Abstract

That errors in writing are somehow is no news to the field of composition. Yet there is a recurring discrepancy in the approach compositionists take toward this dimension of written error. On the one hand, what counts as an (or as correct) in writing is generally recognized as social: most compositionists freely acknowledge the of the controversial imposition of standards of correct notation as a set of arbitrary conventions. On the other hand, the production of particular errors is regularly identified and treated as social but as individual, evidence of an individual writer's cognitive or perceptual difficulties, trouble knowing and/or seeing error. We might account cynically for the discrepancy between recognition of what might be called the sociality of errors and the focus of research and teaching on error as a sign of ethical irresponsibility. I would argue, however, that this discrepancy results from an impasse in how the sociality of error has been theorized. To acknowledge that errors are seems to mean primarily that one acknowledges the of the regularization of conventions for writing English, a regularization which, coincidentally, has favored the syntactic forms of dialects spoken by more powerful social groups. But all this seems to be viewed as afait accompli, history in the sense of something in the past about which there is little now to be done, a digression that takes attention away from the immediate problems of our students and their writing. The proper focus of attention for researchers and teachers of writing, it seems largely to be assumed, is on matters of student cognition and perception of error. In her 1985 review of Research on Error and Correction, Glynda Hull testifies to this state of affairs. Hull acknowledges that [m]ost of the controversy correctness in writing has finally to do with power, status, and class, but observes that much recent research on error can be viewed as walking a middle ground in the controversy, neither despairing that students must learn a privileged language nor grieving overlong that there is a cost (165, 166). This research takes as its purpose not a delineation of the social and political implications of error and correctness but an investigation of those mental processes involved in making errors and correcting them (167).1 Note that researchers pursuing such matters do deny the social controversy surrounding errors. But

Journal
Rhetoric Review
Published
1992-09-01
DOI
10.1080/07350199209388995
Open Access
Closed

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

  1. College Composition and Communication
  2. Pedagogy
  3. Pedagogy

Cites in this index (5)

  1. College Composition and Communication
  2. College Composition and Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. College English
  5. College Composition and Communication
Also cites 18 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.2307/358196
  2. 10.2307/357695
  3. 10.37514/JBW-J.1975.1.1.02
    Journal of Basic Writing  
  4. 10.37514/JBW-J.1985.4.1.02
    Journal of Basic Writing  
  5. 10.2307/376381
  6. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis.
  7. 10.37514/JBW-J.1985.4.1.03
    Journal of Basic Writing  
  8. 10.2307/356193
  9. 10.2307/358177
  10. 10.37514/JBW-J.1975.1.1.04
    Journal of Basic Writing  
  11. 10.37514/JBW-J.1991.10.1.04
    Journal of Basic Writing  
  12. 10.2307/376358
  13. 10.37514/JBW-J.1980.3.1.06
    Journal of Basic Writing  
  14. 10.2307/357468
  15. 10.1086/443783
  16. 10.2307/356321
  17. 10.37514/JBW-J.1986.5.2.07
    Journal of Basic Writing  
  18. 10.2307/356689
CrossRef global citation count: 8 View in citation network →