Content area
Full text
Errors seem to bother nonacademic readers as well as teachers. But what does it mean to be "bothered" by errors? Questions such as this help transform the study of error from mere textual issues to larger rhetorical matters of constructing meaning. Although this study of fourteen business people indicates a range of reactions to errors, the findings also reveal patterns of qualitative agreement-certain ways in which these readers constructed a negative ethos of the writer.
Adhering to conventions for mechanics and usage is just one part of writing, yet this sub-skill has long been the subject of debate-especially since the 1970s when researchers and teachers such as Mina Shaughnessy challenged the significance of error-free writing. In 1975, Isabella Halstead suggested errors should be important only in the sense that they can impede the communication of ideas (86). Not all teachers share Halstead's perspective, but this position certainly appeals to many researchers and teachers alike. Years after Halstead's suggestion, Susan Wall and Glynda Hull asked fifty-four English teachers to name what they believed to be the most serious errors and to explain why they were serious. Nearly three-quarters of the responses indicated the errors were serious "because they got in the way of effective communication of meaning" (277), a justification consistent with Halstead's position.
Perhaps this is the way it should be, with errors being relatively low-level concerns unless the impede understanding of a text. But do nonacademic readers respond in this fashion? We teach writing for many reasons, but if one goal is to prepare students to write effectively once they leave college, we should consider nonacademics' responses to error. Our effectiveness, perhaps our ethos, can be impeded if we stress matters that other professionals see as trivial-or if we trivialize points they deem consequential. This is not to say that teachers must always mirror other people's responses to error, but we at the very least need to know if the messages we send students will be reinforced or negated by how other professionals read errors.
Put another way, I do not believe students can understand error unless they and teachers alike better comprehend error in terms of its impact-not just textual conventions defining errors, not just categories or rankings of errors, but the...