"job experience"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sato

Quite right, or an authority that confirms that it is in fact correct English. As I've said in previous posts and what should be clear to anybody, an expression being 'around' doesn't make it correct, see examples given above.

---

"Job experience" sounds like correct English to me. Instead of looking for evidence of its correctness, why not say why you think it's wrong?
You're not arguing on the basis of usage, and semantically it's quite clear, so there must be something syntactic that you're not sure of. If "work experience" or any of those other terms above are correct, why not this one? It uses two nouns, with the first being used as an adjective.

You can't compare to this "would of" because "would of" is demonstrably wrong in grammar, whereas "job experience" isn't.

PS; I note that you've given one argument: "Also whereas "work experience" can be expressed as "I experienced work" or "My work experience", the same cannot be said of "job experience" ..." Are you claiming that a noun can only be used as an adjective if the qualified noun can be used as a verb??

PPS: I think I might know why you don't like it.
"Work" can be a non-count noun. "What's your work experience?" means "What's your experience of work?"
And we don't say, "What's your experience of job?"

Also, there are many such phrases that use non-count nouns:
What's your television/reading/space... experience?" -> What's your experience of television/reading/space ...?"

But there are also many phrases that use countable nouns where the above doesn't happen:
"What's your movie/piano/motorbike experience?" These doesn't convert to, "What's your experience of (or with) movie/piano/motorbike?"
Would you claim that all these latter phrases are not proper English?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sato

Quite right, or an authority that confirms that it is in fact correct English. As I've said in previous posts and what should be clear to anybody, an expression being 'around' doesn't make it correct, see examples given above.

---

What sort of 'authority' are you looking for? We have no authority in the way that the French-speaking world has its Academy.

In mainstream linguistics most writers prefer 'acceptable' to 'correct'. By 'acceptable' they mean something along the lines of 'X has been recorded in the speech and/or writing of a number of people. It appears to be accepted by most people as normal usage.' The 'acceptable/unacceptable' description is sometimes qualified by a suggestion that X may not be acceptable in formal writing, or that it is considered 'incorrect' by some people.

As Raymott pointed out, "You can't compare to this "would of" because "would of" is demonstrably wrong in grammar, whereas "job experience" isn't". If ever 'should of' etc, becomes acceptable to a sufficient number of users of English, then the words 'demonstrably wrong' will have become outdated. 'If Henry was here here now' is demonstrably wrong in grammar, but enough people say it for it to have become unremarkable in BrE speech. It is probably true to say that that particular solecism is now acceptable.

Whichever way you look at it, 'job experience' is not 'incorrect'.

Thanks Raymott I appreciate your input. I agree that many non-countable nouns can be used as adjectives, your examples of 'television' etc are good.

I guess we could learn something by considering if 'job' can be used in the same way - is it completely interchangeable with the word 'work' or not? 'Job satisfaction' is an acceptable use of 'job' as an adjective in literary use (note to other commenters, I'm still talking about literary usage of English, not common speech), but to my mind there are still important differences between the words 'job' and 'work'. 'Job' has no opposite, 'work satisfaction' makes no sense (or does it?), and 'job' is neither a place nor an action as 'work' is.

Furthermore I still can't find any literary examples of 'job experience'. I've found some uses in recent newspapers, but since proofreaders are no longer employed they cannot be considered as literary sources.

It's not a question of my liking the expression or not. I don't use it myself but my question arises from the need to give proper advice to my students who will lose marks if they use an 'incorrect' (even if it is used by some people) expression in their university entrance exams.

Johnson thanks for your input. A dictionary or literary publication would make an appropriate authority for me. Not so much in themselves, but in what they represent - a large number of experts coming together and making the call.

I see what you're saying about the way in which common usage becomes the standard, and I agree, but there is an important distinction to make. Common usage can arise from one of two ways, from a new word or new use or expansion of meaning of a current word, or from an erroneous usage. For example, no matter how many people incorrectly use the word 'effect' when they mean 'affect', that will never become part of accepted English no matter how common the usage becomes. Similarly, if 'should of' were to be used in a meaningful sense, rather than just an erroneous 'should've' it could pass into accepted English.

I'm very interested to hear your arguements as to how 'job experience' is an expression in itself and rather than just used erroneously in place of 'work experience' or 'professional experience'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sato

Furthermore I still can't find any literary examples of 'job experience'. I've found some uses in recent newspapers, but since proofreaders are no longer employed they cannot be considered as literary sources.

---

The arbiter of whether "job experience" is acceptable on a CV. is not a linguistics professional, but a Human Relations Manager, or the hiring officer of companies. Perhaps you could get opinions from a job-search forum in which employers advise potential employees.
Even if, by some strange quirk of linguists, someone decided that "job experience" was not correct English, I would still teach it to students if that's what hirers wanted.