Tell me where is error bred

This snippet of song from The Merchant of Venice floated through my mind as I read Williams’ essay on error (both the senses of ‘essay’ apply here, since he did insert conscious errors in his piece). Williams’ essay is a brilliant example of the kind of scholarly writing I have come to like—it incisively probes a category we routinely judge as a stagnant, concrete donné, and deconstructs its various facets with intelligible examples and, very importantly, with an enjoyable sense of humour. The most important work Williams does in this article is to question, and thereby, situate, the concept of what constitutes an ‘error’. The important suggestion that an error might not be a closed signifier with discrete meaning irrespective of the reader or the writer, but a negotiated slippage from ostensibly correct forms of grammar that may or may not be recognised as such, is quite simply, revolutionary. Other ideas I found useful and noteworthy in the article I have enumerated below—

• William Labov’s notion that we are likely to give answers that come from a traditional (reactionary?), conservative system of linguistic values when asked , even if those answers misrepresent our own manners of talking or writing. That is, the moment we are asked to read for errors, we become what Williams would call linguistic hyperaestheticians, delighting in correctness for correctness’s sake, disregarding content and revelling in superficial niceties of grammar instead (I know what he means, having had the opportunity to meet a few such people over the years).

• The distinction that Williams makes between ‘infelicity’ and ‘error’ also seemed to be very important. How often is it that an ‘awk.’ is replaced by a lengthy exposition of grammar rules on the margin?

Williams’ exhaustive analysis of errors as he defines it, with respect to the reader and the writer, clinches his argument successfully. His sense of how the ideas presented in the article can have practical usage is also acute. The upshot of all his analysis: “Certainly, how we mark and grade papers might change” (164). So it can.