or less likely to notice or think about them in particular ways, without conscious effort.
“The belief that language shapes thought has a long and checkered history, but it is now staging a remarkable comeback, albeit in a more sophisticated and nuanced form.”
In the book: Deutscher details a series of modern psychological experiments, particularly those by Lera Boroditsky, showing that speakers of languages with different spatial terms (e.g., absolute vs. relative directions) or different ways of describing time perform differently in non-linguistic tasks, such as memory recall or reorienting themselves.
Try this: Become more aware of the 'invisible' influence of your native language on your perception. When learning a new language, pay attention not just to vocabulary and grammar, but to the inherent conceptual distinctions it forces or encourages. This awareness can foster greater cognitive flexibility and empathy for different worldviews.
Related ideas: sapir-whorf-hypothesis, linguistic-relativity, cognitive-bias
The Curious Case of Color Perception
Cultural linguistic divisions of color profoundly impact how we perceive and remember hues.
One of the strongest arguments for linguistic relativity comes from color. Deutscher carefully traces how color terms have changed over time, especially how 'blue' appeared late in many ancient languages, including Greek and Hebrew. He challenges the idea that color perception is only physical, showing that language boundaries for colors (for example, whether a language has separate words for blue and green or groups them) affect how quickly and accurately speakers can identify and tell shades apart, even in non-language tasks. This is not about being unable to physically see a color, but about how easily and quickly we process it because of language categories, showing how language can 'train' our perception.
“It turns out that the way we slice up the spectrum into named colors has a tangible effect on how we perceive and remember them.”
In the book: Deutscher discusses the famous Homeric 'wine-dark sea' and the absence of a distinct word for blue in ancient Greek. He also cites modern studies, such as those comparing Russian speakers (who distinguish light blue 'goluboy' and dark blue 'siniy') with English speakers, showing that the former are faster at discriminating between shades of blue that cross their linguistic boundary.
Try this: When encountering a new language's color system, don't just translate; try to understand the conceptual boundaries it creates. This can open your eyes to subtle distinctions you might have previously overlooked and appreciate the arbitrary yet powerful nature of our own color categories.
Related ideas: color-perception, linguistic-categorization, homeric-colors
Grammatical Gender: A Pervasive Anthropomorphism
Assigning gender to inanimate objects subtly imbues them with human-like qualities.
Deutscher looks into the often-missed effect of grammatical gender on how speakers perceive things. He argues that languages that give gender to non-living objects (like 'the bridge' being feminine in German, 'die Brücke', but masculine in Spanish, 'el puente') do more than just add a language tag. They subtly encourage speakers to give gender-matching traits to those objects. This assigning of human traits, though unconscious, can appear in descriptions, comparisons, and even emotional connections. It is a strong example of how seemingly random language features can enter our thinking, making us see the world through a gendered lens that has no basis in reality.
“It turns out that the gender of a noun in a language can subtly, and unconsciously, influence the way its speakers think about the object it denotes.”
In the book: He cites experiments where German and Spanish speakers were asked to describe objects that have different grammatical genders in their respective languages. German speakers, for instance, were more likely to describe a 'key' (masculine in German) with masculine adjectives like 'hard' or 'heavy,' while Spanish speakers (where 'key' is feminine) used feminine adjectives like 'shiny' or 'lovely.'
Try this: If you speak a language with grammatical gender, reflect on whether you unconsciously attribute human-like qualities to objects based on their gender. If learning a new language, notice how its gender assignments might subtly shift your perception of the world. This can make you more aware of the hidden biases embedded in language.
Related ideas: grammatical-gender, anthropomorphism, linguistic-bias
The Peril of Linguistic Determinism's Oversimplification
The extreme Whorfian view was rightly rejected, but its nuance was lost in the process.
Deutscher examines why the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis lost favor in academics. He largely blames its decline on the oversimplification and misinterpretation of Benjamin Lee Whorf's ideas into a strict 'linguistic determinism.' This extreme view, which suggested that language absolutely dictates thought and that speakers of different languages live in completely different realities, was easily disproven by evidence of universal human thinking abilities and the possibility of translation. However, Deutscher argues that too much was thrown out; the complete rejection of Whorf also led to the dismissal of more subtle, yet important, effects of language on thought. This historical detour stopped linguistics from studying the complex interaction between language and thought for decades.
“The problem was that the strong version of Whorf's hypothesis was so provocative, and so easily caricatured, that it overshadowed the more subtle and defensible claims.”
In the book: He discusses the academic backlash against Whorf in the mid-20th century, particularly the critiques that pointed out the logical fallacies of linguistic determinism (e.g., if language determined thought, how could Whorf even conceive of other ways of thinking?). Deutscher shows how this led to a period where any suggestion of language shaping thought was almost taboo in linguistics.
Try this: Approach complex theories with a critical eye, avoiding intellectual 'straw men.' Recognize that the failure of an extreme version of a theory doesn't invalidate its more nuanced forms. In discussions about language and culture, differentiate between strong determinism and subtle influence.
Related ideas: linguistic-determinism, whorfianism, academic-discourse
The Ancient Greeks' Blue Blindness (or lack thereof)
The absence of a word for 'blue' doesn't mean ancient Greeks couldn't see it.
Deutscher gives much attention to the historical mystery of color terms, particularly the late appearance of 'blue' in many languages, including classical Greek and Hebrew. He carefully disproves the common idea that ancient people were somehow physically 'blue-blind.' Instead, he argues that their categorization of the color spectrum was simply different, often grouping blue with green or darker shades. This language choice, however, still had thinking consequences. While they could physically see blue, their language did not provide a distinct mental 'hook' for it, making it less noticeable and harder to refer to or remember as a separate item. This difference between perception and language categorization is vital for understanding linguistic relativity.
“The fact that the ancient Greeks did not have a word for blue does not mean that they could not see the color blue. It means they did not categorize it as a distinct color in the same way we do.”
In the book: He thoroughly analyzes Homer's 'Odyssey' and 'Iliad,' noting the consistent absence of a term for 'blue' even when describing the sea or sky, which are frequently depicted with 'wine-dark' or 'bronze' epithets. He contrasts this with their rich vocabulary for other colors, particularly red and black.
Try this: Challenge your assumptions about 'universal' human experiences. Recognize that cultural and linguistic frameworks can profoundly influence how we categorize and articulate our perceptions, even for something seemingly objective like color. This fosters a deeper appreciation for linguistic diversity.
Related ideas: ancient-greece, color-terms, linguistic-history
Language as an Attention Director
Our mother tongue unconsciously trains us to focus on certain aspects of reality.
Deutscher argues that language primarily shapes thought by guiding our attention. Every language requires its speakers to make certain distinctions (e.g., grammatical gender, how we know something, precise spatial terms) while others are optional. This constant, unconscious habit of noticing and categorizing specific features of the world trains our brains to prioritize certain information. For instance, a language that requires speakers to say how they know something (evidentiality) will make its speakers more aware of information sources. This is not about creating different realities, but about habitually highlighting different parts of a shared reality, which affects memory, decision-making, and even problem-solving.
“Language does not prevent us from thinking certain thoughts, but it can make it much harder or much easier to think certain thoughts.”
In the book: He cites studies on spatial language, where languages like Guugu Yimithirr (an Australian Aboriginal language) use absolute cardinal directions ('north,' 'south,' 'east,' 'west') instead of relative ones ('left,' 'right'). Speakers of Guugu Yimithirr maintain a constant, unconscious awareness of their cardinal orientation, even indoors, performing better on tasks requiring spatial navigation.
Try this: Reflect on the obligatory distinctions in your native language. What information does it *force* you to include in every sentence? How might this affect what you habitually notice or prioritize in the world? Experiment with consciously paying attention to details that your language typically ignores.
Related ideas: attentional-bias, evidentiality, spatial-language
The Power of Obligatory Distinctions
What a language *requires* us to say has a stronger impact than what it *allows* us to say.
A key idea from Deutscher's work is the difference between what a language allows its speakers to say and what it requires them to say. The latter, he argues, is the real driver of linguistic relativity. While any language can describe almost any idea, the constant, mandatory inclusion of certain information (e.g., the gender of a noun, the tense of a verb, the source of information) changes thinking habits. These 'required distinctions' act as constant mental drills, making certain categories or dimensions of experience more accessible and noticeable for speakers of that language, even when they are not directly talking about them. This is where the 'language glass' truly filters perception.
“It is not what one can say in a language that matters for linguistic relativity, but what one *must* say.”
In the book: He illustrates this with examples like grammatical tense systems. English requires a tense mark on every verb, making us constantly aware of time. Other languages, like Chinese, do not obligatorily mark tense, and while they can express time, their speakers are not constantly 'drilled' in temporal distinctions in the same way.
Try this: When learning a new language, focus not just on vocabulary, but on the grammatical categories that are *mandatory*. Understand how these requirements might implicitly train the minds of native speakers. This shift in focus can deepen your understanding of cultural differences.
Related ideas: obligatory-grammar, linguistic-structure, cognitive-training
The Evolution of Language: A Bottom-Up Process
Languages evolve organically, driven by efficiency and the need to categorize the world.
Deutscher points out that languages are not fixed, perfectly designed systems, but changing entities that develop over thousands of years. He argues that the 'arbitrary' features we see today, like irregular verbs or specific grammar, are often the result of historical processes driven by efficiency, clarity, and the combined effect of categorization. The development of distinct color terms, for example, is not random but follows a predictable pattern across cultures, moving from basic black/white differences to red, then green/yellow, and finally blue. This evolutionary view helps explain why languages differ so much and how these differences, in turn, shape thinking habits.
“Languages are not designed by committees, but grow organically, shaped by countless individual acts of communication and the evolving needs of their speakers.”
In the book: He traces the historical development of color terms across various languages, showing a consistent sequence of emergence. He also discusses how grammatical structures, like case markings, can simplify or complicate sentence parsing, influencing how a language evolves to balance expressiveness with cognitive load.
Try this: Appreciate language not as a fixed system but as a living, evolving organism. Understanding the historical forces that shaped your language can provide insight into its current quirks and its subtle influences on your thought processes. Avoid prescriptivism and embrace linguistic change.
Related ideas: language-evolution, historical-linguistics, linguistic-change
Beyond Translation: The Untranslatable Gaps
Some concepts are so deeply embedded in language, they resist direct translation, revealing cognitive differences.
While acknowledging that almost anything can be explained across languages, Deutscher highlights the 'untranslatable' as a key sign of linguistic relativity. These are not just words without direct matches, but whole ideas or subtleties that are so deeply woven into a language's grammar or words that they need long explanations to convey in another. The difficulty in translating such ideas shows a difference in common thought patterns. It is in these gaps that we see how different languages might make certain ideas more accessible, more noticeable, or simply more 'natural' to their speakers, affecting their view of the world.
“The very act of translation often brings into sharp relief the conceptual chasms that lie between languages, showing us where one language demands distinctions that another ignores.”
In the book: He discusses examples like the German word 'Schadenfreude' (pleasure derived from another's misfortune) or the lack of a direct English equivalent for certain evidential markers in languages that require speakers to specify how they know something (e.g., 'I saw it,' 'I heard it,' 'I infer it').
Try this: Embrace the 'untranslatable' when learning or encountering other languages. Instead of searching for a direct equivalent, try to understand the underlying conceptual framework that gives rise to the word or grammatical structure. This can lead to profound insights into different cultures and ways of thinking.
Related ideas: untranslatability, cultural-concepts, linguistic-gaps
The Richness of Linguistic Diversity
Each language offers a unique lens, enriching humanity's collective cognitive potential.
Deutscher's main message is that language diversity is a great human treasure. Far from being random variations, different languages are distinct thinking toolkits, each offering a unique 'language glass' through which to see and interact with the world. By exploring these differences, we gain not only a deeper understanding of human thought but also an appreciation for the many ways reality can be analyzed, categorized, and experienced. The loss of a language is not just the loss of words, but the loss of a unique viewpoint, a particular way of directing attention, and a distinct set of thinking habits that enrich human thought.
“The diversity of human languages is not a mere accident of history; it is a testament to the myriad ways the human mind can structure and perceive reality.”
In the book: The entire book serves as evidence, showcasing examples from various languages (Russian, Guugu Yimithirr, ancient Greek, Hebrew, German, Spanish) to illustrate how different linguistic structures lead to different cognitive biases and patterns of thought.
Try this: Actively seek to engage with and learn about languages different from your own. Advocate for linguistic preservation and diversity, recognizing that each language holds unique insights into the human mind and the world. Appreciate that linguistic differences are not barriers, but invitations to expand your own cognitive horizons.
Related ideas: linguistic-diversity, cognitive-flexibility, cultural-preservation
Through the Language Glass Quotes
“The story of language is an arena in which we can study in miniature the evolution of human culture itself.”
“It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the brain of a speaker of a language like English must be organised rather differently from the brain of a speaker of a language like Guugu Yimithirr.”
“The greatest trick language ever pulled was convincing the world that it was immutable.”
“Behind every word is a forgotten poem.”
“It is not that we are trapped by language, but that language shapes the pathways of our thoughts.”
“The more we learn about language, the more we realise how much it is a product of our own making, not an external force dictating our thoughts.”
“What often appears to be a logical, 'natural' way of thinking about the world is in fact merely a habit of thinking ingrained by our mother tongue.”
“The history of language is a story of constant, subtle, often imperceptible change, like a river slowly carving a canyon.”
“Every language is a unique solution to the problem of communicating the infinite complexity of human experience.”
“The very act of naming something gives it a new kind of reality.”
“Languages are not just tools for communication; they are also powerful shapers of our mental world.”
“To understand the journey of language is to understand a fundamental part of what it means to be human.”
“The greatest obstacle to understanding language change is our own ingrained intuition that language is fixed.”
“What seems 'natural' to us is often merely a deeply ingrained habit, a path worn smooth by generations of speakers.”
Quiz
10 questions on the main ideas. Each answer comes with a short explanation.
Question 1
Which ancient civilization did Guy Deutscher extensively discuss regarding their perception and naming of colors, particularly the absence of a distinct word for 'blue' in their early texts?
- The Mayans
- The Romans
- The Greeks
- The Egyptians
Show answer
C. The Greeks Deutscher dedicates significant discussion to ancient Greek texts, particularly Homer's epics, to illustrate how early Greeks did not have a specific term for 'blue' and how their color vocabulary evolved, supporting the idea that language can influence perception.
Question 2
What is the 'fashionable academic consensus' that Deutscher argues against in 'Through the Language Glass'?
- That all languages are fundamentally the same in their structure and influence.
- That language is a purely arbitrary system of signs with no connection to thought.
- That language merely reflects thought and culture, but does not actively shape it.
- That linguistic determinism (strong Sapir-Whorf) is universally accepted.
Show answer
C. That language merely reflects thought and culture, but does not actively shape it. Deutscher's central argument is against the prevailing view that language is a transparent window onto thought, arguing instead that it actively shapes our perception and thinking, contrary to the idea that it only reflects them.
Question 3
Deutscher uses the example of the Kuuk Thaayorre language to demonstrate how its speakers perceive and describe space. What is unique about their spatial descriptions?
- They use relative terms like 'left' and 'right' but only in relation to the speaker's body.
- They rely exclusively on cardinal directions (north, south, east, west) for all spatial orientation.
- They have no words for spatial relations, relying on gestures instead.
- They describe space primarily through the distance to the nearest significant landmark.
Show answer
B. They rely exclusively on cardinal directions (north, south, east, west) for all spatial orientation. The Kuuk Thaayorre language famously uses absolute cardinal directions (north, south, east, west) even for small-scale spatial references, forcing speakers to maintain a constant awareness of their orientation, which Deutscher uses as evidence for language shaping perception.
Question 4
What phenomenon does Deutscher describe as 'the gradual narrowing of focus' in the evolution of color terms?
- The process by which languages lose color terms over time.
- The tendency for new color terms to be borrowed from other languages.
- The way a broad, general color term gradually becomes more specific, eventually splitting into distinct terms.
- The shift from using natural objects to describe colors to abstract terms.
Show answer
C. The way a broad, general color term gradually becomes more specific, eventually splitting into distinct terms. Deutscher explains how color terms evolve, often starting with very broad categories (e.g., 'light' and 'dark') and then gradually differentiating into more specific terms as the language develops, demonstrating how our linguistic categories for color become more refined.
Question 5
Deutscher challenges the idea that the brain processes all sensory input identically before language interferes. What experiment, related to color perception, does he use to support his argument that language can influence even basic perception?
- Studies showing infants can distinguish more colors than adults.
- Experiments where speakers of different languages show varying speeds in identifying colors across linguistic boundaries.
- Tests demonstrating universal color preferences across cultures.
- Research on color blindness and its linguistic implications.
Show answer
B. Experiments where speakers of different languages show varying speeds in identifying colors across linguistic boundaries. Deutscher discusses experiments, particularly those involving Russian speakers (who distinguish between light blue 'goluboy' and dark blue 'siniy'), showing that they are faster at discriminating between two shades of blue if they fall into different linguistic categories in their language, suggesting language can affect pre-attentive processing.
Question 6
According to Deutscher, what was a key methodological flaw in early 20th-century linguistic theories that dismissed the influence of language on thought?
- They focused too much on syntax and not enough on semantics.
- They overemphasized the role of universal grammar.
- They often conflated 'what can be expressed' with 'what is habitually expressed'.
- They relied too heavily on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical data.
Show answer
C. They often conflated 'what can be expressed' with 'what is habitually expressed'. Deutscher argues that many linguists wrongly assumed that because something *can* be expressed in any language (albeit sometimes clumsily), there is no difference in how languages influence habitual thought. He highlights the distinction between what is *possible* to say and what is *easy* or *habitual* to say.
Question 7
Which of the following best summarizes Deutscher's stance on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
- He fully endorses the strong version of linguistic determinism.
- He completely rejects both strong and weak versions of the hypothesis.
- He argues for a nuanced, weaker version where language 'coaxes' or 'nudges' thought and perception, rather than strictly determining it.
- He believes it only applies to non-Western languages.
Show answer
C. He argues for a nuanced, weaker version where language 'coaxes' or 'nudges' thought and perception, rather than strictly determining it. Deutscher doesn't advocate for the strong, deterministic version of Sapir-Whorf, but rather a more moderate view where language gently influences or guides our habitual thinking and perception, providing compelling evidence for this 'coaxing' effect.
Question 8
Deutscher discusses the work of William Gladstone, the British Prime Minister and classical scholar. What was Gladstone's significant observation that sparked much of the later research into color perception and language?
- That the ancient Greeks had a surprisingly rich vocabulary for emotions but a poor one for abstract concepts.
- That Homer's epics showed a peculiar and limited range of color terms, particularly for blue and green.
- That Latin grammar was far more complex than Greek grammar.
- That ancient languages lacked terms for 'infinity' or 'zero'.
Show answer
B. That Homer's epics showed a peculiar and limited range of color terms, particularly for blue and green. Gladstone's detailed analysis of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey revealed a striking absence of terms for blue and a peculiar usage of other color words, leading him to conclude that the ancient Greeks perceived colors differently or at least described them in a very distinct way.
Question 9
Beyond color and spatial orientation, what other domain does Deutscher explore to show how language can influence thought, often citing examples of how different languages encode agency and causality?
- The perception of musical harmony and rhythm.
- The attribution of blame or responsibility for events.
- The ability to perform complex mathematical calculations.
- The memory for faces and names.
Show answer
B. The attribution of blame or responsibility for events. Deutscher delves into how languages differ in their grammatical structures regarding agency, for example, whether one says 'I broke the vase' or 'The vase broke itself' (accidentally), arguing that these habitual linguistic patterns can subtly influence how speakers perceive and remember who is responsible for actions.
Question 10
Deutscher argues that the 'universalist' position in linguistics, which downplayed the influence of language on thought, was partly a reaction against what earlier, discredited notion?
- The idea that language is solely a product of social conventions.
- The notion that some languages are inherently more logical or advanced than others, often tied to racist ideologies.
- The belief that language originated from onomatopoeia.
- The theory that language acquisition is solely through imitation.
Show answer
B. The notion that some languages are inherently more logical or advanced than others, often tied to racist ideologies. Deutscher notes that the pendulum swung too far towards universalism partly because linguists, rightly, wanted to distance themselves from earlier ethnocentric and racist ideas that some languages (and by extension, their speakers) were 'primitive' or 'inferior' due to their linguistic structures.
Through the Language Glass FAQ
Does language reflect the culture of a society?
Yes, Guy Deutscher argues that language undeniably reflects the culture of a society. He presents evidence and historical context to show how the structures and vocabulary of a language often mirror the values, priorities, and experiences of its speakers.
Is our mother tongue a lens through which we perceive the world?
Contrary to some modern academic consensus, the book posits that our mother tongue does act as a lens, significantly influencing how we perceive the world. It shapes our understanding of colors, space, time, and other fundamental concepts.
Can different languages lead their speakers to different thoughts?
Absolutely, Guy Deutscher makes a compelling case that different languages can indeed lead their speakers to different thought patterns. The grammatical structures and semantic categories inherent in a language can guide and constrain the way its speakers think about various phenomena.
What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and does the book support it?
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that the language we speak influences or determines how we think and perceive the world. While the book doesn't explicitly endorse a strong deterministic version, Deutscher provides substantial evidence to support a weaker, influential version of the hypothesis, demonstrating language's profound impact on thought and perception.
How does 'Through the Language Glass' differ from other books on linguistic relativity?
'Through the Language Glass' stands out by challenging the prevailing academic skepticism towards linguistic relativity with rigorous historical and scientific analysis, presented in an accessible and engaging style. Unlike some works that might dismiss the idea, Deutscher meticulously builds a case for language's influence using concrete examples and historical shifts.
Does learning a new language change how I think?
Based on the arguments in the book, learning a new language can indeed change how you think and perceive the world. By adopting new linguistic categories and structures, you may begin to notice and categorize aspects of reality in ways you hadn't before, expanding your cognitive framework.
What historical examples does Guy Deutscher use to illustrate his points?
Deutscher draws on a rich array of historical examples, including the evolution of color terms, the development of spatial language, and ancient grammatical structures. These examples help to trace how languages have changed over time and how these changes reflect or influence human thought and perception.
Is 'Through the Language Glass' suitable for readers without a linguistics background?
Yes, 'Through the Language Glass' is written for a general audience and is highly accessible even without a prior linguistics background. Guy Deutscher explains complex concepts clearly and entertainingly, blending cultural history with popular science to make it engaging for anyone interested in language and the human mind.
Similar books
- The Diary of a Young Girl
Anne Frank
4.2 (2.7M) average on GoodreadsBiographyDuring the Nazi occupation, a teenage girl's diary, written from a secret annex, shares observations on humanity, hope, and the wait for freedom.
- Twisted 1. Twisted love
Ana Huang
3.7 (1.7M) average on GoodreadsA quiet billionaire with a difficult past finds his guarded heart opening to the woman he must protect, but their growing passion uncovers dangerous secrets and a shared, traumatic history.
- Eat, Pray, Love
Elizabeth Gilbert
3.6 (1.5M) average on GoodreadsLifestyleA heartbroken writer leaves her conventional life for a year-long global search for pleasure in Italy, spiritual devotion in India, and unexpected love and balance in Bali.
- Night
Elie Wiesel
4.3 (970k) average on GoodreadsBiographyIn the darkness of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, a teenage Elie Wiesel faces the extermination of his family, the loss of his faith, and the lasting scars of humanity's deepest cruelty.
- Steve Jobs
Walter Isaacson
4.1 (957k) average on GoodreadsBusinessSteve Jobs was a visionary who fused creativity and technology to revolutionize six industries and shape our digital world.
- The Glass Castle
Jeannette Walls
4.3 (903k) average on GoodreadsBiographyJeannette Walls's memoir describes her unusual childhood with brilliant, free-spirited parents whose poverty-stricken life shaped her independence and love despite family problems.
Enjoyed the summary?
A summary gives you the shape of the book. The book itself has the detail, the examples and the voice.
Find Through the Language Glass on AmazonAs an Amazon Associate, BookBrief earns from qualifying purchases. How we're funded