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