I have a question for advice from this group that might have
political implications.
In an article I'm about to submit, I cite a number of discussions on
this list and humanist about the use of language, especially
English. The authors are both native English speakers and non-native
speakers and, as is typical in emails, there are a number of small
typos. solecisms, and the like.
Currently, I have a note at the first citation indicating that "as
is normal in as conversational a medium as email correspondence, the
quoted passages have small typographical errors and other solecisms.
These have not been corrected or otherwise noted." My reason for
this is that I don't want to put in a lot of sic or corrections in
square brackets. Although I'm a terrible typo offender myself, the
case can be more politicised it seems to me when dealing with
non-native speakers. I'm uncomfortable acting either as judge or,
worse, in my case, calling attention to "errors"--especially since I
think they are really more issues of register than actual errors.
I could silently correct them, of course, as well, but I don't like
that either, in case what I think is an obvious correction turns out
to misrepresent something.
What do other people think? I've seen sic used before as a
form of ad hominem attack and so I generally really hate using it if
I can avoid it. But since it also seems nuts to pepper the
correspondence with square brackets (and since that could have the
same effect as a lot of sics), I don't want to do that either.
Is there a better solution than simply flagging the register
difference, as I currently do?
--
---
Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Professor of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Canada
+1 403 393-2539