"English as She is"—Spelt

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23281, 25 February 1939, Page 6 (Supplement)

"English as She is"—Spelt

What Is Wrong With Our Education System?

FOR years the merest slip of a girl has been able to turn the strongest business man pale with anguish by presenting him with a business letter gaily setting out her unorthodox ideas on spelling and punctuation. Even the Auckland Hospital Board recently gave publicity to the fact that examination papers submitted to it were badly misspelt, and set the town wondering afresh why it is chat so few people nowadays can really spell correctly. But, although business executives had groaned to me tor years about the trials of mis-spelling typistes, it was not until L taught for a time at a secondary school that I realised just how common the fault really is. First-year pupils had a system of spelling which was peculiarly their own I and not that of Daniel Webster or the Oxford Dictionary. The results were as appalling and exasperating as they were sometimes humorous. Many of the errors were logical, of course —"develup" (develop), "bonis" (bonus), "defisit" (deficit), and so on. Others were caused through carelessness or indifference, and a very large proportion because the words were spelt according to their sound. Is Phonetic Spelling to Blame? That led me to the theory that a good deal of the trouble in regard to spelling is caused by the fact that children are now taught phonetically instead of by the old-fashioned alphabetical method. Admittedly, at an early age they can read lengthy words, but what advantage is this when they don't know the meaning of what they are saying? Instead of having a mental picture of a word, they have only a "sound" memory of it, and their spelling is governed accordingly. One teacher, with a lifetime of experience, supported this idea when I ventured to put it to him. Others hotlydisagreed, but even more agreed again. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that although such admirable work is done to-day in schools to develop a love of English literature and to make it vital instead of "dry," spelling and punctuation have become extremely poor. Part of the fault, perhaps, lies in the rapidity with which life is lived to-day. Reading is done in snatches, Ave have no time to concentrate; we must rush rush, rush. We skim over newspaper headlines and, when we do read books, gulp them down whole, instead of digesting them mentally. How can we expect to assimilate anything properly under such circumstances? Thorough genuine readers unconsciously acquire a knowledge of spelling and punctuation; "rush" readers do not —and most of us come into the "rush" category to-day. Distractions, too, are so numerous. Radio, sport, amusements, a desire to be "on the move and on the go"-—all

By UNA AULD

take,their share of time, even the time of adolescents and school children. Often when we do read, it is with one eve on the book and one ear on the radio—which may be. enjoyable but is not particularly helpful nor conducive to concentration. International Influences Then again, much of our thought, speech and even spelling to-day are coloured by the international influences which touch us at every point. American publications and the talkies, for instance, are blamed for much of our slang and slovenly spelling. On the other hand, it is interesting to look on the other side of the fence and see what a noted American, the everprovocative H. L, Mencken, has to say on the subject of the Americanisation of English. He admits, for instance, that the English, "taking one with another, may be said to write better than we (Americans) do. But what they write . . . lacks novelty, variety, audacity. Herein lies the fundamental reason for the introduction of so many Americanisms into British English. They are adopted in England simply because England has nothing so apt or pungent to offer in competition with them." Confronted by the same novelty as an Englishman, the American, he claims, manages to produce a name for it "that not only describes it but also illuminates it, whereas the English . . . merely . . . catalogue it." Strong words! But to illustrate them he gives some comparisons of English and American terms. "For the casting which guides the wheels (of a locomotive) from one rail to another," he says, "the English coined the depress-ingly-obvious name of 'crossing-plate.' The Americans, setting their imaginations free, called it a 'frog.' 'Shockabsorber' is vastly better than 'anti- . bounce clip,' and 'chain store' than 'multiple shop.' " As for "lounge lizard," in front of this, he asserts, "Horace Annesley Vachell fell silent like Sir Isaac Newton on the seashore, overwhelmed by the solemn grandeur of the linguistic universe." All this, of course, has less to do with spelling than with language, and we come back to the depressing fact that, whatever our expressions, Americanised or otherwise, our spelling generally is poor. Yet there is a defence, and the following doggrell puts it neatly:— "When words you speak, these words are spoken, but a nose is tweaked and -can't be twoken, and what you seek is seldom soken. "If we forget, then we've forgotten; but things we wet are never wotten, and houses let cannot be lotten. "The goods one sells are always sold, but fears dispelled are not dispold, and what you smell is never smold." Perhaps this inconsistency explains a lotl »