Abstract:Over the past twenty years, we have come to see that errors are not simply flaws in a text. However, the need for correctness remains undiminished if only because of societal and institutional demands. Yet there is little consensus about correctness or even whether language can be described as correct or incorrect in the first place. This essay suggests a way out of this bind by looking at correctness in a sociolinguistic sense. In this way writers' different Jonna/ choices provide information about their identity and the identity of the text they are creating. Correct usage sends the sociolinguistic message the author desires; incorrect forms send undes ired ones. The problem basic writers face is that their errors send the message that they are not college students and their writing is not academic. Correctness thus has a sociolinguistic role crucial to the field of basic writing and which helps differentiate that field from other types of writing instruction. Errors and Correctness From the inauguration of the field of basic writing during the 1970s, "correctness" has been an awkward and enigmatic issue facing stu dents, instructors, and researchers. At that time, several convergent factors, recounted in Mina Shaughnessy's Errors and Expectations, be gan to undermine the time-worn consensus surrounding fundamental questions such as: 'What makes language correct or lacking in correct ness?' 'How do writers achieve it?' 'Why does it matter so much to so many people?' Now, nearly two decades later, although we still evalu ate students' writing in terms of correctness every day, we do so with out having reformulated a consensus about what this concept means. Michael Newman was formerly an adjunct in the ESL program at Lehman College/CUNY and the English Department at Hunter College/CUNY. He also worked in the TESI)Bilingual Edu cation M.A. program at William Paterson College. He is currently Assistant Professor in the the Dept. of Educational Theory and Practice at The Ohio State University. © /oumal of Basic Writing, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1996 23 DOI: 10.37514/JBW-J.1996.15.1.03 Part of our confusion about correctness was created by the circumstances that surrounded the development of the field. The arrival in the academy of large numbers of nontraditional students whose essays contained what seemed to be massive numbers of incorrect forms coincided with radical changes in writing instruction. Traditional behaviorist approaches had considered errors as bad habits to be stamped out. This relatively simple understanding jived well with popular intuitive views that devalued the worth of any text which contained more than a minimal number of incorrect forms. Moreover, this view also was reflected in the marginal status of basic-writers in the academy and in educated society at large. Error and its importance seemed clear. However, the writing-process oriented approaches that were beginning to emerge at that time pointed out the misconceptions that lay behind that seemingly common-sense approach (see Shaughnessy and Bartholomae). Inspired by Chomskyan views of language acquisition as driven from within the learner, writing process theorists showed how and why errors are developmentally necessary. Slowly, errors came to be seen as the result of strategies and hypotheses about target patterns and so an integral part of language development (Elliot; Lindfors). As David Bartholomae put it: "Failed sentences, then, could be taken as stages of learning rather than the failure to learn, but also as evidence these writers are using writing as an occasion to learn" (254). Further, it became increasingly apparent that "correct" grammar was only a single component of the larger construct of "good writing" (see Atwell and Calkins, among many others). These insights changed the emphasis of writing instruction from direct attention to mechanics to work on more global processes. While correctness never ceased to be a goal, it was evicted from center stage. In fact, emphasis on correctness began to be seen as potentially counter productive because, among other reasons, it made the students less likely to write. Yet outside the classroom-and at times in it-this more theoretically sound and pedagogically appropriate approach has not had much impact on people's views on the seriousness of error and the importance of avoiding it. Academic institutions, for example, still continue to classify basic writers as such, in whole or at least in large part, by their errors. The number and type of errors on placement, certifying, and program-exit exams remain, even today, the predominant criteria in the gatekeeping process (Janopoulis; SweedlerBrown). From an institutional perspective the marginality of basic writing and basic writers has hardly changed at all. Moreover, a cursory glance at the content of language columns which advise readers about correct and incorrect usage (such as William Safire's or James Kirkpatrick's) shows how pervasive the belief in the importance of correct language still is. For their part, and in their own way, basic writers frequently appear to concur with the institutional and societal

Overexpression of GSDMC is a Prognostic Factor for Predicting a Poor Outcome in Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Prognostic value and immune infiltration of the gasdermin family in lung adenocarcinoma

The Expression Profile of Gasdermin C-related Genes Predicts the Prognosis and Immunotherapy Response of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Gasdermin C as a potential prognostic biomarker and its correlation with immune infiltration in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Downregulation of GSDMD Attenuates Tumor Proliferation Via the Intrinsic Mitochondrial Apoptotic Pathway and Inhibition of EGFR/Akt Signaling and Predicts a Good Prognosis in Non‑small Cell Lung Cancer.

GSDMB: A novel, independent prognostic marker and potential new therapeutic target in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

A Five-M6a Regulatory Gene Signature is a Prognostic Biomarker in Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients

Pyroptosis-related gene GSDMC indicates poor prognosis and promotes tumor progression by activating the AKT/mTOR pathway in lung squamous cell carcinoma

Loss of LIMCH1 Predicts Poor Prognosis in Patients with Surgically Resected Lung Adenocarcinoma: A Study Based on Immunohistochemical Analysis and Bioinformatics

[A case from practice (325). 1. Strongyloidiasis--reactive arthritis. 2. Anemia in multiple helminth infestation. 3. Essential hypotension].

Gasdermin D Plays an Oncogenic Role in Glioma and Correlates to an Immunosuppressive Microenvironment

Comprehensive Analysis of a Dendritic Cell Marker Genes Signature to Predict Prognosis and Immunotherapy Response in Lung Adenocarcinoma

Comprehensive analysis reveals the prognostic and immunogenic characteristics of DNA methylation regulators in lung adenocarcinoma

[Kidney function in the newborn infant of 32 to 36 weeks gestation: the usefulness of the excreted sodium fraction].

Correctness and Its Conceptions: The Meaning of Language Form for Basic Writers.

Prognostic and immunological implications of glutathione metabolism genes in lung adenocarcinoma: A focus on the core gene SMS and its impact on M2 macrophage polarization

Integrative Analysis of DNA Methylomes Reveals Novel Cell-Free Biomarkers in Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Gasdermin C promotes Stemness and Immune Evasion in Pancreatic Cancer via Pyroptosis‐Independent Mechanism

Development and Validation of a DNA Methylation-related Classifier of Circulating Tumour Cells to Predict Prognosis and to provide a therapeutic strategy in Lung Adenocarcinoma

Polyglutamate forms of folate: natural occurrence and role as substrates in mammalian cells.

High expression of glycolysis-related PGM2 gene in relation to poor prognosis and deficient immune cells infiltration in lung adenocarcinoma: a study based on bioinformatics analysis