Should Penmanship Return to School?

[georges zaslavsky]

In France, we were taught spelling by writing the words several times. When one made a mispelling fault after dictation, the teacher gave him a light beating on the fingers with a metallic ruler. That was 23 years ago. Now due to sms and the internet, lot of French students not only write with an atrocious spelling but have an extremely limited vocabulary. During the time I passed the A level or Baccalaureat, only 1 spelling mistake per page was tolerated that was 8 years ago. In 2002, they changed the Baccalaureat rules and 8 spelling mistakes per page was the new standard, a shame really. By lowering the difficulty of level of the baccalaureat, more people had it but it didn't make them more clever or more educated people. When you have a letter of application for a job and which is filled of spelling mistakes you ask yourself if the person is really having a high degree of education or not. I started to learn American English at age of 9 by myself and learned German at the age of 11 at school also I started to speak and write Russian at the age of 4 and I was rarely making spelling mistakes even in foreign languages. Despite I speak mainly Russian at home, I have no probs for French and English spelling and Grammar.

[KateGladstone]

Re spelling, handwriting, changing practices, and limited vocabulary — many people who fear punishment for spelling-errors/handwriting-errors limit their (written) vocabulary so that they will never risk using a word that they do not know how to spell, and will never risk using a word that they do not know how to write legibly — e.g., someone who wants to call a difficulty "enormous" but who instead calls it "big" because s/he knows that s/he does not know how to spell "enormous" correctly/how to write "enormous" readably.

[georges zaslavsky]

You are right Kate but one can improve his/her spelling and broaden his/her vocabulary by reading or watching movies. Or perhaps writing letters to relatives instead of using the internet all the time. The best way to spell a word is to say it loud then write it several times and then restart again to write that word several times again till it is written with no spelling mistakes. Most professions require to have a good spelling and to have some vocabulary. One can acquire words by reading a lot.

Edited January 2, 2007 by georges zaslavsky

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

> ... You are right Kate but one can improve his/her spelling and broaden his/her

> vocabulary by reading or watching movies. Or perhaps writing letters to relatives > instead of using the internet all the time.

 

Many children's/teens' use of the Internet consists 50% (or more) of reading, watching movies, and writing letters to friends and relatives. Or do you not consider reading "reading" if the surface uses pixels insteads of ink?

 

Re:

 

> The best way to spell a word is to say it loud then write it several times and then

> restart again to write that word several times again till it is written with no spelling > mistakes.

 

This works well for many people. For at least some people (in my observation and experience) it actually makes the spelling get worse and worse ... not that anything else has results for them, eithe, but at least (for those individuals) procedures other than "the best way" do not actually make things worse. Given a choice between non-results and making things worse, I won't choose what makes things worse for a given individual. Many who "acquire words by reading a lot" have enormous vocabularies which they speak/read correctly — perhaps even handwrite elegantly — but cannot spell. (Have you ever seen elegant, model-perfect handwriting with nearly every word misspelled? I have ... and it presents an odd impression indeed.)

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

> I dated a professional graphologist many years ago, and I do believe one's

> handwriting can be an indicator of personality.

 

I know several professional graphologists. I've seen them analyze my handwriting, and the handwriting of people I know — and they routinely got at least as much wrong as they got right: when confronted with the evidence of that, they simply didn't admit it.

One of my friends (a police profiler/investigator equally unconvinced about graphology) did an experiment some years ago with some of *his* professional-graphologist friends. He showed them a sample of the "Unabomber's" handwriting (not telling them who had written it) and asked them to analyze it. Most of them identified this sample as coming from someone uneducated and unintellectual — the "Unabomber," though, had a Ph.D in higher mathematics from a very demanding university. Most of the graphologists also stated that the writer had a thoroughly altruistic and gentle personality, friendly and outgoing and incapable of violence or deviousness. When told whom they had analyzed in this way, ALL the graphologists (especially the majority who had made these mistakes) claimed that my friend had "cheated" by not telling them that this sample came from the Unabomber, or at least telling them that "This comes from a terrorist who makes bombs." Apparently, they would have said quite different things about the man if they had seen his name/alias/"job description" along with "merely" seeing his handwriting ... if someone gives you a piece of paper and says "The Unabomber wrote this," you don't even need to look at the handwriting in order to make a credible-sounding "analysis" ...

[georges zaslavsky]

Many children's/teens' use of the Internet consists 50% (or more) of reading, watching movies, and writing letters to friends and relatives. Or do you not consider reading "reading" if the surface uses pixels insteads of ink?

 

This works well for many people. For at least some people (in my observation and experience) it actually makes the spelling get worse and worse ... not that anything else has results for them, eithe, but at least (for those individuals) procedures other than "the best way" do not actually make things worse. Given a choice between non-results and making things worse, I won't choose what makes things worse for a given individual. Many who "acquire words by reading a lot" have enormous vocabularies which they speak/read correctly — perhaps even handwrite elegantly — but cannot spell. (Have you ever seen elegant, model-perfect handwriting with nearly every word misspelled? I have ... and it presents an odd impression indeed.)

I can't compare a book with what is written on a screen. Sometimes what you see on a screen is full of mistakes and written as if the person was totally illiterate or uneducated that is not the case of a book.

As you said there are people who have a very nice handwriting but an atrocious spelling and grammar even tough they could/can speak with ease and elegance. I knew several like those people in my earlier classes. But in today's life, you have to put yourself at the place of an employer, would an employer hire someone with an atrocious spelling and grammar? No. People do pay attention to spelling and grammar. For some people spelling and grammar are details but not for me.

Apprentship of grammar and spelling is included in penmanship I think. It was included in mine thanks a hardass female teacher, tough she was not the kindest person but the result is that everyone who got her/his penmanship with her was excellent at spelling and grammar and learnt to write quick and legible.

Such teachers are rare these days and I was enough fortunate to get the benefit to have a such teacher.

Edited January 3, 2007 by georges zaslavsky

[KateGladstone]

Georges writes:

 

> I can't compare a book with what a written on a screen. Sometimes what you see >on a screen is full of mistakes

 

By that argument, one should never play music (but should only read the music of others) because sometimes, when one plays music, it is full of mistakes.

 

 

>and written as if the person was totally illiterate

 

Anything "written as if the person was totally illiterate" would consist of either /a/ entirely blank pages, or /b/ pictures without any words, without even any letters or numbers. Claiming that the "totally illiterate" write web-pages (or any other written works) defies logic.

 

>or uneducated that is not the case of a book.

 

I have never seen a book without typographical or orthographical errors. If Georges finds no value in reading anything but absolutely perfectly spelled and punctuated material, then I fear he has very, very little to read — for even his own writing contains numerous errors not entirely explainable by his use of a language other than his native tongue.

 

 

> But in today's life, you have to put yourself at the place of an employer, would an > employer hire someone with an atrocious spelling and grammar? No.

 

Agreed — though I suspect that we will all live to see the developing "Internet spelling system" (e.g., "r u w8ing" for "are you waiting)" become an accepted spelling-standard side-by-side with what we now use (just as American spelling long ago became an accepted standard side-by-side with British spelling: "color/colour — realize/realise — plow/plough" and so forth for thousands of words).

[georges zaslavsky]

By that argument, one should never play music (but should only read the music of others) because sometimes, when one plays music, it is full of mistakes.

 

Anything "written as if the person was totally illiterate" would consist of either /a/ entirely blank pages, or /b/ pictures without any words, without even any letters or numbers. Claiming that the "totally illiterate" write web-pages (or any other written works) defies logic.

 

I have never seen a book without typographical or orthographical errors. If Georges finds no value in reading anything but absolutely perfectly spelled and punctuated material, then I fear he has very, very little to read — for even his own writing contains numerous errors not entirely explainable by his use of a language other than his native tongue.     

 

Agreed — though I suspect that we will all live to see the developing "Internet spelling system" (e.g., "r u w8ing" for "are you waiting)" become an accepted spelling-standard side-by-side with what we now use (just as American spelling long ago became an accepted standard side-by-side with British spelling: "color/colour — realize/realise — plow/plough" and so forth for thousands of words).

Hi kate

 

I disagree with you for these reasons:

-first: I have never said that anyone shouldn't play music but there is good music and there is a bad music. After it is the choice of everyone what kind of music they want to play and there is a way of learning of how to play music as well.

 

-second: I can understand that a book contains a pair of mistakes but when an article or a book contains more than two spelling mistakes per page, it makes things suspicious but I am not here to bash authors or writers. I am not perfect myself but when there are too many spelling mistakes in an article or a book, it leads you to ask yourself questions about who wrote the book.

 

-third: I have no fear to read something, I read books in Russian, German and English. I would like you to point my numerous errors as you say. But despite I am a non native English Speaker, I have passed my TOEIC with 850 and I have a Cambridge Diploma in Economics with a very good mention. I started to learn English by my own at the age of 9. You also forgot that besides French and English, I do also speak and write Russian as well as German. In those other languages, I am fluent. I would understand that one has troubles in spelling with one language. But to be honest with you, I have had enough severe and strict English teachers that insisted more than a lot on spelling and grammar so I don't think I am making important spelling and/or grammar mistakes.

 

I just expressed my disagreements.

 

very best regards

 

georges

Edited January 3, 2007 by georges zaslavsky

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

> ... good music and ... bad music ...

 

Spellings or grammatical features from non-standard varieties of a language don't make the writing (or the language) bad — they just make it non-standard. Needing to use the standard variety of a language where only this has acceptance (e.g., in most workplaces) does not make the non-standard varieties somehow inherently "bad" — any more than one would consider French inherently "bad" because we don't normally speak it in the USA. Situations/circumstances where the non-standard varieties appear and increasingly have acceptance (e.g., the Internet) therefore do not constitute somehow-"bad" uses of reading/writing (it seems to me that you regard such circumstances as somehow "bad" uses of literacy, and that you further equate these so-called "bad" uses of literacy with not having literacy.)

Re:

 

> ... I am not perfect myself but when there are too many spelling mistakes in an

> article or a book, it leads you to ask yourself questions about who wrote the book.

 

So you value standard spellings simply because, when you see them, you feel good (instead of bad) about the author who uses them? To me, that sounds rather like circular reasoning.

 

I won't point out your errors in this letter, Georges, but I thank you for (and may act on) your invitation to do so in future correspondence.

[georges zaslavsky]

Hi again Kate

 

I accept constructive criticism because it is a way to improve myself. Advice always helps. Some can't accept constructive criticism and that is quite sad. Also when you speak many languages and not only one, you are more prone to make mistakes than a native speaker who is fluent (even tough I would like to say masterful) in his native language.

 

regards

 

georges

[CD7]

Kate - Why did you refer to Georges in the third person?

[KateGladstone]

On a public forum, I may have unconsciously assumed that I "speak" to of others in addition to Georges. Please forgive me ...

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

> should we press for a return to the handwriting classes of the past?

 

How about initiating the handwriting classes of the *future*?

 

;-)

[Nancy]

My daughter was never even taught how to print 'correctly'. She saw the letters and made up her own way to write them. Now she is in college and her handwriting is almost unreadable unless you are used to it. She got lucky and scooted through the SAT's the year before they added the essay question. Kids now have to handwrite an essay on that test that they almost all have to take for college applications. I have read stories of unreadable writing and therefore, lower scores.

 

At least teach the basics! It doesn't have to be hours of drill after drill every day, but some level of instruction is necessary.

[kkbach]

Last year I was a reader for the SAT exam essay section. Leaving all the other issues aside the process was interesting. I was dismayed by the poor handwriting and grammar of the majority of essays. Even essays that were sound in reasoning would often be hindered by illegibility, poor grammar, and spelling.

 

Yes computers make it very easy to turn out a readable product. But in turn they generate a reliance on them to produce correct spelling and grammar. When computers are absent many students are not able to produce writing that is legible, grammatically correct, and free of spelling errors. The result leaves the reader struggling to comprehend what has been communicated.

 

Writing things out by hand and not relying on a computer to correct spelling and grammar produces an entirely different type of thought process. Linguists like Shieber, Fauconnier, and Chomsky or semioticians such as Lotman or even Eco have written extensively on the connection between the formation of language function in the human brain and its relationship to how we speak and write by hand. I doubt we will ever move away from hand writing entirely and anyone who has read any of the above scholars would have to say that the learning of language and the ability to communicate is inherently tied to the process of not only speaking but *writing* by hand. It leads to the development of being able to communicate coherently and cohesively on a computer ( or in my generation a typewriter ).

 

Neurolinguists have consistently shown that it is not just a good idea but in fact is necessary to go through the mechanical process of writing to develop language. The human mind is a strange thing. Psycholinguists and pliloliguists will debate for a long time to come whether it is a brain that requires language in its current format or whether it is the current format that has formed the human mind.

 

Eventually we may be so altered that our linguistic expression is entirely reliant on the use of non-manual technology to communicate – but until then we are not ready for a shift away from good old hand writing.

 

Whew that was a long ramble – sorry I was not more succinct. Haven’t had my second cup yet.

[captnemo]

Writing things out by hand and not relying on a computer to correct spelling and grammar produces an entirely different type of thought process. Linguists like Shieber, Fauconnier, and Chomsky or semioticians such as Lotman or even Eco have written extensively on the connection between the formation of language function in the human brain and its relationship to how we speak and write by hand. I doubt we will ever move away from hand writing entirely and anyone who has read any of the above scholars would have to say that the learning of language and the ability to communicate is inherently tied to the process of not only speaking but *writing* by hand. It leads to the development of being able to communicate coherently and cohesively on a computer ( or in my generation a typewriter ).

I absolutely agree with you! Handwriting of compositions also teaches good speech habits. One fundamental aspect of writing by hand is that, because of the hassle and ugliness of scratching out and correcting mistakes, one is motivated to formulate a complete idea and how to express it before one begins to write the phrase. You have to get it right the first time. This habit also makes for better oral speech.

 

I have observed in several young people writing with a computer, the practice of quickly banging out any old thing as a first draft--grammar, spelling all tossed to the wind, and then they go back and painstakingly clean it up. It's slow and inefficient. Writing with a pen will teach a different style of thinking.

 

I have been composing at the keyboard for decades and I almost never go back and correct anything I've written. When I reach the end of my composition, I am invariably please with what I wrote. This "ability" was learned by doing a LOT of handwriting when I was young and then graduating to a typewriter where mistakes are also a big ugly hassle. I think this teaches one to "think before opening mouth (or putting pen to paper)" -- a good practice when speaking.

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

> Neurolinguists have consistently shown that it is not just a good idea but in fact > is necessary to go through the mechanical process of writing to develop

> language.

 

Strange ... when I majored in linguistics at college (admittedly some time ago), the instructors AND the several neurolinguists that we had as guest-speakers made entirely clear that language comes before, not after, writing: in the history of the species and also, almost always, in the history of the individual. If writing had to come before language, then the world would not include (as it does include) people who speak but who do not write ... if writing came before language, children would enter school silent and they would learn to write before they learned to talk.

[captnemo]

Re:

 

>  Neurolinguists have consistently shown that it is not just a good idea but in fact > is necessary to go through the mechanical process of writing to develop

> language.

 

Strange ... when I majored in linguistics at college (admittedly some time ago), the instructors AND the several neurolinguists that we had as guest-speakers made entirely clear that language comes before, not after, writing: in the history of the species and also, almost always, in the history of the individual. If writing had to come before language, then the world would not include (as it does include) people who speak but who do not write ... if writing came before language, children would enter school silent and they would  learn to write before they learned to talk.

Indeed, I stumbled over the same remark, but I think the key lies in what is meant by "develop". Perhaps "refine" would be closer to the mark.

[kkbach]

I should clarify – as I said I hadn’t had my second cup yet.

 

The statement would have been clearer if I had phrased it differently. Spoken language develops first. The ability to translate a spoken language is one thing. The ability to translate the spoken word into lexemes is another matter entirely. That ability develops much later and is greatly enhanced by the actual physical movement associated writing.

 

Phonological thought occurs in a different section of the brain. The development of written language whether it is alphabetic, syllabic, or logographic is greatly enhanced by the act of writing. My students and patients often express themselves quite well orally. Not so well in writing. Lexical and phonic expression including grammar and syntax are acquired differently and require different training.

 

I failed to distinguish between the two modes. Oops.

 

Caffeine is wonderful – yes it is –

[KateGladstone]

Well, thanks to Mr. K for clarifying and 'fessing up! As it happens, a popular motivational speaker/author Hal Urban - halurban.com) literally and truly believes-and-teaches that, oh-yes-indeed writing DID come first: that no human being ever said a word (but only drew pictures) in all the millennia until (proclaims Mr. Urban) the Phoenicians came around and invented talking ... so he says himself, on pages 6 through 7 of his amazingly piffle-rife book (required reading in some corporations' communications-courses) POSITIVE WORDS, POWERFUL RESULTS. Not content with saying that the Phoenicians invented speech, the (uh) amazingly inventive Urban further preaches that the word "phonics" came from the word "Phoenicians" too ...

... does anyone here have the energy to say "no," either on the Amazon.com page for this piffle-book of his, or via other means? (I'd do it now, but I type this on a borrowed computer where I have limited time - I don't get my computer back till Tuesday sometime). Messages about Mr. Urban's book probably won't change his mind, but may warn off some potential readers-and-clients who would otherwise enrich him through buying this inanity of his:

Amazon page for the book lucratively telling folks that the Phoenicians invented talking -

http://www.amazon.com/Positive-Words-Power...ie=UTF8&s=books

or

http://tinyurl.com/ynheys

Direct contact-info for Mr. Urban -

halurban.com

P.O. Box 5407

Redwood City, CA 94063

Phone: (650) 366-0882

Fax: (650) 366-9882

E-mail: halurban@halurban.com

 

AAARRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!