Return to Video

Why don't we write words the way we pronounce them?

  • 0:01 - 0:05
    We lost a lot of time at school
    learning spelling.
  • 0:06 - 0:12
    Kids are still losing a lot of time
    at school with spelling.
  • 0:13 - 0:16
    That's why I want to share
    a question with you:
  • 0:18 - 0:21
    Do we need new spelling rules?
  • 0:22 - 0:24
    I believe that yes, we do.
  • 0:24 - 0:29
    Or even better, I think we need
    to simplify the ones we already have.
  • 0:29 - 0:33
    Neither the question nor the answer
    are new in the Spanish language.
  • 0:33 - 0:38
    They have been bouncing around
    from century to century
  • 0:38 - 0:43
    since 1492, when in the first grammar
    guide of the Spanish language,
  • 0:43 - 0:49
    Antonio de Nebrija, set a clear and simple
    principle for our spelling:
  • 0:49 - 0:52
    "... thus, we have to write words
    as we pronounce them,
  • 0:52 - 0:54
    and pronounce words as we write them."
  • 0:54 - 0:58
    Each sound was to correspond
    to one letter,
  • 0:58 - 1:01
    each letter was to represent
    a single sound,
  • 1:01 - 1:06
    and those which did not represent
    any sound should be removed.
  • 1:08 - 1:10
    This approach, the phonetic approach,
  • 1:10 - 1:14
    which says we have to write
    words as we pronounce them,
  • 1:14 - 1:18
    both is and isn't at the root of spelling
    as we practice it today.
  • 1:19 - 1:24
    It is, because the Spanish language,
    in contrast to English, French or others,
  • 1:24 - 1:30
    always strongly resisted
    writing words too differently
  • 1:30 - 1:31
    to how we pronounce them.
  • 1:31 - 1:34
    But the phonetic approach
    is also absent today,
  • 1:34 - 1:37
    because when, in the 18th century,
    we decided how we would standardize
  • 1:37 - 1:38
    our writing,
  • 1:38 - 1:42
    there was another approach which guided
    a good part of the decisions.
  • 1:42 - 1:45
    It was the etymological approach,
  • 1:45 - 1:47
    the one that says we have to write words
  • 1:47 - 1:51
    according to how they were written
    in their original language,
  • 1:51 - 1:52
    in Latin, in Greek.
  • 1:52 - 1:57
    That's how we ended up with silent H's,
    which we write but don't pronounce.
  • 1:57 - 2:02
    That's how we have B's and V's that,
    contrary to what many people believe,
  • 2:02 - 2:06
    were never differentiated
    in Spanish pronunciation.
  • 2:06 - 2:09
    That's how we wound up with G's,
  • 2:09 - 2:11
    that are sometimes aspirated,
    as in "gente,"
  • 2:11 - 2:14
    and other times unaspirated, as in "gato."
  • 2:14 - 2:17
    That's how we ended up
    with C's, S's and Z's,
  • 2:18 - 2:21
    three letters that in some places
    correspond to one sound,
  • 2:21 - 2:24
    and in others, to two,
    but nowhere to three.
  • 2:26 - 2:31
    I'm not here to tell you anything
    you don't know from your own experience.
  • 2:31 - 2:34
    We all went to school,
  • 2:34 - 2:39
    we all invested big amounts
    of learning time,
  • 2:39 - 2:44
    big amounts of pliant,
    childlike brain time
  • 2:44 - 2:45
    in dictation,
  • 2:45 - 2:50
    in the memorization of spelling rules
    filled, nevertheless, with exceptions.
  • 2:51 - 2:55
    We were told in many ways,
    implicitly and explicitly,
  • 2:55 - 3:00
    that in spelling, something fundamental
    to our upbringing was at stake.
  • 3:01 - 3:04
    Yet, I have the feeling
  • 3:04 - 3:07
    that teachers didn't ask themselves
    why it was so important.
  • 3:07 - 3:10
    In fact, they didn't ask themselves
    a previous question:
  • 3:10 - 3:13
    What is the purpose of spelling?
  • 3:14 - 3:17
    What do we need spelling for?
  • 3:19 - 3:22
    And the truth is, when someone
    asks themselves this question,
  • 3:22 - 3:25
    the answer is much simpler
    and less momentous
  • 3:25 - 3:26
    than we'd usually believe.
  • 3:27 - 3:33
    We use spelling to unify the way we write,
    so we can all write the same way,
  • 3:33 - 3:38
    making it easier for us to understand
    when we read to each other.
  • 3:38 - 3:44
    But unlike in other aspects of language
    such as punctuation,
  • 3:44 - 3:50
    in spelling, there's no
    individual expression involved.
  • 3:50 - 3:52
    In punctuation, there is.
  • 3:52 - 3:56
    With punctuation, I can choose
    to change the meaning of a phrase.
  • 3:56 - 4:02
    With punctuation, I can impose
    a particular rhythm to what I am writing,
  • 4:02 - 4:04
    but not with spelling.
  • 4:04 - 4:07
    When it comes to spelling,
    it's either wrong or right,
  • 4:07 - 4:11
    according to whether it conforms
    or not to the current rules.
  • 4:12 - 4:17
    But then, wouldn't it be more sensible
    to simplify the current rules
  • 4:17 - 4:23
    so it would be easier to teach, learn
    and use spelling correctly?
  • 4:24 - 4:28
    Wouldn't it be more sensible
    to simplify the current rules
  • 4:28 - 4:34
    so that all the time we devote today
    to teaching spelling,
  • 4:34 - 4:37
    we could devote to other language issues
  • 4:37 - 4:41
    whose complexities do, in fact,
    deserve the time and effort?
  • 4:42 - 4:47
    What I propose is not to abolish spelling,
  • 4:47 - 4:51
    and have everyone write however they want.
  • 4:52 - 4:56
    Language is a tool of common usage,
  • 4:56 - 5:01
    and so I believe it's fundamental
    that we use it following common criteria.
  • 5:02 - 5:04
    But I also find it fundamental
  • 5:04 - 5:08
    that those common criteria
    be as simple as possible,
  • 5:08 - 5:12
    especially because
    if we simplify our spelling,
  • 5:12 - 5:15
    we're not leveling it down;
  • 5:15 - 5:18
    when spelling is simplified,
  • 5:18 - 5:21
    the quality of the language
    doesn't suffer at all.
  • 5:22 - 5:26
    I work every day with Spanish
    Golden Age literature,
  • 5:26 - 5:30
    I read Garcilaso, Cervantes,
    Góngora, Quevedo,
  • 5:30 - 5:33
    who sometimes write "hombre" without H,
  • 5:33 - 5:36
    sometimes write "escribir" with V,
  • 5:36 - 5:38
    and it's absolutely clear to me
  • 5:38 - 5:44
    that the difference between those texts
    and ours is one of convention,
  • 5:44 - 5:47
    or rather, a lack of convention
    during their time.
  • 5:47 - 5:49
    But it's not a difference of quality.
  • 5:50 - 5:53
    But let me go back to the masters,
  • 5:53 - 5:56
    because they're key characters
    in this story.
  • 5:56 - 6:02
    Earlier, I mentioned this slightly
    thoughtless insistence
  • 6:02 - 6:05
    with which teachers pester and pester us
  • 6:05 - 6:06
    over spelling.
  • 6:06 - 6:10
    But the truth is,
    things being as they are,
  • 6:10 - 6:12
    this makes perfect sense.
  • 6:12 - 6:17
    In our society, spelling serves
    as an index of privilege,
  • 6:17 - 6:22
    separating the cultured from the brute,
    the educated from the ignorant,
  • 6:22 - 6:27
    independent of the content
    that's being written.
  • 6:27 - 6:30
    One can get or not get a job
  • 6:30 - 6:33
    because of an H that one put or did not.
  • 6:33 - 6:36
    One can become
    an object of public ridicule
  • 6:36 - 6:39
    because of a misplaced B.
  • 6:39 - 6:41
    Therefore, in this context,
  • 6:41 - 6:46
    of course, it makes sense to dedicate
    all this time to spelling.
  • 6:46 - 6:48
    But we shouldn't forget
  • 6:48 - 6:51
    that throughout the history
    of our language,
  • 6:51 - 6:53
    it has always been teachers
  • 6:53 - 6:57
    or people involved
    in the early learning of language
  • 6:57 - 6:59
    who promoted spelling reforms,
  • 6:59 - 7:04
    who realized that in our spelling
    there was often an obstacle
  • 7:04 - 7:06
    to the transmission of knowledge.
  • 7:06 - 7:08
    In our case, for example,
  • 7:08 - 7:12
    Sarmiento, together with Andrés Bello,
    spearheaded the biggest spelling reform
  • 7:12 - 7:16
    to take place in the Spanish language:
  • 7:16 - 7:20
    the mid-19th century Chilean reform.
  • 7:22 - 7:26
    Then, why not take over
    the task of those teachers
  • 7:26 - 7:30
    and start making progress in our spelling?
  • 7:30 - 7:33
    Here, in this intimate group of 10,000,
  • 7:33 - 7:35
    I'd like to bring to the table
  • 7:35 - 7:39
    some changes that I find reasonable
    to start discussing.
  • 7:40 - 7:43
    Let's remove the silent H.
  • 7:43 - 7:48
    In places where we write an H
    but pronounce nothing,
  • 7:48 - 7:49
    let's not write anything.
  • 7:49 - 7:50
    (Applause)
  • 7:50 - 7:53
    It's hard for me to imagine
    what sentimental attachment
  • 7:53 - 7:58
    can justify to someone
    all the hassle caused by the silent H.
  • 7:58 - 8:00
    B and V, as we said before,
  • 8:00 - 8:03
    were never differentiated
    in the Spanish language --
  • 8:03 - 8:04
    (Applause)
  • 8:04 - 8:07
    Let's choose one; it could be either.
    We can discuss it, talk it over.
  • 8:07 - 8:11
    Everyone will have their preferences
    and can make their arguments.
  • 8:11 - 8:14
    Let's keep one, remove the other.
  • 8:14 - 8:17
    G and J, let's separate their roles.
  • 8:17 - 8:21
    G should keep the unaspirated sound,
    like in "gato," "mago," and "águila,"
  • 8:21 - 8:25
    and J should keep the aspirated sound,
  • 8:25 - 8:30
    as in "jarabe," "jirafa,"
    "gente," "argentino."
  • 8:30 - 8:36
    The case of C, S and Z is interesting,
  • 8:36 - 8:40
    because it shows that the phonetic
    approach must be a guide,
  • 8:40 - 8:43
    but it can't be an absolute principle.
  • 8:43 - 8:48
    In some cases, the differences
    in pronunciation must be addressed.
  • 8:48 - 8:50
    As I said before, C, S and Z,
  • 8:50 - 8:54
    in some places, correspond
    to one sound, in others to two.
  • 8:54 - 8:59
    If we go from three letters
    to two, we're all better off.
  • 9:00 - 9:05
    To some, these changes
    may seem a bit drastic.
  • 9:05 - 9:07
    They're really not.
  • 9:07 - 9:11
    The Royal Spanish Academy,
    all of language academies,
  • 9:11 - 9:16
    also believes that spelling
    should be progressively modified;
  • 9:16 - 9:20
    that language is linked to history,
    tradition and custom,
  • 9:20 - 9:25
    but that at the same time,
    it is a practical everyday tool
  • 9:25 - 9:30
    and that sometimes this attachment
    to history, tradition and custom
  • 9:30 - 9:35
    becomes an obstacle for its current usage.
  • 9:36 - 9:38
    Indeed, this explains the fact
  • 9:38 - 9:45
    that our language, much more than
    the others we are geographically close to,
  • 9:45 - 9:48
    has been historically
    modifying itself based on us,
  • 9:48 - 9:52
    for example, we went
    from "ortographia" to "ortografía,"
  • 9:52 - 9:56
    from "theatro" to "teatro,"
    from "quantidad" to "cantidad,"
  • 9:56 - 9:58
    from "symbolo" to "símbolo."
  • 9:58 - 10:04
    And some silent H's are slowly
    being stealthily removed:
  • 10:04 - 10:06
    in the Dictionary of the Royal Academy,
  • 10:06 - 10:12
    "arpa" and "armonía" can be written
    with or without an H.
  • 10:12 - 10:14
    And everybody is OK.
  • 10:15 - 10:18
    I also believe
  • 10:18 - 10:24
    that this is a particularly appropriate
    moment to have this discussion.
  • 10:25 - 10:29
    It's always said that language
    changes spontaneously,
  • 10:29 - 10:31
    from the bottom up,
  • 10:31 - 10:35
    that its users are the ones
    who incorporate new words
  • 10:35 - 10:38
    and who introduce grammatical changes,
  • 10:38 - 10:42
    and that the authority --
    in some places an academy,
  • 10:42 - 10:46
    in others a dictionary,
    in others a ministry --
  • 10:46 - 10:50
    accepts and incorporates them
    long after the fact.
  • 10:51 - 10:54
    This is true only
    for some levels of language.
  • 10:54 - 10:58
    It is true on the lexical level,
    the level of words.
  • 10:58 - 11:01
    It is less true on the grammatical level,
  • 11:01 - 11:05
    and I would almost say
    it is not true for the spelling level,
  • 11:05 - 11:09
    that has historically changed
    from the top down.
  • 11:09 - 11:13
    Institutions have always been the ones
    to establish the rules
  • 11:13 - 11:16
    and propose changes.
  • 11:17 - 11:22
    Why do I say this is a particularly
    appropriate moment?
  • 11:22 - 11:23
    Until today,
  • 11:23 - 11:29
    writing always had a much more restricted
    and private use than speech.
  • 11:30 - 11:35
    But in our time,
    the age of social networks,
  • 11:35 - 11:38
    this is going through
    a revolutionary change.
  • 11:38 - 11:41
    Never before have people written so much;
  • 11:41 - 11:46
    never before have people written
    for so many others to see.
  • 11:47 - 11:50
    And in these social networks,
    for the first time,
  • 11:50 - 11:55
    we're seeing innovative uses
    of spelling on a large scale,
  • 11:55 - 11:59
    where even more-than-educated people
    with impeccable spelling,
  • 11:59 - 12:02
    when using social networks,
  • 12:02 - 12:07
    behave a lot like the majority of users
    of social networks behave.
  • 12:07 - 12:11
    That is to say, they slack
    on spell-checking
  • 12:11 - 12:16
    and prioritize speed and efficacy
    in communication.
  • 12:16 - 12:22
    For now, on social networks,
    we see chaotic, individual usages.
  • 12:22 - 12:25
    But I think we have
    to pay attention to them,
  • 12:25 - 12:27
    because they're probably telling us
  • 12:27 - 12:32
    that an era that designates
    a new place for writing
  • 12:32 - 12:36
    seeks new criteria for that writing.
  • 12:36 - 12:42
    I think we'd be wrong
    to reject them, to discard them,
  • 12:42 - 12:47
    because we identify them as symptoms
    of the cultural decay of our times.
  • 12:47 - 12:52
    No, I believe we have to observe them,
    organize them and channel them
  • 12:52 - 12:57
    within guidelines that better correspond
    to the needs of our times.
  • 12:59 - 13:02
    I can anticipate some objections.
  • 13:04 - 13:05
    There will be those who'll say
  • 13:05 - 13:10
    that if we simplify spelling
    we'll lose etymology.
  • 13:11 - 13:14
    Strictly speaking, if we wanted
    to preserve etymology,
  • 13:14 - 13:16
    it would go beyond just spelling.
  • 13:16 - 13:20
    We'd also have to learn
    Latin, Greek, Arabic.
  • 13:21 - 13:24
    With simplified spelling,
  • 13:24 - 13:29
    we would normalize etymology
    in the same place we do now:
  • 13:29 - 13:31
    in etymological dictionaries.
  • 13:32 - 13:35
    A second objection will come
    from those who say:
  • 13:35 - 13:39
    "If we simplify spelling,
    we'll stop distinguishing
  • 13:39 - 13:43
    between words that differ
    in just one letter."
  • 13:43 - 13:47
    That is true, but it's not a problem.
  • 13:47 - 13:52
    Our language has homonyms,
    words with more than one meaning,
  • 13:52 - 13:54
    yet we don't confuse
    the "banco" where we sit
  • 13:54 - 13:57
    with the "banco" where we deposit money,
  • 13:57 - 14:00
    or the "traje" that we wear
    with the things we "trajimos."
  • 14:00 - 14:06
    In the vast majority of situations,
    context dispels any confusion.
  • 14:07 - 14:10
    But there's a third objection.
  • 14:12 - 14:13
    To me,
  • 14:15 - 14:18
    it's the most understandable,
    even the most moving.
  • 14:19 - 14:22
    It's the people who'll say:
    "I don't want to change.
  • 14:23 - 14:26
    I was brought up like this,
    I got used to doing it this way,
  • 14:26 - 14:33
    when I read a written word
    in simplified spelling, my eyes hurt."
  • 14:33 - 14:34
    (Laughter)
  • 14:34 - 14:39
    This objection is, in part, in all of us.
  • 14:40 - 14:42
    What do I think we should do?
  • 14:42 - 14:44
    The same thing that's always
    done in these cases:
  • 14:44 - 14:50
    changes are made looking forward;
    children are taught the new rules,
  • 14:50 - 14:54
    those of us who don't want to adapt
    can write the way we're used to writing,
  • 14:54 - 14:59
    and hopefully, time will cement
    the new rules in place.
  • 14:59 - 15:06
    The success of every spelling reform
    that affects deeply rooted habits
  • 15:06 - 15:11
    lies in caution, agreement,
    gradualism and tolerance.
  • 15:12 - 15:16
    At the same time, can't allow
    the attachment to old customs
  • 15:16 - 15:18
    impede us from moving forward.
  • 15:19 - 15:22
    The best tribute we can pay to the past
  • 15:22 - 15:25
    is to improve upon what it's given us.
  • 15:25 - 15:28
    So I believe that we must
    reach an agreement,
  • 15:28 - 15:31
    that academies must reach an agreement,
  • 15:31 - 15:34
    and purge from our spelling rules
  • 15:34 - 15:38
    all the habits we practice
    just for the sake of tradition,
  • 15:38 - 15:39
    even if they are useless now.
  • 15:40 - 15:43
    I'm convinced that if we do that
  • 15:43 - 15:47
    in the humble but extremely
    important realm of language,
  • 15:47 - 15:53
    we'll be leaving a better future
    to the next generations.
  • 15:53 - 15:57
    (Applause)
Title:
Why don't we write words the way we pronounce them?
Speaker:
Karina Galperin
Description:

How much energy and brain power do we devote to learning how to spell? Language evolves over time, and with it the way we spell -- is it worth it to spend so much time memorizing rules that are filled with endless exceptions? Literary scholar Karina Galperin suggests that it may be time for an update in the way we think about and record language. (In Spanish with English subtitles.)

more » « less
Video Language:
Spanish
Team:
TED
Project:
TEDTalks
Duration:
16:13

English subtitles

Revisions Compare revisions