Spellings in English Language: To Spell or Not to Spell Correctly
- Dilip Barad
(This was published in IATEFL newsletter VOICES. University of Kent, UK. September-October 2009. 210. ISSN: 1814-3830)
How to cite this article:
APA:
Barad, D. P. (2009). Spellings
in English Language: To Spell or Not to Spell Correctly. (A. Schwetlick, Ed.) VOICES
(210), 11.
MLA:Barad, D. P. "Spellings in English Language: To Spell or Not to Spell Correctly." VOICES 210 (2009): 11.
Language grows. It has accreting quality. It flows like river. It goes on changing its shape and flow in harmony with its levee. Change is the only permanent feature of language. Language which does not change with flux of time, gives up the ghost.
The Spelling is one of
the vital components of a language. From time and again, like language,
spellings of the language also undergo a change. From Geoffrey Chaucer – the
father of English language – down the line, if you read writings of
Shakespeare, Edmund Spencer, Milton, Dryden or any of the 18th, 19th
century English literary hulks, you will find how modern English spellings were
‘misspelled’ by these great man of English letters.
If the history of
English language tells us that language and its spellings can’t be static; it
must constantly evolve to keep up with changing times and remain relevant; then
why should Pundits of the language cling steadfastly to the correctness of
spelling?
Ken Smith (Rebecca
Atwood 2008, BBC 2008),
lecturer at the Bucks New University in Britain has added fuel to the debate
over ‘to spell or not to spell correctly’. “Don't let students' howlers drive
you mad, says Ken Smith. Accept their most common mistakes as variant spellings
... and relax.” He further argues that “…instead of complaining about the state
of the education system as we correct the same mistakes year after year, I've
got a better idea. University teachers should simply accept as variant spelling
those words our students most commonly misspell”. Several of British English
spellings are already accepted as American variants and people have easily
assimilated them in their daily usage. Thanks to Bill Gates and MS Office. ‘U’
is omitted from ‘colour’, ‘favour’, ‘endeavour’ etc. This software programme
has changed ‘programme’ to ‘program’, ‘judgement’ to ‘judgment’. Ken Smith
asks, “The spelling of the word "judgement", for example, is now
widely accepted as a variant of "judgment", so why can't
"truely" be accepted as a variant spelling of "truly"?” To
begin with, he listed top 10 spellings of simple words which are commonly
misspelled by the students.
Of
course, such proposals have been made in the past. The dawn of SMS-text
messaging turned many students into spelling Neanderthals as phrases such as
"wot r u doin 2nite?" became socially, if not academically,
acceptable.
Despite
Smith's suggestion, language pundits are unconvinced. John Simpson
(Luke Baker 2008), the chief editor of the
Oxford English Dictionary, says rules are rules and they are there for good
reason. "There are enormous advantages in having a coherent system of
spelling," he told the Times newspaper. He added, "It makes it easier
to communicate. Maybe during a learning phase there is some scope for error,
but I would hope that by the time people get to university they have learnt to
spell correctly."
But still the point is: Is it really necessary to
spell correctly to fulfill basic function of language – which is to
‘communicate’? If we can communicate without correct spellings, is it essential
to learn how to spell correctly? If you have a million dolor (check
meaning of this word) doubt regarding how to communicate without spelling
correctly, read following paragraph (I originally saw this a few years ago as blog entries by Mark
and Angel 2006):
Cna yuo raed tihs? Suteids sohw taht olny aoubt 55 prcenet of plepoe can
(atculley trheer is no scuh sudty). I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod
aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. Tihs sohws
us the phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to
rscheearch at an Elingsh Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr waht oerdr the
ltteres in a wrod are in, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat
ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset of the txet can be a taotl
mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the
huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but isntaed raeds the wrod as
a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and we awlyas tghuhot
slpelnig was ipmorantt!
Yet
even some of Britain's greatest wordsmiths have acknowledged it's a language
with irritating quirkiness. Playwright George Bernard Shaw was fond of pointing
out that the word "ghoti" could just as well be pronounced
"fish" if you followed common pronunciation: 'gh' as in
"tough," 'o' as in "women" and 'ti' as in
"nation."
Isn’t Ken Smith’s idea
worth accepting? Isn’t it the time to adopt humanistic approach and free
student from the atrocities of spellings? Technology has changed the way we
live and think. It has initiated change in the way we spell our spellings.
Isn’t it a good idea to simplify obsolete and confusing spellings? Isn’t it an
idea whose time has come?
References:
“Bad spelling 'should be
accepted' . BBC News Online. 7 Aug 2008. n.pag. web. 4 July 2009. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7546975.stm>
Attwood, Rebecca. “Just
spell it like it is”. 2007 TSL Education Ltd. 7 Aug 2008. n.pag. web. 4 July
2008. <http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403092>
Baker, Luke. “Spelling
"truely atrosious," says academic”. Thomson Reuters 2009. 7 Aug.
2008. n.pag. web. 4 July. 2009. <http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSKUA75572520080807?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews>
Mark and Angel. “Can
you read this?” 2006-2009 Marc and Angel Hack Life. 20 Nov. 2006. n.pag. web. 5
July. 2009. <http://www.marcandangel.com/2006/11/20/can-you-read-this/>
________________________________________________________________________________
Images of the cover page and write up:
 |
| IATEFL - VOICES front page |
 |
| Write-up in VOICES-210 |
________________________________________________
Response to this write up:
In the next issue of Voices, Jean Stocker questioned this:
This was my reply:
Dear Jean Stocker,
In reply to my write up "To Spell or Not to Spell Correctly" published in IATEFL newsletter VOICES. University of Kent, UK. September-October 2009, you asked following question n Voices Issue 211, Nov-Dec 2009.
The question was: "I would like to ask Dr Barad if he considers it acceptable to misspelt words in his own language, or, in fact, in any language?
First of all, i am sorry for this delay in reply. Today suddenly i found this issue and read the question and remembered that i have yet not replied.
Well, i have seen that spellings in my language ( that is Gujarati, spoken in Western state Gujarat of India) are quite often misspelt. In journalistic writings, no body cares for correctness of spellings. The functional and communicative aspect has become more important in spellings. So, by and large, people of my language have accepted several variants of spellings.
I have seen that, on social media, people do communicate without being careful about spellings. The auto-spell checkers in mobile phones changes spellings and people realize (see this 'Gmail', forcing me to write realize instead of realise. What can we do? :) ) the error after it is sent. Most are developing habit of proof reading after sending or when they receive reply. But the surprising fact is that they are able to communicate and so nobody cares about spellings.
What do you say about spellings in your language?
________________________________________________________________________________
I would like to request scholars and researchers of Gujarati language to throw some more light on spellings in Gujarati.
