Grammar, as defined by Webster, is the characteristic system
of inflections and syntax of a language. It signifies many things: the end of a
complete thought; a pause for the necessary regaining of one’s grounding; the
difference between wonder and certainty. With complete and total regulation of
the written language, many, if not all, writers may operate under the belief
that improper use of grammar means two things: a serious lack of intelligence
and skill. And when writers hold this particular belief in high regard, the
content of a writer’s argument usually falls to the wayside, and incessant
grammatical nitpicking ensues. Negligence of content and well-founded thought
promotes a different style of both research and writing.
The heart
of this article is to gain an understanding, to secure an answer to two
questions: is improper grammar detrimentally distractive? So distractive that
it renders the article incomprehensible, nonsensical or incredible? Have I
employed a comma when I should’ve used a semi-colon? Would a dash have worked
better than the period I used in the first paragraph? Are you able to
understand what I’m saying? Is the larger message I’m trying to convey getting
through to you? Or should these questions be separated by a series of commas or
semi-colons so you can understand my point more clearly? The intricacies of
grammar are vast and strangely subjective. I aim to get a better understanding
of them by the end of this article.
Joseph M.
Williams dissects the concept of error and why some mistakes spark instant ire
while others are able to generate only modest irritation. His article “The
Phenomenology of Error” attempts to understand the scale in which grammatical
errors are measured. He admits he’s
“puzzled why some of us can regard any particular item as a more or less
serious error, while others, equally perceptive, and acknowledging that the
same item may in some sense be an “error,” seem to invest in their observation
with no emotion at all.” Williams, and myself, are equally perplexed by these
diverse subjectivities and opinions of error.
I realize
that this intro lacks five sources. I’m still searching for suitable
reinforcements of my research.
Hi Jack,
ReplyDeleteGreat start here. I like what you've got going in the introduction. It's well-written, thoughtful, and clear and I like that you set up these questions to guide your research and writing. As you note, the conversation is lacking here, though you do a good job of succintly summarizing Williams. You might consider adding Bryson and Dawkins from WOW, see what it looks like. But you can also check out Williams' Works Cited list to gain more materials. Tons of really great stuff here too: http://www.rebeccamoorehoward.com/bibliographies/language-standards. Let me know if you need more guidance than this. I'm here to help. Good work.