11-17-2009, 04:30 PM
<!--quoteo(post=69354:date=Nov 17 2009, 02:27 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Nov 17 2009, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69349:date=Nov 17 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Runnys)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runnys @ Nov 17 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->As a side note, that's a pretty well-structured and literate reply from a ballplayer drafted out of high school. I wonder how an actual transcript from the interview would read.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So someone that did not go to college cannot form a well-structured literate reply to a question?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spoken English is rarely constructed as would be written English. Maybe Bill Buckley and George Plimpton spoke in a manner that was indistinguishable from their written commentary but very few of the rest of us do. And forgive my disgusting bigotry but I don't think it's likely that ballplayers drafted out of high school are among the likely candidates to be exceptions to this.
I've heard Kerry Wood speak. Further, I've worked as a journalist and transcribed many interviews and quotes from interviews. Its a tightrope act. If you transcribe most people's actual spoken syntax, they tend to read as stupid...lacking the non-verbal cues that go along with listening to someone formulate speech from thoughts on the fly. As a result, almost all writers will sacrifice a degree of literal accuracy when transcribing quotes in order to prevent this. When writers transcribe accurately, they're often using the cover of accuracy as a weapon against the person they're choosing to let appear unschooled.
My gut tells me that the writer here over-edited Wood to an extreme.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wood is actually a pretty good interview. That said, your general assessment is spot-on...
So someone that did not go to college cannot form a well-structured literate reply to a question?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spoken English is rarely constructed as would be written English. Maybe Bill Buckley and George Plimpton spoke in a manner that was indistinguishable from their written commentary but very few of the rest of us do. And forgive my disgusting bigotry but I don't think it's likely that ballplayers drafted out of high school are among the likely candidates to be exceptions to this.
I've heard Kerry Wood speak. Further, I've worked as a journalist and transcribed many interviews and quotes from interviews. Its a tightrope act. If you transcribe most people's actual spoken syntax, they tend to read as stupid...lacking the non-verbal cues that go along with listening to someone formulate speech from thoughts on the fly. As a result, almost all writers will sacrifice a degree of literal accuracy when transcribing quotes in order to prevent this. When writers transcribe accurately, they're often using the cover of accuracy as a weapon against the person they're choosing to let appear unschooled.
My gut tells me that the writer here over-edited Wood to an extreme.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wood is actually a pretty good interview. That said, your general assessment is spot-on...