Abstract
The discussion of the nature and role of so-called “dialect, interference” in writing has been carried on in a literature which has failed to define its terms consistently, reported experimental results for poorly defined samples, and assumed much that has yet to be established empirically. Written partially as a response to Patrick Hartwell’s 1980 RTE article on the same topic, this paper examines these flaws in the literature of dialect interference in greater detail, examines the seven “correlates” of Hartwell’s “print code hypothesis” and finds them wanting or uninstructive, and sets forth suggestions for a more sophisticated study of this issue.