My dad was recently telling me about a guy he knows who is very good at what he does (I believe he’s an accountant or something in the financial/real estate field) from whom he’s received a half dozen or so emails. The thing is, his emails are riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, and if my dad hadn’t already known the guy and known that he was really good at what he does, these emails would have convinced him to never do business with the guy. Question is, is the bias against bad grammar a useful one or simply a dangerous prejudice? Do you find yourself judging people on the basis of whether their speech or written communication conforms to the correct standards? What about the reverse question? Can having well grammar ever be handicapful in dealings wit peple, perhaps expecially them which dont?
Post-show Thoughts: Grammar is only capable of being a false negative for intelligence. In other words, someone might be very smart and have poor grammar, but someone will never be very stupid and have excellent grammar. It's surely not an indication of character, since one may smile and smile and still be a villain. Wearing a tie, having good breath, and speaking well can just as easily coexist with evil as with decency. I do worry, however, that in an age of IM, chat, and txtng (LOL), a certain superficiality of thought (OMG) is being cultivated because people aren't forced to develop the rigorous habits of mind and discourse which traditional grammar and rhetoric force upon them.
Also of note, people with poor grammar are almost always ashamed of it and may even become defensive when corrected because they have so regularly been treated as if stupid merely because of their poor grammar. Whether they're worried they may not actually be smart or simply frustrated that they are incorrectly appraised, this means that pointing out someone's grammar flaws is actually quite difficult if they have many of them. Those who have better grammar to begin with don't mind the correction because they are already fairly self-confident. So be loving in these matters. Still, I'd say that grammar is an 80% or so indicator of competence, intelligence, and education. Certainly not 100%, and certainly not of moral character.
Also remember, people who have poor grammar most likely were not taught it properly nor did they have it reinforced at home. This means that they are likely doing their best, even though it may not look like it.
Really Cool Website--and she's local: Grammar Girl
3 comments:
Question is, is the bias against bad grammar a useful one or simply a dangerous prejudice? Do you find yourself judging people on the basis of whether their speech or written communication conforms to the correct standards?.
http://www.christian-drug-rehab.org
Note: This was posted on a different topic, but belonged here.
Well Of Course Grammar is the basic step to learn a perfect English. Learning grammar is the initial step that once has to learn. It is not that difficult to learn. If anyone has difficulty in putting a step ahead then please reply me and let me remove your hurdles.
=====================================
Steve
Christian Drug Rehab http://www.christian-drug-rehab.org
There seem to be three things you might judge a person on related to his grammar:
1. His character--this is a very poor method of character evaluation. So poor as to be counterproductive in the extreme.
2. His intelligence--this can be slightly better, but again only in the sense that stupid people rarely have excellent grammar. Smart people, however, may often have poor grammar.
3. His competence at some professional skill--whether this is a valuable indicator depends heavily on the particular skill in question. Good grammar indicates attention to detail, an academic background, and the capacity to follow rules. But these are certainly only moderately reliable indicators to any particular skill other than publishing and speaking. In these environments, also, too refined a style can actually be a handicap to getting your point across. John Dean at Findlaw has written a whole series of interesting articles about how too erudite a speech demeanor can be an asset for electibility (George W. Bush) and also possibly a liability (Barack Obama).
Post a Comment