I know this is more /his/, but fuck that board is full of retards.

>>9022943
>that board is full of retards
>Implying /lit/ is not.

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language

>>9022943
What direction are you looking to go OP?

Pinker has a popsci book about neuro-linguistic processes that isnt very technical. Its called the language instinct and it argues for language modules in the brain.

If youre feeling brave and want to get into philosophy of language then Wittgenstein's later work is dank. Just be sure to read Austen or Rylke after for different views. Those are all a little old but good enough to get a sense of whats talked about in the field. Or you can jump into the deep end, read some situationalists and shitpost hatred fir french philosophers because you wasted time not understanding what you were reading.

If you want to read more technical stuff go Chomsky. His linguistic stuff, not his political stuff obviously. Again, a bit dated but necessary to underatand the field.

>>9022975
Cambridge History of the English language is probably also relevant. That's a couple volumes already and nobody's told OP to read Saussure.
>>9023021
>>>/his/ leave he said he didn't want you

File: 9632742.jpg (10KB, 312x475px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 312x475px

>>9022943
How Language Works by David Crystal is a pretty good casual intro to the topic of linguistics

Course in General Linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure if you want something more technical

source: am a linguist

>>9023190
Is Sassure's book still relevant to contemporary linguistics?

Reminder that the situationists want to know why we cannot describe orgasm

>>9023196
Insofar as it is the groundwork text for all modern language study, yes. But it's certainly not a reflection of the field past Chomsky. Think James's Principles to Psychology in relation to contemporary psych.