RE: Writing in the workplace (long)

[bobbie silk <bsilk@keller.clarke.edu>]

Yes, Barry, I too was thinking it's a matter of ethos rather than logos. 
The lack of capital letters drives Leigh crazy because there's a power
issue involved--the supervisor has consciously chosen not to consider the
needs of her readers and their ease in interpreting her texts.  She is
demonstrating a lack of "character" or trustworthiness.  (My apologies to
Leigh for stretching what she said to an extreme in order to make a
point.)  When someone misuses "I" and "me" or misplaces commas or
whatever, we're irked because our speed of comprehension is slowed.  But
we're also irked because the violator *seemingly* has rejected (or hasn't
taken the effort to learn) the structures of our social group or discourse
community.  She's on our turf wearing the "wrong" colors either to be
intentionally confrontational or because she hasn't "paid her dues."
(Simple ignorance is no excuse, neither in turf wars nor in interoffice
memoes--and there may not be that much difference between turf wars and
interoffice memoes anyway.)

Hmmmm.  Grammar as gang symbol.  Interesting concept.

  --Bobbie

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Barry Maid wrote:

> Jon--
> 
> >Thanks, Barry.  You're helping me understand the rhetorical situation I
> >find so tricky:  I, the university professor, know what you need as a
> >developing writer; you, the workplace professional, think you know what you
> >need, but you're wrong.  
> 
> I do believe I think you've got it.  You're now ready to be a consultant. 
>  ;-)
> 
> Think about it, Jon, that's what consultants really do.  While we may not 
> understand (or like) the discourse of an individual industry, we *really* 
> do know an awful lot about how to communicate effectively in writing.  
> That's *real* expertise and is worth an awful lot.
> 
> I suspect the whole thing is an issue of ethos.
> 
> Barry Maid
> bmmaid@ualr.edu
>