0:00:00.861,0:00:05.222
We lost a lot of time at school[br]learning spelling.

0:00:05.964,0:00:11.969
Kids are still losing a lot of time[br]at school with spelling.

0:00:12.585,0:00:16.236
That's why I want to share[br]a question with you:

0:00:17.720,0:00:20.831
Do we need new spelling rules?

0:00:21.572,0:00:23.866
I believe that yes, we do.

0:00:23.890,0:00:28.520
Or even better, I think we need[br]to simplify the ones we already have.

0:00:29.187,0:00:33.465
Neither the question nor the answer[br]are new in the Spanish language.

0:00:33.489,0:00:37.703
They have been bouncing around[br]from century to century

0:00:37.727,0:00:43.330
since 1492, when in the first grammar[br]guide of the Spanish language,

0:00:43.354,0:00:49.096
Antonio de Nebrija, set a clear and simple[br]principle for our spelling:

0:00:49.120,0:00:52.039
"... thus, we have to write words[br]as we pronounce them,

0:00:52.063,0:00:54.443
and pronounce words as we write them."

0:00:54.467,0:00:57.769
Each sound was to correspond[br]to one letter,

0:00:57.793,0:01:01.118
each letter was to represent[br]a single sound,

0:01:01.142,0:01:06.345
and those which did not represent[br]any sound should be removed.

0:01:07.517,0:01:09.972
This approach, the phonetic approach,

0:01:09.996,0:01:13.613
which says we have to write[br]words as we pronounce them,

0:01:13.637,0:01:18.346
both is and isn't at the root of spelling[br]as we practice it today.

0:01:18.901,0:01:24.402
It is, because the Spanish language,[br]in contrast to English, French or others,

0:01:24.426,0:01:29.737
always strongly resisted[br]writing words too differently

0:01:29.761,0:01:31.459
to how we pronounce them.

0:01:31.483,0:01:33.752
But the phonetic approach[br]is also absent today,

0:01:33.776,0:01:37.112
because when, in the 18th century,[br]we decided how we would standardize

0:01:37.136,0:01:38.348
our writing,

0:01:38.372,0:01:42.385
there was another approach which guided[br]a good part of the decisions.

0:01:42.409,0:01:45.251
It was the etymological approach,

0:01:45.275,0:01:47.468
the one that says we have to write words

0:01:47.492,0:01:50.646
according to how they were written[br]in their original language,

0:01:50.670,0:01:52.212
in Latin, in Greek.

0:01:52.236,0:01:57.036
That's how we ended up with silent H's,[br]which we write but don't pronounce.

0:01:57.060,0:02:02.348
That's how we have B's and V's that,[br]contrary to what many people believe,

0:02:02.372,0:02:06.039
were never differentiated[br]in Spanish pronunciation.

0:02:06.460,0:02:08.508
That's how we wound up with G's,

0:02:08.532,0:02:11.213
that are sometimes aspirated,[br]as in "gente,"

0:02:11.237,0:02:13.618
and other times unaspirated, as in "gato."

0:02:13.642,0:02:17.152
That's how we ended up[br]with C's, S's and Z's,

0:02:17.990,0:02:21.218
three letters that in some places[br]correspond to one sound,

0:02:21.242,0:02:24.207
and in others, to two,[br]but nowhere to three.

0:02:25.800,0:02:30.778
I'm not here to tell you anything[br]you don't know from your own experience.

0:02:31.368,0:02:34.317
We all went to school,

0:02:34.341,0:02:38.988
we all invested big amounts[br]of learning time,

0:02:39.012,0:02:43.710
big amounts of pliant,[br]childlike brain time

0:02:43.734,0:02:45.341
in dictation,

0:02:45.365,0:02:50.396
in the memorization of spelling rules[br]filled, nevertheless, with exceptions.

0:02:50.919,0:02:54.706
We were told in many ways,[br]implicitly and explicitly,

0:02:54.730,0:03:00.420
that in spelling, something fundamental[br]to our upbringing was at stake.

0:03:01.261,0:03:03.562
Yet, I have the feeling

0:03:03.586,0:03:07.221
that teachers didn't ask themselves[br]why it was so important.

0:03:07.245,0:03:10.373
In fact, they didn't ask themselves[br]a previous question:

0:03:10.397,0:03:12.939
What is the purpose of spelling?

0:03:13.993,0:03:16.865
What do we need spelling for?

0:03:18.619,0:03:21.536
And the truth is, when someone[br]asks themselves this question,

0:03:21.560,0:03:24.649
the answer is much simpler[br]and less momentous

0:03:24.673,0:03:26.106
than we'd usually believe.

0:03:26.672,0:03:33.391
We use spelling to unify the way we write,[br]so we can all write the same way,

0:03:33.415,0:03:37.773
making it easier for us to understand[br]when we read to each other.

0:03:38.407,0:03:43.979
But unlike in other aspects of language[br]such as punctuation,

0:03:44.003,0:03:50.102
in spelling, there's no[br]individual expression involved.

0:03:50.126,0:03:51.570
In punctuation, there is.

0:03:52.117,0:03:56.073
With punctuation, I can choose[br]to change the meaning of a phrase.

0:03:56.097,0:04:01.522
With punctuation, I can impose[br]a particular rhythm to what I am writing,

0:04:01.546,0:04:03.785
but not with spelling.

0:04:03.809,0:04:07.386
When it comes to spelling,[br]it's either wrong or right,

0:04:07.410,0:04:11.004
according to whether it conforms[br]or not to the current rules.

0:04:11.694,0:04:17.048
But then, wouldn't it be more sensible[br]to simplify the current rules

0:04:17.072,0:04:23.044
so it would be easier to teach, learn[br]and use spelling correctly?

0:04:23.678,0:04:28.185
Wouldn't it be more sensible[br]to simplify the current rules

0:04:28.209,0:04:33.561
so that all the time we devote today[br]to teaching spelling,

0:04:33.585,0:04:36.653
we could devote to other language issues

0:04:36.677,0:04:40.644
whose complexities do, in fact,[br]deserve the time and effort?

0:04:42.433,0:04:47.397
What I propose is not to abolish spelling,

0:04:47.421,0:04:51.413
and have everyone write however they want.

0:04:51.878,0:04:55.798
Language is a tool of common usage,

0:04:55.822,0:05:01.154
and so I believe it's fundamental[br]that we use it following common criteria.

0:05:01.609,0:05:03.781
But I also find it fundamental

0:05:03.805,0:05:08.151
that those common criteria[br]be as simple as possible,

0:05:08.175,0:05:12.009
especially because[br]if we simplify our spelling,

0:05:12.033,0:05:14.846
we're not leveling it down;

0:05:14.870,0:05:17.543
when spelling is simplified,

0:05:17.567,0:05:21.345
the quality of the language[br]doesn't suffer at all.

0:05:22.109,0:05:26.018
I work every day with Spanish[br]Golden Age literature,

0:05:26.042,0:05:29.646
I read Garcilaso, Cervantes,[br]Góngora, Quevedo,

0:05:29.670,0:05:32.617
who sometimes write "hombre" without H,

0:05:32.641,0:05:35.869
sometimes write "escribir" with V,

0:05:35.893,0:05:38.332
and it's absolutely clear to me

0:05:38.356,0:05:43.757
that the difference between those texts[br]and ours is one of convention,

0:05:43.781,0:05:47.374
or rather, a lack of convention[br]during their time.

0:05:47.398,0:05:49.427
But it's not a difference of quality.

0:05:50.344,0:05:52.768
But let me go back to the masters,

0:05:52.792,0:05:56.146
because they're key characters[br]in this story.

0:05:56.170,0:06:01.611
Earlier, I mentioned this slightly[br]thoughtless insistence

0:06:01.635,0:06:04.549
with which teachers pester and pester us

0:06:04.573,0:06:06.073
over spelling.

0:06:06.097,0:06:09.569
But the truth is,[br]things being as they are,

0:06:09.593,0:06:11.885
this makes perfect sense.

0:06:11.909,0:06:17.248
In our society, spelling serves[br]as an index of privilege,

0:06:17.272,0:06:21.660
separating the cultured from the brute,[br]the educated from the ignorant,

0:06:21.684,0:06:26.672
independent of the content[br]that's being written.

0:06:26.696,0:06:30.007
One can get or not get a job

0:06:30.031,0:06:32.700
because of an H that one put or did not.

0:06:32.724,0:06:35.913
One can become[br]an object of public ridicule

0:06:35.937,0:06:38.588
because of a misplaced B.

0:06:38.612,0:06:40.788
Therefore, in this context,

0:06:40.812,0:06:45.885
of course, it makes sense to dedicate[br]all this time to spelling.

0:06:45.909,0:06:48.447
But we shouldn't forget

0:06:48.471,0:06:50.671
that throughout the history[br]of our language,

0:06:50.695,0:06:52.635
it has always been teachers

0:06:52.659,0:06:56.584
or people involved[br]in the early learning of language

0:06:56.608,0:06:59.128
who promoted spelling reforms,

0:06:59.152,0:07:03.591
who realized that in our spelling[br]there was often an obstacle

0:07:03.615,0:07:06.004
to the transmission of knowledge.

0:07:06.028,0:07:07.695
In our case, for example,

0:07:07.719,0:07:12.272
Sarmiento, together with Andrés Bello,[br]spearheaded the biggest spelling reform

0:07:12.296,0:07:15.701
to take place in the Spanish language:

0:07:15.725,0:07:20.235
the mid-19th century Chilean reform.

0:07:21.894,0:07:26.355
Then, why not take over[br]the task of those teachers

0:07:26.379,0:07:29.772
and start making progress in our spelling?

0:07:29.796,0:07:33.048
Here, in this intimate group of 10,000,

0:07:33.072,0:07:34.626
I'd like to bring to the table

0:07:34.650,0:07:39.121
some changes that I find reasonable[br]to start discussing.

0:07:40.207,0:07:42.575
Let's remove the silent H.

0:07:42.599,0:07:47.687
In places where we write an H[br]but pronounce nothing,

0:07:47.711,0:07:49.002
let's not write anything.

0:07:49.026,0:07:50.042
(Applause)

0:07:50.066,0:07:52.704
It's hard for me to imagine[br]what sentimental attachment

0:07:52.728,0:07:57.719
can justify to someone[br]all the hassle caused by the silent H.

0:07:57.743,0:08:00.088
B and V, as we said before,

0:08:00.112,0:08:02.982
were never differentiated[br]in the Spanish language --

0:08:03.006,0:08:04.023
(Applause)

0:08:04.047,0:08:07.352
Let's choose one; it could be either.[br]We can discuss it, talk it over.

0:08:07.376,0:08:11.006
Everyone will have their preferences[br]and can make their arguments.

0:08:11.030,0:08:13.874
Let's keep one, remove the other.

0:08:13.898,0:08:16.905
G and J, let's separate their roles.

0:08:16.929,0:08:21.351
G should keep the unaspirated sound,[br]like in "gato," "mago," and "águila,"

0:08:21.375,0:08:24.671
and J should keep the aspirated sound,

0:08:24.695,0:08:29.589
as in "jarabe," "jirafa,"[br]"gente," "argentino."

0:08:30.441,0:08:35.769
The case of C, S and Z is interesting,

0:08:35.793,0:08:39.630
because it shows that the phonetic[br]approach must be a guide,

0:08:39.654,0:08:42.719
but it can't be an absolute principle.

0:08:42.743,0:08:47.502
In some cases, the differences[br]in pronunciation must be addressed.

0:08:47.526,0:08:50.432
As I said before, C, S and Z,

0:08:50.456,0:08:53.798
in some places, correspond[br]to one sound, in others to two.

0:08:53.822,0:08:59.008
If we go from three letters[br]to two, we're all better off.

0:09:00.247,0:09:05.117
To some, these changes[br]may seem a bit drastic.

0:09:05.141,0:09:07.322
They're really not.

0:09:07.346,0:09:10.609
The Royal Spanish Academy,[br]all of language academies,

0:09:10.633,0:09:15.538
also believes that spelling[br]should be progressively modified;

0:09:15.562,0:09:20.448
that language is linked to history,[br]tradition and custom,

0:09:20.472,0:09:25.095
but that at the same time,[br]it is a practical everyday tool

0:09:25.119,0:09:30.013
and that sometimes this attachment[br]to history, tradition and custom

0:09:30.037,0:09:35.121
becomes an obstacle for its current usage.

0:09:35.619,0:09:37.728
Indeed, this explains the fact

0:09:37.752,0:09:44.705
that our language, much more than[br]the others we are geographically close to,

0:09:44.729,0:09:48.257
has been historically[br]modifying itself based on us,

0:09:48.281,0:09:51.935
for example, we went[br]from "ortographia" to "ortografía,"

0:09:51.959,0:09:56.060
from "theatro" to "teatro,"[br]from "quantidad" to "cantidad,"

0:09:56.084,0:09:58.472
from "symbolo" to "símbolo."

0:09:58.496,0:10:03.903
And some silent H's are slowly[br]being stealthily removed:

0:10:03.927,0:10:06.167
in the Dictionary of the Royal Academy,

0:10:06.191,0:10:11.983
"arpa" and "armonía" can be written[br]with or without an H.

0:10:12.007,0:10:13.507
And everybody is OK.

0:10:15.452,0:10:18.200
I also believe

0:10:18.224,0:10:24.169
that this is a particularly appropriate[br]moment to have this discussion.

0:10:25.397,0:10:29.408
It's always said that language[br]changes spontaneously,

0:10:29.432,0:10:31.298
from the bottom up,

0:10:31.322,0:10:34.595
that its users are the ones[br]who incorporate new words

0:10:34.619,0:10:38.154
and who introduce grammatical changes,

0:10:38.178,0:10:41.995
and that the authority --[br]in some places an academy,

0:10:42.019,0:10:45.930
in others a dictionary,[br]in others a ministry --

0:10:45.954,0:10:49.780
accepts and incorporates them[br]long after the fact.

0:10:50.576,0:10:54.224
This is true only[br]for some levels of language.

0:10:54.248,0:10:57.643
It is true on the lexical level,[br]the level of words.

0:10:57.667,0:11:00.921
It is less true on the grammatical level,

0:11:00.945,0:11:05.131
and I would almost say[br]it is not true for the spelling level,

0:11:05.155,0:11:09.196
that has historically changed[br]from the top down.

0:11:09.220,0:11:13.255
Institutions have always been the ones[br]to establish the rules

0:11:13.279,0:11:15.619
and propose changes.

0:11:17.143,0:11:21.933
Why do I say this is a particularly[br]appropriate moment?

0:11:21.957,0:11:23.325
Until today,

0:11:23.349,0:11:29.489
writing always had a much more restricted[br]and private use than speech.

0:11:30.118,0:11:34.592
But in our time,[br]the age of social networks,

0:11:34.616,0:11:37.763
this is going through[br]a revolutionary change.

0:11:38.311,0:11:41.355
Never before have people written so much;

0:11:41.379,0:11:45.927
never before have people written[br]for so many others to see.

0:11:46.536,0:11:49.653
And in these social networks,[br]for the first time,

0:11:49.677,0:11:54.717
we're seeing innovative uses[br]of spelling on a large scale,

0:11:54.741,0:11:59.350
where even more-than-educated people[br]with impeccable spelling,

0:11:59.374,0:12:01.654
when using social networks,

0:12:01.678,0:12:07.227
behave a lot like the majority of users[br]of social networks behave.

0:12:07.251,0:12:10.933
That is to say, they slack[br]on spell-checking

0:12:10.957,0:12:15.792
and prioritize speed and efficacy[br]in communication.

0:12:16.309,0:12:21.740
For now, on social networks,[br]we see chaotic, individual usages.

0:12:21.764,0:12:24.781
But I think we have[br]to pay attention to them,

0:12:24.805,0:12:27.152
because they're probably telling us

0:12:27.176,0:12:31.774
that an era that designates[br]a new place for writing

0:12:31.798,0:12:36.107
seeks new criteria for that writing.

0:12:36.448,0:12:41.566
I think we'd be wrong[br]to reject them, to discard them,

0:12:41.590,0:12:46.562
because we identify them as symptoms[br]of the cultural decay of our times.

0:12:46.586,0:12:51.524
No, I believe we have to observe them,[br]organize them and channel them

0:12:51.548,0:12:57.210
within guidelines that better correspond[br]to the needs of our times.

0:12:58.741,0:13:02.473
I can anticipate some objections.

0:13:03.524,0:13:04.954
There will be those who'll say

0:13:04.978,0:13:10.088
that if we simplify spelling[br]we'll lose etymology.

0:13:10.923,0:13:14.013
Strictly speaking, if we wanted[br]to preserve etymology,

0:13:14.037,0:13:16.467
it would go beyond just spelling.

0:13:16.491,0:13:20.496
We'd also have to learn[br]Latin, Greek, Arabic.

0:13:21.239,0:13:23.870
With simplified spelling,

0:13:23.894,0:13:29.084
we would normalize etymology[br]in the same place we do now:

0:13:29.108,0:13:31.457
in etymological dictionaries.

0:13:32.117,0:13:35.124
A second objection will come[br]from those who say:

0:13:35.148,0:13:38.866
"If we simplify spelling,[br]we'll stop distinguishing

0:13:38.890,0:13:42.566
between words that differ[br]in just one letter."

0:13:42.590,0:13:46.680
That is true, but it's not a problem.

0:13:46.704,0:13:51.680
Our language has homonyms,[br]words with more than one meaning,

0:13:51.704,0:13:54.466
yet we don't confuse[br]the "banco" where we sit

0:13:54.490,0:13:56.562
with the "banco" where we deposit money,

0:13:56.586,0:13:59.835
or the "traje" that we wear[br]with the things we "trajimos."

0:13:59.859,0:14:06.498
In the vast majority of situations,[br]context dispels any confusion.

0:14:07.192,0:14:10.145
But there's a third objection.

0:14:12.102,0:14:13.274
To me,

0:14:15.053,0:14:18.498
it's the most understandable,[br]even the most moving.

0:14:18.522,0:14:21.990
It's the people who'll say:[br]"I don't want to change.

0:14:22.536,0:14:26.245
I was brought up like this,[br]I got used to doing it this way,

0:14:26.269,0:14:32.542
when I read a written word[br]in simplified spelling, my eyes hurt."

0:14:32.566,0:14:34.367
(Laughter)

0:14:34.391,0:14:39.264
This objection is, in part, in all of us.

0:14:40.183,0:14:41.672
What do I think we should do?

0:14:41.696,0:14:44.405
The same thing that's always[br]done in these cases:

0:14:44.429,0:14:49.842
changes are made looking forward;[br]children are taught the new rules,

0:14:49.866,0:14:54.399
those of us who don't want to adapt[br]can write the way we're used to writing,

0:14:54.423,0:14:58.724
and hopefully, time will cement[br]the new rules in place.

0:14:59.264,0:15:05.771
The success of every spelling reform[br]that affects deeply rooted habits

0:15:05.795,0:15:11.101
lies in caution, agreement,[br]gradualism and tolerance.

0:15:11.663,0:15:15.981
At the same time, can't allow[br]the attachment to old customs

0:15:16.005,0:15:18.320
impede us from moving forward.

0:15:18.775,0:15:22.211
The best tribute we can pay to the past

0:15:22.235,0:15:24.749
is to improve upon what it's given us.

0:15:25.255,0:15:27.828
So I believe that we must[br]reach an agreement,

0:15:27.852,0:15:30.863
that academies must reach an agreement,

0:15:30.887,0:15:33.825
and purge from our spelling rules

0:15:33.849,0:15:37.554
all the habits we practice[br]just for the sake of tradition,

0:15:37.578,0:15:39.239
even if they are useless now.

0:15:39.685,0:15:43.161
I'm convinced that if we do that

0:15:43.185,0:15:47.185
in the humble but extremely[br]important realm of language,

0:15:47.209,0:15:52.543
we'll be leaving a better future[br]to the next generations.

0:15:53.122,0:15:56.530
(Applause)