Williams' point about errors is that they seem like a yes-no kind of thing. Yes that was an error, or no that was not an error. However, Williams says that it's more of a scale. Our emotions connected with the category in which the error falls will define the error itself. They will define the reaction, and essentially the prevolence of those errors in the future.
Williams is a bit upset though, that errors in grammar are not offensive, because they will not get fixed. If no one cares about the mistakes made in grammar, there is no emotional investment in trying to correct them.
Williams slips in, throughout the essay the very errors he is speaking about. He is interested in how many errors people find the first read through, and what else they would find upon re-readig it.
What I found interesting was the way Williams tracks down the origin of the error. It's a long chain of people screwing up grammar, it's never just one person making the mistake.
I agree.I also find it interesting how Williams slips in the errors and how it takes a chain of people to screw up grammar. I think William slipped those errors in as an example to see if people understand what his definition of error is.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to read this article but from the title of it and what you wrote about in your blog it seems like he likes to talk about errors. I think its kind of weird how it says "...errors in grammar are not offensive, because they will not get fixed." Don't you think they would be offensive if they weren't fixed? That's like slapping writing in the face and having nothing done back to you. Just a bit weird but like I said I have yet to read the article. Very interesting though.
ReplyDelete>>What I found interesting was the way Williams tracks down the origin of the error. It's a long chain of people screwing up grammar, it's never just one person making the mistake. <<
ReplyDeleteThis is very important to his point...