Should we change how we spell the English language

[barleycorn]

hehe indeed.

 

Was hoping someone would spot my 'deliberate' mistake (I blame it on learning to read and write via the ITA route as a small child)

 

jb

[Hammerstein]

Is there any evidence to show that the number of people able to read and write is reduced by the lack of phonetic/symbolic consistency in English? If that was the case, you'd expect countries with even less phonetical logic to their language, like Finland or Sweden, to have lower literacy rates, but in fact the opposite is true.

I think common sense tells you that it would make writing easier if children only had to know the phoneme/grapheme correspondences and were able apply the logic to whatever word they liked.

 

Obviously there are a lot of children who are able to grasp the language, but there are also many which can write but have no confidence in their abilities to spell properly, despite often logical measures when choosing how they spell things.

 

So for your system to work all children would have to be taught to speak in Queens English to ensure they can spell correctly (not a bad thing) and then remember when writing which version of a word it is they have to spell. Not to mention having to rewrite all current works of literature in order to make them readable to the little darlings. Far easier just to teach them to spell the words that we have, it's not difficult, all it takes is a bit of practise.

People often have to spell things in a way which is different to how they talk already though, as you pointed out in your earlier example. I think most people are at least aware of the 'Queen's English' so I wouldn't see it being a gigantic problem.

 

I agree that it would be a nightmare if people were to re-write books and I wouldn't suggest that at all.

 

Thinking about it, perhaps it would be best to only apply it for children who are stuggling with their spellings, as a means of having them engaged in writing and getting their ideas across until they are ready to absord the more traditional spellings as they get older and more secure in their abilities.

 

Just out of interest, why would it not be a bad thing to have all children speaking the Queen's english?

[truman]

I agree that it would be a nightmare if people were to re-write books and I wouldn't suggest that at all.

 

 

So all the classics would be out of reach for the kids who were only taught the "new" way?

[Hammerstein]

So all the classics would be out of reach for the kids who were only taught the "new" way?

No. I meant that that was something I hadn't thought about, and is a sticking point for the whole thing. Hence the following paragraph.

[barleycorn]

I think common sense tells you that it would make writing easier if children only had to know the phoneme/grapheme correspondences and were able apply the logic to whatever word they liked.

 

Obviously there are a lot of children who are able to grasp the language, but there are also many which can write but have no confidence in their abilities to spell properly, despite often logical measures when choosing how they spell things.

 

 

People often have to spell things in a way which is different to how they talk already though, as you pointed out in your earlier example. I think most people are at least aware of the 'Queen's English' so I wouldn't see it being a gigantic problem.

 

I agree that it would be a nightmare if people were to re-write books and I wouldn't suggest that at all.

 

Thinking about it, perhaps it would be best to only apply it for children who are stuggling with their spellings, as a means of having them engaged in writing and getting their ideas across until they are ready to absord the more traditional spellings as they get older and more secure in their abilities.

I, and everyone else at my school, learnt to read and write using the Initial Teaching Alphabet (a kind of abridged phonetic alphabet) which was touted at the time as making it easier to learn to read and write. Something like this could perhaps be re-introduced as an aid to learning for those who have difficulty with the current system. A major drawback with it though was the difficulty some children had in transferring to standard English and, for me particularly, a tendency to still spell words how they are pronounced.

Just out of interest, why would it not be a bad thing to have all children speaking the Queen's english?

It can be somewhat difficult to clearly understand some of the broader English accents, especially for foreigners, so an ability to also be able to speak in Queens (or newsreader) English can be nothing but an advantage.

 

jb

[Phanerothyme]

I think common sense tells you that it would make writing easier if children only had to know the phoneme/grapheme correspondences and were able apply the logic to whatever word they liked.

Common sense tells me that teaching them Esperanto would be even easier for them. Why not esperanto?

 

The problem with complete phonetic correlation is that you end up with so many ambiguities. Practice and practise being a particularly apposite example.

 

And then you have problems like Rose, Rows & Roes. Sure, words like Loughborough aren't exactly obvious, but an obvious language will lack the nuances and fine distinctions that are the trademark of English.

 

What you are proposing is a kind of "simplified english". At what point do you stop simplifiying it.

 

But ultimately, you can give up on any notion of centralised language control, because it doesn't work. Ever. Look at the Académie française for an example.

Obviously there are a lot of children who are able to grasp the language, but there are also many which can write but have no confidence in their abilities to spell properly, despite often logical measures when choosing how they spell things.

 

Some people just aren't good at spelling, and in my experience it tends not to be "hard to spell" words that are the difficulty, but ones they've only heard before - so you see a lot of "I would of", "Parfer the course", "Here Here" etc .

 

Good spelling is really a matter of reading, reading, reading. If you don't love language, you're not incented to be particular about spelling. But language is so much more than reading and writing - language is your primary tool for thinking and conceptualising and deliberate simplification of the language could have unforeseen circumstances.

 

It's no accident that the world is so Anglophonic.

 

Just out of interest, why would it not be a bad thing to have all children speaking the Queen's english?

Because it's simply one of many English dialects.

[pintor]

We shouldn,t have to change because the kids, or teachers that teach them can,t be bothered to learn the hard way!. I still can,t believe the amount of kids that leave school these days that can,t read or write properly, I,m no brilliant scholar but no one blames the teachers who they (the pupils),have been taught by over the years.

[Phanerothyme]

It's pretty much too late by the time the teachers get hold of them. Parents who don't read to their children, take their children to the library, and read along with their children and instil in their kids a love of reading and language are the problem.

[Hammerstein]

Common sense tells me that teaching them Esperanto would be even easier for them. Why not esperanto?

 

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

The problem with complete phonetic correlation is that you end up with so many ambiguities. Practice and practise being a particularly apposite example.

 

Yeah that's true. Looks like it'd all be far more trouble than it'd be worth

 

What you are proposing is a kind of "simplified english". At what point do you stop simplifiying it.

I suppose so, although I wouldn't say it'd be a different language but just a different spelling. I wouldn't equate language itself with how you spell it. When it comes to writing, I think being comfortable expressing yourself in writing is more important than being able to spell correctly, so maybe all i'm proposing is for people to be more lenient with those that don't spell properly.

 

But language is so much more than reading and writing - language is your primary tool for thinking and conceptualising and deliberate simplification of the language could have unforeseen circumstances.

I completely agree, but I don't think it would be a simplification the language itself but rather how it is spelt. Numeration may be give an (perhaps tenuous) analogy: Consider the difference between roman numerals and those based on place value - neither numeration changes the innate nature of numbers themselves, just how they are expressed.

 

Because it's simply one of many English dialects.

That's my point - I thought they were suggested that people are encouraged to speak in Queen's english rather than how they speak naturally. That's not what was meant though - and I agree that an awareness of it is useful.

[Alcoblog]

Having trained as a primary school teacher I'm aware of the absolute ballache of trying to explain the logic behind our spellings to children. I've been wondering recently though - if writing is largely for communication then is there any issue involved in changing our written language so that there is a consistent correspondence between letters and sounds?

 

That is, every time a certain sound appears in our language it is expressed using the same letters. I figure that way children can begin to work out how to spell words based on logic rather than what is largely rote.

 

I'm aware that any change would involve a slow process, but any thoughts?

I'm going with Harestone on this. Why dumb down a language that's taken thousands of years to evolve ... just for the sake of some learning difficulties numpties who prefer 'Grand Theft Auto' and aerosol paint (or whatever) to a good book.

 

I'm certainly no expert on the English language, as it contains many others ... I permanently keep my well worn dictionary to my side though and enjoy discovering new words (and how they were formulated)

 

Surely, as a teacher (of English?), you must derive some sort of pleasure from teaching? Teaching phonetically, or text-speak is not the way to go. Although I'm not a big fan, I'd presume the millions of children who've been inspired to write (or read) by JK Rowling may agree with me.