It is a narrow minded person who thinks there is only one way to spell a word.
My grammar gripe is folks who don’t know the objective from subjective pronouns. Specifically when it comes to prepositional phrases! My GAWD, the years I spent diagramming sentences!
“Between you and I” is so commonplace, I guess square pegs are being pounded into round holes.
And I have been known to uncontrollably weep at the dreadful word “alright.”
goes off to get comfortable in the dinosaur bones
~VOW
Eh, grammar is still important but spelling is nowhere near as important as it used to be.
Spellcheck has done to spelling that calculators have done to math.
I know that statement ruffles the feathers of old people, but it is what it is.
Thankfully, the reading wars seem to be over. For now. Who knows when someone will create a fabulous, new method to teach literacy that isn’t about teaching but making the authors and publisher money.
But the whole language vs. pure phonics seems to be over. Phonics is taught in primary grades, but vocabulary must be taught right alongside it. Being able to pronounce words is useless if you don’t know what the word means. Conversely, children just can’t memorize every word in the English language and need to be able to decode them.
Spelling is not the most important aspect of writing in the younger grades, because if a child cannot spell the simplest words, they can never get any ideas on paper. So let them use invented spelling, and then teach them how to spell the words. Same with grammar. Tell me your ideas, and let me help you turn them into sentences that other people can understand.
Our 2nd grade spelling lists are based on phonics. All the words of the week have the same vowel sound. Students need to memorize which spelling of that sound for each word.
For older students, they should be corrected but not penalized unless that is the lesson. Is the class English or History?
For Internet posts, unless the writing is illegible it can be an annoyance but not world-ending. Except for the ones who have glaring errors while telling everyone how much smarter they are.
Not always. My PhD thesis advisor was a notoriously bad speller. In his specialty (homological algebra, if you care), the word kernel came up all the time. And every time, every time, he would write on the blackboard k-e-r-n, long hesitation, then a-l. He knew that he always misspelled it and seemed to go through something like, “Well, I think it is an e but I always do it wrong, so I’ll try an a.” Did I mention he did this every time.
Once he wrote, “Having choosen [whatever]”, titter in the classroom; finally someone corrects him and he continues, “we now chose…” Once he wrote “devision”. But he was a fine mathematician who just could not spell.
I am generally a decent speller, not as good as my wife, but decent. Still I consider it a relatively minor ability. Like good handwriting. Mainly it marks how poorly English spelling represents the pronunciation.
Well, the whole point of phonics is that the learner already knows a word–already knows how to pronounce it. The word is part of the child’s spoken vocabulary already, and that previous knowledge is used to facilitate learning how the word is represented in print.
I’ve noticed that many people don’t seem to understand that. They think that the learner is somehow acquiring new vocabulary with phonics, by simply making sounds with her mouth. By extension, then, they assume that reading is simply the process of figuring out the “sounds” represented on a page or screen. Research on the cognition of reading showed long ago that proficient reading is much more than that, and that phonics alone can only be an initial bridge which gets the learner just so far.
I was just going to post this. My son would be the same age as your daughter. In first grade, he was in the class that was experimenting with Whole Language. First grade is when you learn the foundation for reading and writing. Whole language lets the kids spell words however they wanted. The parents were told how wonderful it was going to be. The kids could be creative without fearing a bad grade. The kids had to keep a daily journal in class. He would bring them home every month or so. I could barely pick out a word or two on each page that I recognized! It was the worst year - just wasted. How I wish I would have pulled him out of there. :smack: For the next few years he had to go to special classes to catch up on reading and spelling. We had to practice at home every evening. After all of that, he hated reading. He never read a book for enjoyment. That hurt my heart - I’ve always loved reading. Not liking to read affects everything else you do.
That was the first and last year the school used that method of teaching.
Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, even StraightDope? Yes, I might judge somebody a bit when they write something incorrectly. But I’m not going to worry about it too much.
Coworker using “u” in Instant Message? Yep, my opinion of them is going down the tubes. It’s only 2 more letters.
For non-native speakers, flexible spelling and word choice makes it more difficult for the reader to understand the message. Google translate is able to compensate for a lot of writing errors, but it takes time.
My favorites at this point in time?
googles instead of goggles
scrapping instead of scraping
Many people won’t even notice the errors. But it certainly makes translation difficult.
“The sun is shinning”—ah, so that’s how it climbs up the sky.
There’s nothing new about spelling errors, and people don’t spell any worse than they have done throughout history. This is a myth.
I’m sure the main reason threads like this constantly come up (which inevitably devolve into random pet peeves) is that with digital communications people are putting informal language increasingly into text, and those communications are more readily shared. You know those letters in you see in Civil War documentaries? They’re props, with the spelling errors corrected. Actual unpublished (non-professional) written communications in the past were no different from what we’re seeing today.
It has nothing to do with teaching methodologies, either. The fact has always been that standard writing is highly conventionalized–it’s a long process of gradual socialization (extending well beyond phonics or whole language, or even high school), and historically most people haven’t had the need to go through that. Those who have gone through that socialization forget how long it takes, and that they, too, made errors at one time. Unlike speech, writing is artificial–no one is born with a natural ability to become an accurate writer.
Elizabeth Wardle in the Chronicle of Higher Education (“What Critics of Student Writing Get Wrong,” Aug 30, 2019–sorry, paywall) points out the “students-today-can’t-write-like-they-used-to” myth:
She notes (referring to David’s Russell’s research on the history writing at American universities), the periodic alarms that come out–in magazines, etc.–that “Johnny Can’t Write,” and so on, like a broken record over the decades.
That “golden age” is in your head, and it’s really more just self-flattery to decry how developing writers haven’t gotten as far as you.
Right. Strunk, the guy of Strunk and White, first wrote his manual for freshman at Cornell, back in the days when only a tiny percentage of the elite went to college. Spelling wasn’t included but everything else was the most basic conceivable instruction in how to write an English sentence.
Everything people complain about today, as guizot said, is because we now see the everyday writing skills of 90% of the public. Back when I was a kid nobody but schoolteachers did. And they weren’t happy with what they saw.
Stitch a sampler with 'NOTHING EVER CHANGES" and stare at it before complaining about how modern things are worse than they used to be. They aren’t. We are living in the best times humanity has ever seen.
And that’s coming from an old curmudgeon and pessimist.
It was 1996 when I first got on the internet. That was the year when the true extent of poor spelling was revealed to me. Almost everything I’d read until then had been edited for publication.
I still haven’t recovered from the dismay.
If you revere Strunk & White, think again.
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice
http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/50years.pdf
My sentiments exactly, although I didn’t get on the internet until 2000.
I believe there tends to be a strong correlation between poor spelling and poor grammar with poor information in general. If someone is too lazy or careless to bother to write comprehensibly, they are not likely to be well-read or to have fact-checked multiple sources of reliable information before opining on their pet issues in online media that potentially have worldwide exposure. The internet has been the egregious enabler of all of this.
Broad generalizations about how “things” are better or worse aren’t very meaningful. What things, specifically? Technology has brought tremendous improvements to our lives but not everything is universally better. Churchill reputedly said that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on, and the internet has amplified that a million-fold. Responsible journalism is dying while Facebook and Twitter are thriving.
Meh. People love to nitpick Strunk & White and mostly for all the wrong reasons. Even your link doesn’t object to the style elements. I’ve always held that people who need advice are much better off heeding Strunk & White than reading nothing at all. And few alternatives that people will actually read, rather than the extremely short S&W, are any better.
None of that, however, is relevant to my point. Which is that ELITE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS GOING TO COLLEGE 100 YEARS AGO REQUIRED BASIC INSTRUCTION TO PUT TOGETHER A DECENT ENGLISH SENTENCE.
Definitely not Churchill. Much, much older. The Internet could have told you that.
Thanks for the correction. I was probably recalling an instance when Churchill said it, thinking that he had originated it.
As for Strunk & White, I see it’s commentary from Riemann’s pal Geoff Pullum again. I enjoy reading Pullum but the man is something of a natural-born contrarian. He reminds me of Richard Lindzen, a former atmospheric physicist at MIT who was a competent climate scientist but enjoyed being a climate change denier in his spare time because, as far as I could tell, it was fun and got lots of reaction. The thing about S&W is that if you know how to write well, you can break many of those rules and still produce excellent writing, which in fact is true of many grammar rules in general. But if you don’t, it’s a useful guide. At least Pullum admits that E.B. White was a wonderful writer. He was a staffer and contributor to the venerable New Yorker for nearly 60 years, and became a legend among its writers and editorial staff.
But what’s relevant to a thread about grammar is that they are clearly shit at understanding grammatical structure, which kind of undermines their credentials for teaching it.
What I find remarkable is that someone who is “shit at understanding grammatical structure” could be regarded as a beautiful and legendary writer at one of the world’s greatest literary magazines. Maybe you’re taking your pal Pullum’s contrarianism a bit too seriously. Sometimes Pullum reminds me of Angus McAllister, the fictional hot-headed Scot gardener in the Wodehouse Blandings novels. 