Are you a grammar pedant? This might be why
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I hated English classes in school, never paid attention. Skipped. Failed. It seemed inconsequential at the time. Gaining access to a BBS was a bit of a culture shock. Computers were fascinating but suddenly my peers cared about spelling, grammar... even punctuation (it happened to be a BBS for a local paper, maybe related). So at 15, I felt out of place and committed to thoroughly learning all of the things I'd skipped in school. Not because of snarky responses, corrections, or others’ expectations but because it impacted my ability to communicate - which I don't particularly enjoy but feel is important. Even now, I'm communicating... but it isn't for the sake of making noise or banging on a keyboard, it's about an idea. We communicate to share thoughts and without that mechanism we wouldn't have shared learning which resulted in anything commonly considered "technology" or "machines" today.
My visceral reaction to grammatical errors is the feeling that the person places less of a value on communicating ideas. It isn't about intelligence, it's about values.
Does anyone else feel this way? Am I just a pedantic, judgmental asshole?
You have to go a layer above that and ponder if the person consciously analyzed whatever combination of letters+punctuation he/she wrote had a weighting for others to assign a "value."
For example, you used the word "impacted". Some stylists are annoyed that the noun "impact" has been verb-ified into "impacted" when there was already a perfectly good word like "affected". However, others don't mind it and it is already widely used in serious business writing and academic research papers. (Many PowerPoint slides have the word "impacted".) The point is you don't sit down and weigh how others judge you for using "impacted". It just came out naturally from your brain, to your hands typing it, and that's what we see. You didn't intend for that word to act as a speed bump for others to judge you. Thankfully, most of us don't care about it.
Also btw, you have "comma splices" in your post.[1] Again, I think it's better that most HN readers are forgiving of grammatical mistakes because I don't think most of us would want to see endless meta tangent posts pointing out and correcting everyone's errors.
I do now! :)
Does this mean introverts prefer the consistency of opinionated frameworks and languages? Is Go preferred by introverts, Scala by extraverts?
The Wikipedia entry mentions "The Elements of Style" by White and Strunk as one of the sources of the rule. The manual has been criticised by professional linguists, who noted that White and Strunk didn't even seem to understand what constitutes a passive voice (while discouraging their use). The manual also contains other silly prescriptions, like avoiding split infinitives.
[1] Sadly, many are voiced prescriptively despite the fact that neither S&W nor any other manual of style can claim to be the final arbiter of our ever-evolving language.
Very funny. Was this intentional?
I don't see what the usual "grammar pedant" complaints have to do with valuing communication. I typically see people complain about things like using "there" instead of "their", "its" instead of "it's", "affect" instead of "effect". As a rule, none of these things have any impact on the ability of a reader to understand the writer's intended message. I realize that in some rare cases these mistakes create ambiguity, but that's never the grammar pedant's complaint.
I disagree, I've encountered several instances in corporate communications where the use of then instead of than has completely changed the meaning of a message.
Imagine writing a compiler that spent much of its parsing time trying to infer what the programmer meant, instead of enforcing a syntax and getting-on with the task of translating to machine code. It would be an enormous behemoth that would take much longer to do its job than necessary.
Yet, strangely, those programmers who don't care much about grammar seem quite happy to adhere to arbitrary programming language syntax. Why is that? Why don't they force compilers to just accept their possibly-incorrect inputs with the excuse 'you knew what I meant'?
On the other hand, I'm Italian. I came to understand, after a few years living in an English speaking country, that the emphasis Italians put on writing correctly (as well as on many other things - e.g. eating well, dressing decently, avoiding public drunkenness) has no correspondence in the English speaking world.
Did I annoy you enough? :)
As I'm sure you know, English spelling is also much less phonetically obvious than Italian (and I would not be surprised to learn that English is slightly grammatically more complicated than Italian, although frankly, as far as I'm concerned, any language with grammatical gender wins for difficulty), so emphasizing correct writing might be slightly harder.
You second point is absolutely correct: English spelling is a nightmare especially if you don't have any alternative phonetic system in which to represent it. My Italian wiring makes "there" and "their" two completely different words (they would be pronounced differently if read phonetically in Italian: "ther-a" and "the-eer") - English speakers don't have the luxury of a discriminating phonetical representation. By the way, this whole thread is about "grammar pedants" - but in fact we're just talking about spelling. The construction of the sentences is very rarely wrong.
The type of person that sprinkles their text with whatever word seems appropriate enough and leaves you to figure out what they truly mean is offloading their cognitive work onto you, to the detriment of communication and understanding.
For writing where more time is spent reading it than typing it, it indicates inconsiderateness not to apply the necessary amount of spelling and grammar checking if the writer is unable to produce well-formed writing without specifically attending to its well-formedness. (Although it could also be a status signal to be able to make errors.)
(It's the same reason for code formatting and style rules - they standardize the low level details so readers can focus on the higher-level meaning.)
Any native English speaker who reads much at all (not to mention writes!) and has above a certain level of innate linguistic intelligence will also automatically develop perfect grammar and perfect or near-perfect spelling, so making frequent errors also indicates a certain semi-literacy.
It depends. Now that you have gone from an intelligence problem to a value problem: do you believe these people are worth less because you believe yourself we choose our values and inherit our intelligence ? Do you despise them even more so now that it's a value question and not an intelligence one ?
Or are they not intelligent enough to pick up the adequate values ?
It also depends on how you pick up on the less grammatically versed or bully them into shame when pointing out their mistakes. Do you do that ?
More importantly: s our grasp of grammar strong enough to make up for the perceived deficiencies of the other interlocutors ?
No, but I would probably be less inclined to want them as a housemate (RE: the article). The premise is that the e-mail is all you have to go on, so while it's definitely reading into the details it'd almost certainly be a consideration.
For example, if someone places a low value on communication then it would likely be more difficult to come to reasonable mutual understandings about household protocols (chores/cleaning, respectful practices, etc).
> Do you despise them even more so now that it's a value question and not an intelligence one ?
I wouldn't say I despise (or even dislike) them at all, we'd simply be unlikely best friends.
> Or are they not intelligent enough to pick up the adequate values ?
No
> It also depends on how you pick up on the less grammatically versed or bully them into shame when pointing out their mistakes. Do you do that ?
No
> More importantly: s our grasp of grammar strong enough to make up for the perceived deficiencies of the other interlocutors ?
Even if it is, it can be a terrible experience where one side is doing an incredible amount of work compared to the other. Incorrect homophones can be very difficult and when you combine them with spelling errors and other errata, it's often as bad as a garden path sentence because the message can be legitimate but have changed meaning. Just omit commas for some fun: "Rachael Ray finds inspiration in cooking her family and her dog"
I'd say that you're not the only one thinking this way, but some would disagree because that makes you an "uncle tom".
The point of grammar is to be understood. Good grammar shows that the writer is trying to help the reader. Poor grammar shows that the writer doesn’t care, and the reader is forced to figure everything out.
Arguably, mistakes that don’t affect understanding can be overlooked without any comment. For example, some words are pretty unique; you can seriously misspell them and still recognize them. On the other hand, you have to be careful with changes to words or even punctuation that can drastically alter the meaning of a sentence.
I can also forgive things that are frankly inconsistent in the language. For instance, although I know when to use "its" versus "it’s", I certainly get why someone would think that "it’s" may be correct for possession; and, since it is very unlikely that "it is" will make any sense as a replacement, I can also figure out what was intended every time. No big deal.
I'm definitely introverted and annoyed by typos and grammar mistakes I can identify (despite making some myself with English being my 3rd language), but I also consider them harmful and contagious: e.g. the possessive "its" is written more often as "it's" than not these days, especially in tech articles and blog entries posted on HN. Therefore it's not really an emotional, knee-jerk reaction, but conscious pedantry and anger because of the harm done to readers through neglect.
Here's another theory (well, hypothesis...): extroverted people frequently have a good memory (names, faces, birthdays...) and can tolerate sloppy writing by others because it doesn't affect their own, while those who - like me - need to refresh their memories regularly and possibly rely more on reading for language skills, might find typos and grammar mistakes more harmful.
[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
I'm pretty far on the introverted side, and would prefer spelling it "extraverted" although I'm aware that this is nonstandard in the US. I think this is because I tend to be more attentive to the rules of orthography than to common usage. I'd guess that extroverts tend to care more about social norms than while introverts are more comfortable with consistent rules?
Which could be a problem in a housemate.
Or it could mean they won't give you shit for half-assing everything.
Depends.
Now that I've identified myself as a spelling pedant, the answer is: Not in general.
Judging by the people I've met in life (yes, selection bias ...) there is no correlation.
[Disclaimer: This post is bound to contain grammatical errors. I'm not a native English speaker.]
Unless you mean these grammar rules: http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549...
One's writing can be regarded as a manifestation of one's model of the world. Writing riddled with grammatical errors, incorrect sentence structures and incomplete punctuation indicate an overly simplistic model.
A more detailed model yields more predictive power, at the expense of extra brain cycles. If one cannot differentiate between "your" and "you're" I'm pretty sure that person is running a slower "CPU".
That should be "a person's attention to detail".
Sorry, I could not resist... ;)
Sincerely, your local introverted grammar Nazi
As you mention, you could also see specific usage patterns as shows of "professionalism" (again in quotes... it's a word that I think should be used carefully re systemic biases). But it's perhaps a little reductionist to view informal contexts as not-caring-about-correctness at one end and professional contexts as caring, because there are many aspects of communication in both that are "incorrect" for different reasons. Usage patterns in work environments are not strictly more correct, then.
As the article proposes, being bothered by ungrammatical language is more often just an issue of sensitivity to stimuli. At least in conversations, those of us with the good sense to be descriptivists can hopefully tell when additional clarity would be helpful and when it's just putting other people down to try to look smart.
Do I always politely point out embarrassing details to my friends? Nope. I'm actually most likely to point them out to my friends who appreciate (or at least can handle) that sort of constructive criticism. In this way, honest feedback from me is a sign of respect. Meaning, to some degree, if I feel I have to keep things from you to protect your feelings, I don't believe my communication skills and your emotional intelligence allow for that sort of exchange. That is, I'm too much of a jerk and you're too sensitive for me to point out that your have bad breath.
Does having food between your teeth matter? Not ultimately. But saving people from quiet judgment from others matters, surely.
>extraversion
>extraverts
>Quoting Hans Eysenck: extroverts
>extraverts
>extraverts
>extraversion
You're not supposed to correct someone's different spelling when quoting them.
I also prefer writing my own words in an e-prime fashion, eschewing forms of to be. It helps me eliminate most of my use of passive voice and also helps me make less judgemental statements, tying agency to my verbs.
Grammar pedants (prescriptivists), seem to be made up mostly of people who've come to the conclusion that the particular mode of the language they're most comfortable with is the "correct" one that everybody should be communicating in. It seems to come from some deep-down inflexibility to tolerate or comprehend that other people communicate in different modes. The pedant seems to wish that all the world should structure their communication to be most convenient for them rather than trying to work on increasing the scope of the modes they can work with. They believe there is one kind of audience and their preferred mode is the magical key that ensures correct and precise communication with that audience -- regardless if this is actually true.
It makes a kind of sense that this might stem from some deep seated introversion -- people for whom the principal interaction between audience and speaker is themselves. But on the other hand, wouldn't you likely be able to understand any mode of communication within your own mind?
What's most often fascinating to me is how deeply wrong and ignorant of grammar most grammar pedants are beyond some superficially memorized rules they've attached themselves to. When pushed for the "why" behind their rules they frequently don't know, or will point to some style manual (usually also full of grammar errors) they believe has taken on an almost holy quality.
One of my favorite tactics is the "that's not a word" argument, with fingers pointed to the nearest dictionary as evidence. This of course ignores the simple fact that dictionaries are comprised of words that grammar descriptivists have observed in the wild -- with usage reaching above some non-transient threshold that makes it worth capturing by lexicographers.
The worst linguists are those that fall very far on the descriptive side of the spectrum.
Some references: http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/prescriptivism/
So what is right and wrong in language, and who decides? Some observers claim that the real issue about linguistic right and wrong is one of deciding who wields power and who doesn't. Viewing language as a form of cultural capital, they note that stigmatized forms are typically those used by social groups other than the educated middle classes--professional people, including those in law, medicine, and publishing. Linguists generally would argue that the language of educated middle-class speakers is not better (or worse) than the language of other social groups, any more than Spanish, say, is better or worse than French, Navaho better or worse than Comanche, or Japanese better or worse than Chinese. They would acknowledge that some standardization of form is useful for the variety of a language used, especially in print. They would also insist, however, that expressions appearing in dictionaries and grammars are not the only grammatical forms and may not be suitable for use in all circumstances. They are merely the ones designated for use in circumstances of wider communication.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003588.h...
Perhaps the worst thing about prescriptivism is that it is frequently a device for demonstrating the superiority of the pundit and his or her favorite class of people over everyone else. It feeds discrimination, particularly classism. The standards to which pundits appeal are invariably those of a socioeconomic elite. The standard tends to combine their natural speech with details that one can only acquire by means of extensive education.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97mar/halpern/nu...
...These bare instructions give no reason at all for choosing the singular pronoun. In fact, there is no mention of an error in the use of the plural, which is labeled not "incorrect" or "illogical" but merely "formal," as if the difference between plural and singular were on a level with the difference between cop* and policeman, or horse and steed.
...But the Handbook says only that the sentence is "illogical," giving no indication of what point of logic is violated. What is the student to make of that, especially since the Handbook has not explained the use of the singular as being "logical" in the first place? The student who finds "6b(1)" cropping up on his compositions may learn to rectify the error, but only in the way he learns to rectify his misspellings: by rote, learning nothing else in the process.
But I'm not sure I can say much to justify that without essentially suggesting that everyone should learn the language of intellectuals for their benefit (i.e. so we don't stumble over incorrect there/their/they're).
What's interesting of course about issues like there/their/they're is in all likelihood, at some point in the future, the orthography will simply converge and we'll just use context to tell the difference. After all, there's plenty of words with the same orthography and different meanings.
Languages tend towards simplicity and the kind of tension unnecessary orthographic differences make is exactly the kind that languages evolve away from.
Seriously? 80 people gave them all these insights?
There's something fundamentally wrong with research if they think that's ok to publish.
I got more than 80 questionnaires back for my high school geography project.
5 characteristics measured - openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism
5! = 120.
So are you arguing 2 === 120 or are you arguing 2 === 5, but whichever one it is, you're missing the point.
Do you know why adverts have 'when 80 women were asked 73% agreed pantene makes my hair shinier'? Because it's not scientifically significant, so can't be held as a clinical trial, therefore the product doesn't need regulating.
And that's for a binary, shiny/not shiny (salty/not salty). Not for a possibly open, sloppy, introverted, agreeable neurotic. Or a closed, conscientious, introverted, agreeable non-neurotic.
>So are you arguing 2 === 120 or are you arguing 2 === 5, but whichever one it is, you're missing the point.
It's pretty clear that I'm not arguing either of those (being that I made no mention of cardinality,) but if you want to put words into my mouth, I can see why you'd think I'd be focusing on those kinds of irrelevant details.
My point is that the number of samples taken, in and of itself doesn't tell you anything about the significance of a conclusion. You need to know how the sample relates to the population, and how the results characterize the population through the sample.