When we reevaluate the writing curricula in American schools and colleges, we notice a general trend that emphasizes the importance of writing correctly. We’re told to write grammatically correct sentences and eliminate nuances that don’t pertain to Standardized English. While there’s nothing wrong with following this standard, many of us were not taught the actual rules, particularly students learning English and students who weren’t privileged to grow up in learning environments with more accessible resources. Teaching grammar, we were told, was a thing of the past and was no longer required. As schools adopt this pattern, we end up facing a dilemma: we find ourselves between education’s failure and society’s ruthless expectations. So how do we do reconcile both?
While we may be able to escape criticism when we write informally in social media, we often find ourselves under discerning eyes in more formal or professional settings. Sometimes minor errors can cost someone to be overlooked for a job position or, in some cases, a promotion. How many times do we have to reread everything and ensure our writings are clear of any errors? We are not all grammarians or editors after all.
But despite strict expectations, we still find some leniency in both professional and academic settings. I often find grammatical errors, though trivial, sprinkled in professional emails, business communications, reports, and other forms of correspondence, yet most ignore them and only a few point them out. In a similar vein, some teachers and instructors are beginning to abandon old-fashioned methods in favor of inclusivity—classrooms are now more diverse, and thus teaching writing is no longer strictly about grammatical conventions.
The Phenomenology of Error
Because an error isn’t just “a frozen, instantiated object” on a piece of paper (159), we should reevaluate our understanding of errors, argues Joseph Williams. In “The Phenomenology of Error,” an academic article published in 1980, he highlights the issue of nitpicking grammatical errors and compares them to social gaffes. He seems “puzzled” (152) by the intensity of the reactions of most of the well-known English writers and grammarians, including George Orwell, Jacques Barzun, and William Zinsser, and H.W. Fowler, all of whom have written extensively on how to write correct English. He explains that such reactions are not necessary because there are more offensive errors that don’t elicit such “ferocity” (152). The former type deals with grammar while the latter type refers to social errors, and yet readers condemn and disapprove of the first more so than the second, he adds.
Upon reading books and essays written by the aforementioned writers, Thomas is even more puzzled and notices the following:
- All four writers made grammatical errors in their own works, and thus they all “violated” (156) their own rules.
- Grammatical errors don’t occur randomly, but they are perpetuated by students and writers who, unknowingly, copy them from their own teachers and grammar handbooks.
- Prescriptives—those who enforce grammar, including all four writers mentioned above, encourage readers to read for error rather than content.
- There is no uniformity in encountering grammatical errors in text. Every reader will experience and see the errors differently.
Instead, Williams suggests a departure from tradition. He advocates for the following:
- We should be trained to read for content rather than error. He calls it pre-reflexive reading.
- Errors shouldn’t be treated as “frozen, instantiated object[s]” (159) in texts but rather as a result of ‘intersection[s],” a place where both the writer’s and the reader’s experiences of the text are brought together.
I do think that educators should teach students grammar, but they should be pre-reflexive in their reading. Students should be given the tools first to help them reach certain levels of proficiency, and lessons should be tailored to inspire them to write and not discourage them for fear of making errors.