Slashdot Mirror
Does Grammar Matter Anymore?
theodp writes "A lighthearted 4th of July post pointing out how Microsoft Word could help Google CEO Larry Page catch typos in his Google+ posts turned out to be fighting words for GeekWire readers. "Grammar is an important indicator of the quality of one's message," insisted one commenter. "You shouldn't have disgraced yourself by stooping to trolling your readers with an article about what essentially amounts to using a full blown word processor for a tweet. Albeit an rather long example of one," countered another. A few weeks earlier, the WSJ sparked a debate with its report that grammar gaffes have invaded the office in an age of informal e-mail, texting and Twitter. So, does grammar matter anymore?"
Whether grammar matters or not depends on the recipient of the message, not the originator. As anyone who has designed a compiler will tell you, it's an error-prone PITA to have to pre-process input before it is in a useable form. If the recipient can do this, no harm is done, except that the recipient is aware that the sender gave him more work to do than was necessary -- something usually not considered a compliment.
The difference between knowing your shit, and knowing you're shit.
Let's eat Grandma!
or
Let's eat, Grandma!
Yes, grammar is still very important.
Grammer is meaning less. All your bases are belonging to US now...
Just like size matters, it depends on the context.
Some good examples:
"Highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector."
"My interests include: cooking dogs, reading, poetry, fishing and music."
"Goats cheese salad ingredients: lettuce, tomato, goats, cheese"
"Butcher's sign: Try our sausages. None like them."
Of course there is always engrish.
Silence is a state of mime.
You're confusing subjective preferences for style with objective rules for grammar.
Poor grammar and spelling certainly detract from a a poorly-communicated opinion. Are some people using technology to 'fix' what would otherwise be evidence for educational or literacy shortcomings? Sure. That doesn't make those who aren't using them any more educated or literate.
I think that people with a poor grasp of grammar and language rules don't recognize or assign as much weight to their absence. Including, judging from your words, you.
Oh, look, there's a girl on Slashdot.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
So your example to show us that grammar matters is to construct a grammatically incorrect sentence? A comma splice is usually frowned upon in many writing styles, but even if you ignore that the use of a comma splice is only valid for conjoining independent clauses. "off his donkey" is a sentence fragment and not an independent clause.
Umm . . . that's "Grammar Nazis," oh Candidate for Apostrophe Abuse.
Not flying happy grammar discuss message deliver clear structure understand.
(NOte: this is not off topic. It's an example of terribly bad grammar. Does it not matter?)
If you believe that it's ok to use tweetspeak and such in emails and electronic communication for business, etc. - then please, be my guest.
I sincerely doubt that any amount of persuasion from me is going to convince the people who already do this to change their habits. On the contrary, I invite people to use WHATEVER language they feel is appropriate in their communications with management, coworkers, and customers.
When I get your email, I'll treat you with the respect and professionalism it appears to deserve, and I look forward to watching your progress in the workplace/marketplace.
-Styopa
What's with the comma in the second example?
Grammar may not be all that important in informal communication, so long as one's message can be understood. There is an accounting manager where I work who has terrible grammar. He also sprinkles his emails with business buzzwords. Consequently, I can never make heads or tails out of what he is trying to convey in his emails, and always have to schedule a face-to-face meeting with him to figure it out.
On the other hand, there are some people I work with who, though they have poor grammar, are still able to make their needs clear. Their grammar gaffes are forgivable because they can still make themselves understood.
Proverbs 21:19
It's either trollbait for grammar Nazis or he's a grammar Nazi that fails at grammar. A comma splice, within the English language, is not a universally accepted construct. Some consider it to constitute a run-on sentence and many style guides disallow its usage.
I went to the family farm, and while there helped my uncle ack off a horse.
Yes, grammar does matter. So does saying what you actually mean to say. Like change the "J" to lower case.
Grammar checkers can die a miserable death.
I turned off MS Word's after too many false positives such as eliminating the passive voice - I don't need some bullshit rule telling me my thoughts are invalid.
As of late I've been noticing and commenting to friends about a growing disregard for spelling, grammar, and proper English as a whole. In school I was taught to never use contractions when writing a "professional" piece; I see that constantly now. I was also taught to avoid "familiar" language and colloquialisms, to spell out any number ten or lower, and things like this. It seems to me that "Tweetspeak" and shorthand common to texting and Facebook messaging are now considered acceptable to journalism editors, particularly online.
Has this caught anybody else's attention?
Bear with me if this seems offtopic at first: Reading and writing are powerful not just because they store things permanently, but because they amplify the speed of communication. I can read five times faster than I can listen to someone talk. (This is one reason why video blogs, Youtube howtos, and other videos which are nothing but people talking are so annoying: it's frustrating to wait for someone to flap their mouthparts to make ideas come out, when I could get those same ideas much faster if they'd written them down.)
So reading is like a high-speed downlink to the brain. BUT, it only works if the author has taken the time to spell and use grammar properly. I can still read badly-written text, but puzzling it out slows me down, to the speed someone can talk, or worse. There's a tradeoff here: it takes a little more time for someone to write something down, and write it properly. But that pays dividends each time someone reads it, and with the exception of PhD theses, anything worth reading is read by multiple people. So if you make a video message instead of writing, or you don't take the time to write properly, what you're telling me is that your time is more valuable than mine. So don't be surprised if I'm insulted at your arrogance.
We seem to be heading toward a postliterate society. I have no problem with losing the art of writing per se: the problem is that by losing *reading*, we lose the single biggest accelerator of human thought ever invented. You've heard of the "last mile" problem: this is the "last two feet" problem. In a world where data flows through wires faster and faster, the last hop from screen to brain is getting slower and slower as we lose the art of writing well.
Now, all of this is only true if everyone reads faster than they can listen to someone talk. Sadly, that's not the case. The problems of a postliterate society are invisible to people who aren't all that literate to begin with.
Several psychological studies (the earliest and most quoted I am aware of, being by Albert Mehrabian) list the actual words and grammar used in a message as carrying about 7% of the meaning the message recipient picks up in verbal face-to-face conversation. The rest is about 38% tone of voice, and 55% body language.
Written communication, stripped of the tone of voice and body language, means the recipient is relying on only 7% of the normally available information to determine the content and meaning of the message, giving 93% guesswork.
If the message sender includes poor grammar then that 93% guesswork will be compounded by the tendency of the message recipient to make assumptions about the intended message and the relative inability of the recipient to get immediate feedback about the meaning of a specific sentence.
"I don't want nothing from you", and "I don't want anything from you" have grammatically opposite meanings, but in verbal communication are usually taken to mean the same thing, especially with the recipient's ability to query the message and interpret the message sender's tone of voice and body language.
It is easier for a person with bad grammar skills to correctly understand a message from a person with good grammar skills, than for a person with good grammar skills to understand a person with bad grammar skills, but the possibility for misunderstanding is there in both cases.
As for the price of poor grammar, In October 2006, a contract dispute between Canadian cable company Rogers Communications and telephone company Bell Aliant revealed that a misplaced comma can be worth $2 million.
The contract said:
"This agreement shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party."
Rogers Communications believed the placement of the second comma stated the contract was good for at least five years, while Bell Aliant said the comma indicated the deal could be terminated before if one year's notice was given.
In the end, Canada's telecommunications commission sided with Bell Aliant. They stated the comma should have been omitted if the contract was intended to last five years in its shortest possible term. As a result, Bell Alliant was able to save over $2 million by ending the deal early.
Can't... help... myself...
..and Grammar affect the quality...
There. FTFY.
Ahhh. Better now.
Anymore and nowadays. Special thanks to Philadelphia (origin of "This car needs cleaned") for slowly spreading the virus of using "anymore" when "nowadays" should be used. It's taking over the country. Ten yrs, you'd never hear a headline like this. It should be "Does grammar even matter nowadays?"
Complete nonsense. The interrogative usage appears to be standard based on its OED entry (1a). What you're thinking of is the fact that "anymore" is generally considered a negative polarity item, which requires an interrogative or negative context to license its use (example: "Clothes are expensive anymore," meaning "...nowadays," acceptable only in certain dialects; compare with "I can't afford clothes anymore," a negative context which should be fine for everyone--except, of course, nutty prescriptivists who recite "rules" that are completely baseless and which they themselves often don't understand).
Even in the regional or colloquial, non-NPI context there's nothing "wrong" about it--in fact, it appears to be standard in Irish English. For what it's worth, the OED dates this usage back to at least the 1800s--certainly not within the last decade, and not originating in Philadelphia. But most importantly, what is part of the "standard" variety is completely arbitrary (and perhaps even somewhat abstract). There is nothing inherently wrong with the use of "anymore" to mean "nowadays," even if you don't accept it as part of the "standard" variety.
R.Mo
This discussion is about grammar. Pedantry is three doors down, on the left.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
So the thesis for the "no" side is that grammar matters less now that writing has become a much more important day-to-day communication medium.
That makes perfect sense.
It's not even a comma splice, unless the intended meaning is "I assisted Jack. Now, kill his donkey."
I am residing in South-East Asia for the last decade or so. You must come here (even for a short holiday) to witness yourself how little natives over here care about English grammar and/or sentence structures. Apparently, there are local dialects such as Singlish (Singaporean English) and Manglish (Malaysian English). Give or take, both dialects are quite similar; and as far as the origins goes, it is direct word-to-word translation of Chinese phrases into English; though they have evolved over time with many more borrowed words and expressions.
Some interesting examples being:
English: "Would you like to join us for lunch now?"
Singlish/Manglish: "You wanna go lunch or not?"
[in a situation you disagree/reject something]
(E): "I do not agree with your suggestion"
(S/M): "Cannot one!"
[giving a lift to your friend]
(E): "I will come and pick you at the library, and drop you at the railway station"
(M): "I fetch you from library, then fetch you back to the station"
Search youtube.. there are plenty of Singlish videos.
Though I find these dialects are an energy efficient way of speaking English, and somewhat amusing to listen; I must confess that I find them nothing more than a nuisance, especially in a professional working environment. I often have communication issues with colleagues who are proficient in these dialects. Most of the time, they do not understand what I am talking about, and gives me strange looks. Then, I happen to run into the problem of misunderstanding instructions from my bosses, now that was pretty bad and costly.
I am finding it difficult to tell natives "Your English sucks!" to their face. Partly because it is rude and such remarks could go down quite horribly. On the other end, they them selves have this high esteem that they speak proper English, since most of them spoken or studied in English medium since a very young age.
Though I admit I am not perfect (after all, English is still my second tongue), I always thrive to write grammatically correct English, even when I am sending a text message. All in all, getting the right message delivered is much important than anything else in any form of communication. It puzzles me why internet age kids do not pay much attention, nor put effort in proper communication skills these days.
Reading the first 100 comments on this post, I don't think a single person actually clicked-through to see the actual story and Google+ post being referenced.
The mistake is not a case of "bad grammar" *AT ALL*. It is a simple typo and is totally obvious to anyone reading it. I make typos in tweets and posts all the time - sometimes the spell-check catches them, sometimes it does not. A typo is not "bad grammar", it is a simple mistake.
It isn't the end of the universe because it's not a professional document.
This discussion is about grammar. Pedantry is three doors down, on the left.
Is that my left or your left?
It's not the post-PC era, it's the post written-word era. Yes, Slashdot TV included.
Language is all about pattern recognition. To use correct spelling and grammar, you have to be able to spot your mistakes. You need to train your mind to do that by reading a lot. Nowadays, rather than reading the newspaper's science section, people watch TED videos on the Internet; rather than reading a book they go watch a movie or play a video game, and rather than reading and writing several page paper letters to their friends, they talk to them on the phone. And so, after all this listening instead of reading, their writing starts to resemble speech.
To me, it seems that the key problem is not with the lack of proper grammar or formality in communication though. I'm more worried about the underlying issue of a lack of understanding, and a lack of thinking things through properly and precisely. Perhaps that's simply because today's world is so complicated that in many situations a carefully thought out course of action is not going to be much better than "whatever seems right at the moment", but that's scarcely any consolation...
So, do you think in grammatically correct sentences?
Actually, I think your rhetorical question actually raises a fairly good point. Most people, writing quickly, will write how they think. I am in fact writing this the exact way that it came in to my head, deliberately trying to ignore any rules of grammar and so on. I'm putting commas where I pause, and just letting the text flow from my brain through my fingers and on to the screen.
I would contend that this is a common way of writing for many people, and so those who write very poorly do in fact use the same structures in their thoughts. My personal opinion on this is that such people (assuming they're writing their native language) are less mentally capable than those who can form a comprehensible sentence - however harsh that may sound.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan