Re: Grammar question - and knowing the rules

[Lisa Higgins <Lisa -dot- Higgins -at- LEVEL3 -dot- COM>]

> The more important goal is to be understood.  Following the
> rules aids this goal.  Ignoring them or applying them
> inconsistently can hinder communication.

As a big, hairy, descriptive philistine, I'd like to first agree with you,
mostly, and then elaborate a little.

A lot of tech writers see themselves as "defenders of the language," the
underlying assumption being that there is some group out there who lays a
greater claim to the language than others. Wrong. William Safire doesn't own
the English language any more than Don King does. And we as technical
communicators have less influence on the way English grammar evolves than
does the heavy metal community. Regardless of the way we feel about that,
them is the facks.

Of course, we should assume that a technical writer can write in the
audience's lingua franca. For most of us, this means Standard American
English. We should not be constantly struggling with 'rules.' We should
write grammatically. Yes, I know there are writers out there who can't or
won't do this, but I've never seen anyone argue that this is acceptable.
That's a moot point. However, I've seen people argue that professional
writers who knowingly violate the arcane and capricious dictates of
grade-school 'grammar' are incompetent, blathering idiots.

There's a learning theory that categorizes people as 'unconsciously
ignorant,' 'consciously ignorant,' 'consciously informed,' and
'unconsciously informed' or something like that. The basic assumption with
the last two is that, during the 'consciously informed' stage, the learner
is acutely aware of the new knowledge and must stay conscious of it to apply
it correctly; while the 'unconsciously informed' have internalized the
knowledge and apply it without thinking consciously about it. IMO, tech
writers should *all* be 'unconsciously informed' in the topic of language
usage. Sure, we all struggle with wording from time to time, but every last
one of us should have internalized logical grammatical structure and should
be able to apply it with little conscious thought. The only real, useful
grammar we use is pure logic. If the 'grammar' we apply doesn't help us
write clean, clear, readable text, it's worse than worthless. It's
counterproductive. Let's toss aside the essential fallaciousness of rules
like 'Don't end a sentence with a preposition' and 'Don't split infinitives'
just for a minute, and ask the most important question of all: WHY? What is
the motivation behind these rules? Is there a good, logical, pragmatic
reason for these rules? There are good, useful rules out there, even beyond
intuitive grammar, and those rules all have solid logical foundations.

Personally, I tend to follow even the silliest of 'rules' if it doesn't hurt
my communication. I know that there is likely to be some malcontent out
there in my audience who will howl at any perceived 'error' in my documents,
and that my document will lose credibility with that user. On the other
hand, if I can't follow that 'rule' clearly, efficiently, and elegantly,
then I toss it. I will lose more readers by writing stilted, awkward,
overblown garbage than I will by violating some silly 'rule.'


Lisa.
Pirate, Rogue, Technical Writer.


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=