tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5633495.post113441199234326727..comments2023-07-02T15:55:30.759+01:00Comments on De-Scribed: Language is all about what's left unsaid...Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5633495.post-1134555242433926032005-12-14T10:14:00.000+00:002005-12-14T10:14:00.000+00:00I think you're right, and I suggest that there's a...I think you're right, and I suggest that there's a difference (although links remain) between spelling/grammar, and use of semantics. <BR/><BR/>At one end of the former, the odd poorly-spelt word may well indicate that a particular <I>piece</I> has been put together in a certain speed, or a certain amount of time. At the other end, repeated mis-spelling of a word/mis-use of grammar reflects more on either a) levels of educational (whether rightly or wrongly), and b) ability to observe other people' use of language, and learn from it (i.e. the more "obvious" the mistake, the more you question someone).<BR/><BR/>On the other hand completely though, there's a stronger (I would say) link between whether someone uses words <I>correctly</I> (i.e. location, appropriateness, etc rather than how it's spelt etc) and how we assess their ability to grasp the point they're going on about. For instance, if I continually mix up "relativism" and "realism" (cos they both kinda look similar) then perhaps I'm also confused about the point I'm making - which becomes a natural filtering mechanism to decide who to pay attention to and who not to.<BR/><BR/>I take your point that there may not be any real correlation between the two, in terms of what's actually going on (and indeed, it seems like people who use the biggest words often don't have all that much to say, really), but I wouldn't put it past the brain to use the same rough set of linguistic-filtering rules to equate use of language, range of vocabulary, use of grammar and ability to spell, to gain a rough (initial?) idea of an author's mental facility, <I>and</I> their <I>social</I> capacity/influences. (Esoteric groups have esoteric language, and vice versa.)<BR/><BR/>While I try not to let such factors dissuade me from determining what point a particular author is making, in a world in which anyone can publish their own material (to get back to your original point ;) it often feels like we need even more filtering mechanisms to avoid going crazy. I suspect, therefore, that I linger more on pages that have a certain decency in spelling than on those that don't. If I read everything (or had to), regardless of first impressions, I wouldn't get much done.<BR/><BR/>Not that I do anyway ;)Scribehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5633495.post-1134454785569923442005-12-13T06:19:00.000+00:002005-12-13T06:19:00.000+00:00Good discussion.I suspect there're some basic cogn...Good discussion.<BR/><BR/>I suspect there're some basic cognitive capacities which might play a role in the spelling and grammar accuracy thing : for example, number of items in short-term memory, speed and accuracy of retrieval from long-term memory etc.<BR/><BR/>Probably, the better these capacities are, the less likely you are to make certain mistakes when "rushing" or even at a brisk trot.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I'm less convinced that accuracy of spelling and grammar correlates with any more complex mental ability such as logical reasoning, rich expressive vocabulary, and certainly not with wisdom or intuition.<BR/><BR/>Something like dyslexia might be a good data-point.Composinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739889615635395138noreply@blogger.com