This study asks whether grammatical and mechanical errors bother business professionals, which of these types of errors are most bothersome, and whether such errors affect perceptions of the writer and their ethos. We administered a 17-question survey to roughly 100 business professionals whose roles are not primarily writing and communication within organizations. The findings show that business professionals are bothered by these errors and that the level of bothersomeness has increased from previous studies. Additionally, the findings show that participants have clear views of writers who make errors and that the context of the error matters. The authors conclude by offering implications for technical and professional communication.
BoettgerR. K. (2014). The technical communication editing test: Three studies on this assessment type. Technical Communication, 61(4), 215–231.
6.
BoettgerR. K.LamC. (2013). An overview of experimental and quasi-experimental research in technical communication journals (1992–2011). IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(4), 272–293.
7.
BoettgerR. K.MooreE. L. (2018). Analyzing error perception and recognition among professional communication practitioners and academics. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 462–484.
8.
BowdonM. A. (2014). Tweeting an ethos: Emergency messaging, social media, and teaching technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 35–54.
9.
BrandenburgL. C. (2015). Testing the recognition and perception of errors in context. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(1), 74–93.
10.
ConnorsR. J.LunsfordA. A. (1988). Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle do research. College Composition and Communication, 39(4), 395–409.
11.
DunnP. (2017). Teaching grammar improves writing. In BallC.LoeweD. (Eds.), Bad ideas about writing (pp. 144–149). West Virginia University Digital Publishing Institute. https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/
12.
FordJ. D. (2004). Knowledge transfer across disciplines: Tracking rhetorical strategies from a technical communication classroom to an engineering classroom. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(4), 301–315.
13.
GilsdorfJ.LeonardD. (2001). Big stuff, little stuff: A decennial measurement of executives’ and academics’ reactions to questionable usage elements. Journal of Business Communication, 38(4), 439–471.
14.
GrayL. S.HeuserP. (2003). Nonacademic professionals’ perception of usage errors. Journal of Basic Writing, 22(1), 50–70.
15.
HairstonM. (1981). Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in usage. College English, 43(8), 794–806.
16.
HaswellR. H. (2005). NCTE/CCCC’s recent war on scholarship. Written Communication, 22(2), 198–223.
17.
KnievelM.HeaneyA.Van Baalen-WoodM. (2010). Breaking the rules: Teaching grammar “wrong” for the right results in technical communication consulting for engineers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(1), 58–68.
18.
KotzeeB.JohnstonR. (2011). “Can’t string a sentence together?” UK employers’ views of graduates’ writing skills. Industry and Higher Education, 25(1), 45–52.
19.
LeonardD. J.GilsdorfJ. W. (1990). Language in change: Academics’ and executives’ perceptions of usage errors. Journal of Business Communication, 27(2), 137–158.
20.
Lewis-BeckM. S.BrymanA.Futing LiaoT. (2004). Snowball sampling. In Lewis-BeckM. S.BrymanA.Futing LiaoT. (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods (pp. 1043–1044). Sage.
21.
LongoB. (2014). R U there? Cell phones, participatory design, and intercultural dialogue. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(3), 204–215.
22.
MaxwellJ. (1997). Designing a qualitative study. In BickmanL.RogD. J. (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 69–100). Sage.
23.
MelonçonL. (2018). Critical postscript: On the future of the service course in technical and professional communication. Programmatic Perspectives, 10(1), 202–230.
24.
MelonçonL. (2019). A field-wide view of undergraduate and graduate editing courses in technical and professional communication programs. In AlbersM.FlanaganS. (Eds.), Editing pedagogy (Pp. 170–191). Routledge.
25.
MelonçonL.Rosselot-MerrittJ.St.AmantK. (2020). A field-wide meta-synthesis of pedagogical research in technical and professional communication. Journal of Technical Writing Communication, 50(1), 91–118.
26.
MelonçonL.St.AmantK. (2019). Empirical research in technical and professional communication: A five-year examination of research methods and a call for research sustainability. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49(2), 128–155.
27.
QuibleZ. K. (2006). Impact of error labeling on error elimination in business writing. Business Communication Quarterly, 69(1), 8–24.
28.
QuibleZ. K.GriffinF. (2007). Are writing deficiencies creating a lost generation of business writers?Journal of Education for Business, 83(1), 32–36.
29.
ReinschN. L.JrTurnerJ. W. (2006). Ari, R U there? Reorienting business communication for a technological era. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20(3), 339–356.
30.
RuleH. (2017). Good writers must know grammatical terminology. In BallC.LoeweD. (Eds.), Bad ideas about writing (pp. 150–154). West Virginia University Digital Publishing Institute. https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/
St.AmantK.GrahamS. S. (2019). Research that resonates: A perspective on durable and portable approaches to scholarship in technical communication and rhetoric of science. Technical Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 99–111.
34.
St.AmantK.MelonçonL. (2016). Reflections on research: Examining practitioner perspectives on the state of research in technical communication. Technical Communication, 63(4), 346–363.
WilliamsJ. M. (1981). The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 152–168.
38.
WolfeJ.ShanmugarajN.SipeJ. (2016). Grammatical versus pragmatic error: Employer perceptions of nonnative and native English speakers. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 397–415.
39.
ZarlengoT. (2019). No one wants to read what you write: A contextualized analysis of service course assignments(Publication No. 13904425) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
