presnik@bbn.com (Philip Resnik) (04/26/89)
Does anyone know of a study demonstrating that poor quality prose loses potential business? (For example, one could imagine a study showing that, given pairs of prose descriptions, people tend to choose products whose description does not contain grammatical errors.) The view that "effective writing" is good for business is a commonly held one; I'm interested in finding out what has been done experimentally on this topic. Please respond via e-mail (I probably won't see posted followups), to presnik@bbn.com. Thanks, Philip
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (04/27/89)
In article <39131@bbn.COM> presnik@bbn.com (Philip Resnik) writes: >Does anyone know of a study demonstrating that poor quality >prose loses potential business? (For example, one could >imagine a study showing that, given pairs of prose descriptions, >people tend to choose products whose description does not contain >grammatical errors.) I would also like to see any such studies. I know that personally, whenever I see spelling or grammar errors I tend to downgrade the competency of the writer. Reading net postings really makes me cringe! I can understand mistakes involving big and/or little-used words, but to see things like "mispealt" is horrifying. It seems that the worst spelling comes from college students. Perhaps those of us who have made it into the real world have learned that spelling does indeed make a difference. Any resume that crosses my desk with spelling or grammar errors is usually instantly rejected. I once read a resume where the applicant listed Hewlett Packard as a previous employer and spelled Hewlett as "Hewlit". I round-filed that resume at that point. People have argued that I am overly critical of these mistakes. I contend that a resume is the first impression you make on a potential employer. If you don't care enough to get it right, how can I believe that you'll care enough to get your work done right on a regular basis? Correct spelling shows attention to detail and a level of discipline that I value in an employee. I know that when I see a misspelled word, it just "seems wrong". Have there been any studies on how people determine spelling? I would also find that interesting. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}
goer@sophist.uucp (Richard Goerwitz) (04/27/89)
In article <1982@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: >In article <39131@bbn.COM> presnik@bbn.com (Philip Resnik) writes: >>Does anyone know of a study demonstrating that poor quality >>prose loses potential business? > > I would also like to see any such studies. I know that personally, >whenever I see spelling or grammar errors I tend to downgrade the >competency of the writer.... > Any resume that crosses my desk with spelling or grammar errors is usually >instantly rejected.... >If you don't care enough to get it right, how can I believe that you'll >care enough to get your work done right on a regular basis? Correct spelling >shows attention to detail and a level of discipline that I value in an >employee. Sounds to me as if Chuck Musciano had already made up his mind about the correlation between general competence and proficiency at trivial tasks like spelling. One thing that concerns me here is that CM might not have the same notions about correctness as someone else. And in fact, there are many grey areas in English (and American) usage. Usage experts themselves often disagree. For instance, would you use "whose" for "of which"? The latter is often re- garded as the better of the two. Only recently has "whose" come to be ac- cepted in elite circles as a reasonable replacement for "of which." So where do we draw the line? Whose elitism will rule the day? Do you split infini- tives? End sentences with prepositions? How about good ol' "I" and "me"? Will you go with popular usage, and say, "He came with you and I," or will you "correctly" say, "He came with you and me"? Or will you "incorrectly" say the last sentence (thinking you are not paying attention to your grammar)? Geez, in sci... I'd think we would be more concerned with explaining be- havior than in guiding it. -Richard L. Goerwitz goer@sophist.uchicago.edu rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (04/28/89)
In the discussion about grammar and spelling, it seems to me that there are three concepts that must be distinguished: grammar, spelling, and typos. Discussions of grammar are usually heated, as different grammatical constructions are usually based on a (perhaps only perceived) difference in meaning. Grammar is also context-sensitive, in that grammar that is common in "everyday speech" is not as acceptable in casual writing, and grammar that is common in casual writing (such as here) is not always appropriate in "educated writing." Spelling, on the other hand, is much less troublesome. Spelling of a word (within one dialect, such as American English) is fairly standardized. It is rare to see two opinions on how a word should be spelled. Even if there are alternatives (e.g. "gray" versus "grey"), they have nothing to do with meaning. (All of this does not mean that American English does not have funny rules of spelling.) Typos are independent of spelling and grammar, though the result of a typo is always a misspelling, which sometimes results in a legal, but inintended word being used. Anyone can make a typo, no matter how perfect their spelling or grammar. The disgrace of a typo depends on what the situation: on the net, it is no big deal to have a couple of typos, but in a resume, you should strive to have none. IMHO, a general rule is: one's knowledge, intelligence, and curiosity are *usually* reflected in the breadth and depth of one's reading and the breadth and depth of one's reading is usually reflected in one's grammar and spelling. Someone else mentioned that scientists should be judged on their work, not on their grammar. But in scientific writing, greater precision is needed than in non-scientific writing, isn't it? For example, there is a *huge* difference between "x^3" and "3^x" in an equation, or between "intra-" and "inter-", or between "i := j" and "j := i". In fact, I was recently browsing through new books at the campus store and saw a book which explores the relationship between black children's Black English and their poor math test scores. I cannot remember the specifics, but basically Black English usage dictates phrases (something) like "I had half as less", which wreaks havoc with turning word problems into equations. It also causes problems in that Black English uses different metrics for distance, etc., which causes unit conversion problems. (Note: I did not read the book, and I am no linguist, so I cannot vouch for its methods or conclusions. I only know that this book was in a reputable bookstore, which I hope would not contain poorly researched or racist books.) Wayne Folta (folta@tove.umd.edu 128.8.128.42)
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (04/28/89)
In article <2947@tank.uchicago.edu> goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) writes: >Sounds to me as if Chuck Musciano had already made up his mind about the >correlation between general competence and proficiency at trivial tasks >like spelling. I don't characterize spelling as a "trivial task", although I know many bad spellers who do. I believe that spelling does correlate with attention to detail. Spelling correctly can be difficult (and don't think that I won't reread this posting about three times before it goes out :-). The example I chose was a resume. This is an important example, I think, because it is often a person's only chance to make an impression when trying to find a job. When I wrote my resume, I paid a great deal of attention to spelling, grammar, and punctuation. I believe that a person should be disciplined enough to examine and correct such an important document before submitting it to the scrutiny of someone who, with a single decision, will affect the rest of their life. I have strong doubts about a person who seems to lack this discipline. Other, less formal, instances aren't as important to me, although I still cringe. I can't count the number of times when things on the net are so badly spelled that you literally cannot make sense of them. Often, the entire sense of a statement will be inverted by a single spelling error. I resent having to decode such postings when the original poster obviously did not take the time to proofread his message before sending it out. >One thing that concerns me here is that CM might not have the same notions >about correctness as someone else. And in fact, there are many grey areas >in English (and American) usage. Usage experts themselves often disagree. >For instance, would you use "whose" for "of which"? The latter is often re- >garded as the better of the two. Only recently has "whose" come to be ac- >cepted in elite circles as a reasonable replacement for "of which." So where >do we draw the line? Whose elitism will rule the day? Do you split infini- >tives? End sentences with prepositions? How about good ol' "I" and "me"? >Will you go with popular usage, and say, "He came with you and I," or will >you "correctly" say, "He came with you and me"? Or will you "incorrectly" say >the last sentence (thinking you are not paying attention to your grammar)? Usage differences are a problem, but as I said, I try to calibrate against the environment and how big a hair is being split. As the editor of a newsletter here at Harris, plus having been co-author on several papers, I have seen tons of bad usage, and try to continue the good fight for clear, readable, correct English. Sentences ending with prepositions amuse me, because I always think of the (Winston Churchill, I believe) quote that "it is something up with which I will not put". >Geez, in sci... I'd think we would be more concerned with explaining be- >havior than in guiding it. Although I'm reading in comp.cog-eng, I would agree with the statement. However, my posting stated that I wanted to see the studies regarding spelling, and went on to state my opinion. I would guess that studies would show that spelling skill does affect the impression a person makes, particularly in formal situations. I would also think that scientists are concerned with precision, and correct spelling is certainly a precise art. I would imagine that anyone submitting a paper at least makes an effort to spell things correctly, and in certain situations, a spelling error can disastrously change what a person intended to say. My spelling nightmare is a spelling error I made in the camera-ready copy of a paper I had published. The error is in the TITLE! Unfortunately, the error merely created a new, correctly spelled word, so my fancy spelling checker missed it. I proofed that title several times, and never caught it. My mistake, I suppose, was not having someone who hadn't been working on the paper for two weeks proof it for me. I'm no less lenient on bad spellers, and if there were some sort of speller's prison, I'd have to serve my time, I suppose. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}
greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) (04/28/89)
In article <39131@bbn.COM> presnik@bbn.com (Philip Resnik) writes: >Does anyone know of a study demonstrating that poor quality >prose loses potential business? (For example, one could >imagine a study showing that, given pairs of prose descriptions, >people tend to choose products whose description does not contain >grammatical errors.) I discounted this article when I read it. In paragraph one, there was a grammatical error. The parenthetical phrase should read: (... people tend to choose products whose descriptions do not contain grammatical errors.) Cheers, Glenn Reid
goer@sophist.uucp (Richard Goerwitz) (04/28/89)
In article <17158@mimsy.UUCP> folta@tove.umd.edu.UUCP (Wayne Folta) writes: >IMHO, a general rule is: one's knowledge, intelligence, and curiosity are >*usually* reflected in the breadth and depth of one's reading and the breadth >and depth of one's reading is usually reflected in one's grammar and >spelling. Interesting. But am I the only one that gets impatient with this sort of thing? Sci.lang is a good place to argue out linguistic theories. So, if this is your theory, please offer us some evidence - an experiment or an observation of some kind that will provide us with some basis for agreeing with you. You don't have to be a "linguist" per se. We just need something tangible to work with. No offense or anything. My best friend is a cabinet maker who has hardly picked up a book since he got out of High School. He's also one of the most intelligent and thoughtful people I know, and he has a thriving bus- iness as a fine woodworker in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In my experi- ence, this sort of person is not rare. If we are to posit some correlation between ability to spell or concern for things like typos and ability to perform in a real, working environment, doing things that may or may not involve spelling and typing things correctly, we must offer something more than personal feelings. Or else we gotta move to talk.lang.... -Richard L. Goerwitz goer@sophist.uchicago.edu rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (04/28/89)
From article <17158@mimsy.UUCP>, by folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta): " ... " problems in that Black English uses different metrics for distance, etc., " which causes unit conversion problems. (Note: I did not read the book, " and I am no linguist, so I cannot vouch for its methods or conclusions. " I only know that this book was in a reputable bookstore, which I hope would " not contain poorly researched or racist books.) Although the reputable bookstores here in Hawaii do maintain staffs of reviewers to check out the research before they will offer a book for sale, this may not be true in all areas. You ought to make sure, also, that your bookstore does have a linguist on its staff and that all ethnic minorities and majorities are properly represented among the reviewers. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (04/29/89)
In article <1982@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: }In article <39131@bbn.COM> presnik@bbn.com (Philip Resnik) writes: }>Does anyone know of a study demonstrating that poor quality }>prose loses potential business? ... } } I would also like to see any such studies. ... Not a flame, but a suggestion to all the people who've been requesting pointers to research studies: Get thee to the local college library and become familiar with the _Psychological Abstracts_. These contain references to all the published psych literature by author, title and subject. You'll find an hour or two spent with them far more productive than asking for pointers here. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
jdpsy205@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Jason Covington) (04/29/89)
Hi guys, This may be the wrong article to respond to but, it was the only article I could remember the number to. At any rate... It seems a large portion of this `conversation' has turned to whether or not scientists need to worry about what their words mean. My question in all of this is; Isn't that what we have Technical Communicators for? Bye guys.
jonathan@itcatl.UUCP (Jonathan Peterson) (04/30/89)
In article <17158@mimsy.UUCP> folta@tove.umd.edu.UUCP (Wayne Folta) writes: >IMHO, a general rule is: one's knowledge, intelligence, and curiosity are >*usually* reflected in the breadth and depth of one's reading and the breadth >and depth of one's reading is usually reflected in one's grammar and >spelling. Spelling and grammar checkers coming into more common use will make writting easier, in much the same way calculators and spreadsheets have made personal accounting easier. Human-Machine interfaces are continually moving away from text and towards speech and/or icons. I think traditional "literacy" is falling more and more by the wayside as it becomes less important to human communication. One can only assume that natural language, speech recognition, and higher resolution communication media (HDTV, ISDN) technologies will make literacy less important in the workplace of the future. Literacy is already outdated by TV, film and radio for entertainment. The industrial revolution made literacy a prerequisite for success, the information revolution just beginning may well make literacy unneeded again. Then again, an age of word-processors, spell-checkers, grammar correctors, on-line thesauruses, dictionaries and encyclopedias may make for a new age of literacy in which people are less constrained by their ability to write than by the quality of their thoughts. Any errors in logic or grammar are my own, any errors in spelling are my spell-checkers... jonathan@itcatl.gatech.edu| He is the MELBA-BEING ... The ANGEL CAKE ... DISC Access | XEROX him ... Products Group, Inc. | XEROX him -- Zippy Atlanta, GA |
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (05/02/89)
In article <357@itcatl.UUCP> jonathan@itcatl.UUCP (Jonathan Peterson) writes: > I think traditional "literacy" is falling more and more by the wayside >as it becomes less important to human communication. One can only assume >that natural language, speech recognition, and higher resolution communication >media (HDTV, ISDN) technologies will make literacy less important in the >workplace of the future. Literacy is already outdated by TV, film and radio >for entertainment. The industrial revolution made literacy a prerequisite for >success, the information revolution just beginning may well make literacy >unneeded again. This is certainly a horrifying view of the future! Although TV, film, and radio are important to our culture, I also think that a grounding in the written history of our society, both sociological and cultural, is far more important. Frankly, there is no more effective way, I think, to communicate ideas than to write them down and have others read them. Even in this day and age of video technology, the written word is unsurpassed in its ability to reach millions of people. Bandwidth-wise, it's impossible to beat the 35 cent paper that hits my driveway each morning. I cannot foresee video text technology with the price, capacity, and convenience of a newspaper for some time. An illiterate populace is an easily manipulated, I would even say stupid, populace. Literacy is really a cornerstone of freedom. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}
milgram@paideia.uchicago.edu (Michele Sara Milgram) (05/02/89)
In article <2000@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: [Written communication is very effective. "Bandwidth-wise, it's impossible to beat the 35 cent paper ...."] Newspapers aren't why I think literacy will always be important. I can envision people getting the news only from non-print technologies (t.v., cable t.v., radio). But there are little details of everyday life that make literacy a necessity (or at least it's aggravating if you can't read). I live in a neighborhood where quite a number of adults can't read and can't do simple math (I'm talking adding & subtracting numbers under 3 digits). At the corner grocery store I had to help a woman get some razors, a bottle of Coke, and a six-pack of beer. When she went to pay she wasn't sure if she had enough money (she had $20). -- ---------------------------------------- Michele Milgram Internet: milgram@paideia.uchicago.edu BITnet: milgram%paideia@UCHIMVS1
sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez) (05/02/89)
In article <2000@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: >> I think traditional "literacy" is falling more and more by the wayside >>as it becomes less important to human communication. . . >>. . . The industrial revolution made literacy a prerequisite for >>success, the information revolution just beginning may well make literacy >>unneeded again. In article <357@itcatl.UUCP> jonathan@itcatl.UUCP (Jonathan Peterson) replies: > This is certainly a horrifying view of the future! . . . >. . . Literacy is really a cornerstone of freedom. Literacy is a double-edged sword. If even now we are able to see the effects of the unequal distribution of (written) knowledge through the educational system, just imagine a society where this knowledge is primarily distributed through the electronic media. The key question is that of the access to such knowledge, either via what C.M. calls `traditional literacy', or via the electronic media or audiovisual channels. While literate people can, through writing, transform experience and, in a way, not only receive knowledge, but also produce it, our control of the audiovisual media is practically non-existent. The interpretation of visual messages also requires some sort of literacy. But the majority of the people are visually illiterate, that is, untrained in the interpretation of visual messages which are, more often than not, texts constructed through selective manipulation of fragments of events (I'm thinking particularly about news reports or interviews). While in a written text elliptical material is usually represented by (. . .) or similar conventions, on TV events are ordered and presented without regard for the actual structure of the actions/events/words reported. And dealing with the written text involves both reading and writing, whereas dealing with mass-media images usually only involves the passive activity of watching. Written literacy still has a role in the future -- not one of freedom, though I would like to believe so, but one of social selection. It is possible that basic literacy continues to expand socially through the educational system. But it is also possible (and, perhaps, it is already a visible trend) that the production and control of written knowledge becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of reduced elites, while the overwhelming majority of the population continues to be primarily -- and passively -- informed or misinformed through visual channels, thus contributing to the illusion of `a new kind of literacy'. Celso Alvarez sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (05/02/89)
In article <23871@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez) writes: >In article <2000@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com >(Chuck Musciano) writes: >>> I think traditional "literacy" is falling more and more by the wayside >>>as it becomes less important to human communication. . . >>>. . . The industrial revolution made literacy a prerequisite for >>>success, the information revolution just beginning may well make literacy >>>unneeded again. > >In article <357@itcatl.UUCP> jonathan@itcatl.UUCP >(Jonathan Peterson) replies: >> This is certainly a horrifying view of the future! . . . >>. . . Literacy is really a cornerstone of freedom. Please note that Mr. Alvarez has reversed the attributions here. I made the second comment, and Mr. Peterson, the first. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}
gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (05/02/89)
In article <2970@tank.uchicago.edu> goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) writes: >In article <17158@mimsy.UUCP> folta@tove.umd.edu.UUCP (Wayne Folta) writes: >>IMHO, a general rule is: one's knowledge, intelligence, and curiosity are >>*usually* reflected in the breadth and depth of one's reading and the breadth >>and depth of one's reading is usually reflected in one's grammar and >>spelling. > >Interesting. But am I the only one that gets impatient with this sort >If we are to posit some correlation >between ability to spell or concern for things like typos and ability to >perform in a real, working environment, doing things that may or may not >involve spelling and typing things correctly, we must offer something more >than personal feelings. Or else we gotta move to talk.lang.... I used to teach in an English Secondary School (11-18 year olds). I taught many bright children with poor reading and writing skills. These skills are very poor indicators of whole classes of performances in 'non-academic' tasks. Hence the well-read, academically successful nerd and the illiterate, street-wise and ultra-sharp hussler. I agree with both posters. There is no conflict. Wayne's "knowledge" is "school knowledge" - book knowledge presented in a bookish way for regurgitation in a bookish manner. Richards "knowledge" is "action knowledge" - common sense knowledge gleaned from active interaction in a rich social and physical environment. It is possible to have one without the other. However, as reading and writing skills tend to go hand in hand, poor grammar and spelling can be taken as a sign of limited reading abilities, and thus limited contact with written culture. Nerdhood is a similar indicator of zero contact with the social contexts of common sense knowledge :-) Moral: there is much more to knowledge than what is written down. -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (05/03/89)
In article <2000@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: }In article <357@itcatl.UUCP> jonathan@itcatl.UUCP (Jonathan Peterson) writes: }> I think traditional "literacy" is falling more and more by the wayside }>as it becomes less important to human communication. One can only assume }>that natural language, speech recognition, and higher resolution communication }>media (HDTV, ISDN) technologies will make literacy less important in the }>workplace of the future. Literacy is already outdated by TV, film and radio }>for entertainment. The industrial revolution made literacy a prerequisite for }>success, the information revolution just beginning may well make literacy }>unneeded again. Sure. And we're all working in paperless offices, right? If anything, the information revolution has put a premium on literacy. HDTV will finally allow decent presentation of high density text on video screens. Natural language processing and speech recognition have been ten years in the future for the last 30 years. Right now they're five years in the future and I'll bet they stay there for the next 15 years. Heck, we're just barely beginning to get our act together on character text and grammar recognition. If you think the crap and pap that even the best of TV programming presents can replace books, you must be pretty illiterate yourself. Film isn't significantly better and radio isn't even a visual medium. } An illiterate populace is an easily manipulated, I would even say }stupid, populace. Literacy is really a cornerstone of freedom. Absolutely true. Have you noticed who's been gutting state and federal education programs for the last few decades? Scary. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) (05/03/89)
From article <2000@trantor.harris-atd.com>, by chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano): > In article <357@itcatl.UUCP> jonathan@itcatl.UUCP (Jonathan Peterson) writes: >> I think traditional "literacy" is falling more and more by the wayside >>as it becomes less important to human communication..... > > This is certainly a horrifying view of the future! .... > .... Frankly, there is no more effective way, I think, to communicate > ideas than to write them down and have others read them.... Written communication can be effective, but it depends on "good writing." Not spelling or punctuation per se, but the use of grammar, diction, rhetoric, etc., to convey the intended meaning. The most serious "Effects of poor writing" are being misunderstood, and not being understood at all. To my mind, the classical example (and I don't remember where I read it) was the story of a surgeon who was looking for a surgical technique he needed to save a patient's life. He found exactly what he needed in a medical journal, but the article that described the technique was not quite clear enough to work from. The obvious thing to do was contact the author and ask what he meant. But the author was dead. Now maybe this is a fictional tale, but it is illustrative. The purpose of writing is to convey meaning to someone you cannot talk to. Poor writing fails to convey meaning. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!hounx!marty1 or marty1@hounx.ATT.COM Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez) (05/03/89)
In article <2005@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) notes that I messed up the references to two postings: > Please note that Mr. Alvarez has reversed the attributions here. I made >the second comment, and Mr. Peterson, the first. Sorry about that. Celso Alvarez sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu
sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez) (05/03/89)
In article <376@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) writes: >Poor writing fails to convey meaning. Nope. It conveys a different meaning from the one supposedly intended. Celso Alvarez sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu
fransvo@maestro.htsa.aha.nl (Frans van Otten) (05/03/89)
Gilbert Cockton writes: >Wayne's "knowledge" is "school knowledge" - book knowledge presented in >a bookish way for regurgitation in a bookish manner. > >Richards "knowledge" is "action knowledge" - common sense knowledge >gleaned from active interaction in a rich social and physical >environment. Basically, I agree with Gilbert (for once :-). But I do have one objection: You imply that "book knowledge" can't become "action knowledge" without the active interaction in a rich etc. environment. I don't think this is entirely true. I believe that "book knowledge" can become "action knowledge"... What else would "book knowledge" be good for ? -- Frans van Otten Algemene Hogeschool Amsterdam Technische en Maritieme Faculteit fransvo@htsa.uucp
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (05/04/89)
From article <4352@ttidca.TTI.COM>, by hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath):
" In article <2000@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes:
"
" If you think the crap and pap that even the best of TV programming
" presents can replace books, you must be pretty illiterate yourself. Film
" isn't significantly better and radio isn't even a visual medium.
Let's try to distinguish prediction from wishful thinking, shall
we? It can happen that TV replaces books even if you don't
like that. Because the future may be horrifying won't keep
it from happening. If freedom really depends on literacy, it is
certainly an odd way of reasoning to assume that we will have
freedom and to conclude that therefore literacy must endure.
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.educhuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (05/04/89)
In article <3893@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >From article <4352@ttidca.TTI.COM>, by hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath): >" In article <2000@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: >" >" If you think the crap and pap that even the best of TV programming >" presents can replace books, you must be pretty illiterate yourself. Film >" isn't significantly better and radio isn't even a visual medium. > >Let's try to distinguish prediction from wishful thinking, shall >we? It can happen that TV replaces books even if you don't >like that. Because the future may be horrifying won't keep >it from happening. If freedom really depends on literacy, it is >certainly an odd way of reasoning to assume that we will have >freedom and to conclude that therefore literacy must endure. PLEASE check attributions! I did not write the above. I believe "The Polymath" did. The point I was making was that freedom is dependent upon an informed populace, and that literacy is the cornerstone of the free distribution of information. If literacy disappears, I think most freedom will not be far behind. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}
brian@cat28.CS.WISC.EDU (Brian Miller) (05/05/89)
In article <2018@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > The point I was making was that freedom is dependent upon an informed >populace, and that literacy is the cornerstone of the free distribution of >information. If literacy disappears, I think most freedom will not be far >behind. I disagree. "Free distribution of information" _is_ necessary in preserving freedom, but I don't see where literacy comes in. I can get a truckload of information out of an evening of TV and never see a written word. Yes, the traditional art of mastering literate discourse _is_ falling by the wayside, but that is only symptomatic of a civilization that is weaning itself from a diet of pure text as the sole form of _recorded_ information. Our generation is caught in this transtion from a primitive reliance on the written word as our sole message delivery system to embracing a whole host of hi-tech media, some literate and some not. Communication _is_ an important part of modern life. I do agree that mastering literacy (as I would want of any other form of discourse) is key to attaining a society where all of the elements (people) function in harmony. Coordination demands it. But let's not forget that there may be other media which may eventually require practice just as reading/writing/ talking do. _____________________________________________________________________________ Brian Miller.
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (05/05/89)
In article <3893@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: }From article <4352@ttidca.TTI.COM>, by hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath): }" In article <2000@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: }" }" If you think the crap and pap that even the best of TV programming }" presents can replace books, you must be pretty illiterate yourself. Film }" isn't significantly better and radio isn't even a visual medium. } }Let's try to distinguish prediction from wishful thinking, shall }we? Let's. If you say it, it's prediction. If I say it, it's wishful thinking. Right? }It can happen that TV replaces books even if you don't }like that. Because the future may be horrifying won't keep }it from happening. If freedom really depends on literacy, it is }certainly an odd way of reasoning to assume that we will have }freedom and to conclude that therefore literacy must endure. TV may _supplant_ reading, as the reading skills of the general population decline, but it will never _replace_ reading. I can't foresee a world where every technical paper, every high school exam, every master's thesis etc., etc., is presented as a totally audio-visual experience with no recourse to writing or letters at all. Economically, it's far cheaper to produce and publish a good book than even the worst film or TV show. Look at how many books are published annualy vs. TV shows, even though there's at least one TV in nearly every home in the nation. TV has its place and books have theirs. The fact that some people can't or won't read doesn't mean one is going to replace the other. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (05/05/89)
In article <2679@puff.cs.wisc.edu> brian@cat28.CS.WISC.EDU (Brian Miller) writes: >I disagree. "Free distribution of information" _is_ necessary in preserving >freedom, but I don't see where literacy comes in. I can get a truckload of >information out of an evening of TV and never see a written word. I was thinking about this also. I think what may be more important about written media is that they are more "permanent". One way to exploit a person is to present them with constantly changing messages, so that they can't remember what you said before. If you are literate, you can write it down and save it away. I suppose you could record visual things, but that is harder. I am reminded of "Animal Farm", where the pigs constantly repaint the rules on the barn wall, but none of the animals can remember what used to be there. Isn't literacy wonderful? How neat to be able to pluck an event from a single book, and have a reasonable chance of evoking the same memory in a large group of literate, culturally similar people. How sad to think we may lose that capability. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}
brian@cat50.CS.WISC.EDU (Brian Miller) (05/05/89)
In article <2031@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > Isn't literacy wonderful? How neat to be able to pluck an event from a >single book, and have a reasonable chance of evoking the same memory in a >large group of literate, culturally similar people... On that note, does anyone remember a book about media and society by (Neil?) Postman? I suspect I "have a reasonable chance..." :-). I <skimmed> it for a paper freshman year, and all I can remember is that it was chalk full of pertinent observations on everything we've been chewing on. If anyone _has_ read this book and can recall some of Postman's examples/arguments/observations, please post. Would be cool... Thanx.
jonathan@itcatl.UUCP (Jonathan Peterson) (05/06/89)
In article <4352@ttidca.TTI.COM>, hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes: > In article <2000@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > }In article <357@itcatl.UUCP> jonathan@itcatl.UUCP (Jonathan Peterson) writes: > }> I think traditional "literacy" is falling more and more by the wayside [...] > }>information revolution just beginning may well make literacy > }>unneeded again. > > Sure. And we're all working in paperless offices, right? More and more people ARE working in paperless manufacturing plants. > > If anything, the information revolution has put a premium on literacy. > HDTV will finally allow decent presentation of high density text on video > screens. I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that about the same number of people will use a $2500 HDTV for reading as currently use their radio to listening to TV. Admittedly text only channels exist, but who watches them? They scroll to damn slow, and they give me NO information that I can't get in the morning paper. (with the exception of airline flight schedules at Hartzfield international). > If you think the crap and pap that even the best of TV programming > presents can replace books, you must be pretty illiterate yourself. a. I NEVER said TV was BETTER than books, but you have to admit that the AVERAGE American spends 5-10 times with the TV than with books. b. I'll ignore the illiteracy comment, as it assumes I was talking about TV QUALITY not PREVALENCY. > Film isn't significantly better I'll argue with this one... Film has a MUCH more immediate and visceral impact than any literature. (I make a distinction between FILM and movies). FILM has more impact on the group watching it as a whole, though literature may well have more impact on a given individual. I'll match Lawrence of Arabia against ANY work of literature that can be read in the same period of time. MOST (not all) will be more affected by Lawrence. I would hope that someday TV will rise above the crap it currently feeds us. With 60 channels on cable I am rarely offered more than 1-3 things worth watching, often nothing. Time to move this discussion elsewhere, if more is needed. jonathan@itcatl.gatech.edu| He is the MELBA-BEING ... The ANGEL CAKE ... DISC Access | XEROX him ... Products Group, Inc. | XEROX him -- Zippy Atlanta, GA |
drew@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Drew Eisenhauer) (05/07/89)
In article <2880@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: >I used to teach in an English Secondary School (11-18 year olds). I >taught many bright children with poor reading and writing skills. >These skills are very poor indicators of whole classes of performances >in 'non-academic' tasks. Hence the well-read, academically successful >nerd and the illiterate, street-wise and ultra-sharp hussler. > >I agree with both posters. There is no conflict. There is if these two stereotypes are mutually exclusive which they are not- >Wayne's "knowledge" is "school knowledge" - book knowledge presented in >a bookish way for regurgitation in a bookish manner. Taking into account the pejorative tendencies of a word like "bookish" surely you are not suggesting that all, most, a large part, or even a resonable amount of "knowledge" learned from books is "bookish" in this sense. First of all nothing works quite so well as "regurgitation;" Once learned by Rote never forgotten- is an old expression which I've totally butchered because I can't remember exactly how it goes- but I can remember exactly how the Marseillaise goes although I learned it in the seventh grade and although I can't spell it (an unfortunate fact which I will address below). Second, the notion that there is a "school knowledge" seperate from a "street" or another type of knowledge, implies an inate inferiority, a sense of uselessness in the "real world" and what's much worse and what you're really driving at is that by it's very definition "school knowledge" is just plain boring. >Richards "knowledge" is "action knowledge" - common sense knowledge >gleaned from active interaction in a rich social and physical >environment. Right, right, right... >It is possible to have one without the other. However, as reading and >writing skills tend to go hand in hand, poor grammar and spelling can >be taken as a sign of limited reading abilities, and thus limited >contact with written culture. I went through school at a time when various experiments were being tried "open-spaced education" and so forth which have basically proven to be utter failures. In my case I have no grip on spelling, punctuation, or grammar (within certain rigid definitions of these)n, no doubt you can tell from this posting if you look, but I am currently writing an MA thesis in American Literature- I have in fact a great deal of contact with reading and pretty well developed "reading abilities." Hemingway also could not spell. >Nerdhood is a similar indicator of zero >contact with the social contexts of common sense knowledge :-) No doubt, but often these "social contexts of common sense knowledge" are utter rubbish- such as most of the garbage in the steet, American television, or anything else...(but billiards:-}) >Moral: there is much more to knowledge than what is written down. -He says in writing. -- Is not conscience a pair of breeches; though a cover for lewdness as well as nastiness, is easily slipt down for the service of both? -SWIFT internet: drew@umbc3.umbc.edu bitnet: eisenhauer@umbc
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (05/09/89)
In article <366@itcatl.UUCP> jonathan@itcatl.UUCP (Jonathan Peterson) writes: }I would hope that someday TV will rise above the crap it currently feeds us. }With 60 channels on cable I am rarely offered more than 1-3 things worth }watching, often nothing. At least we agree on this point. The major effect of cable and satellite TV has been to add much acreage to "the great wasteland". -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) (05/09/89)
In article <4365@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: >}It can happen that TV replaces books... >TV ... will never _replace_ reading. I agree. But... >Economically, it's far cheaper to >produce and publish a good book than even the worst film or TV show. Are you saying that the most expensive book costs less than the least expensive TV show? I seriously doubt it. A few people with a camera can put out a shoddy half-hour TV show with a few hours work. A competent book publication, contrariwise, takes months of work by author(s), editors, proofreaders, typesetters, artists, printers, distributors, and a host of other people doing minor functions. >Look at how many books are published annually vs. TV shows... I assume your point is that there are many more new books than new TV programs. I'm not sure this is the case. There are many TV shows with a new episode every week or every weekday. Most of the hundreds of stations in the U.S. produce a significant amount of local programming (news, talk shows). Then there are are the shows produced specifically for cable. That comes to a _lot_ of TV shows, hundreds every day. By contrast, there are (by my generous estimate) about 260,000 new books published annually in the U.S., around 712 per day. I'd say it's probably pretty close. > even though there's at least one TV in nearly every home in the [U.S.] No there isn't. I know of several homes that have no TV. -- "Lalabalele talala! Callabele lalabalica falahle! | Andre Guirard Callamalala galalate! Caritalla lalabalee | cipher@3m.com kallalale poo!" | "Wake me up for | the good part."