Willard McCarty <MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca> (02/13/90)
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 1039. Monday, 12 Feb 1990. Date: Sat, 10 Feb 90 00:59:11 EST From: "Patrick W. Conner" <U47C2@WVNVM> Subject: 3.1028 the quality of writing and thinking (170) In his note on Halio's flawed study of the development of writing skills of students using PC's versus the development of writing skills of those using Mac's, Guy Pace says: -It is likely that those more oriented toward print (termed -print learners by some) would likely choose a PC over a MAC. Also, those -print learners would have stronger language skills, generally. Pattern -learners (those who learn mostly through patterns and symbols) would be -more attracted, generally, to the MAC. Their weakness in language skills -would be evidenced in a comparative examination. I want to know what evidence exists for the notion that print learners would have stronger language skills than pattern learners who would evince weakness in languages skills. Language is not about alphabets or syllabaries, or print recognition. It is about patterns and symbols. Rhetoric is, indeed, the study and mastery of pattern in language, usually for the purpose of either comprehending a writer's special effectiveness or enhancing one's own effectiveness as a writer. Good writing is based on a sophisticated sense of patterning. Semiotics is the study of the complex techniques of symbolizing, without which human language (at least, as we know it) would be impossible. The dichotomy, as Pace expresses it, strikes me as absurd. Does it have a basis in objective research or is it based, as Halio's article appears to be based, on ignorance of the relation- ship between writing and language?