Errorville-- the way in and out.

Lees' article follows directly from Williams' article we read on Monday, and carries its assumptions further, in a more theoretical context. Williams had pointed out that errors should not be located as ensuing directly from the writer, but from the intersection of the reader, the text, the writer, the rules prescribed in the handbook. Lees argues that the intersection itself should be placed in a sociolinguistic context for a richer understanding of error. As she rightly indicates, citing Williams: "Most of the epithets Williams cites-terms such as vulgarity, oaf, idiot, and simple illiteracy-refer more directly to behavers than behaviors; they are assertions of social location, not statements pinpointing effects of actions." (223). Instead of judging whether this practice should be be done away with (the article historicizing the remedial student's failures as traditionally seen to be personal comes to mind), she gives a neater framewrok to this social context by proposing we see these errors as being made across 'interpretive communities', drawing from Stanley Fish. This idea, whereas it does enhance understanding of the error-making process, does little to tackle the problem head-on.

On the other hand, Brian Huot's short article forwards some practical advice on how to teach students to proofread their own work. Like Lindsay, I also liked his first idea of making the students writing it out. We all know that feeling of queasiness we face going back to school after a hiatus, however brief or prolonged. The first sentence on the page you write while taking notes during class after a long summer break always comes out a little hesitant; one almost has to coax it out. But once this initial episode of writer's cramp is out of the way, it becomes easier with each new sentence. To respond with correctness should also prove effective, because often, even if the student does not know what a dangling modifier might mean, s/he will identify the 'error' if consistently confronted with the correct alternative. This actually ties in with the next point Huot makes. I would like to believe that students not only have a highly developed notion of oral language, they also have a notion of written language as well, although it might not be as highly developed as the former (would it not be impossible to read at all otherwise?).