CC BY
29
THE INFLUENCE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES ON SPELLING MISTAKES (EXEMPLIFIED BY THE POLISH LANGUAGE)
R. Starz
Spelling plays an important role in communication in a society which uses an alphabetic system of writing. The author indicates the influence of information technologies (computers, and mobile phones - sending SMS messages) on the reinforcement of spelling mistakes.
Key words: spelling mistakes, information technologies.
In a society which uses an alphabetic system of writing, spelling plays an important role. "Proper spelling is one of the fundamental conditions for an effective transfer of information using written text" [Polanski 1987; 114]. Proper writing of words allows swift reading and understanding of text, and provides unambiguity and preciseness in communication with the use of writing. Moreover, "a person who makes spelling mistakes exposes themselves to ridicule, similarly to an intellectual, in whose speech influences of dialect or jargon are clear" [Saloni 1971; 463].
Admittedly, some believe that in reality the action of writing occurs relatively infrequently and concerns foremost people who are connected with it professionally and students at school [cf. Davies and Widdowson 1983; 154 and Tokarski 1978; 9]. The problem of spelling is thus more of a problem in the culture of a language or culture in general than that of communication, as improper writing does not, in general, prevent the understanding of the contents of a message (usually it impedes the process of reading).
However, the greatest interest of a society is aroused in relation to spelling at school. Many, who comment on the spelling of primary school children, emphasize the low skills that children have in this area. The situation has not changed, despite determining a relationship between the level of spelling and various factors, such as the type of memory, the ability to think logically, the kind of attention, gender, age, profession, visual impairment, intermissions in learning, the knowledge of foreign languages (mainly that of Russian), class attendance, reading, the degree of mastery of spelling rules, knowledge of grammar, grades at school, consciousness of the significance of spelling, handwriting [Polanski 1973; 91-109] and IQ [Ratajek 1977; 151]. In analysis of the reasons behind the poor state of implementing spelling rules by primary-school children, F. Nowak divides them into two following groups: (1) traditional reasonsж (2) more recent reasons [Nowak 1989; 41].
Into the traditional reasons fall: (a) too broad of a curriculum; (b) lack of language knowledge needed to understand spelling rules and use them in practice; (c) an insufficient verification of written works; (d) not recognising the influence of different types of memory on memorising spelling material; (e) the monotony of spelling exercises; (f) not paying attention to beautiful handwriting; (g) lack of interest in spelling problems from teachers of other subjects; (h) forgetting prophylaxis in teaching spelling; (j) teaching spelling based insufficiently on the interests of the schoolchildren; (k) lowered concentration of the student's attention;
147
(l) falsely understood livening up of lessons; (m) adverse outer conditions at school (e.g. desks at school unsuitable for the student's height, noise, or unsuitable temperature); (n) bad organisation of work at school; (p) an improper way of correcting spelling mistakes; (q) not paying attention to improper writing in student's draft notes [Nowak 1989; 41-59].
Newer reasons involve: (a) conscious use of spelling mistakes in the process of teaching spelling; (b) wrong spelling patterns in commercial graphics; (c) vagueness of some of the terms which can be found in spelling dictionaries (e.g. native word, borrowed word, borrowed word greatly assimilated); (d) low consciousness of spelling difficulties; (e) serious lacks in spelling didactics; (f) the instability of spelling norms; (g) vagueness and inconsistency of many of the present-day spelling norms; (h) little use of the sciences (mainly quantitative methods) in spelling didactics [Nowak 1989; 59-62]. Many authors emphasize that the low repair of spelling is due to spelling material being unsuitable for the age of the students. The presence of information technologies, such as computers and mobile phones (sending SMSes), in the lives of modern people should also be added to the newest reasons.
The Polish alphabet is based on the Latin alphabet. However, the Latin alphabet having fewer letters than phonemes in the Polish language was a problem, so joining two characters to represent one sound, e.g. cz, rz, sz and diacritics in letters such as 3, c, dz, dz, q, t, n, 0, s, z, z were used in writing. The very detailed studies (2,500 essays, and over 10,000 deviations from orthographic rules including errors and minor mistakes) [Starz 2000] allow to almost "foresee" which incorrect entries will occur in the texts of schoolchildren. The carried-out analyses have shown the existence of a relationship between orthography and the language system. First of all, the language system itself manifests orthographic difficulties. The child begins learning spelling, having usually grasped the phonetic system. First difficulties quickly arise, for as it turns out, not only can one sound be written with different letters (e.g. moze (['тэзе], maybe/can/could) and morze ([тэзе], the sea)), but also a single letter corresponds to various sounds (e.g. drzewo ([,dзevэ], a tree), and przez ([pjes], through/by/over/via)) or a set of sounds corresponds to a different set of letters, as well (e.g. szescset ([Jeeset], six hundred)). What is more, a word can sound differently in isolation (e.g. z ([z], with/of/from/in/...)), and differently in conjunction with other words (e.g. z tym ([sttm], with this/therewith)); despite this being written the same each time. Numerous possible combinations make it so that teaching/learning to write should be treated as teaching/learning a new language; all the harder, because the child has many possibilities to speak but far fewer to write and, as far as learning to speak occurs by mimicking the environment, in learning to write the schoolchild must quickly tackle many problems alone, not always having the possibility to correct an incorrect spelling.
Another orthographic problem connected with the knowledge of a language system is the matter of determining the boundaries of a word and the multifunctionality of morphemes. It is especially the multi-functionality of morphemes that does not aid the schoolchildren in acquiring the skill to determine word boundaries. Children confuse prepositions with prefixes, which is expressed, for example, in a separated spelling of verbal prefixes and a joined spelling of
148
prepositions with other parts of speech. Words originating from prepositional phrases are spelt separately because it is difficult for the children to understand that the same element in the language system fulfils different functions. The spelling of inflectional endings poses many problems for schoolchildren. It is most visible in the endings which contain literal designations of nasals. Hence, for instance, a high frequency of deviations concerning feminine nouns, especially in the Acc. of the singular.
Orthography also reveals shortcomings in mastering the language as a system. It should be considered whether in case of orthography it would be advisable to speak of two language systems, the system of the written language and the system of the spoken language, and the mutual relationships between these structural models. Then orthography would be an element linking the two models. Distinction between the two systems could serve the adjustment/regulation of school knowledge about the language, which was, among others, postulated by Jan Tokarski in his paper From the borderline of methodology and linguistics [Tokarski 1967].
It seems desirable to associate the acquisition of the skill to write with the issue of bilingualism, especially in the case of children from dialectal environments.
From the carried-out research, it appears that deviations from orthographic rules have various causes. The entanglement of orthographic words in a system of other words should be considered as the main cause. These are, above all, relationships between orthographic words and phonetic-and-phonological words, and indirectly dialectal or foreign words. The overlap of different, often contradictory, rules is especially important here (e.g. say e [e], write § [e]).
A high frequency of deviations from orthographic rules commonly perceived as minor mistakes (omission of letters, replacement of letters with others, etc.) bids to investigate the matter closer.
In traditional methods of teaching spelling with the use of handwriting, visual-motor memory is dominant, leading to an automation without the use of consciousness. A person remembers the movement of the hand associated to the orthographic form of a word. Meanwhile, the use of a computer keyboard or mobile phone keypad eliminates automation, disassembles a word into letters and requires engaging consciousness, forces one to think. The manner of memorising words is also different; not as a string of characters requiring a certain movement of the hand, but as a sequences of keystrokes. Using a keyboard also increases the number of typos, especially in letter omission (not pressing a key) or using the wrong letter (pressing the neighbouring key). All the more, that these types of mistakes often go unnoticed by the writers.
One of the solutions to the problem is the possibility to choose ready words, if one enables the option to prompt words. Then, homophony (the identical pronunciation of differently written words) remains the only problem for the writer (e.g. moze ([mo3e], maybe/can/could) and morze ([mo3e], the sea)). The option of computer word correction is not always able to help the writer. The computer will not be able to handle homophony without a contextual dictionary (one that takes into consideration word connections and not singular words). It will also underline words that are not present in the dictionary, confusing the writer, who will consider the word to be misspelled.
149
However, the greatest threat to the users of the Polish language is the sending of SMSes without Polish diacritics. Frequently, their lack changes the meaning of a statement, e.g.: Pisze list (He's writing a letter). Pisz§ list (I'm writing a letter). Kup wode in an SMS can be read as Kup wod§ (Buy water) or as Kup wod§ (Buy vodka), where wod§ is the augmentative of wodka (vodka).
Frequent failure to use diacritics reinforces the lack of their presence in the consciousness of the writer, and this in turn may influence the number of spelling mistakes made.
In summary, the presence of information technology in people's lives requires changes in the methodology of teaching spelling; even more so, that modern humans use mobile phones and computers throughout all of their lives.
Bibliography
Davies A., Widdowson H. G. (1983), Czytanie i pisanie, w: Kurs edynburski j^zykoznawstwa stosowanego, t. II. Techniki w j^zykoznawstwie stosowanym, Warszawa, s. 132-157.
Nowak F. (1989), Metoda statystyczna (kwantytatywna) w nauczaniu ortografii, cz. I, Bydgoszcz.
Polanski E. (1973), Badania nad ortografii uczniow, Katowice.
Polanski E. (1987), Dydaktyka ortografii i interpunkcji, Warszawa.
Ratajek Z. (1977), Funkcja diagnostyczna prac pisemnych w nauczaniu j^zyka polskiego, Kielce.
Saloni Z. (1971), O ortografii wypracowan, „Poradnik J^zykowy”, z. 5, s. 462-471.
Starz R. (2000), Odchylenia od norm ortograficznych w wypracowaniach uczniow w wieku 1014 lat, Kielce 2000.
Tokarski J. (1967), Z pogranicza metodyki i j^zykoznawstwa, Warszawa.
Tokarski J. (1978), Traktat o ortografii polskiej, Warszawa.
150
