From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: "Grammar" & "Usage"
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 12:03:02 GMT




In a previous article, roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) says:

>
>>"Additional research could be done on how the size of the group as well as the
>>proportion of men to female ratio is.  Does it help or hinder combining the to
>>genders in groups who must problem solve for survival.  How does the dominance
>>wiegh out in an artifacial setting compared to a in the field study."
>
>>Knowing the theme of the paper wouldn't help your interpretation of this,
>>believe me.
>
>It's actually pretty straightforward, once you get past the spelling.
>(Of course, my wife used to do research in problem-solving and its
>teachability...)  Sloppy formulation, to be sure, and it would be nice
>to know more about what group size and sex ratio are supposed to affect.
>But, aside from getting the writer to write closer to speech (yes!), and
>to use question marks and a spellchecker, I can't get  too upset abut
>this.  
>
>>Funny, funny, har har.  If you wrote this it would be, in most circumstances. 
>>Do you *honestly* think you would hire this person for a job in your company,
>>Roger? 
>
>Depends on the job.  Depends on what they'd shown me they could do.  I
>don't think I'd hire them for the technical writer position, or even as
>a typist; but I know terrific programmers who can't write that well.

Do you mean, "can't write as well as that example," or "can't write all
that well" in general?  

>
>However, the person needs to learn how to transfer that intuitive
>knowledge into good writing.  Some people speak well and write
>execrably.  This person is probably not too far away from writing
>adequately. 
>
>I might add that many people who speak excellently write badly because
>they were intimidated by poor pedagogy, sometimes of the abusive,
>sarcastic type, during their schooling.  Very few teachers teach writing
>well.
>
>Thank God they don't have to teach speaking.
...

>Well, why not tell me? You said the student needed to re-learn the
>basics of grammar and usage.  In my non-expert, but somewhat informed (I
>hope) opinion, I'd say that was wrong.  The student needs to learn how
>to write--and most of that involves aping formal, but uncomplicated
>speech.  I bet that student speaks grammatical sentences, even nice
>formal ones, on occasion.  
>
>Locating the precise problems in the student's writing is indeed the
>task of an expert; a teacher.  I doubt a teacher would do a complete
>course in grammar, etc., for this student.
...

>But look what my favorite experts say!  
>
>They say: relax and speak naturally.  You already know how.  Keep it
>simple and you'll get your point across.
>

Now, I am -not- an expert, but this does not fit my experience.  People who
"relax and speak naturally" are not doing anything that can be transferred
verbatim to the page.  In conversation, you don't have to.  In
conversation, you can use gestures, significant eye movements, quirks of
the lips.  In conversation, the other person can say, "Wait--I don't..."
and you can clarify: "No...the other side, see?"

Writing, in which your material is to be taken away from all the help you
can give it in person, is a very different matter.  I am not saying that
there are -not- people who are as you describe: eloquent in speech but
confused on paper.  But I think most of them come from privileged (not
rich, necessarily, just literate) homes.  And most people don't come from
such homes.

Bonita Kale
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6651 sci.lang:6563