Xref: utzoo sci.lang:4386 comp.cog-eng:1040 sci.psychology:1697 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!sophist!goer From: goer@sophist.uucp (Richard Goerwitz) Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.cog-eng,sci.psychology Subject: Re: Effects of poor writing? (Long) Message-ID: <2970@tank.uchicago.edu> Date: 28 Apr 89 03:52:33 GMT References: <39131@bbn.COM> <1982@trantor.harris-atd.com> <2947@tank.uchicago.edu> <17158@mimsy.UUCP> Sender: news@tank.uchicago.edu Reply-To: goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) Organization: University of Chicago Lines: 26 In article <17158@mimsy.UUCP> folta@tove.umd.edu.UUCP (Wayne Folta) writes: >IMHO, a general rule is: one's knowledge, intelligence, and curiosity are >*usually* reflected in the breadth and depth of one's reading and the breadth >and depth of one's reading is usually reflected in one's grammar and >spelling. Interesting. But am I the only one that gets impatient with this sort of thing? Sci.lang is a good place to argue out linguistic theories. So, if this is your theory, please offer us some evidence - an experiment or an observation of some kind that will provide us with some basis for agreeing with you. You don't have to be a "linguist" per se. We just need something tangible to work with. No offense or anything. My best friend is a cabinet maker who has hardly picked up a book since he got out of High School. He's also one of the most intelligent and thoughtful people I know, and he has a thriving bus- iness as a fine woodworker in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In my experi- ence, this sort of person is not rare. If we are to posit some correlation between ability to spell or concern for things like typos and ability to perform in a real, working environment, doing things that may or may not involve spelling and typing things correctly, we must offer something more than personal feelings. Or else we gotta move to talk.lang.... -Richard L. Goerwitz goer@sophist.uchicago.edu rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer