Many factors, such as word choice, organization, suitability to reader and dis
course community, and numerous other rhetorical considerations, influence read
ers' perception of "good writing." The factor provoking instant and powerful abre
action from a reader, however, is often a perceived error in grammar or usage.
This study tests the extent to which business executives and business communica
tion academics were bothered by selected examples of these questionable usage ele
ments. Results show usage elements that troubled readers most were basic sen
tence-structure errors such as run-ons, fragments, nonparallel structure, and
danglers. Several usage errors, such as the use of "disinterested" for "uninter
ested" and the use of qualifiers with absolutes such as "unique," may be in transi
tion to acceptability. The error of completing a linking verb with an adverbial
clause troubled few. Executive readers were bothered less by the questionable usage
elements, overall, than academic readers, and younger readers less than older
readers. Acknowledging to students that usage changes, clarifying differences
between written and spoken dialects, and exemplifying and explaining the most
bothersome errors (using a minimum of traditional grammar terminology) can
help students overcome some writing weaknesses.
Andera, F., & Condon, G. (1986). The frequency of occurrence of punctuation rules, format, and English style in written business communications. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 2, 197-210.
2.
Anson, C.M., & Forsberg, L.L. (1990). Moving beyond the academic community: Transitional stages in professional writing. Written Communication, 7, 200-231.
3.
Baker, R. (1981, April 26). The English Mafia, New York Times Magazine, 29.
4.
Baron, D.E. (1982). Grammar and good taste: Reforming the American language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
Bex, T. ( 1999). Representations of English in twentieth-century Britain: Fowler, Gowers and Partridge. In T. Bex & R. J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The widening debate (pp. 89-109). New York: Routledge.
6.
Bloomfield, M.W. (1985). The question of correctness. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), The English language today (pp. 265-270). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
7.
Bowman, J.P., & Klopping, I. (1999). Bandstands, bandwidth, and business communication: Technology and the sanctity of writing. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(1), 82-90.
8.
Boyd, R. (1995). "Grammatical monstrosities" and " contemptible miscreants": Sacrificial violence in the late nineteenth-century usage handbook. In S. Hunter & R. Wallace (Eds.), The place of grammar in writing instruction (pp. 54-70). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook .
9.
Burchfield, R.W. (1998). The new Fowler's modern English usage (rev. 3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
Carter, R. (1994). Standard Englishes in teaching and learning. In M. Hayhoe & S. Parker (Eds.), Who owns English? (pp. 11-23). Philadelphia : Open University Press.
11.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics, 16, 141-158.
12.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
13.
Connors, R.J., & Lunsford, A.A. (1988). Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle do research. College Composition and Communication, 39, 395-409.
14.
Copperud, R.H. (1980). American usage and style: The consensus. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
15.
Crowley, T. (1989). Standard English and the politics of language . Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
16.
Crowley, T. (1999). Curiouser and curiouser: Falling standards in the Standard English debate. In T. Bex & R. J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The widening debate (pp. 271-280). New York: Routledge.
17.
Crystal, D. (1994). Which English-or English which? In M. Hayhoe & S. Parker (Eds.), Who owns English? (pp. 108-114). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
18.
Drake, G.F. (1977). The role of prescriptivism in American linguistics, 1830-1970. In Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science: Studies in the history of linguistics (Series 3, Vol. 13). Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
19.
Edlund, J.R. (1995). The rainbow and the stream: Grammar as system versus language in use. In S. Hunter & R. Wallace (Eds.), The place of grammar in writing instruction: Past, present, future (pp. 89-101). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
20.
Eisenstein, E.L. (1979). The printing press as an agent of change: Communications and cultural transformations in early modern Europe. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Finegan, E. (1980). Attitudes toward English usage: The history of a war of words. New York: Teachers College Press.
22.
Francis, W.N. (1965). The English language: An introduction. New York: W. W. Norton.
23.
Gould, C. (1987). Josephine Turck Baker, Correct English and the ancestry of pop grammar. English Journal, 76, 22-28.
24.
Greenbaum, S. (1988). Good English and the grammarian. New York: Longman.
25.
Hairston, M. (1981). Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in usage. College English, 43, 794-806.
26.
Hamilton, K., & Rhodes, S. (1997, October 20). So I'm like, "Who needs this grammar stuff?" Newsweek, 15.
27.
Heath, S.B. (1980). Standard English: Biography of a symbol. In T. Shopen & J. M. Williams (Eds.), Standards and dialects in English (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
28.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in English.
29.
Honey, J. (1997). Language is power: The story of standard English and its enemies. Boston: Faber and Faber.
30.
Hyde, J.S., & Linn, M.C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis . Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69.
31.
Kibbee, D. (1998). Honey, J., Language is power: The story of standard English and its enemies. Journal of Linguistics, 34, 525-530.
32.
Leonard, D.J., & Gilsdorf, J.W. (1990). Language in change: Academics' and executives' perceptions of usage errors. The Journal of Business Communication, 27, 137-158.
33.
Li, L. (2000). E-mail: A challenge to Standard English? English Today: The International Review of the English Language, 16, 23-29, 55.
34.
Maynor, N. (1994). The language of electronic mail: Written speech ? In G. D. Little & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Centennial usage studies (pp. 48-54). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press for the American Dialect Society.
35.
Merrier, P.A. (1991). The extent to which students' reactions to usage errors change as a result of having completed a business communication course . The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication , 54(4), 27-30.
36.
Meyers, W.E. (1972). A study of usage items based on an examination of the Brown corpus. College Composition and Communication , 23, 155-169.
37.
Meyers, W.E. (1994). Usage items in current handbooks of composition . In G. D. Little & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Centennial usage studies (pp. 129-137). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press for the American Dialect Society.
38.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1985). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
39.
Mittins, W.H., Salu, M., Edminson, N., & Coyne, S. (1970). Attitudes to English usage. London: Oxford University Press.
40.
Moss, F.K. (1995). Perceptions of communication in the corporate community. Journal of Business and Technical Communication , 9, 63-76.
41.
Nevalainen, T. (1993). Language change announced? English Today, 9(2), 25-27.
42.
Nickel, G., & Stalker, J.C. (1986). Introduction. In G. Nickel & J. C. Stalker (Eds.), Problems of standardization and linguistic variation in present day English (pp. 1-4). Heidelberg, Germany: Julius Groos Verlag.
43.
Noguchi, R.R. (1991). Grammar and the teaching of writing: Limits and possibilities. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
44.
Nunberg, G. (1990). What the usage panel thinks. In C. Ricks & L. Michaels (Eds.), The state of the language (pp. 467-482). Los Angeles: University of California Press.
45.
Pinker, S. (1994a). Grammar puss: The fallacies of the language mavens . The New Republic, 210(5), 19-26.
46.
Pinker, S. (1994b). The language instinct: How the mind creates language . New York: William Morrow.
47.
Rogers, P.S., & Rymer, J. (2001). Analytical tools to facilitate transitions into new writing contexts: A communicative perspective. The Journal of Business Communication, 38, 112-152.
48.
Shaughnessy, M.P. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
Shuman, R.B. (1995). Grammar for writers: How much is enough? In H. Hunter & R. Wallace (Eds.), The place of grammar in writing instruction (pp.114-128). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
50.
Simon, J.I. (1980). Paradigms lost: Reflections on literacy and its decline. New York: C. N. Potter.
51.
Sklar, E.S. (1988). The tribunal of use: Agreement in indefinite constructions . College Composition and Communication, 39, 410-422.
52.
Sledd, J. (1986). Permanence and change in standard American English: The making of "literacy crises." In G. Nickel & J. C. Stalker (Eds.), Problems of standardization and linguistic variation in present day English (pp. 61-70). Heidelberg, Germany: Julius Groos Verlag.
53.
Sledd, J., & Ebbit, W. R. (Eds.). (1962). Dictionaries and THAT dictionary . Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
54.
Spilka, R. (1993). Influencing workplace practice: A challenge for professional writing specialists in academia. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 207-219). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
55.
Stalker, J.C. (1985a). Attitudes toward language in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), The English language today (pp. 41-47). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
56.
Stalker, J.C. (1985b) Language as symbol in the death-of-language books . In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), The English language today (pp. 65-71). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
57.
Tannen, D. (1982). Oral and literature strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language, 58, 1-21.
58.
Wardhaugh, R. (1999). Proper English: Myths and misunderstandings about language. Malden, MA: Blackwell .
59.
Wardrope, W.J., & Bayless, M.L. (1999). Content of the business communication course: An analysis of coverage. Business Communication Quarterly , 62(4), 33-40.
60.
Warfel, H.R. (1952). Who killed grammar? Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
61.
Williams, J. (1981). The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communication, 32, 152-168.
62.
Williams, J. (2000). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace (6th ed). New York: Longman.
63.
Wilson, K.G. (1987). Van Winkle's return: Changes in American English, 1966-1986. Hanover: University Press of New England.
