Klarinet Archive - Posting 000984.txt from 2000/02
From: Neil Leupold <leupold_1@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Language skills
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 16:39:46 -0500
--- Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net> wrote:
> Some players are very brilliant performers but cannot communicate
> the time of day in intelligable [sic], clear, articulate English
> (or whatever his/her language might be).
There is an unstated bias here which assumes that intelligible, clear,
articulate English is prerequisite to effective communication. To use
your own turn of phrase Dan, I couldn't agree less. I'll state an as-
sumption of my own: the irony of the particular word you misspelled a-
bove does not escape you (but I still knew what you meant). More to
the point, however, is my belief that intelligibility need not follow
articulacy in order for clear and effective written communication to
occur. Some of the richest and most potent usage of communicative lan-
guage has come from people of other countries on Klarinet who are chal-
lenged by the rules and conventions of standard written English. My
point arises not from these exceptional cases, but from the fact that
I have witnessed this same level of amplified meaning via improper word
and/or sentence construction by native-born American members of the
list as well. Incongruousness with the known rules is actually capable
of enhancing a reader's comprehension, and correctness of composition
does not conclusively lead to comprehension.
> If one tolerates sloppy, misspelled, grammatically inaccurate writings
> on this list (or worse, if our better players manifest it in their own
> writing styles), then the younger players are not going to be motivated
> to follow suit.
This statement typifies the corollary to my point. The sentence construc-
tion, vocabulary, and syntax are beyond reproach, yet the logic of your
statement is antithetical to its intended meaning, albeit not absolutely
so. The sentence occurs at the top of a paragraph, so I can hardly be ac-
cused of citing or manipulating it out of context (and the comments which
followed did not rectify the error). What is clear is not the meaning of
the sentence, to be sure, but rather the fact that your mechanically prop-
er use of language did not serve to amplify your original train of thought.
The manner in which language is used relative to rules and conventions as-
sumes vastly reduced importance in the context of properly communicated
logic, and it is the logic inside the communication package which ulti-
mately makes it intelligible, not the ornate and meticulously creased
paper in which the package is wrapped.
It is fairly atypical for a logical misconstruction as egregious as the
one I discuss above to escape detection in the editorial process, but I
would wager that it is far more common than those errors which pertain to
spelling, grammar, and syntax in the very same publication. Most word
processing programs come not only with a spell-checker, but also with the
remarkable functionality to accurately detect semantic and grammatical er-
rors the moment they are committed. No word processor in the world, how-
ever, is sophisticated enough to correct poorly formed logic. On the
Klarinet list, as opposed to reading a published academic or pedagogical
article, we have the invaluable opportunity to immediately ask questions
if another person's statements are not clear to the reader -- and it may
only be that specific reader who doesn't understand. But I suspect that
most of these questions arise from incompletely articulated logic than
from violation of the dictates which govern the usage of the written
English language.
-- Neil
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
