These course materials
are licensed by Lori Ostergaard under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
| In “The phenomenology of error,” Williams (1981) posited that “the language some use to condemn linguistic error seems far more intense than the language they use to describe more consequential social errors" (p. 153). Indeed, other grammarians (Hartwell, 1985; Hawhee, 1999) suggested that readers’ responses to error were directly related to how those readers viewed the writer’s ethos: “if we read any text the way we read freshmen essays, we will find many of the same kind of errors we routinely expect to find and therefore do find” (Williams, 1981, p. 159). Williams (1981) divided error into four categories based on the presence of an error and the reader’s reaction to that error: rule violation with a response to that violation, rule violation with no response to that violation, rule observance with no response to that observance and rule observance with a response to that observance (p. 166). Current research has revealed that a reader’s response to error is determined by the reader’s class, gender, age, educational background, and ethnicity (Milroy, 1998, p. 76). Additional ethnographic studies of reader response to linguistic error are needed to validate Williams’ initial claims. References Hartwell, P. (1985). Grammar and ethos. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Hawhee, P. (1999). When good grammars go bad. College English, 46, 46-62. Milroy, J. (1998). Authority in language: Investigating standard English. New York: Routledge. Williams, J. (1981). The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communication, 53, 152-185. |
In “The Phenomenology of Error,” Joseph Williams posits that “the language some use to condemn linguistic error seems far more intense than the language they use to describe more consequential social errors” (153). Indeed, other grammarians (Hartwell; Hawhee) suggest that readers’ responses to error may be related to how those readers view the writer’s ethos: “if we read any text the way we read freshmen essays, we will find many of the same kind of errors we routinely expect to find and therefore do find” (Williams 159). Williams divides error into four categories based on the presence of an error and the reader’s reaction to that error: rule violation with a response to that violation, rule violation with no response to that violation, rule observance with no response to that observance, and rule observance with a response to that observance (166). The work of sociolinguists would seem to suggest that our response to written error may be determined, at least in part, by our class, gender, age, educational background, and ethnicity (Milroy 76). Indeed, we may wish to conduct additional ethnographic studies of readers’ responses to written error in order to expand on Williams’ analysis. Works Cited Hartwell, Patrick. Grammar and Ethos. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 1985. Hawhee, Patricia. "When Good Grammars Go Bad." College English 46.4 (1999):46-62. Milroy, James. Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. New York: Routledge, 1998. Williams, Joseph. "The Phenomenology of Error." College Composition and Communication 53.1 (1981): 152-185. |
These course materials
are licensed by Lori Ostergaard under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.